Religious discussion (continued from “Christianity and Chastity”)

Yeah the World To Come is the eternal realm which we in our time bound existence situate in the future, as you say, after death. But of course being eternal it’s not actually subsequent to this world, any more than it’s in some other quadrant of this universe. You, of course, will agree with me that it’s not in some other place or at some other time - but you’ll say that’s because it’s just bullshit.

 

Nothing “elite” about it though… not sure where you get that idea from.

 

And why did you give it credence at the time and for quite a while thereafter?

 

Why do you want to be somewhere else.? You’re already here. Circles give us an interior space. To use an example from biological science, circles give us a semipermeable boundary between an inner and outer environment which enable complexity to occur within a wider process of entropy.
And to take it down a level, the carbon hexagon makes the whole of organic chemistry possible.
And I’m sure you wouldn’t say the whole of physics was useless bollocks if it was somehow demonstrated to your satisfaction that the universe expanded and contracted ad infinitum, or constantly gave birth to itself through singularities

 

Orbits… what a load of crap! The cycle of life… how redundant! Rhythm… fucking rubbish! Desire and satisfaction… yawn!

 

All synthetic truths are only articulable within a conceptual space formed by an essentially circular structure of axioms

 

Oh and the wheel…. possibly the shittest invention ever! Definitely never gets anyone anywhere.

 

The Magellan-Elcano expedition… what a pointless journey that was! Might as well have stayed in Seville.

 

But “lol” and “bored” aren’t really adequate responses to my many demonstrations of where circles can get us.
Adequate responses would be either:
“Yeah muppet you’re right, what I said was ill-conceived”, or else an actual elucidation of why your point was valid - since I was not at all being obtuse, I was seeking clarification.

 

Well indeed, why not Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster? Zeus did have his day, but where is he now? And the Spaghetti Monster is a disposable meme. But the cult of the Holy Trinity is alive and flourishing after 2000 years. And we breed like rabbits, whilst decadent secularists have a declining birth rate. So ironically, it seems that belief in evolution is an evolutionary disadvantage.

 

Can’t see why you think that. I do not grasp this “circularity” objection. From my understanding, circularity is a problem if engaged in the verification of empirical assertions, but as Kant shows in the Critique of Pure Reason, and Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations, the metaphysical framework within which empirical enquiry is possible must itself be empirically unverifiable. Which is not to say it lacks all justification - its validity as a heuristic can be demonstrated by virtue of its serviceability in making knowledge possible. That’s why this whole debate about whether or not one can prove God exists is redundant, a blind alley. Ultimately one can’t prove that the world which forms the object of empirical enquiry “exists” either. What one CAN do is demonstrate that a mode of enquiry does or does not have utility in furthering the process of enquiry WITHIN the world as it appears. It certainly is the case that a theistic paradigm based on judeo-Christian metaphysics is serviceable in that sense because it was indeed the conceptual background within which Western scientific enquiry emerged and was sustained for hundreds of years, as well as the everyday practice of shared human endeavour across the globe to this day. And no intelligent Christian should EVER claim it’s possible to “prove” that God exists. One either does or doesn’t have the experience of God’s presence, and if one does, either does or doesn’t have faith (believe, not know) that what is revealed through the experience of religiously-informed life practice has utility. The same happens in science (read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”): for science to proceed from one paradigm of enquiry to another it’s necessary for the heuristic of a new mode of enquiry to be defended against falsification by means of the axioms of the old. So for example, Newtonian physics works up to a point, but lacks utility in explaining or predicting phenomena at microcosmic or macrocosmic extremes. And now that physics is fruitfully engaged in basing its practice in new paradigms, we don’t stop doing Newtonian physics within the sphere of enquiry where it functions. Likewise Christianity functions as a form of understanding that need not be in competition with science, since they operate at different levels. It’s true that some Christians, and some Christian institutions of power, have often sought to refute and suppress scientific speculation inappropriately. I am not doing that.

 

I don’t see why any Christian would seek proof of Gods existence or would try to prove it to someone else. If God is real and wishes to reveal Himself to you, He will. If not, why is it my business to meddle? What I WILL do is give testimony of my experience as someone who does believe - and what I say is sincere.

 

I’ll tell you what annoys me: it’s not when someone jests in this conversation, I can take a joke at my own expense; it’s when I seek clarification of an opposing argument and someone assumes I’m asking in bad faith. THAT’S what provoked my goading about the utility of circular constructions.

 

Who’s Xenu?

 

oh, this guy.
Dunno. I’ve not been there, tho I hope to go. Actually this fella looks a bit like me… tho his helmet is bigger.