For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
— Agent Smith
This is true only if "x creates" presupposes that "x" is already "in existence" and ontically separate from "y".
If x creates x, x must exist before x exists.
Causa sui – "x creates x" – merely denotes "x" is not the effect of any external causes (i.e. random) and that it's only "x"'s continuity, or perdurance, which "x creates". — 180 Proof
Both are random – using physical analogues, IME, the latter is ephemeral (e.g. fluctuations) and the former perdurant (e.g. vacuum).What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused? — Agent Smith
How can we have a relationship with an entity that essentially doesn’t exist (not in our universe anyway)? — Real Gone Cat
How can you have a relationship with your dead grandmother?
God is ineffable. — Tom Storm
The relationship with you grandmother already existed. The same cannot be said about god. The relationship with god doesnt have a previous existence upon which to base it like dear old grandma does. Thats the key, that you cannot have a relationship with something that never existed in the first place. — DingoJones
If God is not a part of our universe, then God does not exist for us. So why can't we just ignore God? — Real Gone Cat
I don't see the basis for your claim. If God is the creator, then God had real existence, prior to your existence, just like your grandmother had real existence prior to your existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
You could ignore God if you want, just like you can ignore the fact that you had a grandmother. But if you want to understand the reality of your existence, then if God is real, understanding that there is a God is essential to understanding that reality, regardless of whether God is here now. Just like your grandmother who is no longer existing, you can ignore the reality that you had a grandmother, but this is not conducive toward understanding the reality of your existence.
"X is ineffable". How were you able to assign a predicate "ineffable" to X if you assume that X is ineffable? — Zebeden
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (L. W., Tractatus §7). Or should we say in this case - "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one always remains silent". — Zebeden
Journal entry (11 June 1916), p. 72e and 73e 1910s, Notebooks 1914-1916
Contexte: What do I know about God and the purpose of life? I know that this world exists. That I am placed in it like my eye in its visual field. That something about it is problematic, which we call its meaning. This meaning does not lie in it but outside of it. That life is the world. That my will penetrates the world. That my will is good or evil. Therefore that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world. The meaning of life, i. e. the meaning of the world, we can call God. And connect with this the comparison of God to a father. To pray is to think about the meaning of life./quote]
For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
If x creates x, x must exist before x exists. :chin: — Agent Smith
What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused?
— Agent Smith
Both are random – using physical analogues, IME, the latter is ephemeral (e.g. fluctuations) and the former perdurant (e.g. vacuum).
Also: ↪180 Proof — 180 Proof
Pascals wager is a trolls device, asking people to accept a bargain while assuming bargains don't lead to Hell — Gregory
There isn't any factual information or evidence (contra Christian dogma used to frame (force) the "Wager") which establishes any g/G or "afterlife" whatsoever and, therefore, the assumptions at work (simply put) are more than Pascal's two:As for Pascal's wager being a false dichotomy, how? — Agent Smith
Hmm…you applaud 180’s take down of Pascal’s wager… — Real Gone Cat
validity of Pascal’s wager — Real Gone Cat
nonsense — Real Gone Cat
Yeah, and like that Biblical-alchemist Sir Isaac Newton (an even greater genius!), it just goes to show how scientific-mathematical reasoning has to be completely compartmentalized in order to function from (i.e. quarantined from being contaminated by) religious faith. To wit:Pascal was a genius! — Agent Smith
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — Freddy Zarathustra
Sure, “if”. You would have to show the previous existence of god or a creator. Not so with dear grandma, whose previous existence is not in question.
Since you havent shown god to have previous existence then its fallacious to use this grandma analogy to make your point/case. — DingoJones
But I've met my grandmother, so it's hard to ignore the fact of her existence. Agent Smith makes the claim that God is not in this universe. So his God is not real. His God is speculation, nothing more. And if you agree with him (a position you dance around and don't seem to commit to), then I guess God can be anything you want. — Real Gone Cat
How is a made-up God essential to understanding reality? Even if you need God to be your Prime Mover, a god-that-is-not-present adds nothing to the understanding of reality. Only things in the universe can give us information about the universe. — Real Gone Cat
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — 180 Proof
Moreso, I think: religion seems to me more like early childhood (nursery, fairytales, kindergarden) and science like late adolescence (sex, cars, junior college) – the latter never completely outgrows the developmental vestiges (defects, biases) of the former.To be fair though, we have more experience with religion than science, the former being somewhat of a neglectedwife[mother's tit] and the latter a brand-newmistress[dominatrix's whip]. — Agent Smith
It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. Re: apophatic theology (via negativa). — Agent Smith
Moreso, I think: religion seems to me more like early childhood (nursery, fairytales, kindergarden) and science like late adolescence (sex, cars, junior college) – the latter never completely outgrows the developmental vestiges (defects, biases) of the former. — 180 Proof
Sorry, I don't see the "psychoanalytic" relevance to my post of your (non-philosophical) "projection". — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.