I don't have much to add that you haven't covered, but I was reading the Problem of Evil Wikipedia article just before I read this, so a lot of the things you wrote resonated with me. I take...
Exemplary
I don't have much to add that you haven't covered, but I was reading the Problem of Evil Wikipedia article just before I read this, so a lot of the things you wrote resonated with me.
I take Epicurus's position on the whole first part of your essay - I think we can pretty safely do away with the concept of a god:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I think I'm quite similar to you in outlook. The whole idea of existence is absurd. Everything we love withers and dies, nothing we do will be remembered, even if we can steel ourselves against pain we are forced to endure pain in the world second-hand through the suffering of others (and animals, and the planet).
But here we are.
I think my response to this is to take Camus' problem and answer it with Epicurus's solution.
“There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that."
Camus sees this question of suicide as a natural response to an underlying reality, namely, that life is absurd. It is absurd to continually seek meaning in life when there is none; and it is absurd to hope for some form of continued existence after death, which results in our extinction. But Camus also thinks it absurd to try to know, understand, or explain the world, since he regards the attempt to gain rational knowledge as futile.
Here Camus pits himself against science and philosophy, dismissing the claims of all forms of rational analysis: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh.” Camus sees this question of suicide as a natural response to an underlying reality, namely, that life is absurd.
It is absurd to continually seek meaning in life when there is none; and it is absurd to hope for some form of continued existence after death, which results in our extinction. But Camus also thinks it absurd to try to know, understand, or explain the world, since he regards the attempt to gain rational knowledge as futile. Here Camus pits himself against science and philosophy, dismissing the claims of all forms of rational analysis: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh.”
Seems quite bleak so far, but:
In response to the lure of suicide, Camus counsels an intensely conscious and active non-resolution. Rejecting any hope of resolving the strain is also to reject despair. Indeed, it is possible, within and against these limits, to speak of happiness.
“Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable”. It is not that discovering the absurd leads necessarily to happiness, but rather that acknowledging the absurd means also accepting human frailty, an awareness of our limitations, and the fact that we cannot help wishing to go beyond what is possible. These are all tokens of being fully alive. “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
I suppose I've broadly found that to be true. I mostly read Epicurus (and, occasionally, Seneca's letters) in regards to dealing with Camus' diagnosis of the absurdity of life. I think Epicurus's philosophy is almost complete for me in regards to a course of action for what Camus identified. I don't need much to be happy. Even though I know the beautiful dog sleeping next to me will die, his companionship makes me very happy. Even though there's a genocide going on a short flight from my country and there's nothing I can do to stop it, I can acknowledge that pain - that evil - instead of pretending it doesn't exist. I read books that satisfy me, I watch movies that I like, I spend time with my friends, I eat meals I enjoy, and occasionally treat myself to ice cream.
One of Epicurus's students, Philodemus, wrote:
'Nothing to fear in God;
Nothing to feel in Death;
Good can be attained;
Evil can be endured.'
That's how I deal with the absurd. Well, that, and some of Tolkien's philosophy, even though he was a Catholic and I'm not. In Tolkien's created mythology, the chief deity granted death as a gift to men, alongside free will. Fearing death was a perversion of this gift by Morgoth (Sauron's bigger, badder predecessor) - pride of legacy and jealousy of time replaced gratitude of the flame of self-determination.
Thousands of in-universe years later when the Rohirrim battled upon Pelennor, Théoden/Éomer's call of, "Death! Death!" was not simply a rallying cry, but an outright rejection of the discord of Morgoth, and an embrace of the gift of death - banishing the shadow in spirit before destroying it in body.
No human in Tolkien's work has any fucking idea what's going to happen after death. There isn't a heaven, which I suppose would have been pretty tempting for a Catholic author to put in. Elves are bound to the world, immortal, and reborn from the Halls of Mandos. Especially in the Silmarillion, the immortal don't understand why humans are so averse to the concept of death. Elves are reborn and live through suffering until the world's ending. Humans die and... well, at least there's the possibility for rest, or respite, or simply not existing anymore.
That's resonated with me for many years. I didn't care about suffering before I was born, I doubt I'll care after I die. I assume both states will be pretty much the same, except I might be more eager to die than be born by the time life is over. But while life is going on, fuck it, we ball.
I swear, there are dozens of us! I was pretty apathetically depressed and low-key suicidal throughout parts of high school and college, and while therapy did maybe help a little, I really did dive...
Again, I promise I'm OK! Reading Camus actually basically solved the super dark major depressive episode I was in from elementary school until my early-mid 20s.
I swear, there are dozens of us! I was pretty apathetically depressed and low-key suicidal throughout parts of high school and college, and while therapy did maybe help a little, I really did dive into some philosophy at the time and found Camus and the Stoics (as well as others like Viktor Frankl) to be quite helpful. I ended up even minoring in philosophy in college.
and I would never just recommend reading philosophy instead of going to therapy for people in a place of depression, because it certainly doesn’t work for everyone, and I count myself lucky that it mostly has worked for me.
Only semi related, but I really enjoy Terry Pratchett’s Discworld (Going Postal & Making Money are the two I’ve read) and Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle and would highly recommend them. I think the way they satirize the world may vibe with you as they did with me.
I’ve only read his Man’s Search for Meaning which definitely reads more as a philosophical treatise than what I would consider psychiatry. But it’s similar to the others in it deals with trying to...
I’ve only read his Man’s Search for Meaning which definitely reads more as a philosophical treatise than what I would consider psychiatry.
But it’s similar to the others in it deals with trying to find meaning / purpose in life, when life is full of suffering.
The first half is mostly autobiographical about his time in a concentration camp, and then the second half is his treatise on the philosophical theory he came up with a little bit before the concentration camp but further developed throughout that experience.
I already wrote in length about my theist beliefs in another comment so I won't repeat, but, regarding this point This is where I disagree. God not intervening is what actually allows us to have...
I already wrote in length about my theist beliefs in another comment so I won't repeat, but, regarding this point
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
This is where I disagree. God not intervening is what actually allows us to have freewill. But what about all the evil being committee freely by Man? Well, God promised to recompense everyone for all Injustice inflicted, and promised that all who inflicted Injustice will be judged fairly, just not in this life. Evil will be justly punished, and judgement will be wise, this is the crux of this particular point on my belief system.
And, is not a good trade, to suffer some injustice for a finite 80 years, then enjoy happiness for eternity? To me, this is far from malevolent, this is extremely generous, and all I'm asked for is to just Worship God.
I honestly take some comfort in the utter pointlessness of everything. I think I would be a ridiculous bag of nerves if I thought for one second that my actions had some huge impact on everything....
I honestly take some comfort in the utter pointlessness of everything. I think I would be a ridiculous bag of nerves if I thought for one second that my actions had some huge impact on everything. It's nice to know that time keeps on rolling without me.
Semi random thoughts on the subject of human existence. I always liked the notion that we are the universe observing itself. We're made of the same stuff as everything else, which I find comfort...
Semi random thoughts on the subject of human existence.
I always liked the notion that we are the universe observing itself. We're made of the same stuff as everything else, which I find comfort and connection to.
On the other hand, the scale of just the observable universe is impossible to truly comprehend for a human brain, even when watching a sliding scale of the universe video on YouTube... And there is some decent supposition that what we can see is only a small fraction of all there actually is.
I dunno. I find comfort and freedom in knowing that we're nothing, and on a scale that isn't actually that far outside of our daily lives, we're essentially meaningless in the scheme of things. I also often think of the BBC Christmas special where Dawkins shows a spotlight on the ground, and how we are briefly within it before being consigned to the large chunk of darkness behind it and think "I'm really happy to be in the spotlight and to know it, and appreciate my brief pinprick of time in the light". I think of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot paragraph and sit in awe that all we ever were and almost all that we are fits on a little dot in a photograph taken from the edge of our solar system. And something of us as we are now will (probably) last for billions of years as those probes hurtle out into space, but even then won't leave our galactic front yard.
Might just be me, but I find all of that wonderful, exciting, and freeing. I've read that the estimate for total modern humans to ever live is 100 billion. Our of 100 billion of us, I'm alive now! On the very edge of human progress, in a time where I don't have to worry about what I'll eat tomorrow, or if that bear will come back and hunt me. I can live an incredibly easy and rich life compared to nearly every other human that has ever lived... That, and everything else I stream of consciousness vomited out above allows me, nearly demands me to just pursue my own satisfaction in life as I see fit without worrying about if I'm using my life good enough.
I love existing for no reason, other than to just enjoy it as much as I can and observe everything I can whilst I'm here.
Hopefully some of this made sense to someone else :)
Edit: oops meant this to be a top level comment but it was inspired by @Mendanbar so I guess it fits as a reply/affirmation of their viewpoint
You're welcome, and that's a fun way to look at it! I'm no physicist or scientist but I don't see any reason why we couldn't say that at a certain level, we are all just a collection of...
You're welcome, and that's a fun way to look at it! I'm no physicist or scientist but I don't see any reason why we couldn't say that at a certain level, we are all just a collection of interestingly configured and self aware energy fighting the entropic nature of the universe
Quantum Physics is juatbso mind boggling and awe inspiring. That, everything on the entire universe is just composed of the same raw ingredients stirring in a pot of Gravity is such a picture. The...
Quantum Physics is juatbso mind boggling and awe inspiring. That, everything on the entire universe is just composed of the same raw ingredients stirring in a pot of Gravity is such a picture.
The way life is just a matter to resist entropy, to keep little pockets of order inside the absolutely chaotic whole that isnthe entire universe. Juat amazing.
I am not here to defend theism, but I will say this is no less a belief than theism is. I'm sure its possible to construct an argument for it, but I don't see how you could ever prove it was so,...
Exemplary
From a logical perspective, there is no reason we're here.
I am not here to defend theism, but I will say this is no less a belief than theism is. I'm sure its possible to construct an argument for it, but I don't see how you could ever prove it was so, or that it it is any more falsifiable than the existence of God.
I think if one accepts your premise, some of what you have written may follow, but not everything.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that just because there is no reason for existence, all goodness is just humoring existence, while all suffering is unbearable. That's a set of values that can be chosen, but other sets of values can be chosen.
For example, I might rather say that suffering can be born because it is balanced by these other things. A first kiss. When a newborn child grabs your finger in their powerful grip. When my daughter is almost asleep, and she says, "I love you so much Daddy," and I know it's the truest thing anyone could say to me.
If one chooses to say "these things have no value because they are temporary, and in the end everything is ashes and dust", one could as well say, "suffering is not so bad because it is finite, and it will eventually end." (Note that I don't actually believes this, i am just making a point.)
I am not trying to tell you you are wrong. Believe the things you wrote if you want. But it seems absurd to dismiss out of hand the theists (or anybody else trying to make sense of their life) and then present another belief system as though it were obviously the right one. Maybe you did not mean to be so smug, but it definitely reads that way to me.
I think your answer assumes theism = purpose. I didn't get that when I was a Christian, it only birthed more questions for me and just abstracted the question of purpose, ie, first-mover problem...
I think your answer assumes theism = purpose. I didn't get that when I was a Christian, it only birthed more questions for me and just abstracted the question of purpose, ie, first-mover problem as OP mentions instead of solving it. I didn't find OP's observation any more smug than any theists who assume they know or have connection to a purpose in, not only their life, but everyone's lives. But I suppose you can view it as smug when anyone, theist or not, assumes they know the answer or purpose of your life or that they have this special knowledge or connection to that knowledge that you don't.
But I do get your point and we'd likely agree that we have so little knowledge about this universe, ourselves, etc that it's very pre-emptive to state anything with regards to purpose.
This is an interesting topic all on its own, I'm glad you brought it up. I'll try to tackle it from my theist perspective. The axiom on which I base what follows is "We exist" . We are. We are...
because it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of how something can exist to begin with
This is an interesting topic all on its own, I'm glad you brought it up. I'll try to tackle it from my theist perspective.
The axiom on which I base what follows is "We exist" . We are. We are here. We are now. And we will be in the next second, And we were here a second ago, There was a time when I didn't exist, and there will be a time where I won't exist.
So the axiom presumes the Boltzmann brain hypothesis false, since if it were true, there wouldn't be a meaning in discussing everything, yet you found some meaning to start this discussion, and I found another to participate.
We exist, and the universe exists, we part of this existing universe, existing in tandum. This universe, according to scientific consensus, had a beginning that is the Big Bang, and this is where our concrete, mental knowledge stops and we veer into the realm of Philosophy and Beliefs trying to make sense of things rather than proposing a scientific experiment to test a theory.
Such philosophic thinking to me is all about trying to fit your knowledge and unknowns into a coherent structure that doesn't scream "This doesn't make sense".
So, we exist, but what was there before our existence? Before the Big Bang? A cycle of one Bang after another? But where is this matter coming from? From whence di it exist?
For our existence to make sense, there has to be a first, that which has always existed, and that never did-not-exist. That, to me, is God. So the answer to this paradox is that God did not, at any point in any definition of time, not exist. Even our own concept of time is a creation, it is inherently part of our universe, and inherently linked space, forming Space-Time.
Before time exists God, and after time God exists. That's what one means by saying that God is eternal. He is eternal in the total absolute sense.
I realize that this might sound like I'm side-stepping the question of how something can exist, this is not my intention. But my point is (according to my Theology and Philosophy) that "How did God exist" is not a coherent question in this framework, as God has always been there. God did not exist. Existence did not happen to God. God Is, God Was, And God will always Be. God created Existence, and in this existence he created the universe, and us.
So, according to my philosophy, the question of "How does God come to exist" contradicts my premise that I exist, and that there was a time when I didn't exist.
I hope my exploration of this topic is interesting to you!
But why God? Why not spinning squares? Or a gloopy green liquid? If you're going to imagine eternity, why make the leap to a self-aware entity? Isn't it simpler to assume that whatever was isn't...
But why God? Why not spinning squares? Or a gloopy green liquid? If you're going to imagine eternity, why make the leap to a self-aware entity? Isn't it simpler to assume that whatever was isn't conscious? Most of the stuff in the Universe isn't conscious. Indeed, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of it isn't. The further back in time you go, the more hostile the Universe is to being and existence. I feel you're making quite a huge leap in saying that, thoughts and emotions by a thinking being are possible in a time where not even electricity is working right. I struggle to think of a more unlikely thing to exist before existence than a being that gets angry, given that we know anger is only possible with electricity (needs stable physics) and hormones (needs physics to be so stable that chemistry is possible).
Further, and this might not be you, I've met very few theists that leave it where you've left it. All the ones I know make the next leap and say that not only does divinity exist, but my cultural divinity, the one I learned about when I was young and impressionable, is the closest approximation to reality. Which has always struck me as incredibly convenient.
And more than 4 days later I finally get to reply! You asked some really great questions, so I wanted to give them their fair share of thinking, and answer when I get to my laptop. Typing on...
And more than 4 days later I finally get to reply! You asked some really great questions, so I wanted to give them their fair share of thinking, and answer when I get to my laptop. Typing on phones is a truly hellish experience, and today is the first time I interact with tildes using a desktop :D
I would like to start with saying that in my theology, God is much much more grander and absolute than what I glean from your description. The universe itself is a creation. I will get to the "Why God?" question after I talk about the more important question imo "What is God?"
Let's take a look at ourselves. I assume we both believe that we, humans, are conscious beings. We humans evidently create unconscious things, be they tools, machines, or even software. A spoon isn't conscious, yet it was created by humans, who are conscious beings. So the idea that God is a conscious being who created many unconscious beings is very much grounded in reality.
In my Theology, Time and space are themselves a creation of God, God existed before them, and will exist after them, which is why it would be a logical error to assume that God has biological processes similar to those of ours, or that his thinking is constrained by the same laws of physics that he assigned to this universe. Therefore, what you said has merit:
I struggle to think of a more unlikely thing to exist before existence than a being that gets angry, given that we know anger is only possible with electricity (needs stable physics) and hormones (needs physics to be so stable that chemistry is possible).
Indeed, I agree with you. Such a being is very unlikely to exists. It's illogical for a being that is limited by its creation to exists before he created said creation. This is almost akin to saying God created him self, which is illogical. God being "created" implies that at some point, he didn't exist, which is limiting. A limited being is not worthy of being God, and not worthy of being worshiped, and indeed, seems wholly incapable of creating creation.
That's why I believe God always Was, is, and will Be. God was not created, He Was. Do you get it? me neither, since God is truly is beyond our understanding. My theology is centered around observing just how much God is infinitely beyond my understanding. Knowing just how inferior I am humbles me, and makes me a good person.
A tangent, "the more hostile the Universe is to being and existence" I disagree with this sentence :) From my PoV, the universe is very much accommodating to our existence. All the Supernovae, Gamma Ray Bursts, Blackhole mergers and start mergers, and all those spectacular spectacles, all of thsoe are merely a process by which we came to exists. Therefore, the Universe promotes existence in a limited way such that different Inter-galactic species won't attempt eradicate each other Stellaris-style :D
Now, back to the initial question: Why God. Well, I don't claim to have come up with "God". I have come to learn of the idea of God through messengers, messengers who were contacted by God to spread his messages.
Now, who's to say that those messengers are sane? real? right? etc... Those messengers could Fictional, they could've been mad, they could've been lying, etc... Each of these is a rabbit hole all on its own, and I've explored each until I've believed that indeed they have existed, and their messages make too much sense to be false.
Why even explore whether God exists? well, either God exists or he doesn't. If he exists, I want to have done my due diligence, so that my afterlife isn't a miserable one. If God doesn't exist, my death will be end and I'll have lost nothing. So Why God? because believing in God is essentially a winning move in every way. This idea is called Pascal's Wager
In a nutshell, Pascal posits
Either God exists or He doesn't. Either I believe in God or I don't. Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage. To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.
So, why God? because the only logical safe choice is to believe in God. It's the only 0 risk action to take.
If you've read this far, then I want to give you my thanks :) I enjoyed replying, and your question was good.
Thanks very much for your in-depth reply. I usually don't do that reddit style of quoting parts of a post and then replying to them, since that can lead to a back and forth where parties tend to...
Thanks very much for your in-depth reply. I usually don't do that reddit style of quoting parts of a post and then replying to them, since that can lead to a back and forth where parties tend to want to win. But I also don't want to leave things you've said unanswered if I'm going to reply. So I guess I'll do by best at steelmanning what you're saying!
Let's take a look at ourselves. I assume we both believe that we, humans, are conscious beings. We humans evidently create unconscious things, be they tools, machines, or even software. A spoon isn't conscious, yet it was created by humans, who are conscious beings. So the idea that God is a conscious being who created many unconscious beings is very much grounded in reality.
Mind, I am not saying unconscious things in the universe wouldn't be created by conscious creator. I am saying that unconscious things in the universe outnumber conscious things overwhelmingly. Indeed, the only example of conscious things we have encountered (some orders of life) are only possible because of complex chemistry. Carbon, oxygen, sodium, etc. Life (as far as we know) is only possible in a highly complex, and more importantly physically stable environment.
You can certainly imagine a universe where the laws of physics are different but consciousness exists. But it's just that, imagination. Our only example of consciousness isn't conducive to pre Big Bang life. This doesn't contract divinities, but divinities are certainly not the most likely thing to assume in an almost universally unconscious universe.
That's why I believe God always Was, is, and will Be. God was not created, He Was. Do you get it? me neither, since God is truly is beyond our understanding. My theology is centered around observing just how much God is infinitely beyond my understanding. Knowing just how inferior I am humbles me, and makes me a good person.
I've typed the below a few times, and am unsure how to word it. I want to respect your belief system, but I also want to push back on (what I think are) fallacies.
To you (and to theists), saying things like I Am That I Am, He Is, He Was, sounds like you're describing an incomprehensible being. To me, there's nothing to understand there, because it's not describing something that exists. It sounds important and mighty because it's describing something that humans can't understand. It's just that for an atheist, the reasons humans can't understand it is because it's not describing anything real, so there's nothing to understand.
So no, I don't get it, but I also wouldn't get it if you said Purple is Yellow. I would see it as just a wrong statement, playing with the English language in a way that sounds important. I grew up Catholic, and the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years mastering the art of playing with existing words, combining words, capitalising words, and so on. But (to me) it's wordplay, and doesn't represent our reality.
A tangent, "the more hostile the Universe is to being and existence" I disagree with this sentence :) From my PoV, the universe is very much accommodating to our existence. All the Supernovae, Gamma Ray Bursts, Blackhole mergers and start mergers, and all those spectacular spectacles, all of thsoe are merely a process by which we came to exists. Therefore, the Universe promotes existence in a limited way such that different Inter-galactic species won't attempt eradicate each other Stellaris-style :D
I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to the universe more plainly. If you go to Mars, you're dead. If you go to the Moon, you're dead. Earth's core? Dead. The Sun? Super dead. A black hole? Hyper dead. Space, which takes up the vast majority of, uh, space? Dead.
God created a universe where 99.999999999999% percent of it kills his creations. This doesn't really contradict a divinity, I just think it's silly that omnipotent creator created a stupidly massive universe that is not only instantly lethal, but impossible to explore (because he also implemented the speed of light).
This is why Stellaris has hyperlanes, because the real universe isn't well suited to civilisation, culture, trade, contact, or life.
Now, who's to say that those messengers are sane? real? right? etc... Those messengers could Fictional, they could've been mad, they could've been lying, etc... Each of these is a rabbit hole all on its own, and I've explored each until I've believed that indeed they have existed, and their messages make too much sense to be false.
I mean, or just wrong. You don't have to be mad or lying to say you've talked to a divinity. Plenty of shamans on Central Asia received messages from Tengri. Plenty of Greek oracles correctly performed their divinations. Plenty of priests of Marduk exorcised demons in Babylon. They weren't mad or lying. They weren't dumb either, they were probably really intelligent individuals. They were just wrong. They came to the best conclusion that their knowledge (and really crucially here, cultural framework) would allow.
And I do want to emphasise that a lot of this knowledge rests on cultural framework. You rarely see Turkic peoples leaving Allah for Tengri, or Greeks leaving God for Zeus, or Norwegians leaving God for Odin. By the same token, you wouldn't have seen a Babylonian worshiping Ashur, or an Assyrian worshiping El. It is not a coincidence that Westerners, whatever spiritual framework they end with, stay with the word God. With a personal, omnipotent singular deity that loves them personally. Different from the Sumerian three-tier god system, where you have a contractual relationship with your personal and family god. Westerners tend to stay with the spiritual framework developed by the Roman empire, a framework they have because of the Roman military conquests of what would became the predecessors of the West.
Where you see spirituality, I see history. I see people broadly staying within the confines of their cultural gods. There's nothing wrong with this, either. This is how humanity has worshiped for over 10,000 years. I just don't think it represents things that exist.
So, why God? because the only logical safe choice is to believe in God. It's the only 0 risk action to take.
What if Allah was the correct one, specifically? Or what if the Greeks were right, and you haven't done your heroic quest? You won't be able to reach the Elysian Fields? Or what if the true God is one that hates worshipers, and specifically sends theists to hell and atheists to Heaven? Or what about Zoroastrianism, have you considered Ahura Mazda? Are you respecting the purity of fire and the land?
Pascal was thinking in a Christian framework. His wager completely collapses if you include the myriad of religions, hell, the myriad of Christian denominations. No one should believe out of insurance. I'm not saying you're saying this specifically, but I do want to counter Pascal's wager. It's only a good logical argument if there's only one religion.
Sorry for the long-winded response. This is a topic that fascinates me. I dip into many histories (Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Turkish) and if there's one thing I've come to believe, it's that people don't change. If I talked to a random Sumerian in Nippur, he would be just as convinced that his belief system is the true lens of the world. He would also claim that belief system made him a better person. Indeed, there is plenty of Babylonian philosophy that reflects on this, that even if the gods didn't exist, it would be good to follow their laws just in case. I just think Enlil doesn't exist, or Marduk, or Yahweh, nor do I see a compelling reason that demands their existence.
That is exactly my point, and stated much more clearly than I did. I tried to lay out a clearer statement in my response to the sibling comment by @SeeNipplesAndDo.
But I suppose you can view it as smug when anyone, theist or not, assumes they know the answer or purpose of your life or that they have this special knowledge or connection to that knowledge that you don't.
That is exactly my point, and stated much more clearly than I did.
I went back and forth about including the smug line. It is possible that it is something I am bringing to the conversation, rather than something you out there, but let me lay it out and see what...
I went back and forth about including the smug line. It is possible that it is something I am bringing to the conversation, rather than something you out there, but let me lay it out and see what you think.
3 overarching points:
Arguing from logic is still a system of belief
Digging at theism is unnecessary to your argument, so it seemed to have another purpose, which I read as dismissive of another sincerely held belief that many people have.
My point is not about the rightness or wrongness of logic or theism, but that to combat suffering, I believe we need to build bridges with people, and to do that, we need to be able hold space for differing beliefs.
So to expand a bit: on number one, my understanding is that logic is built up from a set of axioms. I don't think those axioms are are bad per se, but they are arbitrary. You could have a different logical system based on different axioms and likely arrive at different conclusions. That's all belief system is, except the starting premise is the existence of a diety or dieties.
With that understanding, "since theism is completely unfalsifiable ..., belief in it doesn't seem justifiable" (your words), doesn't seem that different from the "there's only one God/one way to heaven" position that many theists take. I know logic has a long history and many adherents, but if pedigree and consensus are a criteria for rightness then there are plenty of theistic views that have a long history and many adherents also. I'm not saying logic isn't useful, but many people find theism useful as well in coping with suffering and uncertainty.
To look more at number two, you started out by saying that it would be absurd to argue that there is a chain of causes back to a first cause and that it would also be absurd for the universe to spontaneous. So if the universe is absurd either way, it doesn't seem like first cause is really important to your argument. If that's the case then why bring up theism at all? It seemed like you were just getting a jab in on your way to an entirely different point, which reads as smug to me. But if you didn't mean it that way, or I misunderstanding your position, then I I'm willing to retract that assertion.
To look at number 3, let me share a little of my own background. I've spent the last few years deconstructing from a very conservative Christian upbringing. It turns out the problem that I have with Christianity is not so much the belief system as the way it works out in practice. Specifically, when talking about suffering in the world, you'll hear people say something like, "Those problems will persist because the world is inherently a sinful place." I'm not saying that no Christians ever fight suffering because certainly there are many that do, but it is my own experience with Christians that this is kind of thinking is an "out" to ignore the suffering of people and to shirk responsibility for doing something about it.
I also don't know you, so I suppose I am making an assumption that saying that the Universe would be better off having not existed leads you to ignore suffering in a similar way. If that's not the case, then I acknowledgen that as something I brought to this that doesn't reflect your actual way.
I guess to assert my viewpoint (which is also a belief), I think that fighting suffering is probably the thing that can give meaning to our existence, because I think that without some way of trying to make things better, life does seem purposeless and pointless.
So to tie my other reply to you in this thread to these questions, I believe everything must have a causez except for the first which had no cause, that first which is God, as this is the only...
I believe everything must have a causez except for the first which had no cause, that first which is God, as this is the only logical way for my own existence to be logical. I go at length in my comment linked above.
BTW I'm really thankful to you for having started this discussion. I love question ls that force me to dig deeper into my belief system and think more about things I took for granted. In fact, I find that such discussions strength len my faith in God.
Life is what you make of it. If you believe in a higher power, in a specific morality, in a certain cause, in a particular goal ... then for you, life is tied to that. You might have decided you...
Life is what you make of it.
If you believe in a higher power, in a specific morality, in a certain cause, in a particular goal ... then for you, life is tied to that. You might have decided you want to spread the joy of 52-Card Pickup far and wide, and for you that would be a life affirming goal.
I do feel far, far, far too many people get caught up in seeking validation. They want others to validate them, validate their choices. They want agreement, support, and backing. They want their decisions to be seen as correct in the view of others.
That's chasing your tail. People are fickle, selfish, distracted, greedy, and indifferent. Love is defined by how it overrides these negative traits. If you love someone, you'll concern yourself with their concerns, you'll share, you'll open up, you'll make time for them. Meanwhile, that random guy who lives two doors down, not so much. One person you love, the other you don't.
That's how we are to almost every single person on the planet. It's just how it is. Do you care about some random person in Hawaii, or Siberia, or sitting in traffic in Taiwan? No, of course you don't. You have your own problems, your own goals and concerns and dreams to be getting on with. And those random people don't care about yours either, so we're all more or less even.
At the end of The Truman Show, Truman walks off stage, and the show ends. For all the audiences; us as well as the people in the film who were watching Truman. The answer they give there is just as honest and realistic as the one we gave at the end of the movie. It's the same one we give at any funeral, or really any time you're made aware of a death that isn't yours. What else is on now?
So death is really only final for the dead person. For everyone else who isn't dead, life goes on. That's not callous, that's just life. Are we supposed to fracture and fall apart, become non-functional humans just because someone close to us dies?
Some people do disintegrate, and sometimes follow their departed beloved into death themselves. Which is beautifully tragic on some levels, but on others is a waste. And how you view it tends to depend on how you view the people involved. If it's your parents, you're emotionally weighed by the death of the first; and probably moreso by the second. But you might find the second wasteful, or selfish, or poetic, or a lot of things. Who knows? It would depend on your relationships with your parents, how you look(ed) upon them, and so on.
If a public figure dies, the public has equally varied reactions. I know I'll never get the end of the Song of Ice and Fire series, so when George R R Martin dies, to me it'll just be a confirmation of what I've already accepted. If Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr had died just before they began shooting Avengers Endgame ... I would have been quite upset. Not fatally so, but still it would have been a big hit.
The thing about death is its finality. I find it kind of worthless to obsess over what follows your own death. After all, you won't be there for any of it, so why should you care? And if you do, you're engaging in something that by definition you'll never know, never influence, never be able to correct, and all of that more or less adds up to a waste of time.
But others disagree. They feel they can influence what might follow their death. An easy example would be a family; the matriarch might look back at her place in the ancestry that led to her, and on to the descendants she'd be leaving, and find that to be a form of influence. That she's had chances to shape and teach and impart upon them various things she finds important, and can decide to whatever degree she likes to believe these things would continue on thanks to her efforts.
Someone else might want to "change the world". Maybe they want to drive a movement of some sort (52-Card Pickup, it's the next big thing), or maybe they want to invent a technology, build some structure, something like that.
Somewhere in history, somewhere, lost to us never to be found or known, is someone who first had the idea to build The Pyramids. After all, it's highly unlikely those structures just appeared out of nowhere, and equally unlikely the society in the area just kind of collectively showed up one day to begin building. Someone had the idea, which led to planning and decisions about how to do it, and then to the doing. Probably, after that first initial thought, lots of other people joined in to turn it eventually into The Pyramids, but someone still had the first notion of them.
Maybe that person, if they have any awareness post-death, might be pleased to know The Pyramids still exist. There are bridges and highways and ports and cities and all sorts of "things" that've been created, and all of them started with one person. All of them eventually included many people to make happen, but someone at some point looked at a patch of desert and thought "yeah, but what if we put a big 3-d triangle, like, right there."
Rich people often get increasingly charitable as they age. Other people often accuse them of "trying to buy legacy" at this point, as the rich person runs around looking for places that'll take money in exchange for plastering the Rich Name across whatever gets built or sponsored.
Sometimes someone, maybe rich or maybe just well connected or highly influential, will start young and try to "build something". All the great companies, for example, at one point weren't companies. Great or otherwise. They got built because someone started building them. At least some of those, just like all the bridges and so forth, came into being because that first thinker thought it'd be cool to know it's their notion that's shaping reality.
Anyone who figures out the secret of life will have it made. Because, even if The Secret doesn't put dinner on the table, all the talk shows and speaking engagements, the book and movie deals, the everything they'd be able to likely reap from the rest of us would.
There is no perfect answer in life. To life. For life. There's just your answer. And that's a great answer. For you.
Life isn't an algorithm. Or, at least, not one humanity will ever be in a position to solve. There's too much data, too many ever changing variables, for it to be conceivable we could ever create a perfect predictor that Knows All. Chasing The One Solution is therefore a vast waste of time in my view.
Then again, Douglas Adams postulated a people who spent generations creating and programming such a machine. Only for it to give them an answer they didn't understand.
Meanwhile, Adams had himself a nice old chuckle over the concept. And shared it with others, many of whom also had a bit of a laugh as well. Then they all moved on, because that's what you do. That's what happens.
Scrolling in this thread, I love the wide variety of different takes expressed on this matter, and I'm glad I decided to add my theist perspective into this pot of different ideas. I agree, it's...
Scrolling in this thread, I love the wide variety of different takes expressed on this matter, and I'm glad I decided to add my theist perspective into this pot of different ideas.
Life isn't an algorithm. Or, at least, not one humanity will ever be in a position to solve
I agree, it's good to make peace with our limitations, and play life's game using its own rules, without lamenting the way the rules are laid out.
I'll take your scattered thoughts and add my own. We're just apes that got too intelligent. It is evolutionarily useful to empathise, to feel other being's pain. You can do things with that, like...
I'll take your scattered thoughts and add my own.
We're just apes that got too intelligent. It is evolutionarily useful to empathise, to feel other being's pain. You can do things with that, like predict where the wounded deer's going to go, or properly negotiate with another tribe. I find it endlessly fascinating that our ability to ask ourselves these questions is an accidental side effect to the increase in our brainpower.
No one can give you the answers you want. They can use emotive words, like freedom or will or choice or gods. Words that we smart apes made up to give colour to our haywire neurons. Some of those words might even work on you, and allow your haywire neurons to create other connections. But the answers aren't magical. You're an ongoing chemical reaction. You love your family because familial love was useful for humans (not for octopodes). We have suffering because pain is useful for the preservation of life. We love pets because they hijack our parenting instincts. Every one of these questions has an answer, it's just not an answer that makes our ape brains happy.
I can say something like "you need to find your own answers". By doing so, I'd be appealing to your emotions, using Western concepts that appeal to Western cultural sensitivities. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with this, because none of us will ever live long enough to outlast those concepts.
Agreed that existence is fundamentally meaningless. Everything we know about the universe so far points to that conclusion. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it the most likely truth....
Agreed that existence is fundamentally meaningless. Everything we know about the universe so far points to that conclusion. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it the most likely truth.
For me personally, the base meaninglessness is part of what makes existence profound.
We have the, arguably useless, but nonetheless incredible ability to make meaning. And, as far as we know, we're the only creatures that can do it. The only apes that can wonder what it means to ape.
As a result of the meaning we create, we experience achingly beautiful moments of joy, wonder and pain. Moments which are more profound because they are so fleeting and so meaningless to anything in the universe but us.
Another piece of the meaning puzzle, for me, is curiosity. I want to exist because I want to know what happens next. It won't matter, not in any universal way, but it's enough that I get to participate in it.
Related to that is the knowledge that, however remarkable or mundane, every moment is unique in the entire span of time and space. Ultimately pointless but also ultimately singular.
And we can share some of those singularities. Only a bit, because we're all hallucinating existence in very different ways, but that's exactly what makes it meaningful. At its core existence is deeply lonely, no one sees the same world we do. No one can fully see us. Which makes those moments when experience feels genuinely shared like flashes of light and warmth in the darkness.
Not just when we connect with other people, but when we connect with any aspect of life, or ourselves, in a way that ties us to a larger scope than whatever our baseline is.
There's meaning in stumbling on in search of the next flash of connection.
Finally, existence is additive. We're constantly collecting context. A moment I experience now, is deeper and more nuanced than one I experienced 20 years ago because I'm bringing 20 extra years of knowledge and memories and accumulated experience into that moment. I have more points of reference, more ways to connect. Which makes the flashes more vivid.
I find a lot of meaning in the knowledge that the adventure is always evolving, and it can always be more than before.
So for me, even though there is no fundamental meaning, each moment has meaning. It's arbitrary and transient, but it's still meaning.
Right up until my heart stops and all that context I collected ceases to exist and, not long after, every impact I've had on the world is lost to time and entropy.
I have struggled and still struggle with much the same. Unfortunately, I believe the only answers that have the possibility of being fully satisfying are fictional delusions crafted by a mix of...
I have struggled and still struggle with much the same.
Unfortunately, I believe the only answers that have the possibility of being fully satisfying are fictional delusions crafted by a mix of human dreams, hallucinations, and imagination.
Some points from my experience:
The universe doesn't care that humans crave meaning and understanding. Meaning is a construct of humans (or at least sentient, conscious beings).
Faith, as a pattern of brain activity, allows humans to set aside existential problems and concentrate on more immediate tasks. This includes conventional religion as well as humanism, etc.
The more I dwell on existential and philosophical issues, the more depressed I become and the more meaningless life seems.
We are first and foremost animals, not rational, incorporeal brings. I try to stay grounded in the real world.
The human animal is happiest when integrated in a community where their contributions are appreciated and considered valuable.
Don't spend too much of your life staring into the abyss. There are better ways to appreciate existence.
"By nature of the relentless absurdity of existence, it wouldn't make a difference whether it ever happened or not, when all is said and done." No, it makes absolutely no difference, cosmically,...
"By nature of the relentless absurdity of existence, it wouldn't make a difference whether it ever happened or not, when all is said and done."
No, it makes absolutely no difference, cosmically, if I had ever existed.
However:
a) I do exist
b) I believe/understand at some level that I exist in this scheme of things
c) My brain cannot possibly understand the enormity of the cosmos and my place in it
d) I can however experience and enjoy the now, despite "knowing" that I will one day die, but that concept still being alien to me
e) I can try and bring happiness and peace to myself and those around me.
What does my head in is that we are so cosmically insignificant and have been given a chance to experience a tiny fragment of this, and so many people are utter cunts.
lmaoooooooo. i like to think you were imagining a very specific person when you wrote that last line. wonderful break after wading through everyone's heartfelt ponderings.
lmaoooooooo. i like to think you were imagining a very specific person when you wrote that last line. wonderful break after wading through everyone's heartfelt ponderings.
And so we return again to the holy void. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a...
And so we return again to the holy void. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?
As some Ayn Randians put it, “Why are we here? Because we’re here. Roll the bones!” Buddhists might say we are here because harmony is incapable of non-being. I feel a great resistance to...
As some Ayn Randians put it, “Why are we here? Because we’re here. Roll the bones!”
Buddhists might say we are here because harmony is incapable of non-being.
I feel a great resistance to non-being, ineffable and without origin. I call this one of the faces of God.
As an aside, I think it is hubris to discount all who claim to talk to God. Falsifiability is valuable for understanding the material world, but does not foreclose the existence of various other states of being. Until one can legitimately claim to have all knowledge, one cannot exclude any knowledge.
God need not be omnipotent to exist. In fact, if God is omnipotent, choice is meaningless ( a variant corollary on Epicurus’ theorems). Any being with consciousness shares power with God and other conscious beings.
Ultimately there is no separation between being and non-being, is there?
That's a self-defeating statement and one who commits to it inherently devalues their own knowledge. In a world filled with many lies and deception, fruitless branches of knowledge, at some point...
Until one can legitimately claim to have all knowledge, one cannot exclude any knowledge.
That's a self-defeating statement and one who commits to it inherently devalues their own knowledge. In a world filled with many lies and deception, fruitless branches of knowledge, at some point you have to exclude some "knowledge" as valid. We see it time and time again in threads where people try to argue for certain odd philosophies or certain gods.
Your argument does very little to help OP find real answers other than the same response heard time and time again to many's dissatisfaction through the ages, namely 'seek the gods' which OP mentioned with the 'first-mover' problem, was not satisfactory.
Which of the thousands of gods of thousands of years of thousands of interpretations and thousands of denominations should OP seek to find THE truth or THE answer? Sorry to interrogate but it just gets tiring seeing threads like this and people proselytizing gods as the answer when it solves nothing. The 'gods' answer typically is just a placeholder for highly interpretive personal opinions, which can be valid and useful, but when you throw a 'god' in, it becomes much more of a tribalistic answer that historically has setup walls between otherwise good-fellows, the haves and the have-nots. Those who believe and those who don't or can't find the rationale to believe in those same gods; one just has to have this god or that god in their life to find enlightenment eventually.
When will we learn? There are answers that the gods themselves can't solve, as you so admit in the latter. The gods of therapy (in the psychological world), the gods of knowledge (teachers, physicists, philosophers, etc), the gods of various religions, the gods of medicine, none have all the answers.
Maybe a part of me was hoping that for once, OP's existential questions would finally have no answers in the thread as I get tired of everyone implying they have the answer to these questions or a monopoly on 'the truth' as many religious groups do but it just comes off as deceptive, usually self-righteous and privileged as in they have connection to something OP doesn't and they just 'gotta believe'. I'd much rather have no answers than bullshit people make up.
With regard to God, I believe you may have read meaning i to my answer which I did not intend, and overlooked the more subtle meaning that was there, but such is the nature of philosophical...
With regard to God, I believe you may have read meaning i to my answer which I did not intend, and overlooked the more subtle meaning that was there, but such is the nature of philosophical discourse. I am not postmodern, however, I believe there are valuable truths to be lived, and beyond those which man himself assigns.
There is also a distinction between the practical and the philosophical. To be sure, on the practical plane, certain truths may be evaluated and segregated as necessary. For example, in no practical setting of which I am aware is it true that 1ml of water has a mass of 1kg.
The ineffable, however, I do not think can be excluded without that perfect knowledge (which I have not even seen a reliable suggestion that such is possible). And God is merely the ineffable with some added direction and intentionality. This ineffable is not approachable by reason alone, and not even the combination of thinking, emotion, pathos and desire can reach it. Room must be made for it, and the most subtle faculties employed to sense it. And, much like draba in February, it is usually overlooked.
Sure, I do that as well, disregarding any philosophical labels as those just come off as pretentious. I just don't ascribe them to gods, tribalistic place-holders. Once again you're trying to...
I believe there are valuable truths to be lived, and beyond those which man himself assigns.
Sure, I do that as well, disregarding any philosophical labels as those just come off as pretentious. I just don't ascribe them to gods, tribalistic place-holders. Once again you're trying to discern yourself from OP and I by alluding to gods and in that you're not "post-modern" and passively implying that other people aren't living valuable truths. I get your well-meaning intent but this is something that those trying to proselytize their gods don't seem to get sometimes. Also the idea of not assuming you have the answer to life, the universe and everything, even by extension of a thing or gods who seem to, is probably one of the most classical views there is. It seems that with the label 'post-modern', many religious people use it in a derogatory way and ascribe it as any view which doesn't conform to the tribe's religious view, like Jordan Peterson does, while barely knowing anything about it. Maybe that's not your intent but that's how I've seen it used.
This ineffable is not approachable by reason alone
This is another argument I've seen time and time again where some try to use reason to suggest reason doesn't work for some knowledge but at some point you have to use reason to argue for the ineffable. You can't just say 'gods cats balloons', that wouldn't convince people of gods, would it? It's the same debate where some Christians I've questioned say faith led them to Yahweh, not reason, when you have to some some logic and reason to lead you to those conclusions. The "ineffable" can't exist without a logical, rational basis. Reading on, you seem to allude to this so pardon me, I just tend to reply as I read.
The latter paragraph, I get it, I was once religious and still consider myself spiritual. But with that description, it waters the gods down so much as to be impotent and far from their classical definition. I just see no reason to invoke gods, impotent or not, in OP's answer as they always provoke more questions than answers in curious folks like OP, if OP is anything like me, and so solves nothing.
I wrote something about God and would love to get your opinion about it https://tildes.net/~talk/1fdi/scattered_thoughts_on_the_absurdity_of_existing#comment-cgit
I wrote something about God and would love to get your opinion about it
Is it supposed to convince me of gods? I've been in the spiritual game for 30 years and an atheist for 25 of those and nothing yet has convinced me. At one time early on I thought I believed in a...
Is it supposed to convince me of gods? I've been in the spiritual game for 30 years and an atheist for 25 of those and nothing yet has convinced me. At one time early on I thought I believed in a god but I quickly learned I didn't once I started investigating. None of what you wrote convinced me and it's the same rhetoric I've seen for 30 years of people arguing for gods, which was a side of debates I was on at one point. Are you trying to debate or just doubting your faith and asking if it checks out with me? Anyway, thanks for sharing though. I know your intentions are well.
Nope, not interested in convincing anyone in this thread of anything. I'm mainly interested in gathering more questions and viewpoints for my own. Your post was interesting, so I eas interested in...
Nope, not interested in convincing anyone in this thread of anything. I'm mainly interested in gathering more questions and viewpoints for my own. Your post was interesting, so I eas interested in your opinion.
And your response os super interesting. I'm genuinely surprised to learn that what I wrote is similar to, if not the same as, rhetoric you've already seen; considering they every thing I wrote is in large part original thought that came as a result of rejecting the modern state of religions, and trying to find God myself. As a result this opinion you provided was valuable to me.
That said, I'm a whole lot younger than 30 yo. I don't doubt my faith, so you could say I'm interested in debate, because I want to think about answers to more and more stuff. I'm really interested on the philosophic aspect of religion on general. To me, these questions everyone asks are like the tests by which I solidify my theory. If a test proves my theory false, I'll start working on a new one.
You start working on a new test to prove your theory? How many will it take for you to actually change your theory? I think I've always doubted my faith when I was religious, that's like the whole...
If a test proves my theory false, I'll start working on a new one.
You start working on a new test to prove your theory? How many will it take for you to actually change your theory? I think I've always doubted my faith when I was religious, that's like the whole definition of it as it isn't knowledge. If gods fall because of mere questions imposed, I'd say they're weak gods, if gods at all. You say you have no doubts yet you're seeking questions. By saying your opinion isn't original, I don't mean to demean it as it is somewhat original but in the whole, there's common arguments used by theists that I recognize in your replies. But I understand, I was in your shoes as well. Good luck on your journey. I've no problem with religion as long as there's some mutual respect between parties.
EXACTLY! I follow the scientific method with regards to these question and theories. Indeed, even some of our most rigorous theories breakdown in some circumstances, e.g. Einstein's General...
If gods fall because of mere questions imposed, I'd say they're weak gods
EXACTLY! I follow the scientific method with regards to these question and theories. Indeed, even some of our most rigorous theories breakdown in some circumstances, e.g. Einstein's General Relativity breaks down at singularities, such as those at the center of a blackhole or the one at the beginning of the universe. Similarly, Quantum Field Theory breaks down when it comes to gravity. However, we keep using those theories because they explain so much.
They offer the most correct explanations of many things, and no other theories come remotely close. These theories were tested to hell and back. We still try to test Einstien's theories whenever possible, the most recent test being gravitational waves. The way it goes in the scientific community is that, if you want to throw away an existing theory, you must provide another theory that's just as testable and satisfies the many many many experiments that previous theories endured.
You start working on a new test to prove your theory?
And that is one of the things people working on String Theory working on. One of the problems with String theory is that there no tests to validate it, compared to QFT and GR. over the centuries, there were many models for the atom, and when some tests proved a model false, scientists developed a new model, culminating with QFT.
I mirror this with the matter of God, only unlike with hard science, the tests are philosophical in nature, and I will never be able to prove the existence of God, though that doesn't contradict with my absolute belief that he exists.
An example: Let's assume for a moment that I believe God resides in the sky. This implies that God resides in a specific volume of space, therefore, God is limited by space. This contradicts with the notion that God is absolute, and is beyond the constraints of space that I believe he created, therefore this is false, and God encompasses everything, and is everywhere. Does the idea that God is beyond space contradict with anything else in my theology? if the answer is no, this means it's a more correct way of thinking.
BTW I'm enjoying this little discussion :) This is the first time I got to put my theology in writing.
Is this in relation to going from a believer to not being one? There's an argument to be made that if a "theory", if you want to loosely call belief, doesn't appear true anymore then whether...
The way it goes in the scientific community is that, if you want to throw away an existing theory, you must provide another theory that's just as testable and satisfies the many many many experiments that previous theories endured.
Is this in relation to going from a believer to not being one? There's an argument to be made that if a "theory", if you want to loosely call belief, doesn't appear true anymore then whether there's a replacement or not is moot, false is false. I don't recall science having an issue with completely throwing away a theory regardless if there's a replacement or not. I'm not that versed in it so I can't think of any good examples but ether was a theory and even if there was no replacement, it was just thrown away after it proving false. I guess you could say it was replaced with fields but those didn't completely fill all the gaps of ether theory.
My point being that at some point if the results don't prove observably true then it's time to let go and move on, which is what I've done with theistic belief, not spirituality of course. At one time I even thought I could prove God exists with science/math (something about number theory, sequential ordering, nothing into something, etc) but of course then I was young, horribly naive and knew little about science or religion but as I've learned, you can't exactly reconcile religion and science and to try to do so is a lesson in insanity, they're two different disciplines. As you were mentioning, at different layers rules break down, ie, with classic and quantum physics models, and the former two reside at different layers that will likely never be reconciled.
If this is your first time discussing theology, I'm so sorry, lol. There's so many good forums out there for discussing theology that could give you way more insightful answers than I could. I know people don't like to endorse reddit here but there's many subs there where religion is discussed, can't think of any at the moment as it's been a long time. I rarely ever get involved in it anymore unless as I've done lately and fall into that trap.
It's believed that up until a certain stage of development, it doesn't occur to babies that objects exist outside their own experience of them. In particular, if you don't see it, it might just...
From a logical perspective, there is no reason we're here.
It's believed that up until a certain stage of development, it doesn't occur to babies that objects exist outside their own experience of them. In particular, if you don't see it, it might just not exist, so games like peek-a-boo are not only a rather mundane kind of entertainment, but a baffling demonstration of the wonders of the world.
Here, you similarly can't perceive a logical reason and surmise that there is none, confusing ignorance with knowledge. The result is the absurdity you experience: you know that there is no logical reason for us to be here, so being here at all is as baffling and magical as peek-a-boo is to the baby. It seems pointless to you because you have already decided, in ignorance, that there is no point.
For what it's worth, I don't attach any value judgement to that. I think it's innately human. We're in kind of an awkward position where we are prone to think of and deeply care for such things, yet limited by our experience to only ever arrogantly assume or concede to being clueless.
C) We're somewhere along a causal chain that doesn't have a definite beginning in the sense we understand causality. I could come up with more, but we're both just guessing, which is my point....
Either the universe was spontaneous and without cause, which is absurd, or it had a cause, which then must necessarily have had a cause.
If you have an option c that gets around that, I'm all ears.
C) We're somewhere along a causal chain that doesn't have a definite beginning in the sense we understand causality.
I could come up with more, but we're both just guessing, which is my point.
If not...then I don't think you actually have any basis for making that assertion, because the way you wrote it implies that you know it to be true.
What assertion? If you mean to imply that I have asserted that there is a cause to the universe, please read again and respond to what I wrote instead of what you think I believe.
C) There was that which had no cause, and caused the universe to exist. That, to me, is God. I reach this conclusion by process of elimination. Eliminating everything that conflicts with my Axiom.
or it had a cause, which then must necessarily have had a cause.
If you have an option c that gets around that, I'm all ears
C) There was that which had no cause, and caused the universe to exist. That, to me, is God. I reach this conclusion by process of elimination. Eliminating everything that conflicts with my Axiom.
Because I think, therefore know I am. I express my ideas, and speak to this astroid, yet it doesn't reply, it doesn't acknowledge my existence, so it's different from me, it does not think, thus I...
Because I think, therefore know I am. I express my ideas, and speak to this astroid, yet it doesn't reply, it doesn't acknowledge my existence, so it's different from me, it does not think, thus I may have a purpose even though it does not.
But, if this astroid could think, who's to say it's not pondering its purpose in this grand universe? Could it be that it tries to speak with us, yet we don't reply to it, not acknowledge its existence in a way it understands?
You are right. It's just that it takes too long for people to realize. And some never will. Anyway, Stanislaw Lem wrote Golem IV in 1981. There's an excerpt (the most important part) on YouTube...
You are right. It's just that it takes too long for people to realize. And some never will.
Anyway, Stanislaw Lem wrote Golem IV in 1981. There's an excerpt (the most important part) on YouTube where I've pirated it from Vimeo. It's an optimistic take.
I will be speaking as a theist, and hopefully I'm able to conveyy beliefs about God, why we exist, and how it makes me feel. I won't state my religion outright, just that it's Abrahemic. To begin...
I will be speaking as a theist, and hopefully I'm able to conveyy beliefs about God, why we exist, and how it makes me feel. I won't state my religion outright, just that it's Abrahemic.
To begin with, God is eternal, and absolute. Godnis the first , and God is the last. Godnhas always existed and will always exist. This is a belief. God can't be proved or disproved, and that's the point. Why? This leads to the second point.
Why do we exist? I believe that God created us to Worship him, that is, the sole and primary reason for our existence is to worship God completely willingly, and freely. To worship him despite never being ever certain that he exists, Of God could be proved, there will be no choice but to worship him, thus negating our free will.
An obvious question is why does God want to us to Worship him. Well, I don't know, and no human or Angel was ever privy to such knowledge. My belief is that only God knows why, so no use thinking about it.
Important to say this before the next point: To God belong all good names, he is The Merciful, The Just, The all-knowing, The all-seeing, The Forgiver, The Kind, The all-powerful, The Wise, The Patient, and all other good titles. Again, this is belief, and I can't believe otherwise since to me, a god that's not any of these things can't be a god.
Our mortal life is inherently unfair, because Man (mankind) is free to do what it wishes, including all manners of Injustice. If God intervened, that would interfere with our free will.
But that's only for our mortal life. God didn't create us for funzies, and he won't let Injustice go without consequence. For that there is a judgement day, where The Most Just will judge all, and give everyone back their deserved rights. All under a framework of Mercy, Wisdom, and Justice.
As such, nothing worldy matters. Money, health, power, whatever, won't matter. How much do humans live? A 100 years max? 150? How much has humanity existed? 10k years? 100k? 200k (homo spaiens)? In my Belief, there is an eternity after death, and I mean eternity eternity, never ending until God wishes so. So even if my life consisted of a 100 years of suffering, there IS something after death, thus I can keep my piece of mind.
Addenum: There can't be conflict between science and religion. Any presumed conflict is a product of Man's ignorance and arrogant interpretation of Religion.
So, there's also this: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=god+on+trial&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e17f9875,vid:tD7v9phroGM,st:0 This is God on Trial, based on Elie...
This is God on Trial, based on Elie Wiesel's The Trial of God. I'm not sure what to say about it, but it's extremely well acted and directed and written and explores these issues with feeling.
You got to be random so I get to be too? And your post, and these ideas are so timely, because I'm in a really bleak place.
I have test scores that objectively prove I'm better at logic than 99.9% of people who care enough to take the tests. But it hasn't got me shit, really. The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the only thing that matters is personal satisfaction, however you define it for yourself, and that if you reach a point where you can no longer obtain a sufficient quantity of personal satisfaction, the only reasonable response is to kill yourself.
I was on the trail the other day, and I saw a butterfly being stung to death by yellow jackets. WTF kind of world is this? Life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short. The ultimate end for any of us is dinner, it's only a matter of when, how, and for whom. I see no reason to proceed.
And yet, here I am. As I state elsewhere, I have an undeniable and insurmountal preference for being. WTF is that? Where does that come from? Biological wiring? Electrochemical conditioning? Space Aliens? Whencever, it spells only one result: my life is not my own.
And so I suffer, sometimes in silence, sometimes in protest, sometimes with grim acceptance, sometimes in gritty resentment. And once in a while, the sun shines through and everything is so beautiful I think I'm going to evaporate.
But who's to say that this is nasty and brutish? The yellow jacket did not feel malice, only acted to satiate its need for sustenance. The butterfly doesn't care, only existing to existence of its...
a butterfly being stung to death by yellow jackets
But who's to say that this is nasty and brutish? The yellow jacket did not feel malice, only acted to satiate its need for sustenance. The butterfly doesn't care, only existing to existence of its species. In this dance of life, there is no evil, no malice, as such concepts only arise when one has a mind to conceptualize them.
In this balanced dance of life, how does this yellow jacket killing the butterfly to preserve the balance of the ecosystem, different from a killer T cell killing another of your cells to preserve the balance of your body?
I agree with you 100%. It is absurd. Slavery, exploitation, racism, misoginy, greedy. It would be better if we didn't exist at all. I lost a brother, my parents are old and becoming frail, even...
I agree with you 100%. It is absurd.
Slavery, exploitation, racism, misoginy, greedy. It would be better if we didn't exist at all.
I lost a brother, my parents are old and becoming frail, even more now that they lost a son.
It is too much suffering.
But I am alive anyway so I try to make the best of it.
Can you elaborate on this? To my mind it is perfectly reasonable for one to make meaning - maybe choose meaning is a better word - for one's own life. I suspect we're using different definitions...
I don't think it's possible to make meaning in your life—that would require a level of control over our deepest selves that we simply don't have.
Can you elaborate on this? To my mind it is perfectly reasonable for one to make meaning - maybe choose meaning is a better word - for one's own life. I suspect we're using different definitions for "make meaning" and "deepest selves" and that's where my confusion comes from. I'm not aware of definitions of these that are mutually exclusive, perhaps unless you take some view that discards free will altogether.
A few weeks months ago there was a thread not too different from this: Tell me about your weird religious beliefs. You might enjoy reading through that, based on your comments here. Here's my response to it; you might find it relevant with how you talk about "initial conditions" here. This reply and my reply to it touch on your mentions of causality and quantum effects.
I link all these because, based on your comments in this thread, I'm curious what you think and what issues you might have with them.
I am not Buddhist and have no formal Buddhist education, but my understanding is that my comment in that last link (my reply to it) and the replies afterward accidentally touch on some Buddhist ideas around time, experience, and the present. Since you mention in your opener that you are Buddhist, I'm curious of your thoughts on that specifically.
I would challenge this assertion of yours. Either the universe was spontaneous and without cause, which is absurd, or it had a cause, which then must necessarily have had a cause.
If you have an option c that gets around that, I'm all ears.
Please do check my weird religious belief response; I address my view on exactly this.
I don't have much to add that you haven't covered, but I was reading the Problem of Evil Wikipedia article just before I read this, so a lot of the things you wrote resonated with me.
I take Epicurus's position on the whole first part of your essay - I think we can pretty safely do away with the concept of a god:
I think I'm quite similar to you in outlook. The whole idea of existence is absurd. Everything we love withers and dies, nothing we do will be remembered, even if we can steel ourselves against pain we are forced to endure pain in the world second-hand through the suffering of others (and animals, and the planet).
But here we are.
I think my response to this is to take Camus' problem and answer it with Epicurus's solution.
Seems quite bleak so far, but:
I suppose I've broadly found that to be true. I mostly read Epicurus (and, occasionally, Seneca's letters) in regards to dealing with Camus' diagnosis of the absurdity of life. I think Epicurus's philosophy is almost complete for me in regards to a course of action for what Camus identified. I don't need much to be happy. Even though I know the beautiful dog sleeping next to me will die, his companionship makes me very happy. Even though there's a genocide going on a short flight from my country and there's nothing I can do to stop it, I can acknowledge that pain - that evil - instead of pretending it doesn't exist. I read books that satisfy me, I watch movies that I like, I spend time with my friends, I eat meals I enjoy, and occasionally treat myself to ice cream.
One of Epicurus's students, Philodemus, wrote:
That's how I deal with the absurd. Well, that, and some of Tolkien's philosophy, even though he was a Catholic and I'm not. In Tolkien's created mythology, the chief deity granted death as a gift to men, alongside free will. Fearing death was a perversion of this gift by Morgoth (Sauron's bigger, badder predecessor) - pride of legacy and jealousy of time replaced gratitude of the flame of self-determination.
Thousands of in-universe years later when the Rohirrim battled upon Pelennor, Théoden/Éomer's call of, "Death! Death!" was not simply a rallying cry, but an outright rejection of the discord of Morgoth, and an embrace of the gift of death - banishing the shadow in spirit before destroying it in body.
No human in Tolkien's work has any fucking idea what's going to happen after death. There isn't a heaven, which I suppose would have been pretty tempting for a Catholic author to put in. Elves are bound to the world, immortal, and reborn from the Halls of Mandos. Especially in the Silmarillion, the immortal don't understand why humans are so averse to the concept of death. Elves are reborn and live through suffering until the world's ending. Humans die and... well, at least there's the possibility for rest, or respite, or simply not existing anymore.
That's resonated with me for many years. I didn't care about suffering before I was born, I doubt I'll care after I die. I assume both states will be pretty much the same, except I might be more eager to die than be born by the time life is over. But while life is going on, fuck it, we ball.
I swear, there are dozens of us! I was pretty apathetically depressed and low-key suicidal throughout parts of high school and college, and while therapy did maybe help a little, I really did dive into some philosophy at the time and found Camus and the Stoics (as well as others like Viktor Frankl) to be quite helpful. I ended up even minoring in philosophy in college.
and I would never just recommend reading philosophy instead of going to therapy for people in a place of depression, because it certainly doesn’t work for everyone, and I count myself lucky that it mostly has worked for me.
Only semi related, but I really enjoy Terry Pratchett’s Discworld (Going Postal & Making Money are the two I’ve read) and Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle and would highly recommend them. I think the way they satirize the world may vibe with you as they did with me.
I’ve only read his Man’s Search for Meaning which definitely reads more as a philosophical treatise than what I would consider psychiatry.
But it’s similar to the others in it deals with trying to find meaning / purpose in life, when life is full of suffering.
The first half is mostly autobiographical about his time in a concentration camp, and then the second half is his treatise on the philosophical theory he came up with a little bit before the concentration camp but further developed throughout that experience.
I already wrote in length about my theist beliefs in another comment so I won't repeat, but, regarding this point
This is where I disagree. God not intervening is what actually allows us to have freewill. But what about all the evil being committee freely by Man? Well, God promised to recompense everyone for all Injustice inflicted, and promised that all who inflicted Injustice will be judged fairly, just not in this life. Evil will be justly punished, and judgement will be wise, this is the crux of this particular point on my belief system.
And, is not a good trade, to suffer some injustice for a finite 80 years, then enjoy happiness for eternity? To me, this is far from malevolent, this is extremely generous, and all I'm asked for is to just Worship God.
I honestly take some comfort in the utter pointlessness of everything. I think I would be a ridiculous bag of nerves if I thought for one second that my actions had some huge impact on everything. It's nice to know that time keeps on rolling without me.
Semi random thoughts on the subject of human existence.
I always liked the notion that we are the universe observing itself. We're made of the same stuff as everything else, which I find comfort and connection to.
On the other hand, the scale of just the observable universe is impossible to truly comprehend for a human brain, even when watching a sliding scale of the universe video on YouTube... And there is some decent supposition that what we can see is only a small fraction of all there actually is.
I dunno. I find comfort and freedom in knowing that we're nothing, and on a scale that isn't actually that far outside of our daily lives, we're essentially meaningless in the scheme of things. I also often think of the BBC Christmas special where Dawkins shows a spotlight on the ground, and how we are briefly within it before being consigned to the large chunk of darkness behind it and think "I'm really happy to be in the spotlight and to know it, and appreciate my brief pinprick of time in the light". I think of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot paragraph and sit in awe that all we ever were and almost all that we are fits on a little dot in a photograph taken from the edge of our solar system. And something of us as we are now will (probably) last for billions of years as those probes hurtle out into space, but even then won't leave our galactic front yard.
Might just be me, but I find all of that wonderful, exciting, and freeing. I've read that the estimate for total modern humans to ever live is 100 billion. Our of 100 billion of us, I'm alive now! On the very edge of human progress, in a time where I don't have to worry about what I'll eat tomorrow, or if that bear will come back and hunt me. I can live an incredibly easy and rich life compared to nearly every other human that has ever lived... That, and everything else I stream of consciousness vomited out above allows me, nearly demands me to just pursue my own satisfaction in life as I see fit without worrying about if I'm using my life good enough.
I love existing for no reason, other than to just enjoy it as much as I can and observe everything I can whilst I'm here.
Hopefully some of this made sense to someone else :)
Edit: oops meant this to be a top level comment but it was inspired by @Mendanbar so I guess it fits as a reply/affirmation of their viewpoint
You're welcome, and that's a fun way to look at it! I'm no physicist or scientist but I don't see any reason why we couldn't say that at a certain level, we are all just a collection of interestingly configured and self aware energy fighting the entropic nature of the universe
Quantum Physics is juatbso mind boggling and awe inspiring. That, everything on the entire universe is just composed of the same raw ingredients stirring in a pot of Gravity is such a picture.
The way life is just a matter to resist entropy, to keep little pockets of order inside the absolutely chaotic whole that isnthe entire universe. Juat amazing.
Yup. It helps to simplify things and add a bit of humour into the miraculous and miserable parts of being alive.
I am not here to defend theism, but I will say this is no less a belief than theism is. I'm sure its possible to construct an argument for it, but I don't see how you could ever prove it was so, or that it it is any more falsifiable than the existence of God.
I think if one accepts your premise, some of what you have written may follow, but not everything.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that just because there is no reason for existence, all goodness is just humoring existence, while all suffering is unbearable. That's a set of values that can be chosen, but other sets of values can be chosen.
For example, I might rather say that suffering can be born because it is balanced by these other things. A first kiss. When a newborn child grabs your finger in their powerful grip. When my daughter is almost asleep, and she says, "I love you so much Daddy," and I know it's the truest thing anyone could say to me.
If one chooses to say "these things have no value because they are temporary, and in the end everything is ashes and dust", one could as well say, "suffering is not so bad because it is finite, and it will eventually end." (Note that I don't actually believes this, i am just making a point.)
I am not trying to tell you you are wrong. Believe the things you wrote if you want. But it seems absurd to dismiss out of hand the theists (or anybody else trying to make sense of their life) and then present another belief system as though it were obviously the right one. Maybe you did not mean to be so smug, but it definitely reads that way to me.
I think your answer assumes theism = purpose. I didn't get that when I was a Christian, it only birthed more questions for me and just abstracted the question of purpose, ie, first-mover problem as OP mentions instead of solving it. I didn't find OP's observation any more smug than any theists who assume they know or have connection to a purpose in, not only their life, but everyone's lives. But I suppose you can view it as smug when anyone, theist or not, assumes they know the answer or purpose of your life or that they have this special knowledge or connection to that knowledge that you don't.
But I do get your point and we'd likely agree that we have so little knowledge about this universe, ourselves, etc that it's very pre-emptive to state anything with regards to purpose.
This is an interesting topic all on its own, I'm glad you brought it up. I'll try to tackle it from my theist perspective.
The axiom on which I base what follows is "We exist" . We are. We are here. We are now. And we will be in the next second, And we were here a second ago, There was a time when I didn't exist, and there will be a time where I won't exist.
So the axiom presumes the Boltzmann brain hypothesis false, since if it were true, there wouldn't be a meaning in discussing everything, yet you found some meaning to start this discussion, and I found another to participate.
We exist, and the universe exists, we part of this existing universe, existing in tandum. This universe, according to scientific consensus, had a beginning that is the Big Bang, and this is where our concrete, mental knowledge stops and we veer into the realm of Philosophy and Beliefs trying to make sense of things rather than proposing a scientific experiment to test a theory.
Such philosophic thinking to me is all about trying to fit your knowledge and unknowns into a coherent structure that doesn't scream "This doesn't make sense".
So, we exist, but what was there before our existence? Before the Big Bang? A cycle of one Bang after another? But where is this matter coming from? From whence di it exist?
For our existence to make sense, there has to be a first, that which has always existed, and that never did-not-exist. That, to me, is God. So the answer to this paradox is that God did not, at any point in any definition of time, not exist. Even our own concept of time is a creation, it is inherently part of our universe, and inherently linked space, forming Space-Time.
Before time exists God, and after time God exists. That's what one means by saying that God is eternal. He is eternal in the total absolute sense.
I realize that this might sound like I'm side-stepping the question of how something can exist, this is not my intention. But my point is (according to my Theology and Philosophy) that "How did God exist" is not a coherent question in this framework, as God has always been there. God did not exist. Existence did not happen to God. God Is, God Was, And God will always Be. God created Existence, and in this existence he created the universe, and us.
So, according to my philosophy, the question of "How does God come to exist" contradicts my premise that I exist, and that there was a time when I didn't exist.
I hope my exploration of this topic is interesting to you!
But why God? Why not spinning squares? Or a gloopy green liquid? If you're going to imagine eternity, why make the leap to a self-aware entity? Isn't it simpler to assume that whatever was isn't conscious? Most of the stuff in the Universe isn't conscious. Indeed, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of it isn't. The further back in time you go, the more hostile the Universe is to being and existence. I feel you're making quite a huge leap in saying that, thoughts and emotions by a thinking being are possible in a time where not even electricity is working right. I struggle to think of a more unlikely thing to exist before existence than a being that gets angry, given that we know anger is only possible with electricity (needs stable physics) and hormones (needs physics to be so stable that chemistry is possible).
Further, and this might not be you, I've met very few theists that leave it where you've left it. All the ones I know make the next leap and say that not only does divinity exist, but my cultural divinity, the one I learned about when I was young and impressionable, is the closest approximation to reality. Which has always struck me as incredibly convenient.
And more than 4 days later I finally get to reply! You asked some really great questions, so I wanted to give them their fair share of thinking, and answer when I get to my laptop. Typing on phones is a truly hellish experience, and today is the first time I interact with tildes using a desktop :D
I would like to start with saying that in my theology, God is much much more grander and absolute than what I glean from your description. The universe itself is a creation. I will get to the "Why God?" question after I talk about the more important question imo "What is God?"
Let's take a look at ourselves. I assume we both believe that we, humans, are conscious beings. We humans evidently create unconscious things, be they tools, machines, or even software. A spoon isn't conscious, yet it was created by humans, who are conscious beings. So the idea that God is a conscious being who created many unconscious beings is very much grounded in reality.
In my Theology, Time and space are themselves a creation of God, God existed before them, and will exist after them, which is why it would be a logical error to assume that God has biological processes similar to those of ours, or that his thinking is constrained by the same laws of physics that he assigned to this universe. Therefore, what you said has merit:
Indeed, I agree with you. Such a being is very unlikely to exists. It's illogical for a being that is limited by its creation to exists before he created said creation. This is almost akin to saying God created him self, which is illogical. God being "created" implies that at some point, he didn't exist, which is limiting. A limited being is not worthy of being God, and not worthy of being worshiped, and indeed, seems wholly incapable of creating creation.
That's why I believe God always Was, is, and will Be. God was not created, He Was. Do you get it? me neither, since God is truly is beyond our understanding. My theology is centered around observing just how much God is infinitely beyond my understanding. Knowing just how inferior I am humbles me, and makes me a good person.
A tangent, "the more hostile the Universe is to being and existence" I disagree with this sentence :) From my PoV, the universe is very much accommodating to our existence. All the Supernovae, Gamma Ray Bursts, Blackhole mergers and start mergers, and all those spectacular spectacles, all of thsoe are merely a process by which we came to exists. Therefore, the Universe promotes existence in a limited way such that different Inter-galactic species won't attempt eradicate each other Stellaris-style :D
Now, back to the initial question: Why God. Well, I don't claim to have come up with "God". I have come to learn of the idea of God through messengers, messengers who were contacted by God to spread his messages.
Now, who's to say that those messengers are sane? real? right? etc... Those messengers could Fictional, they could've been mad, they could've been lying, etc... Each of these is a rabbit hole all on its own, and I've explored each until I've believed that indeed they have existed, and their messages make too much sense to be false.
Why even explore whether God exists? well, either God exists or he doesn't. If he exists, I want to have done my due diligence, so that my afterlife isn't a miserable one. If God doesn't exist, my death will be end and I'll have lost nothing. So Why God? because believing in God is essentially a winning move in every way. This idea is called Pascal's Wager
In a nutshell, Pascal posits
So, why God? because the only logical safe choice is to believe in God. It's the only 0 risk action to take.
If you've read this far, then I want to give you my thanks :) I enjoyed replying, and your question was good.
Thanks very much for your in-depth reply. I usually don't do that reddit style of quoting parts of a post and then replying to them, since that can lead to a back and forth where parties tend to want to win. But I also don't want to leave things you've said unanswered if I'm going to reply. So I guess I'll do by best at steelmanning what you're saying!
Mind, I am not saying unconscious things in the universe wouldn't be created by conscious creator. I am saying that unconscious things in the universe outnumber conscious things overwhelmingly. Indeed, the only example of conscious things we have encountered (some orders of life) are only possible because of complex chemistry. Carbon, oxygen, sodium, etc. Life (as far as we know) is only possible in a highly complex, and more importantly physically stable environment.
You can certainly imagine a universe where the laws of physics are different but consciousness exists. But it's just that, imagination. Our only example of consciousness isn't conducive to pre Big Bang life. This doesn't contract divinities, but divinities are certainly not the most likely thing to assume in an almost universally unconscious universe.
I've typed the below a few times, and am unsure how to word it. I want to respect your belief system, but I also want to push back on (what I think are) fallacies.
To you (and to theists), saying things like I Am That I Am, He Is, He Was, sounds like you're describing an incomprehensible being. To me, there's nothing to understand there, because it's not describing something that exists. It sounds important and mighty because it's describing something that humans can't understand. It's just that for an atheist, the reasons humans can't understand it is because it's not describing anything real, so there's nothing to understand.
So no, I don't get it, but I also wouldn't get it if you said Purple is Yellow. I would see it as just a wrong statement, playing with the English language in a way that sounds important. I grew up Catholic, and the Catholic Church has spent 2000 years mastering the art of playing with existing words, combining words, capitalising words, and so on. But (to me) it's wordplay, and doesn't represent our reality.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to the universe more plainly. If you go to Mars, you're dead. If you go to the Moon, you're dead. Earth's core? Dead. The Sun? Super dead. A black hole? Hyper dead. Space, which takes up the vast majority of, uh, space? Dead.
God created a universe where 99.999999999999% percent of it kills his creations. This doesn't really contradict a divinity, I just think it's silly that omnipotent creator created a stupidly massive universe that is not only instantly lethal, but impossible to explore (because he also implemented the speed of light).
This is why Stellaris has hyperlanes, because the real universe isn't well suited to civilisation, culture, trade, contact, or life.
I mean, or just wrong. You don't have to be mad or lying to say you've talked to a divinity. Plenty of shamans on Central Asia received messages from Tengri. Plenty of Greek oracles correctly performed their divinations. Plenty of priests of Marduk exorcised demons in Babylon. They weren't mad or lying. They weren't dumb either, they were probably really intelligent individuals. They were just wrong. They came to the best conclusion that their knowledge (and really crucially here, cultural framework) would allow.
And I do want to emphasise that a lot of this knowledge rests on cultural framework. You rarely see Turkic peoples leaving Allah for Tengri, or Greeks leaving God for Zeus, or Norwegians leaving God for Odin. By the same token, you wouldn't have seen a Babylonian worshiping Ashur, or an Assyrian worshiping El. It is not a coincidence that Westerners, whatever spiritual framework they end with, stay with the word God. With a personal, omnipotent singular deity that loves them personally. Different from the Sumerian three-tier god system, where you have a contractual relationship with your personal and family god. Westerners tend to stay with the spiritual framework developed by the Roman empire, a framework they have because of the Roman military conquests of what would became the predecessors of the West.
Where you see spirituality, I see history. I see people broadly staying within the confines of their cultural gods. There's nothing wrong with this, either. This is how humanity has worshiped for over 10,000 years. I just don't think it represents things that exist.
What if Allah was the correct one, specifically? Or what if the Greeks were right, and you haven't done your heroic quest? You won't be able to reach the Elysian Fields? Or what if the true God is one that hates worshipers, and specifically sends theists to hell and atheists to Heaven? Or what about Zoroastrianism, have you considered Ahura Mazda? Are you respecting the purity of fire and the land?
Pascal was thinking in a Christian framework. His wager completely collapses if you include the myriad of religions, hell, the myriad of Christian denominations. No one should believe out of insurance. I'm not saying you're saying this specifically, but I do want to counter Pascal's wager. It's only a good logical argument if there's only one religion.
Sorry for the long-winded response. This is a topic that fascinates me. I dip into many histories (Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Turkish) and if there's one thing I've come to believe, it's that people don't change. If I talked to a random Sumerian in Nippur, he would be just as convinced that his belief system is the true lens of the world. He would also claim that belief system made him a better person. Indeed, there is plenty of Babylonian philosophy that reflects on this, that even if the gods didn't exist, it would be good to follow their laws just in case. I just think Enlil doesn't exist, or Marduk, or Yahweh, nor do I see a compelling reason that demands their existence.
That is exactly my point, and stated much more clearly than I did.
I tried to lay out a clearer statement in my response to the sibling comment by @SeeNipplesAndDo.
I went back and forth about including the smug line. It is possible that it is something I am bringing to the conversation, rather than something you out there, but let me lay it out and see what you think.
3 overarching points:
So to expand a bit: on number one, my understanding is that logic is built up from a set of axioms. I don't think those axioms are are bad per se, but they are arbitrary. You could have a different logical system based on different axioms and likely arrive at different conclusions. That's all belief system is, except the starting premise is the existence of a diety or dieties.
With that understanding, "since theism is completely unfalsifiable ..., belief in it doesn't seem justifiable" (your words), doesn't seem that different from the "there's only one God/one way to heaven" position that many theists take. I know logic has a long history and many adherents, but if pedigree and consensus are a criteria for rightness then there are plenty of theistic views that have a long history and many adherents also. I'm not saying logic isn't useful, but many people find theism useful as well in coping with suffering and uncertainty.
To look more at number two, you started out by saying that it would be absurd to argue that there is a chain of causes back to a first cause and that it would also be absurd for the universe to spontaneous. So if the universe is absurd either way, it doesn't seem like first cause is really important to your argument. If that's the case then why bring up theism at all? It seemed like you were just getting a jab in on your way to an entirely different point, which reads as smug to me. But if you didn't mean it that way, or I misunderstanding your position, then I I'm willing to retract that assertion.
To look at number 3, let me share a little of my own background. I've spent the last few years deconstructing from a very conservative Christian upbringing. It turns out the problem that I have with Christianity is not so much the belief system as the way it works out in practice. Specifically, when talking about suffering in the world, you'll hear people say something like, "Those problems will persist because the world is inherently a sinful place." I'm not saying that no Christians ever fight suffering because certainly there are many that do, but it is my own experience with Christians that this is kind of thinking is an "out" to ignore the suffering of people and to shirk responsibility for doing something about it.
I also don't know you, so I suppose I am making an assumption that saying that the Universe would be better off having not existed leads you to ignore suffering in a similar way. If that's not the case, then I acknowledgen that as something I brought to this that doesn't reflect your actual way.
I guess to assert my viewpoint (which is also a belief), I think that fighting suffering is probably the thing that can give meaning to our existence, because I think that without some way of trying to make things better, life does seem purposeless and pointless.
So to tie my other reply to you in this thread to these questions,
I believe everything must have a causez except for the first which had no cause, that first which is God, as this is the only logical way for my own existence to be logical. I go at length in my comment linked above.
BTW I'm really thankful to you for having started this discussion. I love question ls that force me to dig deeper into my belief system and think more about things I took for granted. In fact, I find that such discussions strength len my faith in God.
Life is what you make of it.
If you believe in a higher power, in a specific morality, in a certain cause, in a particular goal ... then for you, life is tied to that. You might have decided you want to spread the joy of 52-Card Pickup far and wide, and for you that would be a life affirming goal.
I do feel far, far, far too many people get caught up in seeking validation. They want others to validate them, validate their choices. They want agreement, support, and backing. They want their decisions to be seen as correct in the view of others.
That's chasing your tail. People are fickle, selfish, distracted, greedy, and indifferent. Love is defined by how it overrides these negative traits. If you love someone, you'll concern yourself with their concerns, you'll share, you'll open up, you'll make time for them. Meanwhile, that random guy who lives two doors down, not so much. One person you love, the other you don't.
That's how we are to almost every single person on the planet. It's just how it is. Do you care about some random person in Hawaii, or Siberia, or sitting in traffic in Taiwan? No, of course you don't. You have your own problems, your own goals and concerns and dreams to be getting on with. And those random people don't care about yours either, so we're all more or less even.
At the end of The Truman Show, Truman walks off stage, and the show ends. For all the audiences; us as well as the people in the film who were watching Truman. The answer they give there is just as honest and realistic as the one we gave at the end of the movie. It's the same one we give at any funeral, or really any time you're made aware of a death that isn't yours. What else is on now?
So death is really only final for the dead person. For everyone else who isn't dead, life goes on. That's not callous, that's just life. Are we supposed to fracture and fall apart, become non-functional humans just because someone close to us dies?
Some people do disintegrate, and sometimes follow their departed beloved into death themselves. Which is beautifully tragic on some levels, but on others is a waste. And how you view it tends to depend on how you view the people involved. If it's your parents, you're emotionally weighed by the death of the first; and probably moreso by the second. But you might find the second wasteful, or selfish, or poetic, or a lot of things. Who knows? It would depend on your relationships with your parents, how you look(ed) upon them, and so on.
If a public figure dies, the public has equally varied reactions. I know I'll never get the end of the Song of Ice and Fire series, so when George R R Martin dies, to me it'll just be a confirmation of what I've already accepted. If Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr had died just before they began shooting Avengers Endgame ... I would have been quite upset. Not fatally so, but still it would have been a big hit.
The thing about death is its finality. I find it kind of worthless to obsess over what follows your own death. After all, you won't be there for any of it, so why should you care? And if you do, you're engaging in something that by definition you'll never know, never influence, never be able to correct, and all of that more or less adds up to a waste of time.
But others disagree. They feel they can influence what might follow their death. An easy example would be a family; the matriarch might look back at her place in the ancestry that led to her, and on to the descendants she'd be leaving, and find that to be a form of influence. That she's had chances to shape and teach and impart upon them various things she finds important, and can decide to whatever degree she likes to believe these things would continue on thanks to her efforts.
Someone else might want to "change the world". Maybe they want to drive a movement of some sort (52-Card Pickup, it's the next big thing), or maybe they want to invent a technology, build some structure, something like that.
Somewhere in history, somewhere, lost to us never to be found or known, is someone who first had the idea to build The Pyramids. After all, it's highly unlikely those structures just appeared out of nowhere, and equally unlikely the society in the area just kind of collectively showed up one day to begin building. Someone had the idea, which led to planning and decisions about how to do it, and then to the doing. Probably, after that first initial thought, lots of other people joined in to turn it eventually into The Pyramids, but someone still had the first notion of them.
Maybe that person, if they have any awareness post-death, might be pleased to know The Pyramids still exist. There are bridges and highways and ports and cities and all sorts of "things" that've been created, and all of them started with one person. All of them eventually included many people to make happen, but someone at some point looked at a patch of desert and thought "yeah, but what if we put a big 3-d triangle, like, right there."
Rich people often get increasingly charitable as they age. Other people often accuse them of "trying to buy legacy" at this point, as the rich person runs around looking for places that'll take money in exchange for plastering the Rich Name across whatever gets built or sponsored.
Sometimes someone, maybe rich or maybe just well connected or highly influential, will start young and try to "build something". All the great companies, for example, at one point weren't companies. Great or otherwise. They got built because someone started building them. At least some of those, just like all the bridges and so forth, came into being because that first thinker thought it'd be cool to know it's their notion that's shaping reality.
Anyone who figures out the secret of life will have it made. Because, even if The Secret doesn't put dinner on the table, all the talk shows and speaking engagements, the book and movie deals, the everything they'd be able to likely reap from the rest of us would.
There is no perfect answer in life. To life. For life. There's just your answer. And that's a great answer. For you.
Life isn't an algorithm. Or, at least, not one humanity will ever be in a position to solve. There's too much data, too many ever changing variables, for it to be conceivable we could ever create a perfect predictor that Knows All. Chasing The One Solution is therefore a vast waste of time in my view.
Then again, Douglas Adams postulated a people who spent generations creating and programming such a machine. Only for it to give them an answer they didn't understand.
Meanwhile, Adams had himself a nice old chuckle over the concept. And shared it with others, many of whom also had a bit of a laugh as well. Then they all moved on, because that's what you do. That's what happens.
Life moves on.
Scrolling in this thread, I love the wide variety of different takes expressed on this matter, and I'm glad I decided to add my theist perspective into this pot of different ideas.
I agree, it's good to make peace with our limitations, and play life's game using its own rules, without lamenting the way the rules are laid out.
I'll take your scattered thoughts and add my own.
We're just apes that got too intelligent. It is evolutionarily useful to empathise, to feel other being's pain. You can do things with that, like predict where the wounded deer's going to go, or properly negotiate with another tribe. I find it endlessly fascinating that our ability to ask ourselves these questions is an accidental side effect to the increase in our brainpower.
No one can give you the answers you want. They can use emotive words, like freedom or will or choice or gods. Words that we smart apes made up to give colour to our haywire neurons. Some of those words might even work on you, and allow your haywire neurons to create other connections. But the answers aren't magical. You're an ongoing chemical reaction. You love your family because familial love was useful for humans (not for octopodes). We have suffering because pain is useful for the preservation of life. We love pets because they hijack our parenting instincts. Every one of these questions has an answer, it's just not an answer that makes our ape brains happy.
I can say something like "you need to find your own answers". By doing so, I'd be appealing to your emotions, using Western concepts that appeal to Western cultural sensitivities. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with this, because none of us will ever live long enough to outlast those concepts.
Agreed that existence is fundamentally meaningless. Everything we know about the universe so far points to that conclusion. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it the most likely truth.
For me personally, the base meaninglessness is part of what makes existence profound.
We have the, arguably useless, but nonetheless incredible ability to make meaning. And, as far as we know, we're the only creatures that can do it. The only apes that can wonder what it means to ape.
As a result of the meaning we create, we experience achingly beautiful moments of joy, wonder and pain. Moments which are more profound because they are so fleeting and so meaningless to anything in the universe but us.
Another piece of the meaning puzzle, for me, is curiosity. I want to exist because I want to know what happens next. It won't matter, not in any universal way, but it's enough that I get to participate in it.
Related to that is the knowledge that, however remarkable or mundane, every moment is unique in the entire span of time and space. Ultimately pointless but also ultimately singular.
And we can share some of those singularities. Only a bit, because we're all hallucinating existence in very different ways, but that's exactly what makes it meaningful. At its core existence is deeply lonely, no one sees the same world we do. No one can fully see us. Which makes those moments when experience feels genuinely shared like flashes of light and warmth in the darkness.
Not just when we connect with other people, but when we connect with any aspect of life, or ourselves, in a way that ties us to a larger scope than whatever our baseline is.
There's meaning in stumbling on in search of the next flash of connection.
Finally, existence is additive. We're constantly collecting context. A moment I experience now, is deeper and more nuanced than one I experienced 20 years ago because I'm bringing 20 extra years of knowledge and memories and accumulated experience into that moment. I have more points of reference, more ways to connect. Which makes the flashes more vivid.
I find a lot of meaning in the knowledge that the adventure is always evolving, and it can always be more than before.
So for me, even though there is no fundamental meaning, each moment has meaning. It's arbitrary and transient, but it's still meaning.
Right up until my heart stops and all that context I collected ceases to exist and, not long after, every impact I've had on the world is lost to time and entropy.
I have struggled and still struggle with much the same.
Unfortunately, I believe the only answers that have the possibility of being fully satisfying are fictional delusions crafted by a mix of human dreams, hallucinations, and imagination.
Some points from my experience:
Don't spend too much of your life staring into the abyss. There are better ways to appreciate existence.
"By nature of the relentless absurdity of existence, it wouldn't make a difference whether it ever happened or not, when all is said and done."
No, it makes absolutely no difference, cosmically, if I had ever existed.
However:
a) I do exist
b) I believe/understand at some level that I exist in this scheme of things
c) My brain cannot possibly understand the enormity of the cosmos and my place in it
d) I can however experience and enjoy the now, despite "knowing" that I will one day die, but that concept still being alien to me
e) I can try and bring happiness and peace to myself and those around me.
What does my head in is that we are so cosmically insignificant and have been given a chance to experience a tiny fragment of this, and so many people are utter cunts.
lmaoooooooo. i like to think you were imagining a very specific person when you wrote that last line. wonderful break after wading through everyone's heartfelt ponderings.
And so we return again to the holy void. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?
As some Ayn Randians put it, “Why are we here? Because we’re here. Roll the bones!”
Buddhists might say we are here because harmony is incapable of non-being.
I feel a great resistance to non-being, ineffable and without origin. I call this one of the faces of God.
As an aside, I think it is hubris to discount all who claim to talk to God. Falsifiability is valuable for understanding the material world, but does not foreclose the existence of various other states of being. Until one can legitimately claim to have all knowledge, one cannot exclude any knowledge.
God need not be omnipotent to exist. In fact, if God is omnipotent, choice is meaningless ( a variant corollary on Epicurus’ theorems). Any being with consciousness shares power with God and other conscious beings.
Ultimately there is no separation between being and non-being, is there?
That's a self-defeating statement and one who commits to it inherently devalues their own knowledge. In a world filled with many lies and deception, fruitless branches of knowledge, at some point you have to exclude some "knowledge" as valid. We see it time and time again in threads where people try to argue for certain odd philosophies or certain gods.
Your argument does very little to help OP find real answers other than the same response heard time and time again to many's dissatisfaction through the ages, namely 'seek the gods' which OP mentioned with the 'first-mover' problem, was not satisfactory.
Which of the thousands of gods of thousands of years of thousands of interpretations and thousands of denominations should OP seek to find THE truth or THE answer? Sorry to interrogate but it just gets tiring seeing threads like this and people proselytizing gods as the answer when it solves nothing. The 'gods' answer typically is just a placeholder for highly interpretive personal opinions, which can be valid and useful, but when you throw a 'god' in, it becomes much more of a tribalistic answer that historically has setup walls between otherwise good-fellows, the haves and the have-nots. Those who believe and those who don't or can't find the rationale to believe in those same gods; one just has to have this god or that god in their life to find enlightenment eventually.
When will we learn? There are answers that the gods themselves can't solve, as you so admit in the latter. The gods of therapy (in the psychological world), the gods of knowledge (teachers, physicists, philosophers, etc), the gods of various religions, the gods of medicine, none have all the answers.
Maybe a part of me was hoping that for once, OP's existential questions would finally have no answers in the thread as I get tired of everyone implying they have the answer to these questions or a monopoly on 'the truth' as many religious groups do but it just comes off as deceptive, usually self-righteous and privileged as in they have connection to something OP doesn't and they just 'gotta believe'. I'd much rather have no answers than bullshit people make up.
With regard to God, I believe you may have read meaning i to my answer which I did not intend, and overlooked the more subtle meaning that was there, but such is the nature of philosophical discourse. I am not postmodern, however, I believe there are valuable truths to be lived, and beyond those which man himself assigns.
There is also a distinction between the practical and the philosophical. To be sure, on the practical plane, certain truths may be evaluated and segregated as necessary. For example, in no practical setting of which I am aware is it true that 1ml of water has a mass of 1kg.
The ineffable, however, I do not think can be excluded without that perfect knowledge (which I have not even seen a reliable suggestion that such is possible). And God is merely the ineffable with some added direction and intentionality. This ineffable is not approachable by reason alone, and not even the combination of thinking, emotion, pathos and desire can reach it. Room must be made for it, and the most subtle faculties employed to sense it. And, much like draba in February, it is usually overlooked.
Sure, I do that as well, disregarding any philosophical labels as those just come off as pretentious. I just don't ascribe them to gods, tribalistic place-holders. Once again you're trying to discern yourself from OP and I by alluding to gods and in that you're not "post-modern" and passively implying that other people aren't living valuable truths. I get your well-meaning intent but this is something that those trying to proselytize their gods don't seem to get sometimes. Also the idea of not assuming you have the answer to life, the universe and everything, even by extension of a thing or gods who seem to, is probably one of the most classical views there is. It seems that with the label 'post-modern', many religious people use it in a derogatory way and ascribe it as any view which doesn't conform to the tribe's religious view, like Jordan Peterson does, while barely knowing anything about it. Maybe that's not your intent but that's how I've seen it used.
This is another argument I've seen time and time again where some try to use reason to suggest reason doesn't work for some knowledge but at some point you have to use reason to argue for the ineffable. You can't just say 'gods cats balloons', that wouldn't convince people of gods, would it? It's the same debate where some Christians I've questioned say faith led them to Yahweh, not reason, when you have to some some logic and reason to lead you to those conclusions. The "ineffable" can't exist without a logical, rational basis. Reading on, you seem to allude to this so pardon me, I just tend to reply as I read.
The latter paragraph, I get it, I was once religious and still consider myself spiritual. But with that description, it waters the gods down so much as to be impotent and far from their classical definition. I just see no reason to invoke gods, impotent or not, in OP's answer as they always provoke more questions than answers in curious folks like OP, if OP is anything like me, and so solves nothing.
I wrote something about God and would love to get your opinion about it
https://tildes.net/~talk/1fdi/scattered_thoughts_on_the_absurdity_of_existing#comment-cgit
Is it supposed to convince me of gods? I've been in the spiritual game for 30 years and an atheist for 25 of those and nothing yet has convinced me. At one time early on I thought I believed in a god but I quickly learned I didn't once I started investigating. None of what you wrote convinced me and it's the same rhetoric I've seen for 30 years of people arguing for gods, which was a side of debates I was on at one point. Are you trying to debate or just doubting your faith and asking if it checks out with me? Anyway, thanks for sharing though. I know your intentions are well.
Nope, not interested in convincing anyone in this thread of anything. I'm mainly interested in gathering more questions and viewpoints for my own. Your post was interesting, so I eas interested in your opinion.
And your response os super interesting. I'm genuinely surprised to learn that what I wrote is similar to, if not the same as, rhetoric you've already seen; considering they every thing I wrote is in large part original thought that came as a result of rejecting the modern state of religions, and trying to find God myself. As a result this opinion you provided was valuable to me.
That said, I'm a whole lot younger than 30 yo. I don't doubt my faith, so you could say I'm interested in debate, because I want to think about answers to more and more stuff. I'm really interested on the philosophic aspect of religion on general. To me, these questions everyone asks are like the tests by which I solidify my theory. If a test proves my theory false, I'll start working on a new one.
You start working on a new test to prove your theory? How many will it take for you to actually change your theory? I think I've always doubted my faith when I was religious, that's like the whole definition of it as it isn't knowledge. If gods fall because of mere questions imposed, I'd say they're weak gods, if gods at all. You say you have no doubts yet you're seeking questions. By saying your opinion isn't original, I don't mean to demean it as it is somewhat original but in the whole, there's common arguments used by theists that I recognize in your replies. But I understand, I was in your shoes as well. Good luck on your journey. I've no problem with religion as long as there's some mutual respect between parties.
EXACTLY! I follow the scientific method with regards to these question and theories. Indeed, even some of our most rigorous theories breakdown in some circumstances, e.g. Einstein's General Relativity breaks down at singularities, such as those at the center of a blackhole or the one at the beginning of the universe. Similarly, Quantum Field Theory breaks down when it comes to gravity. However, we keep using those theories because they explain so much.
They offer the most correct explanations of many things, and no other theories come remotely close. These theories were tested to hell and back. We still try to test Einstien's theories whenever possible, the most recent test being gravitational waves. The way it goes in the scientific community is that, if you want to throw away an existing theory, you must provide another theory that's just as testable and satisfies the many many many experiments that previous theories endured.
And that is one of the things people working on String Theory working on. One of the problems with String theory is that there no tests to validate it, compared to QFT and GR. over the centuries, there were many models for the atom, and when some tests proved a model false, scientists developed a new model, culminating with QFT.
I mirror this with the matter of God, only unlike with hard science, the tests are philosophical in nature, and I will never be able to prove the existence of God, though that doesn't contradict with my absolute belief that he exists.
An example: Let's assume for a moment that I believe God resides in the sky. This implies that God resides in a specific volume of space, therefore, God is limited by space. This contradicts with the notion that God is absolute, and is beyond the constraints of space that I believe he created, therefore this is false, and God encompasses everything, and is everywhere. Does the idea that God is beyond space contradict with anything else in my theology? if the answer is no, this means it's a more correct way of thinking.
BTW I'm enjoying this little discussion :) This is the first time I got to put my theology in writing.
Is this in relation to going from a believer to not being one? There's an argument to be made that if a "theory", if you want to loosely call belief, doesn't appear true anymore then whether there's a replacement or not is moot, false is false. I don't recall science having an issue with completely throwing away a theory regardless if there's a replacement or not. I'm not that versed in it so I can't think of any good examples but ether was a theory and even if there was no replacement, it was just thrown away after it proving false. I guess you could say it was replaced with fields but those didn't completely fill all the gaps of ether theory.
My point being that at some point if the results don't prove observably true then it's time to let go and move on, which is what I've done with theistic belief, not spirituality of course. At one time I even thought I could prove God exists with science/math (something about number theory, sequential ordering, nothing into something, etc) but of course then I was young, horribly naive and knew little about science or religion but as I've learned, you can't exactly reconcile religion and science and to try to do so is a lesson in insanity, they're two different disciplines. As you were mentioning, at different layers rules break down, ie, with classic and quantum physics models, and the former two reside at different layers that will likely never be reconciled.
If this is your first time discussing theology, I'm so sorry, lol. There's so many good forums out there for discussing theology that could give you way more insightful answers than I could. I know people don't like to endorse reddit here but there's many subs there where religion is discussed, can't think of any at the moment as it's been a long time. I rarely ever get involved in it anymore unless as I've done lately and fall into that trap.
It's believed that up until a certain stage of development, it doesn't occur to babies that objects exist outside their own experience of them. In particular, if you don't see it, it might just not exist, so games like peek-a-boo are not only a rather mundane kind of entertainment, but a baffling demonstration of the wonders of the world.
Here, you similarly can't perceive a logical reason and surmise that there is none, confusing ignorance with knowledge. The result is the absurdity you experience: you know that there is no logical reason for us to be here, so being here at all is as baffling and magical as peek-a-boo is to the baby. It seems pointless to you because you have already decided, in ignorance, that there is no point.
For what it's worth, I don't attach any value judgement to that. I think it's innately human. We're in kind of an awkward position where we are prone to think of and deeply care for such things, yet limited by our experience to only ever arrogantly assume or concede to being clueless.
C) We're somewhere along a causal chain that doesn't have a definite beginning in the sense we understand causality.
I could come up with more, but we're both just guessing, which is my point.
What assertion? If you mean to imply that I have asserted that there is a cause to the universe, please read again and respond to what I wrote instead of what you think I believe.
C) There was that which had no cause, and caused the universe to exist. That, to me, is God. I reach this conclusion by process of elimination. Eliminating everything that conflicts with my Axiom.
Because I think, therefore know I am. I express my ideas, and speak to this astroid, yet it doesn't reply, it doesn't acknowledge my existence, so it's different from me, it does not think, thus I may have a purpose even though it does not.
But, if this astroid could think, who's to say it's not pondering its purpose in this grand universe? Could it be that it tries to speak with us, yet we don't reply to it, not acknowledge its existence in a way it understands?
You are right. It's just that it takes too long for people to realize. And some never will.
Anyway, Stanislaw Lem wrote Golem IV in 1981. There's an excerpt (the most important part) on YouTube where I've pirated it from Vimeo. It's an optimistic take.
I will be speaking as a theist, and hopefully I'm able to conveyy beliefs about God, why we exist, and how it makes me feel. I won't state my religion outright, just that it's Abrahemic.
To begin with, God is eternal, and absolute. Godnis the first , and God is the last. Godnhas always existed and will always exist. This is a belief. God can't be proved or disproved, and that's the point. Why? This leads to the second point.
Why do we exist? I believe that God created us to Worship him, that is, the sole and primary reason for our existence is to worship God completely willingly, and freely. To worship him despite never being ever certain that he exists, Of God could be proved, there will be no choice but to worship him, thus negating our free will.
An obvious question is why does God want to us to Worship him. Well, I don't know, and no human or Angel was ever privy to such knowledge. My belief is that only God knows why, so no use thinking about it.
Important to say this before the next point: To God belong all good names, he is The Merciful, The Just, The all-knowing, The all-seeing, The Forgiver, The Kind, The all-powerful, The Wise, The Patient, and all other good titles. Again, this is belief, and I can't believe otherwise since to me, a god that's not any of these things can't be a god.
Our mortal life is inherently unfair, because Man (mankind) is free to do what it wishes, including all manners of Injustice. If God intervened, that would interfere with our free will.
But that's only for our mortal life. God didn't create us for funzies, and he won't let Injustice go without consequence. For that there is a judgement day, where The Most Just will judge all, and give everyone back their deserved rights. All under a framework of Mercy, Wisdom, and Justice.
As such, nothing worldy matters. Money, health, power, whatever, won't matter. How much do humans live? A 100 years max? 150? How much has humanity existed? 10k years? 100k? 200k (homo spaiens)? In my Belief, there is an eternity after death, and I mean eternity eternity, never ending until God wishes so. So even if my life consisted of a 100 years of suffering, there IS something after death, thus I can keep my piece of mind.
Addenum: There can't be conflict between science and religion. Any presumed conflict is a product of Man's ignorance and arrogant interpretation of Religion.
So, there's also this:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=god+on+trial&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e17f9875,vid:tD7v9phroGM,st:0
This is God on Trial, based on Elie Wiesel's The Trial of God. I'm not sure what to say about it, but it's extremely well acted and directed and written and explores these issues with feeling.
You got to be random so I get to be too? And your post, and these ideas are so timely, because I'm in a really bleak place.
I have test scores that objectively prove I'm better at logic than 99.9% of people who care enough to take the tests. But it hasn't got me shit, really. The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the only thing that matters is personal satisfaction, however you define it for yourself, and that if you reach a point where you can no longer obtain a sufficient quantity of personal satisfaction, the only reasonable response is to kill yourself.
I was on the trail the other day, and I saw a butterfly being stung to death by yellow jackets. WTF kind of world is this? Life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short. The ultimate end for any of us is dinner, it's only a matter of when, how, and for whom. I see no reason to proceed.
And yet, here I am. As I state elsewhere, I have an undeniable and insurmountal preference for being. WTF is that? Where does that come from? Biological wiring? Electrochemical conditioning? Space Aliens? Whencever, it spells only one result: my life is not my own.
And so I suffer, sometimes in silence, sometimes in protest, sometimes with grim acceptance, sometimes in gritty resentment. And once in a while, the sun shines through and everything is so beautiful I think I'm going to evaporate.
But who's to say that this is nasty and brutish? The yellow jacket did not feel malice, only acted to satiate its need for sustenance. The butterfly doesn't care, only existing to existence of its species. In this dance of life, there is no evil, no malice, as such concepts only arise when one has a mind to conceptualize them.
In this balanced dance of life, how does this yellow jacket killing the butterfly to preserve the balance of the ecosystem, different from a killer T cell killing another of your cells to preserve the balance of your body?
I agree with you 100%. It is absurd.
Slavery, exploitation, racism, misoginy, greedy. It would be better if we didn't exist at all.
I lost a brother, my parents are old and becoming frail, even more now that they lost a son.
It is too much suffering.
But I am alive anyway so I try to make the best of it.
Can you elaborate on this? To my mind it is perfectly reasonable for one to make meaning - maybe choose meaning is a better word - for one's own life. I suspect we're using different definitions for "make meaning" and "deepest selves" and that's where my confusion comes from. I'm not aware of definitions of these that are mutually exclusive, perhaps unless you take some view that discards free will altogether.
A few
weeksmonths ago there was a thread not too different from this: Tell me about your weird religious beliefs. You might enjoy reading through that, based on your comments here. Here's my response to it; you might find it relevant with how you talk about "initial conditions" here. This reply and my reply to it touch on your mentions of causality and quantum effects.I link all these because, based on your comments in this thread, I'm curious what you think and what issues you might have with them.
I am not Buddhist and have no formal Buddhist education, but my understanding is that my comment in that last link (my reply to it) and the replies afterward accidentally touch on some Buddhist ideas around time, experience, and the present. Since you mention in your opener that you are Buddhist, I'm curious of your thoughts on that specifically.
Edit: I just got to your comment where you wrote:
Please do check my weird religious belief response; I address my view on exactly this.