$\pi$ is irrational i.e. its decimal expansion is infinite & nonrepeating. However, each digit that appears in $\pi$ is specified (if the 1000,000,000,000, 000,000^th digit is 9, it is/has to be 9). In that sense, $\pi$ is exact.

Cum grano salis, I'm bad at math.

I say, excellent piece of prose. Very illuminating.

So it basically boils down to our insecurities; natural theology (the rational arm of religion) is simply us trying to rationalize what is, all said and done, nothing more than wishful thinking.

A [1]man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason. — J. P. Morgan

[1] All males, according to embryology, start off as females; it's only later during gestation that males make the switch from the phenotypic default (female) to males (dick & balls).

In short, that God is a He is not at all a case of gender bias; it actually reflects our femininity. :chin:

Can god castle during a game of drafts? — Banno

:rofl: Yes, a drafty castle.

Internet meme on life stages:
1. Birth
2. What the hell is this?
3. Death

:rofl:

Ever wonder about the fact that some people can't, literally and figuratively, afford laughter! I know I can't, but I'm one of those guys who live well beyond their means. Call me a fool if you will!

Thanks to almighty god, I've been so preoccupied about getting out of holes I dug myself into, I haven't had time for the luxury of being cruel. Even then, I was mean to some. I sometimes feel, contrary to the problem of evil, that there's too less of suffering in the world. We seem content enough to be cruel to each other.

:grin:

So "we worship only" the unworthy – ergo the world we've made for ourselvse these last dozen or so millennia. :mask: — 180 Proof

Just out of curiosity, how did an imaginary friend (God) become his worshipful (the Lord)?

A transition from just a companion who we can rely on and converse with to a master who dictates our fate and who we have to kneel to and placate/supplicate. What, in your opinion, brought that about?

I agree with Einstein: "Spinoza's God" (maybe!) As I've recently replied to you ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Only an "omnibenevolent" deity seems worthy of worship — 180 Proof

What about the fact that at the human level, we worship only the powerful: many so-called god-kings were a far cry from being saints, more sinners they were, and yet people worshipped them as gods.

Perhaps, god-kings were a thing when polytheism was all the rage. In polytheism, goodness was secondary to power as an attribute of divinity.

Sewing a sausage dick on isn't going to change that. — emancipate

:lol:

I think there's something terribly wrong about this whole homosexual/transsexual affair.

One possible reason why a woman/girl thinks she/he is a man/boy (transsexual) is that she/he is attracted to other women/girls, but then lesbians (homosexual) don't go through a gender crisis even though they too like women/girls.

The same goes for men/boys who think they're women/girls.

The long and short of it:

Transsexual men have something against lesbians. They don't want to be lesbians.

Transsexual women are anti-gay (secretly, unknowingly, homophobic). They're unhappy being gay.

The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. — 180 Proof

Displays the utmost clarity! :up:

If I have any issues, it's that the definition is human, too human. Just to be clear, I'm ok with that.

However, does "omnipotence" include the ability 'to will what it wills'? (Schopenhauer) Does such (a) being even need 'to will' at all? By definition (above), the "omnipotent" cannot lack any thing and, therefore, 'willing' doesn't function as we understand 'willing' – except, perhaps, as a gratuitous [1]anthropomorphism (i.e. as mere superstition). — 180 Proof

A nuance that's beyond my ken.

[1]Human, too human!

Anyway, "omnipotence" conceived of this way, "God" (so attributed) is as categorically unworthy of worship as gravity. By contrast, the "God of Abraham", for instance, is merely an ultra-technologically advanced extraterrestrial compared to humanity – superhuman, not supernatural – which, on that account, is not worthy of being worshipped either, just as humanity is not worthy of being worshipped by insects. Is any "entity" worthy of worship? What would make any "entity" worthy of being worshipped by any other "entity"? What adaptable, indispensible, function does "worship" even serve – other than as ritualized "terror management" (E. Becker)? :eyes: :pray: :mask: — 180 Proof

Awesome! Just curious, what is, to you, worthy of worship? Good guys only get a pat on the back and to kings, we kneel.

The day holy books are put on the same library shelf as The Lord of The Rings, literature would have eradicated religion from the world!

That day will come...and go (as usual).

The trouble with metaphysics is basic terms are never clearly defined. — Astrophel

And you still follow this statement up with 4 paragraphs. Shouldn't you have called it quits?

So first, things begin with house cleaning. God has to be divested of its trivial assailable properties. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence are mere anthropomorphic extensions. Greatest possible being (Anselm) the same. Rejected here is the Augustinian Platonism, Aquinas arguments and notions of first cause and teleological arguments. In short, we reject bad metaphysics. And really to the point, God is not a metaphysical concept, indeed, metaphysical concepts are really not metaphysical at all, fashioned out the very accessible conditions of their conception. Their "is" no metaphysics, just errant imaginative notions. We can say (remember Thomas Kuhn, the Kantian) science is problematic in the same way, can we not? Hundreds of years hence, will we still be entertaining the same paradigms? Not likely. How about a thousand years? Note how long the Christian ideas have been playing out. Metaphysics is just bad theory, not known to be bad at the time. Before Einstein, light was considered to travel through an ether and space was Euclidean. Bad theories, but not metaphysical because they were grounded in observations and theories about those observations. Is religious metaphysics any different? — Astrophel

So all this ($\uparrow$) was just you practising essay writing.

Religion is, essentially, a metaethical enterprise — Astrophel

Ok, I get that, but when people say "God" they usually mean a being, like you and me, only greater, much, much greater!

I'm reading this cute children's book (still 200 pages to wade through) on philosophy and one section is on why people are (kept) ignorant. It appears that ignoramuses are more easily controlled than the brainier ones (re: Socrates & hemlock).

Could the decline in IQ be a sign that Orwell's depressing prediction about an authoritarian world order is coming true? :chin: We, the boiling frogs get cooked and all the tyrants have a cannibalistic feast! :fear:

Another possibility: Intelligence isn't decreasing, in fact it's rising, but this is offset by problems getting harder to solve. The entire calculation for IQ, appropriately adjusted, then registers as a decline.

Third: The clever ones never marry or have children. Genius and antinatalism, there's something goimg on between 'em.

Hinges are obsolete. Now we have sliding door! :joke:

Is "God" free to commit suicide? — 180 Proof

I don't see why not!

Can "God" cease being "God"? — 180 Proof

Here too, I foresee no difficulty.

As an omnipotent being, God's capable of anything! Now, why does that give me the creeps?

Anyway, being all-powerful the word "impossible" is not to be found in God's lexicon. That's what I think anyway.

The fact of randomness (e.g. vacuum fluctations) precludes – negates – "theism", no? — 180 Proof

I'm not a theist though at times I do $\downarrow$



I guess I'm confused, but it doesn't bother me too much.

Oh, ok! We've already surveyed the radio part of the spectrum OR it's not not that long/too far yet for the first starlight to become radio.

Theoretically, as more time passes and more distance is interposed the frequency of light should drop to zero. In other words, darkness is light waves stretched into a straight line (zero frequency). Amazing! Darkness, no such thing!

Can one who is unintelligent not practice philosophy? If the practice of philosophy does not make one a philosopher, why must there be other characteristics to define a philosopher? — CallMeDirac

While I won't go so far as to say one has to be a genius to do philosophy, it goes without saying that philosophy is not for everyone; whether this is a matter of preference/intelligence is debatable. Perhaps both!

Take me for example. I'm an average Joe and I find some topics inscrutable. Makes me wish I were smarter.

(NB: I open to engaging you (or any member) in a formal debate defending my oft-stated theism is not true position.) — 180 Proof

:up:

For a philosopher, must haves:
1. Brain (truth/verum)
2. Heart (good/bonum & beauty/pulchrum)

I've interpreted Wittgenstein in my own way, perhaps in a language game of my own invention. If Wittgenstein is right, no language game is right or wrong i.e. anything goes, oui? After all, essence, the key ingredient for judgments right/wrong is missing.

What's the difference between share and agree? Could I share a word with someone without some agreement as to what it means with that someone?

a philosophical approach is much sturdier that this — Astrophel

Provide one!

Are yoy saying people are, on the whole, immoral. Only then would your statement "I disagree" make any sense at all.

As for free will, realizing this life vis-à-vis God is a gamble, a game of chance, is actually a ticket to freedom, oui?

religion's definition of what is good. — Mayor of Simpleton

That's another story. All we need to look at is the simple fact that religion requires us to be good. That's the meat and potatoes of all "faiths". Pascal's status of being a representative sample of one is validated on that score. We're being asked/told to be moral. What "moral" and "good" are vary with religion of course, but that's missing the point, oui?

What ten white people? :chin: — frank

:blush:

So then, the question would be is the life of Pascal the standard of measure for everyone's life or could it be him pleading a special case or something else? — Mayor of Simpleton

Good point! However, what does religion ask of us? To be good, that's all. Are you saying, we'd rather be bad?

A question: What can one black woman do in a group of ten white people? Will her single vote make any difference at all? She's a judge in name only i.e. Biden pulled a fast one on the American people.

you can't prove there is a God — Gregory

He knew that the question of God was/is/will probably remain undecidable. Ergo [...] — Agent Smith

if there is no god did one just waste the only life they had with this belief? — Mayor of Simpleton

Pascal's opinion was the believing in God was, at most, a minor inconvenience! Thereby hangs a tale: Pascal was already a religious person and there would've been little change in the way he lived Pascal's wager or not!

As I said, gambling is very much adult. There's a lot to lose (life is not a joke and neither is eternal torment) and the prize, irreristible (infinite bliss). Pascal was no fool. He knew that the question of God was/is/will probably remain undecidable. Ergo, the most sensible thing to do is to mathematize the problem which, as it turns out, is to view it with a probabilistic lens. For Pascal it was a clear as crystal that to bet on God was/is/will be the most rational choice to make.

Moreso, I think: religion seems to me more like early childhood (nursery, fairytales, kindergarden) and science like late adolescence (sex, cars, junior college) – the latter never completely outgrows the developmental vestiges (defects, biases) of the former. — 180 Proof

That's what I'd call hitting the nail on the head. Bravo!

Adults smugly claim that they outgrew Santa, but some never seem to be able to let go of God. What's the difference one might ask. Aren't they both imaginary (friends)? Neoteny/juvenilazation/Peter Pan syndrome in a way. That said, the way God's defined does reflect a certain degree of maturity that, for better or worse, is diluted by the infantile nature of the way the belief is clung to despite zero evidentiary support.

What if light waves get stretched further? Don't they become radio waves? What's an infrared telescope like JWST doing at L₂? Isn't it tuned to the wrong fequency? A Doppler effect query.

Second question: If we travel at very high speeds, do light waves become gamma rays (wave compression, Doppler effect) and won't that kill us, almost instantaneously as it were?

It is valid!

Are uncountable infinities mathematical?

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — 180 Proof

:up:

To be fair though, we have more experience with religion than science, the former being somewhat of a neglected wife and the latter a brand-new mistress. What if, down the line, after about 2k years, our mistress, science, starts to show us her dark side so to speak? Would we go running back to religion? Science has already begun to let us down: global warming is a case in point.

Anyway, I'm going to stick with science...till the bitter end, come hell or high water! Some of us are probably saying exactly the same thing about religion. Time, like always, will tell!

Hmm…you applaud 180’s take down of Pascal’s wager… — Real Gone Cat

180 Proof offers a different perspective. The :clap: was for that.

validity of Pascal’s wager — Real Gone Cat

It is valid if, for example,there were only one religion. That's understood.

nonsense — Real Gone Cat

Read Blaise Pascal's biography. In a nutshell, Pascal was a genius!

That went over my head I' afraid.

That out of the way, it seems I did catch Wittgenstein's drift which is, different rules may overlap until a point that is, this point itself determined by factors that yield divergent results (word usages) for either one or all rules at play.

The agreement among different people on how to use a word (rule) is then purely coincidental (the pattern just happens to match in the first few/hundred instances; a fluke).

What implications does this have on philosophy? Agreements, if any, are illusory. what about disagreements? Discovery of illusory agreements. Or, bewitchment by language.

Nice! :clap:

God's omnipotent i.e. God can/does (?) (do) whatever He wants. Thus have I blown the lid off the (evil) nexus betwixt power & free will.

I am saying that Benatar's asymmetry is no explanation of the asymmetry between the happy life and miserable life cases, for Benatar's asymmetry has no self-evidence to it. — Bartricks

I don't think Benatar is/has to explaining/explain the asymmetry. He's only making an observation that people don't mind nonexistence if it means liberation from pain and that the deprivation of joy only matters if there exists someone who is so deprived (Benatar's asymmetry).

That said, good point! Why is there this asymmetry in the first place?

My hunch is that suicide holds the answer, can explain the asymmetry (vide farmers neck-deep in debt commit suicide in India). A debt is, in a sense, settled once the person in debt ceases to exist. What about the profits this now dead person would've made had he lived? No matter since, again, he no longer exists.

Preexistence doesn't affect Benatar's asymmetry. The same argument applies to all instances of existence.

God(s), then, doesn't (don't) make sense i.e. to answer the OP, God is incomprehensible. It's got to do with His/their omnipontence - the ability to do anything (they so wish).