@Matteo Romano Thanks for your question, Matteo. To ask such a question is to assume that there’s a beginning — it’s a huge assumption, isn’t it? As we investigate everything, one must also take into consideration the option that there’s no beginning at all. Our analytical and empirical work then is to comb through all evidence to see which assumption, which option, fits with the reality. The notion of beginning and ending is intrinsically linked to the notion of time, and if you investigate further, you will find that the so-called time merely reflects the periodic changes of that which exists in myriad forms — pure rotational energy. A particular form may have a beginning or ending, but taken as a whole, it’s simply a beginningless and endless process of self transformation of pure rotational energy. That’s why energy is neither created nor destroyed: it’s eternal. As you face the seemingly complex processes — all the changes, all the “uncertainties”, “entanglements”, or “mysteries” — all you have to do to reach the conclusion, to see the absolute truth, is to follow the basic principle of the conservation of angular momentum. The spatially finite universe spins forever — it’s what it is — within an infinite space of non-rotating energy. Together, that’s what you call the “cosmos”.

@Laura Pestronk Thanks for your question, Laura. The core of any religion is a body of beliefs, and any spirituality defined by those beliefs is by nature dubious and dangerous. Kierkegaard knew this well. We must aim to derive spirituality and ethics from knowledge than from beliefs, hence the importance of science (I’m referring to the pure concept of science, not the current practice of the so-called science in the form of particle physics, cosmology etc). Atheism is right about denying the classic belief in god, but silent on the knowledge of what truly exists. Therefore it’s just a half product, a half-baked notion. The answer you’re looking for is logically self-evident and universally available: Nature, and our knowledge of it. Nature exists as surely as god doesn’t exist. The smartest theologians/philosophers in history had mostly figured this out: Spinoza was the peak in the west, Zhang Zai was the one in the east. Once you truly understand the nature of existence, true spirituality follows naturally. That’s the evolutionary path that humanity hasn’t really embarked upon yet. Look at today’s world: morons, clowns and idiots everywhere.

@Ann Heggie Thanks for your interesting comment, Ann. My immediate thought was if we could move backward with spirituality, or sideways, or circular. To live a physical life in the human form is very much the best definition of spirituality: that’s my second thought after reading your bio. I’m lost in my current thought, which would be the third if I could find words for it, something to do with sadness.

@Hikmah Heikal Thanks for joining the group, Hickmah. Sorry for the delay in welcoming you and others — took two weeks off to recover from a minor surgery. In the context of all existing theistic religions, god is merely humanity’s projection of an all powerful being who serves as a strong black garbage bag into which all mysteries are dumped. The best account of this explanation was provided by Feuerbach’s writings. In the context of philosophy, the only logical way for god to exist is Spinoza’s “god or nature” — namely identifying nature as god (in essence as good as denying god). In the context of science, whatever exists is but a form of energy — there’s no god whatsoever, just energy in its myriad forms.

@Lisa Dyer Thanks for joining the group, Lisa, and for your seemingly rather straightforward question. For many religious people, the answer is seemingly straightforward too: as taught by the Bible, God the Creator created humans. But it isn’t really an ultimate answer because one can continue to ask: who created God? Now the challenge has shifted: at first, the question was to explain the origin of humans who are known to obviously exist, however, with that answer, a new question has been raised — how to explain the origin of God who’s not known to obviously exist. That’s no answer at all. The correct way to answer your question is to deconstruct it: more specifically, to deconstruct the notion of creation. Whatever exists is but a form of energy — in the forms of humans, animals, vegetation, bacteria, clouds, and what not. Any perceived action of creation is in fact merely transformation of energy: every part of the universe plays a role in the formation of anything in the universe, be it a grain of sand, a mountain, a grasshopper, or a human being. Amidst all these transformations, one thing remains constant: energy conserves. More specifically, angular momentum conserves. This transformation of nature and within nature is the true meaning of Darwin’s evolutionary theory: humans are part of this evolutionary process just like all the insects, all the stars and all the galaxies. To look for the details of this evolutionary process, to find out about all the forms and structures and functions, to figure out the causal relationships, constitutes science or the pursuit of knowledge. To appreciate the wonders of the universe, of the transforming nature, of which we are an integral part, constitutes genuine spirituality — something humanity as a whole hasn’t evolved to acquire yet.