Why not--Maltheism? (Religion)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 11:38 (4897 days ago) @ xeno6696

Dhw (quoting Matt): "... There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction." I find this logic impossible to follow. You can't destroy something until it exists, so how can the prime cause be destruction?
 
MATT: It has to be; the fundamental nature of our cosmos is dissolution. The act of creating our universe--for it to make any sense with the laws of physics--had to result in an equal act of destruction. -Sorry, but if the act of creating results in an act of destruction, how can you say the act of destruction is the prime CAUSE?-MATT: If a theology is to make any sense of this--it must conclude that either the universe was a result of another dying, or the creator dying.
 
This presupposes that creation is CAUSED by destruction, whereas your initial argument is that creation results in destruction. Even that doesn't necessarily mean the destruction of the creator. What is inevitable is the destruction of the thing created.-MATT: Or phrased another way--the "singularity" that was the beginning of the Big Bang, had only two "choices." Stay put, or release its energy.-So where did its energy come from?-MATT: As everything in the universe is a release of energy into abyss, it is clear that the universe is moving inevitably to its own cold death. This is underlined by observations in modern physics, where eventually there will be no energy in it at all.
 
There have been innumerable theories concerning the death of the universe, including the big crunch, the big freeze, the big heat, and let's not forget all the other universes in a multiverse, or all the universes that preceded this one, or all the universes that will follow this one...Forgive me if I remain a little sceptical about the various predictions. -MATT: [...] we are humans, so we humanize our Gods. The opposite of a human God is an inhumane monster...-No it isn't. Inhumane is the opposite of humane, which means kind and merciful, not cruel, not causing unnecessary suffering. If "human" has an opposite, I guess it's non-human, and it's patently absurd to say that everything non-human is a monster. As for humanizing our gods, my point is that I can't believe a god could create love, hate, humour, cruelty etc. if it didn't even know what they were. And so we might possibly deduce the nature of the creator from its creation.-MATT: We don't want to fathom that we were created by evil. Why not? LHP religions are right. Predatory urges are as much a part of being human as being altruistic. -In which case we weren't created by evil or by altruism but by a mixture of the two.-MATT: And the cycle of creation and destruction are not in balance at all; every act of order results in more total chaos/disorder/entropy. The balance--from the beginning--of our universe--is one tilted towards inevitable death. Without an injection of energy from the Sun; our balance is destroyed. And, it eventually will be destroyed.
 
And then perhaps something else will take its place. Who knows?-MATT: As for the dying God's efforts being wasted... eventually our universe will expand to the point where we no longer see stars. The universe becomes black, stars become so far apart that new stars can never be born. This universe is as finite as you or I; only over a timescale that we cannot truly fathom. You might consider this nihilistic, but even my own life will be meaningless about 2 generations after I pass. The same for our universe. Everything we hold dear--everything we cherish--is destined to be forever gone. -What happened to my Buddhist friend Gotamatt, who told us again and again that only the present was real. Your prediction concerning the end of our universe may be right (you and I will never know), but that does not invalidate the experiences of the present, or the experiences each of us will have in our future. We were not talking about eternal meanings. Even if God is dead, and our universe will crunch, freeze, burn, that does not make my immediate present and immediate future worth nothing to me or to the people who know me, and I'd rather have had this life than no life. I regard it as unreasonable to argue that everything is wasted unless it has eternal meaning. Be thankful for the good things of now, and give your wife a hug.
 
MATT: Meaning; only has meaning for life. Sentient life. -Agreed. So?-MATT: Worship? I don't recall speaking of worship. You must be talking about Jon's lyrics. -That is how you described his words ("a masterwork in worship of chaos and destruction") and I was responding to this reference.-MATT: There is logic in what they teach, it's just abhorrent to my "civilized" morals. But I think David lacks that darker vista. There is no reason that any of these versions of religion are any less likely than the one he and I were both raised with. They are counter-values to what makes a good society. However, their exploration and psychological discoveries are just as important when discussing theology and mankind.-I agree ... the all-good god is as unlikely as the all-bad. So why bother with either? And if worship of chaos and destruction leads to chaos and destruction (or murder and suicide in Jon's case), why bother with that? Go and give your wife another hug.