Religion

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.

Are You Religious?

Yes
24
29%
No
47
57%
No, but I'm spiritual
10
12%
Other (leave in comments, please)
2
2%
 
Total votes: 83

No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by lejend »

Goodspeed wrote:
lejend wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:It could have come out of nowhere from our perspective, but not really. Imagine being a character in a game, and a monster spawns ahead of you. As far as the information in the game universe goes, that monster appeared completely out of nowhere. After all, the game universe has no way of reaching beyond it into the software that generated the monster.
Could be like that with the big bang. It could be that whatever generated it is outside of our scope of reality. I'd say that's likely. But still, it has to end somewhere; something must've come out of nothing at some point. Unless it was "always" there.
What do you think "it" is? :hmm:
Existence


Then you do believe in the supernatural. The natural world is contingent, created, finite. If you believe an immaterial, necessary and uncreated force preceded and created the world... That's essentially God. You just don't believe this force interacts with the world it created. You're a Deist, Harry. Much like a lot of the pagan religions and their "deus otiosus", you believe in God but don't consciously realize it or acknowledge him.

As Chesterton once put it: (This should be taken with a grain of salt but it explains the concept nicely)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/eve ... iv.iv.html

In considering the elements of pagan humanity, we must begin by an attempt to describe the indescribable. Many get over the difficulty of describing it by the expedient of denying it, or at least ignoring it; but the whole point of it is that it was something that was never quite eliminated even when it was ignored. They are obsessed by their evolutionary monomania that every great thing grows from a seed, or something smaller than itself. They seem to forget that every seed comes from a tree, or something larger than itself. Now there is very good ground for guessing that religion did not originally come from some detail that was forgotten, because it was too small to be traced. Much more probably it was an idea that was abandoned because it was too large to be managed. There is very good reason to suppose that many people did begin with the simple but overwhelming idea of one God who governs all; and afterwards fell away into such things as demon-worship almost as a sort of secret dissipation. Even the test of savage beliefs, of which the folk-lore students are so fond, is admittedly often found to support such a view. Some of the very rudest savages, primitive in every sense in which anthropologists use the word, the Australian aborigines for instance, are found to have a pure monotheism with a high moral tone. A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists, who had told him all their polytheistic tales, and telling them in return of the existence of the one good God who is a spirit and judges men by spiritual standards. And there was a sudden buzz of excitement among these stolid barbarians, as at somebody who was letting out a secret, and they cried to each other, 'Atahocan! He is speaking of Atahocan!'

Probably it was a point of politeness and even decency among those polytheists not to speak of Atahocan. The name is not perhaps so much adapted as some of our own to direct and solemn religious exhortation but many other social forces are always covering up and confusing such simple ideas. Possibly the old god stood for an old morality found irksome in more expansive moments; possibly intercourse with demons was more fashionable among the best people, as in the modern fashion of Spiritualism. Anyhow, there are any number of similar examples. They all testify to the unmistakable psychology of a thing taken for granted, as distinct from a thing talked about. There is a striking example in a tale taken down word for word from a Red Indian in California which starts out with hearty legendary and literary relish: 'The sun is the father and ruler of the heavens. He is the big chief. The moon is his wife and the stars are their children'; and so on through a most ingenious and complicated story, in the middle of which is a sudden parenthesis saying that the sun and moon have to do something because 'It is ordered that way by the Great Spirit Who lives above the place of all.' That is exactly the attitude of most paganism towards God. He is something assumed and forgotten and remembered by accident; a habit possibly not peculiar to pagans.Sometimes the higher deity is remembered in the higher moral grades and is a sort of mystery. But always, it has been truly said, the savage is talkative about his mythology and taciturn about his religion. The Australian savages, indeed, exhibit a topsyturveydom such as the ancients might have thought truly worthy of the antipodes. The savage who thinks nothing of tossing off such a trifle as a tale of the sun and moon being the halves of a baby chopped in two, or dropping into small-talk about a colossal cosmic cow milked to make the rain, merely in order to be sociable, will then retire to secret caverns sealed against women and white men, temples of terrible initiation where to the thunder of the bull-roarer and the dripping of sacrificial blood, the priest whispers the final secrets, known only to the initiate: that honesty is the best policy, that a little kindness does nobody any harm, that all men are brothers and that there is but one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.


God, Dievas, Brahman, the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Great Spirit, etc are all just different names for this non-contingent "thing" that created the world. It is not to be confused with the various "gods", such as Thor, Athena, et al, which are of a very different category of beings; they are created, finite, contingent beings.

Admittedly, I suppose, it is possible to mistake the word “God” for the name of some discrete object that might or might not be found within the fold of nature, if one just happens to be more or less ignorant of the entire history of theistic belief. But, really, the distinction between “God”—meaning the one God who is the transcendent source of all things—and any particular “god”—meaning one or another of a plurality of divine beings who inhabit the cosmos—is one that, in Western tradition, goes back at least as far as Xenophanes.

And it is a distinction not merely in numbering, between monotheism and polytheism, as though the issue were simply how many “divine entities” one thinks there are; rather, it is a distinction between two qualitatively incommensurable kinds of reality, belonging to two wholly disparate conceptual orders. In the words of the great Swami Prabhavananda, only the one transcendent God is “the uncreated”: “Gods, though supernatural, belong . . . among the creatures. Like the Christian angels, they are much nearer to man than to God.”

This should not be a particularly difficult distinction to grasp, truth be told. To speak of “God” properly—in a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bahá’í, much of antique paganism, and so forth—is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

God so understood is neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being. He may be said to be “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of finite things, but also may be called “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity underlying all things.

To speak of “gods,” by contrast, is to speak only of a higher or more powerful or more splendid dimension of immanent reality. Any gods who might be out there do not transcend nature but belong to it. Their theogonies can be recounted—how they arose out of the primal night, or were born of other, more titanic progenitors, and so on—and in many cases their eventual demises foreseen. Each of them is a distinct being rather than “being itself,” and it is they who are dependent upon the universe for their existence rather than the reverse. Of such gods there may be an endless diversity, while of God there can be only one. Or, better, God is not merely one—not merely singular or unique—but is oneness as such, the sole act of being by which any finite thing exists and by which all things exist together.

Obviously, then, it is the transcendent God in whom it is ultimately meaningful not to believe. The possibility of gods or spirits or angels or demons, and so on, is all very interesting to contemplate, but remains a question not of metaphysics but only of the taxonomy of nature (terrestrial, celestial, and chthonic). To be an atheist in the best modern sense, and so to be a truly intellectually and emotionally fulfilled naturalist in philosophy, one must genuinely succeed in not believing in God, with all the logical consequences this entails.

And the question of God, thus understood, is one that is ineradicably present in the mystery of existence itself, or of consciousness, or of truth, goodness, and beauty. It is also the question that philosophical naturalism is supposed to have answered exhaustively in the negative, without any troubling explanatory lacunae, and that therefore any aspiring philosophical naturalist must understand in order to be an atheist in any intellectually significant way.

Well, as I say, this should not be all that difficult to grasp. And yet any speaker at one of those atheist revivalist meetings need only trot out either of two reliable witticisms—“I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”—to elicit warmly rippling palpitations of self-congratulatory laughter from the congregation. Admittedly, one ought not judge a movement by its jokes, but neither should one be overly patient with those who delight in their own ignorance of elementary conceptual categories. I suppose, though, that the charitable course is to state the obvious as clearly as possible.

So: Beliefs regarding fairies concern a certain kind of object that may or may not exist within the world, and such beliefs have much the same sort of intentional and rational shape as beliefs regarding the neighbors over the hill or whether there are such things as black swans. Beliefs regarding God concern the source and end of all reality, the unity and existence of every particular thing and of the totality of all things, the ground of the possibility of anything at all. Fairies and gods, if they exist, occupy something of the same conceptual space as organic cells, photons, and the force of gravity, and so the sciences might perhaps have something to say about them, if a proper medium for investigating them could be found.

God, by contrast, is the infinite actuality that makes it possible for photons and (possibly) fairies to exist, and so can be “investigated” only, on the one hand, by acts of logical deduction and conjecture or, on the other, by contemplative or spiritual experiences. Belief or disbelief in fairies or gods could never be validated by philosophical arguments made from first principles; the existence or nonexistence of Zeus is not a matter that can be intelligibly discussed in the categories of modal logic or metaphysics, any more than the existence of tree frogs could be; if he is there at all, one must go on an expedition to find him.

The question of God, by contrast, is one that must be pursued in terms of the absolute and the contingent, the necessary and the fortuitous, act and potency, possibility and impossibility, being and nonbeing, transcendence and immanence. Evidence for or against the existence of Thor or King Oberon would consist only in local facts, not universal truths of reason; it would be entirely empirical, episodic, psychological, personal, and hence elusive. Evidence for or against the reality of God, if it is there, pervades every moment of the experience of existence, every employment of reason, every act of consciousness, every encounter with the world around us.


I recommend reading all of it: https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... nd-fairies

@gamevideo113
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Re: Religion

Post by noissance »

I believe in god, but i dont believe religions should have a monopoly on the concept of god, so spiritual i guess?
Error 404: Signature not found
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user0 »

Typical lejend, its either meme or walls of text. When are you ever going to formulate something sensible by yourself. Use that brain your gawd gave you.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user »

Gendarme wrote:The atmosphere literally has holes, Breeze.

Image




Causes of Ozone Hole
The destruction of ozone layer is caused by one factor only which is Cholorofluorocarbons.
The main cause of the ozone hole was found to be gases that contained Cholorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Halons and Freons. Found commonly in aerosol cans and released by many electronic appliances, these were seen to decrease the level of ozone in the stratosphere. All of these gases contain chlorine, which is a major cause behind the thinning of the ozone layer.
The presence of chlorine within CFC’s break down the ozone gases in ozone layer which increases the chances of ozone depletion. Till date, CFC’s have accounted for about 80% of ozone depletion.
The destruction of the ozone layer is primarily caused when the amount of gases that contain chlorine begins to increase in the environment. As these gases rise upwards, they are exposed to UV light. This then causes a chemical reaction which creates chlorine atoms. These affect the atoms of ozone and cause ozone depletion.
Although the process has been taking place for several years, the ozone layer was repairing itself naturally. With the marked increase in the emission of these gases, the ozone hole above Antarctica is becoming a permanent part of the layer. Even though the damage is reversible, it will require several decades and a major reduction in the emissions.
CFC’s are not washed back to the earth and are not even destroyed in reaction with other chemicals which means that they can remain the atmosphere for large period of time may be from 20 to 120 years or more. As a result, they are transported back to stratosphere, where they are eventually broken down by UV rays from the sun, releasing free chlorine.
As of now, the ozone hole remains an area of interest for many. Even though the hole present above the Antarctic is beginning to show signs of a decline, there are concerns regarding the long term effects. In particular, many scientists are worried that the development of the same conditions in other parts of the world may cause large scale ozone thinning in the future, if not ozone depletion all together.



I think many people know the reason of ozone hole, but if you still insist with that, I can't go further for you ;)
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: Religion

Post by gamevideo113 »

After reading what lejend wrote and quoted i feel like one of the most important questions that should be answered is whether "God" has consciousness and self-awareness or not.

I have never read theological essays or stuff like that, but i have read some phylosophical ones and the quote that lejend brought does have some traits in common with philosophy, despite mainly concerning God. God here is meant to be a metaphisical being if i am not mistakenly interpreting the quote, so another question that comes to my mind is, where does the line between metaphysical phylosophy and theology lie? The two disciplines seem to have a lot of things in common, but i don't know, maybe i'm just confused.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Goodspeed »

lejend wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
lejend wrote:What do you think "it" is? :hmm:
Existence
Then you do believe in the supernatural. The natural world is contingent, created, finite. If you believe an immaterial, necessary and uncreated force preceded and created the world... That's essentially God. You just don't believe this force interacts with the world it created. You're a Deist, Harry. Much like a lot of the pagan religions and their "deus otiosus", you believe in God but don't consciously realize it or acknowledge him.
As a determinist I believe the start of our universe was caused by something. It's as simple as that. I don't think that means I believe in god.

No I don't believe the event that started our universe is immaterial. How can something immaterial cause a material event? I don't believe it's uncreated. It, too, was caused by something. And no, I don't think it's supernatural. In fact, earlier I said I believed the supernatural doesn't exist by definition (if it exists, it must be natural). I believe that the start of our universe was a natural and deterministic event, and whatever caused it is equally natural and deterministic. I know I run into an issue when it comes to origins of existence, but I don't think that's relevant here. Every conceivable hypothesis runs into an issue at origins.

And indeed I don't think this force interacts with our universe. Perhaps it does, but it seems unlikely. This is unlike every religion which places a lot of importance on god's interaction with us. Not even our universe, which almost certainly contains much more intelligent life, but us specifically. They think we can even communicate with him, are judged by him. The fact that god is even referred to as a "him" shows how very different the common definition of "god" is to my hypothesis.
If you want to think I believe in god, be my guest, but I don't think this quite fits the definition.

The rest of your post was TL;DR. I'm interested in reading your thoughts, not other people's.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: Religion

Post by edeholland »

DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:There is literally no reason to believe in a invisible and absent God anyway.

Could you clarify?
Italy DaRkNiTe1698
Lancer
Posts: 723
Joined: Aug 8, 2016
ESO: Marco1698

Re: Religion

Post by DaRkNiTe1698 »

edeholland wrote:
DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:There is literally no reason to believe in a invisible and absent God anyway.

Could you clarify?
God never interferes to stop wars or do something useful for the humanity, we just imagine he's on the sky and constantly watch us living and dying. After that, theoretically he judges us but with what right ? Why should I pray a God who cares nothing about me when I am living my earthly life ? I am rational, if I can't see him or get some concrete proofs about his existence and identity, there is literally no reasons to me , to believe that he exists. People are weak, they need a God/Gods to rely on, to escape from bad situations. I am not atheist, but agnostic, if someone clearly shows me that God exist then I probably would start believing him, else, not. Notice that I don't think religion is useless, but I just hate the business behind it.
User avatar
Turkey Mameluke
Dragoon
Posts: 471
Joined: Dec 29, 2016
ESO: Mameluké
Location: Gym

Re: Religion

Post by Mameluke »

DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:
edeholland wrote:
DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:There is literally no reason to believe in a invisible and absent God anyway.

Could you clarify?
God never interferes to stop wars or do something useful for the humanity, we just imagine he's on the sky and constantly watch us living and dying. After that, theoretically he judges us but with what right ? Why should I pray a God who cares nothing about me when I am living my earthly life ? I am rational, if I can't see him or get some concrete proofs about his existence and identity, there is literally no reasons to me , to believe that he exists. People are weak, they need a God/Gods to rely on, to escape from bad situations. I am not atheist, but agnostic, if someone clearly shows me that God exist then I probably would start believing him, else, not. Notice that I don't think religion is useless, but I just hate the business behind it.

You clearly dont understand life.
If you see any mistakes in my grammar/vocabulary or whatever, please correct me. I really appreciate it :!: :flowers:
Italy DaRkNiTe1698
Lancer
Posts: 723
Joined: Aug 8, 2016
ESO: Marco1698

Re: Religion

Post by DaRkNiTe1698 »

Of course I don't, do you? @Mameluke
User avatar
Turkey Mameluke
Dragoon
Posts: 471
Joined: Dec 29, 2016
ESO: Mameluké
Location: Gym

Re: Religion

Post by Mameluke »

DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:Of course I don't, do you? @Mameluke

Yes I do.
If you see any mistakes in my grammar/vocabulary or whatever, please correct me. I really appreciate it :!: :flowers:
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user0 »

DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:
edeholland wrote:
DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:There is literally no reason to believe in a invisible and absent God anyway.

Could you clarify?
God never interferes to stop wars or do something useful for the humanity, we just imagine he's on the sky and constantly watch us living and dying. After that, theoretically he judges us but with what right ? Why should I pray a God who cares nothing about me when I am living my earthly life ? I am rational, if I can't see him or get some concrete proofs about his existence and identity, there is literally no reasons to me , to believe that he exists. People are weak, they need a God/Gods to rely on, to escape from bad situations. I am not atheist, but agnostic, if someone clearly shows me that God exist then I probably would start believing him, else, not. Notice that I don't think religion is useless, but I just hate the business behind it.


god clearly did something to stop wars! he gave us the americans. God bless Murica!
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Dolan »

It's incredible the lengths you are going to ignore that there actually is a physical theory on the beginnings of this universe. It was made originally by Edward Tryon, an USA physicist, and further developed by other physicists after him.

The popularised form we see today on youtube is the one by Lawrence Krauss, but bear in mind it's "popularised" physics, like Feynman or Hawking.

Here's an article which goes into more detail about this idea that the beginning of our universe was caused by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-rey ... 71504.html

Remember that the universe's total energy is 0, so stop thinking in terms of "something being caused by something" because our brains can't process the idea of negative energy. We can only infer its effects from the small % of matter we have in the universe.
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: LĂĽbeck

Re: Religion

Post by Lukas_L99 »

Mameluke wrote:
DaRkNiTe1698 wrote:God never interferes to stop wars or do something useful for the humanity, we just imagine he's on the sky and constantly watch us living and dying. After that, theoretically he judges us but with what right ? Why should I pray a God who cares nothing about me when I am living my earthly life ? I am rational, if I can't see him or get some concrete proofs about his existence and identity, there is literally no reasons to me , to believe that he exists. People are weak, they need a God/Gods to rely on, to escape from bad situations. I am not atheist, but agnostic, if someone clearly shows me that God exist then I probably would start believing him, else, not. Notice that I don't think religion is useless, but I just hate the business behind it.

You clearly dont understand life.


Can you elaborate? Why do you think so?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dolan wrote:It's incredible the lengths you are going to ignore that there actually is a physical theory on the beginnings of this universe. It was made originally by Edward Tryon, an USA physicist, and further developed by other physicists after him.

The popularised form we see today on youtube is the one by Lawrence Krauss, but bear in mind it's "popularised" physics, like Feynman or Hawking.

Here's an article which goes into more detail about this idea that the beginning of our universe was caused by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-rey ... 71504.html

Remember that the universe's total energy is 0, so stop thinking in terms of "something being caused by something" because our brains can't process the idea of negative energy. We can only infer its effects from the small % of matter we have in the universe.


well, youre ignoring that he doesnt actually solve the problem which is being discussed here, he merely moves it.

ryon also mentions that this vacuum is actually “the vacuum of some larger space which our universe was imbedded.” He seems to be saying our universe is really part of a bigger universe, or maybe a multilayered universe. He does not go into any more details of what this thing is, leaving it vague to interpretation.


so the question becomes, where did this bigger universe come from, and where did the particles come from that pop in and out of existence etc.

i mean most likely we're just too limited to comprehend it, and the language and concepts we use to solve the problems, often if not always blinds us to other aspects of reality.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:It's incredible the lengths you are going to ignore that there actually is a physical theory on the beginnings of this universe. It was made originally by Edward Tryon, an USA physicist, and further developed by other physicists after him.

The popularised form we see today on youtube is the one by Lawrence Krauss, but bear in mind it's "popularised" physics, like Feynman or Hawking.

Here's an article which goes into more detail about this idea that the beginning of our universe was caused by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-rey ... 71504.html

Remember that the universe's total energy is 0, so stop thinking in terms of "something being caused by something" because our brains can't process the idea of negative energy. We can only infer its effects from the small % of matter we have in the universe.
Stop thinking in terms of cause and effect? I'd rather not. It doesn't matter how much energy there is in the universe, its existence still needs a cause.
I don't like the quantum fluctuation theory because it doesn't actually say anything about the origin of our universe. It only explains how matter may have come into existence from a vacuum. May have. But a vacuum isn't nothing. Where did the vacuum come from? Why is that there? As @deleted_user mentioned there are no answers here. Reminds me of religious people and the way they consider "God did it" an answer to the question of origins when it's really only moving the discussion.

So maybe that's the answer to the question in this click baity title, which the article doesn't even attempt to answer itself: Why Isn’t Edward P. Tryon A World-famous Physicist? Because his theory doesn't answer anything and is therefore arguably not any more likely than the next.
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: Religion

Post by Snuden »

I believe in capitalism (and dual rax musk rush)
[Sith] - Baphomet
User avatar
Sweden Gendarme
Gendarme
Donator 03
Posts: 5132
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
ESO: Gendarme

Re: Religion

Post by Gendarme »

@Goodspeed If you're thinking in terms of cause and effect, you will either at some point reach something that is its own cause (or doesn't have a cause), or you'll keep on looking for causes ad infinitum. My thought process stops here as I cannot grasp any of these options, but why are you so determined that everything needs a cause?

Yesterday John had 5 watermelons. I took 3 of them, so he only had 2 remaining. Will this be the case if we try again today? Would this be the case if watermelons were apples instead? The answer is yes, but why is that so? Nobody asks why because this is so "obvious" that we think the universe doesn't require a cause to behave this way.

Are you expecting to at one point reach something as "obvious" as this so you no longer have to continue asking for causes?
Pay more attention to detail.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Goodspeed »

Gendarme wrote:@Goodspeed If you're thinking in terms of cause and effect, you will either at some point reach something that is its own cause (or doesn't have a cause), or you'll keep on looking for causes ad infinitum.
You will indeed. I don't know why there is existence, and why it is this way and not another way. Nobody knows, and I don't think we can know either. Existence itself is a logical fallacy. One way you could attempt to explain it is by saying existence is timeless and infinite. Everything exists and has always existed. Our reality is simply one of the ways it could end up.
My thought process stops here as I cannot grasp any of these options, but why are you so determined that everything needs a cause?
It's funny how many times I've been over that on this forum. Discussions always seem to come back to this. In short, simply because I consider true randomness impossible. It doesn't compute. I think the language of logic has the intrinsic ability to describe every event. If an event is indescribable, it can't exist.
Imagine closed, stable system A. Within that system something random happens, which changes the system into B. Since the event is random, there was no cause. This means that nothing was added to a closed and stable system, and yet it changed.
A + 0 = B
A = B?
It makes no logical sense.
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: Religion

Post by Snuden »

It's all a waste of time, I suggest you spend time on stuff that actually matters.
[Sith] - Baphomet
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user0 »

Such as idle btc on polythiefs
User avatar
Spain Snuden
Jaeger
Posts: 4276
Joined: Dec 28, 2016
ESO: Snuden
Location: Costa del Baphomet

Re: Religion

Post by Snuden »

That could be a thing that matters, yes.
It could also just be to make it a goal to achieve as much happiness as possible.

And IME happiness is best achieved when you don't constantly look for reasons for a particular event or happening.

I usually write it off as the "butterfly effect"
[Sith] - Baphomet
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Dolan »

@Goodspeed
What you're describing is a change of state, not a change of substance. So nothing was really added. It all follows from typical behaviour of particles, which is random under certain conditions.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Religion

Post by Goodspeed »

I know nothing was added, hence the "+ 0". I didn't say it was a change of substance. Nothing was added but the stable system changed anyway. My point is that it couldn't have.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Religion

Post by deleted_user0 »

maybe our logic isn't elaborate or precise enough to describe reality.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV