• 1 Post
  • 66 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2023

help-circle






  • Hot take: All criteria used to classify ideas and objects into distinct categories can eventually break down. The only reason to pursue the creation of classification systems is to facilitate communication. If we get to a point where we start throwing chairs at each other I’d argue were no longer willing to communicate, and so arguing about whether something is “this” or “that” is no longer a priority. The priority should become attending to the mental and emotional wellbeing of the individuals in the absence of labels.





  • Oooh, I like your alternative take a lot. The whole idea of the Bible being written as a result of “hearing the voice of God” or being divinely inspired is always a fun topic because it’s impossible to define.

    Evidently when John Nash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.) was asked how a logical and smart person like him could believe that he was being recruited by aliens from outer space to save the world he replied “Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me in the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.”

    I always thought people who were “hearing the voice of God” were experiencing the same thing. Something irrational happens but you interpret it in a way that just feels true to you as an individual, and it’s so impactful that you choose to believe and test it.



  • RadicalEagle@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldEinstein and God
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    I think the joke is that God is capable of creating something without fully understanding it. But the comic seems to indicate that God wasn’t aware of his ability to do that, which I think is a bit odd. Even humans are aware that we can confuse ourselves by creating complex systems that not even we understand. I assume God would also be aware that he’s smart enough to trick himself, but who knows?


  • RadicalEagle@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldEinstein and God
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    Eh, I have no problem characterizing “god” as a sort of Willy Wonka-esque maniac who might not necessarily"do things" or design systems based on an expected outcome.

    The “why not?” or “just because” philosophy feels appropriate for “divine” characters like Loki and Sheogorath. They’re playing by their own rules, and they’re comfortable doing that because theoretically they are both the unstoppable force and the immovable object.

    Could God create a puzzle so difficult that not even he can solve it? Who knows! But I think if I were God I’d want to try and see what happens.



  • Yeah, I see where you’re coming from. Although instead of laughing I’d probably reply with “sounds like it’s time for a story.” Because I think I would assume that something happened to them recently that highlighted the danger of fire lol

    “Presenting something well-observed and well-documented as a novel thought is laughable.” I really like this sentence. It made me realize that I’d interpret “laughable” as either “humorous” or “ridiculous” depending on the context. Specifically regarding how genuine the person is being, which is impossible to be sure of. You can only make assumptions about whether a person is being genuine/honest, although you can get more comfortable with those assumptions as you get to know them better.

    Those types of “hey did you know water is wet?” comments can also serve as a jumping off points for sarcastic remarks with friends.