You've reached the end!
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/
Chalk this up as one more disagreement between believers (that they really should have settled by now, given their interactions with an unbiased, omniscient third-party)
Those who don’t believe are usually the ones who have changed their minds, not the other way around. It’s not surprising that some number of those change their minds again.
Ultimately it was that in MatAth the person could not be defined, yet we are persons. Also the concept of specie was broken too, every animal would be its own specie.
Then I realized that atheists have no explaination for quantum probabilities, i thought that for God to not exist everything had to be explainable with mechanisms. But when we measure the spin of a particle, whether is spin up or spin down, there is a 50/50 perfect chance? what mechanism makes the choice? There is none, and atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period" I realized that since there is no mechanism the only thing that remains to explain it is Will, and if there is will there is a person behind that will.
What does this even mean?
Not sure the fourth big bang was necessary.
So? Better to not be able to explain something, than a glib "god did it".
> atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period"
I've never heard an atheist say anything like this. Or a physicist. They're more likely to say "that's how it appears to be. We don't know why. It's a bit of a mystery."
What could be more reasonable than to worship the source of all heat life and light in this world? Unfortunately I grew up in the wrong era/continent for that.
Regardless of religion, creed, or motto, it is human to seek the truth and understand it.
You can choose to study physics, or sociology, or how the human body works, or the mind, and how to fight diseases etc.
Questions bigger than that seem too big to me, but if trying to find an answer to those questions makes people feel good and/or live good lives, why not?
The first few chapters of Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen" opened a completely new world to me outside of rationality which I sorely was ignorant about, and I desperately needed. Having a spiritual perspective from which to view the world is probably the most valuable part of the religious experience. The fantasies people have over the centuries built on top, I really can do without.
croes•23h ago
yawpitch•22h ago
giardini•22h ago
I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!
yawpitch•22h ago
croes•22h ago
yawpitch•19h ago
croes•13h ago
yawpitch•13h ago
croes•11h ago
More realistic than god.
yawpitch•10h ago
No argument there, but “in nature everything has an opposite” is just as illogical; many things have no opposite, thus it’s not “at least two” it’s zero asshole gods in a nihilistic atheistic universe, one asshole god in a true monotheistic universe, one neutered god and one not-quite god representing the bit that’s been neutered off in a false monotheistic universe, one good god and one bad god in a morally balanced duotheistic universe (looks identical to the zero god(s) option), or a variable number of variably asshole gods in a polytheistic universe.
mrkeen•21h ago
(If you had just one, it would look pretty silly calling himself father and praying to himself.)
alonsovm44•22h ago
if there were two gods, they would have to differ from each other in some way. But a being that is pure act (without any potentiality) and absolutely simple (not composed of parts) cannot have any accidental differences. They could only differ in their very “whatness” (essence). However, if they differ in essence, then one has a perfection the other lacks. The one lacking that perfection would not be absolutely perfect, and therefore would not be God. Thus, you cannot have two beings each claiming to be the maximum of being.
croes•22h ago
mrkeen•22h ago
kisper•17h ago
Sabinus•14h ago