/lit/ - Literature

>>23406318
>This is a rather vulgar way to allude to what's entailed by the idea of omnipotency, sure
Elaborate what you mean by this. I haven't had my brain pickled for decades by religion, so you're going to have to give me something more explicit rather than complaining that the argument offends you. Tell me WHY it offends you. Are you afraid to talk about the idea of omnipotency? Do you fear questioning the power of your deity?
>You're sliding away from the fact you tried to argue an omnipotent being has no reason to care about humanity
My argument is a lot wider than just having no reason. I accept the possibility of an omnipotent being, transcendent from our own system of time and space, having a special interest in us. However, I don't see how it's likely. You ever just look at the scale of it all? Pic related is a good example. I know it's a silly meme, but the point still stands valid. There is a lot out there. Once life has gone extinct, there's still gonna be a lot more time out there. It's gonna be mundane and boring and dead. Sure it's gonna keep popping up all around the universe. We already have the proof of concept of molecular replicators. It's inevitable. But eventually, the energy to run the machinery of life is gonna run out. It's gonna get cold. Entropy comes for us all. Most of the universe's run is gonna be dead and empty. Our existence is not even a billionth of a blip on the timescale of the universe, and that's just the dimension of time. Have you seen how much space is out there? And don't get me started on scale and layers of abstraction. Even with a perfect capture of all the data and events occurring in the universe (I'm talking every damn Planck unit of space and time and possibly deeper), how likely do you think such a being's focus is gonna be on us? There is absolutely no reason to believe he can even perceive us as anything resembling how we see ourselves. We could just be a bit of replicating chemistry on the thin surface of a tiny ball of matter hurtling through space.
>I was mocking the fact you had the pretense to dictate what an omnipotent being should or shouldn't care about
Christianity seems to have a lot on this subject. They even wrote a whole book on what this being supposedly said to do or not do with your life.
>Polly want a cracker?
You have nothing. You know that statement is irrefutable and all you can do is act childish.

>>23365984
>What makes this different from a conception of God?
It's requires one less step in its explanation, resulting in a higher chance of being reality. We can both observe the universe exists and share our observations on it. Some being on a higher plane pulling the strings behind it all requires a lot more explanation and unlikely circumstances to both be true and evade any attempt at perception.
>As soon as you identify an origin for space, time, and matter, especially one that encompasses all of it, you are just identifying God by a different name
The difference is that even if there is such a being, atheists aren't making any claims what that being's (or force of nature's) wishes or demands regarding its own creation. Religion is, which is why atheists say that theists are full of shit. Not a single person on this planet has a fucking inkling of knowledge on who or what sparked this whole shebang. Nobody knows if such a being, assuming they are intelligent, can even perceive us, given the gargantuan difference in scale. And yet we have guy dressing up in fancy robes telling millions upon millions of people that the guy managing the whole damn universe has hyperfocused on making sure you never stroke your cock. It's peak hubris.

>>21229556
Humility at its extreme is nihilism. The universe is insanely big and you are insignificant. The radio waves from time when we invented radio haven't even left our galaxy.

>>20164208
Yeah, but there's like a ridiculous amount out there. You ever open up Space Engine and roam around? Takes more than 8 minutes just to get to the sun if you try getting there at the speed of light. There's a fuckton of universe out there, so it is hard to fathom that a God just did it all for the lulz. The more likely scenario is that we just happened for form an unlikely bit of order and complexity in an otherwise chaotic and uniform universe. Once you start looking on the scales of 300 million lightyears and beyond, the universe looks homogeneous and isotropic.

>>20162627
>Jesus Christ
What passage did Jesus tell you not to choke your chicken? And what authority does a dead man have to tell someone to not jack off?

>>20126010
>and the laws of nature are created and enacted by God
Prove it. Prove God caused the laws of nature.
>Thus, there is no reason to deny miracles like you did at the top of the reply chain
Can't be replicated, because they're made up bullshit. Simple as
>because God can will them however he sees it fit
How do you know God's powers, anon? For all you know, he could have created the world and can't do jack shit about it after the fact. Maybe God doesn't even have a will and is just another force of nature. Who knows? You can't even prove he exists, much less make claims on what he is.

>>19074050
He's a hypothetical, while I'm a provable reality. At best, he's a tulpa that went mainstream and exists as a memetic gestalt. Besides, assuming he was an infinite, eternal, perfect, ultimate being, why would he focus on a tiny blip residing in the arm of some random galaxy? Would we even be considered life from his point of view?