Ive seen it that for islam i get to hang by my hair in eternal fire.
Coz I dont cover in public.
[content here removed … and re-summarized in (hopefully) less hurtful ways.]
Basically - there are many Muslims (and Christians) who do have a traditional view of God that might be caricatured in that way. Some may delight in that characterization (i.e. - it may not be a caricature of their view at all), while others may find ways to maintain both a belief in a merciful God and yet at the same time also an eternally retributive hell. There are scriptures that make such beliefs understandable, which I should acknowledge even if I am persuaded away from that view.
2 Likes
When that is understood as abnegating personal agency by ‘turning the wheel over to Jesus’, I’d say it was weird too.
But Christianity is not the only culture within which transcendence requires more than what personal agency alone can accomplish. Zen monks who strive for it by trying to figure it out discover all they accomplish is more turbulence in the water, not stillness. Rationality is enough when combined with careful measurement and peer review in empirical matters but not for transcendence, if that means anything at all. If one begins by insisting on an empirical level of evidence for all declarations regarding the phenomenology of human experience, a great deal will be missed. Can I back that up with irrefutable evidence within the reality of objects? No, subjects are not completely explainable on that level. But those who insist on it are certainly able to carve out a life on that level if they wish.
So is that characterization.
It’s the majority view.
None of that. But never mind. I see it from the outside.
Same. But I’ve been asking myself, what has made God/gods belief so compelling for so many for so long and has that helped shape the way we are. I’m trying to steelman the answer rather than straw man it. I’ll feel like I’ll have a good enough answer when I can make a case for belief which meets all my objections even if that case doesn’t sway me. I’ve decided there is something real and important that supports that belief - it just isn’t an extra powerful and wise class of humanoid(s). And it/they/He didn’t create anything from nothing.
2 Likes
Agreed. I still like the suggestion that QM may be hinting that the fundamental reality of the universe is information. The mind of God fits the bill.
Then we are not much the same.
I dont thimk ee are muvh the same.
Have you thought about why othrr things like superstitions, mythical worrier heros etc are so everywhere?
As for strawmen, the "something from nothing " bit is a good one to eliminate.
1 Like
Completely agree. Goes to show that non belief is no more monolithic than is Christianity or theism generally. But there are some atheists with whom I’m completely simpatico. You’re just not one of them. No reason you should be of course.
Well I guess we can’t disagree on everything then.
Didnt see it was you. Trying to text on trolly
Sympathies! I find texting aggravating under the best of circumstances. Sometimes I post here from my phone and end up doing massive repairs later.
Hardly. It seems that you haven’t read Marx or Lenin.
If you are a scientific nerd who knows nothing about the rest of life, that might seem to be an argument. Instead, it should be awake up call. Communism and Christianity are two very different things.
Communism is an ideology which taught that that the means of production would become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until almost everyone was a worker and no one was a capitalist. Then the people needed to guide the economy, capitalists, would be superfluous, and the workers could share in the benefits of the economy.
Of course, this has not happened, so the so-called Communists had to invent “state capitalism” to take its place which also failed.
Always charmed by name calling.
I live under communist rule. So tell me all about it.
Im sure its uncomfortable to see how much the two ideologies have in common.
Well it certainly wasn’t a creation of both God and the universe from a state of nothingness. It was a creation of the universe by God. But science makes the whole “something from nothing” a bit of a non-issue, because everything is energy and this dissolves the distinction between thing and action. Material things are a form of energy and actions are a form of energy. And one form of energy can be converted to another form of energy. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to think that the action (and knowledge) of God was sufficient for the creation of the universe.
Hmm. Only people i hear going " something from nothing " are theists, usually along with something like hajha see how dumb.
You may want to review noth whether any physicist actually says that, and, your understanding of " energy ".
How deprived you are. I have heard both theists and atheists talking about something from nothing. The point is that we have to clarify exactly what do they mean by it.
Alright. I am a physicist and I will consult myself. And I say yes you can have something from nothing – they are called vacuum fluctuations. And they happen because of the energy-time uncertainty principle.
As for understanding energy… what don’t you understand about it? It is a big topic (even within the restriction of my own understanding as a physicist) so a more specific question would be appropriate.
1 Like
Why do you say its all energy instead of different forms of the same thing?
1 Like
I’ve read some opine that in the beginning all there was was God. In order for more to come into being God had to recede to make way for them. I find this reading elicits the greatest sense ah hah, but of course I read this in an origins/mythology way, not in an empirical/historical way.