|
Absolute, static order, and complete and utter chaos are unfit for existence and information. Its only in the transitional from one to the other our wonderful existence can emerge. That being said, you DONT want to exist in a universe created by a being powerful enough to actually, well, CREATE one deliberately. This is because the only fathomable purpose it would have to groom a universe for sentient life would be the same reason why we nurture and grow plants. For food.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Absolute, static order, and complete and utter chaos are unfit for existence and information. Its only in the transitional from one to the other our wonderful existence can emerge. Have people been eating their tulips and begonias this whole time and I've been missing out? No one tells me anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 12:33
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:That being said, you DONT want to exist in a universe created by a being powerful enough to actually, well, CREATE one deliberately. This is because the only fathomable purpose it would have to groom a universe for sentient life would be the same reason why we nurture and grow plants. This is pretty wrong for both the tulips/begonias reason mentioned above me and the other major potential motivator for a being that is powerful enough to not need to consume matter to sustain itself - a universe without surprising, maybe even truly random or as close as it gets sentient life is boring.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
If there is nothing greater than God, He can't exist independently of the Universe. To do so would mean the existence of something greater, namely the set of all things (which includes both the universe and God).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
If someone's divinely inspired to post, does that mean God's account-sharing and his prophet should be banned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
I don't know what the SA rules are on prophet-sharing Mods?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Y'all just jealous. Don't be a hater. -God
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
I think the biggest problem with the idea of God is something similar that other posters said before: If God created the universe, then that means that there was nothing before God itself. What would God be then, exactly? How can something exist without being made by something before? The maker of the maker? But then on the other hand, we have the theory that the universe basically exploded. But to cause an explosion, there must have been something before to cause it. But what could it be? And where did it come from? I believe that what caused the creation of our current universe is due to something happening with the previous universe, like an implosion. It keeps happening over and over, like an endless loop. However this would mean that the universe has always existed and it basically creates and destroys itself over and over again. It still doesn't explain how the first universe came about. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
it's ok to say "I don't know" it's not ok to say "I don't know, therefore god"
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:it's ok to say "I don't know" It's actually OK to do either. Just not necessarily very convincing. Man, it's like 2004 D&D in this forum lately, with all the religion threads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
All I know is my shitposting is divinely inspired
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
The argument in the OP is the teleological argument in support of the existence of God and the argument a little further down the page is the ontological argument in support of the existence of God and basically you all need to read a drat book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:The argument in the OP is the teleological argument in support of the existence of God and the argument a little further down the page is the ontological argument in support of the existence of God and basically you all need to read a drat book. Yeah people up your New Atheism game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It's actually OK to do either. Just not necessarily very convincing. Distinct lack of puppy-tars tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Gah, no, don't. Please don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Q: what made everything. A: some science stuff. Q: okay but what made that. A: some more science stuff. Q: okay but what started all of the science stuff in the beginning. no, before that. no, before there was even things to be. A: God? i guess? perhaps God is a metaphor for the force of creation that without which we would not be here. maybe i can just roll with that and not be an rear end in a top hat about it. Q: is that true? can you do that. A: no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
And that's the cosmological argument. Learning is fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:I believe that what caused the creation of our current universe is due to something happening with the previous universe, like an implosion. It keeps happening over and over, like an endless loop. However this would mean that the universe has always existed and it basically creates and destroys itself over and over again. It still doesn't explain how the first universe came about. My (incredibly limited) understanding of the theories surrounding the Big Bang, and "time" being relative to distance and motion have indicated to me: the concepts of "before" and "first" may not really exist as typically considered when discussing an incalculably dense singularity containing (OR WAS IT?) the entire mass of the Universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
redstormpopcorn posted:My (incredibly limited) understanding of the theories surrounding the Big Bang, and "time" being relative to distance and motion have indicated to me: the concepts of "before" and "first" may not really exist as typically considered when discussing an incalculably dense singularity containing (OR WAS IT?) the entire mass of the Universe. The typical response to this critique of the cosmological argument is Brane theory, which no one actually understands so you're correct that God doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:There is a movie called Heaven Is For Real and it's based on a true story. Pretty sure that means God is for real too, man. It was such a good film that even ardent Christian redstormpopcorn posted:My (incredibly limited) understanding of the theories surrounding the Big Bang, and "time" being relative to distance and motion have indicated to me: the concepts of "before" and "first" may not really exist as typically considered when discussing an incalculably dense singularity containing (OR WAS IT?) the entire mass of the Universe. Its more we can only define the beginning as "What is observable". There could have been plenty going on before the big bang, but we don't know what or how, so we work with what we can see and the evidence we have. Everything before is "We just don't know"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
My favorite Universe-origin theory (having a poo poo time finding the source, though) is that the Big Bang was actually a transdimensional wormhole junk-shot of another universe's accumulated black-hole consumption. We are all made of starbage. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
There must be a God who is testing me with these homosexual urges, because if there's not then that would mean I'm gay and I can't be gay. e: Perry Mason Jar posted:And that's the cosmological argument. Learning is fun. And which classic argument is this, smart guy? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There must be a God who is testing me with these homosexual urges, because if there's not then that would mean I'm gay and I can't be gay. ...this sounds like a familiar story. Don't we have a thread in D&D about someone who is gay but only his love of Jesus keeps him from wandering off the path of truth?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There must be a God who is testing me with these homosexual urges, because if there's not then that would mean I'm gay and I can't be gay. Argument from morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
If we're going to go with classical arguments, let's go with Voltaire's response to the teleological argument: quote:... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense. That's the most charitable reading of the teleological argument. Hume goes further and asks what we mean when we say "designed". Can we imagine a universe that would not appear designed? If we can't, isn't the argument circular?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Can I suggest The God Delusion by Dick Dorkins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Can I suggest The God Delusion by Dick Dorkins? As an Athiest: Please don't read Dawkins or Hitchens for insight into anything but Militant Athiesm. They are pretty bad.... (I know you are being sarcastic)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Dorkins is so militant he hasn't published anything that wasn't a pop-atheism book for decades. I used to like the guy back when I was young and dumb, also I liked libertarians. Much like libertarianism, the easiest way to ruin it for you is to learn more about him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Dorkins is so militant he hasn't published anything that wasn't a pop-atheism book for decades. Pretty much. I have some of his works on Evolutionary Biology. But someone gave me some copies of his Athiesm works and I had to set them down and walk away. Pretty bad. Even if Dawkins/Hitchens criticism is valid, they approach if from the 'burn your bridges' front, its a terrible idea. That and his Islamaphobia freaks me the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...this sounds like a familiar story. Don't we have a thread in D&D about someone who is gay but only his love of Jesus keeps him from wandering off the path of truth? Oh poo poo, I forgot about that. Now I feel bad about making the joke 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Let us cut God to see if he bleeds!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
I am actually just one of what you would call a "species" of beings that exist in what you classify as a "higher dimension" and are able to both create "universes" and affect them by manipulating "quantum superpositions" to suit our needs. hth -Yahweh
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Dorkins is so militant he hasn't published anything that wasn't a pop-atheism book for decades. Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Sorry goons, we're all too late. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuZamufWAs
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh! Nah, because leftism is awesome. Don't hate on the movement of the people that actually care about making a better world, rather than masturbatory self-congratulations and pleasing some sky wizard under thread of violence. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh! Oh shutup. The alternative being Rightism which would be having you put to death for being a non-sexually active gay person regardless of your dedication to the Catholic Church. Or better yet, chemical castration. Leftism is probably one of the only reasons the church has made the progress it has towards equality towards gays. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh! Wasn't leftism the original message of Jesus before it was corrupted by the Roman Empire and used as a tool of empire and an apologia for aristocracy and slavery? Oh wait poo poo, you're an arch-conservative catholic: empire, slavery, and aristocracy are good things 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wasn't leftism the original message of Jesus before it was corrupted by the Roman Empire and used as a tool of empire and an apologia for aristocracy and slavery? Respect for others and treatment of everybody as equals? Taking care of the needy and sick? What kind of dumbass believes in that bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:This is pretty wrong for both the tulips/begonias reason mentioned above me and the other major potential motivator for a being that is powerful enough to not need to consume matter to sustain itself - a universe without surprising, maybe even truly random or as close as it gets sentient life is boring. I'm not saying it would consume matter like a mundane animal, but it would consume our(hypothetical for the purpose of thought experiment) soul/essence/mind what have you. And I don't think being temporary decoration is much better if at all, purpose than being food. Not that the analogy would hold that far. Even our mundane culinary abilities include an investment in aesthetics and garnish. This should be taken in context with what contemporary ideas of what post-life/mortality existence is for or would be like by the way. Exactly what would anyone would be doing for that time? A hundred years, a thousand, a million, billion, let alone eternity. At what point would the infinitesimal smear of what was your life be anything more than a dim pinprick of 'something else' drowned in a vast ocean of non-corporal existence. At least stuff like re-incarnation has the benefit of hitting the reset/refresh button. At some point being consumed and having your existence snuffed out by a cosmic horror doesn't sound too bad. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
How come things have to have a beginning anyway? Just because humans are born and die doesn't mean universes are. Could well have just always been there. e: as far as I understand this is the argument for why God doesn't need a creator, except the universe is something that's provably there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:04
|
|
