Before the big bang

Person A said:

In my opinion, spiritual feelings ("the emotion of elevation") are entirely valid. I've felt them often, and I still feel them often.

“Elevation is an emotion elicited by witnessing virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness. It is experienced as a distinct feeling of warmth and expansion that is accompanied by appreciation and affection for the individual whose exceptional conduct is being observed. Elevation motivates those who experience it to open up to, affiliate with, and assist others. Elevation makes an individual feel lifted up and optimistic about humanity.”

Richard said:

I have felt "elevation" many times as well. The strongest one was a time when I gave a homeless man my new coat. I felt SO GOOD. Lots of happiness and love. The emotions lasted for hours and I still feel them when I even think about it.

That is a great feeling. Perhaps it may be Gods way of implanting in the structure or design of our minds the idea of right and wrong. Another theory is that evolution has resulted in our brains rewarding behavior that benefits the survival of the species. Both theories could explain the phenomenon. I like the God one, but even if the evolution one could be proved, God could be behind evolution as well, so its inconclusive.

Elevation is not the same thing as experiencing God, and gaining awareness or enlightenment of God by the Spirit of God. Similar emotions are associated with both circumstances, but giving a man my coat and experiencing God are not the same regardless of the similarity of emotions that occur after the experience.

The flies are not the carcass, though they surround. Hugging a child is not love, though love may be felt during the experience.

This is a very common misconception.

It is possible that there is absolutely nothing "supernatural" about gaining an awareness of God. It could be an entirely psychological process that is a component of the human minds capacity of possible "experiences", much like love or elevation, etc. It could be that somehow this experience is the result of evolution because it somehow benefits the species or somehow is just a random capacity. Again, even if it was proved a product of evolution, an intelligent designer could still have orchestrated evolution and thus designed minds with the capacity for awareness of their Designer. There is really no way to eliminate the concept of God anymore than you can eliminate the concept of the universe, because if we ask enough questions of "where did that come from, and why did it happen" eventually it's going to go back to... "I dont know" and what amounts as a miraculous unexplained event.

Person A said:

 I think that the existence of God is, and always will be, an improvable hypothesis. There will always a simpler explanation that doesn't need any supernatural beings.

Could be that I'm wrong, and that Jesus will show up on some Thursday afternoon, and do miracles and stuff.

Richard said:

The second coming and miracles "and stuff" are not really at the core of what I was meaning to address. I'm only talking about the core idea of an intelligent designer. Once you add a lot of stuff to this basic idea, it gets a lot more complex and specific and not a part of what I am talking about.

Also, I do not believe that there exists a simpler explanation with more evidence and logic than the theory of an intelligent designer. There is either a blank space filled with no answer or there is a space with God in it--- with a bunch of potential evidence pointing to God.

What I mean by "blank space with no answer" is regarding an answer to the question of where does the universe come from, and where did that thing come from that caused it, and why does it exist etc. Etc. Etc. You can either go back 3 steps of answering "where and why" with atheism, or you can go back 4 steps of answering "where and why" with theism. I like the 4 steps better because I think it gives superior context to everything in the lower 3 steps of questions.

In infinity, it's just as likely for God to exist as life to exist, and there is evidence for God. (Evidence we have despite the fact that WAY MORE than 99% of matter in the universe being invisible to us, being dark matter or not explored or unseen... and that is also assuming God even exists in the universe at all as opposed to outside of it). This evidence could be 99% garbage, but even 1% right is infinitely more evidence than none at all. This doesn't automatically mean God is proven, it just means that there is evidence that might suggest it as a possible conclusion that could be made.

Where does the earth come from? The solar system and galaxy.

Where does the galaxy come from? The universe.

Where does the universe come from? The big bang.

Where does the big bang come from? An infinitely dense speck of matter.

Where did the speck of matter come from? Hawking said "The no boundary proposal"

The "no boundary proposal" is another way of saying "God or nothing”.

I prefer “God”, as "nothing" is not a logical or reasonable theory for several reasons. Some may prefer "nothing", that's okay, but I don't. I think it's the only possible answer that is more absurd that essentially anything else. At least anything else has to capacity to be correct based on our understanding of the nature of matter and energy being incapable of being created or destroyed—but only able to being changed in form.

Some people say "if 'God', then how about the spaghetti monster". Okay, show me evidence the spaghetti monster, because I see none.

There is evidence for God and if only even 1% of it has any substance whatsoever, and the other 99% is garbage, that still more than nothing... Which is the amount of evidence you have for the flying spaghetti monster. So, to me, believing in nothing is only slightly more ridiculous than believing in the flying spaghetti monster, because in both cases, you are basing your conclusion on something with absolutely no evidence.

Person A said:
Did you know that pairs of particles spontaneously appear in our reality all the time? There will be a particle and an anti-particle, just POP into existence in the quantum foam of reality. They usually mutually annihilate. I wonder if the dense speck that was our early universe was one of these. It's hard to speculate. There is a lot of math here. The field is called "cosmology". Whatever it was that happened was inevitable, as we're here to observe it.


Richard said:
why does the quantum foam exist? Where did it come from?
Somewhere along the line, you are either going to say "nothing" or "a flying spaghetti monster" -- two answers for which there is no evidence.
...Or you could say "God". Saying "God" is the only answer for which there is any evidence. 99% of the evidence may be crap, but that 1% would still infinitely more evidence than having zero evidence.