The opposite of Spiritual

I am skeptical and rational. I rely on beliefs that are testable and I tend to discount ideas that can't be challenged by experiment or mathematical reasoning.

Thanks for the response, Max.

The opposite of "spiritual" seems to be obvious. It is "not spiritual."

So I figured this thread needs some new blood to spill...prompting my question of you.

And you immediately brought up something that I would love to discuss.

You said:

Quote:

I believe in the Big Bang.

Okay. But I am not sure of what that means.

The "I believe in..." is an interesting construct...favored by theists in discussions about their gods.

"I believe in God..." is different in subtle ways from, "I believe a God exists."

What do you specifically mean by using, "I believe in the Big Bang"...rather than using something along the lines of, "I believe the universe came into existence as the result of what scientists call 'the Big Bang?'"

Do you think the question of how the universe came into existence has substantively been answered?

And since "what preceded the Big Bang" seems so nebulous and unsolvable...why do you consider that something "testable"...when it seems almost positive it is not?

Personally, I consider the "Big Bang" to be no more "testable" than the existence of a GOD.

Discuss this with me. The space is available here.

I have questions about your second paragraph also...but I'd like to focus on this.

Personally, I consider the "Big Bang" to be no more "testable" than the existence of a GOD.

Quote:

Personally, I consider the "Big Bang" to be no more "testable" than the existence of a GOD.

This is the most interesting part of what you just said.

After the Big Bang theory came along, scientists started devising tests to see if the concept was valid. We built bigger telescopes, we expanded our understanding of quasars, we measured neutrinos, we tracked background radiation. All of this was done in public view with exacting mathematics and peer review. There are any number of results that could dispute the Big Bang theory... if any of these had been reliably shown, the Big Bang Theory would have been discarded. It wasn't discarded.

That is why the Big Bang theory is testable. Not only is it perfectly explained by the results of observations and mathematics, it is the only idea that meets this level of certainty (there are no other options that aren't refuted by experiment and mathematics).

The existence of a god can't be tested in this way.

You are misstating the science of the Big Bang.

I believe that at one point in time, all of the matter of the Universe existed in a single point. I don't have any belief about what was "before" the Big Bang. One is testable, the other is not. My beliefs are based on what is testable.

There is a lot of evidence that at one point in time, all of the matter of the Universe existed in a single point (this of course is a very simplified part of the theory). There are telescopic observations, there are quasars, there is background radiation, there are neutrinos.

There are things that are testable, and things that aren't testable. The parts of the Big Bang that are testable, I accept as truth (while also accepting that my truth may be wrong). The rest I either consider as a possibility... or just discount out of hand.

I consider the fact that all the matter in the Universe existed in a single point to be truth. How it got there? I have no way of knowing and anything I might conjecture I have to admit is just a guess.

What does the "true nature of existance" have to do with anything?

I don't think I care about the Ulitimate Question or the Ultimate Cause. I consider these to be unknowable, and probably not very important anyway.

I prefer to focus on what is knowable.

There is another class of beliefs that I have. These some things that I need to decide as a way of living in the world.

For example, I believe as a matter of faith that human life is sacred. I have no logical or scientific reason for believing this. I don't think this has anything to do with any objective truth, and yet I hold it as a matter of faith because it informs who I want to be.

There are some things that I believe because I choose to believe them. But, I try to be honest with myself about what these are.

Since you are telling me that the universe came into existence by the device of a Big Bang of a single point or singularity...

...my question would be, "So how did the singularity come into existence?"

I get the impression you think that question is not important...or some such.

But the the question of where the singularity came from does not have any relevance to my daily life.

Is indoctrination true religion?