the insistence that human existence is meaningless ironically allows for an infinite number of randomly generated universes created of every conceivable type of matter and physics. considering quantum strangeness and commonly accepted things like singularities and multiple universes science has theorized itself into a pop mysticism. if any combination of matter/physics is possible then any conceivable spiritual cosmology (and through it your reality as shaped by the infinite variations of electro/chemical soul process) and because there is no meaning there is no reason why not then ironically you could be living in the supernatural universe where tv evangelists are right.
atheism/agnosticism is not coherent when considering multiple universes, which could simply play out in the infinitely long dice rolls of the Big Bang expanding and collapsing and back and forth. infinite dice rolls allows for every deity imagined by man.
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 23 July 2017 19:35 (six years ago) link
Your conception of a god requires that its characteristics are bound to the universe within which it exists. As I stated in my first post above, a god capable of creating a universe would stand outside it, so by the same token, a god capable of creating an infinity of universes would still be extra-universal. Such a god's essence would not be bound by any universe and would not change within any given universe.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 23 July 2017 19:53 (six years ago) link
Spiritual cosmology
Electro soul
Cmon now we can all exist in a universe where atheists don't encroach on the spiritual and your lot don't.....do the above
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Sunday, 23 July 2017 21:22 (six years ago) link
"spiritual cosmology" isn't bullshit, it's just jargon. it's frequently misused, but it does have a specific meaning.
the meaninglessness of human existence is only a tragedy because we ourselves happen to be human. all the infinities you talk about, adam, they will never mean anything to me.
― The Saga of Rodney Stooksbury (rushomancy), Sunday, 23 July 2017 21:36 (six years ago) link
the insistence that human existence is meaningless ironically allows for an infinite number of randomly generated universes created of every conceivable type of matter and physics.
This doesn't make a lick of sense, regardless of what universe you state it in.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Sunday, 23 July 2017 21:49 (six years ago) link
'bullshit' has a specific meaning fyi, and it's not 'something that doesn't have a specific meaning'
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Sunday, 23 July 2017 22:31 (six years ago) link
ironically
HOISTED
― j., Monday, 24 July 2017 02:33 (six years ago) link
Your conception of a god requires that its characteristics are bound to the universe within which it exists.
not at all. why would a God be bound to that which it creates? is there anything man has made that he is subservient to? keep in mind God is incorporal, the source of all forms, He is not contained by any.
As I stated in my first post above, a god capable of creating a universe would stand outside it,
could you repost your reasons why? i don't understand this. the universe is everything material, what is this "outside" you speak of? are you saying God is limited by time and space here?
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:03 (six years ago) link
― Le Bateau Ivre, Sunday, July 23, 2017 5:49 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
00 Singularity10 Big Bang20 Heat Death/Cold Death30 GOTO 00
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:10 (six years ago) link
Why would
Lookit
You can't believe in a god and then start asking people why would
Why the fuck would there be a god
Jaysus
The fuckin neck
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:13 (six years ago) link
why is there anything? i dunno, there is. the universe is here. shit just happens. why the fuck not.
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:14 (six years ago) link
I predict great things for this thread
― Οὖτις, Monday, 24 July 2017 21:17 (six years ago) link
Ye fellas get a kick out of this because if ppl bother to argue about yr god I dunno ye get tokens or some shit
I'm wise to ye
The universe conveniently is available to take calls. Your buck isn't. I don't think even you believe that there's a case on an arah why not basis
And even if you do believe the backdoor angelphysics nonsense you typed without tittering upthread
btw ppl who try that, godscience etc, should be made profess their chemical and mental pasts while hooked up to lie detectors etc just for the record so we know where we stand
then you're the only one who thinks it
well not makes sense. It's at ninety degrees from sense. It's not on the axis of sense
but if you think it brought anyone reading it closer to a god pick a god any god now ladies and gentlemen was this your god or if you think it made yon god an iota more real to anyone reading who had not already accepted in their hearts the spiritual fact (NB not an actual fact) of that God then you are kidding yourself on a different level to the level on which I already suspect you to be kidding yourself which is on another pleateau entirely from the level upon which you imagine you are kidding anyone else
which you aren't.
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:28 (six years ago) link
"the insistence that human existence is meaningless"
I mean what a start!
Fact, the fuck are you even doing on an atheist Vs agnostic thread. I'm safe spacing this shit, seeing as you won't leave space alone.
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:34 (six years ago) link
Any agnostics, have we any agnostics here tonight?
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 21:38 (six years ago) link
Me: a god capable of creating a universe would stand outside it
Adam: reasons? i don't understand this.
Because it is logically impossible for a god to only exist inside a universe that has not been created.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 July 2017 22:38 (six years ago) link
God as that fella we all know who actually painted himself into a corner
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 22:40 (six years ago) link
the poor putz
― j., Monday, 24 July 2017 23:22 (six years ago) link
I should have been clearer and said "to only have its existence inside a universe that the same god has not yet created."
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 July 2017 23:27 (six years ago) link
...unless the definition of God changes from 'an entity that stands outside the universe and creates it', like a scientist performing an experiment, in which we could surmise that God has either created an infinite OR finite number of universes; to 'that from which the universe is created', like a seed or a stick of dynamite - the nucleic centre of the universe
― Shat Parp (dog latin), Monday, 24 July 2017 23:33 (six years ago) link
I'll accept that definition but it needs to come from a theist delegation as a consensus and therefore no more of the bearded bush lad or the rest of em.
Always held a yen for the craftsman god concept, if you have to have one.
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Monday, 24 July 2017 23:39 (six years ago) link
All this would be much clearer if we could see god making universes and take notes.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 July 2017 23:51 (six years ago) link
like a seed or a stick of dynamite
seeds grow by accreting stuff from outside themselves and organizing it, not by creating it from nothing. dynamite expands its own substance, so it probably a better analogy, but that leaves the idea that god's whole substance and activity is identical to the whole substance and activity of the universe, which makes a kind of pantheistic sense, but leads to the obvious question about why it would be useful to retain any concept of god at all.
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:05 (six years ago) link
PUTZGOD
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:17 (six years ago) link
Why is my dog so scared of thunder? Is it just an excuse to be allowed up on the couch?
― Treeship, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:35 (six years ago) link
Why is my dog so scared of thunder?
Because:
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 25 July 2017 04:08 (six years ago) link
I think I've said a variation of this on all of our religious threads but: these kids of debates will always founder if there's a failure to distinguish the different kinds of values or "language games" at work in religious narratives vs other "explanatory" frameworks. Robert Bellah's extraordinary "Religion in Human Evolution" draws on Merlin Donald's distinction between "theoretical culture" (which Bellah identifies with the post axial religions) and "narrative culture" (pre-axial). I haven't read Donald yet but that seems like a useful distinction to me--in particular because it raises the questions of social function, value, and the non-negotiable relationship between theory and narrative. It's almost as if raising the question of the "existence" of god is a kind of confusion of categories, a holdover of the failed medieval attempt to unite theory and narrative.
― ryan, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 14:56 (six years ago) link