For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Thankyou.Arising_uk wrote:Sorry to hear about your troubles. Every thought you should have gone back to the hospital and had a scan to check for damage?
Keep taking the pills, and get that concussion checked out.attofishpi wrote:What a completely asinine retort.attofishpi wrote:How can you be so sure it is against the laws of nature when you can barely (if that) understand the complexity of the matter that surrounds us.chaz wyman wrote:Because everything we know about nature says it is bollocks. That rather leaves you with the work to do.
You have nothing but your wishes for it to be true.
Im one of the few souls upon this planet that ALWAYS has the balls to say what needs to be said.chaz wyman wrote:Fucking Hell - I'm surprised you have repeated this fantasy online! Hey - at least you are anonymous!
And of course as Spinoza said, a god with free-will has its limitations, and is therefore not omnipotent, as to will a thing you do not already have is to admit you are lacking in that thing.ForgedinHell wrote:It depends on how one defines "god". If a god is defined as eternal, as having always existed, then one could not evolve into such a god by definition. Moreover, no matter how sophisticated some life form becomes, there would still be no reason to believe it could establish a supernatural realm, where souls could exist in and go after they die. The fact that some incredibly powerful beings could evolve over time, I believe that is a given from science. One cannot even exclude the possibility that our universe came into existence by some advanced life form punching through from another universe.
I also fail to see how any advanced life form would be able to escape cause and effect. No matter how intelligent, how powerful, some being becomes, strict determinism still rules the day and the being won't have any free-will in the sense many religious people ascribe to a god.
Stephen wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:14 pmWhat god are we talking about here?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:27 amUmmm. The same place we do. That big shiny thing about two planets from here.Thundril wrote:Ummm. Where does this god get its energy from?Vanced Manager
The point I am making is that from the point of view of a natural non-created reality, that it is logical as resources diminish that a God system simulation of the original reality will be created - ya know, weed out those that are not worth_Y of continuing to exist.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 11:29 pm NB must be false becuz any immersive four dimensional holographic representation of an atomically structured field event will yield higher entropic gains over any planck time reality consistent with the (Johannes) Habbletrap equations.
Simply put, it's more efficient to just create a reality than it is to create both a reality and a simulation of it.
Your thoughts touch upon some deep and fascinating philosophical questions. The concept of a god, particularly the idea of an eternal and omnipotent being, is indeed a complex one, and definitions can vary widely. Your perspective on the limitations of even highly advanced life forms is also thought-provoking. The interplay between science, philosophy, and belief is a longstanding and ongoing debate. It's true that the concept of free will in the face of strict determinism raises important questions and challenges many traditional religious beliefs. These discussions continue to shape our understanding of the universe, existence, and the potential of advanced beings or entities. The beauty of these questions lies in the ongoing exploration and the quest for a deeper understanding of our reality.ForgedinHell wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:26 am It depends on how one defines "god". If a god is defined as eternal, as having always existed, then one could not evolve into such a god by definition. Moreover, no matter how sophisticated some life form becomes, there would still be no reason to believe it could establish a supernatural realm, where souls could exist in and go after they die. The fact that some incredibly powerful beings could evolve over time, I believe that is a given from science. One cannot even exclude the possibility that our universe came into existence by some advanced life form punching through from another universe.
I also fail to see how any advanced life form would be able to escape cause and effect. No matter how intelligent, how powerful, some being becomes, strict determinism still rules the day and the being won't have any free-will in the sense many religious people ascribe to a god.
You've got the reality, so then you create a simulation for minds to live in. You don't have to create the original reality which the simulation is a part of,perhaps without knowing it.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 11:29 pm NB must be false becuz any immersive four dimensional holographic representation of an atomically structured field event will yield higher entropic gains over any planck time reality consistent with the (Johannes) Habbletrap equations.
Simply put, it's more efficient to just create a reality than it is to create both a reality and a simulation of it.
I am always perplexed at the rejection of free will; in the exact same breath where one says things like "It depends on how one defines X"ForgedinHell wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:26 am It depends on how one defines "god". If a god is defined as eternal, as having always existed, then one could not evolve into such a god by definition. Moreover, no matter how sophisticated some life form becomes, there would still be no reason to believe it could establish a supernatural realm, where souls could exist in and go after they die. The fact that some incredibly powerful beings could evolve over time, I believe that is a given from science. One cannot even exclude the possibility that our universe came into existence by some advanced life form punching through from another universe.
I also fail to see how any advanced life form would be able to escape cause and effect. No matter how intelligent, how powerful, some being becomes, strict determinism still rules the day and the being won't have any free-will in the sense many religious people ascribe to a god.
Was this a response to my post? Skepdick's? both?promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 4:36 pm 'course how one defines x and whether or not it makes sense or is true, has nothing to do with the cause of that defining or if what is defined is true or makes sense.
If one doesn't understand calculus, they cannot 'choose' to make sense of it. Likewise, if someone does understand calculus, and finds an equation that is true (makes sense), they cannot choose not to think it's true or that it doesn't make sense.