Life After Death

Off Topic
167

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We are both Phil Majors, I’m an Ethics and Public Policy Guy along with 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.
[/quote]

I’m not now. I was in my first year of college a long time ago. Graduated with a degree in English literature.

That being said, I agree that we’ve got things in common here, absolutely.

I never said it was logical. I understand that it isn’t. But neither is the idea that Something sprang from Nothing, and that you can always go backwards and find Something no matter what, and if you can’t, it was just always there.

Beyond that, it’s the Leap of Faith sort of shit that fills that gap. And it might not be good to use the idea of a Creator to fill that gap, but what can we do otherwise? If science never finds a first mover, then there must be something else, because it’s illogical to think that Something is here just because.

Our own existence has a cause - we go back to the monkeys. The monkeys go back to the first fish that crawled on the land, which goes back to bacteria, which goes back to water, which goes back to space, which goes back to the Big Bang, which goes back … to think that THIS stream just always was, and that there’s not a source, is not rational to me. Every river has headwaters.[/quote]

I’m not arguing our existence doesn’t have a cause bro. I’m saying that for people who argue there must be a first mover, they do so because things don’t come out of existence from nowhere, and saying such isn’t a sufficient answer. So, they go and seek out an answer and find something else that is an uncaused cause, when you sought out to find an answer to the uncaused cause. It’s like saying you are seeking some utensile other than a knife, and come back with a knife but call it God all the same.

168

Looks like lots of people are upset at my answer to the first cause, so I found a little piece online that highlights the problem I’ve been trying to point out.

"If the theist concedes that God does have a creator, then isn?t it God?s creator that we should should be worshipping rather than God? And who created God?s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

Perhaps, then, the theist should maintain that God doesn?t have a creator, that he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused.

However the theist answers the question Who created God?, then, what he says will undermine the first cause argument, and he will be forced to abandon it. So, at least, runs this common objection to first cause argument."

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html

169

I will admit that I havent read all of the posts on this thread, but I will also admit that it is making me hungry for some Cinnamon Bunz…

172

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

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?

[/quote]

Emily is right, you are projecting your own religious experiences on the rest of us. There is no monetary or time investment for me, other than the time I spend thinking about this.

I do not believe comparing belief in that to “herpes” is a good analogy - it’s actually quite poor - and just because nihilism works for you doesn’t mean that it’s A) Less depressing for anyone else or B) True.

Maybe if the person is a super-christian fundamentalist, a revelation the other way might be life-shattering, but that’s a small segment of the population and unrealistic to compare the majority of the population to them in how they’d react.

And just to say it, disagree with what you will, but don’t accuse anyone who’s posted here of not thinking through their belief system just because you’ve arrived somewhere different.
[/quote]

I believe that if you are educated on these subjects you should reach a the conclusion that there are more likely explanations that exist as far as cosmological explanations that don’t include an afterlife.

And, if you seriously use reason to weigh your faith, vs. reason you should end up with reason… That is true if you are honest about being open minded, if being open minded is using your reason to make adjustments to your belief system, unless you have had a personal experience that gives you some kind of personal proof that God exists.

I think reason sides with what Physicists say vs. what Sufi’s, Priests, and mouthpieces for God have to say about Cosmology. And I also think educated people who are honest with themselves will conclude the same.

173

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
We are both Phil Majors, I’m an Ethics and Public Policy Guy along with 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.
[/quote]

I’m not now. I was in my first year of college a long time ago. Graduated with a degree in English literature.

That being said, I agree that we’ve got things in common here, absolutely.

I never said it was logical. I understand that it isn’t. But neither is the idea that Something sprang from Nothing, and that you can always go backwards and find Something no matter what, and if you can’t, it was just always there.

Beyond that, it’s the Leap of Faith sort of shit that fills that gap. And it might not be good to use the idea of a Creator to fill that gap, but what can we do otherwise? If science never finds a first mover, then there must be something else, because it’s illogical to think that Something is here just because.

Our own existence has a cause - we go back to the monkeys. The monkeys go back to the first fish that crawled on the land, which goes back to bacteria, which goes back to water, which goes back to space, which goes back to the Big Bang, which goes back … to think that THIS stream just always was, and that there’s not a source, is not rational to me. Every river has headwaters.[/quote]

I’m not arguing our existence doesn’t have a cause bro. I’m saying that for people who argue there must be a first mover, they do so because things don’t come out of existence from nowhere, and saying such isn’t a sufficient answer. So, they go and seek out an answer and find something else that is an uncaused cause, when you sought out to find an answer to the uncaused cause. It’s like saying you are seeking some utensile other than a knife, and come back with a knife but call it God all the same. [/quote]

I totally understand you. I do. Like I said, it may be then that you are quite literally leaping into a faith in … something.

All I’m saying is that the idea of an infinite universe with no start point and no purpose is equally as absurd as the idea of a finite universe made by a Creator. One idea is no sillier than the other.[/quote]

You missed it, and I don’t believe in an infinite universe. :frowning:

176

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

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?

[/quote]

Emily is right, you are projecting your own religious experiences on the rest of us. There is no monetary or time investment for me, other than the time I spend thinking about this.

I do not believe comparing belief in that to “herpes” is a good analogy - it’s actually quite poor - and just because nihilism works for you doesn’t mean that it’s A) Less depressing for anyone else or B) True.

Maybe if the person is a super-christian fundamentalist, a revelation the other way might be life-shattering, but that’s a small segment of the population and unrealistic to compare the majority of the population to them in how they’d react.

And just to say it, disagree with what you will, but don’t accuse anyone who’s posted here of not thinking through their belief system just because you’ve arrived somewhere different.
[/quote]

I believe that if you are educated on these subjects you should reach a the conclusion that there are more likely explanations that exist as far as cosmological explanations that don’t include an afterlife.

And, if you seriously use reason to weigh your faith, vs. reason you should end up with reason… That is true if you are honest about being open minded, if being open minded is using your reason to make adjustments to your belief system, unless you have had a personal experience that gives you some kind of personal proof that God exists.

I think reason sides with what Physicists say vs. what Sufi’s, Priests, and mouthpieces for God have to say about Cosmology. And I also think educated people who are honest with themselves will conclude the same.

[/quote]

I think that’s a convincing argument against organized religion. I don’t think it’s at odds with the idea of a Creator, regardless of whether or not he interferes with human affairs (and I believe it does not).

And the possibility of a random world that sprung from Nothing is absurd and illogical to me. So that doesn’t exactly leave a plethora of other possibilities.

And once more, saying that if you are “educated” you will think a certain way is also… well, that’s not valid either. Because if it was, smarter men than you and I would have all arrived at the same conclusions.

I asked this question but deleted it because I hate falling back on this, but I have to ask it again - how old are you? That’s not said in accusatory fashion, but you do sound like you’re in a very particular age range…[/quote]

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it.

178

[quote]Sutebun wrote:

(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?”

[/quote]

I’ve not come across people putting it that way. But anyway…

I’m not holding out religion as a “model” that will “solve” ethical problems. I’m just explaining how ethical problems relate to religion. Regarding, there being “many different religions” - that is part of the problem I was describing. Initially there wasn’t. There was the church(Catholicism) and ethics was for all practical purposes objective. The problems of subjectivity arose with the Reformation and later with atheism.

I’m not being unfair at all. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. A lot of religious people blame such things as Nazism on “atheism” - that’s not the actual argument I’m making here. I’m saying that all “movements” that arose in opposition to the Catholic Church caused ethics to become subjective - so this would include obviously Hussitism and Protestantism. The Reformation preceded atheism. It was not just atheism that created the problem of ethical subjectivity it was “many religions” as you put it. It was the breakdown of universality. This is not a critique of Protestantism or atheism but rather a critique of pluralism - or at least, an exposition of why pluralism and the breakdown of universality has serious ethical implications.

179

The Universe may not be infinite, but it could be pretty damn close:

180

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I do agree here.

Also, forgive me if I missed it, but I don’t believe you answered my question to you before… and I am genuinely curious about the answer.[/quote]

I’m sorry I must of read over it, what was the question?

181

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sutebun wrote:

(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?”

[/quote]

I’ve not come across people putting it that way. But anyway…

I’m not holding out religion as a “model” that will “solve” ethical problems. I’m just explaining how ethical problems relate to religion. Regarding, there being “many different religions” - that is part of the problem I was describing. Initially there wasn’t. There was the church(Catholicism) and ethics was for all practical purposes objective. The problems of subjectivity arose with the Reformation and later with atheism.

I’m not being unfair at all. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. A lot of religious people blame such things as Nazism on “atheism” - that’s not the actual argument I’m making here. I’m saying that all “movements” that arose in opposition to the Catholic Church caused ethics to become subjective - so this would include obviously Hussitism and Protestantism. The Reformation preceded atheism. It was not just atheism that created the problem of ethical subjectivity it was “many religions” as you put it. It was the breakdown of universality. This is not a critique of Protestantism or atheism but rather a critique of pluralism - or at least, an exposition of why pluralism and the breakdown of universality has serious ethical implications.
[/quote]

Thanks for explaining your thoughts.

What do you see as more at fault here? The plurality itself or the breakdown of systems?

In your original post you ended commenting (criticizing?) that “you could have your own ethics and it could be good, but that means 7 billion other people may have a different set of ethics”.

The way you put it seems to me that you are criticizing and recognizing plurality as a problem (or to put in a kinder way, that problems exist with plurality). But I think the correct way to proceed is to accept pluralism as a fact. No different than gravity. While we examine pluralism reflecting on the consequences can be useful to understand it more, but the main discussion at hand should be how can we create better interactions among pluralism. Interactions between individuals, between the government and the individual, between two different governments…

Of course this becomes increasingly complicated as time and technology progresses because communication grows faster and faster and we are introduced to and collide with new ideas at a higher rate than before.

I can’t help but think that plurality has always existed. Sure, during the reign of the catholic church there may have been a consensus, but that is a consensus among a limited number of people in a singular society.

Which brings me to my original question above.

In all the cases you describe it seems to be a breakdown of an individual’s world view and deeply held beliefs more at fault. To make an analogy: you are adopted but your parents don’t tell you until you are 21 years old. Naturally you are upset. The cause of being upset isn’t that they aren’t your biological parents, but that you lived for 21 years thinking of them as so and then found out it wasn’t true. As well as that, people are still maturing at 21 and struggling with grasping their identity so it just becomes further complicated.

Sorry if this a different direction than you intended but I am taking the tidbits I find interesting and exploring them.

182

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.

This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.

Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist. :slight_smile:

What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.

If this is true, then what future do you expect us to have with the spread of religion the way it is in say Syria? If they feel entrenched and challenged they kill you. If you try it in parts of Brazil or Mexico they will give you a beating like only a Mexican or Brazilian can!

That is the nature of it all that I hoped to point out and demonstrate here. Even people who aren’t strongly religious, and quite educated like Emily are averse to reason itself when it comes to Cosmological beliefs being challenged, even she became entrenched. Maybe more because I’m an asshole than the reason itself, but you see how most people who are atheist push their reason. It’s not usually nice.

183

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.

This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.

Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist. :slight_smile:

What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.

If this is true, then what future do you expect us to have with the spread of religion the way it is in say Syria? If they feel entrenched and challenged they kill you. If you try it in parts of Brazil or Mexico they will give you a beating like only a Mexican or Brazilian can!

That is the nature of it all that I hoped to point out and demonstrate here. Even people who aren’t strongly religious, and quite educated like Emily are averse to reason itself when it comes to Cosmological beliefs being challenged, even she became entrenched. Maybe more because I’m an asshole than the reason itself, but you see how most people who are atheist push their reason. It’s not usually nice.

[/quote]

I’m not adverse to reason, lol. I simply don’t think your argument is based in it. It’s emotion-driven and founded in your experiences as a youth, apparently. You have a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and what drives them, then defending these assumptions as truths no one wants to hear.

Your SHOCKING DECLARATION is not the first I’ve heard of people not believing in God or afterlife. I acknowledge a complete lack of certainty and a preference-based belief system. Where on earth is the fear or entrenchment in that?

You frankly don’t have the debate skills to challenge my beliefs.

184

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Sorry about that, here’s a more understandable version of what I was critiquing for the first cause. Also, these are really academic counters that you would find professors explaining. I write off the cuff and tend to find my errors after I post, clarity is indeed an issue for me, what makes sense in my mind and how I interpret is a little odd sometimes. This is something I understand quite well.

Under counter arguments and objections, you will see I even referenced the correct Philosopher. Cosmological argument - Wikipedia

185

Well plurality is how systems of value and ethics breakdown. There can only be one “truth”. Even if what we hold to be “true” is not entirely true, it is still objective by virtue of it being universally accepted. So “untruths” aren’t the only problem. Subjectivity itself is a problem. Subjectivity is disagreement; argument; conflict.

I do accept it as a fact but I also recognise the problems it entails.

Well, that’s moving from “description” to “prescription.” I always hesitate to proffer solutions for such problems. Proposed “solutions” always stink of Utopianism to me.

Yes I know. There’s been quite a lot written about this problem. It’s called “information overload.”

Of course. But the further we “progress” the greater degree of pluralism we encounter.

[quote]
Sure, during the reign of the catholic church there may have been a consensus, but that is a consensus among a limited number of people in a singular society.

Which brings me to my original question above.

In all the cases you describe it seems to be a breakdown of an individual’s world view and deeply held beliefs more at fault. To make an analogy: you are adopted but your parents don’t tell you until you are 21 years old. Naturally you are upset. The cause of being upset isn’t that they aren’t your biological parents, but that you lived for 21 years thinking of them as so and then found out it wasn’t true. As well as that, people are still maturing at 21 and struggling with grasping their identity so it just becomes further complicated.

Sorry if this a different direction than you intended but I am taking the tidbits I find interesting and exploring them.[/quote]

The problem of modernity is that people are in a state of confusion because there is an overload of information and they are unable to process it all so they are uncertain; they don’t know what to believe and they do not have any deeply held convictions.

Edited

186

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.

This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.

Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist. :slight_smile:

What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.

If this is true, then what future do you expect us to have with the spread of religion the way it is in say Syria? If they feel entrenched and challenged they kill you. If you try it in parts of Brazil or Mexico they will give you a beating like only a Mexican or Brazilian can!

That is the nature of it all that I hoped to point out and demonstrate here. Even people who aren’t strongly religious, and quite educated like Emily are averse to reason itself when it comes to Cosmological beliefs being challenged, even she became entrenched. Maybe more because I’m an asshole than the reason itself, but you see how most people who are atheist push their reason. It’s not usually nice.

[/quote]

I’m not adverse to reason, lol. I simply don’t think your argument is based in it. It’s emotion-driven and founded in your experiences as a youth, apparently. You have a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and what drives them, then defending these assumptions as truths no one wants to hear.

Your SHOCKING DECLARATION is not the first I’ve heard of people not believing in God or afterlife. I acknowledge a complete lack of certainty and a preference-based belief system. Where on earth is the fear or entrenchment in that?

You frankly don’t have the debate skills to challenge my beliefs. [/quote]

That’s fine Emily. You have told me I’m inadequate on plenty of platforms already.

I hope you try to understand Existentialism as a process for people who really buy into an afterlife, and then use reason to convince themselves that there likely isn’t one.

In this process one goes through Existential crisis, and the process of going through all of those beliefs that were invested in heavily, and because of such heavy investment are painful to let go of.

As a result people have to navigate through things that are actually technical terms such as Existential forlornness, Existential angst and Existential despair. All of which suck, and all of which can be avoided if you never buy into a God or the afterlife. Further I say we can subject children to it at a young age and they have no real choice about faith… But, at some point they are likely to have to go through this process in some way if they ever truly grapple with reason vs. faith without some kind of personal knowledge of God.

It may not apply to everyone. You have a more general idea of heaven and God that isn’t linked to religion the same way reason is linked to hardcore Catholics, or fundamentalist Muslims. Often we don’t struggle with these things unless we really bite into them hard, which you haven’t. If you had really challenged your faith you would have explored rather than settling on the first cause.

187

[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…

[/quote]

“Infinite regress” - or in layman’s terms “turtles all the way down.”

188

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.

This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.

Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist. :slight_smile:

What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.

If this is true, then what future do you expect us to have with the spread of religion the way it is in say Syria? If they feel entrenched and challenged they kill you. If you try it in parts of Brazil or Mexico they will give you a beating like only a Mexican or Brazilian can!

That is the nature of it all that I hoped to point out and demonstrate here. Even people who aren’t strongly religious, and quite educated like Emily are averse to reason itself when it comes to Cosmological beliefs being challenged, even she became entrenched. Maybe more because I’m an asshole than the reason itself, but you see how most people who are atheist push their reason. It’s not usually nice.

[/quote]

I’m not adverse to reason, lol. I simply don’t think your argument is based in it. It’s emotion-driven and founded in your experiences as a youth, apparently. You have a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and what drives them, then defending these assumptions as truths no one wants to hear.

Your SHOCKING DECLARATION is not the first I’ve heard of people not believing in God or afterlife. I acknowledge a complete lack of certainty and a preference-based belief system. Where on earth is the fear or entrenchment in that?

You frankly don’t have the debate skills to challenge my beliefs. [/quote]

That’s fine Emily. You have told me I’m inadequate on plenty of platforms already.

I hope you try to understand Existentialism as a process for people who really buy into an afterlife, and then use reason to convince themselves that there likely isn’t one.

In this process one goes through Existential crisis, and the process of going through all of those beliefs that were invested in heavily, and because of such heavy investment are painful to let go of.

As a result people have to navigate through things that are actually technical terms such as Existential forlornness, Existential angst and Existential despair. All of which suck, and all of which can be avoided if you never buy into a God or the afterlife. Further I say we can subject children to it at a young age and they have no real choice about faith… But, at some point they are likely to have to go through this process in some way if they ever truly grapple with reason vs. faith without some kind of personal knowledge of God.

It may not apply to everyone. You have a more general idea of heaven and God that isn’t linked to religion the same way reason is linked to hardcore Catholics, or fundamentalist Muslims. Often we don’t struggle with these things unless we really bite into them hard, which you haven’t.
[/quote]

Yes, I believe I’ve heard something about existential angst and despair. I flatly disagree that these can be avoided by not believing in God.

Your premises are, I believe, faulty. You are making associations that are superficial and hence your argument is weak. I say that not to attack you, but to offer another explanation as to why people are not compelled to change in response to them.

189

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.

This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.

Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist. :slight_smile:

What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.

If this is true, then what future do you expect us to have with the spread of religion the way it is in say Syria? If they feel entrenched and challenged they kill you. If you try it in parts of Brazil or Mexico they will give you a beating like only a Mexican or Brazilian can!

That is the nature of it all that I hoped to point out and demonstrate here. Even people who aren’t strongly religious, and quite educated like Emily are averse to reason itself when it comes to Cosmological beliefs being challenged, even she became entrenched. Maybe more because I’m an asshole than the reason itself, but you see how most people who are atheist push their reason. It’s not usually nice.

[/quote]

I’m not adverse to reason, lol. I simply don’t think your argument is based in it. It’s emotion-driven and founded in your experiences as a youth, apparently. You have a bad habit of making assumptions about other people and what drives them, then defending these assumptions as truths no one wants to hear.

Your SHOCKING DECLARATION is not the first I’ve heard of people not believing in God or afterlife. I acknowledge a complete lack of certainty and a preference-based belief system. Where on earth is the fear or entrenchment in that?

You frankly don’t have the debate skills to challenge my beliefs. [/quote]

That’s fine Emily. You have told me I’m inadequate on plenty of platforms already.

I hope you try to understand Existentialism as a process for people who really buy into an afterlife, and then use reason to convince themselves that there likely isn’t one.

In this process one goes through Existential crisis, and the process of going through all of those beliefs that were invested in heavily, and because of such heavy investment are painful to let go of.

As a result people have to navigate through things that are actually technical terms such as Existential forlornness, Existential angst and Existential despair. All of which suck, and all of which can be avoided if you never buy into a God or the afterlife. Further I say we can subject children to it at a young age and they have no real choice about faith… But, at some point they are likely to have to go through this process in some way if they ever truly grapple with reason vs. faith without some kind of personal knowledge of God.

It may not apply to everyone. You have a more general idea of heaven and God that isn’t linked to religion the same way reason is linked to hardcore Catholics, or fundamentalist Muslims. Often we don’t struggle with these things unless we really bite into them hard, which you haven’t.
[/quote]

Yes, I believe I’ve heard something about existential angst and despair. I flatly disagree that these can be avoided by not believing in God.

Your premises are, I believe, faulty. You are making associations that are superficial and hence your argument is weak. I say that not to attack you, but to offer another explanation as to why people are not compelled to change in response to them. [/quote]

IF Open mindedness is the ability to use reason to adjust ones beliefs, then it means any belief is subject to reason if that person is open minded.

When you go through the process of weighing reason vs. faith, if you are reasonable you side with reason.

There are more reasonable explanations of the Universe that don’t include the afterlife than explanations that do.

Open minded people side with reason, and reason has better explanations for Cosmology than faith.

Therefore open minded people who grapple with faith and reason choose reason.

The rest I have already given… That is that if, finding out we die and there is nothing early on, we aren’t exposed to promises of an afterlife or any of the investments that go into it. So, for the person who isn’t invested in belief in an afterlife already knows where Grandma goes when she dies, they don’t have to go through the process of letting go of the investment that she didn’t go to heaven, because there never was a heaven in their cosmological ideas, at least that they put weight in. Maybe they saw a Tom and Jerry cartoon and view it as a way other people see the world, but not something they seriously entertain for long because their world is rooted in reason rather than faith.

This is also why I think an ethics should be founded on things that are natural to us, like empathy and sympathy rather than faith. The world isn’t a nihilistic place for me. I love being alive, and I want future generations of people to enjoy the same things I have. I worry about shit like wars that future generations will have to fight because of faith, and the lack of things they will be exposed to because of people. Knowing there wont be certain animals or environments left because of our wars and our expansion, to what end?

190

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Smarter men than you and I did come to different conclusions. The thing is the better ones based what they believed on what knowledge was available during their times, and it allowed for shifts in ideas of the cosmos, like when we transitioned from burning people at the stake for suggesting the world was round, to not doing so and accepting it as a fact.

There is enough information available to us today via Academia that we don’t need it anymore. I like to imagine what Aristotle would be like, and think if he had all the information we have available today, many of the subjects he is actually father to. I would love to see the look on his face when he sees how Virtue Theory was adopted by the Church, and his reaction to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Do you think minds of the like of Aristotle, Hume, Bentham would stay quiet about their beliefs? They would have even more ammo about them with what we have discovered with Physics.

Likely some of my favorites, to include Kant, Hobbes and Descartes would go through Existential Crisis because they were so damned faithful to God. Maybe more than I was as a, “minority” religious sort. Let me tell you, when you go to other countries where people aren’t so educated and are raised on the bible, they take it very seriously. I’ve heard of people getting beaten up pretty brutally for making fun of faith as I have on these boards. In other parts of the world you can get killed for it. [/quote]

I understand that, but there are plenty - especially my friend Thomas Paine - whose proof of god came precisely because the universe was so complex. They would have more “ammo” too - the universe is wildly more complex than was thought during their time, and so the odds of life springing out of the ether (a violent, catastrophic ether most of the time) is even more ridiculous without the idea that there is a mover behind it.

Seriously, this isn’t a one-way street, and existentialism is not the be-all end-all of serious thought. Not to mention that assuming that men like Hobbes and Descartes, who not once used the Bible to reinforce the existence of god, did not even contemplate an alternative TO god, or a godless world, is arrogant to an extreme. Especially one like Descartes, whose major achievement was proving that he exists at all.
[/quote]

The most compelling argument I have read about the complexity of the Cosmos is a sort of intelligent design. It’s argued that the Universe could have come about any number of ways, but it came about the way it did. It’s like throwing a dart in zero gravity at a target a thousand miles away and hitting a dartboard. The thing is with numbers and likelyhood, it’s just as likely for you to have a straight flush as it is to have any other very particular hand. It’s on my radar but it has flaws, I’m familiar with it. :slight_smile:

194

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
The most compelling argument I have read about the complexity of the Cosmos is a sort of intelligent design. It’s argued that the Universe could have come about any number of ways, but it came about the way it did. It’s like throwing a dart in zero gravity at a target a thousand miles away and hitting a dartboard. The thing is with numbers and likelyhood, it’s just as likely for you to have a straight flush as it is to have any other very particular hand. It’s on my radar but it has flaws, I’m familiar with it. :)[/quote]

All arguments have flaws, but this one has always been the most convincing to me. And it’s why I’ve claimed the mantle of deist.

But still, getting a straight flush has presupposed rules - you’re playing with a deck of 52 cards. Those cards have the same number of black and red cards, they’re numbered the same way, etc. etc. According to the wikipedia, your odds of getting that flush are about odds 649,739 : 1.

Now let’s eliminate every rule possible, and introduce all of the things that have ever existed in the history of the world, including playing cards, pyramids, cars, desks, and coffee mugs, into a pile. Now you’re blindfolded, and you’re picking 5 things out of it.

So what’s the possibility of pulling 5 playing cards out of that pile? Never mind cards of the same suit or color, just playing cards. And then add the odds of pulling a combination of cards that equals a flush?

Odds are against you on that one.

I like the car analogy. Take a car - a complex piece of machinery - and break it down into its individual parts. Put them all in a bag, shake it up, and throw it back out. Do you have a car? Of course not. Well, what if you do it 100 times? Still no car. A thousand? A million? A quadrillion?

Will you ever have a car? No. Even to infinity. It’s just not possible, because even though the pieces are there, there’s nothing to bind them - no mechanic. Without him, it’s just a collection of parts that will never be assembled into anything more than what they are.

We have the mechanic - we have gravity, the laws of physics, and someone just made the damn car instead of just being a collection of parts. So even though I’m not making this one into a proof, I have to say that just being here to observe things is likely as close to evidence of some type of god or creator that we will ever find.
[/quote]

See, those are the odds that come about because you give certain value to the rules of that game still, when it’s not about that particular game. I was talking very particular hands are all equal to a straight royal flush, which are actually less likely since there are 4 possibilities for straight royal flushes but only one possibility for any very particular set of five cards.

Really we were as likely to have this universe as any other possible one out there as far as we know. We particularly value the one we got because it allows us to exist. When in reality we only know of biological organisms living, it seems possible life could exist if we evolved to be silicone based based on our own understandings of biochemistry. What other possibilites are out there outside of our understanding of biochemistry is beyond me, but I don’t think we can discount that possibility, which would actually expand the possible universes that could have existed to support life similar to how we know it. :slight_smile:

Cheers man.

I actually tricked myself on that one too.

I don’t see anything wrong with my argument, I can clean it up a bit but I just threw it up there.