Controversial RELIGIONS & SPIRITUALITIES : Conversations
- Thread starter Logiko
- Start date
as long as one also stays agnostic about it its fine.
and tbh i give the bible somewhat of a pass for problematic passages, since it isnt claimed to be the perfect unaltered word of god.
im going to do a reread in distant future
shit happens.
anyway, i enjoyed the respectful exchange we had here. but i need to go to sleep now
and tbh i give the bible somewhat of a pass for problematic passages, since it isnt claimed to be the perfect unaltered word of god.
im going to do a reread in distant future
Post automatically merged:
shit happens.
anyway, i enjoyed the respectful exchange we had here. but i need to go to sleep now
as long as one also stays agnostic about it its fine.
and tbh i give the bible somewhat of a pass for problematic passages, since it isnt claimed to be the perfect unaltered word of god.
im going to do a reread in distant future
shit happens.
anyway, i enjoyed the respectful exchange we had here. but i need to go to sleep now
and tbh i give the bible somewhat of a pass for problematic passages, since it isnt claimed to be the perfect unaltered word of god.
im going to do a reread in distant future
Post automatically merged:
shit happens.
anyway, i enjoyed the respectful exchange we had here. but i need to go to sleep now
Post automatically merged:
Yes.
Last edited:
The moment someone questions you on your beliefs and what grounds it stands on it’s suddenly “idc” but when you hear the theist position you come running from the other side of town to condemn it.Anyways you kind of have to care if you base all of your beliefs on empirical evidence because as we know it isn’t the only way to truth nor is it the best way to get to the truth since it is inherently limited from the start.
Yeah it works but it doesn’t represent the truth, it’s always changing the more we learn. A new observation will challenge a previous forgone conclusion. I’m sure you’re familiar with the fact that we went to the moon based on the Newtonian theory which has since been deemed to be a false theory . So having utility does not necessarily mean it’s true.
Science fails to prove the most basic intuitive truths. If you need empirical evidence to believe in something, then how do you justify your belief in universally recognized moral truths? What about consciousness? Did you use a microscope to observe all of this before accepting it as truth?
Science itself assumes metaphysical realities (that it cannot prove exist empirically) in order to conduct experiments:
You first need to understand that the empirical stance that you hold has flaws otherwise there’s no point discussing religion because you’ll keep hollering about how there isn’t evidence.
We are just discussing. Don’t ruin it 
Also science doesn’t really make the claim that something created everything. Rather the discourse is far more divided: some scientists posit that the universe has an origin, others don’t. And those that do believe in the universe having an origin or beginning…present different theories which even they haven’t fully mapped out yet while others have been shot down or are just mere speculation. Quantum mechanics is the most current paradigm iirc and it’s complex, by the end of it they’ll probably falsify it too upon further inquiry. Goes to show how science isn’t a reliable method for the bigger questions.
Post automatically merged:
Also science doesn’t really make the claim that something created everything. Rather the discourse is far more divided: some scientists posit that the universe has an origin, others don’t. And those that do believe in the universe having an origin or beginning…present different theories which even they haven’t fully mapped out yet while others have been shot down or are just mere speculation. Quantum mechanics is the most current paradigm iirc and it’s complex, by the end of it they’ll probably falsify it too upon further inquiry. Goes to show how science isn’t a reliable method for the bigger questions.
Last edited:
)
That's if causes and consequences are a thing. But we simply might be limited to our understanding and conception of space time here. It seems to be possible (once again, I'm only repeating the understanding of the theories I've heard) that time and the rules of physics as we know it might be completely different before the big Bang. Cause and effect might be something that didn't apply to the singularity (The state of the universe as a hot dense point before the Big Bang).
So.. There might simply be no need for a beginning (as we understand it) at all.. we do not know.
That's why my question is rather : how can there be something rather than nothing ?
So.. There might simply be no need for a beginning (as we understand it) at all.. we do not know.
That's why my question is rather : how can there be something rather than nothing ?
I think I remember Zoro saying something about this once ''even if God exists, I still would not kneel before him'' I take a pretty similar stance to this when it comes to religion.
The existence of a God is way less interesting to me than the hypothetical of if he absolutely did exist. The only people who would be different human beings are the ones who do it out of fear. Presumably, an omniscient deity would see through this too and they would still be punished later on.
For me, whether God exists or not, I still wouldn't be willingly sending prayers and singing hymns to him. I don't even do that with my parents and they factually created me.
The existence of a God is way less interesting to me than the hypothetical of if he absolutely did exist. The only people who would be different human beings are the ones who do it out of fear. Presumably, an omniscient deity would see through this too and they would still be punished later on.
For me, whether God exists or not, I still wouldn't be willingly sending prayers and singing hymns to him. I don't even do that with my parents and they factually created me.
Of course it is. We are simply, young on the matter. That's all.
I completely agree. I would even go farther. Any being that considers themself someone that we should kneel before or be subjected to, do not deserve my respect, even if said being created the universe. I would go against them at everypoint.
I completely agree. I would even go farther. Any being that considers themself someone that we should kneel before or be subjected to, do not deserve my respect, even if said being created the universe. I would go against them at everypoint.
It contradict the conception of god of classical theism (the only conception I think is coeherent). First, because it imply that god's will is subordinate to lower and imperfect moral qualities. God's being perfect in itself just want the pure goodness shared to all the creation. Second, it also seems imply that god would be able to suffer experiences as pleasure or displeaure depending on the conduct of other beings. And that's contradict god's impassibility. Nothing what the other beings do (for stance, kneel to god), change god's conduct or thinking. God never change. Whatever someone do, god will is just love unconditionaly, because he is perfect and thats it.
That's circular reasonning...
> God is, therefore they are perfect
> God is perfect, therefore they are God
It prevents anything and everyone to look at the possibility that it could not be the case.
For example, it would push everyone to justify anykind of suffering. "If X was raped, killed and their children tortured in horrible sufferings without anything to stop that, it's only because God has a special plan"
How can a being be impassible in front of sufferings and be pure goodness ? How do you justify this thinking ?
To be this sounds like
"God is perfect, do not question that fact"
> God is, therefore they are perfect
> God is perfect, therefore they are God
It prevents anything and everyone to look at the possibility that it could not be the case.
For example, it would push everyone to justify anykind of suffering. "If X was raped, killed and their children tortured in horrible sufferings without anything to stop that, it's only because God has a special plan"
How can a being be impassible in front of sufferings and be pure goodness ? How do you justify this thinking ?
To be this sounds like
"God is perfect, do not question that fact"
1. About your first point: you are talking about the problem of evil. Its a big discussion
2. About the impassibility of god: maybe you will get surprised, but god is not affected for literally nothing from the human beings (and this is a catholic dogma). That doesnt mean he doesnt care about us. Just mean his love is unchangeable, and for that reason can't be imperfect. For that reason his love for any being will always be equally the same.
3. Its not about question or not this fact. It a question of being consistent with the concepts we are using.
If doesnt exist any being that have the for 4 omni attributes, impassibility, eternity, simplicity, aseity, then god simply doesnt exist.
Could still exist a demiurgue that created the universe or other super being, but they won't be god. Because to be god it would be necessary have these attributes. Simply because the concept of god is the concept of the perfect being. The only way to exist a perfect being is that a being having all the attributes I listed before.
Thats why I would never agree with the ideia of the existence of god if he doesnt have all these attributes. I would become atheist if it was the case.
2. About the impassibility of god: maybe you will get surprised, but god is not affected for literally nothing from the human beings (and this is a catholic dogma). That doesnt mean he doesnt care about us. Just mean his love is unchangeable, and for that reason can't be imperfect. For that reason his love for any being will always be equally the same.
3. Its not about question or not this fact. It a question of being consistent with the concepts we are using.
If doesnt exist any being that have the for 4 omni attributes, impassibility, eternity, simplicity, aseity, then god simply doesnt exist.
Could still exist a demiurgue that created the universe or other super being, but they won't be god. Because to be god it would be necessary have these attributes. Simply because the concept of god is the concept of the perfect being. The only way to exist a perfect being is that a being having all the attributes I listed before.
Thats why I would never agree with the ideia of the existence of god if he doesnt have all these attributes. I would become atheist if it was the case.
Last edited:
I don't know about the multiverse. It's something beyond imagination and calculation for humans and perhaps we will never know about it because of expansion.
However, I do agree that our Universe seems to be just fine tuned. Slight change in constants and we wouldn't have exist. Then, there is fine structure constant which appears in calculations and it doesn't make sense.
Quantum behaviour of particles exhibited through double slit experiment in itself raise question mark on reality we experience.
Earth is also lucky to have life because of so many reasons yet we know similar planets are bound to exist somewhere because of probability
That's why astronomy is humbling experience. You realise you aren't special at all. Just a speck of dust....in grand scheme of things
However, I do agree that our Universe seems to be just fine tuned. Slight change in constants and we wouldn't have exist. Then, there is fine structure constant which appears in calculations and it doesn't make sense.
Quantum behaviour of particles exhibited through double slit experiment in itself raise question mark on reality we experience.
Earth is also lucky to have life because of so many reasons yet we know similar planets are bound to exist somewhere because of probability
That's why astronomy is humbling experience. You realise you aren't special at all. Just a speck of dust....in grand scheme of things
Indeed.
Yes.. but that literally doesn't change anything. If one can be impassible in front of the suffering it means that one does not love us.
It would be like saying : "my father is all loving and infinitely good, and if he is impassible in front of my suffering if I get tortured in front of him or if an earthquake kills all my sisters and buries me in front of a building, that's because he loves me infinitely and he is perfect"
Like... wuat?
But I'm not saying such a being can't exist. What I'm questionning here is the status of God of such a being.
Those 4 characteristics could very well be present in a beings that acts like a monster as none of those concept include the concept of "infinite goodness" (simplicity maybe, but I don't know how you make the bridge )
EDIT: Maybe you are talking about the concept of divine simplicity that uncompass infinite goodness.
But then again, being good is constituated of moral values on the concrete world. This means that said God would possesses moral values (time infinity) about the world :
So in this sence, impassibility contradicts divine simplicity. If said God is impassible therefore they can't be infinitely good and if said God is infinitely good, therefore they can't be impassible.
The presence of both characteristics within one entity renders the existence of said entity incoherent.
Yes.. but that literally doesn't change anything. If one can be impassible in front of the suffering it means that one does not love us.
It would be like saying : "my father is all loving and infinitely good, and if he is impassible in front of my suffering if I get tortured in front of him or if an earthquake kills all my sisters and buries me in front of a building, that's because he loves me infinitely and he is perfect"
Like... wuat?
But I'm not saying such a being can't exist. What I'm questionning here is the status of God of such a being.
Those 4 characteristics could very well be present in a beings that acts like a monster as none of those concept include the concept of "infinite goodness" (simplicity maybe, but I don't know how you make the bridge )
EDIT: Maybe you are talking about the concept of divine simplicity that uncompass infinite goodness.
But then again, being good is constituated of moral values on the concrete world. This means that said God would possesses moral values (time infinity) about the world :
So in this sence, impassibility contradicts divine simplicity. If said God is impassible therefore they can't be infinitely good and if said God is infinitely good, therefore they can't be impassible.
The presence of both characteristics within one entity renders the existence of said entity incoherent.