Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Antioch]

How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?

In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.

[Arx]

How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?

In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.

The problem is that it's very difficult to tell what you mean by 'an infinite randomness'. The weather is a chaotic system, which makes it infinitely random, but it's clear that a discussion about weather being god-like in power would be a non-starter.

[Frumple]

How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?

Capability of action? Pretty sure they're talking about the whole infinite possible worlds thing, without limit to stuff such as physical laws or logic or whatev'. That would indeed be more powerful than anything posited by mainstream religions, as those things would be explicitly capable of spawning an infinite number of beings infinitely more powerful than the noted posits (and things more powerful than them, and things more powerful than them, and...). They would also just have a jackton of beings equivalent to the mainstream divinities floating around... a genuinely infinite randomness would diminish deities by its very existence, because it would perforce render them no longer unique.

Though ant, you probably want to add "and everything that can't" to that. Theologians have long solved the problem of dealing with a unique deity in a multiverse of infinite possibilities-- it's actually something that some proofs/arguments for the existence of gods predicate themselves on. Mostly, they just propose a limit to what is possible. Generally, "nothing can be more powerful than god" is held as an axiomatic truth that cannot have a disproving example, ever, no matter how many possibilities are generated and tested. It's just held to not be in the achievable realm of possibilities, no matter how many goes you have at it. If you literally cannot, under any circumstances, make a circle (being more powerful than) a square (god), it doesn't matter how infinite your randomness is -- the circle will never be made a square.

... also weather isn't an infinitely random system. It's just beyond our currently capability to know in full. Probably argue a bit on whether it being a god-like power is a nonstarter, too. By and large, weather has literally shaped the world (primary influence on what formed the atmosphere, shaped geological formation, etc., etc.), is a key component to what made life, and has destructive and constructive powers on par or greater than those attributed to pretty much any god (hell, a lot of the times those powers of weather are attributed to gods). Weather, taken as a whole, is as god-like in power as pretty much any god. Made the world, made life, freakishly and capriciously destructive... it fits pretty much all the check boxes for an abrahamic deity.

[TD1]

How can randomness be powerful in any meaningful sense of the word?

In the sense that it will create everything that can possibly exist.

The problem is that it's very difficult to tell what you mean by 'an infinite randomness'. The weather is a chaotic system, which makes it infinitely random, but it's clear that a discussion about weather being god-like in power would be a non-starter.

Actually, for those who are in animistic religions the power of the weather and its infinite variety could, and most likely are, reasons to think it is god-like in power.

[Arx]

Weather, taken as a whole, is as god-like in power as pretty much any god. Made the world, made life, freakishly and capriciously destructive... it fits pretty much all the check boxes for an abrahamic deity.

Earth's weather did not create the sun, nor the rest of the stars. As such, it's pretty clearly not on a par with God in the Abrahamic tradition.

[Frumple]

Stellar weather definitely did, though :V

And earth's is an extension of that. Sooooo...

E: Critter also does that once, behind the curtains, and never seems to do it again. Everything else is pretty much in line with weather. I'd call it as on par as taking the cop out of noting stellar phenomena

[TD1]

Weather is a creator though, even if on a more localised area. It could be an Abrahamic deity with some creative restriction - e.g., it can only operate on earth. Assuming you're specifically talking about weather on earth, though of course there's weather on other planets.

Besides, Jesus as a representative of God didn't create suns or stars while he was about on earth, and presumably couldn't in a human state. Is he not on par with God in the Abrahamic tradition? He had limitations based on the flesh, which God didn't.

[Arx]

Stellar weather definitely did, though :V

From nothing? Hard vacuum? I don't think that's likely.
(The same applies to

Weather is a creator though

)

And earth's is an extension of that. Sooooo...

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.

I mean, you can argue that everything is related to everything else, but it's ridiculous to say that any given cloud is able to create the sun, from nothing. And yet we cannot predict where exactly that cloud will move.

presumably couldn't in a human state.

There's nothing to suggest that, as far as I am aware.

[Rolan7]

Kinda?  Since a nebula is a cloud of stellar matter, and stars do form in them.  And the behavior of nebulae is like weather.

Of course we could ask where the nebulae came from.  Or hopefully, what caused the Big Bang.  But then we'd also have to ask what caused God, and I don't think we can answer either question yet.

[TD1]

I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.

Regardless of whether or not my presumption is correct, Jesus was still limited. He was a human, born of a woman. He needed food, needed water. He was physical, corporeal. He couldn't physically do some things.

Is such limitation, or the local scale in which Jesus operated, somehow an indication of his lack of godhood? Weather doesn't create out of nothing, it uses objects already there. I don't recall Jesus ever making something out of nothing. Water to wine uses an original object and changes it. Fish and bread requires a source - someone brought fish and bread for lunch - and he increased from there.

[Reelya]

Ok I have a religiously themed statement for discussion:

An infinite randomness is more powerful than any god put forth by mainstream religions.

Greg Egan's novel Permutation City covers this, although I'm heavily simplifying the ideas here.

An infinite amount of random static that never repeats would contain every possible pattern that could exist. Consciousness can be interpreted as a pattern of energy that exists within the framework of the universe. The idea is that it's the energy relationships, not the matter, which creates the pattern of consciousness. Therefore the infinite randomness also contains all possible consciousness's, and thus all possible experiential universes. So yeah, infinite randomness contains every possible thing that could exist, including all gods. At the very least, it will contain an infinite number of divine consciousnesses who believe they are god, and the pattern each one inhabits would also be 100% in line with this belief.

[Sergarr]

infinite randomless is basically all math invented and then some

which is basically bonkers given that current math successfully describes the literally indescribable things.

[Orange Wizard]

I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.

Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

[Graknorke]

I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.

Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?

[BFEL]

I say presumably, because Jesus never actually did anything on a cosmic scale. It was always localised to him - parlour tricks in comparison.

Jesus himself gave the reason for this in Mark 4:12. He spoke in parables and didn't perform cosmic miracles, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

Could you explain what that one means when it's not in riddles?

Sounds to me like "don't wanna give them any ideas about anything really big"