The Universe

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Exactly! The reason people believe in God in the modern day must be some kind of crutch.

of course it is!

 

[Impudent]

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[ARC150]

I think it's more believable to think that a lump of matter simply existed than an all-powerful being simply existed.

Dig.

Belief in a God, besides defying Acom's Razor (IMHO) also fails to answer the question of how or if something can come from nothing. Many arguments use the argument that Existence is a characteristic of God. Gets us nowhere.

The problem with explaining anything (e.g. God, Matter) as everpresent requires the utilization of concepts that defy our basic understanding. It is like trying to understand the concept of "Nothing:" We can understand it inversely as the absence of "Something," though this is not an actual conceptualization of "Nothing." It is like using the concept of Infinity: Mathmaticians can utilize the idea to arrive at understandable conclusions, yet the concept on Infinity itself is still not truly concievable.

 

[speed]

Dig.

Belief in a God, besides defying Acom's Razor (IMHO) also fails to answer the question of how or if something can come from nothing. Many arguments use the argument that Existence is a characteristic of God. Gets us nowhere.

The problem with explaining anything (e.g. God, Matter) as everpresent requires the utilization of concepts that defy our basic understanding. It is like trying to understand the concept of "Nothing:" We can understand it inversely as the absence of "Something," though this is not an actual conceptualization of "Nothing." It is like using the concept of Infinity: Mathmaticians can utilize the idea to arrive at understandable conclusions, yet the concept on Infinity itself is still not truly concievable.

Well said ARC 150. I think our understanding of science and thought itself has far outstripped our remaining ancient Iron Age religions.

 

[anonymouswierdo]

Dig.

Belief in a God, besides defying Acom's Razor (IMHO) also fails to answer the question of how or if something can come from nothing. Many arguments use the argument that Existence is a characteristic of God. Gets us nowhere.

The problem with explaining anything (e.g. God, Matter) as everpresent requires the utilization of concepts that defy our basic understanding. It is like trying to understand the concept of "Nothing:" We can understand it inversely as the absence of "Something," though this is not an actual conceptualization of "Nothing." It is like using the concept of Infinity: Mathmaticians can utilize the idea to arrive at understandable conclusions, yet the concept on Infinity itself is still not truly concievable.

In other words: there are many things we can (or do) know, but not actually understand? It just doesn't soak in properly?

We are used to the world being a certian way, (for example) where there is a wall, there is something on the other side of the wall.

 

[Øjeblikket]

The problem with explaining anything as everpresent requires the utilization of concepts that defy our basic understanding.

I came together like buttons to slits
to find myself in wanting. One day,
I'll pass on.

 

[ARC150]

In other words: there are many things we can (or do) know, but not actually understand? It just doesn't soak in properly?

It is not so much that there are things we do not know (though there are...), but concepts that the limits of our mind prevent us from conceptualizing.

A simple exercise: Imagine "Nothing."

What do you imagine? I guarantee that it is something.

Most common reflexive response: A black void - a space occupied by only blackness.

The issue here is that that concept of Nothing involves Something - even that "black void" is somehting. It is not that "It just doesn't soak in properly;" it is that we are incapable of actually encompassing the idea.

 

[Impudent]

In other words: there are many things we can (or do) know, but not actually understand? It just doesn't soak in properly?

It is not so much that there are things we do not know (though there are...), but concepts that the limits of our mind prevent us from conceptualizing.

A simple exercise: Imagine "Nothing."

What do you imagine? I guarantee that it is something.

Most common reflexive response: A black void - a space occupied by only blackness.

The issue here is that that concept of Nothing involves Something - even that "black void" is somehting. It is not that "It just doesn't soak in properly;" it is that we are incapable of actually encompassing the idea.

I used to often try to imagine nothing, and I was always blown away by how utterly bleak an idea that was and how it was actually impossible to do.

 

[ARC150]

I used to often try to imagine nothing, and I was always blown away by...how it was actually impossible to do.

Right.

 

[anonymouswierdo]

It is not so much that there are things we do not know (though there are...), but concepts that the limits of our mind prevent us from conceptualizing.

You might have misread me. I said that there are things we DO know, but don't truely understand.

It is not that "It just doesn't soak in properly;" it is that we are incapable of actually encompassing the idea.

By "soak in" I mean..... the understanding flows over us, we cannot hold it.

 

[ARC150]

You might have misread me. I said that there are things we DO know, but don't truely understand.
***
By "soak in" I mean..... the understanding flows over us, we cannot hold it.

Apologies for the mis-read.

Is "The understanding flows over us, we cannot hold it" a quote, or do you write poetically?

 

[anonymouswierdo]

Apologies for the mis-read.

Is "The understanding flows over us, we cannot hold it" a quote, or do you write poetically?

(Ignoring that technicly it is now a quote) No, it is not a quote, I wrote it of my own accord.

 

[ARC150]

(Ignoring that technicly it is now a quote) No, it is not a quote, I wrote it of my own accord.

Dig.

(In the hopes that I am not belaboring a point...) I think this is, in a sense, correct. It is not unlike the captive in Plato's Allegory.

It is like the idea of creature from a 2D world attempting to understand the idea of a 3D creature.

My memory fails me...who first penned this idea?

 

[Dushan S]

In other words: there are many things we can (or do) know, but not actually understand? It just doesn't soak in properly?I used to often try to imagine nothing, and I was always blown away by how utterly bleak an idea that was and how it was actually impossible to do.

But you can have experience of "nothing". People in the west often assume Me/I = intellectual apparatus = thoughts, so whenever it is hard to grasp, imagine conceptualise something, we tend to question its existence or sense. It is possible to understand without having thoughts. To imagine, means to project idea based on previous knowledge, that is in turn based on what memory bank made of informations we have from our 5 senses is. So we cannot imagine something we don't alredy know, we can just combine what we have already experienced. But again we can have new, previously unknown experiences, and some of them are not intellectual. For instance, do you think that some girl that never had an orgasm can imagine how it feels like exactly? Her inability to imagine orgasm does not means that she can't have it, or that orgasm does not exists.

 

[کوڈانشی]

do you think that some girl that never had an orgasm can imagine how it feels like exactly? Her inability to imagine orgasm does not means that she can't have it, or that orgasm does not exists.

brilliantly put, dushan, though she couldn’t express it except in terms she had already experienced, surely? in that same way, our past experiences and suchlike dictate our ability to understand & perceive what we cannot — infinity, nothingness, ﷲ (allah), etc.

 

[anonymouswierdo]

in that same way, our past experiences and suchlike dictate our ability to understand & perceive

I think I had a conversation about that not too long ago....

 

[کوڈانشی]

I think I had a conversation about that not too long ago....

i joined a short while after you, so have not happed upon that conversation — though i’d appreciate any links in that regard. unless you meant a ‘real–life’ conversation!

 

[anonymouswierdo]

i joined a short while after you, so have not happed upon that conversation — though i’d appreciate any links in that regard. unless you meant a ‘real–life’ conversation!

[url=rwlp://earth/australia/melbourne/ .... that won't work, will it?

There's no such thing as "real world location protocol"..... (amoungst other things).

Pity.