6 ms·
> If you had a question you could ask God, what would it be? > I wouldn’t ask God, but in general: why is there existence, rather than nothingness? It’s the bi
by sdfghswe 3y ago
> If you had a question you could ask God, what would it be?
> I wouldn’t ask God, but in general: why is there existence, rather than nothingness? It’s the biggest of all questions and it’s not my question. It was posed 2,500 years ago by Greek philosophers. It’s the question of questions and, of course, there’s no answer.
- bicx 3y agoIf you could ask God, then maybe there is an answer though. Play the game, Werner!
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoGod answered this already. "So others can know me" Knowing and being known by God is life changing.
- tomrod 3y agoDidn't realize "god" was purely ego.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoYep; We are God. It says so in the bible: he's made in our image. (some dumb copy editor just mixed up the order a couple thousand years ago and they've been misprinting since)
- tomrod 3y agoA non-traditional blasphemy I can get behind! We are god and are in constant effort to create it where it lacks. Or better expressed: we are the universe experiencing itself.
- oh_sigh 3y agoSeems a bit egotistical
- ARandomerDude 3y agoDoes it? If you were omniscient and knew definitively that you were goodness itself, wouldn’t it be loving to share yourself with others?
- oh_sigh 3y agoNot really sure how "goodness itself" can exist when only one thing exists in the universe?
- keepamovin 3y agoIn truth a being like that would probably be beyond ego. It’s just a human projection onto them to make it easy for us to talk about that we think in those terms. so in a sense it’s us being egotistical by projecting our perspective onto God to talk about It, and by assuming that God has ego. I think in a sense, God is beyond all our concepts of morality and everything, so They are unknowable unfathomable. The great mystery. Man In Sky could be read as the ultimate human ego trip, and we keep repeating it with anthropocentric distortions about UFOs and so on. This is just one perspective. The concept in reality it’s probably so big that it’s going to be impossible for us humans to agree, natural for there to be disagreements and, even when there’s apparent disagreements, still contained within the totality of whatever it is that God is. In fact, I think it's even egotistical of us to believe that we can think our way through the concept of God, that we can even talk about it. In a sense, I think there's validity to the approach of some traditions that say that God can't even be talked about, can't even be named. A stance that reflects the required humility. Again, this is just another perspective of an infinite concept. I'm not saying I'm right about this. I'm just theorizing and speaking from my experience and ideas. Of course, there will be disagreements. And I think it's natural for there to be. What's unnatural and stupid, I think, is to persecute each other over any disagreements that we have of a concept that is seemingly so large as it could contain all these things without contradiction. So, please be kind to each other in your talks about God.
- ryanklee 3y agoYeah, well he did a shitty job of accomplishing his goal, then.
- mistermann 3y agoMaybe it's a team effort - even instant ramen requires some effort from the end user.
- ryanklee 3y agoYeah, blame the user.
- mistermann 3y agoI am simply making an observation about the nature of causality, don't blame me for what you overlay upon it.
- ryanklee 3y agoNot blaming you. Pointing out it's dubious to say God's not responsible for his own failures.
- mistermann 3y agoBut here you're declaring yourself to being correct rather than wondering if you are. Faith comes in many forms, because it is fundamental to consciousness and culture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ryanklee 3y agoIt's not clear what assertions you are referring to.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoThe question seems a bit confused as posed. On the one hand, asking God "why is there something rather than nothing?" is odd if one is looking for the cause, rather than the reason or motive. If you're asking God, then you're addressing the Cause! But why does God create the universe? If God is perfect, then He has no need to create, thus it must be a free act. It must have been for the sake of those created. If you're asking why there is existence, first, existence does exist, as existence "is" existence, and second, God is Existence Itself (Ipsum Esse Substitens) by which everything is, so again, if you're addressing God, you are already addressing the Act of Existence Himself!
- stcredzero 3y agoIf God is perfect, then He has no need to create For various values of God, perfect, He, and need, which are debatable ad astra/ad nauseum. if you're addressing God What are the chances someone is not literally addressing the literal God, but is rather posing the question using that language poetically, with zero belief in an actual God? I'd say that’s clearly nonzero.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y agoAs a cure for boredom.
- lapetitejort 3y agoGod's answer: I'm just an intern running simulations for my professor. I have seventeen other simulations with minor tweaks running concurrently. I am also living in a simulator, ironically created by myself in the parent universe. We are testing whether it's simulations all the way down and up.
- imchillyb 3y agoChapter 1, Verse 4: > 1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2) The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3) Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4) God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5) God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. He felt like it, and saw that the light was good. Something, light, is better than nothing, darkness. 'It was good,' I believe is the answer to that question.
- awb 3y agoThe question of “Why is there something rather than nothing” encompasses a curiosity about the existence of God. Your answer starts after the existence of God, so it doesn’t answer the original question.
- imchillyb 3y agoThe question was 'why is there something rather than nothing.' I believe: '...it was good...' is the answer. Why was it good? Because, at first there was nothing. Then, there was something, light, and _that_ was good, not the nothing. The question I believe you wish to ask, without asking, is: "God, why do you exist?" That's not this question though.
- awb 3y ago“It was good”, addresses the post-creation impact of the something vs. nothing (decision, instance, etc.), but it doesn’t answer the question of why there is something vs. nothing, which is asking about the origins of existence and isn’t concerned with the impact. I don’t mean to ask "God, why do you exist?" because “Why is there something instead of nothing?” encompasses that possibility without necessitating it.
- mistermann 3y agoThe fact that the potential (allegedly) existed in the first place seems rather good to me.
- asah 3y agoas a progammer, I gotta believe we can do better! I'll start. What is a method to permanently relieve mass human suffering, that has practical step-by-step instructions, achievable with modern technology, would be widely believable and easily fundable.
- awb 3y agoThe definition of suffering is unique and relative to each person. Some might consider boredom suffering while some consider it a necessary path towards creativity. Your idealistic question gets into philosophical territory when you consider what it means to be human without suffering, or wether some forms of suffering can be good. In other words, your question starts from a premise that might not be shared by others. Whereas, “why is there something instead of nothing” is a widely shared curiosity.
- noonething 3y agoSo then, what is a method to permanently relieve mass human suffering relative to each human, that has practical step-by-step instructions, achievable with modern technology, would be widely believable and easily fundable?
- awb 3y agoSure, but it’s possible that these relatively needs will in all likelihood conflict. So a valid answer might be “you can’t”.
- thereisnospork 3y ago... Step 1: Assemble H-Bomb Step 2: Boom Step 3: Relief (?)
- tehnub 3y agoThe reason the universe was made, as I understand it, was to answer Man's last question: Can entropy ever be reversed? and God answered by demonstration.
- dsign 3y agoHe answered it: > For Herzog, the problem is that there are always more ideas than time to accomplish them. “I name at least 10 projects, there are 20 more behind that,” The universe is our playground, and "God is against all".
- alienicecream 3y agoIt's a stupid question, there was no beginning. You cannot get something from nothing, so there was never nothing.
- westernpopular 3y agoNobody ever talked about beginnings. The question is, even if the universe always was, why does it exist? It wouldn't be impossible for there to be nothing and never have been anything.
- alienicecream 3y agoIt's an abstraction. If there was no beginning there was never the possibility of nothing. Just because you can conceive of a question doesn't mean it is valid.