Print

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

[Sowelu]

I preferred the Judaic hell, or at least my understanding of it.  If you're sufficiently flawed...they simply unmake you in the fires.  Poof.  Time to be reforged from scratch.

[Andir]

I preferred the Judaic hell, or at least my understanding of it.  If you're sufficiently flawed...they simply unmake you in the fires.  Poof.  Time to be reforged from scratch.

Cool, so no penalty.

[Argembarger]

Well first of all, everything we think we know about the afterlife is just speculation. There isn't really anything all that concrete in the religious texts to back up any modern view of things. If there is a "hell" that's anything like contemporary description, the pain it inflicts won't be corporeal, either.

Actually, you know what? This is likely just going to turn into a walkthrough of many of the classic arguments and counterarguments, which will eventually cycle back to my belief that it's a question with no answer, thus meaningless to discuss.

Siquo was absolutely right; what am I doing in here? My perspective is fairly useless to both sides of the debate.

Before I go and try my hardest not to come back, I'll just say that contemplating the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being, whether it exists or not, is impossible. Understanding the nature of a god would probably require experiencing what it's like to have those same properties. (this is actually a classic argument, and it has classic counters, which themselves have classic counters, whatever, I don't really care) So to be unable to come up with answers, then to ask another mortal with limited understanding about it, and then claiming their unsatisfactory answers as proof or reassurance of any kind, is something you probably want to do with some forethought.

Anyway, Flat Earth Society, Time Cube, Magnets, how do they work, etc.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Flat Earth Society, Time Cube

Good reading if you need an aneurysm.

[Leafsnail]

Ah, the eternal afterlife.  And apparently that pain was necessary to... uh... do something or other.  Oh, right, necessary for some people but not others.  On an apparently randomly selected basis.

And yeah, I do think the things God apparently does around the world are inexcusable.

That's Genesis for you: he gave us everything, and we turned out to be disobedient spoiled brats. And God was all like "Ok, then you can go find out for yourself, and if you fall, I'll pick you up." or whatever, and humans went all like WTF, if you don't catch us you're goddamned evil, you SOB, and God said "well first of all I don't have a ma so that's a bit cruel" and humans were all "oh ok that was a bit low but you're still evil" and God was like yeah, but if I gave you everything you wanted, you would all be me so what's the use and humans went all damn, he's right, but we still want it, and God said to them "Lo and behold and such, you're all me for eternity, but you get all also get memories from a miserable and great time on earth, and humans were like oh, memories, great, and God said yeah I just made em right HERE. And somewhere in the middle of those memories was this guy who slept too little and went on this awesome rant. Blink with your eyes and ten years have passed. You're just a memory.

I don't think it's possible to respond to this with anything other than lolwat, to be honest.

[Sowelu]

There's an old sci-fi story that somebody once summarized for me, that I really wish I could find.  No idea what the name was, or who the author was, though surely it was just a short story:

First contact with aliens.  Within a year, we've got the whole cultural-exchange thing going on of course, and a religious group starts introducing the aliens to the concept of the western God, explains to them all the stories, the meanings, etcetera.  The aliens listen quietly until the end, then ask "And this God is a real being?"  "Well, yes, of course."  "Then it is the duty of every intelligent race in the universe to oppose him at any cost!"

[Askot Bokbondeler]

why would an inteligent entity create a universe in the first place? why would said inteligent entity create a bunch of lesser entities ruled by a RNG, then punish or reward them based on the behaviors the RNG he programmed dictated? why the hell would said entity test us for? what possible motivation would a perfect, omnipotent entity have to create or do *anything* at all

it's bigger than us, our minds aren't supposed to understand... but we're supposed to believe in it unconditionally...
supposedly it makes more sense to believe that existence was brought into existence by a sentient, intelligent, magical entity... cuz it was bored? why can't the world simply make no sense and existence itself simply be just a coincidence? i tell you why, cuz you theists are all a bunch of anthropocentrists, sentience-centrists, biocentrists... There's no right or wrong outside of human mind, no good and bad or living and dead, the universe itself doesn't care if you exist or not, but in your eyes such thing must not be possible, it is obvious a bigger, better, human mind had to be behind creation, for a great purpose that you all serve, but are doomed to not understand, because not understanding it serves the great cause better.

I'll tell you what the great cause is, it's just that, mathematically speaking, if something exists and keeps existing, it tends to exist longer than things that cease to exist or never existed in the first place, making existence a self enforcing emergent value, the only *moral* value all the objects in the universe adhere to, cuz if they didn't they wouldn't exist. Existence just needs to exist, and it will exist, while a creator needs a motivation, AND, it needs to exist. Assuming that a single requirement is easier to meet than two requirements, i think we can all agree that it is more reasonable to believe that:
 -existence always existed, even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
than to believe that:
 -a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
which for me is as easy to believe as:
 -a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else, and it has the shape of a pink unicorn with butterfly wings and external ribs. beware of it's poisonous sting... it's impossible to disprove, and i like pink unicorns and butterflies, and poisonous stings are awesome.

[Sowelu]

i think we can all agree that it is more reasonable to believe that:
 -existence always existed, even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
than to believe that:
 -a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.

Nope, we can't all agree.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Assuming that a single requirement is easier to meet than two requirements, i think we can all agree...

*provided we're making the same assumptions

[Sowelu]

Ok, that's fair, but it's also kind of meaningless.  "Assuming that all A is easier than all B, we can agree that some A is easier than some B".  I'd just dispute your assumptions.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

go ahead and make your case

[Sowelu]

The universe has a starting point.  God is generally considered not to require a starting point.  It's special pleading, but EVERYTHING is special pleading when you're talking about the start of causality.

I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree.  So what made it pop into existence?

I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.

[Il Palazzo]

How about: "the universe existence seems to violate casuality, but it's only because we don't really know shit about it's laws."

I can't stand the religion's insistence on giving definite, populsitic answers to difficult questions.

[Bauglir]

I assert that discussing time-based concepts like "always", it is meaningless to discuss time outside the universe. I don't mean that I'm defining it that way because I think time is meaningless with no matter in the universe or anything, I mean that I assert that time itself did not exist prior to the universe, because time is an aspect of the space-time which comprises the universe and the universe obviously could not have existed prior to itself.

[Il Palazzo]

Good point. In this sense, it is logically correct to say that the universe existed "always", as well as "everywhere". It's like god, see? Eternal and all-encompasing.