domehouse Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I like poseidon, odin, anubis, crom, hastur, godogma, azathoth, wyrd, dispater, demogorgon, and many other cool gods. Why limit one's self to the favor of just one god? PS I am serious. If multiple everything in universe, then why not gods, and I have felt this way for 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberSix Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 But where is your proof? Without proof, I take religion as seriously as the tooth fairy. And there is never any proof. The various ancient gods are just as ridiculous as the current popular ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 You're right that the "one universe = one god" assumption makes no sense - not because of the quantity of gods, but because there's no need for the invisible dieties to explain how things work. It's a question about logic, not preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Define "god." If one defines "gods" as merely anthropomorphic projections of our individual human consciousnesses within our own MEcosystem, inside our own heads, then OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I prefer Cthulhu. The gods from the Lord of the Rings series were kinda cool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domehouse Posted March 23, 2014 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 But where is your proof? Without proof, I take religion as seriously as the tooth fairy. And there is never any proof. The various ancient gods are just as ridiculous as the current popular ones. I am not trying to prove anything. You're right that the "one universe = one god" assumption makes no sense - not because of the quantity of gods, but because there's no need for the invisible dieties to explain how things work. It's a question about logic, not preference. There could be more than 1 universe. Define "god." If one defines "gods" as merely anthropomorphic projections of our individual human consciousnesses within our own MEcosystem, inside our own heads, then OK. I am not sure howto define a god. They are not human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I like cookie dough ice cream.* *These posts contain an equal amount of philosophical content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Dean Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I like poseidon, odin, anubis, crom, hastur, godogma, azathoth, wyrd, dispater, demogorgon, and many other cool gods. Why limit one's self to the favor of just one god? Wyrd is not a god, it is an old norse and anglo-saxon concept of fate from which the modern word "weird" is derived from. Why limit one's self to the favor of any delusion? Why do you prefer the isolation of fantasy to the kinship of reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If multiple everything in universe, then why not gods, and I have felt this way for 8 years. This is the only part of your post that was rational. I agree that the idea that only one of something exists is statistically impossible. Egyptian gods can kick Greek and Roman gods' butts. Go Set! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I agree that the idea that only one of something exists is statistically impossible. how many dsayers exist? i thought the idea that only one of something exists is a statistical certainty, or where i'm i wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Man created god in his own image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 how many dsayers exist? Last I read, the population of Earth is about 7 billion humans. I am not a something. I am an instance of something. The cup you're drinking out of is an instance of "cup." The idea that only one cup (or deity) could exist is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I prefer Cthulhu. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Last I read, the population of Earth is about 7 billion humans. I am not a something. I am an instance of something. The cup you're drinking out of is an instance of "cup." The idea that only one cup (or deity) could exist is ludicrous. what kind of catagories are you using there are many humans, there is only one you, noone else has your genetic code. there was once a first cup, before other cups were created. no two cups use the same material i think the idea of monotheism is only one does does exist, rather than using the word "could" both poly and mono seem just as not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 There could be more than 1 universe. What would these universes be part of? It doesn't matter how many dimensions there might be - there can only be one universe, which can only be understood through reason, not preferance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What would these universes be part of? It doesn't matter how many dimensions there might be - there can only be one universe, which can only be understood through reason, not preferance. Well, they'd probably call it a multiverse. I think the confusion is that universe is used in two different senses. The one you and I are using to encapsulate the entirety of existing entities, and also what is sometimes called "the observable universe", what resulted from the big bang. I avoid using it in the second sense precisely because of this ambiguity. I'm no cosmologist, but from what I understand, there is nothing stopping other large sections of space-time and matter in the same 3 dimensions we inhabit that are far far far outside of what we call the "observable universe" and what resulted from the big bang. It's funny that we could ever think of the universe as being small enough a place to go looking for systems larger than itself. But that's the power of the human brain, to be dissatisfied by things that are absolutely amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What would these universes be part of? It doesn't matter how many dimensions there might be - there can only be one universe, which can only be understood through reason, not preferance.There is no reason, that I know of, that would make multiple universes impossible. And why would they all have to be a part of something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As Kevin pointed out, it makes more sense to use the word "universe" to refer to the entirety of everything. If there are other dimensions, then there must be some single law that allows them to exist. Everything exists within something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I prefer rubbing the forehead of my Stefan Molyneux bust in order to get rewards of empathy and logic. It produces just as good results as worshiping gods! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Where can I find a Stefan bust? It would be nice to have one in bronze or ceramic that I could put on my mini shelftop-altar next to Kali, Shiva, Cthulhu, and a couple other small gods. Seriously. Some people collect stamps or bottle caps. I like to collect gods & goddesses as curiosities. I've been looking for a Nuggan*, or maybe an Anoia (The minor goddess of Things That Stick in Drawers) to add to my collection. A Molyneux would be another worthy addition. *Chocolate AND garlic are both abominations unto Nuggan -that is just cruel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As Kevin pointed out, it makes more sense to use the word "universe" to refer to the entirety of everything.OK so this part was just semantics then, although I do not like that definition myself, other "physical systems" (For lack of a better term here, I usually use "universe") could exist and have no relation to the big bang or this physical system which we inhabit.But for the context of this thread, I understand what you guys mean by universe. If there are other dimensions, then there must be some single law that allows them to exist. Everything exists within something.How do you figure that? Metaphysically speaking it is as accurate to say "everything exists within something" as saying "nothing exists within something else". It's just a way of trying to make sense of reality, it is how we understand the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 OK so this part was just semantics then, although I do not like that definition myself, other "physical systems" (For lack of a better term here, I usually use "universe") could exist and have no relation to the big bang or this physical system which we inhabit.But for the context of this thread, I understand what you guys mean by universe. How do you figure that? Metaphysically speaking it is as accurate to say "everything exists within something" as saying "nothing exists within something else". It's just a way of trying to make sense of reality, it is how we understand the universe. Anything with the phrase "nothing exists" is bound to be paradoxical. When I said "everything exists within something," I meant that every "thing" individually is part of something larger, and "universe" should be the word that encapulates that concept. What if there are multiple multiverses? Are we just going to come up with more and more words for what we think is the largest concept possible? I say we start with "universe" being synonymous with the entirety of existence, then use smaller concepts like "dimensions" from there. As Stef points out, it's totally possible for interdimensional beings to exist, but there's no evidence for them, and if there were, why refer to them as gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Anything with the phrase "nothing exists" is bound to be paradoxical.Sorry, I never meant to say that, I agree with you completely on this. But saying "nothing exists within something else" was not meant as nothing exists.When I said "everything exists within something," I meant that every "thing" individually is part of something larger, and "universe" should be the word that encapulates that concept.This is my question, how do you determine that every thing is part of something larger?What if there are multiple multiverses? Are we just going to come up with more and more words for what we think is the largest concept possible?I don't buy your premise, I don't know for sure that there is something which is "the largest".I say we start with "universe" being synonymous with the entirety of existence, then use smaller concepts like "dimensions" from there.Dimension and universe are not the same thing. What if there is another physical system which also has the same amount of dimensions as ours but that was not a result of the big bang and that does not occupy the same 3-dimentional space as ours? We could not call that another dimension.As Stef points out, it's totally possible for interdimensional beings to exist, but there's no evidence for them, and if there were, why refer to them as gods?I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I like poseidon, odin, anubis, crom, hastur, godogma, azathoth, wyrd, dispater, demogorgon, and many other cool gods. Why limit one's self to the favor of just one god? PS I am serious. If multiple everything in universe, then why not gods, and I have felt this way for 8 years. I feel cold right now, I've felt this way for a few minutes. also I feel a little bit thirsty and I like Coke, so if you're going to the fridge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I feel cold right now, I've felt this way for a few minutes. also I feel a little bit thirsty and I like Coke, so if you're going to the fridge... I also was feeling cold. So I went to the magic god on the wall and prayed to it, passing my hand repeatedly over the prayer knob until the magic number 72 appeared. Lo, and behold! It got warmer soon after this in my condo! Praise be unto the magic god on the wall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Where can I find a Stefan bust? The women's lingerie section of our local department store. There's also one on a sacrificial altar in Peter Joseph's basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Sorry, I never meant to say that, I agree with you completely on this. But saying "nothing exists within something else" was not meant as nothing exists.This is my question, how do you determine that every thing is part of something larger?I don't buy your premise, I don't know for sure that there is something which is "the largest".Dimension and universe are not the same thing. What if there is another physical system which also has the same amount of dimensions as ours but that was not a result of the big bang and that does not occupy the same 3-dimentional space as ours? We could not call that another dimension.I agree 100% Something that doesn't occupy the same space as our 3-dimensional system can't be detectible, which means it fits the critera for non-existance, like the tooth fairy. It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected. If another physical system existed that we could detect through physics, then physics is the thing linking these systems to one another, meaning they're not separate after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Something that doesn't occupy the same space as our 3-dimensional system can't be detectible, which means it fits the critera for non-existance, like the tooth fairy.You mean that things do not exist if they are not detectable?Is this just semantics again? it may very well be but I want to make sure.It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected.There is more to science than just empiricism. There was no empirical evidence of gravitational waves back in 1916.If another physical system existed that we could detect through physics, then physics is the thing linking these systems to one another, meaning they're not separate after all.What if there is another physical system which is not detectable to us, with probably different physical rules than our own system?This is not like believing in a christian god or something like that, there are actual scientific theories which hint to the potential existence of such systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 But it's never "what if there are these things called gravity waves? It wouldn't explain anything but it's possible." The theory of gravity waves was based on the need to explain the observable. By "not detactable" I don't mean to just our 5 senses, I'm including science and math, which can be considered extensions of our senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 "It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected." You did say empirical science. Math is not an empirical science, it is strictly a priori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 "It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected."You did say empirical science. Math is not an empirical science, it is strictly a priori. Right, and you can't get anywhere with math itself - you have to apply to something observable. Then boom, you have physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Some physics is a priori, like the theoretical prediction of gravitational waves back in 1916. There was no way to detect them 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integral Paradox Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Some physics is a priori, like the theoretical prediction of gravitational waves back in 1916.There was no way to detect them 100 years ago. Yes but like I said, the theory of gravity waves was based on the need to explain the observable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 What does "like" have to do with truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts