Which has nothing to do with being indebted. We aren't talking about the feeling of debt or the gratitude for it, but the condition of debt, which comes from unequal distribution of benefits between causally related agents. We are indebted to plants for oxygen becuase we need them much more than they need us for CO2. Animals and plants are even, they are not indebted to each other, we are indebted to plants. For us to be indebted to god, we must first establish that God exists, that some causal/conditional/creational relation exists between plants and God and that this causality is essential to us - only then can the statement "we are indebted to God/should appreciate God for our oxygen" be considered true and acceptable rationally.
Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Which has nothing to do with being indebted. We aren't talking about the feeling of debt or the gratitude for it, but the condition of debt, which comes from unequal distribution of benefits between causally related agents. We are indebted to plants for oxygen becuase we need them much more than they need us for CO2. Animals and plants are even, they are not indebted to each other, we are indebted to plants. For us to be indebted to god, we must first establish that God exists, that some causal/conditional/creational relation exists between plants and God and that this causality is essential to us - only then can the statement "we are indebted to God/should appreciate God for our oxygen" be considered true and acceptable rationally.
I would like to chip in, so please substantiate pt 1.
Either humans are material and everything about them is material; or this is not the case.
Either humans are material and everything about them is material; or this is not the case.
Either humans are material and their perceptions are material, and being material, there is no problem; or they are not material.
It is Sarkus who maintains that material existence has no problems.
Even if we go with this understanding of debt, it remains that the living entities are indebted:
Just look at how living beings tend to fare in this world: being relatively healthy, with sufficient food and shelter is a rarity.
Many living beings die or are killed even before they leave their seeds, eggs or their mothers' wombs. Numerous others die or are killed in their infancy. And even if they survive infancy, numerous living beings die or are killed due to a lack of food.
You can take no credit that you were born, that you are relatively healthy and relatively well-off and safe.
You are indebted - to your parents, to other relatives and countless other people whose actions or omission theoreof has lead to you being where you are.
Consider the life you might have if your mother had taken Thalidomide during pregnancy.
Then just trace back how come that plants can exist - there needs to be proper soil, sunshine, water, etc. Where do these come from?
Eventually, one could say we are indebted to the Big Bang, but then we still need to answer how come the Big Bang came to be.
Sounds rather circular. You have to know what you're looking for in order to recognize it. The result being that you now believe in something that you can't know any details about.
You misunderstand me, then, when I say that material existence in and of itself is not a problem.
I am not saying that all material things have no problems... but that those problems do not stem from them being material... as argued through the example of a universe devoid of life: it is made of matter yet has no problem.
If material existence itself was problematic then ALL matter would be a problem, and so a universe devoid of life would be (or have) a problem.
But it is only certain arrangements of matter that give rise to even the concept of problems.
Did you see the example I gave, of the tree either at the side of or across one's path? Does it not help? If not, what is wrong with it?
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
I think you missed my point Me-Ki-Gal
I do appreciate it, but there is no one to be grateful for.
Grateful to or for?
I can only repeat:
Either humans are material and everything about them is material; or this is not the case.
Either humans are material and their perceptions are material, and being material, there is no problem; or they are not material.
Indeed, when a tree falls across a road, and a human is in a car and wants to pass the road, then that three is usually perceived as a problem.
But with your materialistic ontology, you yet need to explain how that problem can be rightfully said to exist, if all there is, is matter.
Consequent materialism necessarily concludes that there are no problems.
How can that be?
If we are matter, and we nevertheless have a perception that there is a problem with something, while matter does not have problems, then we are in some kind of illusion: and you need to explain how we have gotten into that illusion.
How can matter have the illusion that it is not matter?
Ah your language does turn Me on Wynn. I like reading you I must say . No probs. It is what it is . The tree falling s time came and went . The human was just part of the chain . On a chain gang kind of thing . It is all in the perception of the viewer whether it is good or bad . If the driver was looking for firewood it would be a gift from the forest . If they were late for there million dollar deal then well sparks fly from my finger tips mad . Either way the tree gets its way . It falls across the road .
Is it hot in here ? Is it Me ?
"How can matter have the illusion that it is not matter?"
You answered you own question... because it's an illusion.
You answered you own question... because it's an illusion.
It exists as a thought - a pattern of activity - within a person's head.
The emergence of consciousness. It has led us to have many such illusions... such as free-will etc... but that's another thread entirely.
I'm not sure I understand where this question has come from. Which matter is having those illusions?
Human matter. Which, per you, is just matter, and matter doesn't have problems. Although here, you say it does.
Yes we are indeed indebted to a lot of things. But to the Big Bang question, I would say "We dont understand that completely yet, so till then I cannot comment".
That's not exactly true. While many animals do die in childhood, the ones that do make it tend to succeed if only because their parents succeeded. Evolution doesn't produce life forms that are not suited to their environment, unless the environment is changing rapidly.
You've confused the logic, I think, or just misunderstood me.
Saying that "material existence is not in and of itself a problem" is NOT the same as saying "matter doesn't have problems".
It is saying that any perceived problems are not with the fact of its existence but with other aspects, such as arrangement etc.
If it helps, consider "existence" a perceived quality of matter, and "arrangement" another perceived quality.
Problems are a result of perceptions of the latter, not the former.
And perceiving a "problem" does not mean that you consider it non-material, only that it is not associated with the quality of "existence" but "arrangement" etc.
Last edited:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
For someone who believes the above, you have an awful lot to say ...