Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
No reason. I just do.
If you look at it very very loosely, many major religions are reaching toward the same general concepts and have enough similarities to suggest a consensus that there's a "something" up there.
We probably all have an imperfect idea of what that "something" is, but there are enough similarities (or echos of the same ideas) across many religions to suggest they're looking at the same indivisible thing and interpreting it differently.
Truth is proof - I can neither prove the number of gods is >0, nor prove it is =0.
Thus cautious agnosticism (since the evidence suggests, if there is at least one god, then they really hate us).
I believe in a god but it is strange lol. I will truly never understand the concept of being all knowing and powerful so my idea is he's either so bored with his existence he created us for entertainment or simply boredom. I imagine him similar to a comic book writer or tv show creator
Earthseed
I believe in God because I don't believe knowledge is possible without a transcendent being. (e.g. the impossibility of the contrary) Otherwise you are dealing with infinite regress or axiomatic circularity. Materialism breaks down with origin theories. Metaphysics aren't substantial yet exist. Math and logic aren't descriptors of the world but integral to how the world is structured. The Orthodox view is that these principles are a reflection of the divine mind.
(I am an Orthodox Christian)
If so, your definition of 'God' is so far removed from what most people take God to mean as to just invite linguistic debates over debates over the thing itself.
Explain what you think I mean by God.
Did you edit your comment to say you were a Christian or did I just miss that? If so, I apologise, your conception of God is quite likely similar to most Christians! I do fail to see how the argument for a transcendent being predicates the Christian God specifically, though, no offense intended.
I did edit to say I was a Christian because I realized that would probably make things clearer.
The argumentation for the Christian god goes beyond what I posted here but builds on the concept. No offense taken.
Sort of, but it's more a comforting theory rather then a true belief. I came up with it when I was younger, doing a lot of psychedelics, and meditating often on the nature of existence and reality.
My theory is that God is everything. The earth, the stars, our fellow beings. All of reality makes up a complex web that I loosely refer to as a "consciousness" for lack of a better word. The nature of this "consciousness" is incomprehensible to us. It does not activly intervene in our daily lives, and operates on a scale beyond our comprehension. Mostly, it simply is. It is the oblivion from which our consciousness was once plucked, and it is where we will one day return.
In essence, each of us is a tiny fragment of reality experiencing itself. The meaning of life is to experience it. All of it. Joy, pleasure, and suffering. It is all a part of the whole of existence. When we die and return to the infinite our individuality is lost, but maybe God learns something about itself.
TLDR; I'm vehemently agnostic.
I believe that if there is a "God" entity, that it is incomprehensible and not worth attempting to understand.
I also don't believe in an anthropocentric "God", in that "God" doesn't inherently value nor not value humans as somehow special nor damned. I also don't believe "God" cares nor doesn't care about humans or existence.
I also don't believe in inherent meaning, nor that there is some form of divine justice. Those are human lenses through which we interpret the world, and are unlikely to apply (at least in the same way as a human) to the supposed viewpoint of an eternal omniscient omnipotent entity that created the universe and will supposedly one day close the door on time and its own existence.
In short, I'm one bleak motherfucker and it doesn't matter if "God" exists or not. Either way, I don't get to survive death. What is eternal about me is inherently not a part of me. It is mortality, true mortality, mortality of the consciousness and the ego and the individual that defines the individual. When that dies, "Godβ or not, either way there is no individual to somehow surpass death.
Leave me be, I'm agnostic. Bother me with religious nonsense and see the atheist come out and ruin your day.
I believe in God because I think its the best explanation for the existence of our universe with it's laws. A being outside of our current space/time setting our universe into motion just makes sense to me.
If our universe requires a being outside it as an origin, why shouldn't that being itself require another being of even further outside as an origin, and so on?
By nature of being outside of our universe they are not subject to the same constants/restraints or our same concepts of space and time.
But I'm not necessarily saying it's a requirement. That's just the line of thought I lean towards personally at this point.
@FooBarrington @IttihadChe Itβs turtles all the way down. π’
Scientists believed this for the longest time, but I've recently seen a documentary explaining that, at the very bottom, there's a giant koala bear. Apparently they're still trying to determine why it's smiling.
That's essentially the TAG argument.
Interesting, I've never heard of that term but I am partial towards the Maliki madhab which is highly influenced by the Asha'ri and I see them listed there.
I'll be sure to look into this later.
Consciousness exists. This implies that either consciousness is some emergent property of sufficiently complex interconnected systems, or it's some universal force that complex interconnected systems "channel".
If it's emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, would develop consciousness. That universal consciousness might as well be called "God". If it's a universal force, it might as well be called "God". Anyway you slice it, a universal consciousness seems inevitable from a sober metaphysical analysis.
Lots of people have ascribed lots of culturally specific attributes to the universal consciousness which are obviously quite silly. The core statement that "I am that 'I am'" is really the only meaningful attribute we can identify.
If it's emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, wouldn't develop consciousness.
I was, no shit, just thinking about this on my break about an hour ago. God or whatever you wanna call them. If there was a way to develop more consciousness by adding more information to the universe. If consciousness emerges to solve complex problems then maybe if we populate/terraform planets then we will have a deeper understanding.
I saw something fitting a common description for God (in meditation). Yes, a total mystic vision.
(The creator of reality. A star (that also looks like a jewel) that emits poetry energy. And then I react to that energy by dreaming this dream that I call reality. Like contriving lyrics for an instrumental song.)
No intelligence or personhood as far as I can tell. Just a vast brainless mystico-cosmological gusher of energy.