In a time when we are just beginning to comprehend the possibility that fundamental forces like gravity may not even originate from our dimension and that we're merely shadows on some freakin' cosmic wall, am I the only one who thinks that trying to put anything of divine nature into a human frame of reference is silly?

People are moronic because they try to approach these issues under the impression that they know jack shit about existence. Limited by our paltry senses and merely capable of manipulating existing materials or coming to conclusions based on observable phenomena, we still haven't even started to scrape the surface of the nature of reality, much less what lies beyond it.

Most of you, CA included, are trying way too hard to force a human logical thought process onto something that goes far beyond the scope of mankind. When it comes to fundamental questions that are not provable or disprovable, we are no different from ants trying to digest a textbook on string theory.

My advice? Step back from your personal beliefs, the ever-changing scientific landscape, atheistic dogma, etc. sometimes and realize that too many people in too many places are approaching the subject of God/supernatural anything and such in an arrogant state of mind that brings plenty of self-satisfaction..but very little else.

Don't be like them. Think, ponder, and chuckle at the foolishness of your fellow humans who think their beliefs, or lack thereof, somehow give them an access card to the secrets of the universe.

That is all.

the universe is simple, the only thing that has ever been complex is finding the path to that which we desire. desire breeds complexity, without desire, no complexity. if we desire a secret meaning to the universe, the universe we live in will be very complex indeed. incomprehensible, even.

Wisest post I've seen in this thread. :afro:

I understand that we will likely never understand the existence of anything out of our own existence. This is why as I said before I agree with the agnostic point of view : to make a claim about the existence of a God or anything along the lines of a metaphysics would be ignorant. I disagree with your point about describing the phenomenon though. It is never healthy to not look for answers without a "logical human" outlook. Just because we can never escape from our human logic doesn't mean we should avoid conversation.

what do you think the purpose of ego is?

it's only simple once you've split your self from your ego and can recognize each for what they really are.

also in regards to your comments on existence and being, in my view i only exist as a reflection the existences of everyone else around me and vice versa. then again my sig isn't a lyric or funny quote either.


that's a cheap cop out. the difference is that unlike ants, we have the ability to ascribe to personal beliefs. they don't need to be proven or unproven, only respected. don't insult my intelligence and personal mental development by claiming i'm arrogant for wanting personal satisfaction from the strife in my soul and that i achieved it through introspective contemplation and meditation instead of liquor and whores.

your second part is also kind of insulting and bordering on hypocritical. don't be like 'them' here's how to think in instead. whoopee! it's not that a self-founded belief provides one with the secrets of the universe but that it provides one with acceptable answers to all their questions. the big issue i notice with most people is that they're hung up on being right instead of just being, or that they want to give answers to everyone's questions but their own.

it's kind of like CA said, it IS pretty simple. the challenge is bending your ego to let your head wrap itself around the fact that the bigger picture is really just a simple doodle, and in turn none of us are really as complicated or as special as we've all let our ego convince ourselves of in our youth.

1. A cheap cop out? Get a grip kid. Just because we CAN ascribe to personal beliefs and define ourselves by them doesn't give us an excuse to pull a Richard Dawkins or start up little cults. Such things are evidence of how futile people are, which is why they never amount of anything even in the conventional sense. I don't need liquor and whores to achieve personal satisfaction either, but I also realized somewhere down the line that merely working towards personal satisfaction only brings happiness at a surface level. We need more than that whether you like it or not. For example, investing in another life besides your own.

2. You either misunderstood the purpose of my post or simply missed what I was trying to infer. Personally, I don't care too much about having any questions about the universe because there is no way any answer a human will come up with even a billion years from now will be sufficient to a guy like me, who fully accepts the limitations of the human mind/senses, much less provable to someone like you who can't even grasp something that basic. We assume simplicity because its easy. But since when has that ever been true for anything besides basic cause/effect? People assume simplicity because it hurts their little minds to open up to anything more than that.

3. All we can perceive are observable phenomena, but even rudimentary evidence will show you that there's an infinity of things out there that go beyond the answers we can gain through only observation and measurement. All you have to do is open up a middle school science textbook to see big holes in what people take for granted: electromagnetism and gravity are classified as fundamental forces, but nobody can tell you where they actually came from, much less why they came to be. It's all assumption and arbitrary political points of correctness, and such casts us in a less than flattering light.

3. And this leads me to my last point. Once you understand that even the things you take for granted may not even be fundamental things at all and your living in a time when multiple ridiculously educated scientists are supposing higher planes of reality, can you honestly write off the possibility that supernatural phenomena are merely figments of delusion? Seriously, what do you really know about the world around you besides what you can hold on your hand and what you see on a T.V. screen?

Mr Dave, putting aside whether or not you like my attitude, I'm going to ask you to bend YOUR ego and assume the opposite of what you want me to believe for a minute. That the universe is not a silly, simple doodle, but one groove on the picture frame of something that may not even be a picture to begin with.

People, likewise, are also not nearly as simple and expendable as you wish them to be, and there's far too much going on around us to remain in such a cut-and-dried, generic way of thinking.

In summation, all I want is for people to remain open to complexity and not to take things for granted simply because we can observe it: I'm not trying to convert you to believe in divine stuffz.

i'm not gonna quote everything but how is it still a PERSONAL belief if it's being passed onto and used by anyone else? i'm not advocating cultism here. as for the rest...


really i don't think our views are that divergent, only that you're still a bit of an idealist. if you think spiritual satisfaction only brings surface level happiness then you don't actually have a clue what satisfaction is really about.

as for not having questions about the universe well, that's fine too. i didn't have many either until my late 20s until i'd stared at my bellybutton so much that i finally saw the infinity within myself. you seem to think that i'm somehow afraid or stupid because i've accepted the simplicity of being. i found it to be an incredible challenge to accept, and one that MANY people fail at accomplishing. just because you haven't started conceiving questions about the universe yet doesn't mean you someday won't. there is NO assumption of anything within MY belief and i don't give half a crap whether or not MY belief matters at all to you, odyshape, CA, or anyone else really, because the ONLY person who really has to deal with MY belief is... me.

i'm really not sure what you're getting at with that electromagnetism and gravity bit. school text books have biased and sometimes completely flawed information? unbelievable!

as to your last point it actually goes back to one of my firsts... when your fundamentals might be delusions what do you really have besides belief and why do the specifics of any belief matter if nothing is real? no need for proof, or science, or much of anything, besides a feeling of peace within your soul when you've found YOUR answer.

as for your exercise with the picture, it's already how i perceive myself as an individual within the whole of the human species. like i said earlier i don't think we're that off from each other. really though, how could i have a belief that i only exist as a reflection within other people's existences if i considered them to be simple and expendable?

then again, what if we ARE simple and expendable creature? then what? is your ego willing to let that one slide into the side of 'truth'?

I believe that happiness is always temporary no matter what and looking for happiness that will last permanently is just a waste of time.

satisfaction =/= happiness.

according to nassim haramein (who i take pretty seriously but many people don't) quantum mechanics is basically a huge leap in the wrong direction, and einstein was really close to a grand unified theory. he claims that gravity is, indeed, the result of energy causing space-time to contract, and electromagnetism is actually the result of energy causing space-time to twist... which is how he explains why elementary particles have a spin that doesn't ever slow down despite the friction exerted on them by all the other stuff that exists. you should look into it for yourself if you're interested in such things, torrent "crossing the event horizon"

I know the f*cking difference I'm telling you happiness doesn't last. Happiness is but a temporary emotion reflected by your environment but the environment always changes.

Either way I'm sure as hell ain't gonna get it from isolating myself and obsessing over an ancient book of questionable validity.

relax i was actually agreeing/reinforcing your point.

i know this doesn't prove anything, but you do realize a lot of religions take the fleeting nature of happiness as a starting point, right? the whole "point" of buddhism is to escape samsara, the endless dialectic of pain and pleasure, which the buddha ultimately said stems for the desire to continue to exist...

Simple and expendable, to whom though? I am not simple and expendable to myself. Whether I am to others, is none of my concern. Same as how you said, your belief matters to you and no-one else. My existance matters first and foremost to myself and no-one else. I'm here, my mind, thinking, seeing, analysing, searching for truth and peace and goodness. Things that not only satisfy me but fulfill me. Whether that is simple and expendable to anyone is none of my concern really. Simple maybe, certainly not expendable, I would debate that. Purely for the reason that I am not in anyone's expense other than my own.

With my ego you're right man I'd never accept that as some sort of Universal truth - if my place in some sort of universal design is to be the whipping boy or some sort of dog, then that's not a universal design I agree with. That's flawed, I'd declare it Hell and declare it my enemy. Why should I exist as something inferior, when the only thing I am certain of is myself?


But what's the alternative might I ask sir? Resigning yourself to a state of compromise, accepting a lesser fate? Myself, I'd rather waste my time looking for eternal bliss than accept that there is none.

If people want to persue that lifestyle fine, but I don't see the appeal of it.

I'm content with my life. I'll gladly take the fleeting moments of happiness that goes with the fleeting moments of pain. Life without conflict is boring and meaningless to me.

that bothers me a good deal, if you can only find meaning in life through conflict. at least you're being honest about it though.

so like the Corgan said, to be the beginning of the end of the beginning or the end of the beginning of the end? or perhaps to be everything and nothing, the Zero if you will. (i'm hoping you get a chuckle from my lighthearted comments instead of thinking i'm being derisive).


i completely and thoroughly agree with this. i tossed out the simple and expendable bit as food for thought. it's not so much that i think we're expendable as a whole, more that i don't think the individual is as special or un-expendable as most like to convince themselves of. the world won't end when my body dies, only my personal physical reflection of it.

emptiness is loneliness and loneliness is cleanliness and cleanliness is godliness and god is empty, just like MEEEE

:bowdown:

I was sitting in the dining halls at my University one day, and the two guys next to me were vigorously arguing atheism vs. theism. The argument reached the point where they were discussing things that they simply had no right to be discussing, and I wanted to reach over and slap both of them.

theist: "just think about how peaceful and harmonious the universe is! How could a big-bang create such harmony? Peace doesn't come from chaos"

I just don't understand the point of arguing over things like the origins of the universe. How can we even pretend to know anything about it? And I guess that ties into my fundamental problem with Religion and God. They take completely unsubstantiated claims about things beyond our possible understanding and use them as a "weapon" of sorts, whereas Science acknowledges that NOTHING can ever be 100% proven certain and seeks to only further our understanding instead of coerce people with it. In the words of Bill Maher, "religion is selling certainty. I'm selling doubt."

So as long as you identify with an organized religion, I will always judge you for it. It seems so stupid to blindly submit yourself to an organized faith, but maybe that's because I was raised in an irreligious family. However, if you're a Ben Franklin in that you believe in a power greater than man, but admit that "lighthouses are more useful than churches", you have my respect. But I won't be caught dead admitting that there's ANYTHING redeeming in the Christian or Islamic faiths.

Boo Boo, you called Sam Harris a thunderc*nt (or something), and while he comes off as a smug asswad, he is one of my greatest idols. If you guys haven't read Letter to a Christian Nation, I'd definitely recommend doing so.

Well anyway, that was my unorganized, incoherent rant.

never really noticed the metaphysical aspects of the Pumpkins before now. gonna have to re-listen to a bunch of their tunes again with a fresh perspective hahaha :beer:

How religious IS Billy Corgan?

I don't think those are the only three answers. The question "What caused the first cause?" is an absurd and unanswerable question. You can't explain causation outside of causation itself, just like you can't contradict the law of contradiction. Causation exists and it is an axiom that you have to accept if you want to ask any question which begins with "Why?"

The real problem with these guys is that they really don't have a strong base themselves, which makes their arrogance show much more.

How do you propose people know anything if they are afraid to admit it? You ask people to think, but at the sight of someone trying to reason their way through explaining the universe you tell them that they can never know. Look below your position and you will find nothing there. How do you defend that we can not know anything? We can know what does and does not exist through contradiction. We know that A can not equal non-A. There is the base, and from there we build.

What in the essence of happiness necessitates its being temporary? I don't disagree with you, but I think that you would have a much stronger and fruitful argument if you were to give the reason for this.

The argument that I've made is that accepting causality as an axiom leads you to one of these conclusions. If you see another, please point it out to me.

I'd like to point out that the Big Bang theory is a result of extrapolating backwards from observations of the expansion of the Universe, and that as we get closer to the "singularity" general relativity breaks down, since it has to deal with infinities. I would argue that this poses a serious problem to any scientific explanation, since we can perhaps claim we've "explained" something because we've traced it back a certain distance to a cause, but if we want a "complete" explanation we also have to give the cause for that cause, and the cause for that cause, and so on, until we approach this singularity where our laws break down, and so it seems we can't really explain anything. This suggests that science can never provide the answer to "why?", which would involve tracing an effect back to its origin, and would only be able to provide stratagems for getting from point A to point B. If we wanted something more, we'd need to turn somewhere else (religion and philosophy, anybody?)

Alright here we go:

The next conclusion, which was not mentioned, is that we cannot know what caused the first cause. We cannot know because the question comes down to "Why does causation exist?" This question asks for an answer that does not exist. The conclusion is that we cannot know what caused causation and that we shouldn't desire to know.

that doesn't make sense. if there is a first cause nothing caused it, that's what makes it the first. and if there is a first cause then there must be something special about it since it isn't subject to causality (again, this seems to imply an absurdity: conclusion one).

you seem to be saying: causality is caused but since this is impossible we don't know what caused it.
i would say: existence is impossible, existence exists, therefore, god

You are trying to explain causality outside of the realm where causality exists. No causes can exist before the first cause, so the first cause must be an uncaused cause by virtue of what it is. No causal law existed before it. You call it a miracle, but that is what it has to be. It isn't special in that it is outside the realm of causal law. It seems like it makes no sense, but it makes a lot of sense that the first cause would seem to make no sense since it was the first cause. You call it absurd and throw it away. I accept the fact that it makes no sense since it should not make sense being what it is.

I am saying that causality exists and moving from there, not trying to explain it. When we try to explain it, then it seems impossible until we realize that the question we are asking is "Why why?" We can't give a why, since this would produce a circular argument.

so it makes sense that it makes no sense... DO YOU REALIZE YOU'RE SPEAKING LIKE A TAOIST?!? we can't give a why because we run into a circle but THIS IS TRUE FOR EVERY QUESTION WE ASK BECAUSE THEY ALL LEAD BACK TO THE CIRCLE. i call it a miracle because it is what it is and it is what it has to be and its incomprehensible and paradoxical and yet it is AND THAT'S WHAT GOD IS! MY GOD MAN, DON'T YOU SEE?!?! i don't call it absurd and throw it away i call it beautiful and worship it!!!

I said it makes sense that it seems like it makes no sense. Therefore, I am not contradicting myself, but I acknowledge that it seems like a paradox. It makes sense that seems like it makes no sense because of what it is. It isn't actually a contradiction. Causal law is an axiom you have to accept if you are to accept thinking itself, since it runs hand in hand with logic. The law of contradiction cannot be defended unless one uses it and the same applies to giving the cause for the causal law. They are axioms that don't need to be explained outside of themselves.

I would agree that they are beautiful and I would say I worship them, though not in the sense that I read out of some sacred book or pray to them. I value them highly, and as axioms, they are the base of all thought.

I still don't see how this line of though fits within any of the conclusions you gave since I do not reject causal law, nor do I call it a closed loop, and I certainly don't know whether it is infinite or not. The answer is that I don't know why, but one can't know why if they realize the question they are asking.

I think he's a spiritualist or whatever but doesn't have any kind of religion.

i'm agnostic so i believe there's something but pretty much all the scriptures from every religion make very little sense and contradict themselves all the time

but you can also likely wrap your head around the idea that everything is nothing and still smile where most other people would start cracking.


then why do you even bother getting out of bed in the morning? what's the point of having the ability to reason? to contemplate? to have critical thought? if we shouldn't desire to know we shouldn't have the ability to think for ourselves. admittedly it would be super awesome to going back to being a baby and having someone take care of every single need i might have and 'not desiring to know' answers to bigger questions, but that's just not a realistic perspective.

the answer to 'why?' is irrelevant, hence the purpose of personal belief.

How is that agnosticism?

How is that not agnosticism?

agnotstics believe there is something but do not follow any scripture or organized religion and usually have the belief that "we were not meant to understand"

That would be light theistic agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the belief that we can never know whether a deity/God exists. It's a seperate belief system. You can be both an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Ahh I see so pretty much where you lean towards more?

God damn people, how can you know so little about your own faith?

:( Well I knew it meant that it was the belief that we may never know if a God or deity exists I just didn't realize the flexibility within it.

well agnosticism isn't much of a faith in all truth

This page is really helpful in grasping agnosticism. A lot of people blatantly misunderstand it

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia