why do you believe in God or...

mxaaron

gue_barium wrote:

Hmm. Not really.

Sorry, I guess...

gue_barium wrote:

I wanted to know what you think. About anything. Or about he whole kit 'n kaboodle. What's your philosophy?

I did say why I don't agree with Hume, at least on that one point, and used Kant to show why I might be justified in my disagreement. As for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, well, can you narrow it down some? That's a big question.

By the way, thanks for taking an interest! What about you? What's your philosophy? Just curious

gue_barium

mxaaron wrote:

Sorry, I guess...



I did say why I don't agree with Hume, at least on that one point, and used Kant to show why I might be justified in my disagreement. As for the whole kit 'n kaboodle, well, can you narrow it down some? That's a big question.

By the way, thanks for taking an interest! What about you? What's your philosophy? Just curious

Live and let live.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

What does anyone hope to discover in this thread?

There are no answers...only more questions in an endless loop. Mainly because religion uses an unknown factor to explain everything. I mean let's face it, the bible says nothing on what God is. It's all just a bunch of ideas and concepts. Nothing more. There's no tangible evidence of anything.

To use a complete unknown as the ultimate answer to every possible question you can think of seems extremely unusual to say the least.

You might as well just say I have no idea instead of God...it's the exact same thing.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What does anyone hope to discover in this thread?

There are no answers...only more questions in an endless loop. Mainly because religion uses an unknown factor to explain everything. I mean let's face it, the bible says nothing on what God is. It's all just a bunch of ideas and concepts. Nothing more. There's no tangible evidence of anything.

To use a complete unknown as the ultimate answer to every possible question you can think of seems extremely unusual to say the least.

You might as well just say I have no idea instead of God...it's the exact same thing.

Allah is a mathematical certainty.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

Allah is a mathematical certainty.

On paper which refers back to superstitious ideas handed down from thin air.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

On paper which refers back to superstitious ideas handed down from thin air.

Pearl Jam is a mathematical certainty.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer is about as close as you can get to not being a mathematical certainty.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

RolandTD20Kdrummer is about as close as you can get to not being a mathematical certainty.

So what you're saying is god created the guys who created calculus.

There can't be a point of creation. It defies the very meaning of infinity.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So what you're saying is god created the guys who created calculus.

There can't be a point of creation. It defies the very meaning of infinity.

Sure, there can be a point of creation. Why not?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

Sure, there can be a point of creation. Why not?

Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.

It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.

It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.

)&*(%*&$% is a mathematical certainty.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

)&*(%*&$% is a mathematical certainty.

The term mathematical certainty is actually meaningless outside of satire.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The term mathematical certainty is actually meaningless outside of satire.

Is it?

I disagree.

Creation is founded on addition.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

Is it?

I disagree.

Creation is founded on addition.

Yes but creation doesn't exist. It was already something else. Thats what infinity is.

When it comes to combining molecules and energy not always do you get the same outcome as you do with numbers. In fact never in reality do you get the exact same outcomes like you do with numbers.

No two of anything are exactly the same in reality. Quite different than numbers which are always exactly the same and never change.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Religion by Marcus Brigstocke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.

It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.

I used to say the same thing, "there is no such thing as nothing." It's something of a statement that needs context. Your version of that context relies on physics, yet denies recognition of what is recognizable. Is that not something? Nothing is something.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yes but creation doesn't exist. It was already something else. Thats what infinity is.

When it comes to combining molecules and energy not always do you get the same outcome as you do with numbers. In fact never in reality do you get the exact same outcomes like you do with numbers.

No two of anything are exactly the same in reality. Quite different than numbers which are always exactly the same and never change.

Yet, from what we've seen of physics in the past 100 years, is it so hard to conceptualize that what we know to be true is only an illusion? At least to an extent, as far as energy and matter and anti-matter go...

You make an interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I think you're entering into something there along the lines of Time. "In reality" you mean that Time is a constant moving forward, unstopping. You don't know that as fact, though.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Religion by Marcus Brigstocke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

blah blah blah.

i like my own brain better.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

blah blah blah.

i like my own brain better.

Q: Hey man.
A: I just don't like the sure, hard answers.
Q: I know.
A: "In reality?" What the fuck does that mean?
Q: Physics is reality?
A: Physics is a mathematical certainty.
Q: Peeps aint picking up on it.
A: I see.
Q: These are Pearl Jam fans. Brightest of the bunch.
A: Does Stone read this shit?
Q: Prolly.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

Yet, from what we've seen of physics in the past 100 years, is it so hard to conceptualize that what we know to be true is only an illusion? At least to an extent, as far as energy and matter and anti-matter go...

You make an interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I think you're entering into something there along the lines Time. "In reality" you mean that time is a constant moving forward, unstopping. You don't know that as fact, though.

Actually everything I'm saying is rests on basic fundamentals, where I'm either 100% wrong or 100% right. Namely empty universe v.s. full universe. Once one understands the impossibility of "nothing" given our current reality, then it all comes into clarity.

Unless all of this is fake, the universe has always had something in it. An empty (complete nothingness) universe can never actually become, or suddenly, turn into something, otherwise it just wasn't empty to begin with.

Nothing can be outside of the universe and inject matter into it because everywhere is everywhere is everywhere. It's an impossibility. Therefore we can be 100% certain (unless all this is fake) that something was always here to begin with (here being everywhere and as far out as the mind can possibly fathom...i.e. the universe.)

The impossibility of the existence of nothing, and infinity, goes against what the human mind has been conditioned to understanding throughout the ages, but it's very basic in concept when put into perspective.

It really is all or nothing so to speak.

That's why I say there's no pinpoint on creation of anything anywhere because whatever it could possible be, it was already something else before what it currently is. Ironically like the how bible says "of no beginning and no end". They got that part right, but missed the point by then citing and promoting the whole creation concept. An inconsistency...different chapters written by different people I would imagine.