Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11

Author Topic: Ex-Christian Thread  (Read 10947 times)

SHAD0Wdump

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hiding in SPAAACE!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #120 on: January 20, 2020, 03:16:31 am »

Well, if what I remember is correct, it meant simply sex out of wedlock. That's not to say the meaning has changed according to the dictionary we have now, or even that what I remember may have been local interpretation. But I think meaning regardless has been lost here at some point.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #121 on: January 20, 2020, 03:24:00 am »

Amusingly, a lot of that kind of "strange" motivation from God could be explained if Many Worlds is true, and "God" is a constant, omnipresent observer.

Then, it becomes simultaneously

"I warned them; they acted right and pulled through"
"I warned them; they ignored it, and suffered the consequences."


In such a circumstance, "god" would be in a position to see what the absolute most ideal outcome would be, from among the literally infinite number of causal relationships in an aged universe like ours. This being would also be aware that every choice has a weight value attached.

The act of giving the warning may itself have had effects to alter the outcome distribution. EG, even though in some of the universes where the warning was given, the humans ignored it completely, more of them in total took the proper path, and more universes were guided toward the ideal outcome as a result of the warning.


Much of the kinds of argument against an omniscient and omnipotent god stem from the "problem of evil", as was previously cited. If a god is all knowing, then why does he allow "bad things" to happen?


I don't ascribe that that school of thought.  I view a god, should it exist, as a more "it might know everything, and be all powerful, but is not the kind of directed actor that our kind of intelligence is" angle instead.   If "god" is a timeless being, outside of time, space, and the causal universe as we understand it, then that kind of "If this, then that" decision matrix is absurd to attempt to apply.  "god" would be better described as a non-living, non-sentient, but all encompasing phenomenon.  A kind of static, never changing, but all encompassing "whole", in which all possibilities exist. 

Thought experiment:

Consider-- 1) Many worlds is true. 2) All possible "yous" are flattened into a single superimposed "super-you."  The super-you is all at once, able to (and to have done) everything you are capable of doing, and also to have abstained from doing, and has perfect knowledge of all consequences of all those outcomes.  It exists as a static superposition of all the states you have ever been in. It does not change. It has no real mind of its own, and does not choose anything.  It is a consequence of the individual instances following out their natural progressions; It is the superposition of all possibilities.

A 'god' could exist as such a phenomenon. It would be all powerful, and all knowing.  It would also not prevent evil.  It may also have a net preference for good. (the majority of its constituent parts favor 'good').

The "problem with evil" in such a circumstance is bullshit-- It's a human level view that the super-being should act in a specific way. It presumes to dictate how such a being should be, rather than simply it being.  The evil is produced by the choices of the human-level actors, not this super-being. 


I mention this kind of thought experiment, because of the whimsical language used to describe the abrahamic god-- "Knows all things", "Can do all things", "Hates sin", "Can be found in all things", "The origin/foundation of all things."


It has parallels to the navel-gazing false-god of gnosticism (the demi-urge), which creates a bubble of faulted creation about itself as a result of its attempt at self-understanding.  It cogitates all possibilities (and in so doing, all possibilities are manifest), but these tracks are held apart through mental isolation. (Thus producing the effect of non-interacting parallel universes, each with their own causality chain of events, all stemming from a single origin.) In such a circumstance, the argument against evil is that the 'god' should not be imagining the consequences of evil, because "supposed to be good".   It's reckless anthropization of an alien and probably unintelligible form of intelligence. (if intelligence is even the right word.)


I am an agnostic, who is a hard agnostic.

I view that our current understanding of our universe holds that an all powerful being cannot exist inside it, for the following reasons:

1) Infinite potential is equal to infinite potential energy.
2) Potential energy has an actual mass in our universe.
3) A being with infinite potential energy would have infinite mass.
4) Our universe has a finite value allowed for mass within a specific volume (Shwartzchild radius)
5) Ergo, an all powerful god would either have to *BE* then universe, OR-- must exist OUTSIDE the universe, or they would destroy it through infinite collapse of spacetime, just by existing inside it.

In the case of the god BEING the universe, the action of that agency would literally *BE* what we consider random chance, or natural phenomena.  Attempting to define it as supernatural is a nonsequitor.

In the case of the god being OUTSIDE the universe, the reasoning and thought processes of that agency become too alien to contemplate.


In terms of worthiness of worship, the first case, where the god *IS* the universe, makes about as much sense as worshiping nature in general does. It does what it does regardless of our input or actions. It responds to our actions as direct consequences of our actions, such that those actions are literally just causing the phenomena we expect to happen, and nothing else.  It is pointless to worship this being because such worship has no bearing on its behavior vs not worshiping it.

In the second case, the being is too alien to ascribe meaningful causal relations to any action we might undertake, or to how it might view any observation it has of our universe before acting upon it.


This leaves us with 2 results:

1) God is not worth worshiping, and probably could not really be called a 'god' as we consider the concept.
2) God is a being that is literally beyond the bounds of our universe, let alone our comprehension.

In either case, attempting to claim (special) knowledge of that being is meaningless, and cannot realistically be claimed by anyone.

Hence, my position as a hard agnostic.  I know nothing about god, and further, assert that I *CANNOT* know about such a being.


« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 03:34:01 am by wierd »
Logged

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #122 on: January 20, 2020, 04:21:17 am »

I believe fornication used to be used as shorthand for any kind of wrongsex, from sex out of wedlock to immoral sex within wedlock.
Logged
Love, scriver~

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #123 on: January 20, 2020, 04:38:45 am »

Again, the only *REAL* prohibitions on sex (biblically) are in the levitical laws, and how they relate to behavior.

These are basically boiled down to:

1) Dont bang animals
2) Dont bang people of the same gender
3) Only bang with the person you are married to
 3A) Special double condemnation for banging your wife's daughter. While this already falls under 3, it gets special mention
 3B) While also technically covered by 3, there is special condemnation for banging your own kids.

Anything else?  It doesn't really elaborate much.  You get off on being fisted by your wife? SURE! Totally allowed!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 04:55:47 am by wierd »
Logged

SHAD0Wdump

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hiding in SPAAACE!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #124 on: January 20, 2020, 05:18:43 am »

Also no banging your wife's sister/s. 'As a rival wife'.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #125 on: January 20, 2020, 09:22:29 am »

Digestion is just a fancy word for letting the good stuff through while keeping the bad stuff out.
The kidneys aren't miracle workers though, once you poison the filter there's no replacing it. Unless you got a good m8 to spare one I spose

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #126 on: January 20, 2020, 11:39:57 am »

So a completely different line of conversation, since I think we exhausted the previous one:

Question for the ex-Christans: did you leave to free yourself from something in Christianity, or did you leave to gain something that Christianity did not have?  Or a combination. As previous comments have shown, I'm interested in the distinction between a particular community vs. the core philosophy, too.
I grew up with a religion, same one as nearly everyone else in my country. I believed in all the dogma, as much as a conforming child does.
But I've always had a degree of social anxiety, so when conforming started to mean taking part in activities that made me increasingly uncomfortable - I'm talking attending mass, confessions, and the confirmation (and not any kiddie fiddling you sick fucks) - I began to question why I'm doing any of this. And once you stop taking your religion for granted and start questioning, there's a short way to finding it all superfluous and kinda silly.
So I guess it's the former?

1) Infinite potential is equal to infinite potential energy.
2) Potential energy has an actual mass in our universe.
3) A being with infinite potential energy would have infinite mass.
4) Our universe has a finite value allowed for mass within a specific volume (Shwartzchild radius)
5) Ergo, an all powerful god would either have to *BE* then universe, OR-- must exist OUTSIDE the universe, or they would destroy it through infinite collapse of spacetime, just by existing inside it.
I get what you're trying to say, but this argument is a bit flawed.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #127 on: January 20, 2020, 11:44:16 am »

Yeah, "potential energy has mass" is not entirely correct.

"Stored energy has mass" is more proper.  A being with the ability to do anything, (perform any kind of work, not matter how astronomically huge) must have energy to do that task.  It is presumed that this energy is stored inside the being, and is directed to do the work.  Thus, the being contains this energy, and thus has this mass. (assuming it exists inside our universe and obeys its laws.)
Logged

Magistrum

  • Bay Watcher
  • Skilled Fortresser
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #128 on: January 20, 2020, 12:01:56 pm »

Hey, all this talk about Yahweh is cool and all, but you know what would be cooler? A real God. Like, what if the world had been created by a god? What would the purpose of the world be? What would a reasonable deity demand from us? What would a self-consistent, universe creating, personally interested deity do in our everyday lives?
Logged
In a time before time, I had a name.

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #129 on: January 20, 2020, 12:03:53 pm »

Unfortunately, anyone who's played The Sims has a reasonably good idea of the answer to that question.

CABL

  • Bay Watcher
  • Has a fetish for voring the rich
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #130 on: January 20, 2020, 12:06:51 pm »

Unfortunately, anyone who's played The Sims has a reasonably good idea of the answer to that question.

To be fair, I didn't know English when I played The Sims 2, so I mostly just burned down college cantinas.
Logged
Pounded in the Butt by my own Government... oh wait, that's real life.

Much less active than I used to be on these forums, but I still visit them on occasion. Will probably resume my activity in full once Dwarf Fortress will be released on Steam.

Magistrum

  • Bay Watcher
  • Skilled Fortresser
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #131 on: January 20, 2020, 12:07:48 pm »

"Listen my children, this world was created for the purpose of keeping me from boredom for the next 2 hours. Do your best."
Logged
In a time before time, I had a name.

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #132 on: January 20, 2020, 12:20:02 pm »

Yeah, "potential energy has mass" is not entirely correct.

"Stored energy has mass" is more proper.  A being with the ability to do anything, (perform any kind of work, not matter how astronomically huge) must have energy to do that task.  It is presumed that this energy is stored inside the being, and is directed to do the work.  Thus, the being contains this energy, and thus has this mass. (assuming it exists inside our universe and obeys its laws.)
Yeah, that's one of the things. But perhaps more importantly, it's trying to apply naturalistic laws (regardless of how well or ill stated) to a supernatural being.
Logged

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perhaps I'll
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #133 on: January 20, 2020, 05:26:53 pm »

And "supernatural" just means "doesn't have to follow naturalistic laws for unexplained reasons", doesn't it?
Logged
Down at the bottom of the ocean. Beneath tons of brine which would crush you down. Not into broken and splintered flesh, but into thin soup. Into just more of the sea water. Where things live that aren't so different from you, but you will never live to touch them and they will never live to touch you.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Ex-Christian Thread
« Reply #134 on: January 20, 2020, 06:59:03 pm »

Which, if god was the universe, failure to obey his own internal laws is the only way it could be supernatural. It would *be* nature otherwise.

The alternative is a god outside the universe which cannot be observed and thus cannot be known.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11