|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
|
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
Bill_Oreilly said: here we go again.
It isn't meant to begin a debate about the existence or non existence of God. If you read the OP, it is quite clear that I take neither stance. I do not even take the agnostic stance; it is not even precisely clear what stance I take, in my opinion. Perhaps you could call it the "critical thinker" position.
God is undefined, at least thats the position I feel you're taking in this. Theres a distinct lack of ability to accurately describe such a thing, or more abstractly; to know what god is. We have no parameters around which we can actively define it, its that moment before the big bang. That smooth white void everything sprang forth from. Searching for it is like trying to look at the back of your head or bite your teeth, as alan watts so succinctly described it. Yet what madness would it be, for this to all exist and fade out into nothing without so much as a trace.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
morrow, you remind me of some opposite incarnation of like...IAMSWIM or something...like the opposite of crazy.
i can't quite put my finger on it, but it's awesome.
PS: that Rg Veda verse is very poetic and divine. and that picture too.
nice.
Quote:
That smooth white void everything sprang forth from.
just turn the corner and there it is. it's in front of you, always. there to step through each and every moment spent.
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
|
Quote:
poke smot! said: Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.
Quote:
morrowasted said: A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).
Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy?
Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos, 0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"
You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any intelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.
But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory. 
Circular reasoning is the wrong. What I meant to say is that they are begging the question. It's not that the cosmological constants of the universe change and sometimes allow for life and sometimes don't. They are constants. The ideas that scientists put forth are that either we just simply "lucked out", or that there are a [near] infinite number of universes, almost all of which are characterized by chaos because of their cosmological constant, with the exception of ours and perhaps a few others.
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: "God" [Re: zZZz]
#22366030 - 10/11/15 10:34 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
it know, it's romantic isn't it?
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
akira and morrow sitting on a tree K I S S I N G
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: "God" [Re: zZZz]
#22366066 - 10/11/15 10:45 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i love morrow, but, no, not like that.
but i do love my one true love.
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
poke smot! said: Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.
Quote:
morrowasted said: A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).
Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy?
Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos, 0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"
You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any intelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.
But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory. 
Circular reasoning is the wrong. What I meant to say is that they are begging the question. It's not that the cosmological constants of the universe change and sometimes allow for life and sometimes don't. They are constants. The ideas that scientists put forth are that either we just simply "lucked out", or that there are a [near] infinite number of universes, almost all of which are characterized by chaos because of their cosmological constant, with the exception of ours and perhaps a few others.
Which is something I disagree with strongly because the universe has direction, it acts in meaningful, living ways. You cant draw anything meaningful about the truth of it from the way you can push and pull on it. Theres this raw sort of intelligence that permeates everything and science is so woefully ill equipped to describe it. To say its just a happenstance of chaos seems like the easiest choice. It doesnt grasp at the elusiveness of awareness, or the subtle nuance of how its tied into being. Something I think is crucial to understanding the truth, god, whatever. When you get down to it, without it, there is...nothing.
Edited by Bodhi of Ankou (10/11/15 11:45 PM)
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
This kind of seems like a no-thing of the gaps theory. We can't make sense of incompatibilities, so we'll just say that there aren't actually things.
Why are we defining god as that which determines what is true?
Have you read any Donald Davidson?
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
|
Quote:
Bodhi of Ankou said:
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
poke smot! said: Nice post. Ending with the tao is ending on a nice note, it makes a little more sense now even.
Quote:
morrowasted said: A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).
Why must this be circular reasoning, or a fallacy? 0.01% of the time, it will not be, and the universe will go on to form bipedal hairless apes that post to shroomery about "God"
You might say, the cosmological constants are the way they are, obviously, because we are here, and this doesn't require any i Lets say 99.9% of the times you have this condition at this time, it will result in chaos,ntelligent designer because such things might as well have been truly random.
But I can't really be certain I'm only willing to assume pickings of cosmological constants is random and this time favored us, just because I don't like intelligent design theory. 
Circular reasoning is the wrong. What I meant to say is that they are begging the question. It's not that the cosmological constants of the universe change and sometimes allow for life and sometimes don't. They are constants. The ideas that scientists put forth are that either we just simply "lucked out", or that there are a [near] infinite number of universes, almost all of which are characterized by chaos because of their cosmological constant, with the exception of ours and perhaps a few others.
Which is something I disagree with strongly because the universe has direction, it acts in meaningful, living ways. You cant draw anything meaningful about the truth of it from the way you can push and pull on it. Theres this raw sort of intelligence that permeates everything and science is so woefully ill equipped to describe it. To say its just a happenstance of chaos seems like the easiest choice. It doesnt grasp at the elusiveness of awareness, or the subtle nuance of how its tied into being. Something I think is crucial to understanding the truth, god, whatever. When you get down to it, without it, there is...nothing.
So yes, I just graduated in July and I accept this model as of to today
You are correct, in the end it is and ought to be a choice about whether or not to accept universal models of Truth. I choose to accept
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
|
Wtf I don't remember making that post and I have no idea what it means^… I didn't graduate from anything in July... Damn sleeping meds...
|
Anahata


Registered: 02/25/12
Posts: 2,399
Last seen: 3 days, 24 minutes
|
|
Never meet one so I don't talk about one or try to describe what one is or is not.
--------------------

|
Roostertail

Registered: 09/27/15
Posts: 300
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
|
blackdust


Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 8,327
|
|
i am god
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
|
@ morrow - at least your friend has an easy position to refute. the teleological argument is fairly easy to contradict (as you have); the examples that thinkers along these lines cite are usually explainable without a designer.
the main problem i have with god talk (philosophy jargon for discussing problems associated with god) is the conception of god as the transient cause of reality, as theism promotes. to me, the idea is mired in medieval ideas regarding cause and effect and it's sloppy thinking. if you're trying to make an account of all reality, why do you need to do that by creating two separate realities i.e. the material world and its creator? it seems to me that if there is something like god, he is the eminent cause of reality. put another way, if god exists he is the underlying cause of reality itself, not separated from the world.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
Edited by millzy (10/12/15 04:37 PM)
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
Re: "God" [Re: millzy]
#22370070 - 10/12/15 07:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
millzy said: @ morrow - at least your friend has an easy position to refute. the teleological argument is fairly easy to contradict (as you have); the examples that thinkers along these lines cite are usually explainable without a designer.
the main problem i have with god talk (philosophy jargon for discussing problems associated with god) is the conception of god as the transient cause of reality, as theism promotes. to me, the idea is mired in medieval ideas regarding cause and effect and it's sloppy thinking. if you're trying to make an account of all reality, why do you need to do that by creating two separate realities i.e. the material world and its creator? it seems to me that if there is something like god, he is the eminent cause of reality. put another way, if god exists he is the underlying cause of reality itself, not separated from the world.
I tend to agree with you, which is why when I think about God I have an easiest time considering something like a Panentheistic view. But I think it's okay to relate to God with whatever conception is easiest for you to understand, as long as doing so promotes genuine religiosity in the sense I have described.
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 17 hours
|
|
And obviously I didn't even spend most of my time writing an objection to Paley's argument, if you actually read my post.
|
Roostertail

Registered: 09/27/15
Posts: 300
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
God is god.
But I do remember being God when I ate a quarter of shrooms once.
Neva forget
|
AkaAlias
Pondering Pondscum

Registered: 09/25/15
Posts: 63
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
|
As a pastafarian, I urge you to stop fretting about your false god(s) and convert to the only true path of enlightenment and spiritual fulfilment. Take part in the holy sacrament of spaghetti and meatball consumption. Let the noodly appendages of our Lord guide your step. And all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Aaaaargh!
-------------------- This and that for tit for tat Gobbledygook in my top hat Bricks for breakfast what a feast Will you join unleash the beast?
HiRes Sig
|
|