A simple question.

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions could not exist.

-Sounds good. As I said, I dont know everyone's exact interpretation of God so I can't say.
-What about ancestor worship or animism? They dont involve a God but have a deep belief in spirits. Where do those spirits come from and where do they go to? There is no initial or omniscient mover talked about yet there is a strong belief in a 'other' 'hereafter'.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions could not exist.

-Sounds good. As I said, I dont know everyone's exact interpretation of God so I can't say.
-What about ancestor worship or animism? They dont involve a God but have a deep belief in spirits. Where do those spirits come from and where do they go to? There is no initial or omniscient mover talked about yet there is a strong belief in a 'other' 'hereafter'.

The problem with spirits, is that either they are supernatural, which puts them in the same space as God - they cannot interact with the natural universe without creating a-causal events, or they are natural, in which case there should be some method of observing, verifying, and measuring them. As we have yet to do that, I will choose to remain sceptical of the existence of spirits.

 

[badger2]

Yes, and the argument for time also makes god an impossibility, for there is no such thing as presence in itself. Science morphs from this.

'I have already mentioned the difference in position of religious and psychoanalytic subjectivity with regard to scientific rationality, the first ostensibly separating itself from it, the second endeavouring to absorb it in various ways. Two other differences equally deserve to be noted: 1.) psychoanalysis requires a more active participation of its users in its rituals; 2.) its myths are more deterritorialized than those of religion.'
(Guattari, Schizoanalytic Cartographies)

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions could not exist.

-Sounds good. As I said, I dont know everyone's exact interpretation of God so I can't say.
-What about ancestor worship or animism? They dont involve a God but have a deep belief in spirits. Where do those spirits come from and where do they go to? There is no initial or omniscient mover talked about yet there is a strong belief in a 'other' 'hereafter'.

The problem with spirits, is that either they are supernatural, which puts them in the same space as God - they cannot interact with the natural universe without creating a-causal events, or they are natural, in which case there should be some method of observing, verifying, and measuring them. As we have yet to do that, I will choose to remain sceptical of the existence of spirits.

-Sounds good.
-I prefer the Buddhist way of thought. We can see that everything is dependent upon everything else. Wondering about whether there is or isn't a God is immaterial to the real purpose, ending our suffering.

 

[Czernobog]

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions could not exist.

-Sounds good. As I said, I dont know everyone's exact interpretation of God so I can't say.
-What about ancestor worship or animism? They dont involve a God but have a deep belief in spirits. Where do those spirits come from and where do they go to? There is no initial or omniscient mover talked about yet there is a strong belief in a 'other' 'hereafter'.

The problem with spirits, is that either they are supernatural, which puts them in the same space as God - they cannot interact with the natural universe without creating a-causal events, or they are natural, in which case there should be some method of observing, verifying, and measuring them. As we have yet to do that, I will choose to remain sceptical of the existence of spirits.

-Sounds good.
-I prefer the Buddhist way of thought. We can see that everything is dependent upon everything else. Wondering about whether there is or isn't a God is immaterial to the real purpose, ending our suffering.

Buddhism is a, more or less, healthy discipline. Although, I would submit that they anthropomorphise "consciousness" a bit more than is rationally legitimate. Once again, there is no observable, verifiable evidence that one's consciousness survives one's death. It seems to me, that they are just making an argument for the "soul", while trying to avoid sounding overly religious by calling it "consciousness".

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions could not exist.

-Sounds good. As I said, I dont know everyone's exact interpretation of God so I can't say.
-What about ancestor worship or animism? They dont involve a God but have a deep belief in spirits. Where do those spirits come from and where do they go to? There is no initial or omniscient mover talked about yet there is a strong belief in a 'other' 'hereafter'.

The problem with spirits, is that either they are supernatural, which puts them in the same space as God - they cannot interact with the natural universe without creating a-causal events, or they are natural, in which case there should be some method of observing, verifying, and measuring them. As we have yet to do that, I will choose to remain sceptical of the existence of spirits.

-Sounds good.
-I prefer the Buddhist way of thought. We can see that everything is dependent upon everything else. Wondering about whether there is or isn't a God is immaterial to the real purpose, ending our suffering.

Buddhism is a, more or less, healthy discipline. Although, I would submit that they anthropomorphise "consciousness" a bit more than is rationally legitimate. Once again, there is no observable, verifiable evidence that one's consciousness survives one's death. It seems to me, that they are just making an argument for the "soul", while trying to avoid sounding overly religious by calling it "consciousness".

They make no argument for soul. Anattman in Pali literally means non-self. There is no us, there is only the illusion of us.
Anatta:
What the teaching says is, that within this human being, consisting of mind and body, or consisting of body and the mental attributes of feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, there is no permanent, personal entity which can be called a self or soul or ego.
Karma and Anatta or Non-self and Kamma - Buddha's world

Additionally the law of Kamma is essentially the law of cause and effect. We exist in this causal universe without independent origination. Our results are dependent upon our action. Our actions a dictated by our intentions...intention by thought and speech. The simple law of conditionality.

 

[badger2]

The Buddhist double-bind is precisely those signifiers "soul" and "consciousness." In Machinic Unconscious, a radically atheist text, Guattari shows Figure 7, Opening of the Angle of Signifiance, a triangle one on side of which, moving toward the apex is firstly 'the signifier,' followed by 'the individuated subject,' followed by 'the sentiment of signification' arriving at the apex 'the soul.' Guattari says of it, 'Signifying semiologies rest on four basic paralogisms relative to the reality of (brute Matter [italics]), to the reality of (the living Soul[it.]), to the reality of the Signifying Verb[it.]) and to the reality of the )individuate subject[it.]). One finds them in all circumstances and in the most various forms, not only within explicit codes (in religious, moral, political orders, etc....), but also more especially throughout models of the social formations of the unconscious. The components of ideological denotation, signifying mediation, contextualization, and subjectification based on "dominant realities" are tightly gripped by institutions-agencies of power and the media, which are like so many operators of a "grammar" of the unconscious.'
(Guattari, The Machinic Unconscious: Essays in Schizoanalysis)

Omar Mateen's hamburger is touched by another's pork, and the islamorad tweaks out on homosexuals, because god/allah is the name for the violence that names.

 

[ding]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

100%

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

No. That would be you envisioning their beliefs.

But putting that aside, reality is independent of belief. Yours or anyone else's. Things do indeed exist independently of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them. Or anyone's perceived knowledge of them.

You logic is massively flawed. So much so, your ability to reason is in question.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Again, Reality is independent of belief. Things do indeed exist independent of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them.

 

[BulletProof]

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

 

[MPS777]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

100%

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

No. That would be you envisioning their beliefs.

But putting that aside, reality is independent of belief. Yours or anyone else's. Things do indeed exist independently of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them. Or anyone's perceived knowledge of them.

You logic is massively flawed. So much so, your ability to reason is in question.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Again, Reality is independent of belief. Things do indeed exist independent of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them.

does “a causal universe” = “a deterministic universe” ?

 

[ding]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

100%

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

No. That would be you envisioning their beliefs.

But putting that aside, reality is independent of belief. Yours or anyone else's. Things do indeed exist independently of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them. Or anyone's perceived knowledge of them.

You logic is massively flawed. So much so, your ability to reason is in question.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Again, Reality is independent of belief. Things do indeed exist independent of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them.

does “a causal universe” = “a deterministic universe” ?

It does to me.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

100%

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

No. That would be you envisioning their beliefs.

But putting that aside, reality is independent of belief. Yours or anyone else's. Things do indeed exist independently of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them. Or anyone's perceived knowledge of them.

You logic is massively flawed. So much so, your ability to reason is in question.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Again, Reality is independent of belief. Things do indeed exist independent of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them.

My "perceptions" have nothing to do with this. A causal universe is one in which, at a macroscopic level, events are caused by previous events, according to physical laws. A causally-valid event is, therefore, actually part of a causal chain of such events stretching back to the Big bang. Hence, God "reaching into the universe" to make cause something to happen is, by definition, an a-causal event. Q.E.D.

An a-causal event in a causal universe corrupts the causal chain, and breaks the universe. It is not my "perception". It is science.

 

[Czernobog]

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

No, dumbass, I specifically acknowledged that a deistic God, could very well have "nudged" the singularity, and caused the Big Bang. However, because that set in motion a causal system, that God would be incapable of ever affecting anything within that causal system again. Since life did not begin until several million years later, life had to have occurred naturally, because a God outside of the causal universe cannot operate within that universe, without creating an a-causal event, and collapsing the causal universe.

Hence, the God of theism, continuing to act upon the universe is not scientifically possible.

 

[BulletProof]

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

No, dumbass, I specifically acknowledged that a deistic God, could very well have "nudged" the singularity, and caused the Big Bang. However, because that set in motion a causal system, that God would be incapable of ever affecting anything within that causal system again. Since life did not begin until several million years later, life had to have occurred naturally, because a God outside of the causal universe cannot operate within that universe, without creating an a-causal event, and collapsing the causal universe.

Dumbshit, you really are a dumbshit if you think you can do away with God by defining acts of God as non-causal.

Also, dumbshit, why would you or anyone offer that your imagined singularity could cause the big bang without cause?

 

[fncceo]

Do we live in a causal universe?

I live in a casual universe