Life After Death

Off Topic
141

[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You may think you sound foolish talking about it, but once again, with the majority of the world believing in some sort of religion, I just don’t think it’s that absurd to believe in spirits here.
[/quote]

Can you clarify what you mean?

Are you saying “because the majority of the world believe something which seems absurd, it shouldn’t be considered odd for me to believe something else which also seems absurd?”

Cos that hurts me right in the logic[/quote]

No no, what I’m saying is that if you believe there to be a creator, and you believe that people have souls - which most people do, if you go by the counts of who is involved in what religion - than it’s kind of crazy to not believe that ghosts exist. Once again, it’s like, “Oh no, well NOW you’re just being crazy.” Well dude, you just told me you believe that we’ve got a soul that lives forever and you believe that heaven exists, so WTF … what’s “too crazy” about ghosts, then?

To me, the idea of the existence of an afterlife would correlate directly to whether or not it would be possible for spirits to be here.

142

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The thread actually hasn’t gotten derailed at all.[/quote]

Europe is better than the US

:wink:

[quote]And that’s Pascal’s Wager… it could be very awkward, and involve a lot of, “Oh man, I was drinking a lot at that time, and who knew, really?”
[/quote]

Just looked that up, yep, seems to be exactly what I was talking about. I guess I’m a gambling man.
My issue with that scenario is that it assumes that the God you are choosing whether to believe in or not is the one true God.
What if I decide, “Yes, the fact that denouncing God X might lead to me burning in hell for eternity, whereas if I allow a church system built around him to dictate the way that I live my life - maybe doing some good, maybe doing some bad, maybe benefiting, maybe losing out - I might end up in Heaven”, and then it turns out God X isn’t real, and I should’ve pledged my faith to God Y? And God Y doesn’t send you to hell for not believing in him, he reincarnates you as an African wild dog? Then you spend the rest of your life in fear of wild Csullis.
That could be even more awkward.

143

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
To me, the idea of the existence of an afterlife would correlate directly to whether or not it would be possible for spirits to be here.[/quote]

This makes sense to me :slight_smile: I just happen to fall on the end of the spectrum that thinks both those things are equally unlikely.

144

Irish, you (and cstratton2 since he experienced an NDE) should check out “Opening Heaven’s Door” by Patricia Pearson. I read it recently and found it pretty fascinating.

The author interviews hospice care workers and a host of doctors that typically work with people in end-of-life situations. There’s multiple stories of people who’ve had NDEs who report things that happened during that they couldn’t have known, and it wasn’t simply things they could have heard or seen while “dead”. (The author addresses the differences between drug-induced hallucinations and true NDEs but I can’t remember the specifics of it). There’s also reports of the living who’ve seen some pretty remarkable things when someone close to them has passed.

Some things I found interesting: the vast majority of NDEs go unreported because people are afraid of being labeled crazy or patronized. The book includes reports from at least one doctor and a Navy Seal who’ve had NDEs (so it’s not like it’s just stories by new-age nutjobs or bible-bangers). And, in one study of people who had experienced NDEs, of those who were religious (belonged to organized religion) before, 50% of them were not after the NDE.

I suppose I liked it because it speaks to what I believe about the afterlife: I’m not sure what it is (I don’t think it’s the idealistic view of heaven), but I think the soul is real and doesn’t just go away and become nothing. I was raised Catholic, but I don’t buy into any organized religion these days; largely because I don’t believe one is right and all the others are wrong and, therefore, destined to damnation unless they accept Jesus/Allah/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. There are far too many mysteries and unknowns that show we’re not even close to understanding life and the universe, let alone what happens after death.

145

[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Europe is better than the US

:wink:
[/quote]

You fucker…

[quote]
Just looked that up, yep, seems to be exactly what I was talking about. I guess I’m a gambling man.
My issue with that scenario is that it assumes that the God you are choosing whether to believe in or not is the one true God.
What if I decide, “Yes, the fact that denouncing God X might lead to me burning in hell for eternity, whereas if I allow a church system built around him to dictate the way that I live my life - maybe doing some good, maybe doing some bad, maybe benefiting, maybe losing out - I might end up in Heaven”, and then it turns out God X isn’t real, and I should’ve pledged my faith to God Y? And God Y doesn’t send you to hell for not believing in him, he reincarnates you as an African wild dog? Then you spend the rest of your life in fear of wild Csullis.
That could be even more awkward.[/quote]

Oh yea, I don’t blame you for thinking that way. One thing I’ve found though is that once you start reading heavily, and adding philosophy to the mix (I was once a philosophy major also), all of the tenets and dogma of any religion in particular just seem to kind of fall away. That’s why I say they’re all foolish - you can’t really say any one of the organized religions makes any more sense than the others.

That’s why I prescribe (and have prescribed) to deism … if it was good enough for men like Jefferson and Paine, it’s good enough for me. But believing in one God with a rigid set of rules… not so much.

The contest, as I see it, is more or less science versus philosophy. Not religion.

146

Or let me rephrase that - pure science versus science with some spirituality mixed in.

Philosophy and science should never be at odds…

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.

149

[quote]Sutebun wrote:

On a first read your original post sounded similar to one of those typical “atheists must not have morals since they don’t have commandments, a god, and the bible blahblah…” ramblings.

[/quote]

You have completely misunderstood the point here. It’s not that “atheists must not have morals” without God. It’s that without God there cannot be any objective morality. Understand? Without God there are 7.25 billion ethical systems. And how would we determine which one was best? Even if some sort of consensus could be reached, how would we go about putting it into practice?

Our current legal and political systems are entirely based upon theology - thou shalt not kill = homicide; thou shalt not steal = larceny; prison or fine = atonement for sin; rehabilitation = forgiveness of sin etc.

Surely you must understand the profound implications of a world in which ethics is entirely subjective? The ethical systems we currently have come entirely from theology. The decline of religion and the rise of atheism during the Enlightenment demonstrably led to profoundly dangerous ideologies and the complete breakdown of our civilisation > Jacobins; Marxists; Nazis etc. These ideologies were a response to the breakdown of objective ethical systems which may not have been perfect, but which nonetheless formed the very bedrock of civilisation and civil society. You don’t have to be religious to understand the profound ethical implications of atheism and subjective ethics.

You may think you have a great ethical system and maybe you do, but as it’s subjective there are 7.25 billion people who disagree with you and that’s a problem isn’t it?

150

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

When you do, unless you have had some personal experience, miracle. Likely you realize that there are better explanations that don’t involve an afterlife… Etc. etc. [/quote]

This is simply an opinion because “better” is a subjective term. There may be theories that are heading in the direction of HOW the world - the solar system, the Milky Way, the universe, the multiverse - came into being, but there are still none that address WHY there is Something rather than Nothing.

In that respect, the idea of a Creator may sound absurd - but to me that’s no more absurd than this world existing in any form anyway. Who is to say that this world existing and containing a species of cognizant, self-aware beings who contemplate and explore it makes sense, but then the idea that something set it all in motion … well, THAT is a bridge too far.

From what I have seen, science does the “how” better than anyone. The “why” … well, that is another story, and that’s where philosophy edges it aside… [/quote]

I think that when you move away from existential despair it’s by default a better thing than having or subjecting existential despair to children or the unwitting. It’s like, would you like that with, or without herpes. Without herpes is always better, or at least I’d like to assume so… [/quote]

You’ll have to explain this more, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Having faith and abandoning it or not having faith in the first place are two sides of the same coin, and can both lead to heavy existential despair.

It’s not as if a child lives in a bubble and one can say, “By not telling them of the possibility of an afterlife, I can spare them the pain of them possibly coming to the belief that there is none.” No - they’re human, and they will likely inevitably ponder their purpose, and the meaning of all this. [/quote]

Actually the level of despair one feels seems to be more connected to how hard one bites into, or invested in the idea of an afterlife, and then loses that identity.

It’s similar to someone being a sprinter their whole life and then losing the ability to sprint because of structural damage. How much it hurts that person is going to be tremendous, but it’s going to be exponentially more painful if the person’s identity and value are also wrapped up in sprinting. Think, Usian Bolt losing a leg and assume he bases much of his life and value on sprinting vs. a 35 year old who sprints as a hobby and is a coach, but can still at least coach.

So, really both would feel some level of despair. But the person who is more invested is going to be the one who has more to lose and suffers more as a result. Which is why it’s kinda like having fries with herpes or without. It’s going to suck, but it can suck a lot more if you buy into certain ideas only to be let down.

The investment in the afterlife and faith takes a lot of forms, from investment of time to that church, investment in money, investment in belief that loved ones are in heaven, investment in belief of justice in God is often part of it as well. When you grow up and this is part of your world from a child, it becomes a strong part of ones identity that becomes that much more painful and difficult to let go of due to investment.

So, no afterlife sucks, lets call that a shit-sandwich… Would you like that with or without herpes?

151

The only people who know are those who are dead. We will all find out sooner or later. If the atheist is right we are all just dust if the religious is right well should have been to church.

152

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sutebun wrote:

On a first read your original post sounded similar to one of those typical “atheists must not have morals since they don’t have commandments, a god, and the bible blahblah…” ramblings.

[/quote]

You have completely misunderstood the point here. It’s not that “atheists must not have morals” without God. It’s that without God there cannot be any objective morality. Understand? Without God there are 7.25 billion ethical systems. And how would we determine which one was best? Even if some sort of consensus could be reached, how would we go about putting it into practice?

Our current legal and political systems are entirely based upon theology - thou shalt not kill = homicide; thou shalt not steal = larceny; prison or fine = atonement for sin; rehabilitation = forgiveness of sin etc.

Surely you must understand the profound implications of a world in which ethics is entirely subjective? The ethical systems we currently have come entirely from theology. The decline of religion and the rise of atheism during the Enlightenment demonstrably led to profoundly dangerous ideologies and the complete breakdown of our civilisation > Jacobins; Marxists; Nazis etc. These ideologies were a response to the breakdown of objective ethical systems which may not have been perfect, but which nonetheless formed the very bedrock of civilisation and civil society. You don’t have to be religious to understand the profound ethical implications of atheism and subjective ethics.

You may think you have a great ethical system and maybe you do, but as it’s subjective there are 7.25 billion people who disagree with you and that’s a problem isn’t it?
[/quote]

…?

153

[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
The only people who know are those who are dead. We will all find out sooner or later. If the atheist is right we are all just dust if the religious is right well should have been to church.[/quote]

It’s going to be much more complex than that. For example, if these dead people are theological noncognitivists then they won’t be able to tell us anything. Whereas, if they are Greco-Roman mystery initiates they won’t be allowed to tell us anything. Or if they’re ignosticists they will tell us our questions are founded upon false axioms. And if they’re apophaticists they will only be able to tell us what is untrue. I’m afraid that asking dead people is going to make things even more inscrutable than they already are.

154

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.[/quote]

Really, you have explored, thought on, and read about other possibilities and would rather believe than not believe by choice?

Maybe it has something to do with how people are wired, or maybe I’ve gone through more material on the matter?

I don’t have the choice to have faith or not anymore…

I can’t utilize Pascals Wager because I already know what it’s like to have faith. Faith is something I’m incapable of faking or pretending to have. I could go through the motions of having faith but then I wouldn’t be able to be genuine to myself, another problem with most religions is that faith and rigid belief is required for the reward of an afterlife. The God I imagined could see right into my heart and mind, and know the truth of my feelings and intentions and beliefs (omniscience).

Going through this, I don’t understand how one can be rational, and aware of the rigid requirements of organized religion along with the very reasonable likelihood that there is no afterlife due to lack of evidence. Once you buy into that idea it disallows room for faith that there is an afterlife (for me). I don’t see how it’s reasonable to believe there is an afterlife once you really entertain the likelihood there isn’t one, unless you have had a personal experience. I’m not saying it’s completely discounted, it’s a possibility but it ultimately turns into one of those possibilities that aren’t measurable or verifiable, and similar to ideas creative children make up, or that we find in books about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.

155

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sutebun wrote:

On a first read your original post sounded similar to one of those typical “atheists must not have morals since they don’t have commandments, a god, and the bible blahblah…” ramblings.

[/quote]

You have completely misunderstood the point here. It’s not that “atheists must not have morals” without God. It’s that without God there cannot be any objective morality. Understand? Without God there are 7.25 billion ethical systems. And how would we determine which one was best? Even if some sort of consensus could be reached, how would we go about putting it into practice?

Our current legal and political systems are entirely based upon theology - thou shalt not kill = homicide; thou shalt not steal = larceny; prison or fine = atonement for sin; rehabilitation = forgiveness of sin etc.

Surely you must understand the profound implications of a world in which ethics is entirely subjective? The ethical systems we currently have come entirely from theology. The decline of religion and the rise of atheism during the Enlightenment demonstrably led to profoundly dangerous ideologies and the complete breakdown of our civilisation > Jacobins; Marxists; Nazis etc. These ideologies were a response to the breakdown of objective ethical systems which may not have been perfect, but which nonetheless formed the very bedrock of civilisation and civil society. You don’t have to be religious to understand the profound ethical implications of atheism and subjective ethics.

You may think you have a great ethical system and maybe you do, but as it’s subjective there are 7.25 billion people who disagree with you and that’s a problem isn’t it?
[/quote]

…?[/quote]

(1) Your discussion isn’t exactly what I meant. There are also some dumbshit god-fearing folk out there I’ve heard say things “well if you didn’t believe in the bible why wouldn’t you just steal money?” Those people are mostly what I was referring to and not a debate on systems of ethics. Thankfully, those type of religious people are the minority rather than the majority.

But let’s talk.

(2) I’ve seen this (even posted here before, maybe by you?) and it is bollocks. It’s quite simple. To use your words, without god we may have multiple systems of ethics. Sure. And so you tell me that with god we are provided an objective morality. I’ll even concede to you there and agree!

But even if I do so we still have one large problem: we have many, many different beliefs of gods. Recognizing this, your argument simply loops back to what you were just previously criticizing. This is not solvable by your model and really demonstrates that applying “logic” to this kind of problem is impossible. Hence the word faith, and not objective or subjective.

About the dangers and implications of “subjective ethics”, we’ll likely just have to disagree. I think your examples are grossly exaggerated and unfair. You are pinning problems created by power hungry and crazy individuals (who also took advantage of circumstances created by history and economics) unto what you call subjective ethics.

And lastly, I don’t think this subject is able to be solved simply through philosophy and debate. Lately there is research on the science and brain chemistry involved in ethics. The popularized example is something like this:

(a) You are on a train that is going to crash. By pulling a lever, you will change directions and save ten people but hit and kill 3.
(b) You are taken hostage with others. You are given a choice to kill three hostages and save ten, or the people who captured you will round up ten and kill them.

Not only did people provide very different answers for a and b. but apparently the brain processed the questions differently as well. The idea being that in (b) the feeling of personal responsibility is much greater than (a) (note, examples recreated by myself through vague memory, however the takeaway is the same). I’m not really bringing this up to debate anything, I simply wish to point out that the subject goes far deeper than we probably think.

156

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.[/quote]

Really, you have explored, thought on, and read about other possibilities and would rather believe than not believe by choice?

Maybe it has something to do with how people are wired, or maybe I’ve gone through more material on the matter?

I don’t have the choice to have faith or not anymore…

I can’t utilize Pascals Wager because I already know what it’s like to have faith. Faith is something I’m incapable of faking or pretending to have. I could go through the motions of having faith but then I wouldn’t be able to be genuine to myself, another problem with most religions is that faith and rigid belief is required for the reward of an afterlife. The God I imagined could see right into my heart and mind, and know the truth of my feelings and intentions and beliefs (omniscience).

Going through this, I don’t understand how one can be rational, and aware of the rigid requirements of organized religion along with the very reasonable likelihood that there is no afterlife due to lack of evidence. Once you buy into that idea it disallows room for faith that there is an afterlife (for me). I don’t see how it’s reasonable to believe there is an afterlife once you really entertain the likelihood there isn’t one, unless you have had a personal experience. I’m not saying it’s completely discounted, it’s a possibility but it ultimately turns into one of those possibilities that aren’t measurable or verifiable, and similar to ideas creative children make up, or that we find in books about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters. [/quote]

You confuse your own personal experience of religion with what others are calling faith. I liked this quote of FI’s:

“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes

To me, this IS rational. I’m not married to any particular religion. I would call myself vaguely Judaeo-Christian but reject for myself much of what they teach. To me its value is in explaining simply the idea of God and morality to children, as well as having fun holidays to celebrate. At the same time I inform children of both science and evolution as well as the ongoing conflict between them, and the importance of doing good for its own sake.

I feel no pressure to fake faith. Why would I? I act on my own behalf, not for the benefit of others. I’m okay with unknowns and gray area and don’t need certainty or promises. I’ll know the truth when it’s time to know it. For now I have faith in a greater power of some sort, and imagine that there may be an afterlife.

And to answer your question, yes, I believe I’ve looked into and thought enough about it. Why you assume, after reading this entire thread of well-written, thoroughly thought out posts in support of ideas that disagree with yours, that others simply haven’t applied the same due diligence as you or they would conclude as you have, is beyond me.

157

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.[/quote]

Really, you have explored, thought on, and read about other possibilities and would rather believe than not believe by choice?

Maybe it has something to do with how people are wired, or maybe I’ve gone through more material on the matter?

I don’t have the choice to have faith or not anymore…

I can’t utilize Pascals Wager because I already know what it’s like to have faith. Faith is something I’m incapable of faking or pretending to have. I could go through the motions of having faith but then I wouldn’t be able to be genuine to myself, another problem with most religions is that faith and rigid belief is required for the reward of an afterlife. The God I imagined could see right into my heart and mind, and know the truth of my feelings and intentions and beliefs (omniscience).

Going through this, I don’t understand how one can be rational, and aware of the rigid requirements of organized religion along with the very reasonable likelihood that there is no afterlife due to lack of evidence. Once you buy into that idea it disallows room for faith that there is an afterlife (for me). I don’t see how it’s reasonable to believe there is an afterlife once you really entertain the likelihood there isn’t one, unless you have had a personal experience. I’m not saying it’s completely discounted, it’s a possibility but it ultimately turns into one of those possibilities that aren’t measurable or verifiable, and similar to ideas creative children make up, or that we find in books about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters. [/quote]

You confuse your own personal experience of religion with what others are calling faith. I liked this quote of FI’s:

“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes

To me, this IS rational. I’m not married to any particular religion. I would call myself vaguely Judaeo-Christian but reject for myself much of what they teach. To me its value is in explaining simply the idea of God and morality to children, as well as having fun holidays to celebrate. At the same time I inform children of both science and evolution as well as the ongoing conflict between them, and the importance of doing good for its own sake.

I feel no pressure to fake faith. Why would I? I act on my own behalf, not for the benefit of others. I’m okay with unknowns and gray area and don’t need certainty or promises. I’ll know the truth when it’s time to know it. For now I have faith in a greater power of some sort, and faith in decency and generosity and honesty.

And to answer your question, yes, I believe I’ve looked into and thought enough about it. Why you assume, after reading this entire thread of well-written, thoroughly thought out posts in support of ideas that disagree with yours, that others simply haven’t applied the same due diligence as you or they would conclude as you have, is beyond me.

158

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.[/quote]

Really, you have explored, thought on, and read about other possibilities and would rather believe than not believe by choice?

Maybe it has something to do with how people are wired, or maybe I’ve gone through more material on the matter?

I don’t have the choice to have faith or not anymore…

I can’t utilize Pascals Wager because I already know what it’s like to have faith. Faith is something I’m incapable of faking or pretending to have. I could go through the motions of having faith but then I wouldn’t be able to be genuine to myself, another problem with most religions is that faith and rigid belief is required for the reward of an afterlife. The God I imagined could see right into my heart and mind, and know the truth of my feelings and intentions and beliefs (omniscience).

Going through this, I don’t understand how one can be rational, and aware of the rigid requirements of organized religion along with the very reasonable likelihood that there is no afterlife due to lack of evidence. Once you buy into that idea it disallows room for faith that there is an afterlife (for me). I don’t see how it’s reasonable to believe there is an afterlife once you really entertain the likelihood there isn’t one, unless you have had a personal experience. I’m not saying it’s completely discounted, it’s a possibility but it ultimately turns into one of those possibilities that aren’t measurable or verifiable, and similar to ideas creative children make up, or that we find in books about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters. [/quote]

You confuse your own personal experience of religion with what others are calling faith. I liked this quote of FI’s:

“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes

To me, this IS rational. I’m not married to any particular religion. I would call myself vaguely Judaeo-Christian but reject for myself much of what they teach. To me its value is in explaining simply the idea of God and morality to children, as well as having fun holidays to celebrate. At the same time I inform children of both science and evolution as well as the ongoing conflict between them, and the importance of doing good for its own sake.

I feel no pressure to fake faith. Why would I? I act on my own behalf, not for the benefit of others. I’m okay with unknowns and gray area and don’t need certainty or promises. I’ll know the truth when it’s time to know it. For now I have faith in a greater power of some sort, and faith in decency and generosity and honesty.

And to answer your question, yes, I believe I’ve looked into and thought enough about it. Why you assume, after reading this entire thread of well-written, thoroughly thought out posts in support of ideas that disagree with yours, that others simply haven’t applied the same due diligence as you or they would conclude as you have, is beyond me.

[/quote]

Actually, look at what Hobbes says carefully. If everything has a cause, then what caused the first cause? If you need something that precedes to explain what procedes, you always need the pre in order to explain the pro, so it goes back infinitely, not to a first cause. There are plenty of academic versions of what I just told you that suffice as retorts to first cause ideas. Really, when you finally see through it you will see that there isn’t a necessity for a first cause.

I guess you can get that from a couple Philosophers, but really Hume comes to mind when I think of that. Hope this helps. I don’t know how else to explain this to you other than to say plenty of people have explored existentialism including Sartre. Existentialism was common among intellectuals who had seen war actually…

159

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ha ha! Yeah sorry. See my comment above.[/quote]

What are your own beliefs on this? Sorry if they were stated and I missed them - just seemed like you were responding to others and hadn’t made your own clear. [/quote]

Very difficult question. Let’s just say I try to believe in God because I’ve looked into the alternatives and they lead to very dark places. So do I really believe in God? I sure hope so.[/quote]

Haha. We are very similar then.[/quote]

I think this may be where I fall, too.[/quote]

Really, you have explored, thought on, and read about other possibilities and would rather believe than not believe by choice?

Maybe it has something to do with how people are wired, or maybe I’ve gone through more material on the matter?

I don’t have the choice to have faith or not anymore…

I can’t utilize Pascals Wager because I already know what it’s like to have faith. Faith is something I’m incapable of faking or pretending to have. I could go through the motions of having faith but then I wouldn’t be able to be genuine to myself, another problem with most religions is that faith and rigid belief is required for the reward of an afterlife. The God I imagined could see right into my heart and mind, and know the truth of my feelings and intentions and beliefs (omniscience).

Going through this, I don’t understand how one can be rational, and aware of the rigid requirements of organized religion along with the very reasonable likelihood that there is no afterlife due to lack of evidence. Once you buy into that idea it disallows room for faith that there is an afterlife (for me). I don’t see how it’s reasonable to believe there is an afterlife once you really entertain the likelihood there isn’t one, unless you have had a personal experience. I’m not saying it’s completely discounted, it’s a possibility but it ultimately turns into one of those possibilities that aren’t measurable or verifiable, and similar to ideas creative children make up, or that we find in books about fairies and flying spaghetti monsters. [/quote]

You confuse your own personal experience of religion with what others are calling faith. I liked this quote of FI’s:

“The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.” - Hobbes

To me, this IS rational. I’m not married to any particular religion. I would call myself vaguely Judaeo-Christian but reject for myself much of what they teach. To me its value is in explaining simply the idea of God and morality to children, as well as having fun holidays to celebrate. At the same time I inform children of both science and evolution as well as the ongoing conflict between them, and the importance of doing good for its own sake.

I feel no pressure to fake faith. Why would I? I act on my own behalf, not for the benefit of others. I’m okay with unknowns and gray area and don’t need certainty or promises. I’ll know the truth when it’s time to know it. For now I have faith in a greater power of some sort, and faith in decency and generosity and honesty.

And to answer your question, yes, I believe I’ve looked into and thought enough about it. Why you assume, after reading this entire thread of well-written, thoroughly thought out posts in support of ideas that disagree with yours, that others simply haven’t applied the same due diligence as you or they would conclude as you have, is beyond me.

[/quote]

Actually, look at what Hobbes says carefully. If everything has a cause, then what caused the first cause? If you need something that precedes to explain what procedes, you always need the pre in order to explain the pro, so it goes back infinitely, not to a first cause. There are plenty of academic versions of what I just told you that suffice as retorts to first cause ideas. Really, when you finally see through it you will see that there isn’t a necessity for a first cause.

I guess you can get that from a couple Philosophers, but really Hume comes to mind when I think of that. Hope this helps. I don’t know how else to explain this to you other than to say plenty of people have explored existentialism including Sartre. Existentialism was common among intellectuals who had seen war actually… [/quote]

Of all the great intellectuals that ever lived there is only one thing I can say. If you cannot say something clearly very simply you are just making it up. Of all the things I have read and heard, some of it just sounds like warping words to put a front of some kind of intellectual cleverness. Using the spoken language to make statements that sound sophisticated and eloquent. However when I just read over it nothing but rubbish polished up to sound captivating. A lot of it just falls completely flat of any real deep meaning or deep wisdom. To be honest the spoken language itself can’t add up to anything other then pointers to realer truth. There is no substance to any words themselves, reality comes in the language of silence.

164

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Actually, look at what Hobbes says carefully. If everything has a cause, then what caused the first cause? If you need something that precedes to explain what procedes, you always need the pre in order to explain the pro, so it goes back infinitely, not to a first cause.
[/quote]

That is not necessarily true - actually, both go back to the concept of a Creator. If it stops, and you can’t go back past it, then the Creator could be the first mover, as Hobbes said. If it doesn’t, and it’s infinite - well, that speaks to a Creator as well, because the idea that infinite things not only exist, but contain universes and what not, is radical and, well, absurd, if there is no Creator that made them.

That is actually less logical than the assumption that there is a Creator, in my opinion.

“Oh it was just always here” isn’t a good explanation. It’s also an argument AGAINST the existence of a Creator, of course, except to say that we cannot understand the laws that govern those sort of things.

Once again, a matter of opinion. The fact that there could feasibly be no first cause - that it’s possible - does not answer the question of why Something exists over Nothing. That is it’s failure. But I do plan of reading Hume. Cornel West advised him also.

[quote]
I guess you can get that from a couple Philosophers, but really Hume comes to mind when I think of that. Hope this helps. I don’t know how else to explain this to you other than to say plenty of people have explored existentialism including Sartre. Existentialism was common among intellectuals who had seen war actually… [/quote]

And plenty of people have decried existentialism. There is a reason that it was so popular during and after the world wars, but hasn’t had the same appeal afterwards. Great thinkers, yes, but not more great than Aristotle or Plato or Descartes or Spinoza or Jefferson or any of the hundreds that believed in either a personal or impersonal god.

Not attacking you, of course, you’re free to think as you wish, but existentialism and nihilism isn’t the be-all end-all of philosophy, and it isn’t inarguable. [/quote]

We are both Phil Majors, I’m an Ethics and Public Policy Guy along with Core… We obviously both like to entertain ideas, so we have a bit in common. I tend to be a bit of an ass on these boards, mainly as a practice of reciprocation.

It’s my understanding that when you define causality in the sense that all things must have a cause in order to exist. The cause, the why is supposed to be answered by Gods existence. Existence requires causes… Yet, when you get to God all of a sudden existence doesn’t require a cause. That is why it’s not logical.

Our existence is what the religious are trying to seek out, and an uncaused existence isn’t a good enough answer for people seeking answers. Basically the argument is that there must be a reason and cause for everything. If God can be an uncaused cause, then we should be okay with things, including the universe being uncaused causes.

As for me being a Nihilist, I’m not actually. I traveled through some existentialism and found Virtue Theory. I’ve also found much of virtue theory and human goodness can be based on things we consider better than normal. Not sure you are familiar with Virtue Theory, I’ve attempted to explain my view a couple times here.