If this then that
Nonono I know what I said but don't attribute to me "If this then that" thinking.
Hym "It's a little dismissive to say that it's easy to draw the conclusion that a (or a pantheon of) reality monster(s) is responsible for reality and that's why it the conclusion was the first time and all subsequent times. You're argument is basically 'It's easy to conclude reality monster because in the absence of answers it would be easy to conclude that it's reality monsters.' But that's not the point. All I'm saying is seems a little reality monster-y.
I'm not saying 'if this then that.' Or they drew the conclusion, therefore, the fact that they drew the conclusion is evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
Hym "It's a little dismissive to say that it's easy to draw the conclusion that a (or a pantheon of) reality monster(s) is responsible for reality and that's why it the conclusion was the first time and all subsequent times. You're argument is basically 'It's easy to conclude reality monster because in the absence of answers it would be easy to conclude that it's reality monsters.' But that's not the point. All I'm saying is seems a little reality monster-y.
I'm not saying 'if this then that.' Or they drew the conclusion, therefore, the fact that they drew the conclusion is evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
MY position is: If you posit that the universe has a beginning and you accept the proposition of the big bang theory, it logically follows that there is a point at which there is an infinitely hot and dense single point that at some point came into being. If it came into being then you must accept that there is a '0 point' where no singularity exists and only 'the potential for the emergence of a singularity' exists independently from the existence of a singularity. So, there must be a state of potential that allows for a singularity to occur. And I'm NOT SAYING 'And therefore God.' What I am saying is 'What are the properties of this state of potential and what would constitute sentience?' And furthermore, what properties would it NEED to have for you consider it a God? If you require sentience. Fine. If it DOESN'T have it, then it isn't God. But what would it need to be able to do (other than generate a reality) to prove sentience? And even if it isn't sentient, whatever you would hypothetically call it is functionally the same thing. Reality has been ON SOME LEVEL been created. By whatever process, it IS here. And this in no way relates to the truth of the Bible. I don't believe that it (If you can call it an it) or A GOD of ANY kind has interacted with humanity aside from the act of generating reality. There's no way to infer any sort of behavioral ethic from that. Not If this then that."
If this then that by Hym Iam September 5, 2023
