Heaven, Hell, God

[Anonymous No.1013364]

hey /sci/,

let's talk about heaven, hell and god and what these concepts mean to you, discounting their historical perspectives/fantasies and whether or not they exist somewhere out in the universe.

How do you describe/define heaven?
How do you describe/define hell?
How do you describe/define god?

first i would describe these as psychological mindsets, their psychological manifestations may or may not exist in the universe, that's up to vast and limitless existence of which i can only imagine

let's keep this discussion in the realms of reason and sci

[Anonymous No.1013382]

i would define heaven as a state of tranquility and peace free from all pain/pleasure and desire

i would define hell as the opposite of this

i would define god as the all, everything, nature, universe, and even the opposite of that

you're descriptions dont have to be psychological mindsets, they can be physical realms you can imagine, like a firey hell or cloudy heaven whatever

[Anonymous No.1013413]

I would start first by defining life, which to me is a point of reference for observing frames of reference and interpretation of patterns as a function of time.

So heaven, for me, would be a state where i dont HAVE tot hink.

Hell is here, right now.

God is a body of individuals, much like a movie production company, in charge of creating realities, much like the canon in micro experiences like movies, music, and secret play in sporting activities. that is to say, we are no different from God. We are merely avid fans of his work.

[Anonymous No.1013416]

so is heaven or hell static or chaotic? can it be both?

[Anonymous No.1013417]

Uhm, well, when i disregard their historical perspectives/fantasies and whether or not they exist somewhere out in the universe, I'm afraid those concepts don't mean anything to me.

Maybe I'm not getting something here...

[Anonymous No.1013418]

Invalid parameters as reason/sci have too many boundaries when discussing matters which rely upon faith.

I will note that in most religions, God and Heaven transcend description.

[Anonymous No.1013422]

>How do you describe/define heaven?
>How do you describe/define hell?
>How do you describe/define god?

lies
lies
lies

[Anonymous No.1013442]

this topic isnt about religion or faith

it's about three words and how you would describe each word

give descriptions and definitions of them, whether they exist or not is beside the point, fantasize imagine etc

[Anonymous No.1013456]

i know the historical perspectives of them and the literary value, whether it is being burned at the stake or have bugs in your ears or something, or a cool palace with cool architecutre in the clouds but it would be llike room temperature not cold, but what those are descriptions of some one else, i want your descriptions

[Anonymous No.1013470]

>>1013413

so youre saying heaven is a place when you think only when you want to or not at all? is there a place for that?

[Anonymous No.1013490]

hell as an historical fact is a place where people who believe in a fiery torture for an afterlife burn those at the stake who do not believe this as a possibility for an afterlife

..

[Anonymous No.1013492]

>>1013442
>implying reactionaries from both sides of the aisle will understand

[Anonymous No.1013496]

Hevan is like so nice.

Hell is like, so bad.

God is like a rich daddy, who leaves trust funds for all his kids while he bangs harlots in other dimensions.

[Anonymous No.1013501]

my idea of heaven is like being in a really challenging video game with level ups and different scenery all the time but this would go on forever, you cant get out of the videogame because if you could then it wouldnt be heaven

[Anonymous No.1013527]

>>1013470
there are many things ingrained in our dna that we do automatically as a biological species. introspective thought/future prediction are things that we also do in order to survive. but past that, having a normal life requires lots of managements which i dont care to do. in fact, i believe that time does not exist outside of oorts clouds, and that the very nature of space time suggests that 'outside of reality' there are no events, or progression and that the very point of reality is to create this contrived state of anticipation based on facets of time.

for example, i like playing battlefield, but every now and then i get really tired of playing it. so i log off. so im not 'thinking' it, but in the case of reality i cant log off till i die.

[Anonymous No.1013562]

>How do you describe/define heaven?
Often misinterpreted as a place for never ending happiness. I see it as a personification of a state of mind. Being happy may make a person selfish ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18585-happiness-aint-all-its-cracked-up-to-be.html )

>How do you describe/define hell?
Yet again, another personification of a state of mind. Often spoken of in christian religion as 'a lake of fire and brimstone', I find that would laughably not be the worst kind of hell. Having conciseness with a lack of input could be far worse.

>How do you describe/define god?
The ultimate personification of a mental state of mind. People sometimes feel in their mind that something is watching them, or that an unknown sense of comfort overwhelms them in times of stress. Personally I have not experienced this.

I am an angsty teen. I am probably wrong, but I am okay with changing my view as I learn more.

[Anonymous No.1013573]

>>1013527

so when you die you are gone from reality??

i need to know

you're desciribing heaven as a state of timelessness?

well i dont think time exists, and if it does it is infinite

?

[Filenamefag !gzv4si5.ww No.1013602]

>How do you describe/define heaven?
Foxes.

>How do you describe/define hell?
Not Foxes.

>How do you describe/define god?
A Fox.

(Basically, I don't feel like putting together a coherent response right now)

[Anonymous No.1013607]

>>1013562

why woulndt you rather have uncertainty or insecurity as a more preferable state?

[Anonymous No.1013612]

i think hell is a state of mind where you can not control your state of mind, that is, you can not control the direction of your mind and you would just reacting to everything around you on whims and emotions, a mind without reason

[Anonymous No.1013613]

lgigiutgiugiutiuiu

[Anonymous No.1013622]

>heaven
Imagination of man
>hell
Imagination of man
>god
Initializator of the universe

[Anonymous No.1013650]

>>1013607
As opposed to what?

[Anonymous No.1013655]

ancient greeks, especially the stoics taught heaven as being ataraxia

a state of tranquility and happiness in accordance with nature, at all times, a philosophy developed over an enitre lifetime learning new things all the time

[Anonymous No.1013720]

Heaven: Fun stuff

Hell: Anything that lasts for "eternity."

God: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Anonymous No.1013738]

Heaven: Catgirl

Hell: Sad, angry catgirl

God: A catgirl

pic related

[Anonymous No.1013756]

I wish a heaven existed. I wish when i died, i go to paradise and live happily ever after. But reality is reality not a fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.1013784]

>>1013756
And what do you gain in believing in the opposite?

[Anonymous No.1013785]

Heaven - Being God or being like God.

Hell - Powerlessness, or the opposite of being like God.

God - The creator of this universe and whatever else exists. Perhaps it *is* all of existence, as the pantheists believe. Personally, I'd be inclined to believe that if there is a God, humans cannot understand it, but he created the dichotomy of the universe, the ability for logical entities to exist and be tied to their logical opposites: Existence vs Absence, Light vs Dark, Affirmative vs Negative, etc. I believe this is the foundation of existence.

^The above is what I would be ready to believe, as far as God stuff goes. But as of now, I choose to operate under no assumptions about such things. As such I am an atheist.

[Anonymous No.1013790]

>>1013756

describe paradise

describe 'happily ever after'

[Anonymous No.1013804]

>>1013785

God is the all, the universe, which will do what it does, and we are a part of god, the universe and will do what god tells us to do

hell is the absence of wisdom and heaven is teaching wisdom

[SATAN No.1013805]

YEAH, lets talk about HELL!

[Anonymous No.1013825]

>>1013364
heaven: a lake within a bamboo forest with a small shack for me to live in.
hell: illinois
god: the omnipuss

[Anonymous No.1013842]

heaven: most intense orgasm throughout my entire body lasting forever that never loses intensity

hell: torture. worse than the worst pain i can imagine

god: some initial form of everything from whence everything came.

if i believed in any of this...

[Anonymous No.1013856]

>>1013562
>you
>you
>you
>you
>how do you

[SATAN No.1013879]

BUT THIS IS NOT SCIENCE OR MATH?
TAKE THIS SHIT TO /X/ MOTHERFUCKER!

[Anonymous No.1013888]

>>1013879
theology is a valid science.

(inb4 troll)

[Anonymous No.1013899]

>>1013784

Knowing that im not a coward.

You have to admit, whoever wrote the bible was a genius. They used everything they could to manipulate people into believing. Thats one of the reasons i know its bullshit. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THIS BOOK YOU WILL DIE AND HURT FOREVER. Nobody wants that do they? So beyond all logic they believe in it.

[Anonymous No.1013948]

>>1013785
Light vs. dark is only a dualism in our mind. All it represents is the relative presence or absence of a certain type of particle that humans use to detect objects. We don't have some symbolic dualist argument about whether or not there are radiowaves. Dualism is anthrocentric, not scientific.

[Anonymous No.1013958]

>>1013573
i think when you die you essentially log off, which is why I think you are always free to commit suicide. I think there are people who know exactly what happens after you die and the true meaning of life, which is why suicide is so stigmatized. they need people, like spoiled rich kids need friends.

I see the universe as a sand box where you get to learn things and use science to advance yourself as a sentient being. the grand finale being instantaneous manifestation of matter, teleportation, control over gravity, genetics, time. these are all inevitable. how many levels are there in this game of life? how smart do you need to be to comprehend it all, and what happens then?

the only thing i can acknowledge is the basics. i eat, sleep, shit. and for some reason i dream. i'd like to conject that some mysteries always stare us in the face as proof of some higher power that we must always be cognizant of.

[Anonymous No.1013966]

>>1013948
But my point is that there exists a capacity for any "thing" to either exist or not exist.

[Anonymous No.1013978]

Heaven: morphine.

Hell: hemlock.

God: the comforting thought that the entire universe is a man, whom we can blame or thank for anything that we feel is out of our control.

[Anonymous No.1013996]

>>1013948
and the spectrums which are the staple of any scientific controls mean what exactly? how is duality unscientific, it is the most basic observation a sentient makes. you're basically saying there are no stars because most of the aether is devoid of them.

[Anonymous No.1014002]

>>1013966
Or to both exist and not exist, or to move between both states unpredictably.

[Anonymous No.1014028]

>>1013996
No, I'm not saying that, but I am saying that 'star' is an oversimplification for a number of objects with very different qualities, sizes, and physical makeups, and that either end of the spectrum we can conceptualize things that aren't stars, yet never perfectly state when something is a star.

These notions are useful, certainly, but we should not fall into the false belief that our symbolic oversimplifications are represented by the world, instead of simply being representations of our own flawed understanding superimposed upon our observations.

They are tools for learning, not fundamental, understood truths. They are more human than they are universal, which is why the concept of god tends more to anthrocentrism rather than rationalism.

[Anonymous No.1014047]

>>1014002
schrodinger went into a whore house with $1000. logic would dictate that he is either getting laid or not getting laid. he never comes out. in fact he has become an egg. wtf

[Anonymous No.1014060]

>>1014047
Heh, well, these things only happen on the quantum level, so its difficult for humans to notice their effect, but since all existence is based upon the quantum level, it certainly does affect us, determining everything around us. It just seems that by the force of aggregate, existence is detectable and non existence isn't, so we don't notice.

[Anonymous No.1014099]

>heaven
doesn't exist
>hell
doesn't exist
>god
doesn't exist

there is no god

[Anonymous No.1014159]

>>1014028
I like what you did there. the cock punch was not necessary.

If legs were easier to make than wheels, we would not have cars. Well we might, but the robot fascination is proof that the creator creates in his own image. As I said before, we're like little robots with all kinds of neat tricks programmed into us, tricks I can only assume were embedded by the initial creator(s) hence it is not that presumptuous to assume that somehow we mirror god aesthetically even though we're engineered to live on planets. we still don't know if anthropomorphic design is the most efficient form factor for sentient beings under gravity. but I'm missing my point which was duality is a basic measuring tool from which science stems. my analogies are always ad absurdum because i hope that it highlights the most significant factors, but I'm pretty much tired of getting into rows over prose and semantics when I'm confident that uncommon diction and these ridiculous images are the fastest ways to get an idea across.

So keep being real man. WE learn by creating or reverse engineering. It's hard enough when you know what you're trying to build, or what you're dissecting, much harder when you have no clue or context because your assumptions must be ratified by a bunch o fags who think exactly like you do.

[Anonymous No.1014236]

>>1014159
No cock punch intended, sorry if one was implied. I did take some umbrage at the overstatement of your original metaphor, which seemed to suggest that my statement was utter nonsense, which it might be, but I'd like to see a better refutation suggesting that.

I agree that these scales and measurements are all we have, and they are the way we process, I just think its useful to guard against confusing our ideas with the external world they are based upon. We shouldn't abandon them, they are useful and remarkable things, but we should always seek to move beyond them, to a further (if still flawed) understanding.