Delightful post (today) from Chuck Fager about ‘Something’ (or whatever you call it):
https://afriendlyletter.com/renegade-quaker-theology-my-breaking-point-summer-2011/
‘We’ nontheists don’t agree with Chuck do we? You have to admire his Catholic leaning grim sense of humour (humor?) and fate though.
See you Thursday?
Nontheist Friends Network 
This chap should sit and think carefully before rambling incoherently at this length.
There is no god, no “something”, no afterlife. Period.
BUT. There has never been a successful (i.e survived longer than three generations) civilisation (people living in cities) with a binding (religare) religion. All manner of hugely different myths. How did that work?
I think we have to “tell only the truth and always be honest”. I was educated under the Quaker banner “We seek the truth”. Let us start there.
LikeLike
If there is no “something”, how is one to account for the creation of life the universe and everything?
LikeLike
Two Malcolms, two Quakers? Two different perspectives?
LikeLike
Trevor
I didn’t know that all Malcolms had to have the same point of view!
In other words, yes two definitely different perspective, one deductive faith based, the other inductive science based. Perhaps.
LikeLike
Trevor
I didd not know that all Malcolms had to agree!
Yes two different perspectives. One deductive faith based and the other (mine) inductive science based.
LikeLike
How long have you got Malcolm?
The core of the book length answer is that it is a high resistance, stable, dissipative structure.
What is a dissipative structure you ask? A candle flame is a perfect example. You are another.
When I extinguish the candle does the flame go to some beautiful Elysian fields of candle flames (imagine!) or does it simply cease totally to exist? There is no afterlife for candles or us.
LikeLike
Well Malcolm(s) (and Mike)
Tony Nader:
“The idea that Consciousness is all there is may seem outrageous, but from the perspective of what’s known today about the nature of the universe, it’s a more reasonable/justifiable evaluation of how things are than the perspective that takes matter to be the fundamental reality.”
(Quotes don’t imply endorsement – not sure I believe a word of it – I’m a materialist really – my chairs don’t disappear because I turn my back on them. My favourite chair may still be there for a while when I’m gone)
See also Os Cresson “Quaker and Naturalist too”.
LikeLike
I really must finish my book before I die.
After fifty years and five major drafts I’m getting there but, explaining a very simple thing is so HARD!
LikeLike