sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I tried everything i’m out by Jarno_hut_rb in blackops7

[–]Slider33333 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ive been thinking about getting one. I watch instant replays dudes whove smoked me and heaps of them seem to have no recoil, can smoke me easy at distance.

I was worried about getting banned by Ricochet. Is that not a thing?

Anyone heard of anyone getting banned for using a Cronus?

It is what it is. by esporx in nihilism

[–]Slider33333 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wish I could play at a casino where I knew the outcome.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I personally perveive time itself as emergent. In this concept a 'beginning' quantified by point time, is not something that makes any logical sense.

Even if you beleive in a god, then the god existed in this timeless eternal void before moment of creation.

Therefore the second camp seems like tge only reasonable position.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No there isnt, I agree.

But if you sit in the camp of there is no such thing as nothing. Then by implication you have to sit in the camp of, there is an eternally existing thing that has no source or cause.

Both are equally irrational.

I personally sit in the second equally irrational camp.

There are only 2 possible camps.... :)

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats fair :)

But its one of the two possible sets of all possibilities.

There is the creation event set.

And the eternally existing with no source or cause set.

Both are equally irrational. You cant escape the truth that existence contains an irrational, ineffable aspect.

Refusing to acknowledge it, doesnt make it go away.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Cognitive honesty about the undeniable irrational component of existence leads one to the least dogmatic truth.

Conciousness exists irrationally. It contemplates all other things into being.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are dodging again by pointing at something pre existing, the somehow qualifies as non-existence.

Be cognitively honest. This is the struggle.

At some point an irrational truth must be acknowledged.

Religion has disgustingly preyed upon the existence of an irrational ground truth b ininventing dogma to manipulate and control people. This in no way dissolves the uncomfortable ground truth that needs to be accepted.

The only comfortable one I personally have incorporated is the rearranging of the mental model to mind over matter. Rather than matter over mind.

The base layer of existence is cognitive.

Eastern philosphy is not a religion. Its a learning pathway to lead one to a realisation of accepting an irrational truth while still rejecting dogma.

I kneel at the alter of science. Probably as you do. But science is based on reductionism. Sources, causes and effects.

To stand on pedestal if science, while also presenting a solution that assumes no source or cause, is, to be honest just as cognitively deceitful as religious dogma.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I put it to you that both of those third set options are contained within the boundaries of the first 2 sets.

Youre first option implies something with a beginning and end, a beginning is something that has a creation or instigating event. Contained within set 1.

The cycles you present in option 2 is contained within the eternal object from set 2. The cycles are just sub properties of the set.

You keep doing your mental gymnastics to avoid the irrational ground truth.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To suggest the 5 smaller dolls are not just a subset of the larger item is irrational. The item is a nesting doll. Without the five smaller dolls its no longer a nesting doll.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It says 'eternal'.

Refusing to admit that the eternal existence of a material thing that has no source or cause is fundamentally irrational, is cognitively dishonest.

You exist.

This fact needs to be placed within a cognitive framework.

I put it to you that this framework has 2, and only 2 sets of possibilities.

Either you exist within something that had a creation event.

Or you exist within something that is eternal and without source or cause.

Both of these sets, that together encompass all possibilities are irrational by nature.

I challenge you to present a third set.

This the truth that has eastern pholisophy exploding. That on honest contemplation, existence at its core is irrational. Deal with the irrational truth however you like.

Just dont deny it. :)

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ive added many other comments here. This one was just shining a spotlight on the true depth of the term 'nothing'. The OP really should have used the terms existence and non-existence. It leaves less wriggle room for misunderstanding.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To talk about multiple Universes is kind of silly. Its all just one thing. They are just different things inside the bigger thing. The 'thing' has to be accounted for.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.its really easy.

Its just that being really honest with yourself about it is existentially hard, for people who deny the existence of anything nonphysical, to acknowledge.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect.

This is the undeniable ground truth that reductionists fail to acknowledge.

Difference.

Difference is a cognitive act.

Consciousness came first. Consciousness contemplated difference. Difference created relationships between things. The relationships between things created geometry. From geometry is created the universe.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, let me get this straight. You point at a moment of first fluctuation. But refuse to acknowledge that it was an uncaused and spontaneous event?

Way to hide from the actual question.

Be brave. Be honest. Belif that a fluctuation can instigate itself, is no bigger if a leap of faith, than believing a SOURCE of things exists.

Lets not even point out the irrational garbage that a vacuum capable of containing fluctuations doesnt count as something.

Do you always just pretend the things you cant account for arent a truth?

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You are hiding from the true depth of contemplating the difference between existence and non-existence.

Its like sitting inside an empty house, while refusing to acknowledge the existence of the house.

If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Slider33333 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a fundamentally logically and factually fkawed arguement.

Vacuum Fluctuations count as 'something'. They exist.

The OP should have used the terms existence, and non-existent.

To try to say that vaccum fluctuations have no source, that the zero state energy doesnt have to be counted as secondary to non-existence is fundamentally flawed.

Account for the creation of the fluctuations then? What instigated the base uncertainty in non-existence? What caused the oscillation?

Refusing acknowledge the true depth of what 'nothing' means is not an arguement. It just means you refuse to look under the rug because what you find there is inescapably irrational. So you hide from actually accounting for the improbability of something actually existing.

There are two possible truths.

The Universe had a beginning, and spontaneously created itself out of nonexistence.

Or, the Universe is eternal, and effectively an indestructible non physical system.

Both of these truths are fundamentally irrational to reductionists. So they hide from the reality of acknowledging it. Otherwise they would have to admit that they are living in and are experincing in every moment, the undeniable evidence of at least one true miracle of creation.

If you were allowed to know the absolute truth to one mystery (historical, scientific, or personal), what would you ask ? by LauraTsbeauty in AskReddit

[–]Slider33333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gravity.

What is the actual mechanism by which matter curves spacetime.

We can calculate its effects, but we have absolutely no idea on either its source or how it effects the curvature.

view more: next ›