Question to believers

[Syne]

I used to think that, but it is based on the way things are now. In a good world, things don't have to be the way we understand them now.

Then by all means, explain how these could be understood in a perfect world. From what could "good" be differentiated in such a world? A claim without reason is no argument. Only reason provides any means to evaluate a claim.

I think you are doing it more, even if i actually am.

So in the perfect world logic just doesn't exist, is that it?

I have no choice but to live yet I desire it passionately.

Only because there is a chance of losing it. If no one ever died, no one would ever have a want for life. It would simply be the only thing known.

Maybe randomness is an illusion.

Not an argument.

Even if it is only a theoretical abstract, I could still have an opinion about it.

Not if you cannot differentiate it. Even abstract notions require some differentiation.

 

[elte]

Then by all means, explain how these could be understood in a perfect world. From what could "good" be differentiated in such a world? A claim without reason is no argument. Only reason provides any means to evaluate a claim.

In a perfect world, we might not even care. Present standards may not apply. Actually, things would be so different they I doubt they would apply, even.

So in the perfect world logic just doesn't exist, is that it?

It might or might not exist. Who knows?

Only because there is a chance of losing it. If no one ever died, no one would ever have a want for life. It would simply be the only thing known.

I know what you mean but disagree. All the things that never enter my awareness that matter to my life I still want. For example, certain aspects of my immune system that are unknown to me. I don't consciously want them, but want them nonetheless.

Not an argument.

I prefer not to argue since it is conflict, which I consider bad.

Not if you cannot differentiate it. Even abstract notions require some differentiation.

I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[Syne]

Then by all means, explain how these could be understood in a perfect world. From what could "good" be differentiated in such a world?

In a perfect world, we might not even care. Present standards may not apply. Actually, things would be so different they I doubt they would apply, even.

Basically just as I've said here:

You simply wouldn't have any consideration of a "rightness" quality to even evaluate the merits of your own work ["may not apply"]. Without an evaluative means, you wouldn't even have a judgment of your own to motivate any action ["might not even care"].

I know what you mean but disagree. All the things that never enter my awareness that matter to my life I still want. For example, certain aspects of my immune system that are unknown to me. I don't consciously want them, but want them nonetheless.

You cannot arbitrarily redefine words. While "want" may also mean require, we began with "desire" which is definitely expressed, exhibited, or felt.

I prefer not to argue since it is conflict, which I consider bad.

You cannot make any point without presenting reasons (arguments) that support that point. It has nothing to do with conflict. Is English your native language?

Not if you cannot differentiate it. Even abstract notions require some differentiation.

I don't see what you're getting at.

Even abstract notions are defined by contrast to and similarity with other things and ideas.

 

[elte]

Basically just as I've said here:




You cannot arbitrarily redefine words. While "want" may also mean require, we began with "desire" which is definitely expressed, exhibited, or felt.

Desire and want mean the same thing to me.

You cannot make any point without presenting reasons (arguments) that support that point. It has nothing to do with conflict. Is English your native language?

Indeed my goal is presentation rather than argument. Argument is usually a back and forth, and that is less than ideal, though sometimes it gets ideas across.

 

[lightgigantic]

So... what's the point of this temporary life? In terms of eternity, this life practically doesn't exist.

If living a life of eternity has certain standards of behavior and if free will is the constant companion of the living entity a temporary life with a temporary identity in a life totally at odds with the standard of eternal life is what we have on offer ...

 

[Syne]

Desire and want mean the same thing to me.

Then your use of "want" is explicitly known, and makes my point.

Indeed my goal is presentation rather than argument. Argument is usually a back and forth, and that is less than ideal, though sometimes it gets ideas across.

Disingenuous, as presentation doesn't involve the "back and forth" you are currently engaged in. You have already tried to refute my assertions which constitutes making a counter argument. A "presentation" would have been making a single post on the subject and leaving it at that, especially without countering anyone else. If you've said your peace, then so be it. We're done.

 

[wynn]

I don't, but you do, at least partially. You accept that there is something called a soul which is eternal. But you don't accept that anything we do in life affects us in eternity. So... what's the point of this temporary life? In terms of eternity, this life practically doesn't exist.

What we do (what we think, feel, say and do) affects our experience of life.
To some people, this is kind of important.

 

[wynn]

These premises are not fundamental to such conclusions, and seem to betray a bias. Afterlife need not be entertained to allow for such a god.

Actually, they do.

In some matters, there is no middle way, no neutral ground. Some matters are such that we cannot remain undecided about them. (See Wlliam James' typology of what makes for a genuine option, in The will to believe.)

The nature of life as far as time goes is one of them: We either believe that this life is all there is, or we believe there is more to it. There is no middle way, nor can we avoid the choice.
It is an important belief, as it informs many other beliefs and actions.
According to James' typology, whether we believe that this life is all there is or not, this option is, probably for most people, living, forced and momentuous.


What we think about human life and what we think about God are inextricably connected. Hence the relevancy of the problem of theodicy, and why some people see it as a sufficient reason to reject belief in God.

 

[wynn]

We started talking about this earlier:

But there is a number of assumptions going into this that are taken for granted as true, such as:

1. All living beings are their bodies; the body is all there is to a living being's existence.

I can't say otherwise because of lack of ever seeing evidence anywhere for a non-bodily existence. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a persistence outside the body, just that I don't know it to be the case.

If you are uncertain about whether "All living beings are their bodies; the body is all there is to a living being's existence" is true or not, then you cannot rightfully make judgments that imply you are certain one way or another.

There is our legacy, to the extent that can console. We can leave good or bad behind. I can't say there is any spiritual aspect to that legacy, though. For all I can tell, unfortunately, the good or bad can only persist or grow in and around the lives of people still living.

For you, what does this imply for God's nature?

3. God is a vending machine; or is evil, or doesn't exist.

God would basically give every good thing if perfect and powerful enough.

So it appears that the only image of God that you find acceptable is that of a vending machine, or a servant of yours.

And since you find that yourself and others are not being served in the ways you all want - ie. since a cosmic vending machine doesn't appear to exist, given people's constant dissatisfaction and lacks - you conclude there is no God.

Correct?

 

[elte]

Then your use of "want" is explicitly known, and makes my point..

No their meanings overlap a lot. It isn't right to limit the meaning of desire to that which concerns a passion. See, this is a reason why it is better to not argue most of the time since individual's thought processes often involve nuanced paths.

Disingenuous, as presentation doesn't involve the "back and forth" you are currently engaged in. You have already tried to refute my assertions which constitutes making a counter argument. A "presentation" would have been making a single post on the subject and leaving it at that, especially without countering anyone else. If you've said your peace, then so be it. We're done.

Not true at all. Just because no argument is highly preferable to me, it doesn't mean I feel it isn't sometimes called for. Take care

 

[elte]

If you are uncertain about whether "All living beings are their bodies; the body is all there is to a living being's existence" is true or not, then you cannot rightfully make judgments that imply you are certain one way or another.

I haven't intended there to be the impression that I have.

For you, what does this imply for God's nature?

Not a whole lot, if anything, since it is a secular idea.

So it appears that the only image of God that you find acceptable is that of a vending machine, or a servant of yours.

We are weak and needy.

And since you find that yourself and others are not being served in the ways you all want - ie. since a cosmic vending machine doesn't appear to exist, given people's constant dissatisfaction and lacks - you conclude there is no God.

Correct?

No there is nuance. I may be shorter on time to write soon and at least for a while.

 

[Syne]

Actually, they do.

In some matters, there is no middle way, no neutral ground. Some matters are such that we cannot remain undecided about them.

The nature of life as far as time goes is one of them: We either believe that this life is all there is, or we believe there is more to it. There is no middle way, nor can we avoid the choice.
It is an important belief, as it informs many other beliefs and actions.
According to James' typology, whether we believe that this life is all there is or not, this option is, probably for most people, living, forced and momentuous.


What we think about human life and what we think about God are inextricably connected. Hence the relevancy of the problem of theodicy, and why some people see it as a sufficient reason to reject belief in God.

You have not made the case for any necessary connection between the premises and conclusions about a god and those about an afterlife. You have merely defended your focus upon an afterlife, which would seem to verify some degree of bias.

Certainly you must realize that a god could exist without human afterlife. These are logically independent questions, and your inclusion of the latter in your arguments for the former simply weaken your argument. So you need to decide. Do you want to argue for an afterlife, or do you want to argue for a god? Defending one uncertainty can be dubious, but defending two is untenable.

 

[Syne]

No their meanings overlap a lot. It isn't right to limit the meaning of desire to that which concerns a passion. See, this is a reason why it is better to not argue most of the time since individual's thought processes often involve nuanced paths.

The meaning of "desire" is limited to the meaning of "desire", and anything other than that is you arbitrarily redefining a common word to suit your purpose. I didn't say it meant "passion" (straw man), I said it explicitly included expression, exhibition, and feeling, which precluded your claimed unknowing desire. Do I need to provide you with definitions so you can honestly converse using common words?

If you wish to "present" anything, it is your responsibility to make your thought processes understood. You can only accomplish that through standard use of a common language.

Not true at all. Just because no argument is highly preferable to me, it doesn't mean I feel it isn't sometimes called for. Take care

Just as I said, disingenuous to claim you weren't attempting to make an argument. So yes, we are done here, as nothing can be accomplished through such justification.

 

[wynn]

You have not made the case for any necessary connection between the premises and conclusions about a god and those about an afterlife. You have merely defended your focus upon an afterlife, which would seem to verify some degree of bias.

Certainly you must realize that a god could exist without human afterlife. These are logically independent questions, and your inclusion of the latter in your arguments for the former simply weaken your argument. So you need to decide. Do you want to argue for an afterlife, or do you want to argue for a god? Defending one uncertainty can be dubious, but defending two is untenable.

If there is only this one life, then the problem of theodicy applies fully:

Many people and other living beings die early, are victims of crimes, are severly ill from birth on, and so on.

If God is good, and there is only this one life, then why does He allow babies to be born with severe genetic disorders, why does He allow crime, natural disasters etc.?

If there is only this one life, and there exists suffering, then God is not good, or doesn't exist.


Notably, in Eastern cultures where they have notions of karma and reincarnation (which settle the issue of disease, crime and natural disasters etc.), the problem of theodicy does not exist (at least not as we know it in the West).

 

[Syne]

If there is only this one life, then the problem of theodicy applies fully:

Many people and other living beings die early, are victims of crimes, are severly ill from birth on, and so on.

If God is good, and there is only this one life, then why does He allow babies to be born with severe genetic disorders, why does He allow crime, natural disasters etc.?

If there is only this one life, and there exists suffering, then God is not good, or doesn't exist.


Notably, in Eastern cultures where they have notions of karma and reincarnation (which settle the issue of disease, crime and natural disasters etc.), the problem of theodicy does not exist (at least not as we know it in the West).

So without the crutch of assuming an afterlife, your arguments for a god completely fail you. You're problem is that the existence of an afterlife is not open to logical examination, and so it does nothing to support your argument for a god. Just as a god could exist without an afterlife, so could an afterlife exist without a god. They are independent assertions.

Now if you read back through my posts you'll find that freewill is sufficient to allow for a god with all of the usual attributes. Freewill is available for examination and can be evaluated against the assertion of a god.

 

[wynn]

So without the crutch of assuming an afterlife, your arguments for a god completely fail you. You're problem is that the existence of an afterlife is not open to logical examination, and so it does nothing to support your argument for a god. Just as a god could exist without an afterlife, so could an afterlife exist without a god. They are independent assertions.

Now if you read back through my posts you'll find that freewill is sufficient to allow for a god with all of the usual attributes. Freewill is available for examination and can be evaluated against the assertion of a god.

The core of your argument seems to be this:

One word: significance. Without a finite world, things like life and goals lose all meaning.

I think that in a finite world (with or without God), things like life and goals lose all meaning.
Because why bother? Why bother, if it is all going to end anyway, and it could end anytime?


Your underlying premise seems to be that life as it is usually lived (namely the struggle for survival) is satisfactory.

I oppose that: I do not think that life as it is usually lived (namely the struggle for survival) is satisfactory, not even remotely.


Your view is in the domain of repugnant conclusions: in your view of the finite world (with or without God), a large number of people suffer and do not live lives that are worth living. Granted, your view allows for free will. But that doesn't detract from the fact that a large number of people suffer and live lives that are not worth living.
Your view is demoralizing. It is immoral to accept that which is demoralizing.

 

[aaqucnaona]

If God can do anything then why are so many people in this world in a state of constant pain, trouble and worries?

If God is kind-hearted and can do absolutely anything then why are so many people in this world in a constant state of pain, hunger, social persecution or extreme poverty?

If God was all-powerful then he can prevent or eliminate all suffering. If God was good-hearted, then he would not want his creations to suffer. Since you say God is both, pain and suffering should not exist at all. In fact, however, we see pain and suffering all around us and experience it ourselves.

Therefore, God can not exist, or he’s not all-capable, or he’s not all-good.”

Ah the argument of the guy from 33 ad, often quote as atheists - winning since 33 ad. I am an atheist, but I have to say, your OP is inadequate in its information [especially for this forum], there is some semantics and ontology as well as philosophy of science and knowledge of truth that has to be cleared beforehand. But in general, this is a fair argument. Welcome to sciforums. Will reply in detail later.

 

[elte]

Syne, bye already, and take your ad homs with you.

 

[Syne]

The core of your argument seems to be this:

One word: significance. Without a finite world, things like life and goals lose all meaning.

No, if you had read my posts, or even just my last one, you'd have seen that my basic premise is that freewill exists. You are merely focusing on the counterpoint to your own argument.

I think that in a finite world (with or without God), things like life and goals lose all meaning.
Because why bother? Why bother, if it is all going to end anyway, and it could end anytime?

Quite the contrary, only in a finite environment can anyone form any judgment of value or relative meaning. Just as value is based on rarity, significance is increasingly lost as things become ubiquitous. Every human has an innate concern for their present well-being, so questions such as "why bother" are not found to be crucial in reality. People very often do what they enjoy, regardless of the end result. As the cliche goes, it is often the journey rather than the destination.

Your underlying premise seems to be that life as it is usually lived (namely the struggle for survival) is satisfactory.

I oppose that: I do not think that life as it is usually lived (namely the struggle for survival) is satisfactory, not even remotely.

First, not my premise. Second, your opposition is completely subjective. This is precisely why your premise is weak. Being subjective, it cannot be objectively and logically examined. But I suppose that is the strength of an emotional argument.

Your view is in the domain of repugnant conclusions: in your view of the finite world (with or without God), a large number of people suffer and do not live lives that are worth living. Granted, your view allows for free will. But that doesn't detract from the fact that a large number of people suffer and live lives that are not worth living.
Your view is demoralizing. It is immoral to accept that which is demoralizing.

You should review you own link on Repugnant Conclusions, as it is in terms of "lives worth living". But you are free to offer a definitive basis for judging the worth of a life, if you wish. Are some lives worthless and morally free to be done away with?

My view is not demoralizing. Quite the contrary, as everyone has the innate freewill with which to improve upon their circumstances. You need to decide which assertion you are trying to forward here, as you are currently arguing two independent points, and both poorly.

 

[Syne]

Syne, bye already, and take your ad homs with you.

I have pointed out negative characteristics of your argument, not you or your beliefs, so you'd have to point out any perceived ad hominems.