Thread 511245216

>be human
>get a heart attack and die
>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
>basically like being in deep sleep forever
>all the memories and actions you've done are as if they never took place because your brain is decomposing
>mfw

What is the meaning of it all? Is the universe apathetic to consciousness and life for that matter? Is it just an error in the program?

>>511245216 (OP)
Your body is just vesel of your soul. Soul is eternal.

>>511245216 (OP)
You get reborn bucko

>>511245466
Yeah but how's that different from being dead forever if you forget everything?

>>511245216 (OP)
I envy the dead. They are free in all the ways I am not.

>>511245216 (OP)
for dust you are, and to dust you shall return

>>511245583
You can't accumulate infinite knowledge you twerp.

>>511245216 (OP)
>>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY

There are multiple dimensions in which your soul operates. In this lower 3dimensional reality you're using an atom-based vessel to express yourself. It means nothing to your soul, it's an in-and-out vacation to put it nicely. You're free to do whatever you want and yet most choose to do nothing.After your aminoacid vehicle oxidizes and dies the atoms go back into the ecosystem and the soul moves its attention back to a higher dimensional world. Dying is like crossing the street,nothing special ,your journey continues for eternity,you will meet souls just like you've met people in this life. I've had almost a dozen Out-of-body experiences ,you should try and see it yourself, but to do so you have to purify your Gut and your Mind.

>>511245216 (OP)
You would be moron to think there's no after life because we all existed just by chance and coincidence, all that complex system we have on our bodies, oceans, lands, and everything and all is perfectly balanced to have life suitable environment. this life is a test, if you do good you end up in heaven for eternity, if you do bad, in hell, not necessarily for eternity unless you did some fucked up stuff.
>bb but but there's no god
yeah there is and the fact you think otherwise is why you are having that existential crisis

>>511245607
go join em dumb wimpy faggot

>>511245216 (OP)
In a game you have a server and a client. The server builds the game world based on the most basic 1 dimensional parameters variables and math. It is only when the client joins that this is translated in a gestalt an image. The objective universe could only exist in its most rudimentary form without consciousness, ergo it needs consciousness to give itself meaning so that things make logical sense every single thing in this universe only is reasonable to exist if life participates in it. The meaning of life is therefore quite anticlimatic, merely the experience. Simply by being here you and everyone else grants the universe meaning, context for the otherwise empty dead 1d objective reality. If you remove any of the laws of physics or alter them slightly all consciousness siezes to be able to exist. Ergo the objective was made for the emerging of the subjective

>>511245216 (OP)
>What is the meaning of it all? Is the universe apathetic to consciousness and life for that matter? Is it just an error in the program?
Nothing happens to consciousness and life just because you die.

>but muh memories
>but muh identity
>but muh illusion of self
Big deal. The universe is indeed indifferent to that.

>>511246591
this, 5d beings passing through a 4d reality temporally

>>511245216 (OP)
There's nothing bad about dying. It's like sleeping and sleeping feels good

>>511245216 (OP)
Dude shut up

>>511245216 (OP)
no one knows nor is capable of knowing
its on or off, either experience persists or it doesn't, and both arguments are equally faith based
chose your own adventure, really. if you didn't get over existentialism past being a teenager i don't know what to tell you. find comfort in either nothingness or some state of being beyond us as we are now.
gypsy

>>511246591
>pic
Man, reading this guy's story is how I realized I am truly just a dumbass with no ambition.

>>511251795
>its on or off, either experience persists or it doesn't, and both arguments are equally faith based
Your sense of individuality, your memories, your personality, even your basic sense of moment-to-moment continuity and the very ability to contemplate a "self" - it's all been traced back to brain activity. Every element in that list be demonstrably fucked with by physical means. When "you" die, "you" die. Simple as.

The existence of humans is similar to those of a chicken on a farm. We can't possibly comprehend our "purpose". We're here for a reason, but that reason is beyond our ability to understand it.

>>511245216 (OP)
We’re not just living beings “humans” we’re “containers” we are guarded and harvested for our souls. They throw out the bad souls “hell” keep and use the good souls “this is your eternity in heaven”
sometimes they will recycle the bad souls

>>511245216 (OP)
I have the feeling time plays an important role in death. All natural patterns are recursive and they shift between inward and outward phases, just like a torus field. I believe that when dying consciousness is pushed inwards and time perception is shifted, we basically jump to a different layer of experience.

This could mean many things, like for example taking the one second your brain has left before completely dying, and stretching it indefinitely into a new or alternate universe, which would allow consciousness to keep on experiencing, just in a different layer. The way nature works is ineffable at its core fundamentals, so pretty much anything could happen.

>>511252189
>Your sense of individuality, your memories, your personality, even your basic sense of moment-to-moment continuity and the very ability to contemplate a "self" - it's all been traced back to brain activity. Every element in that list be demonstrably fucked with by physical means. When "you" die, "you" die. Simple as.
Yes, people who believe there is consciousness after dying need to explain why tinkering with the brain changes our thought patterns. Consciousness seems to consist in the functioning of the brain, and when that ceases, consciousness cease. That's what logically follows.

>>511245466
jeet printer go ommmmm

>>511245216 (OP)
>unconsciousness

You're not unconscious, you're dead. It's a state of unbeing

>>511252835
>people who believe there is consciousness after dying
There is definitely consciousness after dying. Consciousness doesn't go anywhere.

>Consciousness seems to consist in the functioning of the brain
Proof?

>>511245607
We envy you too, flesh must be nice

Nothingness is honestly one of the most comforting possibilities. You completely lack the ability to feel suffering. It's better than reincarnating as an Indian or African, at least.

>>511252835
Think of it like a house. The house (body) can be harmed or destroyed, but the person inside (soul) is still intact and aware.

>>511252189
But you wouldn't be there to experience your death, so you wouldn't care. If your memories were nukes, your "you" wouldn't exist, therefore care about it.

>>511245216 (OP)
Afterlife is real. My reasoning is that I am unable to conceptualize a reality in which I am not experiencing anything at all. You experience this when you go to sleep too times just pases by in a flash, you cannot experience your own non-existence. By that alone I think there is an afterlife.

>>511245216 (OP)
>in a state of complete unconsciousness
you can't "be" in a state of nonexistence.

Thou fearest the void, the eternal sleep, the dissolution of memory—yet know this: the Soul is no prisoner of flesh, but a spark of the Divine, ever-turning toward the Nous, the luminous Mind. What seems oblivion is but the stripping away of shadows, for the deeds of the purified Soul are etched in the order of the cosmos, and though the body falls to decay, the Soul—if it hath sought wisdom ascends, beyond time’s grasp, toward the One, where all fragments return to wholeness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vahTu5h3cM&list=RD3vahTu5h3cM

>>511253904
Obviously. It's not death itself but only the prospect of death that's a problem, and even then, it's only a problem for the living.

>>511245216 (OP)
Do you wanna know what it all is, I heard this once in a dream.

That life is just an update letter.

Each of our lives is spent creating memories and when we die, our memories become a story of our life that god reads.

Thats it.

If you wanna be more cynical, your a bit of data being transferred and your life was the transfer time from A to B.

>>511245216 (OP)
No, it can't be eternal sleep.
Eternal sleep is like before the Universe, or a photon traveling at the speed of light. It has no notion of the passing of time.
So naturally, all of us would assume that this should be the default "nature". Like...nothing. Not you , me, not a single thought. No time, no space.. NOTHING. But...
We're here.
So. There is something afterall. Your "eternal" slumber ends. The concept of nothing and eternal nothingness are just as hard to fathom as the concept of infinity and forever. IDK what to tell you because it's all a paradox.

>>511245216 (OP)
There are deeper reasons...

>>511253710
When changes occur in the brain, then changes occur in thinking or a person can even lose the ability to think (as in severe dementia cases). This indicates that consciousness is the workings of the brain.

>>511253857
>Think of it like a house. The house (body) can be harmed or destroyed, but the person inside (soul) is still intact and aware.
So is the soul separate from consciousness and thought?
Because when the brain changes, consciousness changes too, indicating that consciousness supervenes on the brain.

>>511255275
>This indicates that consciousness is the workings of the brain.
Why does it indicate that?

>>511247272
Prove your claim.

>>511245216 (OP)
>>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
>>basically like being in deep sleep forever
source?

God is real, you retards. Heaven and Hell are real, I've seen it. Just go yo Church, stop being stubborn. It just takes like 2 hours on a sunday, its not that big of a deal

>>511255559
Brain activity stops after death.

>>511255694
>God is real
Then why does he hate you so much?

>>511255694
Prove it.

>>511245216 (OP)
there is no meaning to it all but there's also no reason to expect it to have meaning. the desire for meaning is only a result of our consciousness and is further proof that intelligent life isn't special, but an accident.

>>511254079
>you can't "be" in a state of nonexistence.
Yes, there are terminological and conceptual issues with discussing nonexistence. "Being dead" just means "being no more."
Whole books have been written about the logic of discussing nonbeing.

>>511255559
OP said no consciousness so.eternal here has no real meaning. Because passage of time becomes irrelevant. If you are photon travelling at the speed of light. From your perspective, you are born and "died" at the same instant. An observer would see you travelling across space for billions of years but to the photon, time doesn't exist.
The fact we're here debunks "Eternal slumber" because prior to our current consciousness, we were in that state of "Eternal Slumber" and now we're here. Yet we didn't feel or remember any sort of slumber before this.

>>511245216 (OP)
>What is the meaning of it all?
To find out, you first have to accept that your entire premise is wrong. There can be no meaning to life, if your premise is correct. Basically; you either spend eternity with God in heaven, or in the lake of fire. Suddenly you have a chance of finding the meaning of it all. Good luck

>>511255780
prove gravity

>>511255721
>for ETERNITY
>deep sleep forever

>>511255342
No, consciousness can only express itself objectively through the brain. You can't measure or detect consciousness-in-itself, only its effects. The brain is where these effects manifest, so if you fuck with it, the expression of consciousness is fucked with

>>511255931
>let me tell you things about myself before i existed

>>511255379
Because consciousness appears to depend on the brain, since changes in the brain change consciousness. I can't explain it any simpler than that. It's a simple cause and effect phenomenon.

>>511245216 (OP)
Life is apathetic to consciousness, death isn’t.

If someone’s is burning alive and then kept alive covered with burn scars that’s life’s fault, not death’s.

>>511255952
Stop deflecting. Prove your claim.

>>511256044
If you have no response, just say so.

>>511245216 (OP)
>be hylic
>basically animal
>assume everyone is animal like you because you are special and have no experience beyond the physical plane
>don’t even look into trying yourself
>tell everyone else they are dumb
Quick question do you know even you can likely experience God while living and you can go from the darkness of unknowing to the light of knowning

>>511256066
This is cope. The content of a conscious experience can be altered to such a degree that it becomes meaningless to talk about something happening to "you". Without the brain, the "youness" is lost to consciousness itself.

>>511255732
God loves us

>>511255780
The universe is predictable because it runs on some type of logical system. Logical systems are principles for reasoning about truth. Thus the universe requires a reasoning entity to have structured it. This reasoning entity would be conscious and all-knowing, responsible for the creation and sustenance of the universe, and exist outside of time and space.
And that's God

>>511256347
Prove it.

>>511256066
>No, consciousness can only express itself objectively through the brain. You can't measure or detect consciousness-in-itself, only its effects. The brain is where these effects manifest, so if you fuck with it, the expression of consciousness is fucked with
That's an old idea. Some versions say that the brain is like an antenna and you can't get TV reception (consciousness) unless the antenna is working. By this reasoning, consciousness depends on the brain but is different from the brain. It's possible, but hard to prove.

>>511256375
Nope, none of that follows. It's all assumptions.

>>511256102
Well. we had a rich history, humans, dinosaurs, then galaxy formations, then perhaps and the big bang... then before that maybe it was another universe that created us or truly we spawned from nothing. Before our current consciousness, I would say that it was an "Eternal slumber". how else would you describe it? at the very LEAST, that's as close as you have come to it. “Eternal slumber” is the closest approximation we have for pre-consciousness, but it’s not a perfect fit because even slumber implies a sleeper, and you weren’t there to even sleep.

>>511256359
The content of the conscious experience is not the same as the conscious experience in itself

>>511255952
>prove gravity
I'd throw you from the roof of a church and have you prove it to yourself :3

>>511256181
>Because consciousness appears to depend on the brain, since changes in the brain change consciousness. I can't explain it any simpler than that. It's a simple cause and effect phenomenon.
Changes in the brain change the contents of consciousness. You aren't informing me of anything here, I already outlined this much more eloquently than you did. Why do you make a logical leap from that to "the brain causes consciousness"?

>>511256548
You could probably throw him from the roof of a mosque, since he's a faggot.

>>511256500
That's not an argument. Are you denying the predictable and logical nature of the universe? Are you saying logical systems are not principles of reasoning about truth? Then the science you rely on is nonsense.
Everything else just follows from these premises

>>511256548
That would be considered testing the theory of gravity, not necessarily proving it

>>511256613
I didn't make a logical leap. I said the fact that consciousness changes with changes in the brain indicates that consciousness depends on the brain. I didn't say this is necessarily true, just that it would appear to be true. I know there are other possibilities.
And nothing you've said has been eloquent. It's garbled because your thinking on this topic is full of mystical woo.

>>511256523
>The content of the conscious experience is not the same as the conscious experience in itself
But that content includes your entire identity and your very sense of a continuous self. Consciousness can unfold without any of that and then it's not "your" consciousness, but simply consciousness.

>>511245216 (OP)
if this is true. Who cares?
You should live a good and moral life anyways.

If it isn't true, and afterlife is real, then you have potentially everything to gain from living the moral life you should have been living anyways.

>>511256712
>That's not an argument. Are you denying the predictable and logical nature of the universe? Are you saying logical systems are not principles of reasoning about truth? Then the science you rely on is nonsense.
It's also possible that all logical possibilities exist, somewhere and somewhen. In this case, no "demiurge" or God is needed to pick one logical system and actualize it in time and space. Rather, they are all actualized.

>>511251900
Help me out, bro. I tried searching this image and all I got was AI bullshit and boomer memes.

>>511256712
The universe is predictable. "Logic" is simply a tool for making predictions based on the consistency of the universe. The "laws of logic" are descriptive, not prescriptive.

>>511256835
>consciousness changes
Consciousness never changes. Only the contents of the conscious experience change.
>mystical woo
Ok. A literal LLM. ID goes to the filter.

When I was young I got clipped by a pacer driven by an illegal with its forks raised to about chest-height. It ripped a fair gash into the crook of my elbow, she long story short, needed to be resuscitated in an ambulance before getting to the hospital. The weird part of that experience was me, or my internal me, calming taking note of my faculties shutting down. By the time my vision was blue I was coaching my body through the breathing, by the time it was black I maintained, or felt that I maintained, a conscious train of thought. And visually, went to a voided area, blackness lit by an unseen white light, where I just waited in the middle of. When I did come back to fully cognizant awareness, it was nearly a day later. But to me, (and to my generous settlement) it all felt unbroken, where I was "in my own mind" waiting for the body to start back up. Very weird.

>>511256917
That's a nice assertion. No evidence of that though. All I see is our actualized existence

>>511256967
You're pointing out that there is a base consciousness, or consciousness per se, that is different from any particular conscious experience, or the fact that consciousness can have different contents.
Yes, this is obvious and adds nothing. You tried to say earlier that because there is something we might call raw consciousness, this means consciousness must exist before our experiences of particular things. That doesn't follow at all.

>>511251900
Who is the guy and what’s his story?

>>511255493
Near Death experiences.
>contain the same elements
>even people from cultures different than christianity report seeing jesus
>also happens when there is no electrical signal in brain
>people who left their body and were seeing things outside their body, verified events that happened

I recommend John Burke "Imagine Heaven" book as a starting point.
He also have a youtube podcast.

Also:
>medical miracles
>Fatima apparitions
>other apparitions
>approved catholic prophecies which came true
>shroud of turin (scientific proof of jesus resurrection)
>tilma of guadelupe (scientific proof of god from god #2)
>hundreds of thosands of personal testimonies

>>511245216 (OP)
Doamne miluieste

>>511256997
NDE's (Near death experiences) fascinate me. I think everyone should be, this is the closest you can come to looking past the "forbidden" curtain. Some testimonies sound real...then other people describe nothing..
I wish we had a group of people like from the movie Flatliners who would give it a try.

>>511257094
It's one of the solutions to the question of why the particular universe we inhabit exists when so many others are possible. Yes, it could be that a conscious being decided to actualize just some out of infinite possibilities. Or it could be that all those possibilities are actual somewhere. No one knows which one of these answers is true.

>>511257226
In other words, a bunch of unverifiable shit.

>>511245216 (OP)
>>be human
>>get a heart attack and die
>>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
>>basically like being in deep sleep forever
>>all the memories and actions you've done are as if they never took place because your brain is decomposing
>>mfw
If consciousness is nothing more than a local process (ie we don't have souls) then this happens every time you go to sleep.
The local consciousness which existed in your head yesterday was someone else; a different instance. You woke up today with the memories "uploaded" to your consciousness and they will cease being utilized by your consciousness tonight, and from your perspective you will cease to exist once your consciousness no longer utilizes them.

A different instance will wake up tomorrow. It won't be you by definition.

When you go to sleep tonight you will stop existing for eternity.

It's like hitting the reset button on a vidya game console. It doesn't matter if you have a "save state" which would be analogous to your memories. That is just transferable data. The instantiation is new every time you wake up and thus every time you wake up it's a "new game." The old game from yesterday no longer exists.

>>511245216 (OP)
midwit hylic take
>>511245395
smart take

>>511256920
You are confused about what I'm saying. I am not talking about the human grasp of logic, I am talking about that logic which our study attempts to grasp. What you call the consistency of the universe precedes our understanding of it. That is what I'm talking about. And that can only be understood as reason, as it is most accurately understood as a series of "if X then Y" statements. The logical pattern of the universe is reasoned continuously, nothing else makes sense.
And God is what reasons it

>>511257166
>You're pointing out that there is a base consciousness, or consciousness per se, that is different from any particular conscious experience, or the fact that consciousness can have different contents.
No, I don't.

>You tried to say earlier that because there is something we might call raw consciousness, this means consciousness must exist before our experiences of particular things.
No, I didn't.

Broken bot or schizophrenic? Either way, still waiting for you to explain how you get from "messing with a brain changes the contents of consciousness" to "the brain seems to cause consciousness". Because it sure isn't via any logical train of thought.

>>511254109
Eternalism is cope. You’re still acknowledging that when we die, individuated experience is over.

>>511257361
everything i posted is verifiable.
You just have to look.
I recommend you ask God for a sign he exist.
Pray the atheist prayer daily, make one - it takes 30 seconds.
If you truly wish to believe, Jesus will reveal himself to you.

>>511245216 (OP)
I've done enough robotussin to leave my body and operate it remotely like a video game. There's something after death, but its more psychedelic than anything. Also done benedryl to know you can enter a delirium state where you are oblivious to the fact you are laying down in a bed, but interacting with people elsewhere.

>>511245395
Good luck proving that.

>>511257310
Only one of those options actually answers the question as to why anything exists at all

>>511245216 (OP)
drop a hero dose of shrooms if you wanna know what being dead is like

>>511257488
Another bold assertion.

>>511257674
>drop a hero dose of shrooms if you wanna know what being dead is like
Retarded take. Being dead isn't like anything.

>>511257710
You're shit at argumentation

>>511257411
>The local consciousness which existed in your head yesterday was someone else; a different instance. You woke up today with the memories "uploaded" to your consciousness and they will cease being utilized by your consciousness tonight, and from your perspective you will cease to exist once your consciousness no longer utilizes them.
That touches on the question of "personal identity over time" and how we can say that a person remains the same person despite changes, like going through brief, apparently unconscious states such as sleep, yet waking up again and returning to the conscious world, as it were. John Locke argued over 300 years ago that memory is what ties together all these disparate states of being and unifies a particular person as one entity. Of course, his reasoning runs into problems, like if you lose your memory due to severe dementia, then, by Locke's reasoning, "you" cease to exist.
The idea of the eternal soul, as an essence beneath our physical being, is another answer to the personal identity over time question. With this answer, we can say that all our experiences are unified and belong to one and the same being because the same soul is the recipient of them all, or something like that depending on how you define the soul and its relationship to consciousness and experiences.

Whats the consensus on DMT and Ayahuasca?

>>511256347
I have never met a gnostic who wasn’t (literally) borderline retarded.

>>511245395
I am not sure if the soul is eternal, but it is an energy separate from the body. Anyone who has had metaphysical experiences (not mere hallucinations) knows that. It is a matter that goes beyond our ability to measure physically so the evidence is extremely difficult to come by.

>>511257543
>everything I posted is verifiable. No I won't post any specific examples. Just gaslight yourself into believing, bro.

I don't know. I trust God. I am not afraid of dying. I do not enjoy my life. I stopped finding joy. I am alive to take care of my cats. That is all.

>>511257504
>Broken bot or schizophrenic? Either way, still waiting for you to explain how you get from "messing with a brain changes the contents of consciousness" to "the brain seems to cause consciousness". Because it sure isn't via any logical train of thought.
You're a dope. It's a valid conclusion, to go from brain state changing mental states to believing that the mind is the brain, though this evidence does not constitute absolute proof. That's all I said. If you can't see the logic or reason in such thinking, then your reasoning is defective and can't do induction.

>>511257778
>The universe is consistent, therefore god
But I'm the shit one, lol.

>>511258016
Disprove it then. Saying "duhh we made up logic" is a shit argument, as i pointed out.

You are already know the answer.
You are the devil and want me to kill me softly in this shithole so that I die with you in the void of nothingness, but I will not die here.
My eternal luminous Lord and God Jesus Christ and me his chosen second Christ we are going to completely erase the evil luminous devil and his corporal manifestations from creation, and then we manifest our own corporal manifestations only my Lord and God Jesus Christ has created corporally.
Afterwards we live in our own Christ Kingdom on Earth where my luminous eternal Lord and God Jesus Christ and me we are united forever in a luminous and corporal coalescent New World Order.
All maleoid and femoid human whores will be replaced entirely with Models and Biomodels that only my Lord and God Jesus Christ has made and directly controls and uses to love only me, and I live only with my Lord and God Jesus Christ in our Christ Kingdom.
There will be no evil maleoids and femoids and beasts no more.
I will live forever with my Lord and God Jesus Christ in our corporally manifested Christ Kingdom where we spend eternity together happily ever after, and we drink ice-cold sugar syrup in our luxurious surroundings.

>>511257632
>Only one of those options actually answers the question as to why anything exists at all
In fact, neither of those options addresses the question of why anything exists at all.
If God actualizes some possibilities and not others, and that's why we have this particular universe, then this means that range of possibilities preexists or exists independently of God.
The question of why those possibilities even exist, and why God exists, are left untouched in that line of reasoning.

>>511257268
I've looked into other stories extensively and despite my own experiences remain skeptical. I can at least confirm a flatline and an unbroken chain of consciousness for whatever legitimacy that lends "the void," and I've read others describe similar things. Still others describe full on trips to outer space where they enter heaven physically, straight shots to God himself (weirdly, even among non Abrahamics, they report very Abrahamic God visits, they never see Ganesha), and trips to hell. I wonder if I knew something I'm not consciously aware of, and opted to just hang out in a lobby while the lights came back on.

>>511257987
>It's a valid conclusion
Then you should be able to spell out valid logic for it. And yet you will only continue reasserting the same nonsequitur.

>the mind is the brain
Now you're going even further than dubious nonsequiturs, straight to incoherence.

>>511258106
You're the one making a claim. Prove your claim.

>>511245216 (OP)
You just believe nothing happens after your physical death. But, you don't realize that you face an eternal spiritual death. The path in front of you leads only to death in the truest sense of the word. Which is separation from God.

>>511258156
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against God being the first cause. What else could be higher than God?

>>511258156
God is being and exists necessarily. There are no "possibilities", they're just things we made up because we don't know the future.
Let me ask you this: are there "alternate possible histories", that is to say, historical paths the universe could've took to get us to this exact point? No, there's one path that gets us here. And there's one path into the future in the absolute sense, the path God ordained

>>511255342
I'm saying that body and soul are two different things. If you sustain severe brain damage but are otherwise alive, your consciousness will probably be affected because you're still in the house. Death removes you from the house, and you're conscious because the soul is conscious. Science can't prove the soul's existence though because that's out of its scope. This is all what I believe, anyway.

>>511258251
I did, you have yet to argue against it. Simply calling something an assertion doesn't make it so. In fact, that's an assertion itself

>>511247272
>You would be moron to think there's no after life because we all existed just by chance and coincidence, all that complex system we have on our bodies, oceans, lands, and everything and all is perfectly balanced to have life suitable environment
Yet an all powerful deity infinitely more complex than those things just exists by chance.

>>511245216 (OP)
Life justifies itself. The meaning behind your consciousness is to help propagate human genes. You can find fulfillment in either having children or doing something worthwhile that helps out society.

If you are unable to find meaning, fulfillment, or contentment in any of those things then you have some sort of mental health problem.

>>511245216 (OP)
>DOESNT KNOW ABOUT NDE's
NGMI

>>511258583
No, by necessity

>>511245216 (OP)
I wouldn't worry about it. If there is something after death we'll get to it. If there is nothing, who cares?

We're in a simulation btw, you'll just wake up or go next.

>>511245395
Isn't that cartesian dualism? Ancients used to be more logically consistent about it but how it works I have no idea, that the body and the soul are one, maybe some for of idealism enables that. Matter is all a function of spirit all the way down.

>>511258647
Ok, who created it?

>>511258795
Category error, God is not a creation

>>511258544
So far your claim is just
>the universe is consistent, therefore god
Might as well say
>the universe is consistent, therefore aliens

>>511258883
You're arguing in bad faith. I'm simply going to ignore you at this point

>>511258583
>>511258795
>an all powerful deity infinitely more complex
Why does God need to be complex?

>exists by chance
What does chance have to do with anything?

>Ok, who created it?
Why does god need a creator?

Atheists "logic" is clownishly loose.

>>511258847
Niether is the universe.

>>511258795
>>511258847
To expand on this:
God is the essence of being, of existence, of reality, of creation, of truth. He precedes all those things and they all come from Him. It's why He names Himself "I am that I am"
God simply IS. Uncaused, uncreated, unmoved, a necessarily self-existent entity

>>511259070
But it wasn't there before God

>>511259168
Ignore him, he doesn't care about truth

>>511245216 (OP)
It’s nothing. Can you feel with an organ you don’t have? That’s what death is like. No sensory input, no consciousness. You don’t even see darkness. “You” are gone

>>511259168
How do you know?

>>511259256
No point in getting mad at me for pointing out why you're wrong.

>>511258443
It comes down to what you mean by "God." If God is defined as the first cause, then by definition God is the first thing there is, and usually this way of thinking about God is coupled with the idea that God is eternal and timeless.
Some metaphysical force or an impersonal God, who has mind but no human-like personality, could also come first and do the work of actualizing what possibilities are going to exist, thus creating the universe.
There are no clear or solid answers to any of these questions. They've been debated for millennia with no conclusion that everyone can agree on.
It's why Kant argued metaphysics is a waste of energy and time by the brightest minds and they should focus on natural science instead, where we seem to get much firmer answers. After Kant practically killed metaphysics, natural science took off like never before (19th century). So maybe he was onto something, at least something practical for human life. After Kant, going into metaphysics wasn't nearly as respected as it had been in the 1600s and 1700s and earlier, so the top minds went into science and made great contributions there.

Changing your ID won't matter if you use the same style of writing, retard
You're not getting my (You)s

>>511258452
>God is being and exists necessarily. There are no "possibilities", they're just things we made up because we don't know the future.
>Let me ask you this: are there "alternate possible histories", that is to say, historical paths the universe could've took to get us to this exact point? No, there's one path that gets us here. And there's one path into the future in the absolute sense, the path God ordained
It's far from clear or settled that absolute determinism, where only one state of affairs could occur after the previous situation, is true.

>>511258847
Universe is then allowed into the category of uncreated, since that category now exists. In fact, many things like logic, time, and your balls are uncreated.

>>511258526
>I'm saying that body and soul are two different things. If you sustain severe brain damage but are otherwise alive, your consciousness will probably be affected because you're still in the house. Death removes you from the house, and you're conscious because the soul is conscious. Science can't prove the soul's existence though because that's out of its scope. This is all what I believe, anyway.
I can respect that belief. It is indeed possible, but as you say, either unproven or even unprovable (by empirical means).

>>511259438
The only logical thing that makes sense is that the absolute state of nothing ness cannot exist.
That's right, our intuitive logic that says this all must be linear, creation->destruction->game over doesn't make sense. If you play this game you get into the "Who created who" infinite circle. So, the default state of the Universe is that there was, always was, forever will be "Something".
It was never created or destroyed, it simply is.
I would say that "This is God".

>>511259518
The universe is ontologically dependent on logic. Logic is ontologically dependent on reason. Reason is ontologically dependent on a conscious entity.

>>511257806
>apparently unconscious states such as sleep
>apparently
It is an unconscious state. If someone opens your eyelids while sleeping you don't see. If someone talks to you it's usually unlikely you will hear (depending on sleep state etc). Some people sleep through fire alarms even and even mild pain. That is unconscious.
I think the fact you qualified it as "apparently" means you have some feelings-based hangups on what I said and you don't want to accept that without a soul "you" permanently stop existing every time you go to sleep (or at the very least a deep sleep)
Memory certainly ties together all these separate states of consciousness we experience each day we wake up, but it doesn't refute the fact that each day there is a new instantiation of consciousness that is separate from the day before
>Of course, his reasoning runs into problems, like if you lose your memory due to severe dementia, then, by Locke's reasoning, "you" cease to exist.
I don't see an error in his reasoning. If there is no memory left and a new instantiation of consciousness begins each day then there is nothing the former "you" (that possessed your body yesterday) has to demonstrate its existence . I think that is very straightforward in fact.

Are you aware of the Ship of Theseus legend in Greek mythology? It's pretty neat. I use that theme as an analogy for explaining this.

Imagine if over the course of a week every brain cell you have is replaced one by one with a nanobot that perfectly mimics the cell and can control your body the same way. Would you notice? No, certainly not.
Now what if these biological cells that just got replaced were all put back together at the end of the week and your biological brain is now back together again, and implanted into a clone of your body.

Which one is "you"? The original bio brain in a clone body or the nanobot brain that is in your original body?

>>511259070
And you know this how?

>>511259438
The death of metaphysics caused the collapse of the West. And metaphysics has seen a resurgence recently. Kant was wrong

>>511259720
No reason to believe that it is.

>>511259680
>Would you notice? No, certainly not
This is a pretty big assumption

>>511259119
>To expand on this:
>God is the essence of being, of existence, of reality, of creation, of truth. He precedes all those things and they all come from Him.
OK, then the universe is the essence of being, of existence, of reality, of creation, of truth. It precedes all those things and they all come from it. That's why it's called the UNIverse

>>511259512
It is the only thing we can possibly experience

>>511258974
>Why does God need to be complex?
A creator of necessity must be more complex than its creation
>Why does god need a creator?
Then why does the universe need a creator?

>>511259950
See >>511259655

>>511259934
Except there is evidence for it. Do you remember what happens while under the effects of anesthesia? You experience non existence already. Sleep is a preview. You ever took a nap and just time travelled to when you woke up? No reason to believe it’s anything other than that without ever waking up again

>>511260044
>>511259655
See what, your utterly meaningless word salad pilpul meant to confuse the issue?

>>511259934
I see no reason it's an "assumption"
Explain how one would notice given the confines of my thought experiment

>>511260181
You can just google what "ontological dependence" means if you don't know, I won't judge you for it

>>511259895
So there is this random chaos that exists for no reason until it suddenly decided to arrange itself to enable it to debate its own origin with itself on a random mongolian basket weaving forum?

>>511255931
I thought you were getting somewhere, then I noticed you were just going in circles. You're clinging to semantics...

>>511260040
>A creator of necessity must be more complex than its creation
Why? This assertion makes no sense.

>Then why does the universe need a creator?
At the very least, if you think the universe is natural and consider the principle of causality to be a law of nature, it requires a supernatural root cause. From there it depends on what exactly you mean by a "creator".

>>511260197
Imagine if we did this and started in the part of the brain that processes vision in your left eye. It might be that you would get a big hole in the field of view for your left eye

>>511245216 (OP)
Your soul travels to the higher plane where Jesus Christ waits on the throne with the Trinity; if your soul was set on rejecting Him you will find his presence excruciating and persist in misery; if you accept Him you will be able to bask in His glory eternally and feel everlasting peace.

>Is the universe apathetic to consciousness and life for that matter?

No. This is in fact an incredibly logically incoherent position that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Human consciousness is innately attuned to teleos/purpose; we have in built ideas of things being true or false, real or unreal, right or wrong; the universe is governed by fundamental, unchanging laws that allow for empirical observation and reliability of data and our rational faculties. In a universe of purposeless chaos, there would be no intelligibility; no true or false; no real or unreal. You can claim to adhere to this, but you automatically contradict yourself and thus demonstrate that you do not actually believe this when you then proceed to engage in debates and arguments over any belief or value system being more or less correct.

>>511260139
>Except there is evidence for it. Do you remember what happens while under the effects of anesthesia? You experience non existence already. Sleep is a preview. You ever took a nap and just time travelled to when you woke up? No reason to believe it’s anything other than that without ever waking up again

I like the photon analogy just as well. We see light daily, now, everywhere.
But to the photon, if it had the ability to "think" it never existed. It couldn't think because no time passed in it's frame of reference. The perception of time is deeply intertwined with consciousness. You see light everywhere and you see it existing, but if you had the opportunity to ask it if it exists, it's already been absorbed.

>>511260306
Just a happy accident. Maybe Bob Ross was God in the end

>>511247272
Is there an afterlife for apes? Why not?

>>511260392
>clinging to semantics...
These are paradoxes. Not semantics.

I'm not too worried about this. I've already come back from the dead (FACT -- think about it) at least once, so why should I assume I can't do it again?

>>511245216 (OP)
Yeah, until you wake up again kek. We've all been here so many times in so many eras, you niggers have done gotten all retarded and sheit.

>>511247272
Picrel is your proph*t, eating a dick.

>>511260543
You didn't read the thought experiment properly. I said each cell is replaced "one by one"
You would never notice one neuron cell in your entire brain being replaced. 10s of thousands of neurons in your brain naturally die every day anyway.

Obviously this involves future technology that is impossible right now, but that's irrelevant. Some famous thought experiments rely purely on magic but they are still valid, like Maxwell's Demon. My thought experiment wouldn't even have to violate the laws of the universe.

>>511245216 (OP)
Go and ask your priest/monk, frate

>>511245216 (OP)
>be gypsy retard
>believe you know what happens after you die
>insist the world accept your nonsense and explain it back to you
>show the world that gypsys need to return to India where they belong

>>511260540
>if you think the universe is natural and consider the principle of causality to be a law of nature, it requires a supernatural root cause
Why? This assertion makes no sense.

>>511245216 (OP)
Jesus explains this. He tells you it’s ultimately meaningless on Earth, but so you don’t spend eternity suffering he gives his life for you. He tells you to do good works and don’t worry about earthly things. I have interpreted his message as saying that at the moment of death people will experience time dilation and although the physical flesh will be destroyed, you, from your perspective, exist forever. So do you want to be trapped in a nightmare or a beautiful dream. If you believe, he will be there and he will judge your life forever. This occurs in a split second that lasts forever to you the individual. If you truly believe your brain will put you in a beautiful dream fir eternity because of the practiced prayer and rejection of sin. You want to train your brain’s default position to peace and love. His sacrifice is key to it. Believing in him is believing his word and the word trains your brain for peace and love.

>>511253857
You're thinking of it from the point of view of a mortal being. In some types of reincarnation, the choice of who to reincarnate as is made by your "soul" or something after death, and there would be a reason fir choosing a specific person. In other types, the original life and new life are not linked by consciousness so even if you were reincarnated in India or Africa that wouldn't affect what you think of as "you".

>>511261237
>Why?
Because otherwise you either get infinite regress or a natural first cause that violates perhaps the most fundamental principle in nature.

>>511261237
If you affirm that the natural world is governed by cause and effect, then nature cannot be self-originating, because that would require nature to cause itself which is a logical contradiction. Something cannot precede itself in the order of cause and effect.

Thus, the cause of nature must be outside of nature, that is, super-natural by definition.

>>511255875
If intelligence is literally an accident, how can you possibly trust your intelligence to lead you to that conclusion?

>>511245216 (OP)
Ask your priest/monk, frate. I've heard that Romania has great saints like elder Cleopa

>>511255694
>2 hours on a sunday
Too much to devote to thinking about jews

>>511255875
>proof
>truth claims
>value propositions

Automatically self-defeated. Every time. Amazin’

>>511245216 (OP)
If you die you don't exist, if you don't die you exist. Therefore you will never die because the quantum probability you survive will always be chosen since you are alive. Quantum immortality

>>511245395
2 billion jeets do not have souls
neither do 2 billion africans

>>511261393
Adding a god creator to the equation doesn't solve anything, it just abstracts it out another layer. Then you have to figure out what created the god that created the universe. And what created that, and so on.

>>511257721
Oh man, you're in for a ride

>>511261829
No, kiddie LARPer. You're in for a ride. Go do it and then tell me if it's like being dead.

>>511261783
Incorrect. The logical laws of the natural universe would not apply to a supernatural cause outside of it which would be the source of the laws in the first place. It is not possible or relevant for us to guess at the logical nature of something that exists outside the bounds of our existence.

>>511261606
This is true but like an AI they are programmed to tell you they have souls

>>511261783
>Then you have to figure out what created the god that created the universe
Is the supernatural part of the natural world? If not, why does it have to abide by the same constraints?

If there is any experience after death it's something completely alien like being absorbed into a mass consciousness, either way "you" won't exist

Huh, just a few hours ago I had a bizarelly vivid dream in which reality made me and a few people I know irl choose whether we should accept our deaths and fly into the/a sun to save ourselves, or if we should remain on this rock and have our souls devoured by grotesque entities, trapping us here forever. I willingly chose death after much debate and got on the ship with only one or two people out of the 10+ who were there, and as we took off and were nearing the sun, I woke up. Its been bothering me all day and now I come across this thread

>>511262516
You should read the Great Divorce by CS Lewis. You may find it incredibly interesting and eerie compared to your dream.

>>511262034
>>511262247
If god has no creator and has always existed, then the universe can have no creator and have always existed.

>>511245216 (OP)
He never did DMT. Hahahahhahaha. He truly believes this is it and he understands it all. Lmao.

>>511262753
>the universe can have no creator and have always existed
Not unless you reject at least one of the following premises:
- the universe is natural
- causality applies to all that is natural

>>511245216 (OP)
>be nihilist human
>think you're just a body with a brain expect nothingness when you die
>get a heart attack and die
>surprise you instead feel a strange clarity like waking up from a dream
>separation from the body is gentle not scary
>feel weightless like your real self just took a deep breath
>your whole life plays back, but you *feel* everything you made others feel
>not judged just illuminated
>realize Earth was never the endgame just a dense simulation for soul growth
>review your karma, lessons, and progress like checking your RPG stats
>some wounds healed some patterns still looping
>you're drawn to the frequency you resonate with
>can’t fake your inner state anymore
>rest, reflect, then...
>pull back into matter
>new life, new face, same soul
>same lesson, different form
>veil drops again
>cycle continues until you remember
>wake up crying
>tiny body, strange world
>no words, but a deep feeling of deja vu
>forgetting feels like something sacred just slipped away
>parents smile at you, but it all feels weirdly familiar
>life begins again
>same fire behind new eyes
>mfw

>>511262865
I reject both of those. Now what pilpul do you have?

>>511262753
Incorrect. The universe is bound to logical laws which make this impossible. A supernatural cause outside of these laws does not rely on the same standards.

To use a basic analogy, a computer programmer writes code, creates program. The program follows rigidly follows its set of rules based upon the structure of the system it is written in as determined by the programmer. The programmer is not bound to the rules of the program, his existence is entirely outside and separate from its nature and rules.

>>511263056
>The universe is bound to logical laws which make this impossible
Says who?

>>511263002
>i believe causality is optional in nature and the universe isn't natural anyway
Ok then. kek

>>511263169
>he thinks he fully understands the nature of the universe enough to put it in a box to force some pilpul argument for forced child genital mutilation and worshiping jews
kek

>>511263105
The basic laws of logic undergirding all of our existence and empirical observations, the same ones you are attempting to rely on to make an argument but since you find they actually do not support it you now just give up, so to speak. Now you are just contradicting yourself and throwing your hands in the air. I believe this is called “losing the argument”

>>511263316
>nobody knows anything nothing is real

You don’t seem to be acting in accordance with this self defeating belief.

>>511245216 (OP)
I'm obese so probably will not be long for me. I'll let you know if I can.

>>511245216 (OP)
>be nothing
>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
>basically like being in deep sleep forever
>your parents have a big bang and suddenly you're born
An eternity passed before you were born, and an eternity will pass afterwards, and then you will be born, as all things ascend and descend, as all waves rise and fall, so too do the living live and do die, and afterwards, live again.
You, presumably, did not experience anything during the period of nonexistence prior to your birth, correct? Therefore, from your perspective, such a period would pass by in *zero* time. If it is possible for you to experience, which it is, and if it were possible for you to arise out of nothingness, which it is, then on an infinite timeframe, the probability of your incarnation would approach 100%.

Why could it not be that causality only applies within the universe, but not to it? Sort of like how God is considered outside of any of these limitations?
>>511263316
This too. Especially in the grand scheme of the universe, scientists are always making things up so that their broken theories actually work.

>>511263316
Why are you losing your mind with rage? If you reject causality, then the argument doesn't apply. I grant you that.

>>511258583
>by chance
The only one playing casino with the possibility of God is you, not God

>>511263486
>Why could it not be that causality only applies within the universe, but not to it?
Because that implies the universe is simultaneously natural and unnatural which is incoherent.

>>511263486
If causality only applies within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole, then you’re arbitrarily cutting off the very principle you rely on to make sense of anything. You’re saying: “causality explains everything except the one thing it most needs to explain.”

AKA special pleading. You’re suspending a universal principle (that everything that begins to exist has a cause) exactly where it’s most inconvenient for your worldview, at the origin point.

Moreover, if the universe began to exist, which both Big Bang cosmology (atheist cope) and thermodynamic principles strongly support, then it falls under the category of things that require a cause. It is not eternal. It is not necessary. It’s finite, contingent, and changing. These are all marks of causality.

>>511263383
>the laws of the universe must meet empirical observations
>but the jewish demon of baby penis mutilation who has never even been observed is whatever i say he is, ok???
lmao

>>511260139
An endless dream? Tragic, my dreams are weird yet mundane

>>511260649
That’s a good one!

>>511263801
I accept your inevitable concession

>>511261202
You're assuming that a nanobot would confer the same properties as a biological cell. You don't know that

>>511263723
How do you even know for sure that you are awake right now?

>>511259680
>Imagine if over the course of a week every brain cell you have is replaced one by one with a nanobot that perfectly mimics the cell and can control your body the same way. Would you notice? No, certainly not.
There's a good change that you would gradually become a literal NPC. Would you notice? Maybe not. And what of it?

>>511245216 (OP)
>Is the universe apathetic to consciousness and life for that matter?
No
Apathy is an emotion. Emotion is a byproduct of electrical signals our brain fires off and is capable of doing so due to billions of years of genetic mutations.

The universe isn't apathetic because it doesn't feel anything because feeling is just a name we give to our biological processes that the universe gave us in the first place.

It's like asking "what came before the big bang", it's paradoxical to think of in the first place because the concept of before/after/beginning/end (aka time) could not exist without the big bang.

>>511263897
>responds to a logical argument with vague threats of supernatural violence
>durrr you are concede

>>511263661
Is God not considered natural? Most arguments in this vein just seems to apply all this shit to god and not elaborating. It seems less of a stretch to me that all of what we consider reality is natural and everlasting than that a separate being, that is everlasting, created everything.
>>511263700
>then you’re arbitrarily cutting off the very principle you rely on to make sense of anything
I don't see how this isn't happening when you say an outside being created the universe. That being is also being cut off from what you consider applies to everything else.

>>511263316
You don't care about what's true, you just have an irrational hatred for Christianity, which you don't even understand

Its actually offensive to read all these painfully low IQ thoughts.

>>511264404
You are a loser with an immortality fetish. You will die and nobody will remember you, get over it

>>511264527
In the end the thing you truly hate is just yourself

>>511264394
>Is God not considered natural?
Forget about God for a moment and try to wrap your head around the fact that if you think the universe is natural and that cause and effect is a law of nature, you're stuck with either a supernatural first cause or infinite regress.

>It seems less of a stretch to me that all of what we consider reality is natural and everlasting
You're free to do so, but then you either reject causality as a reliable law of nature or commit a special pleading fallacy.

>>511263711
>dodge the argument when backed in a corner, engage in raging seethe over irrelevant topic

Okay, now this is peak pilpul. Thanks for the demonstration Moshe

>>511264394
>Most arguments in this vein just seems to apply all this shit to god and not elaborating
No, it is out of necessity. If He caused the universe, He is outside it. If He is outside the universe, He is outside of time itself. God has no beginning.

>>511264394
God is qualitatively different from everything else: eternal, necessary, and unchanging. That’s not a loophole, it’s logically required. If everything needed a cause, including God, then you’d have an infinite regress with no grounding. Nothing could ever get started.

So you either posit an uncaused first principle, or you collapse into a chain of contingent things with no explanation, which violates the principle of sufficient reason and renders reality unintelligible. Reality is intelligible and can be ordered, and clearly anyone engaging in any discussion whatsoever around what is true or false agrees with this implicitly, so we know that’s not the case.

>>511245395
Unless you are vaxxed

>>511264961
It's funny how philosophers figured this shit out millenia ago, but modern internet atheists who never read a single one of their works will claim their legacy while taking the complete opposite positions those philosophers held

>>511264660
You are an egotistical faggot lol

>>511245216 (OP)
>>in a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
>>basically like being in deep sleep forever
>>all the memories and actions you've done are as if they never took place because your brain is decomposing
>>mfw
How do you know any of this?

>>511258795
God did not create, but rather, forgot himself. In the beginning he was all things, uniform and all-knowing. In this state, God does not perceive time, and nothing at all could occur.
God contracted, creating a pocket within himself where he was not all-knowing, that he might experience. You see, observing something for the first time is distinct from subsequent observations. Observing something for the first time, one lacks qualitative knowledge of the experience. The second, third, fourth, etc time one, say, reads a book, will be qualitatively different from the first reading, in which you lack the knowledge.
The omniscience of God was such that all things were infinitely known to him. This is a very boring way to exist. So God invented virginity, and in so doing, gave birth to life as he forgot himself. Lots of living things. Those are us. The Many to his One. Or in other words, the Indefinite Dyad to his Monad.
Now, we suffer as a result of struggling to remember our one-ness, as we have done a great job concealing ourselves from ourself.
The more we miss the point, the longer it takes us to return to a state of unity with the all-knowing.
We cannot remember ourselves without suffering. But we wish that this were not so.
Opaqueness conceals the divine light of the One.
In our compassion, we created a way out. A way to escape and remember everything, ascending to heaven without suffering.
He comes to us and dies as a substitute, forgetting himself, taking all opaqueness with him.
It's a loop that consumes itself. And to consume ourselves, we consume Him!
What a beautiful cycle.
Like a lamp that burns for days on end without running out of oil.
Eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and you shall surely die, and gain knowledge of eternal life.
Staked to a tree, the Son of God, when consumed, the shape of the cross, itself the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, grants life eternal.
Man, but also... another substance.

>>511265171
Modern secular nihilism and atheist attitudes in the west are ironically pushed and promoted on the masses, indoctrinated into kids from birth by elite powers who’s members all engage in occult rituals, believe in the supernatural and engage in active spiritual warfare. Their goal is to spiritually disarm the populace and it’s quite blatant. Like you said, schools of thought like Epicureanism tried to push the same incoherent nonsense in antiquity and were immediately BTFO by every high IQ philosopher.

>>511265171
>Umm actually they agree with us
No they don't. God is not a man who gives orders or leaves books for his le chosen people

If God isn't at at what humans define it to be, why entertain religion at all? If God is so hands off he clearly does not give a fuck, so why try to impose his will on others if you don't even know what it is? If there is a good/source energy, than it likely just wants to experience all things and being a conservative would actively be against his mission

>>511265857
What are you basing any of this off of?

>>511245216 (OP)
there is no time.
what we call time is a side effect of your neurology.
being dead for an eternity would be more like zero time.
the universe is cyclic.
your harmonic will re-emerge on the next cycle, having experienced no delay.

>>511265352
God is eternal, meaning He does not change. He doesn't forget or contract. He simply is as He is

>>511265857
If you accept a supernatural God as the only logical starting point for intelligible reality, it then follows that anything within intelligible reality must reflect on some level attributes of God. Human existence, love, relations, and reason all indicate that the God who is the source of our existence imposed upon us these things from his own being. Only the Christian God, of all world religions and theologies, proposes a God that fits this framework; triune (all structures in reality are fundamentally triune), and thus relational and capable of love and connection outside of oneself (human love and relations), rational, and all-encompassing of human existence.

>>511245216 (OP)
Christians:
>im going to die and it’s going to be fucking awesome! Also life is pretty rad too!
Atheists:
>im going to die and do nothing forever that means being alive has no meaning

Atheists are truly fucking hopeless. You have every reason to care about life a billion times more than Christians and you are fucking miserable.

>>511246258
Why not you twat

>>511264961
Reality is the first principle and all laws only apply within it. I do not see why you need a separate being to be the first principle. You might as well believe our universe is in God's beard if you need one so much. And the thing is, all this talk of God inevitably comes back to the Abrahamic God. I'm not an atheist like people are claiming. But that doesn't mean I believe in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam either.

>>511266243
>all structures in reality are fundamentally triune
Can you expand on this? I agree, but I'd like to see if we see things the same way

>n a state of complete unconsciousness for ETERNITY
Time is an illusion, you literally just respawn from your perspective desu

>>511266415
Expand on what you call Reality. What properties must it necessarily have? What properties does it necessarily not have?

>>511266086
The fact that he is a loop that consumes himself is congruous with the statement that he is unchanging.

>>511245395
If a soul is conscious and intelligent, what's the purpose of having a physical brain?

>>511266586
Conduit to physical reality

>>511266415
>Reality is the first principle and all laws only apply within it
This is a meaningless string of words. Either the universe is natural or it isn't. Either nature abide by the law of cause and effect or it doesn't. There is no such thing as "within the universe" as separate from the universe itself. All the constituent elements and interactions you call "natural" ARE the universe.

>>511266086
Does the note "C" change? I cannot see how one would say that it does. Yet, the note "C" varies with time. And to play the note, you must first contract and release a string.

>>511266583
You're still applying temporal properties to an extratemporal being

>>511266774
The note C is a temporal phenomenon

>>511266747
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr0-7Ds79zo&list=RDQr0-7Ds79zo&start_radio=1
thread theme, this one's dedicated to my British niggas. God speed.

>>511266655
Why can't a soul control a body directly? Why does it need the extra middleman?

>>511266469
Sure. It’s just true in every sense. Regardless of what you look at. Three dimensions in physical space. There is beginning, middle, and end. Past, present, future. The most basic closed shape in geometry is a triangle, requiring 3 points, and from these 3 points you can also create a perfect circle (the infinite). All relations and propositions are triune. Concept A, Concept B, relation; person A, person B, relation. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Light is wave, particle, and frequency. Mother, father, child is the family. Wave, particles, and their interaction are co essential in quantum physics. The mind is composed of intellect, will, and memory. Quarks carry a triune color charge - red, green, and blue. Gravity - source, field, and recipient. It’s endless. It seems silly at first - but it really is strange. Everything is contained within a trinity, literally everything. Reality is modeled after it. It’s not the sole argument I’d use but it’s extremely compelling if you’re willing to be honest and consider the implications of a God that is simultaneously one and a trinity.

>>511256919
>>511257218
It's an AI-generated image by Mac Baconai. No story here.

>>511245216 (OP)
Child soldiers in Africa are valued because they do not fear death. Kids are so used to the idea they didn't exist a few years ago that they will happily march into machine gun fire. Can't answer your question, but i thought that was neat.

>>511266682
>Either the universe is natural or it isn't.
Which you're saying requires an outside, non-natural force to have created. But then in that instance we have an inside and outside our universe, except the outside is fundamentally unknowable as it has none of the properties of our universe. This seems like an unnecessary complication and, like I and you previously said, arbitrarily cutting off where we apply the laws of the universe. In this case, why can't this "god" then just be the environment that the universe exists in? However you want to think about that. I don't see any difference between this and god being an actual being, which from the philosophy I have read, those philosophers did not even believe.

>>511266906
The soul (consciousness) experiences (qualia) information (sense data). This sense data (neural activity) arises out of physical phenomena (body interactions). The brain is just that which is best suited to handle sense data.

>>511263711
>kike badly loses the argument so it starts trolling
many such cases

>>511263905
>You're assuming that a nanobot would confer the same properties as a biological cell
Wrong. It is dictated in the hypothetical that it confers the same properties. You're trying to weasel out of the legitimacy of a thought experiment via nitpicking yet you've proven you can't read twice.
Don't be a pissy child because you said something wrong. It's not an "assumption" that one would not notice given the premises and confines of my thought experiment.

>>511264038
>good chance that you gradually become a literal NPC.
But that would violate physicalism and that's the point.
The data processing that creates your consciousness should not be permanently attached to a particular medium like biological molecules or artificial ones.
>Would you notice? Maybe not. And what of it?
NPC's can't notice by definition. If you're an NPC once you have a robot brain it implies you were an NPC before with a biological brain.

>>511267254
God is not “outside” in space, He’s prior in being. He is not unknowable — He is knowable analogically, and personally through revelation - the whole point of Christ and his resurrection. He is the Word - the Logos - the intelligible reason of the universe.

Replacing God with “the environment the universe exists in” doesn’t simplify the question, it just pushes it back and obscures it in vagueness. Christianity uniquely proposes that Being itself is personal, rational, relational and that’s what makes sense of reality as we know it.

>>511266844
Explain your issue

>>511266973
Yeah looks like we're in agreement. I'd also add the following:
>triune causality: determinism, uncertainty, agency
>triune behaviorism: nature, nurture, free will
>triune ontology: Experience (Soul), Information (Mind), Physical (Body)

>>511267430
>It is dictated in the hypothetical that it confers the same properties
You said "perfectly mimics", meaning that it SEEMINGLY confers the properties, but is SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but this is a significant difference. If the soul can only experience biological cells, you would notice the change.

>>511267254
>Which you're saying requires an outside, non-natural force to have created.
I'm just deriving the logical conclusion based on the premises that the universe is natural and abides by the law of cause and effect, barring infinite regress.

>we have an inside and outside our universe, except the outside is fundamentally unknowable as it has none of the properties of our universe. This seems like an unnecessary complication
It's necessitated by logic unless you accept infinite regress or reject one of the premises.

>arbitrarily cutting off where we apply the laws of the universe.
There is nothing arbitrary. That cutoff happens by logical necessity at exactly the point where it would be justified to declare a root cause.

>>511266086
>he
Nah

>>511267525
God is extratemporal, He is outside time. You are applying properties improperly

>>511267348
Why does information even need to be processed in the brain if it's just a conduit? If a soul exists, it has to be case that it has zero intelligence.