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