Search Results
7/2/2025, 10:40:06 PM
>>17809352
>"is [x] immoral"
According to who or what ? You can't have morality without consequences, and you can't have consequences without ideology.
>the pleasure cube
Yes because there is an implicit idea in modern society that a person isn't solely defined by his wishes but with what he brings to other people too. A pleasure cube completely voids the interpersonal relations and innovation that someone could bring to society. In current standard morality(tm) for most of humanity, there seems to be an anthropological link between connection to other people and moral worth, so yes, it would be immoral.
>>17809424
>"Erm No actually god is different from the pleasure cube because"
>perfectly describes a pleasure cube
>mfw
>"is [x] immoral"
According to who or what ? You can't have morality without consequences, and you can't have consequences without ideology.
>the pleasure cube
Yes because there is an implicit idea in modern society that a person isn't solely defined by his wishes but with what he brings to other people too. A pleasure cube completely voids the interpersonal relations and innovation that someone could bring to society. In current standard morality(tm) for most of humanity, there seems to be an anthropological link between connection to other people and moral worth, so yes, it would be immoral.
>>17809424
>"Erm No actually god is different from the pleasure cube because"
>perfectly describes a pleasure cube
>mfw
6/10/2025, 10:04:03 PM
>>17749290
>The existence of order is a testimony against the belief in random chance
What order are you even talking about ? You just claim there is order made for us yet fail to prove any of it. We already know with quantum cosmology by Dawkins for instance that the universe could've arose from *nothing*, based on luck. You're just making up an ad hoc pattern in things and calling it an order, when the reality is just random.
>Everything follows a strict and predictable order with governing laws that no one is allowed to break
No we merely observe a causal chain of event and deem it "order". In reality, a different result could've came about in which other lifeforms could've observed a certain "order.
>>17752234
>And the belief that there is no maker implies that the universe had to have been a random occurrence.
>But you do not see that
Yes, that's quite literally how it is. The universe was a random occurence. Did you think there was an inherent meaning to all this ?
>>17749283
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
The fact that religion appeared everywhere on Earth, and that most of them had certain loose principles found in everyone of them (e.g. belief in something after death)
>>17749454
Godel's proof only works if you presume his religious premises to be true (e.g. thinking that omniscient, necessary cause etc are all already true). Really, the only thing it proves is that if god exists in one universe, it must exists in any.
>The existence of order is a testimony against the belief in random chance
What order are you even talking about ? You just claim there is order made for us yet fail to prove any of it. We already know with quantum cosmology by Dawkins for instance that the universe could've arose from *nothing*, based on luck. You're just making up an ad hoc pattern in things and calling it an order, when the reality is just random.
>Everything follows a strict and predictable order with governing laws that no one is allowed to break
No we merely observe a causal chain of event and deem it "order". In reality, a different result could've came about in which other lifeforms could've observed a certain "order.
>>17752234
>And the belief that there is no maker implies that the universe had to have been a random occurrence.
>But you do not see that
Yes, that's quite literally how it is. The universe was a random occurence. Did you think there was an inherent meaning to all this ?
>>17749283
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
The fact that religion appeared everywhere on Earth, and that most of them had certain loose principles found in everyone of them (e.g. belief in something after death)
>>17749454
Godel's proof only works if you presume his religious premises to be true (e.g. thinking that omniscient, necessary cause etc are all already true). Really, the only thing it proves is that if god exists in one universe, it must exists in any.
Page 1