Comment Karma:  1  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Also a good Asimov-story; The Last Answer: http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-answer/…

Comment Karma:  1  0

http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-answer/…

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

You may not be reading this from a religious standpoint, but this story addresses the incongruities of religious text. Not directly but with pseudo-theory. Religion is the attempted explanation of the unknown and this story addresses the unknown while putting absolutely no emphasis on the individual. This is what offends you, and many other atheists; atheists want to believe they and all others are important, but they are not. Most human beings are insignificant, this fleeting thought is addressed in the text and it is what you hate.
Humanity will be short lived, a memory in a divine beings consciousness freedoms and working towards future generations are short term goals that are of the “utmost importance.” But they are not, freedoms will be forgotten and if the atheists are correct we will rot in the ground with no memories of our accomplishments and an endless blackness, if they are not correct the possibilities are endless.

Debated. Vote! 17  26

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  4  0

Comment Karma:  2  0

Never mind, I guess. I was trying to find a way to connect the two stories.

Comment Karma:  2  0

Comment Karma:  3  1

Comment Karma:  4  0

Comment Karma:  6  2

Comment Karma:  0  6

Low Karma. Click to view. 7  77

I am extremely late to the party. What struck me to the point of wanting to comment was:

@CONTRADICTIONFIVE

You state:

“Debating the actual existence of God is retarded. ”

… and yet you debate.

Furthermore, you state:

“I’m pretty sure, logically speaking, we (atheists) have sort of already won that debate. Theists, again and again, need to fall back on logical fallacies to even respond to atheist critique. ”

Actually, no. Until an atheist can prove that 0+0=1 then there is no logical explanation of the universe’s existence. It have to have been created. I could not have always existed. If the universe always existed, then infinite regression would cause us never to exist to debate if there is a god or gods. We would never get to the point in time to debate, as an infinite amount of time would have had to pass before we existed.

Until atheists can prove that nothing created something from nothing, then they are just as guilty as using faith as a reason to say that there is NO god, as a religious person in saying that their god exists.

Indeed, while the religious state that their beliefs are guided by faith, you claim that they are engaged in logical fallacies. What is more illogical than believing something that cannot be proven, and yet, claim that logic is the determinant?

I humbly submit that, at best, one who is logic-driven would be an agnostic, that is, they would state that they do NOT KNOW if there is a god or gods, or if there ever were. The “atheist critique” is no more engaging than a Muslim debating a Jew on the nature of their god. This is because like the Muslim and the Jew, their atheistic belief is grounded faith, in their case being that there is no god. Logically, one cannot prove that something does not exist.

I am not here to debate if there is a god or not. I am simply pointing out that an atheist can never win such an argument by claiming that they are grounded in logic.

Debated. Vote! 22  14

Comment Karma:  0  0

I also have a great appreciation for grace, patience, kindness, etc., but to what end? Why for when not deserved? Why treat everyone the same, for one, but more vitally, more importantly, why treat devils as if they were really just angels corrupted by some flawed self-concept or intention? Not every devil is salvageable, nor was every devil on this Earth once an angel or messenger from God.

Finally, to contend the main point about God, I will say that suffering is no proof of any external agent of any kind – suffering is no proof of God, nor is it proof of no God. Can’t suffering just be meaningless? This makes suffering even more of a shame, this makes it so that we want to see even less suffering, avoid it even more, if it has no cosmic significance – if it is merely a result of misplaced, misguided human practices.

To say that greater suffering leads to greater levels of advancement or evolution sounds a little bit like saying that we can attain Knowledge through Ignorance, Peace through War, or Virginity through Sex.

Comment Karma:  5  1

Comment Karma:  9  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

– He is not a singular nexus of electromagnetic energy, nor is he frozen at the time of his demise. He is a projection of a part of the nexus of energy that is everything, by my reading. Thusly, he can access ‘infinite’ amounts of “stimulation and new experiences” at any moment.

“a very human weakness, the need to exploit others for his own amusement”

– I take this character differently. He does not “need to exploit” anyone, but rather desires to create and explore those creations. When we create babies and revel in their discovery, even though we expect it and know where it will likely lead, we are not exploiting anything, are we? I find a similar relationship here.

“Mr Asimov does not have the answers to these questions, nor do I or anybody else, including all of the worlds religions”

– No, of course not. If anyone did have the answers, there would be no point in writing stories. But since we don’t have all the answers, it is oh so much fun to play with ideas, no? Why else read or write or speak with anyone, if not merely to enjoy and explore?

Comment Karma:  19  0

Comment Karma:  0  1

Low Karma. Click to view. 0  28

Comment Karma:  5  0

Comment Karma:  5  0

Comment Karma:  0  0

Comment Karma:  3  0

Comment Karma:  3  5

Comment Karma:  1  1

@ Ellert

I’m an atheist and I don’t KNOW there is no god, but in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary must deny his existence, at least in the way I live my life. Debating the actual existence of God is retarded. I’m pretty sure, logically speaking, we (atheists) have sort of already won that debate. Theists, again and again, need to fall back on logical fallacies to even respond to atheist critique. In the modern world it is still encouraged and acceptable to be a Christian, but go around talking about Jesus and the miracles he performed and the coming of the Rapture then you would be branded a nut-job, or at least marginalized as a “fundamentalists” which is a dirty word to most folks now.

I deny the existence of God in the Judeo-Christian sense, but I can’t speak against deism or other facets of spirituality because frankly we don’t know enough. About anything. We are learning more and more and have decided that we don’t need the Church to figure things out on our own. Quantum physics is getting us closer and closer to truths about our reality.

A “true” atheists knows nothings, but is always learning.

Debated. Vote! 19  11

Did the eternal being not say that he created all being in the universe only to have more facts to deal with?

Is it not obvious that he has kept the minds of these deceased humans “alive” beyond physical existence, in order to aid him in finding the answer to the last question (the last question being how to undo the creator) ?

He said “Even if I knew everything, I could not know that I know everything.” Meaning that when he nows everything he will not be aware of this fact, and as such needs an outside source to confirm/deny this. It is apparent throughout the story that the eternal being is a separate entity from the protagonist, even though he has created it.

In other words, just as the deceased scientist cannot bear the thought of eternal existence and the inability to stop thinking eternally, the eternal being who created him cannot bear this either. The eternal being says: “There is not one of those I have with me in this existence of perfect and eternal thought that does not have the ambition of destroying me.” and “I then allowed complexities that produced first life and then intelligence, and use it as a source for a research team, not because I need the aid, but because it would introduce a new random factor.”

So, while knowing that he is eternal, but not knowing how he was created or how/if he will be destroyed, he is probably doing everything for the sole purpose of having the hope of some time being able to undo himself to end his existence, while keeping himself amused during the wait. These “random factors” are his only possibility of discovering the last question which would truly make him divine. For if God can do anything, he must surely be able to undo himself as well. This is why he is reluctant to call himself a God.

Comment Karma:  6  0

Harold, you are not intelligent.

This short piece is a work of fiction. It appears that the scope of your imagination is so stunted that you feel the need to take issue with characters in a STORY that do not entirely correspond to reality.

Isaac Asimov has produced a rich metaphorical work that touches on some prominent philosophical notions. You have produced a comment that is invalid.

Debated. Vote! 14  6

Comment Karma:  2  0

J. Anthony Carter, I enjoyed your comments on the story. However, I can’t say that I agree with your assertion that “all men DO believe in SOMETHING, even if it’s a belief in nothing.” What I mean to say is that “nothing” isn’t a funny kind of “something.” Language often fools us into believing that we can speak of “nothing.” But aren’t we treating “nothing” as if it is “something” when we speak of it. To speak of is to speak of “something,” but “nothing” isn’t. “Nothing” is the absolute negation of “being.” When someone asks you what you believe in, they are demanding an answer which signifies “something.” If I tell you I want to talk to you about “nothing” would we be able to talk about it? No, because the pronoun “it” signifies “something,” but “nothing” isn’t anything. So, how can you say that men can believe in “nothing” if the rules of language allow one to replace the direct object “nothing” with the pronoun “it,” which signifies something?

Debated. Vote! 20  2

Comment Karma:  11  0

True Knowledge is not impossible. 2+2=4. There is no evidence for God’s existence. Admittedly there is no evidence for the non-existence of God either, but then again, there is also clearly no evidence for Zeus or any other previously-fashionable god. The burden of proof is, I believe, on the believers in this scientific world.

High Karma. 34  13

@Ellert, How can you KNOW anything for certain? For example, do you know why/how gravity works? Didn’t think so. But you trust that you will not go shooting up into the air if you step outside. I would say that true knowledge is impossible. Whatever the idea/issue/point/theory/”law”/etc, there is always some element of faith/belief that what you know is correct.

Also, can you disprove the existence of God? No. You can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove it.

“I would rather live as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t, than live as if there isn’t, and die to find out there is.” – Albert Camus

Debated. Vote! 30  31

Comment Karma:  1  0

[ADMIN EDIT] The following comment was posted by the original author below in the comments section: Waste your lives chasing your tails you nimwits. This is truely “mental masturbation”. Nope’s response follows…

“Mental masturbation” is as healthy and normal as regular masturbation, and everyone participates in it. It exercises the mind and is the foundation of all art – whether or not the creation is any good, is based solely upon the complexity of the exercise and therefore the participants’ immersion.

If science be your cause, and truth your aim, surely you cannot divorce basic ontology and metaphysics from your meandering. Abstract reasoning is the mother of invention, as it is necessary for creation. This process is strengthened by exercises Asimov and many other philosophers partake in and share with their audience.

Shame on you, so many logical fallacies pollute your simple statement. Is nothing sacred to the troll?

Comment Karma:  15  2

Comment Karma:  2  15

I’m afraid I find it equally contradictory when on one hand you say we cannot grasp the infinite and then on the other say that an infinite being would not act a certain way. Surely you cannot reasonably claim both.

High Karma. 26  1

Low Karma. Click to view. 17  49

Interesting story, however I have a problem with both characters, the recently deceased scientist, and the mysterious unidentified entity.
First the dead scientist is still thinking, even though his body and therefore brain are no longer functioning. So by what mechanism do his thought processes continue? If he is just a nexus of electromagnetic energy frozen at the time of his demise, how can he think of new ideas. He would need access to stimulation, and new experiences to formulate them. Otherwise he will just be rehashing old memories, cycling around uselessly. To such an ego bound intelligence the prospect of eternity would be horrifying, and would be truly hellish.
The mysterious voice character is even more problematic. He claims to be infinite, but also displays a very human weakness, the need to exploit others for his own amusement. Such a being is a contradiction, and can only be a human creation limited by the finite human mind.
The human mind as wonderful as it is, cannot comprehend the concepts of eternity and infinity, that is why these characters are logically inconsistent and contradictory.
Mr Asimov does not have the answers to these questions, nor do I or anybody else, including all of the worlds religions.
Perhaps we shall all find out one day, when our appointment with time arrives.

Debated. Vote! 8  18

Comment Karma:  0  2

Oh Jesus Christ, here we go again. Why did I even make you in the first place? Oh yeah to kill you for the sins I made. Sure wish I left you dead. Man, I already got enough trouble with this invisible ghost guy looking over my shoulder, I don’t need to deal with your crap. Alright, look I told you this once, and I’m not going to tell you again. I tried to make up for the whole printing press thing by “inspiring” some shit Moe told me one day, but when the internet came out we were fucked and you know that. Plus, what’s the point of being all powerful if you can’t do whatever you want? Also, if you’re me why don’t you chill your own damn drink!

Just glad humans help pay my alimony checks,
God

P.S. don’t tell your mother, but I won the lawsuit against the condom company. Extra thin for my pleasure?!?! Shoulda just gone bareback.

Debated. Vote! 23  7

Comment Karma:  3  0

Dear dad,

Please stop getting wasted and antagonizing the humans. Our public approval rating is the lowest it’s been in nearly 2,000 years, the world is falling apart, and you’ve missed the Apocalypse THREE TIMES because you passed out nose-deep in a hooker’s ass-crack.

Sincerely,
Jesus

PS: Can you freeze my drink, quick? It’s getting warm.

High Karma. 39  5

Nobody says “dumb” anymore.

Comment Karma:  1  9

Your implying I care about retarded human linguistic constructs. My ways are higher then you’re puny hummin logic

The biggest troll who never lived,
God

Debated. Vote! 20  9

It was Arthur C. Clarke who said that. It one of his “laws”.

Debated. Vote! 19  2

Comment Karma:  9  0

Comment Karma:  6  0

I believe it was Isaac Asimov himself who said “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. I say that as a preface to my comments because in no way was the antagonist in this story ever claiming to be “God”. He did claim the ability to create the protagonist and his entire Universe and consciousness. This does leave room for “God” to have been the creator of the antagonist (although this is never overtly addressed).

All men DO believe in “SOMETHING”, even if it’s a belief in nothing. You believe all men should believe in something. I’m sure there are men out there who believe no one has to believe in anything.

As a being of much higher order (a rough label I am using merely for expediency’s sake), labeling yourself “I AM” (from it’s point of view) is much preferable compared to explaining and making yourself, in your entirety, understandable to a lower level life form. Consider it a label of expediency as well instead of trying to read “The Bible” into it.

I am, and I do, are the shortest complete sentences that can be written in the English language. (Just an aside, Lol!)

I doubt Mr. Asimov bothered with philosophical research. Not counting the classes, and church (regardless of denomination), he had to attend growing up. Anyone with imagination has, at one time or the other, dealt with these concepts. As a mental exercise, if nothing else. Here, we find an author writing out one version of his grappling with the infinite.

You say “I do not, in any way, read this from a religious point of view, I can’t stand religion,” Yet in your comment you bring up four points that show that’s exactly how you’re reading this. You never bring up the point that this being never claims godhood or even that it itself might have been created by what we consider God as an out for yourself from having your understanding of the story be religion based.

Please excuse me for tearing your comment apart. It wasn’t done in anger but in logic. The way you wrote, what you wrote, explains the controversy in voting. You write one thing but say another.

High Karma. 37  8

Low Karma. Click to view. 34  115

Comment Karma:  5  0

Comment Karma:  3  2

You have plenty of time.

High Karma. 35  0

Approximately a single century later, Murray finally came up with an answer. He called out to The Voice, who appeared at once.
The Voice said, “So you have finally come to a conclusion?”
“I have,” Murray said.
The Voice, ever so calm, paused …for a moment, as if considering its next words.
“And what have you concluded?” asked The Voice.
Murray paused, gathered his thoughts, and smiled inwardly with the greatest capacity.
“Forty two.”

High Karma. 65  4

Tell me, why should I trust who that there is a hell? Why do you suppose that you have this powerful insight, or that your church has this powerful insight into the unknowable? Why can you not have the humility to realize that there are claims that, even if you believe them, are without evidence, and treating others with contempt or scorn because of them is of the highest folly known to humankind.

Asimov was writing fiction. He wasn’t grasping at straws. He was inventing them. Some of the most beautiful straws I ever saw, as well.

High Karma. 50  1

Ah, the only purpose of thought is to destroy the unknown. Well done.

High Karma. 44  1

Low Karma. Click to view. 3  56

Comment Karma:  5  1

Take a look online about all the innocent children who are starving, have cancer, are abused and other terrible things and tell me again with honesty that there is a loving creator. I have heard all the bullcrap reasons so if you have a believable excuse let me know

Debated. Vote! 18  8

Comment Karma:  1  4

I’ll start things off. The Last Question: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html and the Last Answer: http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-answer/ . Both by Isaac Asimov….

Comment Karma:  0  3

Comment Karma:  0  3

oh and murray if your out there have u tried creating a brain with the capacity to hold the voice & then waiting for the brain to expire hopefully taking the voice with it?

Comment Karma:  2  2

did you ever consider that one’s experience of the concepts of “heaven” or “hell” may very well depend on one’s belief or disbelief of the concept(s)?

High Karma. 51  5

Low Karma. Click to view. 23  174

Comment Karma:  7  6

Comment Karma:  0  3

Comment Karma:  0  3

What if pi has a non-repeating but predictable pattern? for example 0.101001000100001000001… never repeats but its very simple and easily understood

Debated. Vote! 22  6

Our minds are filled with dialogue – internal, multi-faceted, multiple-personalities, obsessive. To give this same characteristic to a superior being is perhaps outrageous, but also a good opportunity for making a point about the habits of our minds.

My suggestion to defeat existence would be to terminate thought. This would be comparable to losing self-awareness, which is perhaps preferable to death.

It is a practicable solution. The “quietening” of ones mind is an exercise in some Eastern philosophy (ironically ridiculed in this story). And it also seems to work as a solution to separating one’s self from the intentions of this superior being that is utilizing Mr. Tempelton’s nexus.

Portraying a superior being with this habit of internal dialogue and (it seems) tormented existence is absurd, but a useful devise for making a story. I would along these lines draw the difference between a superior being and the Supreme Being.

Comment Karma:  7  6

I Stumbled upon The Last Question a while back and found it intriguing, however I think I enjoyed this more for some reason. Perhaps because Murray’s way of thinking reminds me of my own, I’m not certain.

I’ve thought on the topic of everlasting existence a lot. I personally believe in God, and in an everlasting existence in whatever form, you’d never stop learning about God because He is infinite. You’d have to learn about everything he knew before you existed, and then catch up on what his thoughts have been since you existed and onward.

Debated. Vote! 13  10

Comment Karma:  11  1

You are “naturally inclined” to desire a saviour lifted from the pages of deism? Natural inclinations do not need to be obliged. People naturally desire to steal, rape and injure.

Cleaning away the superstitions of heaven and hell is the opposite of depressing. It opens the door to placing greater value on the very mortal human life, and on contributing to mortal society that it may thrive after one’s own death rather than contributing to some ethereal bank account of at best flimsy morality.

High Karma. 80  33

“Because all men should believe in SOMETHING”

Yes, but why a diving being for which you have no evidence or good reason to believe in? I believe in the good of man, family, love, democracy, freedom of speech, etc.

High Karma. 79  43

Comment Karma:  0  4

The fact that you use the word ‘dumbest’ tells all of us so much. Care to explain why it’s a waste?

High Karma. 40  5

Comment Karma:  15  3

Low Karma. Click to view. 14  275

Comment Karma:  0  3

To say you “don’t have any memory of not existing.” is illogical. If there is a point for which you do not have memories before, it is logical that you did not exist before this point. While we may have existed before this point (as babies) it does not mean that we did because we could not remember a beginning point.

Debated. Vote! 17  14

Amazingly interesting read. It makes me wonder how much philosophical research was done before this was written. Being someone who believes in God (Being Yahweh) (Because all men should believe in SOMETHING) I found this quite close to what I have come to understand (however little that is) about Him that is. The statement “I Am” is quite a biblical one. Now, understand, I do not, in any way, read this from a religious point of view, I can’t stand religion, But the thought of there being no heaven, or hell even, sounds too… depressing. As a human being I am naturally inclined towards the desire to be saved from something and/or by someone. I do not believe that He that is has us exist for only his amusement, nor do I want to.

But, to each his own. This was still a remarkable read.

Debated. Vote! 97  109

Comment Karma:  0  3

Comment Karma:  10  3

Comment Karma:  6  6

Unless the decimal portion of pi at some point repeats, omniscience is impossible.

Debated. Vote! 15  9

Dear God.

Your grammar checker is in error. The construct You intended to use, “You are silly” in Your last sentence is marred by Your lack of proper grammar usage.

You improperly used “Your” instead of the correct “You’re”

GodFail.

High Karma. 106  27

Low Karma. Click to view. 11  83

Assuming god is finite. (and that you could understand a being that created a universe)

Pretty arrogant.

Debated. Vote! 35  17

Comment Karma:  3  7

Comment Karma:  14  3

To be or not to be, that is the question

Debated. Vote! 10  21

Everybody is entitled to there own beliefs & opinions of which this will/has provoked.

For my first exposure to Asimov I found this highly entertaining & gave it some thought myself, which is what I’m sure Asimov was trying to achieve.

I came away at the end though with possibly a different take that has not been expressed in these comments.

My final opinion was that “The Entity/Being/God” was actually looking for his own end & thus manipulating his creations into helping him achieve this end.

Put basically we are the entities PC’s, each individual being its own software evolving to a stage he can make use of to aid in the search of the meaning of life/existence & once known he would be able to know his own end.

Off to read the last question now.

Debated. Vote! 21  5

but this is a place without dimensions, as dimensions are for the living (bodies and whatnot) so time doesnt exist, and there for, everlasting is an irrelevent word, and begining and end are not paradoxes to solve.

High Karma. 22  2

Dear God, I like your comment. You’re awesome. And also – can you tell me the lottery numbers?

High Karma. 53  23

Low Karma. Click to view. 10  145

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I personally don’t have any memory of not existing. What’s to separate me from the god character of this story?

High Karma. 38  3

God’s love could not be total though, for love requires an object, and the total love of an object requires a finite object. To say you love something is to separate that something from its surroundings. Loving eternity infinitely is the same thing as not caring about any specific thing. So god would still be a monster.

Secondly, if god and humans souls are eternal (lasting for ever) then they are not finite and so god could never claim to love any soul or himself totally.

Debated. Vote! 27  40

Had similar thought a while ago and thought that even if I were to theoretically destroy existence/god it would just remake itself as it did the first time.

Also in my opinion this god character was merely giving the scientist a reason to continue going, it wasn’t about new ideas it was about momentum. The scientist wanted to die before so he did, then god gave him a reason to live.

Debated. Vote! 12  15

Pfftt never gets bored? How could I get bored watching you ants kill and rape each other all the time for all time.
Your silly if you think I even care let alone love all 6 billion of you lazy bastards.

-God

High Karma. 108  70

Comment Karma:  13  2

Comment Karma:  7  1

Sometimes I wonder if it’s better to live forever or if I’ll get sick of that life and wish to die or if my fear of death would allow me to enjoy that life.

Comment Karma:  17  2

Comment Karma:  2  3

Low Karma. Click to view. 37  178

Comment Karma:  1  6

what a terribly delectible peice of food for thought, perhaps I will mull it over

Debated. Vote! 24  13

The Last Answer, perhaps? (As opposed to The Last Question).

Debated. Vote! 22  4

Isaac Asimov – The Great.
Deep and interesting read…

Debated. Vote! 17  4

Low Karma. Click to view. 8  41

Comment Karma:  2  4

Low Karma. Click to view. 19  39

Yes, oh, yes. Happen to have a spare copy right here: http://thrivenotes.com/the-last-question

High Karma. 34  2

Again, another priceless tale that only Asimov could construct. To all those who have read, and enjoyed, this amusing story, I highly recommend The Last Question, also by Asimov. Another interesting story about entropy and the struggle of Man to find an answer.

High Karma. 43  6

Another gem I’ve read many times! Amazing. I’ll read it many more times before I die…

High Karma. 97  10