|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MdfUq3W.jpg)
~Preamble~
It seems like the initial goal of one's life should be devoted to finding your passion. I tried that with engineering, turns out it was a horrible decision. Then I thought, hmm well I like science and technology. I always loved the idea of working in the field of quantum computing, learning about relativity theory, lasers, all that stuff. Lets try physics!
Well, a combined 9 years later, that didn't work out either. Turns out graduate school was not as exciting as I thought it would be, though I am still kind of amazed I got in so easily. I'm not sure the standards were that high anyway...but I am thankful I took at least one easier course (namely computational physics with Python, my favourite snake-based program).
Well, now what? I'm deliberating between working at a bank, or maybe trying a career in game development, even though I don't exactly have any direct qualifications for either. I don't know what I would do specifically, I just have to hope I figure it out, and try to stay positive.
But there is one more possibility. Maybe I could be one of those "new" atheists who argues against religion? Or some kind of writer in philosophy? So, after eating watermelon and playing some games, I decided to visit Team Liquid, a website I haven't visited in years, in order to try and delve into some abstract philosophy on my blog, and see how it feels.
I will attempt to describe one of the proofs that I actually find kind of troubling from an atheists point of view, in the sense that I think it comes closest to proving a God of some form must exist. Technically this should not trouble an atheist, but...psychology says otherwise.
_______________________________
The Ontological Argument
There is a particularly interesting argument that aims to prove the existence of God through pure logic. Originally devised by Anselm, it has been reformulated over the years by a number of authors, such as Alvin Plantinga, and also Charles Hartshorne.
The original argument, supposedly, is very difficult to find fault with. Yet if you take some time working through the statements, its actually quite clear. Here is Anselm's argument (from Wikipedia):
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
Where is the main fault here? I think it is actually proposition 6. The proper conclusion should be, that the only way to imagine the greatest possible being, is to imagine it as existing. This however does nothing to prove that it actually exists; it merely asserts that in order for it to be considered "greatest", it would have to exist. This is nothing but a hypothetical property of that being, it doesn't actually do anything in terms of proving the being exists.
What it does do is demonstrate a completely obvious tautology; if God exists, then he must exist. Its also completely consistent with God not existing, because then the property of existence is never actualized, which is fine since there is no great being there that necessitates existence.
Its like saying, a necessary aspect of driving to work is that you have a car. This does not prove you are actually driving a car to work, or that you even have a job. It just states what's necessary for that, hypothetically. In this case, its that the greatest possible being would need to exist to be considered the greatest. But of course, the property of existence is only actualized if that being exists in the first place. Hence the tautology.
In Kant's language, this would be called an analytic truth.
_______________________________
The Revised Ontological Argument
Well, religious people did not give up after Anselm. A fellow named Charles Hartshorne made improvements. Here is his proof, as detailed by Joshua Ernst from Brigham Young University (Ernst's Paper):
Legend:
Let q stand for "there is a perfect being" (or "God exists")
N stands for "it is necessarily (logically true) that"
⊃ stands for "implies" or "then"
∨ stands for "or"
~ stands for negation, or "not"
Proof:
1. q ⊃ Nq Perfection is necessary
2. Nq ∨ ~Nq Principle of the Excluded Middle
3. ~Nq ⊃ N~Nq Form of Becker’s Postulate
4. Nq ∨ N~Nq Inference from (2,3)
5. N~Nq ⊃ N~q Inference from (1)
6. Nq ∨ N~q Inference (4,5)
7. ~N~q Intuitive postulate
8. Nq Inference from (6,7)
9. Nq ⊃ q Modal Axiom
10. q Inference from (8,9)
We can walk through the proof as it is fairly complex. On the other hand, if you are a philosophical genius, proceed to my criticism! :D
_______________________________
Proposition 1 (P1) states that if God exists, then his existence is necessary. This is based on the idea that perfection, or the existence of perfection embodied in some being, is either logically necessary or utterly impossible.
The idea here is that if a being is contingent, or dependent on, something else for its existence, then that dependence can be viewed as an imperfection. This one is a bit weird because "perfection" seems to be a vague term with an arbitrary definition, and its not entirely clear why contingency is antithetical to perfection except on vague intuitive grounds.
But in any case, you could for the sake of argument simply claim that your version of a perfect being's existence requires necessity as one such quality.
P2 is a simple logical binary; either it is necessary that God exists, or it is not necessary that God exists. There are only two choices available.
P3 is weird, and stems from a "many worlds" interpretation of Becker's postulate, which a postulate that extends classical logic into something called S5 modal logic; basically it adds "alethic" modality to logical claims, i.e. it allows you to add certain qualifiers such as "possible", "necessary", or "impossible" to a logical claim. The key result from class S5 modal logic is that:
P(A) --> NP(A), or if A is possible, then it is necessary that A is possible.
More generally, it states that all modal statements are necessary. That is, whether something is possibly or necessarily true, that truth is necessary.
Now in the many worlds interpretation, we basically imagine every possible world as varying from the other worlds by some aspect that is not logically necessary. Thus in one universe (synonymous with "world" here) you could imagine the Earth existing a few meters farther away from the Sun as being one such variation.
Now to get back to P3, imagine someone rolling a pair of dice in a game of roulette. If the gambler from every logically possible world were to meet up, they would all agree that each outcome were possible. In fact, it would be necessary that they be possible, otherwise there would be a chance that those outcomes weren't possible, which contradicts the very purpose of the many worlds interpretation of possibility.
This logically extends to modally necessary statements. If a person in world/universe A finds statement q to be necessary, so should a person in world B, as worlds only vary contingently (i.e. based on logically possible outcomes). Logically it ought to be necessary that each individual finds such claims necessary, otherwise they may not turn out to be necessary which is clearly a contradiction.
So its actually not too counterintuitive.
P4 Is just a logical inference from previous propositions
P5 Is actually just the negation of P1. Logically, if A implies B, then "not B" implies "not A" (think about it  ). I actually learned this in first year math class, I forgot the technical term for it. The "necessary" qualifier just goes along for the ride.
P6 is obvious, P7 *seems* intuitive, and then the rest follows pretty easily.
_______________________________
Criticism:
So, what are the main flaws with this argument?
Initially, I found P1 to be contradictory. To reiterate, it claims that if a perfect being exists, then its existence is necessary (or "if q, then Nq")
Now if you begin with a qualifier "if q", you are necessarily claiming that it is possible for "not q" to be an outcome; otherwise the proof would unjustifiably be claiming that q is necessary from the outset, leading to the trivial proof that Nq implies q.
If you claim that "not q" is possible, then the claim should really be that "pNq", or that it is possibly necessary that q is true.
But according to S5 modal logic, if something is possibly necessary, then it is in fact necessary. This is explained by Plantinga in the following way, again adopting many worlds semantics:
If A is possibly necessary, then it is necessary in at least one possible world. Logically, it must be necessary in all possible worlds, since the worlds only differ in terms of a complete set of their (logically) possible propositions. Hence if A is possibly necessary, then it is in fact necessary.
So this type of criticism of P1 is unsuccessful. However, I think it is still valid to question why necessity should be considered an aspect of perfection.
I think its strange that any entity, no matter how powerful, could define its own necessity from the outset; that is, the claim of Nq may be logically impossible and thus invalid as a part of any sort of proposition. It is sort of like the theist's teleological arguments, in which they claim the universe can't have created the universe, for obvious circular reasons - but to be clear as to why, if an entity doesn't exist, it has no power to create anything, much less itself).
In the same vein, I don't think it really makes sense to argue that any being or entity could define its own necessity. Either something is or is not necessary; it should not depend on the existence of that entity, because then the necessity of its existence is dependent on it existing. Hence one can not make a defacto claim that necessity is an aspect of perfection, or a perfect being. Necessity must therefore come before perfection (not necessarily in time, but in some type of causal relation to it nevertheless).
If necessity is not an aspect of perfection, then this proof doesn't really work since postulate 1 is crucial.
_______________________________
There are also some intuitive arguments against the necessity of perfection.
If God is perfect, then it exists necessarily; that is to say, in all possible worlds. But this is also counterintuitive; because this is essentially claiming that it is logically impossible to have a world in which God does not exist; i.e. not even an empty void is *logically possible* under this framework. God essentially forces itself to exist into every possible world.
Its not actually clear whether this kind of reality is in fact logically possible, or at the very least metaphysically possible.
_______________________________
In the event that anyone actually read the whole thing, I hope you enjoyed it. I think I had fun doing it. Not sure if its my passion per se...but...it was fun  .
In my personal view, I think there is something like a God in the universe, but I don't know what it is. I say this because I experienced something which is extraordinarily unlikely, and which can only be explained by an entity other than myself interacting with me (certainly not a case of God of the gaps reasoning, which I am all too familiar with). To be sure, I am continuing to investigate this and am trying to re-establish contact, without believing that I am talking to myself.
But as far as pure logical arguments go, I think there is still room for improvement. If I really wanted to test myself I would attempt to review Kurt Gödel's ontological proof of God. Maybe one day
Also I hope this qualifies as a blog entry. Maybe my 2000 post "seniority" will aid me. Have a nice day everyone! By the way if I don't respond to your comments don't take it personally. I'm actually kind of afraid of reading feedback.
-Radscorpion9
 
|
That was sad to read. You spent nine years chasing something, and now you look for something new to chase?
Maybe try these steps in redesigning your life:
1. Answer the question: "Who do I want to be?"
This question can be hard to answer if you apply logic or reason, don't think, feel. Then take the answers you find and realise, this is actually part of the answer to a much harder question: "Who am I?".
Now to the part I think you keep fucking up.
2. a) Set goals
Setting goals is easy. You wanted to be an engenieer, then a physicist. While chasing a goal, every day we don't achieve it, we feel like we failed. In the end, even if we achieve the goals we set, the feeling can be underwhelming. Goals are not there to be chased, they are the first step.
2. b) Find processes
Since worthwile goals can't be reached in a day (god took a week to create the world), find the process/routine that brings you closer to your goal. The new goals are now to follow these routines, so that we can experience a little success every day. Noone can be sure if they actually reach their goals, but the routine will be the daily life. Is that the personal dreamlife? If not, go back to 2. a), set goals more in harmony with who you are.
2. c) Turn goals into reasons
This step might seem tautological. It is important to grasp the conceptional difference in order to increase the happiness we can derive when looking at our lifes. Goals are up in the air, something we reach for. Reasons are planted in the earth we are standing on. They give us strength to grow, nurture us, to help us be more who we are. If this step is confusing go back to step 1. .
Or don't. I wish you happiness!
|
Sorry your life is in disarray, not sorry that you are trying to think more about stuff.
If i may be so bold, god's existence in people's mind is possibly the mother of all cons..
(when you see/feel omens, just means you are looking for them)
people should not think and do stuff for/because of a god (whatever you want to mean with that word),
people should know that we are all alone in the dark
and that it is up to us all to start bringing more light to OUR world..
not wait for a god to save you/us.
i believe in humans and yes i'm very disappointed often, but that is not a reason to stop trying to convert people to see / feel the light within themselves or change my view whatsoever.
glhf
|
On July 02 2017 19:49 JWD[9] wrote:That was sad to read. You spent nine years chasing something, and now you look for something new to chase? Maybe try these steps in redesigning your life: 1. Answer the question: "Who do I want to be?" This question can be hard to answer if you apply logic or reason, don't think, feel. Then take the answers you find and realise, this is actually part of the answer to a much harder question: "Who am I?". Now to the part I think you keep fucking up. 2. a) Set goals Setting goals is easy. You wanted to be an engenieer, then a physicist. While chasing a goal, every day we don't achieve it, we feel like we failed. In the end, even if we achieve the goals we set, the feeling can be underwhelming. Goals are not there to be chased, they are the first step. 2. b) Find processes Since worthwile goals can't be reached in a day (god took a week to create the world), find the process/routine that brings you closer to your goal. The new goals are now to follow these routines, so that we can experience a little success every day. Noone can be sure if they actually reach their goals, but the routine will be the daily life. Is that the personal dreamlife? If not, go back to 2. a), set goals more in harmony with who you are. 2. c) Turn goals into reasons This step might seem tautological. It is important to grasp the conceptional difference in order to increase the happiness we can derive when looking at our lifes. Goals are up in the air, something we reach for. Reasons are planted in the earth we are standing on. They give us strength to grow, nurture us, to help us be more who we are. If this step is confusing go back to step 1. . Or don't. I wish you happiness!
Hey thanks for the well wishes. Actually the hard part for me is step 1 lol. I did try feeling rather than thinking, but its not that easy. Something excites you in your mind, it seems like the thing you want to do in your life...but then you try it, you live it, and its not what you imagined. That's the hard part, I can't really give myself a good direction to go, I just have to make the best guess I can. Its probably the reason why so many people tell me the same thing. I was talking to a university professor a while ago about future steps, he said no one can plan for the future. You just have to go in a direction that seems right at the time.
There are so many people that tell me they couldn't imagine that they would be working in the fields they are currently in. This further strengthens the point, I think, that a lot of this stuff is really just praying that you chose the right field, that your education wasn't a waste. I also hear so many other stories of people who graduate with a degree in political science, and they are stuck working in a fast food place as a cashier, or cook. Reality can be really rough. At the very least, I have some transferable skills and I think some pretty decent critical thinking skills out of it.
I sincerely hope that other people, yourself included, find your passion early! I have some contacts at one of the banks I'm thinking of applying for, so hopefully that's enough for me to get a decent job making a nice salary.
On July 02 2017 23:43 fluidrone wrote:
Sorry your life is in disarray, not sorry that you are trying to think more about stuff.
If i may be so bold, god's existence in people's mind is possibly the mother of all cons..
(when you see/feel omens, just means you are looking for them)
people should not think and do stuff for/because of a god (whatever you want to mean with that word),
people should know that we are all alone in the dark
and that it is up to us all to start bringing more light to OUR world..
not wait for a god to save you/us.
i believe in humans and yes i'm very disappointed often, but that is not a reason to stop trying to convert people to see / feel the light within themselves or change my view whatsoever.
glhf
Yes, well I'm always thinking. In fact many people in the physics community have OCD...its when you literally can't turn your brain off. My supervisor was one of them, he would elongate a meeting in the hallway to like a 3 hour discussion on everything he did in grad school.
Anyway I totally understand where you're coming from, God seems pretty much like a fairy tale if you approach it rationally. You've got this 2000 year old book, riddled with errors and impossibly fantastical events (the whole world being flooded to the point where even the highest mountain is covered, and all the water magically disappearing), and apparently it also provides counsel on how slavery should be adopted in some parts.
But the question of whether there is some kind of creator, I think, is an interesting one. It may be a weak God, it may be an advanced alien intelligence, or it may be some very rudimentary consciousness, sort of like a tree. Its interesting to think about the possibilities. And that's what I like about philosophy.
The real world is just a mess. People believe global warming is a conspiracy hatched by hundreds of thousands of scientists, a scam to take people's money, created by the democratic party. I just...after listening to people, after scouring youtube videos on what it is people believe, I just want to give up, because their are literally hundreds of thousands, millions, of these people and all of them live in a conspiracy world, like Trump does. And its utterly impossible to reason with any of them, it doesn't matter how reasonable you are, they just call you a shill or something. It kind of makes me want to give up, like you. But at the same time, you gotta remember there is a silent majority that does take global warming seriously, so it makes you hopeful.
Anyway, back to online courses!
|
Everyone is like, "You need to decide what to do with your life!" and I'm thinking about the body of the actual post.
In practical terms, "perfection" is unattainable. If there were a perfect cog in a machine, it would never rust, never erode, and would do its job perfectly forever. Since not being subject to entropy is impossible, the cog would not be perfect unless the definition of perfect were changed. There is no entity of this type that is known to exist or that has been observed and studied properly.
Any argument that requires a multiverse with an incalculable number of universes is a shaky one at best, because while alternate universes have been proposed, they cannot be proven to exist unless the paradigm of how we understand existence massively shifts. But, for shits and giggles, if there were an infinite number of alternate universes, each with differences -- ranging from a single neutron difference from our universe to radically altered laws of physics -- then God could not exist in all of them. God would have to exist separate from the multiverse, and would operate independently. If that is true, how could God be proven to interact with any universe, or be perceivable from within any universe?
|
On July 03 2017 08:48 ninazerg wrote:
Everyone is like, "You need to decide what to do with your life!" and I'm thinking about the body of the actual post.
In practical terms, "perfection" is unattainable. If there were a perfect cog in a machine, it would never rust, never erode, and would do its job perfectly forever. Since not being subject to entropy is impossible, the cog would not be perfect unless the definition of perfect were changed. There is no entity of this type that is known to exist or that has been observed and studied properly.
Any argument that requires a multiverse with an incalculable number of universes is a shaky one at best, because while alternate universes have been proposed, they cannot be proven to exist unless the paradigm of how we understand existence massively shifts. But, for shits and giggles, if there were an infinite number of alternate universes, each with differences -- ranging from a single neutron difference from our universe to radically altered laws of physics -- then God could not exist in all of them. God would have to exist separate from the multiverse, and would operate independently. If that is true, how could God be proven to interact with any universe, or be perceivable from within any universe?
I was actually wondering whether anyone would read my post, or immediately get so exhausted just looking at Hartshorne's proof that no one would comment on it . I mean I totally understand that, philosophy is not everyone's thing, and I'm happy people wish me well anyway. But I'm glad at least one TLer is thinking about the logic of perfection! Actually, I think that's the name of one of Hartshorne's books.
In any case, I feel like the way I framed my argument can be confusing. Because you have to remember, that technically there is no direct support for the existence of parallel universes; its really just a way of visualizing a set of logically possible universes, each varying in their own, contingent ways (since there are in theory only two types of propositions; contingent and necessary ones, and necessary propositions may not vary between universes).
Also I realize now it is confusing for me to say that God forces himself to exist in all of those universes. I should emphasize that technically, there aren't multiple universes; you are just using the possible worlds semantics (a way of describing the set of all logically possible realities) to say that God forces himself to exist in every logically possible world. That is, it doesn't matter how our universe could have turned out. It could have been the same universe plus or minus a neutron - or it could have been *completely empty*. It doesn't matter; God would exist in all of them if he were necessary.
Note that this includes whatever you place as existing "before" the universe (technically time didn't exist then so it doesn't make sense, but there's no other word you can use). For example, we could suppose that the big bang were caused by the antecedent mechanism as described in M theory, where it is hypothesized that 11 dimensional "branes" undulating in their higher dimensional space will occasionally crash into each other, spawning a universe. We would include this higher-dimensional reality when we discuss our universe, and each logically possible universe (i.e. another logically possible universe may have a brane that undulates in a different manner than ours).
Also, it is tempting to describe perfection as impossible with respect to our everyday world. But I don't think we really have sufficient evidence to claim that it is defacto impossible (PS I love the word defacto). It is at least possible to conceive of a perfect God, and there is no clear argument for why that perfection should be impossible, unless certain qualities of perfection are contradictory.
Entropy is only a consequence of the laws of physics in this universe. All that entropy is, is a statement of probability; i.e. if you have billions of gas molecules in the corner of a room, and you let them roam free, it is overwhelmingly more probable that the gas molecules will diffuse to uniformly cover the entire room. Its like having ten pennies; if you flipped them all randomly, there's a higher chance they will come up roughly half face up and half face down, then all face up (in the language of statistical mechanics, you have many more accessible microstates when they are half up/half down than when they are all face up, where you only have one accessible microstate!).
For a being that is perfect, we don't know if probability even applies when talking about a God, which supposedly has free will and is not just a consequence of maximizing probabilistic outcomes. In that sense, probability arguments, and entropy, would kind of just go out the window. And remember that the whole idea of using a proof from pure logic is that it doesn't necessarily have to base itself on evidence-based arguments. So its not particularly germane to the proof that this has never been observed; if its logically necessary, there is no escaping it, unless you abandon logic of course, but no one will do that.
|
the most common form of this argument in modern philosophy is a revision to the modal ontological argument.
the argument suggests certain teleological points as being relatively unassailable to the aesthetically enjoyable life. although the logical basis for the argument is sketchy--the most renowned authors apparently are confused by recursion...
nevertheless it seems people are confidence that existence points towards god rather thanaway
|
Funny how different people can be 
When you type "I guess I want to type philosophy" and then you go on about god.. well, that does not compute with me 
Probably my fault!? and certainly nothing to do with your equations.
i think there is so much more to philosophy than just that part (i tried it 1 year in school when i was 18, ended up a huge disappointment).. for me philo is more like:
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence../quote from first hit on oogle Humans coming out of the cave, one by one or in droves, that is what philosophy is (plato's cavern)
not fixing the god bug .. in people or in civilizations...
The way is indeed as long as the story..+ Show Spoiler +when you get to the end you die and that information is often too much for most people from the moment they realize it (happens when you are 5 to 25 year old, depending on the person) till they eventually are close to it and can know it is coming for sure. Some say most people base their lives on this absence of introspection and absence of general questioning of our lives (meaning of life).. not the total absence of introspection mind you, just the constant self lying to one selves.. pushing it back into the recesses of our minds like something heinous and vile to be purged and yet never forgotten (i think doctors call it adolescence / teen / puberty lol).. So once you hide that to yourself, people wallow in the mire + Show Spoiler [reference to the mire] +because they think that the time lost will not account to so much in the end (while it "standard-ly" is more than half of one's life at least) instead of building stuff, relationships .. they go on inventing propelled city blocks or gum to clean your teeth... ... Then, they wake up reassessing their lives and realize every second counts and every past second counted! Usually it is too late by then and therein lies the issue from where i am sitting and why i preach i guess?! + Show Spoiler + Here's hoping i can wake as many of you as i should before i buy the farm
In any case you better+ Show Spoiler + <3
+ Show Spoiler +
Yes, well I'm always thinking. In fact many people in the physics community have OCD...its when you literally can't turn your brain off. My supervisor was one of them, he would elongate a meeting in the hallway to like a 3 hour discussion on everything he did in grad school.
Anyway I totally understand where you're coming from, God seems pretty much like a fairy tale if you approach it rationally. You've got this 2000 year old book, riddled with errors and impossibly fantastical events (the whole world being flooded to the point where even the highest mountain is covered, and all the water magically disappearing), and apparently it also provides counsel on how slavery should be adopted in some parts.
But the question of whether there is some kind of creator, I think, is an interesting one. It may be a weak God, it may be an advanced alien intelligence, or it may be some very rudimentary consciousness, sort of like a tree. Its interesting to think about the possibilities. And that's what I like about philosophy.
The real world is just a mess. People believe global warming is a conspiracy hatched by hundreds of thousands of scientists, a scam to take people's money, created by the democratic party. I just...after listening to people, after scouring youtube videos on what it is people believe, I just want to give up, because their are literally hundreds of thousands, millions, of these people and all of them live in a conspiracy world, like Trump does. And its utterly impossible to reason with any of them, it doesn't matter how reasonable you are, they just call you a shill or something. It kind of makes me want to give up, like you. But at the same time, you gotta remember there is a silent majority that does take global warming seriously, so it makes you hopeful.
Anyway, back to online courses!
i don't think thinking all the time is an illness if you can manage it, like the saying goes: "what goes around comes around" but then again my view might be heavely tainted since all my grandmas had alzheimer for years before they died during my childhood, so i know i'm fucked  and i know i won't be "checking out" easy or pretty, so i give it my all now that i have the power to do it, so as to leave less hate from that sick end before i transcend into space and meet charlie chaplin and congratulate him on converting me to love <3 all with his slapstick <3
i don't think the world is a mess but it is going somewhere and no one is at the helm and that is specific to humans, we don't mean ill but we just don't give a f ck collectively
Best way to put it: + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f0/5a/40/f05a40ba6b0535dcf5532b8c83f5885f.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://22h05ruedesdames.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/100325094956644073.jpg) fudge franquin's a frickin genius translation of text: cue starts on music and a "parade" #little jump cool chill darude #little bigger jump chill cool sandstorm uhh guys stop pushing uh guys shouldn't we figure out where this is leading" the last picture needs no subtext
#Only when the abyss stares you down right in your face can you truly say you have looked in it, and that was your life..
doesn't mean we should not try to do it more in the meantime. 
i see it as a preparation, like an astronaut going through the drills, each time i get slapped in the face going into my head trying to figure all the s hit happening around me and in me.. every time i fall.. every time i get back up
until
one day i'll kick it and transcend this frail form to become pure spirit, because i was ready for it?
or will i?
+ Show Spoiler [more inspiration] +
|
Well if you think about god as being the "highest possible being to be imagined" in our world/universe.
But in the next paragraph talk about multiple universes, with multiple gods...
Then straight away there must be a "higher" being having created the "multiverse" with all its gods...
bham... higher being imagined, god disproven
just kidding, I'm just one of those people who can't grasp how anyone can still believe in god.
I mean I get that hundreds of years ago it was all pretty confusing... the sun rises... the earth looks flat, it rains, etc.
but nowadays? I don't get it.
Also why the hell would god show himself 2,000 years ago and intervened a bunch of times, but not anymore?
If he's all knowing he should've known and prevented the debate and shit. or just just show himself now and stop all these discussions. he doesn't so to me there's no way he could possibly exist.
Especially with all the crap going on in the world - and even worse all the massive crap the church has been up to since the very start.
He either doesn't exist or doesn't give a shit.
|
On July 04 2017 19:28 sCuMBaG wrote:
just kidding, I'm just one of those people who can't grasp how anyone can still believe in god.
I mean I get that hundreds of years ago it was all pretty confusing... the sun rises... the earth looks flat, it rains, etc.
but nowadays? I don't get it.
Also why the hell would god show himself 2,000 years ago and intervened a bunch of times, but not anymore?
If he's all knowing he should've known and prevented the debate and shit. or just just show himself now and stop all these discussions. he doesn't so to me there's no way he could possibly exist.
Especially with all the crap going on in the world - and even worse all the massive crap the church has been up to since the very start.
He either doesn't exist or doesn't give a shit.
I think the growing amount of atheism is a sad consequence of monotheistic religions claiming that there is only one god (theirs of course), and that it is sinful to conceive of any others. If we take the possibility that there are many gods, with varying degrees of power and interest in human destiny, then I think that that is easier to reconcile with our increased understanding of the material universe and the existence of evil. To me that seems better than throwing out the idea of gods entirely... I don't know if any culture in the whole of human history has not believed in some kind of god or gods. It seems to be important to us psychologically and socially, to deal with mysteries such as birth and death. A lot of people seem to believe now that science can and will solve every mystery though, a thought I dislike despite seeing knowledge as a good thing.
|
@radscorpion9 - your thoughts on the matter are interesting, yet from my point of view there is no way of describing something that we did not experience ourselves. how we got here from whomever created this has to exist in order for us to even question why it has allowed us to exist. it obviously wants us to know it exists. i believe it looks like us but is smart enough to only allow us to know so much from it. - it's not that it was 2,000 years ago, it's because in the year 2000 it remembered that it needed to do something, whatever that is or may be. - a majority only sees it as a nom de plume or a pseudonym. a part of me believes that whoever claims to be so without proper knowledge of its origins shouldn't touch it. as in, the word alone is only meant for one and its own purpose. i do not believe there are gods or godesses, i believe there are humans trying to act like another human they are not which is others that are choosing to be unoriginal or not being passionate or creative enough in what they're thinking in order to steer away from what another human being created from their own imagination. i'm sure that it, or whomever it is that created it is baffled and simply aware that others are doing so. and by doing so you're not able to be contacted under such as "god". but only contacted under such which would live in a cave. and i assure you, on this website, the person that claims such that is only blocking your contact and that contact that claims to be so is not korean, is not from korea and does not have a korean email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
