Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

EKublai, your point about patterns being notcitable in the big picture and the radomness in the smaller picture reminds me about "super strings" in Chaos Theory.

I saw a PBS series a while back on Quantum Physics that challenged Reletivity, it's all very complex but basically QP and the idea of "super strings" suggest that at the quantum level everything IS chaotic and does not follow the laws of physics and Reletivity of space-time, but at the universal scale the "super string" activity play out an orderliness in the fabric of space-time.

Thus, it seems that these oppsing theories coexist in our universe.

In the "big picture" Reletivity is valid and works but invalidates Quantum Physics and Chaos Theory because the larger patterns such as space-time can be predicted; and at the "quantum" level, Quantum Physics are valid because it suggests the unpredictability of matter.

But then again I used the word "seems" in their coexistence...

---

At 12/4/06 02:07 AM, EKublai wrote: I live my life every day by asking the same question asked by Socrates in every sentence of The Republic, "What is the good life?" My life is bound to that question and therefore, not to religion. I idolize no higher being besides my own power to ask these questions. I find that the only true reasoning for my being atheist is because religion relies upon a higher being to decide what the good life is. If we ourselves can only lead the good life in one fashion, then what is the good life but the predictable, dull one. And after we die we would go into an eternal bliss, a situation that I feel could possibly worse than to go to Hell and suffer eternally. Either way, both will eventually become dull and predictable because of this word, 'eternal.' Happiness? What is happiness without grief to compare it? What is surrow with no joy to balence? What good is an 'eternal' life when it is missing one of the most valuable characteristics of all. Chaos. Chaos is the nearest thing to perfection in this world, because as I have realized, there almost always has been, there always is, and there always will be grief, joy, anger, pain, and all other emotions in the mortal life. Chaos is the pandemic that kills and gives birth everyday, and never stops. So I must ask God, the all-knowing, and of course I offer him nothing to credit me as philosopher of equal intelligence, but I must beg to as why? Why when we die, do we substitute the 'perfect' life, for the 'eternal' one. Whether sending us to Heaven or Hell, we always suffer, knowing that while we lived, we were able to experience the imperfections of the world that made it so livable.

First of all, perfection isn't fun. (Especially if you define perfection as a communistic utopia) Perfection is an existence without fault, which thus would aparently be static. But this is only because we define perfection as something being static, unchanging. Because we know from our earthly experience that change is the only way to solve problems, and to cause more as well. So therefore, we automatically asume that the only way for something to be perfect, is for it to be the exact same thing at all times, unchanging.

This is the modern western idea of perfection, but it's very difficult to define perfection because there's nothing in our universe that is perfect the very roots of science are based upon, according to scientists, seemily random occurences in the world such as the idea, when you have two scientifical bodies, and a bit of energy between them, a reaction will occur.

This is simply an individuals veiw on heaven, as is eternal suffering the term of hell. However, a loving forgiving god would never create a "Realm" where deliverance and peace of mind and peace of the soul is unachievable, therefore, i dont beleive in hell, nor to i beleive in satan. I beleive these 2 things are more of a religous scare tactic. You know, jesus never mentioned hell at all, he mearly stated a more buhdist concept of karma, when an invidiual does wrong things and does not ask himself, god, and the victim for forgiveness, his soul is weakened, and the same negative feelings will be returned to the offender.

In other words, negativity creates more self negativity.

I invision heaven as more of a similarly earthly existance in a Realm (or "Dimension") where gods love is more strongly connected to the soul, where as on earth the positive energy is weaker because it's ultimate source, the ultimate intelligence and origin of all matter in the universe (As stated in the bible) is indirrectly connected to us here on earth. Therefore, in heaven, the existence of negativity is completely inhibited because we're existing closer to our creator (Similar to how a child feels more at ease when he's closer to his or her parents) Things can change, but in the "All powerful light of god" feelings of anger, saddness, etc, are incongerable.

I dont nessesarilly beleive that i feel sorry for people who dont beleive in god, or a god. I feel sorry for the people that beleive that god is a "Terrible and mighty entity" who causes pain in humans simply to show off how powerful he/she is and how we must praise him at all times. A god with infinate wisdom who, according to the bible, created us in his image with the slight bit of imperfection would be a loving god, more like a mother then a warrior. I also feel sorry for people who beleive that doom/hell/evil is upon us all, when you think like that, it must be very depressing, although i asume by some time invididuals who think like that (like jahoves witnesses for example) are far more desensitized to it, which isn't a good thing spiritually, similarly to how people gain tolerance to certain drugs which do cause harm to their mind and their body.

---

At 12/7/06 04:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: First of all, perfection isn't fun. (Especially if you define perfection as a communistic utopia) Perfection is an existence without fault, which thus would aparently be static.

"Perfection is static"--Seemingly so, but how and why do we know?

But this is only because we define perfection as something being static, unchanging. Because we know from our earthly experience that change is the only way to solve problems, and to cause more as well. So therefore, we automatically asume that the only way for something to be perfect, is for it to be the exact same thing at all times, unchanging.

This is the modern western idea of perfection, but it's very difficult to define perfection because there's nothing in our universe that is perfect the very roots of science are based upon, according to scientists, seemily random occurences in the world such as the idea, when you have two scientifical bodies, and a bit of energy between them, a reaction will occur.

Exactly! Then how can we be sure whether or not perfection is "fun" if we have not experienced it (...yet)?

What if perfection is SO perfect that it's fluid and solid at the SAME time?

This is simply an individuals veiw on heaven, as is eternal suffering the term of hell. However, a loving forgiving god would never create a "Realm" where deliverance and peace of mind and peace of the soul is unachievable, therefore, i dont beleive in hell, nor to i beleive in satan. I beleive these 2 things are more of a religous scare tactic.

A "scare tactic" to some religions, but not in Christian Orthodoxy...Hell is a reminder of an existence of constant taking, constant fear of being destroyed, and complete selfishness.

You know, jesus never mentioned hell at all, he mearly stated a more buhdist concept of karma, when an invidiual does wrong things and does not ask himself, god, and the victim for forgiveness, his soul is weakened, and the same negative feelings will be returned to the offender.

True: "Do unto others as you would do unto youself." But this also means that unlike karma, we try to help those who with "bad" karma without any expectation of getting anything back from them.

As for hell, Jesus said: "...if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that ONE of your members perish, than for your WHOLE body to be cast into hell ." (Matthew 5:30)

In other words, negativity creates more self negativity.

Yup. Mega dittos.

I dont nessesarilly beleive that i feel sorry for people who dont beleive in god, or a god. I feel sorry for the people that beleive that god is a "Terrible and mighty entity" who causes pain in humans simply to show off how powerful he/she is and how we must praise him at all times.

I agree with you on that one, too. The view of a "Terrible and mighty entity" is highly misguided among Christians.

As a believer in "good" and "evil", there is "Mutual Possession" on the side of evil where everyone has to possess each other and bully each other in order to survive; whereas on the side of good, there is a "Mutual Obedience" where all our actions and desires ("wills") are working together to benefit the whole.

On the side of "good", There is mercy to forgive and forget, and room to correct oneself and offer suggestions or opinions. Jesus explained this obedience when He was describing the nature of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.

However, on the side of "evil" if one doesn't prove oneself "evil" by bullying or possessing, they will be destroyed without mercy.

A god with infinate wisdom who, according to the bible, created us in his image with the slight bit of imperfection would be a loving god, more like a mother then a warrior.

Again, I agree...But God did NOT make us imperfect. It was the FREEDOM in which we chose to be disobedient and selfish by not giving back. And if we keep taking and taking without ever giving back, it is the same as death. And the only way for evil (people, places, and things) to survive is by leeching off of each other.

I also feel sorry for people who beleive that doom/hell/evil is upon us all, when you think like that, it must be very depressing, although i asume by some time invididuals who think like that (like jahoves witnesses for example) are far more desensitized to it, which isn't a good thing spiritually, similarly to how people gain tolerance to certain drugs which do cause harm to their mind and their body.

I believe in evil, but I'm not depressed by it because of the good premises, which I've been guided and I try to live by, of respecting life and and protecting freedom. An awareness of evil is not the same as putting yourself in the path of evil whether you did it in knowledge or in ignorance.

---

At 12/7/06 04:01 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

A god with infinate wisdom who, according to the bible, created us in his image with the slight bit of imperfection would be a loving god, more like a mother then a warrior.

I also feel sorry for people who beleive that doom/hell/evil is upon us all, when you think like that, it must be very depressing, although i asume by some time invididuals who think like that (like jahoves witnesses for example) are far more desensitized to it, which isn't a good thing spiritually, similarly to how people gain tolerance to certain drugs which do cause harm to their mind and their body.

Sorry for the double post, but for some reason the quotes of who said what became unclear.
I just had to clarify SmilesRoylale words from my responses.

---

finally somone agrees with me! btw, i also feel that perfection isn't static, as stated:

"This is the modern western idea of perfection, but it's very difficult to define perfection because there's nothing in our universe that is perfect the very roots of science are based upon" - Smilezroyale

---

At 12/6/06 06:30 PM, saiGLYPH wrote:

At 12/6/06 12:44 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/5/06 05:40 PM, Devildoubt wrote:

At 12/5/06 12:56 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/4/06 11:34 PM, Devildoubt wrote: "Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

To many varibles

Well, chaos is already randomness, but if everything SEEMS to fit in place, such as the structure of DNA or the Mandrelbrot set, there is a pattern/order in chaos.

So im a world where everyone was always blue and water falls up would that be oredered chaos?

Are you trying to prove him wrong? Because you just kind of gave an example of two trends, and therefore, order. I also llike how you say there are too many variables and then give an example that almost has no mention of variables. It seems to me you haven't really thought this through.

I never think things through. Thats why I only got 2 hours sleep last night. The butterfly effect went cool when that chick became a prostitute junky. But if hes talking about ordered chaos then hes talking about fate which is a load of crap. What do you call fate which has been changed? How do you know that your life is or isnt planned. Everything is random. What you are and how you live. You may think you have plans but in the end there is no safety net.

I have no idea what im talking about

---

At 12/7/06 12:25 AM, saiGLYPH wrote:
What do you mean by generalities? I think we’re very capable of accepting very specific things. Do you mean generalities as an apposite to absolutes? In which case, I would say that in the pursuit of truth, we can only accept generalities. But in the pursuit of beliefs we can accept very many absolutes. I think a person who feels that they’ve found absolutes in search of truth is misleading themselves.

I tend to disagree. I find that in the case of finding absolutes that originate in the human mind, we must take as many things we hold to be absolutes and test them. This clears the picture as to what we have meant in our persuit all these years. If we understand the absolutes that we test these theories against, we then understand the hurtle we are trying to overcome. Speaking in generalities does stop us from believing in a potentially nonexistant theory, but I believe beliefs are the only things that stop us from delving deeper. For instance, my aim here is not to convince you of an absolute, but to test a relatively well-known idea inhuman thinking and find out if it has relevance and what the relevance is, to the question.

Obviously, for logic to function, there needs to me some amount of absolutes, and therefore some amount of beliefs. It’s sort of a technical difficulty, and a sacrifice I’m obviously willing to make on many accounts.

I don't really understand your point here. Absolute = belief is mostly what I'm getting. Are you saying that you are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of absolutes that might otherwise change you thinking in order to persue a course?

I do tend to believe we have very little power over what we think. I believe humans are ultimately reactive in nature, and those reactions are controlled by variables – variables that exist within and variables that exist as external stimuli. I believe the variety of our character and our choices is the result of the subtle or not-so-subtle variations in the variables affecting us (variety, variations, variables… heh).

But don't we have the choice to ignore the basic instinct and step back and think about the matter. In this case, we are choosing to ignore the variables' consequences, even to the point of embracing the negative consequences, which very few other species do, in order to find a more corrective measure.

I know it’d be ludicrous to say that I’m not searching for perfection. On some level I must be. But in my responses in this thread, I think I’ve generally avoided the path to perfection. And I think I’ve done with because it’s not a question of THE path to me, but of MY path.

But being your path, then isn't that free will. Butisn't your argument previously that you cannot make your own path becasue we have very little decisions that are theresult of free will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would see a life of free will to result in the following of THE path even more because one cannot create another.

I don’t know what perfection is, nor do I know what is absolute. I can say the absolute is not perfect for me, however I cannot say whether the absolute is in itself perfect. The latter phrase is intrinsic to the former.

I'm not sure what you mean. If we were to actually find the absolute that by all common goals was considered perfection, what could possibly the imperfection. I understand the possibility that there may be no absolute, but I feel this is an argument that can only be solved by looking at the various arguments and then deciding whether they fit our definition.

I cannot say what the flaw is.

fair enough.

Well, is it not free will to object to its potential absence? Is not death itself a violation of free will by your definition unless you choose to die? Or the fact that we aren’t born with wings?

I see what you mean. So by suffering in the afterlife, you are in fact making a decision to suffer based on your own free will?

I’m not sure how you got from ‘lack of free will’ to ‘suffering in the immortal life.’

That is my fault, sometimes I forget that I'm talking with several people who probably have a have enough sense not to search everything I have already posted. By this I mean that the lack of free will will mean that the after-life is basically a dead stopping point, with no choice. To at least my mortal view, this lack of choice whether it be in a place as blissful as heaven or as demon as hell, I would suffer because my afterlife is a line with no foreseeable end. (Again, this is not taking into account your belief of no happiness or sorrow in the afterlife)

It is my assumption that the desire for free will is a mortal desire, as it stems from the ego. If the ego is shed in the after-life, then the preoccupation with free-will would also (I think).

Fair enough. But then, doesn't instinct stem from an ego of sorts? The ego formed by evolution, given, whatever. It is what creates the food chain and everything that makes an animal automatically know, "I was born to hunt this smaller creature." So if this is the case, is instinct also shed in the afterlife And again, what replaces the free will that was shed, what replaces ego? In fact, what replaces emotion?

I also hold the opinion that “eternal happiness” is a misnomer. I don’t think there is either happiness or misery in the afterlife, as I find these things to be values applied by mortal minds.

It's a good thing I'm reading this backwads instead of forwards or else I would have to revise my entire argument to your unique view of things. Very well, so there is no emotion in your view of an afterlife. Not out of spite or anything, but what is in your view of the afterlife so I can understand how to question it?

---

At 12/7/06 08:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: finally somone agrees with me! btw, i also feel that perfection isn't static, as stated:

"This is the modern western idea of perfection, but it's very difficult to define perfection because there's nothing in our universe that is perfect the very roots of science are based upon" - Smilezroyale

Nice immortalization of ones own words there. ;) your words will obviously live agelessly in history.