|
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 22, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One. Georges Lemaitre of the proposers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, but that had no actual bearing on his observations, and the actual work was done by Edwin Hubble alongside work done by Vesto Slipher. Religious groups have tried to both imply that the big bang theory implies a creator, others have argued it makes the idea of a creator redundant. And Inflation Theory sort of makes the idea of a unmoving mover even more redundant, or at least gives no special status or purpose to our Universe. We aren't the only possible outcome and likely not the only outcome as there could be actually infinite, different Universes popping into and sometimes out of existence with no intrinsic purpose or motivation. It is just how reality works. Trying to proscribe some whim or intention upon it is just us projecting our egos and wishful thoughts. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah, the always-successful Argument From Future Fear I Bet You'll Have, You Know, Probably I'm a fan of the No Atheists in Foxholes since the one place you are sure to gain confidence in the existence of a benevolent creator is watching other human's blood and viscera exploding from their future-corpse. Well, until the big G decides the time has come for the big one to land on you of course. Hope your children like farming.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:And that's fine. If you abandon cause and effect, then the "Unmoved Mover" doesn't work as its presented. It's an argument I chose because it is extremely simple and easily discussed. Well you sort of chose a bad subject if you want extremely simple and easily discussed. And yes, the more comprehensive and scrutiny-durable you want to describe reality, the more exotic and distant from common experience you have to go. quote:It is not a contradiction because the traditional understanding of "God" assumes a force with privileged status. That is just another way of saying it just a case of Special Pleading. quote:It is something that exists beyond the universe and orders the universe around itself. God is an "unmoved mover" in the sense that if there was an original movement then that movement would be one without cause, which would be God. All that does is back up the question one abstraction from anything we could ever hope to prove empirically and into the ontological which has been beaten and rehashed into a fine subatomic mist at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can Q create a plot so obnoxious even He can't abide it? Pretty sure even Q would have thrown his hands up and given serious consideration to creationism after watching the Threshold episode of Voyager
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I always wondered about that, the Enterprise is supposed to have the best and the brightest on it, I can only imagine how lovely the rest of Starfleet's crews must be. The Enterprise D is a weird ship in general. A general purpose exploration, diplomatic, military flag ship. Like, Kirk's Enterprise was much more streamlined in facilities and didn't have the large civilian crew population and amenities that Picard rolls with. I imagine other ships, especially smaller vessels are much more streamlined crew and function wise. Science Vessels, Troop and Material/Cargo haulers, patrol vessels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
JawKnee posted:you and I are not even a footnote in the cosmic narrative friend Pretty much this. Human lives and humans and gently caress the entire Earth itself is barely even a spec in the Universe's vastness and history. The idea that the universe even gives a whimpy fart about any of us would be the equivalent of Humanity putting on a full year of mourning complete with Operatic musicals and holding hands across the world for the life and times of a single bacterium on some spec of soil that lived for less than an hour in the middle of a swamp in Bumfuck, Nowhere.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 22:00
|
|