Post #421,831
12/22/17 11:40:06 PM
12/23/17 12:23:14 AM
|
Nice that your personal proof-of-a-Negative works for you,
as you move on from agnosticism to --> Certainty. er, *cough*. But. As the topic is one which just never shall evanesce into non-utterance.. I decided to tune in. Thus far he is not guilty of didactic utterances, nor either satisfied with the pablum of cliche. Mentioning the male proclivity for Violence on n+13 levels and the ongoing warfare models adopted, as successions of homo-sap try to sew up the loose-ends of all the My 'One God' is Better than your poly- or -mono (etc. etc.) may prove illuminating or ..just repetitive ... (as is every justification for umm mindless destruction -vs- senseless violence, possibly the very First utterances? of cha. cha. cha. ... I wot.) May add to this/or not, depending on the clement virtuosity ahead. Or not. .oO0Oo. OK, as he segued into a previous essay on The Drumpf--which had cost him a promising ^trajectory^ in the field of being known for Being Known--his sense of humor shone like a beam from the left-eye of some heathen Idol ... nor were his comments on the necessity of ridding ourselves of the D-pestilence even a digression, considering the latitude of his comments all along. Time listening was well spent. Will probably (watch, this time) again, to see what I missed in some augenblick. YMMV.
Edited by Ashton
Dec. 23, 2017, 12:23:14 AM EST
|
Post #421,922
12/27/17 12:57:48 PM
12/27/17 12:57:48 PM
|
Yup, good enough for me.
You wanna waste the rest of your life (too) looking for something that isn't there, youre welcome; that's your problem. I have other stuff to do. I'm sure if some deity shows up in the actual flesh, or is otherwise proven to exist, I'll hear about it. So, yeah, why shouldn't I be "certain"?
Seriously; please respond if you have a sensible reason why I shouldn't.
'Cause otherwise, you know, it just occurs to me that "Pascal's Wager" actually might make sense after all... In reverse, as outlined above. --
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
|
Post #421,926
12/27/17 4:34:20 PM
12/27/17 4:34:20 PM
|
Nahh, we define Certainty differently
however, my BS-detector has been honed to perfection adequacy. Neither word can be "debated" to any purpose.
|
Post #421,929
12/27/17 6:18:53 PM
12/27/17 6:18:53 PM
|
Here's the deal
If there's a god, there's no evidence of it having any impact on life, the universe, or anything.
So therefore, if there's a god, said god doesn't give a tuppenny fuck about us.
Therefore, even if there is a god, it doesn't matter.
Further, if there is a god, then, by definition, it's so big and massive and cosmic (it's god! it made/is part of the whole actual universe!) we have as much chance of understanding the merest scintilla of its existence as an ant does of getting a handle on the inner workings of elliptic curve cryptography.
Corollary: everything ever written or even thought about god (by humans) is probably not even wrong.
|
Post #421,933
12/27/17 11:35:35 PM
12/27/17 11:35:35 PM
|
Well, that's beyond no-brainer Boolean logic anyway..
and not distinctly different from that de moi. I do go with the Huge-end; (It's All God +/-) quite beyond
human propensity for inventing gods who {shudder} look just like ... wait for it ... er, forever.
As to our chances, (any occasional One of 'us:/NEVER "all of us" IME) ... glimpsing enough of [Reality] to reach further (also farther) ... ??
I no words. But at least, I Know that I know shit as regards grokking to fullness, but as in the furrin phrase "Niti Niti" meaning [not This.. not That:]
I aver that there is utility in assembling all the stuff that Isn't' umm [Real], lest it clog up the neurons with Fake mind-fluff. (And that's almost always from Ego.)
Carrion
Its epitome is: ~~ getting all the above rilly-Rong
|
Post #421,934
12/28/17 12:09:35 AM
12/28/17 12:09:35 AM
|
That's why we Pagans don't bother with God at all.
We have plenty of much more accessible gods and goddesses. We are pretty open that they were all assembled by humans as needed, but they are assembled from real natural and social forces, so they are not without power. The more people who agree on the name (or names) and the suit of characteristics, the more powerful the entity.
They can be quite useful as a shorthand for dealing with complex concepts. Note how powerful the ancient gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome have remained in art and literature. The Christian Church attempted to replace them with saints expressing similar characteristics, with some success.
On the other hand, whether a god or goddess should be worshiped, that is an entirely personal matter. Worship can be useful to some people in helping them keep their lives in order. Others of us find it more satisfying to celebrate them rather than worship them.
|
Post #421,940
12/28/17 3:52:30 PM
12/28/17 3:52:30 PM
|
I go for the clock maker god
Something initiated the big bang. Beyond that, it's like a kid with an ant farms. Or billions of ant farms. Does that kid really care about each ant?
|
Post #421,944
12/28/17 5:21:07 PM
12/28/17 5:21:07 PM
|
I like "In the beginning there was nothing - and then it exploded."
;-) Space.com: [...]
At the "peach epoch," the universe was only a tiny fraction of a second old. In fact, it was even tinier than a tiny fraction — 10^-36 seconds old, or thereabouts. From there on out, we have a roughly decent picture of how the universe works. Some questions are still open, of course, but in general, we have at least a vague understanding.
The further along in age the universe gets, the more clear our picture becomes, but it's almost frightening to consider that our poor monkey brains are even contemplating such early epochs in the universe.
At even earlier times, though, our understanding of the universe gets … fuzzy. The forces, energies, densities and temperatures become too high, and the knowledge of physics we've cobbled together over the centuries just isn't up to the task. In the extremely early universe gravity starts to get very important at small scales, and this is the realm of quantum gravity, the yet-to-be-solved grand riddle of modern physics. We just flat-out don't have an understanding of strong gravity at small scales.
We. Just. Don't.
Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don't understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we're a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don't even know if the word "before" even makes sense! At incredibly tiny scales (and I'm talking tinier than the tiniest thing you could possible imagine), the quantum nature of reality rears its ugly head at full strength, rendering our neat, orderly, friendly spacetime into a broken jungle gym of loops and tangles and rusty spikes. Notions of intervals in time or space don't really apply at those scales. Who knows what's going on?
There are, of course, some ideas out there — models that attempt to describe what "ignited" or "seeded" the Big Bang, but at this stage, they're pure speculation. If these ideas can provide observational clues — for example, a special imprint on the CMB, then hooray — we can do science!
If not, they're just bedtime stories. The bolded bit is my addition. But I think it's the crux of it. Given enough time, small enough length scales, etc., etc., it's easy for me to see the universe appearing. Especially when there's no such thing as empty space. But don't ask me to prove it! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #421,950
12/28/17 7:26:40 PM
12/28/17 7:26:40 PM
|
From long before the Big Bang theory . . .
. . in Western metaphysics it was thus. In the beginning there was Nothing.
Nothing is the negation of equal positives and negatives.
Thus Nothing is identical to Everything.
To know itself, Nothing burst into a fine haze of positives and negatives.
These have since been recombining in an infinite number of ways.
The earliest books I have expounding this theory are from the late 19th Century, but they imply there are much earlier examples.
|
Post #421,951
12/28/17 9:06:32 PM
12/28/17 9:06:32 PM
|
Neat.
Yeah, the idea is very old - especially in the East. Yin/Yang Everything/Nothing etc. And in some pop songs, also too. The Who - Let's See Action: Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's see freedom, let's see who cares,
Take me with you when you leave me
And my shell behind us there.
I have learned it, known who burned me,
Avatar has warmed my feet,
Take me with you, let me see you,
Time and life can meet.
Nothing is everything, everything is, nothing is,
Please the people, audiences,
Break the fences,
Nothing is.
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's see freedom up in the air,
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's be free, let's see who cares.
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's see freedom up in the air,
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's be free, let's see who cares.
Give me a drink boy, wash my feet,
I'm so tired of running from my own heat,
Take this package and here's what you do,
Gonna get this information through.
I don't know where I'm going,
I don't know what I need,
But I'll get to where I'm gonna end up,
And that's alright by me.
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's see freedom up the air,
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's be free, let's see who cares.
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's see freedom in the air,
Let's see action, let's see people,
Let's be free, let's see who cares.
Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #421,954
12/29/17 12:49:43 AM
12/29/17 12:49:43 AM
|
Esoteric folk have expressed ~~ ideas as..
(The World, the maya, ... whatever) represents The *Absolute's Desire to Know Itself," by inventing the "World of Dualities", +'s -'s Yes/no
..and all the rest which come easily to 'mind'.
[* The Absolute] is without attributes (one could easily add.. "Duh" given that so few have glimpsed even, enough of [Reality] to conjure up some comparison.)
"God Hates ___" must be among the easiest of litmus tests that one is listening to a malevolent idiot, but there are myriad examples.
"God is Love" seems to get much more respect as, at very least ... there's much to be said (and so much of poetry describing) -- er, intimations of that 'immortality'.
(I return to [square One] disabuse oneself of any serious use of the word Certainty ;^>
Maybe carrion reminds us of that, as regards our 'futures'(s) ... just a w.a.g.)
|
Post #421,945
12/28/17 5:23:38 PM
12/28/17 5:23:38 PM
|
just prior to the big bang, someone flushed the uber privvy
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #421,949
12/28/17 7:24:55 PM
12/28/17 7:24:55 PM
|
Ubers have privvies?
|
