The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Copilot Designer or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
Friday, August 16, 2024
Drunk as a skunk
Was the atheist debate bro drunk when he wrote this? Note also the discussion thread. Duuuuuuude!
OK, I´m gonna bite. Number one: Humans can´t possibly know any of the stuff discussed in the article. So we can´t conceive of non-locality yadayada. So what? Number two: God could indeed be located "in" space-time - something even Carrier concedes - so how does that help him? Number three: Space-time could be "in" God. God could be pantheist or panentheist. Number four: The Argument from Meaning.
The value I think is in the ideation itself, stretching our brains and imagination to conceive "where no man has gone before." Not necessarily the value of the thesis, which I agree is not knowable at this point in "time."
Here´s a bizarre fact. The drunken skunk with the Jesus picture is actually generated by mistake! AI had already generated pictures of the archangel Michael for the previous blog post. So I wanted it to generate a pic of a skunk drinking beer. By mistake, I forgot to delete the old prompt, so it came out as "Skunk drinking beer Archangel Michael". Twice?! First, I wanted to discard the pictures, but then I realized that they could be used here, since I´m commenting a discussion on God at an atheist blog. Hence, the beer-loving skunk in front of a "Michael" picture (albeit very similar to Jesus).
In the abstract, I think Carrier´s hypothetical theologian could be right. God could be a being "in" spacetime, hence not literally omnipotent (et cetera), but nearly so. Something similar to the god of process philosophy. Or spacetime could be an emergent property of God, then God would be something similar to "the Void" in some Eastern religions/philosophies. However, Carrier is right that this kind of God isn´t emotionally satisfying. Hence the resistance from really existing Christian theologians.
But...I don´t think it´s intellectually satisfying either, since it doesn´t explain where things such as Meaning or Love come from. They must at the very least have existed as "potentialities" "everywhere" before they were actualized, but if so, matter can give rise to Meaning, which implies that the cosmos is teleological.
Hence, probably not an emergent property from some quantum fluctuation.
My guess is that God has always existed, so has complexity, so has spacetime.
"Potentialities everywhere" is an intriguing concept. But to anthropomorphize God is a projection obviously, I tend to think we cannot know God face to face but as reflections in our perceived time/space. OK now my turn to be "off to shop!" A Friday task.
OK Bob, I'll take Emergent Spacetime for $300! In the words of AliBaba
ReplyDelete"It is what it is Kiddo!"
Nice illustration (AI) above too! You're mastering the genre!
DeleteOK, I´m gonna bite. Number one: Humans can´t possibly know any of the stuff discussed in the article. So we can´t conceive of non-locality yadayada. So what? Number two: God could indeed be located "in" space-time - something even Carrier concedes - so how does that help him? Number three: Space-time could be "in" God. God could be pantheist or panentheist. Number four: The Argument from Meaning.
ReplyDeleteI didn´t see your comments before posting mine! ;-)
ReplyDeleteExactly. Spacetime emerges from God.
ReplyDeleteThe value I think is in the ideation itself, stretching our brains and imagination to conceive "where no man has gone before." Not necessarily the value of the thesis, which I agree is not knowable at this point in "time."
ReplyDeleteHere´s a bizarre fact. The drunken skunk with the Jesus picture is actually generated by mistake! AI had already generated pictures of the archangel Michael for the previous blog post. So I wanted it to generate a pic of a skunk drinking beer. By mistake, I forgot to delete the old prompt, so it came out as "Skunk drinking beer Archangel Michael". Twice?! First, I wanted to discard the pictures, but then I realized that they could be used here, since I´m commenting a discussion on God at an atheist blog. Hence, the beer-loving skunk in front of a "Michael" picture (albeit very similar to Jesus).
ReplyDeleteIn the abstract, I think Carrier´s hypothetical theologian could be right. God could be a being "in" spacetime, hence not literally omnipotent (et cetera), but nearly so. Something similar to the god of process philosophy. Or spacetime could be an emergent property of God, then God would be something similar to "the Void" in some Eastern religions/philosophies. However, Carrier is right that this kind of God isn´t emotionally satisfying. Hence the resistance from really existing Christian theologians.
ReplyDeleteBut...I don´t think it´s intellectually satisfying either, since it doesn´t explain where things such as Meaning or Love come from. They must at the very least have existed as "potentialities" "everywhere" before they were actualized, but if so, matter can give rise to Meaning, which implies that the cosmos is teleological.
Hence, probably not an emergent property from some quantum fluctuation.
My guess is that God has always existed, so has complexity, so has spacetime.
"Potentialities everywhere" is an intriguing concept. But to anthropomorphize God is a projection obviously, I tend to think we cannot know God face to face but as reflections in our perceived time/space. OK now my turn to be "off to shop!" A Friday task.
DeleteSerendipty or convergences to the rescue!
ReplyDeleteJungian synchronicty? But no Egyptian scarab, alas!
ReplyDelete