1315: "Questions for God"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Klear » Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:54 am UTC

SimonMoon5 wrote:(1) Poe wrote on both.


That one's my favourite. Also, the fact that there are such clever responses is a bit of a fail on Carrol's side.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
SimonMoon5 wrote:(1) Poe wrote on both.


That one's my favourite. Also, the fact that there are such clever responses is a bit of a fail on Carrol's side.


A bit more of a fail was Carroll's own answer, provided some time later for those who quizzed him about it:

"Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front."

"Nevar"? C'mon, Deacon Dodgson, we know you're better with a pun than that!

My favorite story about Lewis Carroll rather than by him is that Queen Victoria was so charmed by Alice that she insisted on receiving the author's next book as soon as it was published. That day came, and VR eagerly unwrapped the copy sent to her, discovering the title to be An Elementary Treatise On Determinants. Her Majesty was, as so often in other circumstances, not amused.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:42 am UTC

ShifterCat wrote:
cellocgw wrote:"So, God, .... how is a raven like a writing desk? "


According to my copy of The Annotated Alice, a few answers have been written for that. The best one is:

"The notes for which both are noted are not noted for being musical notes."


That may be the best answer Sam Lloyd came up with (he claimed it was) but the best answer is clearly "Because there is a b in both" - also to be found in The Annotated Alice. "Best" in this case being "most fitting" and takes into consideration the original context.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:00 am UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carr ... ical_works

An Elementary Treatise on Determinants, With Their Application to Simultaneous Linear Equations and Algebraic Equations
https://archive.org/details/UTL-Carroll-Reel855

I can't read the darned thing.
I read somewhere that xkcd posters edit Wikipedia.
What kind of data does that leave us with?

If Louis Carol was a mathematical genus; This may explain The Jabberwocky.
It does Not explain why some people memorize that poem.

Adults! Adults that don't have to.
Some did it while young and keep it memorized.

Why??? Because they can?
Such strong and active minds must be kept busy every moment?

The story of The Queen was a funny one.
That is believable.

I asked for a paper on the Math of Moon Cycles.
What I got was a quick lesson in, "Moon Math is Hard!"

Spoiler:
I expected it to be easy.
28 day cycle. How hard can it be?

Add a sliver every night until The Moon is full,
then subtract a sliver every night until The Moon is new, again.

Nope. That is not the way the Big Boys do it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:49 am UTC

The Synologist wrote:Image

Title text: "What sins could possibly darken the heart of a STEAMBOAT? I asked The Shadow, but he says he only covers men."

Had to google Susie's steamboat, never heard of the song myself.
[edit]Oh wait yes I have, I just never knew the proper lyrics haha

I think I've heard of it somewhere (probably TVTropes) but I didn't make the connection.
JustDoug wrote:REPLY TO LAMB': "Because Physics."

That's not really an answer though. Physics is just a label. Saying physics doesn't actually answer why God made physics the way it is (though it seems to be working pretty well really).
cellocgw wrote:"Do Adam and Eve have belly buttons?"
I'd lean to a no for that one. They had no need of them, or did any of the events that result in the formation of a belly button occur.
BAReFOOt wrote:
pachinkoid wrote:why do bad things happen to good people?


Your definition of “good” and “bad” is only your own, mate. Nature has no such concepts.

Or from another point of view:
There only was one completely good person ever, and He chose to allow a Very Bad Thing to happen to Him for the sake of all the bad people who He loves despite their badness.

Actually, Jesus (the aforementioned only good person) had something to say about bad things happening to people:
Luke, chapter 13 wrote:1There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Or in other words: "Good people? What good people?"
CigarDoug wrote:The God of Abraham is the same God for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Simply put, the Jewish Torah is the Old Testament for Christians and the Old Testament equivalent for Muslims.

If you read what the Muslims have to say about their god you ought to notice that they can't be talking about the same person at all.
CigarDoug wrote:if you take all three books at face value, they each say "This is the only way". So either man rewrote the books to suit himself, or God set us up, for what purpose I cannot understand.

I have also heard the theory that ALL religions are separate paths up the same mountain. I'd like to know the reasoning for that. The reason I left out the thousand+ other religions because none of them claim to be the God of Abraham. I am curious, addams, do you NOT consider these to be three separate religions?
There's definitely a lot of rewriting going on: look at the difference between modern and ancient Judaism. Or look at modern church traditions vs. the early church. We're very good at deceiving ourselves and each other, or allowing ourselves to be deceived.
orthogon wrote:I've heard it said that Hinduism is sufficiently broad and varied that other religions could be considered as simply a special case of Hinduism, which is a pretty cool idea. Different Hindus place more or less importance on different gods anyway, so Jews and Christians are just Hindus who are more into the old beardy guy and less into the blue guy with the flute. And as Dawkins points out, Hinduism is more monotheistic and Christianity more polytheistic than is often acknowledged.

Funny thing, I was reading about Hinduism this morning and what I read was that Hunduism is quite monotheistic (all deities are just a different aspect of the same) but it's also quite pantheistic (since *all* is Brahman, 'god' isn't something separate to the world) but it's also very polytheistic (since there are all those seemingly-different deities to worship if you want) so really you can have it any way you like I guess. But it's very different to the Christian concept of God as the creator of the universe and separate from it. They really don't fit together at all.
CigarDoug wrote:Catholic, Mormon and Seventh Day Adventists are all Christians. They are just different denominations. Strip away most of the ceremony and they all believe the same thing: Jesus is the Son of God, he died for our sins, and was resurrected.
You're missing some critical differences with that over-simplification.

But in any case belonging to a denomination doesn't really count for anything: just associating yourself with some group who say they believe a certain thing doesn't mean you really believe that thing yourself. And merely *believing* in something doesn't really do anything. It's about *trusting* in Jesus (and thus stopping relying on all our own efforts. Lots of people may say they *believe* and yet they still think their own actions will earn them salvation, which they actually cannot.)

Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:12 am UTC

Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.


That is the point.
Is it not, Eternal Density?
It was stupid and cruel.

It was not done by God.
It was done by Man.

The only way for me to understand that is for me to listen to those people.
What they say is, "We don't do that."

Like, "Done That; Been There."
"We don't do that."

Christians can be very nice people.
Don't push them. They do not recognize the God in you.

They have a picture of God and it does not look like you.

About the Hindu. umm. It does get complicated.
Like the Christians, the Hindu are not all like you.

They have had more time for their Religion to Fractal.
If the Christians can have The Pope and the WestBorrows;
Then the Hindu can have MonoTheists, PolyTheists and more than a few Mystics.

That is the only place that I know of, where each and every Religion gets along.
The Mystics. And; Even The Mystics don't always get along.

They seem to be a group that can have a meeting and sort out HouseKeeping.
(*raises hand*)
Spoiler:
I'll do it. You people go to bed. I have insomnia, anyway.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby brenok » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:04 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

As would be destroying the food sources of a nation and killing all first-borns on the land.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:48 am UTC

ok. The Question for God.
Did you really write one book and one book, only?

Spoiler:
Bull Shit!
You are Not God!
I read that book!

now.. now.. Don't cry.
We'll sort it out.


Hey! Don't argue over Religion.
It makes God cry.

For an Omnipotent, God is a little sensitive.
Maybe, a better Religion will help.

Fuck That.
Better believers might help.

Stop picking on God!
We didn't do all that weird shit on purpose!

Your Religion is not the only Religion.
Remember! God jumped in!

Made this mess and Jumped In!
Now; Be nice.

Yelling at God is not going to make things any better.
Does God need to be cared for?

You want it? Is there a manual?
The care and feeding of God.

Vegan?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Kit. » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:13 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
JustDoug wrote:REPLY TO LAMB': "Because Physics."

That's not really an answer though. Physics is just a label. Saying physics doesn't actually answer why God made physics the way it is (though it seems to be working pretty well really).

Isn't this one obvious? QM gives you the observer status, and turbulence gives you free will.

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby lgw » Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:06 pm UTC

Spinoza wrote about God
His ideas were fairly odd
He wrote that God is everything,
and everything is God (how odd!)

In Babylon 5, JMS
took this a bit further, I guess
We evolved, he suggests, for the universe
to perceive itself - but the best
we do is deceive ourselves - what a mess!
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

Le_Forgeron
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Le_Forgeron » Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:20 pm UTC

Conjugate wrote:Two questions.


Granted. Beware what you wish for.

Conjugate wrote:First question: "What question would, when answered, provide me with the greatest satisfaction?"

The question you've just asked. Because it's the question you asked first. So it would really be the question whose most satisfying to you, or you would have asked something else.

Conjugate wrote:Second question: The answer to the first question.


If you really need it in plain text: "What question would, when answered, provide me with the greatest satisfaction?".

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:52 am UTC

On the subject of how to divide religions:

Judaism is a religion
Christianity is a religion
Islam is a religion
Catholicism is a religion
Mormonism is a religion
and so on

But Catholicism and Mormonism are still forms of Christianity. Distinguishing between (e.g.) "Christians" and "Catholics" is like distinguishing between "rectangles" and "squares". A square is a specific kind of rectangle. They are still different classes of shapes, yes, but one is a subset of the other. Irregular trapezoids and rhomboids are still different shapes which are not rectangles; but both of those and rectangles are still quadrilaterals. A quadrilateral is still a shape, though we're getting so vague now that most of the time you'd want to use a more specific shape name unless you've got a very irregular quadrilateral; likewise, one could reasonably say that all the Abrahamic religions are subtypes of a single religion, but most of the time you're going to want to be more specific than that unless you've got someone practicing a highly irregular form of Abrahamic religion that doesn't meet the criteria for those narrower labels. And of course there are still right triangles and isosceles triangles and pentagons and all other kinds of shapes which are not quadrilaterals too; we could be as general as to talk about "polygons" as we are to talk about "theism", if we have some need to be that non-specific and all-encompassing. And there are non-polygonal shapes and non-theistic religions. And there are things that aren't even shapes or religions...

Point is, just because (e.g.) Christianity is a religion and Mormonism is a religion, doesn't mean Mormons aren't Christians, any more than squares aren't rectangles... or birds aren't dinosaurs.

[ducks]
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:44 am UTC

Spinoza wrote about God
His ideas were fairly odd
He wrote that God is everything,
and everything is God (how odd!)


Delightful! (Clap! Clap! Clap!)

Spoiler:
In Babylon 5, JMS
took this a bit further, I guess
We evolved, he suggests, for the universe
to perceive itself - but the best
we do is deceive ourselves - what a mess!


Deceive? Deception sounds so bad.
Maybe some of us do.

Many do not.
Some people are here to help clean up the mess.

It would be nice if more people saw things the way your first poem explained things.
And; Not so much the way your second poem explained things.


Pfhorrest wrote:On the subject of how to divide religions:

Judaism is a religion
Christianity is a religion
Islam is a religion
Catholicism is a religion
Mormonism is a religion
and so on

But Catholicism and Mormonism are still forms of Christianity. Distinguishing between (e.g.) "Christians" and "Catholics" is like distinguishing between "rectangles" and "squares". A square is a specific kind of rectangle. They are still different classes of shapes, yes, but one is a subset of the other. Irregular trapezoids and rhomboids are still different shapes which are not rectangles; but both of those and rectangles are still quadrilaterals. A quadrilateral is still a shape, though we're getting so vague now that most of the time you'd want to use a more specific shape name unless you've got a very irregular quadrilateral; likewise, one could reasonably say that all the Abrahamic religions are subtypes of a single religion, but most of the time you're going to want to be more specific than that unless you've got someone practicing a highly irregular form of Abrahamic religion that doesn't meet the criteria for those narrower labels. And of course there are still right triangles and isosceles triangles and pentagons and all other kinds of shapes which are not quadrilaterals too; we could be as general as to talk about "polygons" as we are to talk about "theism", if we have some need to be that non-specific and all-encompassing. And there are non-polygonal shapes and non-theistic religions. And there are things that aren't even shapes or religions...

Point is, just because (e.g.) Christianity is a religion and Mormonism is a religion, doesn't mean Mormons aren't Christians, any more than squares aren't rectangles... or birds aren't dinosaurs.

[ducks]

Duck? Don't duck, Pfhorrest.
I think you are onto something.

ok. When you finish telling people you might need to duck.
Don't worry. They won't listen. They won't take you seriously.

Well...Not right away. They might.
After you are Dead for One to Two hundred Years!

Who knows, Pfhorrest? The servers might be down in one to two hundred years.
All that talk about shapes and Mormons. (tee heee) Don't bother ducking.

They will think you are Nuts! That is funny, Pfhorrest.
Still; When it comes to Religion, your explanation makes a lot of sense.

As much alike as all Squares are, they are each and everyone its own pure individual self.
What shape do you think you are?

An optimistic polyhedron on your Mom's side and pessimistic regular quadrilateral on your Dad's side?
Your children act like your Mom? What shape is that little one going to be?

Shoot!
Is your family going to be resilient enough for a sphere to develop without destroying the delicate balance?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:12 pm UTC

Le_Forgeron wrote:
Conjugate wrote:First question: "What question would, when answered, provide me with the greatest satisfaction?"

The question you've just asked. Because it's the question you asked first. So it would really be the question whose most satisfying to you, or you would have asked something else.


That doesn't really work, since it doesn't take people being stupid into consideration.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:58 am UTC

brenok wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

As would be destroying the food sources of a nation and killing all first-borns on the land.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying there.
But speaking of food sources, wouldn't India be better off if more people actually ate the cows rather than worshiping them?

addams wrote:
Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.


That is the point.
Is it not, Eternal Density?
It was stupid and cruel.

It was not done by God.
It was done by Man.
No I think you've missed the point.
God specifically allows Jesus to be crucified (by man) because it was part of the plan of salvation. If there were other paths to salvation the it would have been completely unnecessary. So for a Christian to say "Jesus isn't the only way to God" is equal to saying "Jesus didn't actually need to be crucified".

addams wrote:Christians can be very nice people.
Don't push them. They do not recognize the God in you.

They have a picture of God and it does not look like you.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:10 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:But speaking of food sources, wouldn't India be better off if more people actually ate the cows rather than worshiping them?

Not really. Cows are a horribly inefficient food source. Much better to just eat what you would otherwise feed the cows.

That said, if Indians are mass-breeding cows for non-food purposes, then yeah it would be more efficient to eat the cows than not; otherwise everything you're feeding them is just going to waste, food-wise. But I doubt they're mass-beeding cows the way we do, since they don't eat them; my understanding is that they just let them be. Probably keep them off of agricultural land used for human purposes, instead of repurposing that land to feed cows which in turn feed many fewer humans than the land could otherwise support, like we do.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Darekun » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:51 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

Wow. That's like appeal to consequences fallacy in a nutshell.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:07 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:But speaking of food sources, wouldn't India be better off if more people actually ate the cows rather than worshiping them?

Not really. Cows are a horribly inefficient food source. Much better to just eat what you would otherwise feed the cows.

That said, if Indians are mass-breeding cows for non-food purposes, then yeah it would be more efficient to eat the cows than not; otherwise everything you're feeding them is just going to waste, food-wise. But I doubt they're mass-beeding cows the way we do, since they don't eat them; my understanding is that they just let them be. Probably keep them off of agricultural land used for human purposes, instead of repurposing that land to feed cows which in turn feed many fewer humans than the land could otherwise support, like we do.

I think they drink the milk and make yummy paneer from it too. Or is that made from goat's milk? There are lots of goats in India. I'm pretty sure they drink the milk anyway - I'm sure I would have noticed the taste if masala chai was made with goat's milk. I could google it but work beckons.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:01 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
brenok wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

As would be destroying the food sources of a nation and killing all first-borns on the land.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying there.

Eternal Density wrote:God specifically allows Jesus to be crucified (by man) because it was part of the plan of salvation. If there were other paths to salvation the it would have been completely unnecessary. So for a Christian to say "Jesus isn't the only way to God" is equal to saying "Jesus didn't actually need to be crucified".

As if unnecessary cruelty was never a feature of Abrahamic God?

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:06 pm UTC

Le_Forgeron wrote:
Conjugate wrote:Two questions.


Granted. Beware what you wish for.

Conjugate wrote:First question: "What question would, when answered, provide me with the greatest satisfaction?"

The question you've just asked. Because it's the question you asked first. So it would really be the question whose most satisfying to you, or you would have asked something else.

Conjugate wrote:Second question: The answer to the first question.


If you really need it in plain text: "What question would, when answered, provide me with the greatest satisfaction?".


That's the sequence my bro wanted to put on his Yale application (many MANY years ago). The questions posed were basically the same:
1) What's the toughest question a college application could ask you?
2) Answer your answer to #1.

He chickened out -- and got admitted (anyway?)
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby speising » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:59 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:That's the sequence my bro wanted to put on his Yale application (many MANY years ago). The questions posed were basically the same:
1) What's the toughest question a college application could ask you?
2) Answer your answer to #1.

He chickened out -- and got admitted (anyway?)


that's daft. the answer to #1 is, nearly by definition, unanswerable by the applicant.

gladiolas
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby gladiolas » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:48 pm UTC

The version I heard was,
"Hello, operator. Why don't you go to...Hello, operator..."

I don't remember, or didn't hear, the rest of it.

Why did only four of the apostles get gospels in the Biblical canon? (The works ascribed to the others are either apocrypha or pseudepigrapha.)

What happened to the Lost Books of the Bible? Would they have been helpful to humanity?

What was the most advanced civilization before the end of the Ice Age?

What's the funniest joke you know? Was it the platypus?

Were trilobites sentient? What if they had been?

When and why did bolosaurs go extinct? (They were bipedal lizards, before the dinosaurs, seemingly unusually advanced.)

What's the closest extraterrestrial civilization who would be friends with us? How are you revealed to them?

How is it possible to visit alternative histories, and how can we choose which alternative history we will visit?

gladiolas
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby gladiolas » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

Martin Luther in his collection of essays, "Table Talk" suggested, "Your god is that which you fear most to lose."

We're disappointed about his attitudes against the Jews, but that's not relevant here--his definition of godhood still seems like a good one worth considering.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

You read Martin Luther?
In German?

I bow to your superior every-fucking-thing.
You read that??!

He wrote some goofy stuff or it got translated funny.
"Love God and do as you will."

The Love God part is important.
Without it; there is no structure.

That is like a body without bones.
It works for Sea Anemone.
It does not work well for humans.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

gladiolas
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby gladiolas » Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:13 pm UTC

No, no, certainly not in German. I'm not fluent in anything but English. I'm not quite *that* intellectual. :oops: :roll:

(And full disclosure: I haven't read everything he wrote.)

But thanks anyway. :)

User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Rombobjörn » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:No steamboats go to heaven.

Because the elves are still resisting the industrial revolution.

gladiolas wrote:Martin Luther in his collection of essays, "Table Talk" suggested, "Your god is that which you fear most to lose."

Huh. Apparently my own mind is my god then, because I have a hard time thinking of anything that scares me more than senility.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:14 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
brenok wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

As would be destroying the food sources of a nation and killing all first-borns on the land.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying there.


The Ten Plagues of Egypt.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Cynical Idealist » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:42 am UTC

addams wrote:Philosophers used to debate the question:
How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin?

There are arguments to be made for 359 and 6, but I favor 6 for obvious reasons (restricting ourselves to integer angles and integer numbers of angles for simplicity, of course) .
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:36 am UTC

gladiolas wrote:No, no, certainly not in German. I'm not fluent in anything but English. I'm not quite *that* intellectual. :oops: :roll:

(And full disclosure: I haven't read everything he wrote.)

But thanks anyway. :)

oh. ok.
We are on a more even footing.
Polyglots are a bit unnerving.

Good Old Martin Luther.
He was not perfect.
He did seem to be special.

I have read a very little of his translated work.
He was a Chatty Cathy Doll.

That man not only had opinions, that man had convictions.
He was sure that he was right. And; He was.

How were you told about what happened?
He was too sensitive to be a Polictcal Animal.

The way I heard it, he lost so many good friends.
They were killed to punish him.

He was protected by the Pope.
No one dared harm him.

The people he loved were not protected by the Pope.
What a mess. Is that the way you learned it?

There exist both formal documents and personal letters he wrote.
Those documents are in German. Some kind of Old German. Like Old English. only German.

It may not be any easier for a German of today to read Martin Luther
than it is for me to read some old english thing.

Do you know about The Doors?
That is a funny story. Now.

The Doors? Do you want me to tell you what I think of those Doors?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:34 pm UTC

addams wrote:Do you know about The Doors?
That is a funny story. Now.

The Doors? Do you want me to tell you what I think of those Doors?


Best band ever. That's all I have to say about that.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:38 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
addams wrote:Do you know about The Doors?
That is a funny story. Now.

The Doors? Do you want me to tell you what I think of those Doors?


Best band ever. That's all I have to say about that.

This is the End?
My Friend?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:40 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Klear wrote:
addams wrote:Do you know about The Doors?
That is a funny story. Now.

The Doors? Do you want me to tell you what I think of those Doors?


Best band ever. That's all I have to say about that.

This is the End?
My Friend?


More like, show me the way to the next whiskey bar.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:04 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
addams wrote:
Klear wrote:
addams wrote:Do you know about The Doors?
That is a funny story. Now.

The Doors? Do you want me to tell you what I think of those Doors?


Best band ever. That's all I have to say about that.

This is the End?
My Friend?


More like, show me the way to the next whiskey bar.

That's a folk song.
Full circle?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:12 am UTC

Darekun wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

Wow. That's like appeal to consequences fallacy in a nutshell.
Summarizing my argument as "If Jesus is one of multiple ways to God, then God is unnecessarily cruel" could look like appeal to consequences if the possibility of God being unnecessarily cruel is merely something that's undesirable. If on the other hand God being unnecessarily cruel is simply a false statement, then it's not an appeal to consequences.

On another hand, there seem to be some people arguing "If God existed, then He would be unnecessarily cruel, which is undesirable, therefore God does not exist." Or perhaps at the root ,"If God existed, then absolute objective morality and judgement based upon it exists, which is rather inconvenient and undesirable, therefore God does not exist."

Here's a fun question: by what moral standard can/should God be judged? (defining God here as 'the entity who created the entire cosmos')
(or in other words, if we assume that the universe and everything in it, including us, was created by some being who has the power and intelligence required to perform such a feat, how would we judge the morality of such a being?)
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:18 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
Darekun wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Here's a reason why you can't reasonably say that Jesus is one of multiple ways to God: if there were other ways to God it would have been both stupid and cruel for Jesus to have been crucified.

Wow. That's like appeal to consequences fallacy in a nutshell.
Summarizing my argument as "If Jesus is one of multiple ways to God, then God is unnecessarily cruel" could look like appeal to consequences if the possibility of God being unnecessarily cruel is merely something that's undesirable. If on the other hand God being unnecessarily cruel is simply a false statement, then it's not an appeal to consequences.

I thought the point you were initially trying to make is that the central tenet of Christianity, its raison d'etre, is that Jesus dying on the cross was a theological necessity to provide mankind with an escape from original sin, and that if there are other "ways to god", that central tenet is false and the substantive import of Christianity collapses to little more than a lax form of Judaism plus "Jesus was a pretty cool guy". In other words, that Christianity is formally incompatible with that kind of religious pluralism.

"If God existed, then absolute objective morality and judgement based upon it exists, which is rather inconvenient and undesirable, therefore God does not exist."

I know this isn't your argument, but I still want to point out how bad of one it is, for reasons other than those you're highlighting.

My parents created me, in a sense, and that doesn't make them able to dictate by fiat what is morally right and wrong for me, and have it be actually, objectively so; at best they can state (and possibly argue) their thoughts on the matter, which might be correct or not if there is any objective correct or not. Likewise, the existence of a universal creator has no bearing on whether any moral claims are objectively correct or not; if I learned with certainty tomorrow that there was an all-powerful being who made certain claims about what should or shouldn't be done, backed by promises and threats, that would be no argument at all that the moral claims it made were actually correct (though it would be a good pragmatic argument for ways to avoid being smacked down by the biggest bully in the cosmos); rather, if the only justification for something being morally right or wrong is "because I [God] said so", then that standard of morality is positively not objective.

To quote one of the most satisfying exchanges I've ever had on these forums:
Pfhorrest wrote:
SeaBeecb wrote:Who defines the standards for objectivity?

Nobody defines them - that's what makes them objective.


Here's a fun question: by what moral standard can/should God be judged? (defining God here as 'the entity who created the entire cosmos')
(or in other words, if we assume that the universe and everything in it, including us, was created by some being who has the power and intelligence required to perform such a feat, how would we judge the morality of such a being?)

The same as any other being: by whatever objective moral standards there may be, or not at all if there are none.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby chridd » Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:16 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Here's a fun question: by what moral standard can/should God be judged? (defining God here as 'the entity who created the entire cosmos')
(or in other words, if we assume that the universe and everything in it, including us, was created by some being who has the power and intelligence required to perform such a feat, how would we judge the morality of such a being?)

The same as any other being: by whatever objective moral standards there may be, or not at all if there are none.
but not by any non-objective moral standards there may be? Why not?
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:57 am UTC

Well I guess you could in a sense, but it wouldn't really amount to more than "I like you" or "I don't like you" (or substitute an appropriate subject in one of those sentences if you're measuring them up to someone else's standards for some reason), which you're going to be doing anyway even if there are objective standards so there's not much point in commenting on that. My intended meaning was more along the lines of not acting as if those subjective evaluations are anything more than that. (Not that it would be morally wrong to to do, if there were no objective standards to apply, because nothing would actually be morally wrong in that case; just that it would be logically invalid, for whatever that's worth).

Though reflecting on it further, "judgement" in concept casts an air of supposed objectivity -- if you're morally judging him, you're not just saying whether you like him or not, you're saying whether he is, in a stronger sense than just personal preference, wrong or not -- in which case "do not judge him at all if there are no objective standards" is tantamount to "don't pretend your subjective standards are objective".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10340
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby addams » Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:17 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Here's a fun question: by what moral standard can/should God be judged? (defining God here as 'the entity who created the entire cosmos')
(or in other words, if we assume that the universe and everything in it, including us, was created by some being who has the power and intelligence required to perform such a feat, how would we judge the morality of such a being?)

The same as any other being: by whatever objective moral standards there may be, or not at all if there are none.

I dont want to rain on your parade.
You have asked an important question.

How will you judge God?

There are some strange ideas running around.
That is far from the strangest.

Many of us were taught, "It is not for you to judge. God will judge."
Who has the hubris to judge God? What God will you be judging?

You will judge the God in your head. The only Gods that exist outside your head are the ones in my head and the head of that guy over there.
That woman? Yes. She has Gods. She has an appointment at 1pm. She is going to be looking, Great!

This is not to degrade Churches and Temples.
When we gather in Hope, in Peace, in Understanding it is Good for us.

It is good for us to Tame The Ox.
The Ox is inside our heads.

I can not tame your Ox.
I can notice. I can be grateful.

I can love you for many reasons.
I respect the taming of your Ox.

Maybe your mom trained it and she fucked it up.
Then you get extra credit. You have to unlearn.

That's hard.
Edit:
Simply put, I think a lot of people have it backwards.
God did not create us. We create God.

Now; Everybody! Think!
What is God like?

God can be the one thing we all have in common.
God is good. Let's rise up to God's standards.

What is Good and Right in the 21st century?
I am sure it is not the exact same thing that was Good and Right in 30 T.C.

No one had a Facebook page in 30 T.C.
No one Knew why eating shellfish killed sinners.

They sure thought they Knew.
The evidence was good.

God hates shellfish eaters?
Maybe, God will negotiate with me.
I like shellfish. You?
Last edited by addams on Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby Darekun » Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Summarizing my argument as "If Jesus is one of multiple ways to God, then God is unnecessarily cruel" could look like appeal to consequences if the possibility of God being unnecessarily cruel is merely something that's undesirable. If on the other hand God being unnecessarily cruel is simply a false statement, then it's not an appeal to consequences.

Actually, it's more that because of things like this:
Kit. wrote:As if unnecessary cruelty was never a feature of Abrahamic God?
I had to read your statement a second time before I saw what you were trying to get at. It looked like the two parts were directly opposed, with the second being inductive. There's plenty of mental gymnastics like blind faith that there's a plan in order to get a deity that isn't unnecessarily cruel out of the data we're given.

Eternal Density wrote:Here's a fun question: by what moral standard can/should God be judged?

Offhand, I can't think of a valid reason to judge Him by a different standard. That has potential as a litmus test for moral standards, but it requires too much agreement on the nature of a deity for me… Wha'd you have in mind?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1315: "Questions for God"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:20 pm UTC

Darekun wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Summarizing my argument as "If Jesus is one of multiple ways to God, then God is unnecessarily cruel" could look like appeal to consequences if the possibility of God being unnecessarily cruel is merely something that's undesirable. If on the other hand God being unnecessarily cruel is simply a false statement, then it's not an appeal to consequences.

Actually, it's more that because of things like this:
Kit. wrote:As if unnecessary cruelty was never a feature of Abrahamic God?
I had to read your statement a second time before I saw what you were trying to get at. It looked like the two parts were directly opposed, with the second being inductive. There's plenty of mental gymnastics like blind faith that there's a plan in order to get a deity that isn't unnecessarily cruel out of the data we're given.


There's another possibility for Jesus' death - that it was necessary to allow access to God at all, but once achieved, any suitable path would get there. C S Lewis was of the opinion that it mattered not which name you called on in your service to god or gods - true service would be claimed for the true god, and false service left for false gods...

The simplest argument for why bad things happen to good people despite a benevolent god is that free will has consequences, or else it is not free...


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests