Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What's your opinion on free will?

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


Pages: 1 ... 334 335 [336] 337 338 ... 525

Author Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion  (Read 684879 times)

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5025 on: February 05, 2016, 03:40:33 pm »

God from the machine. Fitting. :P
Hmm. What if all we need is a machine (a "crane") to lower a god down to the stage?
Lowering a god to our level, eh?
The webcomic True Magic starts with a premise like that.  The legends say a god called the Lightbringer arrived, and was really nice, and shared the gift of fire and light, and was about to go summon the rest of the pantheon.  But his priests basically tricked and cannibalized him, and that's where the nobility come from and why they have magic powers.

Of course, that's what the resentful peasants claim happened :P

Even if I shook his hand my self I'd still try to disprove her. If you can prove something is true than you simply lack the precision to disprove it.
I'd believe in the entity, maybe not that they were Jehovah or literally all-powerful.
But given sufficient show of power, I'd say whatever the hell they wanted!
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5026 on: February 05, 2016, 03:45:51 pm »

Even if I shook his hand my self I'd still try to disprove her. If you can prove something is true than you simply lack the precision to disprove it.
I'd believe in the entity, maybe not that they were Jehovah or literally all-powerful.
But given sufficient show of power, I'd say whatever the hell they wanted!
Hmph. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :D
Logged
I would starve tomorrow if I could eat the world today.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5027 on: February 05, 2016, 08:34:30 pm »

my only beef with discussions of singularity is when people conflate it with transhumanism in general, or AI researchers who are working on general AI

i'm not the latter but i am the former

and i don't truck with no "just be patient and Machine Jesus will save us all" tripe, gotta work for your paradise son
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5028 on: February 05, 2016, 09:15:49 pm »

Our current laws of physics are both incomplete and almost certainly wrong somewhere, maybe everywhere lol
Heck, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed must be wrong or else the big bang should just not have happened and nothing should exist

2spook8me
Unless the natural state of the universe is stuff existing. Still, I read somewhere that after the heat-death of the universe, that after around 10^10^45 years, then natural fluctuations in space (like the constantly popping in and out of existence stuff) might happen big enough and just off-of-balanced-enough to make another one. It made me feel better.

Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.

Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
That says more about how you define omnibenevolent than it does about a being which is purported to be such. I also happen to disagree with you about how omnipotence could function.
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: The basic principle on how one should behave has stayed the same. What's changing is the covenant God is operating within. In the Old Testament, we have the Covenant of Works, which is God saying "do what I say or I'll smite you, also racial purity and blood sacrifice". Often expressed by attempted genocide of neighbouring people, mountains of foreskins, and similarly brutal things.
The (slightly) newer Covenant of Faith (i.e. what Christ established) changes the basis of how God works from a very Earth-centric view to a Heaven-centric view. God no longer requires the brutal OT stuff from his followers. Basically, it's a different religion.
Don't ask me why it's that way, though. I might actually try to answer >.>
That's pretty interesting, actually. I hope that if God is real he'll finish the Trifecta and establish the final Covenant, the Covenant of Knowledge. And then we learn Plato was right all along, with dark matter being the platonic ideal of matter. :D

I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil".  Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone.  Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way.  Punishment for its own sake is wrong.

But that's just, like, my opinion.  In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.

Oh, and as something actually useful? Putnam, I've found myself drawn to be religious a couple of times, and I'm fairly sure that if I'd been raised differently, I would have made a very good apologetic and/or preacher. The simple reason is that it's easy. Religion provides an explanation for the unknowable. It provides comfort when things are bad ('even though you're being shit on right now, in heaven you'll have so much nice stuff and all you have to do is not be a dick to people and go to church once a week!'), it provides convenient explanations so long as you don't pry too hard (sorta like science, actually, just need more poking to find the flaws in science). It provides community, a band of people united by their knowledge of the One True God/Gods/All Gods/Flying Spaghetti Buddha. It provides a narrative, which our conscious brains are practically built from, for the universe. One in which you have a place, and matter. It prevents existential crises (usually).

Science is hard. Avoiding bias is difficult, and being certain you have impossible(in my experience). Researchers using exactly the same procedure for experiments, and reviewing each other's data, who are in the same field and level of experience, but have different viewpoints on whether the subject is true or not, can/will find opposite results, despite utmost rigor. It allows an easy way to say 'this is moral, that is immoral'. It provides answers. Those answers do not always correspond to what we can find exists in reality when we look hard enough. They do not always actually contain meaningful information. But they sate that part of your monkey brain that fears the dark, that fears the unknown, that dreads that which it cannot find out. The part that gets scared when it thinks about the utter nothingness at the end of time. The conscious mind is, from what I know, a product of evolution looking for better ways to lie. In signalling games, after all, the ability to give and detect false signals is paramount. But it's easier to lie if you believe the lie. That's why we're so good at finding patterns, rationalizing, finding justifications, especially after the fact. The brain wants a way to present itself as the good guy. If it's organism was the bad guy, it might get kicked out of the tribe. And that means getting mauled by lions, or at least not getting to have kids. My explanation is itself a rationalization which could very well be 'proven wrong' in fifteen years time (and proven right again, and wrong again, in another thirty). Monkeys are better at simple games than we are, like Prisoner's Dilemma. They are more rational than we are. If everyone was perfectly rational, we wouldn't be people, we'd be little more than computers. And say what you like, at least for the moment there's a hefty and important difference between people and utility-maximizing algorithms.

Religion provides, in a word, hope.

Oh and everything you and I do is mostly community cults, social signalling, and half-decent, half-bad self-justifications.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5029 on: February 05, 2016, 09:45:39 pm »

I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil".  Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone.  Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way.  Punishment for its own sake is wrong.

But that's just, like, my opinion.  In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.
I'm in no shape to properly appreciate most of your post, which looks pretty good from a skim, but I think I can reply to this...

I agree that game theory shows that there needs to be a deterrent.  But I'd argue that the length of punishment is of vanishingly small value.  IE, that torturing someone for a year, is almost the same as torturing them for 1000, or infinite, years...  When it comes to deterrent.  It's not a linear relation.

I mean, I never said that defectors shouldn't be punished to deter evil.  My point, which maybe I didn't make clearly, was that they should ONLY be punished in order to deter evil.

Abrahamic religions emphasize that sins require punishment or justice in blood (often literally).  I think it's more important that people be dissuaded from further evil.  And there are usually (not always, but usually) better ways to dissuade than demanding blood.

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5030 on: February 05, 2016, 11:22:43 pm »

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5031 on: February 05, 2016, 11:42:04 pm »

Huh, when you bring that up I realize that I'm not sure where I got the idea that he's said to be omnibenevolent at all.
It's an incredibly common premise to christian theology and rhetoric (if not quite so much scripture). Not entirely universal, but close enough to it that denominations that claim the christian god is not all good (i.e. omnibenevolent) are quite rare. Especially if they're actually consistent about it in sermon and proselytizing. Silly vast amounts of theological work has gone into treating the question of God's omnibenevolence and trying to reconcile that with... well, more or less everything. You almost certainly just kinda' absorbed the idea from general cultural osmosis, heh.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5032 on: February 06, 2016, 12:21:21 am »

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
It's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5033 on: February 06, 2016, 01:26:13 am »

I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil".  Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone.  Eternal punishment is the worst example of course, but also it's not right to cut off someone's hand for stealing, if they can be taught not to steal some other way.  Punishment for its own sake is wrong.

But that's just, like, my opinion.  In Christian morality, sin does require punishment independent of actually fixing anything.
Eternal punishment serves as determent. Game theory allows, even requires, punishing defectors. If you don't, they have no reason not to defect. Rehabilitation is useful for situations where someone was forced into it or could get past it with some help. For people who consciously decide to do evil, punishment serves as a hard con for them, to try and outweigh the pros of committing said selfish/evil/defecting act.
I'm in no shape to properly appreciate most of your post, which looks pretty good from a skim, but I think I can reply to this...

I agree that game theory shows that there needs to be a deterrent.  But I'd argue that the length of punishment is of vanishingly small value.  IE, that torturing someone for a year, is almost the same as torturing them for 1000, or infinite, years...  When it comes to deterrent.  It's not a linear relation.

I mean, I never said that defectors shouldn't be punished to deter evil.  My point, which maybe I didn't make clearly, was that they should ONLY be punished in order to deter evil.

Abrahamic religions emphasize that sins require punishment or justice in blood (often literally).  I think it's more important that people be dissuaded from further evil.  And there are usually (not always, but usually) better ways to dissuade than demanding blood.

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
If you believe in the concept of justice, it makes sense. I mean, it seems sad that they must be punished, but if that's what justice requires, and God is just...it's not even necessarily that it requires you to take action about sin. It's just that the natural consequence of sin is suffering and distance from god. Period. The natural consequence of combustion is heat, water, and carbon dioxide. It's the way the world works, in that world view.

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
It's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.
If God exists, and eternal life is a thing, it becomes utterly objective. Especially if you consider God to be timeless, in which case Christ could easily have suffered God's Wrath a few billion trillion times over.

I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5034 on: February 06, 2016, 01:37:35 am »

Even if that blood comes from a really weird semi-metaphorical sacrifice of a supposedly perfect being who is only even dead for a day or two, and arguably suffers less than most humans.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that most churches agree Christ was punished for every sin made by the elect - that is, he suffered God's wrath a few million times over
It's the same thing as the hell argument, though, since it's all relative. In the face of eternity, anything else is small beans, whether you're burning in hell for eternity or ruling in heaven for eternity.
A few million eternities is less than an eternity? o.O

That said, eternal punishment isn't particularly backed by Scripture (it also raises weird problems like the above). Hell is eternal but whether the souls in question actually stay there or just get annihilated is debatable.

I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"
That argument only holds up if you think God is less of a dick in the NT than in the OT.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 01:40:34 am by Orange Wizard »
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5035 on: February 06, 2016, 01:55:35 am »

my only beef with discussions of singularity is when people conflate it with transhumanism in general, or AI researchers who are working on general AI

i'm not the latter but i am the former

and i don't truck with no "just be patient and Machine Jesus will save us all" tripe, gotta work for your paradise son
Frankly, I don't trust others in regards to this sort of technology to not fuck it up and get us all killed. I have... well, no hope in the other researchers, though this could be (and probably is) just my ego talking.

Musk and Yudkowsky's work both have the exact same stated goal. I haven't seen Musk talk much, but I read Yudkowsky's book, so I've got an idea of his ego, and yeah, I can see it being that. I'm reminded of that time he said the entire readership of his fanfiction, which seems to be the most popular fanfiction on fanfiction.net, might be smarter than him. Might. Seriously, here's the exact post I'm referring to. When it comes to ego, you're in good company.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5036 on: February 06, 2016, 01:55:50 am »

Gonna have to call you out on that one. That's a straw man argument. He was talking about whether god qualifies as omnibenevolent and you subtly changed it to whether god qualifies as benevolent at all while still trying to construe it as the same question.
The hell you on about? He was quoting Deuteronomy where God casts judgement and the sentence is death. I don't do subtlety, I say what I mean as bluntly as possible.

Personally I don't think a being could harm, or call for the harm, of any being for any reason (except if it was the only possible way to prevent an even greater evil; an exception which is categorically inapplicable to beings that are also omnipotent) and still qualify as omnibenevolent.
I can think of nothing more disgusting than the guilty being allowed to escape justice, you cannot be omnibenevolent and just stand by whilst you let the strongest prey on the weakest unpunished. What God that does is an arbitrary fool of good feels, not worth of worship.

I read it as "Divine judges do good by punishing evil".  Which I think is a bad moral code - In my personal opinion, punishment is only good as far as it rehabilitates someone.
This is very interesting. Take Denmark for example, when they brought back ISIS fighters who had killed many innocents and deigned not to punish them, but to try rehabilitate them. And you always get funny stories of fighters caught by police back in Europe talking about how they only went to Syria to provide ideological support, and if you believe them then no one is fighting in Syria, all of them are doing the dishes! Denmark is running off of the belief that there are no people who take joy in causing suffering, take no profit in greediness, take no arousal in gaining power to seize all one desires by force, that deceit is no attractive object to the disloyal. That we are all good people at heart, and some of us are led astray, and can be led back with ease. That is not our choice to make. I find this as a bad moral code. I've been astounded through my life when amongst the people I've known there've been thieves who had the money for the moral trinkets they stole.
When there are no punishments for immorality, that is the definition of injustice, that is the state of unfairness where the guilty get help whilst the innocent are denied payment. Rehabilitation is only fit for the sincerely remorseful.

Tying this into theology, look at the greatest religions of our time. In Islam this is known as tawba, giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future. This is rooted in Christianity's repentance which entails giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future. The Catholics take it one step further by formalizing the act of seeking forgiveness, seeking penance and confessing that one has done wrong. This is again rooted in Judaism's teshuva, pertaining to giving up past sinful behaviours sincerely without pretense and abstaining from ever repeating these actions in future.

In all three atonement can only ever be achieved by accepting that one has done wrong, by accepting penance for what has been done, by refraining from doing what has been done again, and from being sincerely remorseful (with additional stipulations to prove it varying by faith and creed). Also tying this into theology and the morality of judgement, the omnibenevolence of Allah, God and Yhwh comes from his willingness to be merciful and always forgive the truly remorseful. And I don't know where people got the notion that this was not founded in scripture, because in all three religions this is founded in the religious canon. And for the unrepentant who are quite happy to indulge themselves in the immorality which wreaks woe upon others as readily as on themselves, there is very much the same punishment given to the repentant - that is fair, but there is no forgiveness, for there is none sought.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5037 on: February 06, 2016, 02:05:07 am »

I still just view it as divine self-flagellation to feel better about having been a dick in the Old Testament. "I'M SORRY GUYS! SEE HOW SORRY I AM? PLEASE WORSHIP ME! I DON'T LIKE PUTTING PEOPLE IN HELL. ALSO I HAVE SELF-CONFIDENCE ISSUES AND THE OTHER DIVINE ENTITIES ARE MAKING FUN OF MY SCRIPTURE SIZE"
That argument only holds up if you think God is less of a dick in the NT than in the OT.
I kinda do. Less blood sacrifice and genocide, mostly.

I mean, not a lot less, but less. (:P)
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5038 on: February 06, 2016, 02:15:20 am »

No, I don't really accept that. We're way too precise on some things to be entirely wrong. Wrong somewhere I can believe, yeah, but it's probably not in the range of general relativity or quantum mechanics, especially between the orders of microns and meters (I.E where neurons and brains live), both of those things are fairly well-constrained and they both predict very well what's going to happen given some event or another (at least probabilisticly, in the case of QM).
Maybe some time soon, but I'm paraphrasing a deaf scientist who worked at CERN I had the pleasure of speaking to, in that every now and then discoveries are made that completely turn the current scientific models on their heads - the scientific process is an iterative process from which old models are discarded in favour of increasingly accurate models until such time as we finally arrive at the most, total, accurate. Being entirely wrong is entirely within the realm of reality, until such time as our understanding encompasses the entirety of reality. It's not a grand bold statement about the qualities of the Universe, it's just the nature of how long humankind has been looking into the nature of things. On the grand scale, we haven't had that much time, just a blink.

Also, the assumption that energy cannot be made or destroyed is already known to be false globally, we know that for a fact, the universe is expanding and space has a minimum amount of energy per volume, which means that energy is constantly created at long distances.
Unless you know something that will revolutionize science right now and smash the law of conservation of energy, that assumption is not known to be false globally, and the current scientific model in regards to the expansion of Universe attributes the expansion of the Universe to dark energy not energy created ex nihilo. I agree conservation of energy must be wrong, but it is by scientific standards not wrong, it is not globally known it is wrong, we have not yet observed a single case where it has been wrong.

Not to mention the whole "could've already been there at the moment of the Big Bang" thing.
Then the question just moves to how that began, where the energy from that was created. I think we'll have to walk in baby steps in our understanding, because we're trying to figure out the nature of existence before... Existence. It will take us some time to figure it out.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Everyone's a Coptic in Their Own Way
« Reply #5039 on: February 06, 2016, 03:04:17 am »

"Globally" meaning "on a universal as opposed to local scale".
Pages: 1 ... 334 335 [336] 337 338 ... 525