To be positive and objective are the same thing. The Universe is exactly what we want it to be. Think about it for a little while and see if you don't all agree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Universe is as we want it
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
The universe is far from how we want it, its a cold, harsh and deadly environment. But the island of warmth, relative comfort and life which is the earth is a petty nice place to be ... in parts.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That depends on interpretation and actually being the case.
You can't be objective and positive. That's an oxymoron. Definition of OBJECTIVE
The universe is what it is.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Spoken like a true groundhog.
I don't think the Universe is exactly what we want it to be. What if I wanted the Sun to revolve around the Earth? Or what if I wanted the Moon to be made out of green cheese?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Hardly. Like, not at all the same. They don't even begin to describe the same thing.
Not at all. If happy thoughts worked, things like poverty, war, sickness, and starvation would come to an end.
Maybe think about it a little longer.
Not even close. To be positive means I like it. To be objective means it is how it is, whether I like it or not.
Nope. We don't have any influence over most of the universe. We don't even have the power to make this Earth how we want it to be.
So,no, I very much disagree.
I thought about it. I disagree.
siti
Well-Known Member
This should be in the poetry forum. I'm going to respond with another rhyming couple...
Because if the universe were other than exactly what we see,
It would surely be a universe devoid of you and me...
PS - Leibniz would have agreed with you on the positive and objective thing - best of all possible worlds and all that...Voltaire, to the contrary, thought that we could make it better by 'cultivating our garden'...You should (everyone should) read Candide - if they haven't already.
Last edited:
I expect more from you than that. I am stating that two variables equal each other.
Again, I expect better than that. You might have only one chess move, but it could be a great move. Not having power over the Earth or Universe does not mean it is not what we would want.
OK well thank you for thinking about it.
Last edited:
Bought Candide for free on my Amazon Fire tablet (so unless I die early I guarantee I'll read it). There always seem to be people you can find who agreed with you if you're serious enough... I'm glad that Leibniz agrees with this.
For my general philosophy I have Epicurus and Einstein. I just, I mean 30 minutes ago, finished "The Essential Epicurus." The only thing about his Physics I am in disagreement on is that atoms can be any size... of course Einstein thought our Solar Systems were like atoms. However his (Epicurus') science was contemporary... but still very well deduced.
Oh! I didn't mean to suggest that we didn't have a part to play ourselves in the Universe being as we want. I already agree with Voltaire. The novel is 95 pages on my Fire and I will read it anyway however. I'm sure I will enjoy it.
Also, Leibniz was a co-inventor of Calculus deserving my respect.
Also, Leibniz was a co-inventor of Calculus deserving my respect.
I believe there is basically a filtering of said multiverses into how functional they are so things very more often than not work out.
Nope.
Define your terms and most importantly define 'we', lest Sunstone quotes Voltaire again.
Last edited:
No argument, there.