Challenge : Can you turn me into an atheist?

[Ozymandyus]

I don't have evidence as such, but I do care about the truth. What I have is conviction, a strong feeling, call it intuition, a hunch, that there's a god.

Ozymandyus -

You seem to be basing your inquiries into god on the bible, and making your judgments on that basis. I've got to be honest and say that if I did that too, and if I judged it solely on what the bible says, I'd be an atheist, no doubt about it, I'm sure. But I haven't done that. I've based my ideas about god on my own thoughts about it.

If you say that atheists are mainly trying to just get others to realise that atheists really, truly, don't believe, I have no problem there, although if I was an atheist I wouldn't be too bothered about others not understanding that. I don't see any payoff in having others understand that, it wouldn't matter to me, it wouldn't be an issue for me.

Besides, if a theist is trying to convince you, and they they think that you're not serious when you say that you really honestly don't believe, and then you do convince them and they get it, you're still left with a discussion of whether or not god does actually exist or not. And anyway I'm sure most theists do understand it when an atheist says that they don't believe. I do.

Anyway the bible is just a bunch of books written by people with their own ideas and opinions. You'll never catch me waving a bible. But if we were friends and we went out for a drink, I'd have no objections to using one as a beermat.

I'll take the new testament, you can have the old.

The bible isn't at all where I begin and end my realization that God doesn't exist. As I mentioned, I looked everywhere for a being that had the characteristics that many different religions ascribe to God. I looked in the many people who profess that they believe in a God, people of various religions and found nothing special there. To be honest, the most special group of people that I have ever hung out with and chatted with have been secular humanists.

As for your feeling that there is a God - I find many people that mistake the awe, love, and goodness that resides in every one of us amazing human beings for something supernatural. The truth for me is simply - we really CAN BE that amazing. It isn't some external force, some supernatural power. It's simply us. And that is a more wonderful answer to the question of goodness and love than God could ever be.

 

[Worldquest]

Ozy, I couldn't agree with you more, we really are that amazing. I also agree that it isn't a supernatural external force. Yes it is us. But whereas you draw a line between you and everything else, I don't. I see no reason to draw a line, to make such a distinction. I'm in the universe, but where did I come from? The universe. I'm the universe.

Why do you make a distinction between you and everything else? Why do you think that you are not the universe? Everything you know and everything you think you know about anything comes from nowhere but yourself. All information, correct or incorrect, who is aware of it? You. Who forms an opinion about it all? You. Who sees it, or conceives of it? You do. For everything you know, do, think, or feel, the common denominator is you. That's inescapable. And when what you think, see, feel or do is confirmed by someone else, who becomes aware of that? You. If 1,000,000 people all agree on something, the common denominator is still the individual, the self.

What I'm asking for is a good reason to make such a distinction. I have a very good reason not to.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Anyway the bible is just a bunch of books written by people with their own ideas and opinions. You'll never catch me waving a bible. But if we were friends and we went out for a drink, I'd have no objections to using one as a beermat.

I like you already :lol:

It sounds like you have a very pantheistic view of "God" that Einstein and Spinoza shared, more than Deism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Is this correct?

 

[Unwardil]

Well, the only part of your beliefs that aren't actually backed up by most of science is the creator part. Chaos math more or less confirms that everything is connected to everything else. Whether you want to imbue that with any spiritual significance is your own deal I suppose, but in a very real sense, that's quite accurate.

Everything is affected by everything else at every single conceivable level. Our composite materials are the result of nuclear fusion in stars which exploded billions of years ago and thousands of light years away. Every molecule exerts gravitational force, every electron an electrical charge and it all shifts and flows in a cosmic dance.

As for the God thing, the only reason science doesn't put a creator at the beginning of the equation is because there's no need for one anymore. We've figured out enough about how stuff works that in most cases, putting a god in only adds a needless level of complexity. Occam's razor and all that. It's not like any of the scientific theories don't work if you do put god there, it's that they still work just fine without one.

And one hardly needs to look to far to see tangible evidence that the theories work. They may not be completely 'true' but they DO work.

There's the tried and true argument of 'Well, what about the universal constants then, aren't they just a little too perfect? Doesn't that seem very lucky to you? Almost like it was designed that way?' and all I can say to that is... Yes, however, if that was just the way things worked naturally, how would we be able to tell the difference? And besides, iisn't the universe an incredibly vast amount of real-estate to create just for little ol' us? If the universe WAS created specifically for us then why does it habitually try to kill us with asteroids and solar flares and the like? It's not really difficult to imagine a universe that was far better suited to life than our own; one where instead of everything being very spread out it was all a lot closer together and didn't move around at such incredible and planet shattering speeds. And where there were no cosmic rays to randomly kill us from cancer and there was no void and the air always smelled of fresh bacon.

It's not difficult to imagine how a creator who had us specifically in mind could have done a lot better so anthropism seems kind of silly. It doesn't negate the possibility of maybe some vast outer universe beyond the heat barrier and it even could have been brought about purposefully, but if that's the case, you're still left with an infinite regression of what caused THAT to happen etc etc. That's a very very unlikely possibility however. In our universe, you get balls and those balls tend to fly around other balls. Once you've figured that out you're most of the way there.

And this still leaves the possibility of godlike beings who evolved independently in another part of the galaxy who developed either technologies or something like it which would be so far beyond our current understanding as to seem very much like gods, but there almost certainly would be evidence of them if they were taking an active interest in the earth and it's simian denizens and again, while you may postulate that possibility, our current scientific understanding has no need of them or anything like them in order to explain humanity and civilization and all that jazz.

None of these constitute proof for the non existence of God, but they're things you'd have to have a satisfying answer for in order to have a rationally based belief in God. Other wise it's just an irrational belief which, so long as you are aware of the fact that it is thus, I don't think anybody anywhere is going to have a problem with.

 

[Worldquest]

Everything is affected by everything else. I agree with that because I think that everything is everything else. I've not across any reason to draw a distinction between things.

It's not a case of needing a god. I'll admit that once you believe that one exists, it feels very nice, however whenever I come across a tricky question, I do step back and leave it until I can find a satisfactory answer one way or the other, but as I say it depends on that line / distinction between things, and the question of creation, and I've not come across any answers that don't involve a creator, or the connectedness between things.

What caused a creator to create? What caused the creator? Good questions, but you have to take a close look at the meanings of those words. Here's what they mean to me. Let's say that there's a creator, and run with what I'm about to say and let's see where it takes us. Let's see if my argument falls apart.

A creator is something that creates. An ultimate creator of everything is something that is the creator of every thing. Which means that no thing exists without that ultimate creator creating it. Because nothing exists which isn't created by that creator, when the creator creates, it does so from itself. What created the creator? Nothing. The creator is the ultimate creator. It isn't created, it creates.

So if, and yes I know we're working with an if, if there's a creator, then

* it exists of its own accord, it just exists, just like existence just exists.
* it's the only thing that exists
* therefore, the created is the creator
* everything is the creator

Nothing which we (the created) have ever discovered or thought of (science) has convinced me otherwise, and nothing in science has convinced me that the universe is anything but a creation. And if what I say sounds strange, then what about existence? Does anyone ever ask what created existence? Not really, because it's easy to understand the concept that existence just is. I apply that to god. If existence can just exist, then why not an ultimate creator. After all, to be an ultimate creator you can't be created, you can just be.


Whereas...What caused the big bang? And what caused that? And what caused that?

Can you convince me that there's no creator?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ozy, I couldn't agree with you more, we really are that amazing. I also agree that it isn't a supernatural external force. Yes it is us. But whereas you draw a line between you and everything else, I don't. I see no reason to draw a line, to make such a distinction. I'm in the universe, but where did I come from? The universe. I'm the universe.

Why do you make a distinction between you and everything else? Why do you think that you are not the universe? Everything you know and everything you think you know about anything comes from nowhere but yourself. All information, correct or incorrect, who is aware of it? You. Who forms an opinion about it all? You. Who sees it, or conceives of it? You do. For everything you know, do, think, or feel, the common denominator is you. That's inescapable. And when what you think, see, feel or do is confirmed by someone else, who becomes aware of that? You. If 1,000,000 people all agree on something, the common denominator is still the individual, the self.

What I'm asking for is a good reason to make such a distinction. I have a very good reason not to.

Ah, solipsism. Good luck with that.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

A creator is something that creates. An ultimate creator of everything is something that is the creator of every thing. Which means that no thing exists without that ultimate creator creating it. Because nothing exists which isn't created by that creator, when the creator creates, it does so from itself. What created the creator? Nothing. The creator is the ultimate creator. It isn't created, it creates.

So if, and yes I know we're working with an if, if there's a creator, then

* it exists of its own accord, it just exists, just like existence just exists.
* it's the only thing that exists
* therefore, the created is the creator
* everything is the creator

Nothing which we (the created) have ever discovered or thought of (science) has convinced me otherwise, and nothing in science has convinced me that the universe is anything but a creation. And if what I say sounds strange, then what about existence? Does anyone ever ask what created existence? Not really, because it's easy to understand the concept that existence just is. I apply that to god. If existence can just exist, then why not an ultimate creator. After all, to be an ultimate creator you can't be created, you can just be.


Whereas...What caused the big bang? And what caused that? And what caused that?

Can you convince me that there's no creator?

And if your creator created everything, than how did he come about? Surely he did not create himself. But if nothing created him, than how could he be? You claim he just is. The problem is, the creator is unnecessary.

Existence just is, yes. How do we know? Because we exist.

The creator just is. Where is your evidence for this? How do you know? Why can't the universe just be, and not require a creator? It's really just a case of Occam's Razor.


As for the big bang, it was a unique quantum event that has yet to have been replicated (or we'd have noticed for sure). What caused it? We don't know. What caused that? We don't know. Why are you so afraid of not knowing?

You're trying to take us into an infinite regression, without realizing that the same problem applies to your creator.

 

[Gnug215]

Gnug -

You're right, in order to convert me from theism, I'll have to say what I believe.

The belief that probably has the most effect on me, and where other beliefs come from, is that there is a creator (this creator is the only thing that exists), and that everything is connected.

Hmm, that barely qualifies as theism, as far as I know.

And well, it's the kind of belief that perhaps can't even be converted, and it's also the kind of belief I really wouldn't want anyone to convert from.

Once you start meddling with science education and politics, and flying planes into buildings, then we're talking belief that I'd want to convert people from.

 

[Worldquest]

Raistlin Majere -

The reason why infinite regression doesn't and can't apply to an ultimate creator of every thing is simply in the word : "Creator", or more accurately, "ultimate creator". Not "the created". Something that created every thing can't be created by another thing because every thing is created by it. No creator can be created by something that it has created. That applies even more to an ultimate creator of every thing.

How did this creator come about? It didn't.Creations come about, and created creators can come about by having been created by something else (except its own creations, of course), but a creator of everything doesn't come about. How can it come about if it is itself the creator of everything? There would be nothing to create it.

You may not agree that there is an ultimate creator, but if there is one, then it cannot itself have been created. Do you disagree? (Atheists generally don't tend to rule out the possibility of god 100% so that question is fair game).

What created existence? We know that there's existence, but is existence a result of something, or does it just exist of its own accord? And what is the cause of the existence in which existence exists? Infinite regression, this time with something that we all agree "exists". How do you explain existence other than by saying that it simply is? We all do it.

And if you do just that, then we can agree that existence is an example of something in nature which shares an attribute with a hypothetical god, which is that it isn't created. It just is.

So the question of something being able to exist and yet not be a creation is not an issue at all. Existence easily fulfills that definition, and serves as evidence that it is not only possible, but it is an example of something which indeed does just that.


Gnug -

Science and technology have been used to create guns, tanks, chemical and nuclear weapons. As a result of those and other inventions, hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the last century, many of them in wars not involving religion at all, not to mention the countless weapons related crimes that happen every single day which also don't involve religion at all.

Religion has been used to create wars (using weapons, thanks to technology), which have resulted in I don't know how many deaths in the last thousand years.

Even if I was religious I wouldn't have anything against science. It would be too easy to say science = weapons = bad.

What I've noticed is that some atheists equate religion with trouble and conflict. Not so. Religion is no more and no less dangerous than what science and technology can invent. It's what you do with it, and that's down to individuals. Did scientists cheer when Hiroshima was blown up? Of course not.

I'll be the first to put my hands up and say that my belief in god may be irrational, but can an atheist admit (those who do this) that saying any of the following...

* Religion = war = bad
* You believe in god, so you must be a christian (=war = bad) even though I haven't asked you if you are

...is irrational?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I know you won't bother reading this, but what the hey.

The reason why infinite regression doesn't and can't apply to an ultimate creator of every thing is simply in the word : "Creator", or more accurately, "ultimate creator". Not "the created". Something that created every thing can't be created by another thing because every thing is created by it. No creator can be created by something that it has created. That applies even more to an ultimate creator of every thing. How did this creator come about? It didn't.Creations come about, and created creators can come about by having been created by something else (except its own creations, of course), but a creator of everything doesn't come about. How can it come about if it is itself the creator of everything? There would be nothing to create it.

This logical fallacy is known as 'begging the question'. It requires the assumption of a creator to reach its conclusion, which is that there's a creator. And circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

Err, unless of course you have some evidence for this creator...?

You may not agree that there is an ultimate creator, but if there is one, then it cannot itself have been created. Do you disagree? (Atheists generally don't tend to rule out the possibility of god 100% so that question is fair game).

That's a reasonable conclusion, given your definition of 'ultimate creator' (probably the wrong word, since 'ultimate' means 'last', while I think you mean 'first'). However, we haven't actually established a creator or any need for one.

What created existence?

Wrong question, because it's still assuming a creator and, indeed, a creation.

We know that there's existence, but is existence a result of something, or does it just exist of its own accord? And what is the cause of the existence in which existence exists? Infinite regression, this time with something that we all agree "exists". How do you explain existence other than by saying that it simply is? We all do it.

Well, if you'd read my earlier post, I already dealt with this. If existence is just a brute fact, then why posit a creator? If existence is not a brute fact, then there's a bit of a problem for your deity as well. In reality, given the rigorous definition I gave earlier of 'universe', means that the creator is a subset of, and therefore contingent upon, the universe.

And if you do just that, then we can agree that existence is an example of something in nature which shares an attribute with a hypothetical god, which is that it isn't created. It just is.

That's the great thing about hypothetical entities. You can just make up their attributes as you go along. This says nothing about reality, however. If existence is a brute fact, then that is nicely dealt with by a robust definition of 'universe', and anything else is extraneous and unnecessary, thereby violating the principle of parsimony, better known as the shaving implement of the late lamented cleric of Norfolk.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

So the question of something being able to exist and yet not be a creation is not an issue at all. Existence easily fulfills that definition, and serves as evidence that it is not only possible, but it is an example of something which indeed does just that.

And the universe is a good example of what constitutes something that is able to exist and yet not be a creation. You are simply adding another step which has no evidential support whatsoever. We trim this step away as unnecessary. In the immortal words of Laplace: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.

 

[Gnug215]

Gnug -

Science and technology have been used to create guns, tanks, chemical and nuclear weapons. As a result of those and other inventions, hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the last century, many of them in wars not involving religion at all, not to mention the countless weapons related crimes that happen every single day which also don't involve religion at all.

Religion has been used to create wars (using weapons, thanks to technology), which have resulted in I don't know how many deaths in the last thousand years.

Even if I was religious I wouldn't have anything against science. It would be too easy to say science = weapons = bad.

What I've noticed is that some atheists equate religion with trouble and conflict. Not so. Religion is no more and no less dangerous than what science and technology can invent. It's what you do with it, and that's down to individuals. Did scientists cheer when Hiroshima was blown up? Of course not.

I'll be the first to put my hands up and say that my belief in god may be irrational, but can an atheist admit (those who do this) that saying any of the following...

* Religion = war = bad
* You believe in god, so you must be a christian (=war = bad) even though I haven't asked you if you are

...is irrational?

I think we may be talking a bit past each other here. Let me see if I can make more sense of myself...

My point was really that I assumed that most of us here, and atheists in general, would really have no interest in converting you because you have the beliefs that you do.

But there are other beliefs that many of us view as dangerous - not religion as a whole - although granted, many do make that argument. (I don't.)

I wanted to make that point because I didn't want you to think that everyone on this forum finds someone with your beliefs to be "dangerous", or as someone who needs converting.

In other words, broadly speaking, if "we" (atheists, agnostics, people who are engaged in debate with the religious) have a beef with anyone, it's not you.



Does that make more sense?

 

[Worldquest]

I understand now. Group hug time again. If this goes on, what will the neighbours think? Best not to think about it.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

I do not disagree that there is a possibility of a god. I also do not disagree that there is a possibility of magical unicorns and leprechauns at the other end of the rainbow.

Until there is evidence for any of them, the default position is to assume they do not exist. Do you have evidence for god? Or rather, do you have evidence for an "ultimate creator" or designer? Because if so, then I have a few issues to discuss with him about shitty blueprints and inconsistency within his creations.

And infinite regression still applies to your creator, unless you state that he always has been. To which my question is, why can't the universe always have existed? In this case, we apply Occam's razor and eliminate the necessity for a creator.

You're at the point I was before atheism. After I left Christianity, I was exploring other faiths to assure myself that there was no evidence for them either. Deism and Pantheism were last on the list. Something tells me you're almost there.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

I don't have evidence as such, but I do care about the truth. What I have is conviction, a strong feeling, call it intuition, a hunch, that there's a god.

If you can't say where this hunch comes from, convincing you to change your mind is almost impossible. All I can say is this: be skeptical and question your intuition.

Because your belief in a creator doesn't seem to have very serious implications, you might not feel the need to doubt it. But what if a person has a strong conviction that his purpose in life is to kill people. Would it be rational to just accept it, without a clue where the feeling comes from? This is an extreme example, but the same principle should apply in all cases.

 

[Worldquest]

Ok Hackenslash, your post doesn't contain any insults this time, and it's actually an interesting post.

We agree that my hypothetical woo being, if it does exist, it cannot have been created because of the kind of creator that we're talking about, namely a (perhaps badly named, admittedly) ultimate creator. You haven't raised any objections about the nature of such a creator. To be honest I wanted to avoid saying prime creator, because it sounds a bit too sci-fi. But let's go with prime creator.

You keep coming back to the point that everything I say assumes a prime creator, and therefore I'm forever begging the question. Point taken.

When I said "So the question of something being able to exist and yet not be a creation is not an issue at all. Existence easily fulfills that definition, and serves as evidence that it is not only possible, but it is an example of something which indeed does just that"...

...the first word of your reply to that was "And..." (followed by the rest of your response), not "no", or "that's incorrect". So I can only assume that you also agree that existence is an example of something which we all agree "exists" which fulfils the idea or definition of something which is, yet is not a creation.

The rest of your response was you saying that the universe exists but is not a creation. You didn't say probably isn't, you just said it isn't. I don't know why you said that.

What's the difference between a thing, and existence? That's not a joke (although I am available for weddings and bar mitzvahs)

A thing exists, and existence is the backdrop, the canvass if you will, in which things are. A thing exists (verb), and it also is within existence. A thing does the existing, and it also "lives" in that canvass called existence.

No question, I just thought I'd throw that in. We're not talking about fantastic or supernatural concepts here, we all know that things exist, and we know about existence, so it's worth talking about them.



Raistlin Majere -

I suppose there's a fine line between pantheism or panentheism, and atheism. Although I'll never join you and cross that line, I'm happy to wave. It's only a silly line anyway.



SchrodingersFinch -

There are times when I do question my intuition and the way I work things out. And I have a few unanswered questions. If any come to mind I'll mention them. I wouldn't want anyone to think that just because my convictions are strong, that I never question them. It would be ignorant of me to ever stop doing that. Good advice. You questioned yours and you came to your conclusions, I've done the same and here I am where I am. It's a journey, and the way I see it, we're all doing the same thing which is questioning. That to me is more important than almost anything else. Some people never question anything.

And some people think they're better than others. We're not like that.

We're better than that.

 

[tangoen]

Unwardil -

But if you have a belief, I mean if you genuinely believe something, it will affect your life and your behaviour. I believe or trust in gravity which is why when I drop things I'm certain that they'll fall. I never behave as though it won't, I expect it to fall, the belief affects my behaviour. You can't for example genuinely believe that after you die you'll reincarnate, and then live in fear of death being the end. That's why I genuinely don't fear death. It's a belief that has a positive effect on me, in that I don't worry about dying.

I am no great expert i'm just a tradesperson but as an electrician i have taken many classes about the fundamentals of electricity and from what i have learned all matter is energy and all energy cannot be created or destroyed. so what happens to the basic energy that makes up a person? i am not sure but i always thought this might be a link to a type of reincarnation or at least opposes the prospect of non-existence. as for convincing you not to believing in god i cannot in all good conscience tell you what to believe i only know what i believe and i'm certainly open to ideas much like yourself and probably will the rest of my life. if your at least open to new ideas you might have to admit you were wrong at some point but i'll eat a humility pie with a slice of reason any day over staying ignorant.

 

[Worldquest]

Hey I don't mind being told what to believe. If it makes sense to me, I'll go for it and if it doesn't I'll reject it but put it aside in case it becomes relevant or I realise that maybe there's some truth in it.Obviously no one can just make anyone believe anything by telling them to. All we can do discuss and decide. If anyone actually says "you have to believe this" I'll say well, tell me about it, and I'll decide.

All matter is energy, and all energy is uncreated and indestructible. I like that. I've heard about that, and I'm glad you brought it up. I knew there was something else and you've reminded me. So now we have 2 things, two examples in nature (reality) of things which certainly exist, and aren't created or ever destroyed : Energy, and existence itself. We don't have a problem with the concept of something existing of its own accord, being uncreated and indestructible, and therefore having attributes which inevitably will defy what we take for granted in our everyday experience. I'll throw another idea into the mix : Quantum. I won't really go there because I know very little about that but something that I've heard about is the idea of things being able to be in two places simultaneously. That defies what we take for granted.

Matter is energy vibrating at a certain speed, or so I've heard. Matter exists, dreams exist, so do thoughts. They are experienced by the self. Consciousness certainly exists. Is consciousness created by matter? If so, can that be conclusively proven or it is just a theory? How would we know if rocks aren't conscious? At what point do we become conscious? When does consciousness begin? How does consciousness leave the body when we die? When you "die" what happens to your consciousness? Is it physically destroyed? Is it even physical? How do we know? If consciousness is physical, has anyone looked at one? Has anyone looked at 2 of them and decided that one is different to the other, that they aren't the same? And if consciousness is physical, and is energy, and doesn't get created or destroyed, what does it get converted to when we die?

 

[Baranduin]

The rest of your response was you saying that the universe exists but is not a creation. You didn't say probably isn't, you just said it isn't. I don't know why you said that.

A creation is something that "is or has being created" (third definition), and something created is something "caused to come into being, etc" ( first one); I thing we all agree upon that. To postulate that the universe is a creation implies the existence of a creator - something or someone that "caused the universe to come into being". So you basically keep begging the question about the existence of that creator, ignoring the possibility that the universe may not be caused at all - may exist, but not be a creation. You're already accepting that your ultimate creator is uncaused, so this shouldn't be difficult to understand.

We just cut the infinite regression where our empirical methods cannot go further. No need to postulate an extra step. We don't require such hypothesis, as hackenslash already quoted.

We're not talking about fantastic or supernatural concepts here,

Like creators perhaps?

so what happens to the basic energy that makes up a person?

Uh, I fear the answer, but I have to ask it: what basic energy that makes a person?

BrN

 

[Worldquest]

The rest of your response was you saying that the universe exists but is not a creation. You didn't say probably isn't, you just said it isn't. I don't know why you said that.

A creation is something that "is or has being created" (third definition), and something created is something "caused to come into being, etc" ( first one); I thing we all agree upon that. To postulate that the universe is a creation implies the existence of a creator - something or someone that "caused the universe to come into being". So you basically keep begging the question about the existence of that creator, ignoring the possibility that the universe may not be caused at all - may exist, but not be a creation. You're already accepting that your ultimate creator is uncaused, so this shouldn't be difficult to understand.

We just cut the infinite regression where our empirical methods cannot go further. No need to postulate an extra step. We don't require such hypothesis, as hackenslash already quoted.

We're not talking about fantastic or supernatural concepts here,

Like creators perhaps?

so what happens to the basic energy that makes up a person?

Uh, I fear the answer, but I have to ask it: what basic energy that makes a person?

BrN

What makes you think that I've ignored the possibility that the universe might not be a creation? I've thought about that, but when we consider that creating means bringing into existence , we have to ask, why is the universe in existence? I'm sure we can at least agree that it is in existence. But was it brought there, or does it just exist of its own accord? If it exists of its own accord, then what created it? But if it exists of its own accord, what created it? And so on, regressing infinitely. Just like with god.

My answer is that the universe, with its obvious existence, is god. The universe (ie reality) is god. Uncreated (un-brought-into-existence). Universe / reality / existence / god, it's the same. Being existent, performing the verb of existing, being inside existence, it's the same thing. Existence just is.

 

[tangoen]

by "basic energy" i just was simplifying you really would need to break it down. its something like all matter is made up of molecules and molecules are made up of atoms and all atoms contain an electrical charge depending on the valence electrons but to break it down further i'm lost you would probably need to talk to an informed mathmatician about string theory to have your explanation i think. quick answer is i don't really know maybe what constitues us, is it the actual electrical synapes in our brain or the brain matter itself and i think youd need your mathmatician again to have a better explanation on how matter is made up of energy.