Believer or atheist?


Hi! I have a questions for you. 🙂
What exactly do you mean with “atheist”?
And how do you think: Can we define what is God?
I think if someone is researching the reality as “believer” or “atheist” will do nothing. It will be not objective.

Dimitar Galchev

Hi Dimitar
Thank you for your question and your interest in ‘Understanding Reality –THE GODLESS DILEMMA.’

By “atheist”, I mean someone who does not believe that the highly intelligible universe has any need for a highly intelligent Creator.

John Davidson

Well, this conversation provoked me to think about what is the difference between intelligent and non-intelligent creation of our Universe. What actions are intelligent? The choices which we make are intelligent, right? What if our choices are predetermined – just like the Earth’s orbit? Then the shadow of doubt is descending. Maybe an “intelligent” action doesn’t exist in our reality. But the “human” action exists. Some people are seeking some human-like God…

Nevermind. I am a reality researcher – like many of you. If I am a “believer”, it will be very difficult for me to reach the truth, because I must believe without seeing, touching, hearing, realizing. If am an “atheist”, then I will be blind for the possibility of existence of more complex and higher organized systems than me. Both options are not good for the truth seekers.

Choosing the middle path – to be open-minded for every possibility – will make you good reality researcher. If you focus entirely on the visible aspects of the universe, maybe someday will find the true nature of reality.

Last but not least, I respect all believers and atheists! I really respect your path! You are priceless human beings and deserve happiness!

6 thoughts on “Believer or atheist?

  1. Hi Dimitar! It is good to find a fellow reality researcher on the net. 🙂

    In my research i have come to realise that all of us are believers, of necessity. We may be believers in a Supreme Being or God or Creator; we may believe in many gods, or we may believe there are no gods and all we see is all there is. Whichever we are (or any other philosophy we follow) we are all ‘believers’ because we cannot prove that what we believe is the only possible case – unless we adopt certain underlying axioms that we choose to determine as undeniable truths that are ‘self-evident when they would conceivably not be, particularly to someone who chooses to believe differently to ourself. 🙂

    The other thing i have found is that there are always two opposing elements to our reality: the known and the unknown; the seen and the unseen; the tangible and the intangible; that which can be ‘proven’ and that which can’t.

    It makes determining what is and is not ‘reality’ a little complicated, to say the least.

    But it does not stop us from trying all the same!

    I look forward to reading more of your thought and research in future (if the future actually exists?) 🙂


    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hello, Bob!
      Thank you very much for the good words. I appreciate it!

      Yes, you are generally right. If any of our ideas are not proven, then we stick to them by belief. But what does it mean to be “proven”?

      There are 2 types of evidence – physical and psychological. (I will explain in another post the difference). Science accepts only physical evidence – under the same conditions the same result is obtained. But, in fact, there are no identical situations in nature. So again we rely on a little belief that the condition and the result were the same.

      I know that there is no way for an idea to be absolutely true without the need for a little belief. This is not possible. But there are ideas that have nothing to do with our senses. These are some of the creations of the human mind. These are ideas created entirely by the imagination. Above all, we are human and we work with our senses to explore the reality around us, which is quite mysterious, magnificent and interesting.

      Many centuries ago, people have used this approach (using their senses) to exploring reality and have come to great ideas – such as God, reincarnation, karma, immortal soul, and so on. This is good. But now is our time. We have other tools, other achievements, another way of thinking. Let us immerse ourselves in reality, use all our abilities and see what happens next. Maybe we will rediscover God in another light. Perhaps we will create some new great idea.

      But above all, we need to explore everything we can touch through our senses, and it is a lot. Then we can try to create reliable and realistic ideas.

      Of course this is only one of the researcher’s paths. I do not pretend that the one I have described is the right one. There are not right and wrong.

      I’m open to other opinions. I would never dismiss an idea with disregard. I appreciate any other experience.

      Bob, I will be happy to know what is your reality research method?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is always best to have an open mind and not a closed one, to test theories/explanations rather than follow strict dogma or belief. The main reason being (as i see it) that with our limited knowledge and experiences we can often see something ‘known’ to be ‘true’ in a totally different light (possibly to the extent we may later consider that thing to be ‘not true’) as new, perhaps unforeseen or unprecedented information, comes into our awareness. We agree on this i think?
        I do not follow a strict form of regimen for my research – i would call myself a ‘Synthesist’ – one who gathers information from all areas of my life and attempts to find common threads or patterns that i can weave into my understanding of how this Universe, planet and life we all share actually ‘works’.

        One interest that has helped my researching is Photography. From it i have a better appreciation for having different perspectives that allow one individual to see the same object or concept in ways that may seem contradictory, but which in fact are equally true (or equally false!). It also has taught me about widening your perspective to see a much bigger picture with less focus on small fine details or zooming in on fine detail at the cost of losing information about where the subject sits in relation to everything else.

        I recently also commenced to build up a picture of Everything from it’s very basic ‘beginning’. I will leave an explanation of this for later commentary. 🙂

        I come from a non-religious background and studied for a B.SC in Chemistry before switching to Computer Science in the 70’s . I began investigating the Bible and religious thought in my 30’s and believe that neither Science nor Religion hold a monopoly on Truth or Understanding and that it is possible to be both a believer and a scientist without major contradiction.

        One of my current areas of focus is human consciousness. Mainly: just how does a very large accumulation of neuron cells, each with many thousands of axon connections to other cells, produce a coherent and consistent collection of thought that we group up into a thing called consciousness?

        Following on from that – is it possible for a very large number of interconnected memory chip bits to produce something similar?
        We already have computers that are able to gather large amounts of information and to learn human behaviours. Once a certain level of action and feedback from that action is achieved a ‘machine’ could teach itself awareness of our universe and of the creatures in it and presumably it could then ‘understand’ and be self-aware?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I know the bible very well too. I have investigated it some years ago. I have some specific discoveries there, but it’s not the right time to share them.

          I research the human consciousness too. So we can share information about it. Hope we will have the time.

          The theme that the present interconnected memory chip bits can produce something similar to consciousness is very popular. That is a problem which we must solve in this century. BUT before all we have to admit that the animals have consciousness too (sure, at a lower level than ours, but they still have it).

          Regarding machines – we have no problem with them because we do not eat them. So even with pleasure we will give them and human rights if we have chance. 🙂

          I will wait your explanation of the picture of Everything. It will be very interesting for me.


        2. I would be interested in hearing more of your Bible thoughts… at the right time. 🙂

          I would agree with you that creatures with a developed brain have some degree of consciousness relative to their own ‘need’.

          As for machines not being a problem i am more cautious. If machines are taught by us to be able to think for themselves and learn, as babies do, how to develop their own intelligence and could program themselves (or program other intelligent machines in a form of evolution) they could very quickly evolve into a competing life form (a more dominant one) than us humans who could not keep up their pace.

          Machines can currently copy every physical action we do and repeat it exactly but with less error and at a faster than human speed. Their memory and communicating abilities are far superior to ours as is their logic and reasoning abilities (they can beat us at practically any ‘game’ we have invented).

          They may evolve their own beliefs ( science) and philosphy which may be beneficient or malign to humans – they may not choose to think the same way we do and might not wish to serve mankind which they would logically conclude are an inferior life form and perhaps unnecessary to them.

          The question may not be us choosing to give them ‘rights’ but would they give us any??

          A brief version of Everything/Nothing…
          Imagine a completely uniform infinite space. There is no where to view it from and no thing to do the viewing or any thing to distinguish between any one part of it from another. Although it is a (one) thing it has no way of comparing itself to anything else – it is the only (one) thing and there is nothing to distinguish it from. So it is ‘everything’ it is one thing…. and it is indistinguishable from nothing (because there is nothing that exists which can distinguish between it and nothing.)

          So it is 3 things in one. We could represent this in number form as: 0,1 and the infinity symbol.
          In terms of dimensions, 0 has zero dimensions; 1 has one dimension – it is ‘linear’ we can place both 0 and 1 on a 1 dimensional number line which we could then extend infinitely to infinity, one ‘step’ at a time. This line also extends infinitely in the negative direction. just using 3 points on this 1 dimensional line we can ‘define’ it; -1,0,1 as distinct from any other set of linear points (single dimensions) in multi-dimensional space.

          With just one other point not belonging to this set we can define a 2 dimensional plane and with one more point not in this plane we can define our 3 dimensional space. (with another point we could include time as a fourth dimension and we could then locate and define any event in space-time.

          So with just 3(x) + 1(y) + 1(z) + 1(t) = 6 points we can establish a reference frame for any event in the known universe. Where the cooordinates are x,y,z,t for any x,y,z,t in the range -infinity to +infinity with x,y and z meeting at a common single point, 0, and x is perpendicular to y which are both perpendicular to z.
          To simplify fully: I went from everything (infinity) to equating that to 1 thing ( 1 ) to equating that with nothing ( 0 ) then applied this to a number line to show there is also a negative infinity in addition to the positive one and then with just 3 other very basic ‘points’ produced a reference for all of the infinity of time and space (and it’s opposite).

          It’s not that hard to start a Universe from simple basics! 🙂

          You just need a point outside of time and space to observe create and compare ‘nothingness/everything’ from! 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

  2. About your question whether the AI would they give us any rights:

    Very good question!

    I think that if they find a way to use us (for example like in the movie “Matrix”), they will do as we do with the animals, which we use. We will have limited rights. By the way it’s normal thing. In the universe we have 3 basic interactions between the material systems (living forms too) – constructive, degrading and neutral. So this process would be a successful way of sustaining life.

    So is that the clue – to be unusable for them?

    About your version of Everything/Nothing:

    You are describing something like the space itself, something that I call “real abstract space”. How do you think: Is it possible the points (a spheres with infinitely small diameter) to exist right here, right now, in our reality?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s