Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Salandriagado]

This is true, especially since polytheistic ones have better creationist stories, and better stories in general.
I would also personally argue that polytheism is more logical to believe in.

I'd argue that the explanation with the fewest "actors" is the best explanation. Which means that any "First Mover" would have to be a cold and unfeeling process/entity, and not a conscious god-figure.

I mean, what's even the difference between an unknowable will and no will at all?

Polytheism at least has the advantage of not claiming omnipotence and the other omni-s, which means that their gods don't have the many, many problems that go along with them, so they are at least internally consistent.

[The Archregimancy]

I'd argue that the explanation with the fewest "actors" is the best explanation. Which means that any "First Mover" would have to be a cold and unfeeling process/entity, and not a conscious god-figure.

I mean, what's even the difference between an unknowable will and no will at all?

Polytheism at least has the advantage of not claiming omnipotence

I'm not sure that's entirely true; or rather it's selectively true depending on the specific pantheon.

Put another way, what are the limitations on Amun-Ra's power?

[Hanafuridake]

I'd argue that the explanation with the fewest "actors" is the best explanation. Which means that any "First Mover" would have to be a cold and unfeeling process/entity, and not a conscious god-figure.

I mean, what's even the difference between an unknowable will and no will at all?

Polytheism at least has the advantage of not claiming omnipotence and the other omni-s, which means that their gods don't have the many, many problems that go along with them, so they are at least internally consistent.

There's not one polytheism though, and most polytheistic religions verge on monotheism, such as classical paganism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shintō.

[Catholic Britannia]

Polytheism at least has the advantage of not claiming omnipotence and the other omni-s, which means that their gods don't have the many, many problems that go along with them, so they are at least internally consistent.

There's not one polytheism though, and most polytheistic religions verge on monotheism, such as classical paganism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shintō.

I believe the term you're looking for is henotheism.

[Hanafuridake]

There's not one polytheism though, and most polytheistic religions verge on monotheism, such as classical paganism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shintō.

I believe the term you're looking for is henotheism.

No, it's not. Henotheism is the exclusion of worship of other gods in favor of one. It's different from believing in one supreme ultimate principle that other gods are dependent on, while still worshiping those deities.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As Tars said, there is evidence for a God, in the fact that the universal laws have not always been the same,

Which says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a god.

and that the intricacy of the universe,

It's really fairly simple. Not far off the simplest possible structure, actually.

being made up entirely of only three things,

It isn't.

should be able to form itself into all multitude of things to form more and more complex existences.

No, it pretty much does "nuclear physics", "chemistry" and "gravity".

It seems to me that chemistry is intelligently designed to arrive at certain points.

This is a wildly unsupported assertion.

Moreover, the expansion of the universe from a single point should not be possible given the existence of gravity.

This is simply a lie.

It isn't a lie, as the gravity in the singularity would be immense, and would keep the singularity intact.

The universe really isn't simple, it runs itself by a massive collection of mathematical equations.

[Kowani]

Which says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a god.



It's really fairly simple. Not far off the simplest possible structure, actually.



It isn't.



No, it pretty much does "nuclear physics", "chemistry" and "gravity".



This is a wildly unsupported assertion.



This is simply a lie.

It isn't a lie, as the gravity in the singularity would be immense, and would keep the singularity intact.

The universe really isn't simple, it runs itself by a massive collection of mathematical equations.

It doesn’t actually run itself by mathematical equations, rather, those equations are man representing the physical processes in a way that is comprehensible.

[Hystaria]

..Cause my belief is to not belief/live around it until it is proven that it exists.

Its more likely dragons in some form existed than an all powerful space dude with a fetish of one planet and one species.

...I like to keep this civil, so please dont damn me or something. I have morals, I think the devil doesn't exist too. Im not against Christianity specifically, and no, my father did not have an influence on my ideas.

I am merely a dictionary atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It isn't a lie, as the gravity in the singularity would be immense, and would keep the singularity intact.

The universe really isn't simple, it runs itself by a massive collection of mathematical equations.

It doesn’t actually run itself by mathematical equations, rather, those equations are man representing the physical processes in a way that is comprehensible.

Mathematics is not a human construct.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It doesn’t actually run itself by mathematical equations, rather, those equations are man representing the physical processes in a way that is comprehensible.

Mathematics is not a human construct.

Ohhhhhhhh yes it is.

Edited to add: also, I thought I addressed the whole gravity/big bang thing you threw up earlier.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Mathematics is not a human construct.

Ohhhhhhhh yes it is.

Edited to add: also, I thought I addressed the whole gravity/big bang thing you threw up earlier.

I didn't see you address it, can you link me to the post?

Numerals and expressions may be human constructs, but they express things that are not dependent on human constructs. The formulas exist independently of whether they are known or not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... h-excerpt/

One physicist's response to the idea that Mathematics is a social construct.

[Godular]

Ohhhhhhhh yes it is.

Edited to add: also, I thought I addressed the whole gravity/big bang thing you threw up earlier.

I didn't see you address it, can you link me to the post?

Oh yeesh I'd have to hunt it down. I just said that since we can't really know what it was like at the moment of the big bang, the best educated guess I could do was that Higgs Bosons (the particles that essentially ARE mass) didn't coalesce until things had already gotten out of hand. Since gravity relies pretty much entirely on objects that have mass, its initial presence would have been negligible at best.

Numerals and expressions may be human constructs, but they express things that are not dependent on human constructs. The formulas exist independently of whether they are known or not.

Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I didn't see you address it, can you link me to the post?

Oh yeesh I'd have to hunt it down. I just said that since we can't really know what it was like at the moment of the big bang, the best educated guess I could do was that Higgs Bosons (the particles that essentially ARE mass) didn't coalesce until things had already gotten out of hand. Since gravity relies pretty much entirely on objects that have mass, its initial presence would have been negligible at best.

Numerals and expressions may be human constructs, but they express things that are not dependent on human constructs. The formulas exist independently of whether they are known or not.

Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I'm not a physicist so I don't really understand that, but I'll take your word for it. However, I disagree on the mathematical point, based on discussions I've had with physicists about mathematics. Certainly mathematical anti-realism isn't the dominant opinion in physics. I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that mathematics describes real phenomenon.

[Godular]

Oh yeesh I'd have to hunt it down. I just said that since we can't really know what it was like at the moment of the big bang, the best educated guess I could do was that Higgs Bosons (the particles that essentially ARE mass) didn't coalesce until things had already gotten out of hand. Since gravity relies pretty much entirely on objects that have mass, its initial presence would have been negligible at best.



Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I'm not a physicist so I don't really understand that, but I'll take your word for it. However, I disagree on the mathematical point, based on discussions I've had with physicists about mathematics. Certainly mathematical anti-realism isn't the dominant opinion in physics. I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that mathematics describes real phenomenon.

Keyword 'describes'. Not necessarily 'is'.

Truth be told tho, I'd be more inclined to let Sal tackle this issue. He's the one with the actual Ph.D in Math. I'm just a lowly B.S. in Physics.

[Salandriagado]

Which says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a god.



It's really fairly simple. Not far off the simplest possible structure, actually.



It isn't.



No, it pretty much does "nuclear physics", "chemistry" and "gravity".



This is a wildly unsupported assertion.



This is simply a lie.

It isn't a lie, as the gravity in the singularity would be immense, and would keep the singularity intact.

No. Gravity happens at the speed of light. Cosmic inflation was faster than that.

The universe really isn't simple, it runs itself by a massive collection of mathematical equations.

That's simple, yes.

[Salandriagado]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/

One physicist's response to the idea that Mathematics is a social construct.

Why the fuck are they asking a physicist? Physicists, in general, know very little about mathematics. For reference, the totality of all of the mathematics that has ever been studied are entirely human constructs. Axiom selection, among equiconsistent axiom sets, is arbitrary, and the ones that we have chosen are just a few options out of an uncountably infinite family, and there's no reason why any aliens out there would have picked even vaguely similar ones.

[Salandriagado]

Numerals and expressions may be human constructs, but they express things that are not dependent on human constructs. The formulas exist independently of whether they are known or not.

Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

[Korhal IVV]

:)

1. No one is supporting them for today’s landscape. Every scholarly explanation is trainwreck for you people, anyway. The 21st century and the Late Bronze Age have completely different moral landscapes, and purges like these do belong in the BCE era, and God was speaking to the Israelites in their context, not in the lens of a 21st century SJW liberal. No one ever said that there is any reason to do it now or to say that they were beautiful. In either case, the Canaanites were very much inclined to fight Israel either way. 2. It was basically “Destroy the other before they destroy us.”

3. One must also note that there are those that willfully became allies to or/and became part of Israel and were treated well because of that: EX., the Gibeonites, the kinsmen of Uriah the Hittite, and the likes of Araunah the Jebusite. 4.The bottom line is that Canaanites were ordered to be destroyed for their moral degeneracy that would make even a modern day 5. BDSM enthusiast cringe,6. for their own intention to fight Israel to the last man, for their hideous idolatries,7. and for their refusal to repent. If you were there, maybe you’d see a broadside view of things. 8.But no, you stick only to the morality of the modern day and refuse to understand a simple word: context. Even you’d cringe when you witness firsthand what kind of things they did.

1. You are defending the necessity of this as is the article. As I said before, you are using the same language the nazis would. And SJW liberal? It doesnt take a moral crusader to say genocide is and always will be wrong.
2. No it wasnt. Fighting an enemy does not mean killing the children.
3. "Some of them survived because we liked them a bit more" is not a good statement.
4. God should have done it himself. Not had the Israelites do it for him. Either way its immoral.
5. As one, doubt.
6. Self defense is ok. Genocide is not.
7. Join us or die.
"Only a sith deal's in absolutes."
8. No, I understand context. I would understand the Israelites doing this of their own will. It would be wrong, but I'd understand the barbous acts of a barbarous time. But we are talking about the morality of a timeless God ordering genocide. Bit different.

I just found a way better article. Not a blog.

https://www.str.org/publications/the-ca ... GSldloRWhA

Enjoy.

[Neutraligon]

Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

On a globe I can draw a "triangle" using 90 degree turns. Is it a triangle since it has three sides or is it not a triangle since the angles add up to more than 180 degrees? As for 2+2 not always equaling 4, well that would depend on if you are working in something less than base 5.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

On a globe I can draw a "triangle" using 90 degree turns. Is it a triangle since it has three sides or is it not a triangle since the angles add up to more than 180 degrees? As for 2+2 not always equaling 4, well that would depend on if you are working in something less than base 5.

It's not a triangle because a triangle is on a two-dimensional plane.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Also incorrect, we came up with mathematics to describe our own understanding of the universe, but that does not mean that mathematics itself is an independent entity. If anything, it suffers from similar shortcomings to science, in that it is limited by our perceptions on the matter. You cannot say that a triangle is a triangle always, or 2 + 2 = 4 always, because this is not in point of fact always so.

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

A triangle with sides of length zero is functionally indistinguishable from a circle of radius zero, and two of nothing plus two of nothing can be any number of nothing we wish it to be. Without parameters set by a person or persons in the first place, any mathematical statements become meaningless.

Unless you’re saying I could have just phrased it better.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

A triangle with sides of length zero is functionally indistinguishable from a circle of radius zero, and two of nothing plus two of nothing can be any number of nothing we wish it to be. Without parameters set by a person or persons in the first place, any mathematical statements become meaningless.

Unless you’re saying I could have just phrased it better.

That's not a triangle, that's a point.

[Godular]

A triangle with sides of length zero is functionally indistinguishable from a circle of radius zero, and two of nothing plus two of nothing can be any number of nothing we wish it to be. Without parameters set by a person or persons in the first place, any mathematical statements become meaningless.

Unless you’re saying I could have just phrased it better.

That's not a triangle, that's a point.

They are functionally identical in that circumstance. That's MY point.

The same could be said for a triangle with sides that are infinitely long, with the exception of not being identical to a point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not a triangle, that's a point.

They are functionally identical in that circumstance. That's MY point.

The same could be said for a triangle with sides that are infinitely long, with the exception of not being identical to a point.

Not really, unless the sides were parallel lines, in which case they would not form a triangle, they would intersect. You're just applying the word "triangle" to things that objectively aren't triangles.