(https://i.imgur.com/YAGpXPd.png)
Spartan is on the case
Jeez, talk about being verbose lolI'm going to have to disagree.
Like Theo said, this post-modernist materialist mindset really is the scourge of our time. It's really only in these 1st world countries where we're incredible comfortable in our technology that we whine about existential suffering. Back in antiquity most understood that suffering was normal. It is the nature and role of "The Satan" to poison your mind with atheistic/nihilistic thoughts. Satan is the parasite of God. He is the evil that destroys itself in order to perpetuate his kingdom, for if he plunged the world into ultimate chaos and destroyed mankind, he would cease to exist. You seem to dread (If this is you and not a copypasta) that humanity is going to end, but is there any other way? We are finite beings interacting with an infinite universe. We are all guilty of original sin; the sin to be God. We wanted to decide what is right for our lives and God allowed us to do so, and now we complain that everything is without meaning. God is sovereign over all, even Satan, but most won't accept The Lord because they fear they will be a "slave" (Again, people thinking they know what is best). You are given freewill to choose your father, whether he be Satan or The Lord. The biggest delusion and lie is believing that the entire universe was created by chance. If these great men of science say everything is designed with a purpose why would the universe be exempt from that rule?
Looking for the existence of a God but means of an evidentiary standard is like trying to run through a concrete wall to get to the other side - it is pointless, and your labour will be in vain. Adopt the Kierkegaardian approach!Kierkegaard is making a massive leap of faith assumption here. The only thing that I agree with him on this particular topic is the circulatory madness of skepticism ( basically when taking Reductio Ad Absurdum to the maximum extent of possible absurdity). It simply does not make sense to me to believe that this exact line of metaphysical thought is the correct one, when a Buddhist monk in Nepal has come to entirely different conclusions using the Noble Eightfold Path, or a Norse gothi proclaiming that Fimbulwinter is upon us from the remains of a sacrificed virgin. Obviously solely using reason as a means to acquire knowledge (thanks Kant) is ridiculous, but that does not enable us to start making celestial claims about human purpose and take it as the only plausible explanation.
The nihilism you preach is not the great arbiter of capital T Truth it masquerades as - nihilism makes itself out to be the Explainer but in the end it is like other second rate philosophies - an intellectual vacuum, a black hole of incredulity, ludicrousness, and psychological despair. Nihilists will point at materialist hypotheses and proclaim the Proof has been found for the meaningless of existence, but meaning is not something that either is or isn’t - you can create it! If nihilism were the great revealer it pretends to be, why does it want to feed? “You must know the truth so you too may discard your life away” is the essence of that philosophy - a self serving evil fit for only the worst among us.I do not regard nihilism as an objective truth in the slightest, only one of the many paths that can be reached when your beliefs are tested to the limit. It's not so much a bittersweet realization, more like a elephant pounding on your chest, acting as a reminder that the clock is ticking. Obviously, we can deduce that humans are the sole being that contemplate meaning and existence, so these "truths" are something that can only be rationalized by us. It doesn't necessarily call for the self termination of one's existence (that's more in the realm of pro-mortalist rationale), but rather a recognition of life's objective meaningless. Nietzsche didn't write his papers hoping that humanity would fall into a pit of despair, he did it so we wouldn't fall into that damn pit by taking control of our existence through entirely materialistic means: aka the Übermensch. The most prominent harbinger of nihilism constructed his philosophy in an attempt to literally prove the modern progenitor of pessimism (Schopenhauer) wrong. Of course, you can see that he failed horribly, as society has regressed to a point of dullness, misanthropy, and apathy. The symbolic "Death of God" that he wouldn't shut the fuck up about has went down the road that he originally feared it would. I think Aurelius and Seneca discussed this at length in their stoic writings as well, but I'm too lazy to go to look for it.
There is a reason that great thinkers of many disciplines across time rejected this meaninglessness, and it certainly is not because they weren’t willing to confront the sweet evil of its message.
I will take a slightly different approach. If our current understanding of the Rare Earth hypothesis proves correct, and it is indeed highly improbable for intelligent life to form in what is ultimately a universe thought to be finite in time (albeit perhaps infinite in space) does that not make life evermore precious, evermore meaningful? Especially so given that intelligent life, the gift of reasoning could perhaps be nearly extinct so early in the age of the universe? If the heat death theory is correct, we are already past the height of the star-forming era. One day the last star will be born, the last star will live and die, and then an era of black holes will emerge that will leave the universe dull and dark until they too begin to decay and die. So, given this possible eventuality, is it not even more important to cherish and protect life or to value intelligence, achievement, and meaning in it? I will leave that up to you, but I believe the answer is clear. Dismissing meaning or spirituality simply because the universe may end up being nothing more than the random assortment of particles under various levels of mechanical influence is foolhardy. Rather we should endeavor to understand and make use of as much of the universe as we can while we have our run as a species. Personally I think Kardashev 2 status is only a millennium or two away, however I can understand if I come off as overly optimistic in that regard. Hope that helps a bit.The way I can see it, one can view the universe through two different lenses.
The way I can see it, one can view the universe through two different lenses.
Dreamer: The cosmos is a vast expanse ripe for exploration and scientific advancement. If we ever hope to achieve a better understanding of the universe and the beings that inhabit it, we must scatter across the stars in hopes of unlocking secrets beyond our wildest imagination. We can accomplish this by putting our petty differences aside and pulling our efforts towards seeking out what no one has ever laid eyes upon.
or
Doomer: The unimaginably terrifying void that is space is wrought with chaos and decay. It actively tries to kill (hah anthropomorphism of the stars!) anything that makes an attempt to thrive. The sheer scope of distance in-between objects in space is unfathomable for humans, and physics itself may not even allow us to traverse it within a relatively short time. Mankind is forsaken to live out its days on this pale blue dot, either butchering each other mercilessly or living in contempt.
Unless we somehow invent FTL tech, or find a way to terraform mars, OR get radically shifted by a type 3 civilization, I don't know how we will ever get off this rock in a significant way. There is just too much shit that is holding us back. Hell, even if we all came together and decided to get the fuck off the rock, the odds that we would make an astronomical breakthrough probably aren't all that great. As it stands, we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. The environment is getting raped and cheaper alternatives are making themselves known, and yet they are nowhere near as efficient. Every generation has said it, but I honestly think the next 100 years is make-or-break for humans. We either become adopt a more sustainable method of living, or we continue on the current trajectory, sending us into frightening uncertainty.
The way I can see it, one can view the universe through two different lenses.
Dreamer: The cosmos is a vast expanse ripe for exploration and scientific advancement. If we ever hope to achieve a better understanding of the universe and the beings that inhabit it, we must scatter across the stars in hopes of unlocking secrets beyond our wildest imagination. We can accomplish this by putting our petty differences aside and pulling our efforts towards seeking out what no one has ever laid eyes upon.
or
Doomer: The unimaginably terrifying void that is space is wrought with chaos and decay. It actively tries to kill (hah anthropomorphism of the stars!) anything that makes an attempt to thrive. The sheer scope of distance in-between objects in space is unfathomable for humans, and physics itself may not even allow us to traverse it within a relatively short time. Mankind is forsaken to live out its days on this pale blue dot, either butchering each other mercilessly or living in contempt.
Unless we somehow invent FTL tech, or find a way to terraform mars, OR get radically shifted by a type 3 civilization, I don't know how we will ever get off this rock in a significant way. There is just too much shit that is holding us back. Hell, even if we all came together and decided to get the fuck off the rock, the odds that we would make an astronomical breakthrough probably aren't all that great. As it stands, we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. The environment is getting raped and cheaper alternatives are making themselves known, and yet they are nowhere near as efficient. Every generation has said it, but I honestly think the next 100 years is make-or-break for humans. We either become adopt a more sustainable method of living, or we continue on the current trajectory, sending us into frightening uncertainty.
But that's...not really true. Firstly, the distance in between two points in observable space is within the grasp of humans, we call that light-years. Since that the speed of information is a constant, c (given as the speed of light measured in centimeters per second in Einstein's mass–energy equivalence equation) that's actually quite convenient for scientists to use to determine distances and how they relate to travel time. Secondly, 10-20% light speed is fine for the purposes of colonizing the solar system in a meaningful way. 10% is roughly an upper estimated limit of fission powered ships, 20% for fusion powered ones. So no, not stuck on the "pale blue dot", even if the old joke that "fusion is the technology of 20-30 years from now, and always will be" ends up holding water. Thirdly, again, faster than light travel is not necessary to make a meaningful attempt at colonizing the solar system in a way that culminates in K2 status and results in a post-scarcity civilization. This isn't even Clarketech, you can look up the theoretical principles easily enough on your own. Fourth, the "odds" of us making "an astronomical breakthrough" are considerably higher than most people realize. I'll refer to John F. Kennedy's address at Rice Stadium:
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.
Less than a decade after these "overly optimistic" words were spoken, and plenty of critics claimed fallacious statements such as "rockets don't work well in space, we'll never get our men back alive", we put a man on the moon. So it is the height of presumption to assume that because things seem politically charged or tense now, in a century without the existential threat of fascism or nuclear holocaust brought on by the Cold War, that for those reasons alone we will never get off this rock. Call me a dreamer if you want, I don't care and I'm in good company:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Jeez, talk about being verbose lolI'm going to have to disagree.
Like Theo said, this post-modernist materialist mindset really is the scourge of our time. It's really only in these 1st world countries where we're incredible comfortable in our technology that we whine about existential suffering. Back in antiquity most understood that suffering was normal. It is the nature and role of "The Satan" to poison your mind with atheistic/nihilistic thoughts. Satan is the parasite of God. He is the evil that destroys itself in order to perpetuate his kingdom, for if he plunged the world into ultimate chaos and destroyed mankind, he would cease to exist. You seem to dread (If this is you and not a copypasta) that humanity is going to end, but is there any other way? We are finite beings interacting with an infinite universe. We are all guilty of original sin; the sin to be God. We wanted to decide what is right for our lives and God allowed us to do so, and now we complain that everything is without meaning. God is sovereign over all, even Satan, but most won't accept The Lord because they fear they will be a "slave" (Again, people thinking they know what is best). You are given freewill to choose your father, whether he be Satan or The Lord. The biggest delusion and lie is believing that the entire universe was created by chance. If these great men of science say everything is designed with a purpose why would the universe be exempt from that rule?
There is no evidence of God, Satan, Angels, miracles and whatnot. We are merely another cog in the evolutionary machine; the only self aware species after 4.5 billion years of natural selection and blind biological gene mutation. Our actions are dictated by a mix of environmental determinism and sapient compatibilism. We are stuck in an endless loop of gene delusion that cannot be broken. Mankind suffers from the same faults as every other species: become the top of the food chain, reproduce and consume at an unsustainable rate, die off en-masse. Hell, most of us must deny our own mortality and existential predicament just to get out of bed every day. Nature did not provide us with enough cognitive abilities to function without a higher power overall. Sure, the individual may be able to come to that conclusion and live a "good" life. However, once you pull all of mankind into that equation, and you got a group of confused monkeys drinking, fucking, and killing their way into bland hedonism. It's a humanist's worst nightmare; a biological dead end.
If there is a God then I cannot see how he would justify his creation and call it good. A creation, mind you, that has rendered 99.98% of its inhabitant species extinct, allows the suffering of trillions of organisms daily, and will ultimately be consumed by the very thing that allows it to thrive in the first place. It's unfathomable how fucked this whole situation is, and how we must shelter and delude ourselves in order to maintain a thin veil of sanity. The worst part is that none of us even asked to participate in this mess. This life is thrust upon us without anyone asking in the first place. It may be an unpopular stance, but birth may very well be worse (or at least on par) than murder or rape. I've unfortunately come to somewhat resent my parents for their actions, though I remained conflicted as to whether or not to blame them for it. After all, this is just what happens, as it has since the beginning.
Dawkins in River Out of Eden:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
Okay, if you are nothing but a result of deterministic environmental factors and it is true that your consciousness is merely an illusion (which is the deterministic belief), I win the debate because you do not exist and therefore you are not making arguments. I am the only one left standing.
This is the natural result of your worldview.
If we were to go by your worldview, life is without meaning, therefore you are without meaning, making everything you say meaningless. Why should I listen to anything you say?
And regarding the "suffering" you claim to have afflicting you, how can billions of people who do not exist suffer? You do not exist; your consciousness is an illusion so how are you able to suffer?
This is why the deterministic/materialist mindset is fallible; it is built on quicksand and collapses in on itself.
If i'm going to take the stance as a Christian and answer why there is suffering. What I have to say is this:
Life is not without struggle or suffering. There has never been a single person who hasn't struggled or suffered in life. Pain is a way to show what not to do and what to stay away from. For example if you were to put your hand on a stove it would burn and you would feel pain, which lets you know not to do it anymore. You learn a lesson. We invited evil into the world by our own hands, and we are given freewill to commits acts of good or evil. You ask "why does God allow trillions to suffer", but it isn't God who is allowing them to suffer it is ourselves perpetuating that suffering. We are not "good" believe God calls us. We are always sinning. The only man I would call good is Jesus Christ the Son. He is the god-man. He is what we should all desire to be like, for God came down as a man (Which is important, Jesus Christ is man) to show us the way. If God came in to stop every evil-doer and make a world fully good he would be taking away our freewill, and the entire test on Earth would be pointless. Mankind will come to an end, but people don't want to accept that death is coming so we try to immortalize ourselves. I do not believe in Heaven because I fear death, I believe in Heaven because I fear God. In the same way you would fear a king or your boss; he put rules in place and if you break those rules you will be held accountable. When my time comes and I have to face the Father and he looks into my heart, I want to be confident I lived a life full of meaning and that I lived it walking in the path he set out for us. It seems most people nowadays want a Personal God that they can leverage or push over, that they can order what to do, so they themselves can be a god.
I should end this by saying that like you I used to be a atheist/materialist, but a little over a year ago God revealed himself to me, and I cannot deny his voice any longer. It seems to me you want to believe in The Lord, but you are too upset to accept him right now. I truth do empathize with you because I was once in your position, and I know how difficult it is to believe at the start. I still have many questions of my own, but I just started this lifelong journey and I hope I continue to be a steward of God.
I urge you to pray for God to reveal himself to you (If he hasn't already); I will also pray for you.
Kierkegaard is making a massive leap of faith assumption here. The only thing that I agree with him on this particular topic is the circulatory madness of skepticism ( basically when taking Reductio Ad Absurdum to the maximum extent of possible absurdity). It simply does not make sense to me to believe that this exact line of metaphysical thought is the correct one, when a Buddhist monk in Nepal has come to entirely different conclusions using the Noble Eightfold Path, or a Norse gothi proclaiming that Fimbulwinter is upon us from the remains of a sacrificed virgin. Obviously solely using reason as a means to acquire knowledge (thanks Kant) is ridiculous, but that does not enable us to start making celestial claims about human purpose and take it as the only plausible explanation.
I do not regard nihilism as an objective truth in the slightest, only one of the many paths that can be reached when your beliefs are tested to the limit. It's not so much a bittersweet realization, more like a elephant pounding on your chest, acting as a reminder that the clock is ticking. Obviously, we can deduce that humans are the sole being that contemplate meaning and existence, so these "truths" are something that can only be rationalized by us. It doesn't necessarily call for the self termination of one's existence (that's more in the realm of pro-mortalist rationale), but rather a recognition of life's objective meaningless. Nietzsche didn't write his papers hoping that humanity would fall into a pit of despair, he did it so we wouldn't fall into that damn pit by taking control of our existence through entirely materialistic means: aka the Übermensch. The most prominent harbinger of nihilism constructed his philosophy in an attempt to literally prove the modern progenitor of pessimism (Schopenhauer) wrong. Of course, you can see that he failed horribly, as society has regressed to a point of dullness, misanthropy, and apathy. The symbolic "Death of God" that he wouldn't shut the fuck up about has went down the road that he originally feared it would. I think Aurelius and Seneca discussed this at length in their stoic writings as well, but I'm too lazy to go to look for it.
If we want to see actual determinism, simply observe the ways on how children grow up in different environments. If a man is born into a Christian household, he will be taught the Bible, attend church, and base his morals off of what Christ and the Apostles had brought forth. Conversely, if you are brought up by Hindus, said child would not eat beef, would seek out the purification of his moshka, and ultimately accomplish all aspects of Dharma. In both cases, the child did not have a say in how he was raised, as it was determined for him by outside forces (parents, culture, tradition, etc...). Sure, it isn't hardcore Calvinist pre-determination, but I trust you can see what I'm getting at here when I say that the environment heavily dictates the people we become and how we respond to life's events.I don't know if this is explanatory or you hold it as a premise, but if you do, you must see this is not at all an accurate window into real life, right? The people we become is significantly due to our upbringing but the sheer amount of people that become something different (not the antithesis, as that would be explainable) cannot be an outlier.
let me sum this upQuoteKierkegaard is making a massive leap of faith assumption here. The only thing that I agree with him on this particular topic is the circulatory madness of skepticism ( basically when taking Reductio Ad Absurdum to the maximum extent of possible absurdity). It simply does not make sense to me to believe that this exact line of metaphysical thought is the correct one, when a Buddhist monk in Nepal has come to entirely different conclusions using the Noble Eightfold Path, or a Norse gothi proclaiming that Fimbulwinter is upon us from the remains of a sacrificed virgin. Obviously solely using reason as a means to acquire knowledge (thanks Kant) is ridiculous, but that does not enable us to start making celestial claims about human purpose and take it as the only plausible explanation.
This is not the Kierkegaard I was referring to (but you're right, his metaphysics can be quite messy.) The point I wished to make was in relation to the objectivity of God - Kierkegaard made it clear that God was a subjective truth, not one that could be "proved" or wagered upon. If there is a God, they exist regardless of complex logical proofs for or against, and they most certainly exist regardless of derivation from apparent meaninglessness. Just as an optimist would have no grounds for believing because its the optimistic thing to do (apart from subjective belief!), the pessimist who does not believe because of his pessimism has no grounds to say that there is no God. Ricky Gervais recently emphasized that most people's atheism is really agnosticism - the claim is that one does not believe in a god, not that a god doesn't exist.QuoteI do not regard nihilism as an objective truth in the slightest, only one of the many paths that can be reached when your beliefs are tested to the limit. It's not so much a bittersweet realization, more like a elephant pounding on your chest, acting as a reminder that the clock is ticking. Obviously, we can deduce that humans are the sole being that contemplate meaning and existence, so these "truths" are something that can only be rationalized by us. It doesn't necessarily call for the self termination of one's existence (that's more in the realm of pro-mortalist rationale), but rather a recognition of life's objective meaningless. Nietzsche didn't write his papers hoping that humanity would fall into a pit of despair, he did it so we wouldn't fall into that damn pit by taking control of our existence through entirely materialistic means: aka the Übermensch. The most prominent harbinger of nihilism constructed his philosophy in an attempt to literally prove the modern progenitor of pessimism (Schopenhauer) wrong. Of course, you can see that he failed horribly, as society has regressed to a point of dullness, misanthropy, and apathy. The symbolic "Death of God" that he wouldn't shut the fuck up about has went down the road that he originally feared it would. I think Aurelius and Seneca discussed this at length in their stoic writings as well, but I'm too lazy to go to look for it.
Recognizing any truth in nihilism means you accept it all. There is a reason I make analogies resembling vacuum cleaners. Accepting any premise formed in a nihilistic system degrades any stake you hold in any other system - if life is objectively meaningless, then that includes your own life, which is why no matter how hard you try you cannot separate the great link between suicidal philosophy and nihilism. You're entirely correct about Nietzsche, his life's work was attempting to save humanity from the great pit of despair, but to say that he has failed is to be viewing the world in a subjectively pessimistic lens. Firstly, God was already dying, and there was nothing he could do about that process, but to say that God is dead is to ignore the billions who hold faith of some sort. Societally, God died in the moral sense, but basic public morals evolve slowly enough to have hope that the roots of good civilization still hold. Secondly, by every standard measurable the world is a better place than it was in Nietzsche's time - a better place than in our parent's time as well. I urge you to take this test and read this Swede's book: http://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 your pessimism about the state of the world is either misguided or influenced by subjective experiences (which are not correct nor incorrect, but speak not about the world, but about the individual and their community.) As for your concerns about climate change, I hope you read this https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=42404.msg1903925#msg1903925 :P
The state of humanity in a philosophic sense is worrying, I grant you that. We do face considerable challenges in breaking past our spatial limitations, and the general decline back into tribalistic mindsets concerns me, as do the rash of nihilism that inevitably follows, but to take these concerns as evidence of the meaninglessness of life itself is a significant leap in intellectual magnitude. If I skimmed correctly you are a compatibilist/soft determinist (me too!)? At the very least you must take this as evidence that we exist as the animal that evolved furthest, so to assume that we've reached the limits of our evolution would be to make assumptions that we are in no position to make. If you allow us some freedom of choice, then you cannot accept existence as meaningless while accepting that we are at least somewhat the arbiter of our own fate. Free will necessitates meaning; reasons are a basic meaning, but meaning nonetheless.QuoteIf we want to see actual determinism, simply observe the ways on how children grow up in different environments. If a man is born into a Christian household, he will be taught the Bible, attend church, and base his morals off of what Christ and the Apostles had brought forth. Conversely, if you are brought up by Hindus, said child would not eat beef, would seek out the purification of his moshka, and ultimately accomplish all aspects of Dharma. In both cases, the child did not have a say in how he was raised, as it was determined for him by outside forces (parents, culture, tradition, etc...). Sure, it isn't hardcore Calvinist pre-determination, but I trust you can see what I'm getting at here when I say that the environment heavily dictates the people we become and how we respond to life's events.I don't know if this is explanatory or you hold it as a premise, but if you do, you must see this is not at all an accurate window into real life, right? The people we become is significantly due to our upbringing but the sheer amount of people that become something different (not the antithesis, as that would be explainable) cannot be an outlier.
QuoteKierkegaard is making a massive leap of faith assumption here. The only thing that I agree with him on this particular topic is the circulatory madness of skepticism ( basically when taking Reductio Ad Absurdum to the maximum extent of possible absurdity). It simply does not make sense to me to believe that this exact line of metaphysical thought is the correct one, when a Buddhist monk in Nepal has come to entirely different conclusions using the Noble Eightfold Path, or a Norse gothi proclaiming that Fimbulwinter is upon us from the remains of a sacrificed virgin. Obviously solely using reason as a means to acquire knowledge (thanks Kant) is ridiculous, but that does not enable us to start making celestial claims about human purpose and take it as the only plausible explanation.
This is not the Kierkegaard I was referring to (but you're right, his metaphysics can be quite messy.) The point I wished to make was in relation to the objectivity of God - Kierkegaard made it clear that God was a subjective truth, not one that could be "proved" or wagered upon. If there is a God, they exist regardless of complex logical proofs for or against, and they most certainly exist regardless of derivation from apparent meaninglessness. Just as an optimist would have no grounds for believing because its the optimistic thing to do (apart from subjective belief!), the pessimist who does not believe because of his pessimism has no grounds to say that there is no God. Ricky Gervais recently emphasized that most people's atheism is really agnosticism - the claim is that one does not believe in a god, not that a god doesn't exist.QuoteI do not regard nihilism as an objective truth in the slightest, only one of the many paths that can be reached when your beliefs are tested to the limit. It's not so much a bittersweet realization, more like a elephant pounding on your chest, acting as a reminder that the clock is ticking. Obviously, we can deduce that humans are the sole being that contemplate meaning and existence, so these "truths" are something that can only be rationalized by us. It doesn't necessarily call for the self termination of one's existence (that's more in the realm of pro-mortalist rationale), but rather a recognition of life's objective meaningless. Nietzsche didn't write his papers hoping that humanity would fall into a pit of despair, he did it so we wouldn't fall into that damn pit by taking control of our existence through entirely materialistic means: aka the Übermensch. The most prominent harbinger of nihilism constructed his philosophy in an attempt to literally prove the modern progenitor of pessimism (Schopenhauer) wrong. Of course, you can see that he failed horribly, as society has regressed to a point of dullness, misanthropy, and apathy. The symbolic "Death of God" that he wouldn't shut the fuck up about has went down the road that he originally feared it would. I think Aurelius and Seneca discussed this at length in their stoic writings as well, but I'm too lazy to go to look for it.
Recognizing any truth in nihilism means you accept it all. There is a reason I make analogies resembling vacuum cleaners. Accepting any premise formed in a nihilistic system degrades any stake you hold in any other system - if life is objectively meaningless, then that includes your own life, which is why no matter how hard you try you cannot separate the great link between suicidal philosophy and nihilism. You're entirely correct about Nietzsche, his life's work was attempting to save humanity from the great pit of despair, but to say that he has failed is to be viewing the world in a subjectively pessimistic lens. Firstly, God was already dying, and there was nothing he could do about that process, but to say that God is dead is to ignore the billions who hold faith of some sort. Societally, God died in the moral sense, but basic public morals evolve slowly enough to have hope that the roots of good civilization still hold. Secondly, by every standard measurable the world is a better place than it was in Nietzsche's time - a better place than in our parent's time as well. I urge you to take this test and read this Swede's book: http://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 your pessimism about the state of the world is either misguided or influenced by subjective experiences (which are not correct nor incorrect, but speak not about the world, but about the individual and their community.) As for your concerns about climate change, I hope you read this https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=42404.msg1903925#msg1903925 :P
The state of humanity in a philosophic sense is worrying, I grant you that. We do face considerable challenges in breaking past our spatial limitations, and the general decline back into tribalistic mindsets concerns me, as do the rash of nihilism that inevitably follows, but to take these concerns as evidence of the meaninglessness of life itself is a significant leap in intellectual magnitude. If I skimmed correctly you are a compatibilist/soft determinist (me too!)? At the very least you must take this as evidence that we exist as the animal that evolved furthest, so to assume that we've reached the limits of our evolution would be to make assumptions that we are in no position to make. If you allow us some freedom of choice, then you cannot accept existence as meaningless while accepting that we are at least somewhat the arbiter of our own fate. Free will necessitates meaning; reasons are a basic meaning, but meaning nonetheless.QuoteIf we want to see actual determinism, simply observe the ways on how children grow up in different environments. If a man is born into a Christian household, he will be taught the Bible, attend church, and base his morals off of what Christ and the Apostles had brought forth. Conversely, if you are brought up by Hindus, said child would not eat beef, would seek out the purification of his moshka, and ultimately accomplish all aspects of Dharma. In both cases, the child did not have a say in how he was raised, as it was determined for him by outside forces (parents, culture, tradition, etc...). Sure, it isn't hardcore Calvinist pre-determination, but I trust you can see what I'm getting at here when I say that the environment heavily dictates the people we become and how we respond to life's events.I don't know if this is explanatory or you hold it as a premise, but if you do, you must see this is not at all an accurate window into real life, right? The people we become is significantly due to our upbringing but the sheer amount of people that become something different (not the antithesis, as that would be explainable) cannot be an outlier.
Okay, if you are nothing but a result of deterministic environmental factors and it is true that your consciousness is merely an illusion (which is the deterministic belief), I win the debate because you do not exist and therefore you are not making arguments. I am the only one left standing.
This is the natural result of your worldview.
If we were to go by your worldview, life is without meaning, therefore you are without meaning, making everything you say meaningless. Why should I listen to anything you say?
And regarding the "suffering" you claim to have afflicting you, how can billions of people who do not exist suffer? You do not exist; your consciousness is an illusion so how are you able to suffer?
This is why the deterministic/materialist mindset is fallible; it is built on quicksand and collapses in on itself.
I'm describing more along the lines of soft determinism/compatibilism. It does not in any way imply that the self is an illusion. That is some whack Sam Harris crap that I don't describe to in the slightest. Hard determinism, which states that all actions are entirely out our own control, doesn't even go as far as to say that our conscious is an illusion. Also, there is a fine line between illusion and delusion. This is more along the lines of solipsism, which implies that the only person that can be confirmed to exist is yourself. If we want to see actual determinism, simply observe the ways on how children grow up in different environments. If a man is born into a Christian household, he will be taught the Bible, attend church, and base his morals off of what Christ and the Apostles had brought forth.
Conversely, if you are brought up by Hindus, said child would not eat beef, would seek out the purification of his moshka, and ultimately accomplish all aspects of Dharma. In both cases, the child did not have a say in how he was raised, as it was determined for him by outside forces (parents, culture, tradition, etc...). Sure, it isn't hardcore Calvinist pre-determination, but I trust you can see what I'm getting at here when I say that the environment heavily dictates the people we become and how we respond to life's events.
In accordance with your belief system of Christianity, you too should regard everything as meaningless toil.
As stated by Kohelet in the Hebrew Bible, who relents at his efforts being for naught:
“Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.”
-Ecclesiastes 1:1-11
There also numerous examples of determinism from God's perspective, seeing as how he is omnipotent and all that shebang. Some of these may differ if you assume biblical prophecies to be similar in terms of determinism, but recall the psalmist exclaims to God that "In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed" (Psalm 29). It would appear that God had determined quite a bit before it had even happened, does this mean it is an illusion as well? Should the objective meaningless insinuated by both our sides of the court cancel out any sort of discourse previously had?
I shall put forth another example that was used from a previous debate:
This is a small example, and one I'm not entirely sure of myself regarding the circumstances, but consider the story of Joseph in Genesis.
Had Joseph never reached this point, he wouldn't have been able to interpret the Pharaoh's dreams, along with advising him store grain and to aid the Israelites during the great famine. None of that also would have been possible had Joseph not been casted out by by his siblings and subsequently bought by the captain of the guard. Would said guard's wife have always made the false rape accusation against Joseph had he refused?
Following the emigration of the Israelites from Canaan to Egypt, Joseph exclaims to his brothers the following verse: "Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life." Genesis 45:5 KVJ.
It seems to me, that it is heavily implied that God had intended for Joesph to be abandoned by his brothers and sold into slavery, so that he may eventually work his way up to the position of vizier. With this power, he would be in a position to help sustain the Levant (and Egypt) during the famine that the Pharaoh had seen in his dreams. Was God aware of the fact that Joesph's colored coat would lead to his exile? Did he predetermine the dreams Joseph had so that he would eventually find himself in the position of vizier, a position influential enough to help the Canaanites?If i'm going to take the stance as a Christian and answer why there is suffering. What I have to say is this:
Life is not without struggle or suffering. There has never been a single person who hasn't struggled or suffered in life. Pain is a way to show what not to do and what to stay away from. For example if you were to put your hand on a stove it would burn and you would feel pain, which lets you know not to do it anymore. You learn a lesson. We invited evil into the world by our own hands, and we are given freewill to commits acts of good or evil. You ask "why does God allow trillions to suffer", but it isn't God who is allowing them to suffer it is ourselves perpetuating that suffering. We are not "good" believe God calls us. We are always sinning. The only man I would call good is Jesus Christ the Son. He is the god-man. He is what we should all desire to be like, for God came down as a man (Which is important, Jesus Christ is man) to show us the way. If God came in to stop every evil-doer and make a world fully good he would be taking away our freewill, and the entire test on Earth would be pointless. Mankind will come to an end, but people don't want to accept that death is coming so we try to immortalize ourselves. I do not believe in Heaven because I fear death, I believe in Heaven because I fear God. In the same way you would fear a king or your boss; he put rules in place and if you break those rules you will be held accountable. When my time comes and I have to face the Father and he looks into my heart, I want to be confident I lived a life full of meaning and that I lived it walking in the path he set out for us. It seems most people nowadays want a Personal God that they can leverage or push over, that they can order what to do, so they themselves can be a god.
I should end this by saying that like you I used to be a atheist/materialist, but a little over a year ago God revealed himself to me, and I cannot deny his voice any longer. It seems to me you want to believe in The Lord, but you are too upset to accept him right now. I truth do empathize with you because I was once in your position, and I know how difficult it is to believe at the start. I still have many questions of my own, but I just started this lifelong journey and I hope I continue to be a steward of God.
I urge you to pray for God to reveal himself to you (If he hasn't already); I will also pray for you.
I'm quite puzzled by this piece, so I'll refrain from making a fool of myself by butchering the theological point of view you ascribe here. Instead I'll just say..... thanks I guess? This reads like something I would have received from a pamphlet after Holy Communion. In fact, I can't even be sure if you are being dead serious here.
I urge you to pray for God to reveal himself to you (If he hasn't already); I will also pray for you.
I'm quite puzzled by this piece, so I'll refrain from making a fool of myself by butchering the theological point of view you ascribe here. Instead I'll just say..... thanks I guess? This reads like something I would have received from a pamphlet after Holy Communion. In fact, I can't even be sure if you are being dead serious here.
I cant tell if the madness has spread or if winters is building a theologians online forum through plagiarism
You still don't get it. By your beliefs, the world is meaningless, making you, Sgt. Winters without meaning, making every argument you make meaningless. So you lose by default, because a creature without meaning is unable to make arguments.
That begs the question: How can something that is created be without meaning? Well...It can't. Everything that is created has a purpose for being created. But I'm not going to stay on this for too long because it seems you like to keep your eggs in many different baskets so lets try another way in your worldview.
So if we were to believe that we are "going along for the ride" and that the chemicals in our brain are making all the decisions for us, you, Sgt. Winters, are still not making any arguments. You are unable to form your own ideas or even write this entire spiel because everything you do is a chemical determined process therefore you are unable to make ANY FORM of argument.
But, for some reason I think you may try to flip-flop or use your rhetoric expertise to try and navigate your way out of the trap you set for yourself because I'm not even sure you know what you believe in.
I think you have a misconstrued view of God and what he does, which is why you're coming to these strange conclusions. You have the stereotypical atheist view that God is supposed to be some superhero who comes in and saves the day every time something wrong is going to happen (Or at least thats what you want God to be). As I said or at least hinted at before: God is trying to teach us LESSONS. If he just came in and saved the day by his own hand every time something went wrong we wouldn't learn anything. It seems to me that you want a God who can be pushed over, or one that gives you anything you want because you want it. The thing is, people don't know what they want or what they need; like you pointed out, look at the state of humanity right now.
I don't understand why you're puzzled by what I said because of course I'm going to answer your question from the perspective off the Christian belief.
Also I know I'm coming off as condescending, but I just don't understand why you wear this pessimistic, painful, and pointless belief if it causes you so much suffering. I would surmise it's because you believe you're taking the ultra hardcore blackpill, but as you have said if you realize that this is all predetermined why are you still here? Why is anyone still here? We should have no issue killing ourselves because its only a logical conclusion if we realize that we are merely programmed machines and there is no real reason to exist. Then one would say that it's merely an "illusion", but you already stated that you apparently don't subscribe to that thinking.
I'm more than willing to explain myself further, and I would be interested to hear why you came to be the way you are as well, but I'd prefer Steam PMs since it would be pretty personal.
QuoteYou still don't get it. By your beliefs, the world is meaningless, making you, Sgt. Winters without meaning, making every argument you make meaningless. So you lose by default, because a creature without meaning is unable to make arguments.
To be quite frank, your own beliefs should render you without meaning as well. As stated above, even The King of Jerusalem, a man famed for his wisdom and valor, had ultimately concluded all actions fulfilled by man were vapid and nonsensical. All men, whether wise or stupid, strong or weak, rich or poor, would be rendered mute by the inescapable march of time. He then concludes that one need only be kind and enjoy the earthly pleasures bestowed upon them (Satre?). Of course, the narrator in his epilogue infers a completely different approach, but it is the Bible so this should be expected. You then have to realize that man is fallible, and if man is fallible, then the Bible must be too.
The only perfect man according to this particular Abrahamic would be Christ (though cursing a fig tree for being out of season might disqualify him from that venerable position), as he is essentially a manifestation of God's will. Jesus is our savior; the one who shall not lead us astray, but instead guide man into understanding that the only way to enter God's eternal kingdom is through him. This is perhaps the most confusing aspect of the entire theological quandary that presents itself in Christian Canon. For why would God allow Eve to sin by coveting the forbidden apple, thereby cursing all who would come after her to be damned if absolution had not been received? Furthermore, why would he wash away the sins of man through means of a global flood, if he had enabled the possibility to sin from the beginning? Why is he trying to save mankind through the means of Christ if the origins of sin had been one he himself had constructed from the cosmos? If this is a test, then it is a poorly thought out one. Eternal punishment from a seemingly all-loving God seems to be contradictory. Finally, if there is indeed a purpose to all of this, do we have the free will required to deny it?
The book of Ecclesiastes is considered canonical by all accounts. However, if one were to factor in the possibility of you belonging to one of the many other various denominations (of which there are estimated to be anywhere between 1,400 to 33,000), then your mileage may very. One could draw the conclusion that extracting any sort of information from Biblical sources and labeling it as truthful could be viewed as contradictory in and of itself.
You needn't look any further than the numerous paradoxes, illogical statements, and antithetical verses that are scattered throughout the Old/New Testament.
For more information, see here: http://bibviz.com
That begs the question: How can something that is created be without meaning? Well...It can't. Everything that is created has a purpose for being created. But I'm not going to stay on this for too long because it seems you like to keep your eggs in many different baskets so lets try another way in your worldview.
So if we were to believe that we are "going along for the ride" and that the chemicals in our brain are making all the decisions for us, you, Sgt. Winters, are still not making any arguments. You are unable to form your own ideas or even write this entire spiel because everything you do is a chemical determined process therefore you are unable to make ANY FORM of argument.
I think you have a misconstrued view of God and what he does, which is why you're coming to these strange conclusions. You have the stereotypical atheist view that God is supposed to be some superhero who comes in and saves the day every time something wrong is going to happen (Or at least thats what you want God to be). As I said or at least hinted at before: God is trying to teach us LESSONS. If he just came in and saved the day by his own hand every time something went wrong we wouldn't learn anything. It seems to me that you want a God who can be pushed over, or one that gives you anything you want because you want it. The thing is, people don't know what they want or what they need; like you pointed out, look at the state of humanity right now.
I don't understand why you're puzzled by what I said because of course I'm going to answer your question from the perspective off the Christian belief.
"This is why I speak to them in parables:
Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Mat 13:13
It sounds like you're copy pasting arguments from r/atheism into your dialogue because its quite evident that you have never read the bible or at the very least you take it extremely literally (which is pretty ironic since you present yourself to be knowledgeable).
What the Preacher was imparting to the reader is that a life filled with the pursuit of carnal/fleeting desires is a life not worth lived. Because when you are in the presence of The Lord, you will not be taking your possessions with you, and you will realize all the time you spent studying Dawkins, Hitchens, Nietzsche, etc. was fruitless.
You ask "Why would God allow Eve to sin?" This makes it pretty clear to me that you're just using somebody else argument to fall back on because I've answered this question so many times for you: (Here I'll put it in all caps so you see it this time)
GOD GAVE US FREEWILL; HE ALLOWS US TO REJECT HIM
Have you ever taken a test before? Yes? Are there wrong answers in a test? Yes? Okay. I can only explain this to you in so many different ways.
How is purpose from creation something that man came up with? Tree's are necessary for life because they release oxygen is order for us to breathe. Water allows life to thrive. Our eyes allow us to perceive the world. Of course in a sense you are right because we are not able to discern the true essence of something; that is called Truth and God is Truth.
Also its disingenuous to ask me to answer very specific basis-by-basis questions that I of course could never answer in confidence (What is the purpose of a baby that dies in the womb? What is the purpose of this one guy who lives in a sewer and has every disease known to man?) because I am not God and I do not have all the answers for why the world is as it is.
Isn't it ironic that you acknowledge all these characteristics of God yet you yourself are attempting to question his methods? You say he is past, present, and future, yet you then say that his plan is fallible. (Also some more of your copy-pasting)
Again, most of these are parables. You are superimposing God with your human traits. Him taking life is not evil because he is the creator of all life. And before you make assumptions, you cannot make a metaphor of God being a King who doesn't obey his own rules because again you would be comparing him to a human king. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because there were no more virtuous people left in the cities. Abraham pleaded with God to save the cities if there was 50 righteous people left within the walls, then 45, then 40, then it came down to if there was 1 righteous person left he would spare the city. There was none left. With Noah and the flood, literally every single man and woman was filled with wickedness in their hearts, all except Noah. So he destroyed the rest of man and left Noah to be the father of the new world. I'm not going to explain every reference you made, but I'm sure you get the gist.
Well...he has come down and told us to do these things...such as when he creates the Decalogue. How many times does he have to come down or perform some miracle for you in order for you to accept him? It seems like most people treat him as some cheap magician who will give you a parlor trick every time you ask. God doesn't have issues, we have issues.
I don't feel like to I need to appeal to any Christian/Theist philosopher's authority in order to make my argument. If I added more adjectives and esoteric verbiage would you think of me more kindly? It isn't an entirely complex thing I was trying to explain; you asked me "Why does God allow evil" and the answer for that is pretty simple. If anything I am borrowing ideas from Rene Girard.
At the end of the day there are millions of way to be wrong, but only one way to be right. I don't think it matters what I say to you or if I used any of the methods from Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or William Craig. Somebody you barely know over NW isn't going to be able to invoke the reactions necessary for change. At this point we are just debating for brownie points. I'll listen to your response to what I wrote, but I don't think I'm going to respond (at least in a polemic nature).
I only bothered reading the first couple of paragraphs.
The human species did NOT fail miserably, do not raise your own experiences and failings on a global level.