Pastelland Forum

OnyxIonVortex wrote: Neither in Spain. Here 70% of people are supposedly Christian, but only around 15% actually attend mass more than once a month or so... I'd say it's more of a tradition-keeping feeling than actual belief, or... just plain sloth for some. And iirc more than half of all young people are now atheists in many cities.

It is like that in Finland as well and probably in most of the world. Even I am a Lutheran on paper. That doesn't really mean that I believe in God or follow the church's teachings, of which I know very little about, outside of the more controversial issues, like priestesses (who have been a thing for a while now, I don't understand the idea that women can't be priests).

azareus wrote:All reactions must have an action causing them. Maybe we find out what caused the big bang at some point. Then we will be stumped at what caused that, and so on.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is only known to be a property of the universe, it doesn't necessarily hold outside of it. Also, since causality is a product of the passage of time, asking what *caused* the big bang is not really a proper question.

Actually, conservation of energy = time symmetry, and if we have no time, we have no symmetry

And about causality, yeah, how can even be an action if there is no time for it to... well... be actioned? XD

My intuition told me that it wouldn't hold, but I didn't actually know, so I said 'not necessarily'. Good to know that I was on the right track there!

You must have a pretty good intuition then

I love your comments Vortex. I've already done searches for several of your points and found papers I've turned into mp3s with my trusty Balabolka program (which in the last update now has 3 really fantastic english voices even better then the old one). I'll be listening to them on monday at work. XD

Sense the conversation is going in this direction, let me throw out the model I actually used in one of my submachine theories. I see at least two categories for seeing reality: consistency and inconsistency. By consistency I mean that things always happen for a reason. Nothing just pops in to existence without some relationship to a law or cause. By an inconsistency, I mean that things could just pop into existence or change without cause. In a pure inconsistency, minds could exist, but there would be no guarantee of any consistency in them, or in how long they remain as minds. A pure inconsistency would be a living chaos. Thinking of these as categories, you might be able to imagine ways a dimension or region could be both simultaneously in some ways.

If we are to choose to believe that the only things that are real are pure consistencies in which things never simply happen without cause, law, or reason, then it seems we must say that there is at least something that is past infinite (whether with a sort of time or without) that has infinite or inexhaustible energy. (I'm trying to be careful with the terms I use, but if I use the wrong one, sorry.) This infinite something could take any form you wish: an infinite sea of some kind of energy, a God, a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, etc. It would have to be past infinite so that it cannot be said to have simply popped into existence, and have an infinite amount of energy or else the energy could have arguably run out an infinity ago. So, if you are not arguing that at some point planets, fish, and gods can just pop into existence without reason, I think you are stuck with this model at some point.

Now, it seems to me that whatever form the past infinite energy would take, it could not be perfectly homogenous or else there would be no reason for a big bang to have resulted from it. If it is not homogenous, then structure and complexity could evolve within it. Given enough "time" (an infinite amount perhaps?) these structures could evolve into a being that we might describe as God.

So,to repeat my question,good or bad?
And,it isn't a personal matter,there is a role society/upbringing plays in this.

I'm not sure what your referring to... believing in God or not? Or do you mean the stress you endure when you try to experience him?

Nothing is only a personal just like nothing is completely a social construct. If we CAN be so biased by our culture as to believe things that are not true, that would apply to all beliefs, not just religious ones. I don't believe that in an absolute sense, but it may be true on a surface level.

Redafro wrote: Sense the conversation is going in this direction, let me throw out the model I actually used in one of my submachine theories. I see at least two categories for seeing reality: consistency and inconsistency. By consistency I mean that things always happen for a reason. Nothing just pops in to existence without some relationship to a law or cause. By an inconsistency, I mean that things could just pop into existence or change without cause. In a pure inconsistency, minds could exist, but there would be no guarantee of any consistency in them, or in how long they remain as minds. A pure inconsistency would be a living chaos. Thinking of these as categories, you might be able to imagine ways a dimension or region could be both simultaneously in some ways.

If we are to choose to believe that the only things that are real are pure consistencies in which things never simply happen without cause, law, or reason, then it seems we must say that there is at least something that is past infinite (whether with a sort of time or without) that has infinite or inexhaustible energy. (I'm trying to be careful with the terms I use, but if I use the wrong one, sorry.) This infinite something could take any form you wish: an infinite sea of some kind of energy, a God, a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, etc. It would have to be past infinite so that it cannot be said to have simply popped into existence, and have an infinite amount of energy or else the energy could have arguably run out an infinity ago. So, if you are not arguing that at some point planets, fish, and gods can just pop into existence without reason, I think you are stuck with this model at some point.

There are two point I want to make. One: you are applying consistency beyond what we have reason to believe it existed. Logic, physics and math are all things that are inherent to this universe, not necessarily anything outside of it, before it or even after it. Two: if you're stuck with an unknowable answer then why demand that it should be known? Is there something inherently wrong about "we don't know?".

Redafro wrote:If we CAN be so biased by our culture as to believe things that are not true, that would apply to all beliefs, not just religious ones. .

I would agree to that.

Anteroinen wrote:

Redafro wrote:If we CAN be so biased by our culture as to believe things that are not true, that would apply to all beliefs, not just religious ones. .

I would agree to that.

Stereotypes is a great example of this being true. I think most countries have the same stereotypes for the USA, but otherwise I think they are pretty diverse depending on the country.