Our relation to Eternity
Our human intellect and comprehension allows us to contemplate such concepts as eternity from our limited non-eternal existence.
On the face of such a fact my outlook to life is never bleak. Yes I will perish at some point and it can be dispiriting in a way to have been given the chance to exist for a blink of a second in the grand scheme of eternal existence and then have it all taken away back to non-existence if you like. (By that I simply mean being no longer aware or conscious)
I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing.
As a philosopher how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it?
On the face of such a fact my outlook to life is never bleak. Yes I will perish at some point and it can be dispiriting in a way to have been given the chance to exist for a blink of a second in the grand scheme of eternal existence and then have it all taken away back to non-existence if you like. (By that I simply mean being no longer aware or conscious)
I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing.
As a philosopher how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it?
Comments (149)
I can't answer from a philosopher stance but I can from a 'being human' stance.
There are so many old adage's I am tempted to type, from:
"Only those who have a short existence can think that love is eternal.
One should glory in that magnificent illusion."
"Quality is much more important than quantity.'
"The most beautiful is missed most, because it lasts least."
etc
You were not 'granted existence,' your parents decided to have a child, that's all.
I am a fan of Carl Sagan's great demotions, so I try not to 'feel cheated,' by the 'circumstances of my existence,' and my impending demise.
Considering the issue from a purely practical angle. If you feel that your impending death and your current lifespan are 'unfair' or 'unsatisfying' or 'insufficient,' then you should support 100%, the efforts of all science and scientists, who are currently working towards increasing the lifespan and robustness of all humans. Transhumanism, cybernetics, genetic engineering, etc, etc.
You could even study and learn enough to become one of them.
Science is our ONLY route towards living as long as we choose to.
Praying for such an option or expecting immortality via god(s) AFTER YOU ARE DEAD, is a complete waste of thought energy.
I think this is really just a matter of personal taste. I was talking to my partner about this. Neither of us is particularly worried by the thought of dying in the next 15-30 years (we are in our 50's). It's been a perfectly contented life, but I don't find the experience so compelling that I need to linger longer.
Be sure thats not an excuse for not trying. It easily morphs into the nihilism which is an affliction of our age.
I often find it interesting that some people think this way. I don't see how death has anything to do with a negation of life and any accomplishments.
I don't enjoy a meal any less knowing it will be over in an hour or two. I don't enjoy my car any less knowing it will be a heap of rust in 20-30 years, I don't appreciate my friends any less knowing that in a few decades they will be dead. Things are for the moment and for the memories.
[quote=Ludwig Wittgenstein]Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.[/quote]
:death: :flower:
It wasn't given or granted, as others have pointed out - life just happened. But that brief spell/blink of an eye business is an appalling insult to butterflies, who have to struggle for their existence as hard as we do, or harder, only to die within a few weeks; they don't have the time or leisure to bitch about the brevity of life. Humans very often put things in an unapplicable perspective.
Quoting invicta
A terrible driver, runs over child and speeds away, leaving him dead on the road, and later hits a tree, smashing the car and killing herself. She's had her eye-blink of existence and is gone. Are the child, the tree and the car not also dead, missed and mourned? Similarly, if you plant a park or build a house, it continues to stand after your death. You are reduced to nothing (eventually) but you accomplishments are not.
If we are - we are scared of mortality not for death's sake, but for the idea of "stop living".
"stop living" is a scary idea, it is so because:
a)It fights with some of our core beliefs; even if it's natural, death for our consciousnesses is something so unfamiliar, that it can't even be processed;
Asking consciousness "Hey, how does it feel to be dead?" is like asking a person if they're asleep.
Our brains tie consciousness and comprehension togheter:
If to understanding something you need feel it - to comprehend it, then what's non-comprehension and what's non-felt?
It's paradoxical, we can think of death itself only as the causation of it, in the terms of our and other's experiences.
..And well,
death isn't that.; We can't think how being dead is or feels like, because death is literally the absence of feeling and comprehension .
So why be scared of death, if the things you are actually scared about aren't even death itself?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Even if death is biologically natural, for our brains it might be the most unatural thing to ever exist.. or.. to not exist.
Hahahhah
ha..
ah..
Continuing:
b)It causes pain; Being scared is an instinctive thing; it is linked to the avoidance of pain, and the wanting for avoiding pain is linked to, you guessed it! Death!
...W-Wait ...what? ..
UH..
well actually that's not really it, we aren't scared of death itself; We are scared of something that comes from it: the non perpetuation of the species.
Thing is, a species is not worse or better than an other if they avoid death - It's just that the species which were avoiding (or atleast not indiferent) to it, are the ones which can actually tell the story.
So death isn't something inherently bad, it is only bad because there exist feelings, and well, why be scared of something that isn't tied to any feelings you might feel? Why think of death when you're alive if it's so? Think of death only when you're dead!
I mean, if you c-can..?
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
on a personal level I deal with these hibby jibbies with the ideas of:
"Hey, we don't really know if there's anything after life; Maybe there could be something."
and
"Eh be what it is, I am not really living life if I proceed to be terrified of death, and why die faster? Less life for me?! My my , greedy me, would never."
and the biggest "and" from all of these it's that I don't really think about it lol
Only if you're inclined to disturb yourself with what's entirely beyond your control. I'm too much of a Stoic to do that. What could be more pointless?
Id just like to hang out for a few millennia longer. Imagine what one could accomplish in that timeframe. I could be a master of all arts and sciences if i tried, had the ability and motivation.
Imagine having geniuses such as Einstein living for a few hundred years or the Newtons or Da Vincies. By the same token you could also have despots granted the same privilege would we be better off ? Who knows.
To me the fact that the universe confers a being with self-aware existence then strips it away seems kinda cruel. Why give me a taste of eternity but do not grant me the full privilege? Whats that all about ?
I have nothing against anyone wishing to leave a mark on human history (for the better I hope) or even a legacy but even that in the span of eternal time seems but a flicker.
I occasionally ponder such questions. Gives me a different prospective from the everyday humdrum.
If the universe endows its beings with the ability to comprehend the concept of eternal life do you think that perhaps it may even be a real thing to a being say such as God (if they do exist). But then again Im not a God so the big question is of course why grant a being such a perspective could it be a prelude to an actuality ? Or do we simply return to dust never to be heard of again. Sounds a little bit how can I put this mildly pointless?
Other life forms who lack our apprehension to dwell on this issue are simply natural phenomena which makes our life worth living sometimes in the form of a consolation from a pet etc. among lifes other amazing wonders.
Yet this glimpse of eternity prompts me to the idea that there might be an eternal existence perhaps in the form of God for which we completely lack the perspective or the perception to see things from that angle.
Nice quote. I have a very similar perspective on this whole thing
But then Im prompted by this quote
[b]Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing [/b]
If we had no problems to solve and no questions to answer then we would be as useless as an omnigod.
I would highly recommend Nagel's take on the Absurd. I think some of his conclusions are wrong, but he makes many excellent points.
Would your life be more meaningful if you lived to 180? If you were president or PM of your country? How long would you have to live for your life to be meaningful? Would the ruler of a galactic empire who reigned for 40,000 years have a meaningful life? After all, they rule just one of innumerable galaxies, for what is the blink of an eye on the time scales of the universe.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/The%2520Absurd%2520-%2520Thomas%2520Nagel.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiv9sHPic39AhUbRjABHTK5AHkQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1CdbUWlHJRrzwgiaCWZH1N
The eternal is unchanging. I don't think the eternal alone can support consciousness. How can one experience variety in the context of timelessness? What are the contents of a frozen instant of thought? Manifestations of the eternal in our changing world of becoming, seem essential for the eternal itself to exist. After all, if the eternal is unknown, in principle, in what sense does it exist? But to be known it must manifest in a world where it can be known.
I don't agree with Nagel because I think some folks, particularly Jacob Boehme, had very good, if difficult answers to the above, which give being plenty of meaning.
Regardless, Nagel does a good job showing how absurdity can creep into any life, not just our own. The only place his argument seems weak is when he tries to take on the naive theistic interpretation. It seems to me that if you really believe God is asking you to do X and live Y life, that would be meaningful. The larger problem is the question of "has God actually done that?"
What makes you an expert on the eternal to make such a blanket statement. I have no idea myself perhaps you could elaborate?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you have a clear idea in your mind what the eternal is ? Perhaps tell us before making statements such as these on it.
For me the eternal is very very simple. A ceaseless existence that had no beginning nor end. How can that not support consciousness when we are proof of it.
That's just the definition of the word eternal in English. "Lasting or existing forever, without beginning or end, valid for all time, essentially unchanging."
This is generally why theologians maintain that God has both an eternal and immanent nature.
I was going with that. How can you have unchanging experience?
Interesting can you confirm that you are saying the eternal is in fact static or unchanging? Is it so by the way its defined or a fact?
In any case to me the unchanging nature of eternity cannot be empirically tested or proved so Im not gonna probe on that any further.
How can there be no change in timelessness ? Perhaps youre talking about change in relation to timelessness that could have merit.
In the face of eternity does the concept of time lose its meaning?
Just thinking out loud here.
Not at all, because in a sense we are always dying or never existed, and in the same way even God is always dying or has never existed. Everything changes, and if it doesnt change then it is not alive. If God doesnt change then Nietzsche was right about him.
Definitionally, the eternal doesn't change. E.g., the number two doesn't change into another value or take on new relationships in terms of things like x/2 changing its value. Likewise, a triangle always has three sides, or if you follow Plato, the Good is likewise unchanging.
If a triangle gains sides it becomes a different shape. That has more to do with the common definition of eternal than anything empirical.
I think maybe you're thinking of things that are transcendent as opposed to eternal, i.e. not subject to physical limitations, without place or position, etc. Lots of things taken to be transcendent are also eternal, but not all. The transcendent can change, as in theology where God interacts with the immanent world. I have mixed these two up quite a bit, it doesn't help that the two get used synonymously in translations at times.
I think changelessness implies timelessness and vice versa. Zeno's paradox of the arrow is a good example here. He asks us to imagine an arrow shot from a bow in flight. Now imagine the arrow frozen in time at any single moment. Is it moving? Nope. Now imagine all the moments corresponding to its flight (which according to Zeno are infinite). Does it move during any of these moments. Nope.
So if the arrow's flight is defined by all the moments in between its being shot and it landing, and it moves during none of these, how can we say it moves at all?
The mistake here, which Aristotle was the first to point out, is a fallacy of composition. Velocity is a relative change in position over time. Time itself emerges from change. Time is the dimension in which change occurs, such that if we want to imagine three dimensional space over time we would add a four dimensional object. The time slider on a video is a good example of this dimension, if you envision it as a second X axis.
I would say that change implies time, but it does not necessarily imply the linear time we are used to. We can think of something that passes back and forth between two states existing in a sort of circular time. Or more abstractly, change requires an additional dimension to defining any process.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No shit, Sherlock.
Im talking about eternity in terms of eternal existence and the consciousness of man therein. Dont see where your triangles have anything to do with what Im trying to explore here but crack on
And there is change in eternal existence Ive put on a stone in weight last few months dont tell me the scales are lying and that Im not really a fat bastard
Quoting invicta
No. They do not exist for us. Nothing exists for us. The fluke that we have this big massive imagination and even more massive self-valuation doesn't give us divine privilege. It gives us the ability to dominate, subdue and despoil, not the right. And it gives us illusions, like that the universe or god or something or somebody owes us more, even more than we've already claimed, stolen and wasted.
You blame the universe for making your life shorter than you want it to be - and so do many humans. At the same time, the single most common cause of premature death in humans, as well as billions of other life-forms, is human activity.
The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time when existence itself is an eternal phenomena am I not worthy ?
Its the least it could do. Perhaps it would reply by saying there aint really a reason for my existence Im just a fluke pure random chance.
Yet I would feel short changed wouldnt you?
The bible has an explanation: You should never have taken that fruit; it was forbidden for your own protection. The notion that having this awareness makes us unhappy - IOW 'ignorance is bliss' - has been around for quite a long time in the human narrative.
I'll lay odds the universe doesn't feel it owes you squat.
Quoting invicta
No.
For one thing, I've had a lot of fun with that same big imagination, and that's all mine.
For another, I'm past the best-before date, at an age when I appreciate every extra day I get to keep - no questions, no complaints, no arguments.
Quoting Ciceronianus
:fire:
It all meant nothing every struggle without any meaning.
But human beings, at least some of them are yearners for the impossible, for immortality and their place in the arena of the Gods themselves.
Whether this be accomplished through artificial means or spiritual paths of say enlightenment and recognising the divinity of man who in his sights sets to live forever is nothing but a cause or a quest to be admired.
That's a choice. You could equally say how much more precious is an experience which is evanescent. Where does it say an experience is only valuable if it endures? What has chronology got to do with anything? Sounds like a Christian value system at work here. E.g., the only life which matters is eternal life not the filthy, degraded thing we have here on earth.
In a way it is. The brevity of a miserable or joyful existence has its merits.
If youre unhappy or miserable you want it to be over.
The Christian promise to its believers for eternal life via redemption or being a good human being has its merits in a way but it does kinda exclude atheists doesnt it
So lets think secular instead if you like.
If eternal life was offered not by God but by the universe (lets say you stumbled upon some sort of secret) would you refuse ?
There is neither implied nor intended whine. Perhaps the tone of the text has been misinterpreted from yourself ?
In any case. My point is this and actually relates to the limited time span of human existence which some begrudgingly accept whilst others embrace.
The point Im trying to make is frankly quite irrelevant at this point just wanted a general feel of the normal person on existence being brief in the face of eternity
The philosopher Neitszche predicted an upsurge of nihilism in Western culture, due to the erosion of traditional religion and it's anchoring for morality. But, contrary to his prediction, religion has not, in fact, died, and I for one never accepted his proclamation of the 'death of God'. While it's true there is a crisis of meaning in Western culture, there doesn't have to be, and a sense of meaning can be recovered, if one seeks it.
Yes.
Its a thought that i myself occasionally ponder. I mean who doesnt want to live forever? Apparently some dont and I hold that against no one.
To be given the privilege of recognising eternity even if not being able to attain eternal existence can be a depressing thought though you could develop a stoic attitude and be content with that fact (as Ciceron above asserted)
As we are products or by-products of this amazing eternal universe/existence I have a niggling suspicion that eternal life might be a real thing in some form or other.
Check out a book that was very popular in the 1970's by a writer who has come back into fashion on Youtube. The book is The Supreme Identity, by Alan Watts. He had a big influence on me and many others back in the day. It turned out he was a pretty hardcore alchoholic, which was a let-down, but his brand of philosophical spirituality is very approachable still and he's an excellent prose stylist.
Maybe Gnostic Christianity, but that sounds more like Neoplatonism. Christ promises everlasting life in the Gospels, not eternal life. Revelations portrays people coming back to life changed, but in this world, not some spirit world of the eternal, having bodies, living in a new Jerusalem, etc.
Even for very literalist Evangelicals, perhaps even moreso for them, this life is of paramount importance because it is only during this stage that choices of everlasting consequence can be made.
Huh? Is there a difference? Eternal life was the term we used in our Baptist Church. Probably from John 12:25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. From Luke 18:18- 30. Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life? My Dad who grew up in the Protestant Reformed church was taught that the ordinary life was for 'toil and suffering' the only life which matters being your reward in the next realm. That was much Christianity in the 20th Century, the cult of worldly suffering which Nietzsche so despised. But no doubt expressions of Christian doctrine vary. :wink:
Did it now ? If you are gonna insist on being a muppet at least be a cheerful one. See my previous comment.
Quoting Wayfarer
This very closely aligns to my idea of eternal life/immortality although Id go further to say that it can only be granted by the divine or diety or God to its subject via some sort of life force or other mechanism. Perhaps even a sort of unity with the source of creation itself.
But without a doubt our eternal nature cannot be recognised through cognition it only remains a hope that it will be so. It could even be a false hope too for at the end we all just return to dust and that is the end of that.
What leads me to speculate that this may not be the case is simply the gift of life in its current temporary form allowing one to recognise such concepts as infinity or eternity. For existence itself has always been (Liebniz, Russell brute fact etc).
I state existence has always been and did not have a starting point unlike the universe as to not conflate the two.
But back to my initial idea that of a consciousness arising within the universe capable of contemplating such ideas of eternity, infinity or even eternal life.
Without wanting to point to an intelligence behind it for at this point it could not be ruled out there seems to me to be some sort of progression within the universe at least from the creation of nuclear reactions powering stars to the eventual appearance of life up to the current life form, us, Man which seems to be the peak of creation.
This notion that we arose through blind luck or chance is as equally valid as the idea that theres perhaps a design behind it.
Not to perhaps recognise its creator but just through sheer luck to exist and reflect on existence
What did your god say to you when you asked it about this issue you have?
Like dealing with a disgruntled wife Im getting the silent treatment on this very question. Perhaps I shall have to appease with flowers and cake.
So, are you annoyed/frustrated/angry/deserved of such divine hiddenness?
No such emotion, just mere curiosity as to its motives. He/she does kinda work in mysterious ways. Or maybe it knows me and my big mouth so well that these revelations remain scarce for now.
Yes, the English "eternal life" is used frequently for translating the Greek ???? ???????, a pairing of the verb aionios and noun zoe, which I believe only shows up in the Gospel of John. More literalist modern translations use "continual," and others use "everlasting," while "eternal" is also common.
The use of eternal is a bit confusing since aionios means "eternal" in modern Greek, but meant "for a lifetime," or "for an age," at the time John was writing."
Zoe is "life," in the sense of "existence," and "substance." In John, we see this phrase referring to God's "everlasting substance" throughout, starting with the opening. I think Jesus uses the word zoe once to refer to biological life, in a contrast of life and death, a turn of phrase in use since Homer.
In John's description, Jesus brings this everlasting substance, life eternal, to man to share in, but this is not a change that appears to have anything to do with "this life," or "this world," it comes from the Spirit (John 6:63), which one can have while living in this current biological life both in John and the rest of the Bible.
A common conflation is this use of this word translated as "life," and translations of bios, biological life, and psuche, first person experience.
For example, psuche is used here in Luke:
"For whoever wants to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.
The key difference here is that the "everlasting living substance," is something from God man can share in now, no need to wait for the end of days or one's death in "this life." It doesn't disparage the current life. One can receive the Spirit now (and this is even better than having a living Jesus around according to Jesus himself). In Romans 7, a quite biologically alive Paul talks about his resurrection (from a death of personhood in sin), in a similar vein.
What Luke is talking about is more: "don't worry about dying now, because there is the (personal) resurrection."
When the Bible talks about the next life, that's resurrection, anastasis, coming back to life in your/a body on the new Earth. Obviously, John, and even more Revelations can also be taken symbolically, but these two books were either written by the same person or the same early tradition created by the same person, so the difference in use of terms is also less likely to be just stylistic habits.
This distinction exists in Baptist theology, although popular religion really blurs the lines at times. Now arguably, John I was meant as a more Gnostic commentary, this is certainly what Gnostics believed, and there are ancient Gnostic commentaries in I Corinthians we've found too. But in the wide net of Nicean orthodoxy, creation is good and this lifetime not a barrier to rebirth in the Spirit and eternal substance.
For most Protestants, this life is even more important because they reject Purgatory and often the conversion of the dead mentioned in I Peter 4 and arguably the whole section on the resurrection in Revelations.
Are you not contented by the offer that if you stop typing your discontentment, regarding your gods plan for you and just comply with its scriptural instructions, then your death will become something to look forward to, as it will be the beginning of your everlasting entry into it's kingdom.
Haha there is no discontent here at all. It is of course a big if whether eternal life can be granted to mortals (like me and you). I happily accept both scenarios my mortality in this case and the potential for everlasting life equally. Im not a fool nor can easily be fooled by scripture as my discerning mind retains a healthy dose of scepticism in such matters
Then I am confused about the form of your theism. Are you afraid of the judgement of your god?
Why do you fear oblivion after you die? When you have no memory of such fear, before you were born.
I take all religious text/scripture with a pinch of salt. As a man with a well formed conscience Id like to think, I always try to do what is right and as a human being I can err, but only in retrospect as I did what I felt was the correct course of action at the time insofar as I was able to determine it.
Had my actions caused harm unintentionally or by the fact that I was not able to anticipate such harm then my conscience remains clean.
What really gets me as I previously stated is simply the recognition of everlasting existence or even that of a creator who is eternal contrasted to myself a mortal with a short time span in the scheme of things.
I do not fear death its more of wanting more rather than the fear of perishing which to me is both justifiable and understandable.
Sounds to me that you support some of the main tenets of humanism.
Quoting invicta
Do you believe your god is omnipotent?
Quoting invicta
Do you mean you fear the way you will die more than the fact you will die?
Do you believe your god could extend your lifespan if it chose to? It is claimed that the Abrahamic god, did this for some of it's early 'chosen ones.' Do you believe that's true?
Very good question and most theists would probably say yes to that. For me the definition of omnipotence is a double edged sword which can easily lead to classical paradoxes such as Can He make a big enough stone that he cant lift etc. discussing gods attributes can be a good pastime but for me placing a limit on the magnitude of his power would not only be misleading but most probably inaccurate.
I will leave the nature of God to theologians as far as the issue can be addressed.
For me the simple answer is that I will not fully know despite how clever i might think I am or how imaginatively I wish to subscribe superpowers to it.
My concern is not simply the extension of my human lifespan but eternal life/existence whatever shape or form that might be.
If you declare yourself a theist, do you not also inherit a responsibility to muse theologically, as in, be a theologian, even if it's one without paper qualifications on the academic side of the field?
If you don't then might you not be accused of believing in a god which you are unable to assign properties to, in an unambiguous manner?
You compel me to ask you 'why' you 'need' a god that you seem reluctant to clearly define.
Does your theism offer you any 'reinforcement,' or 'self-assuredness,' at all, regarding your dissatisfaction about your lack of control/choice, regarding when and how you will die?
Quoting invicta
Does your theism not offer you any convincing scenario, that you believe, WILL happen, after you are dead, to continue your existence?
:grin:
The manner of my eventual demise be it peacefully or otherwise is of little relevance at this point. Of course Id prefer the former rather than a long drawn out affair.
As a theist do I not inherit a responsibility to speculate or muse on Gods attributes? To myself sure I can muse on his attributes all day if I so wish but whether that has any correlation to his actual attributes is a different matter.
As an inquisitive human being my questions are perhaps unanswerable. I mean I have a hard time grasping eternity or eternal existence so an intelligence in orders of magnitude superior to mine would really have to simplify certain concepts for my human mind to understand. Think of the lay persons understanding of Einstein and you have an idea what Im talking about.
To deny my human limitations would serve me badly in my search for a better understanding of my own existence limited though it may be.
I think we all feel the same way, atheist or theist.
Quoting invicta
I agree but are you unwilling to share your musings and more importantly, those aspects of the god posit which you ascribe your highest credence levels to?
Quoting invicta
Ok, but this seems to contradict one of the main 'tenets' of 'faith.' Surely theism proports that 'faith manages!' Do you not believe that your god has all the answers you don't?
Quoting invicta
Do you believe that such an existent, would have the ability to do so?
Quoting invicta
Yes, but I have faith that Einstein understood the academic details of Einstein's theories and so did others. They could DEMONSTRATE their understanding to the likes of me. Einstein in fact, is credited with the statement If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
Why do you not hold your god to the same standard that Einstein set for himself?
Quoting invicta
I think you should accept your limitations but not feel diminished by them. Again you have common ground here with every atheist in existence, including me. Keep searching for the answers or balance you seek. By doing so, YOU WILL extend the borders of what you currently call your limitations.
Consider Matt Dillahunty, talking in the 7 minute clip below, regarding his open heart surgery.
Its not for lack of wanting to define God, its for my inability to articulate them with factual accuracy rather than anything. Sure I can throw around terms like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc. but where does that get me? In some circles these are a given in others theyre debatable do they reflect Gods true nature ? Maybe, maybe not. Do they detract from him ? Again, maybe or maybe not if youre looking for flaws or wish to put him in a pedestal.
Perhaps in me wanting to define God Im missing a point in the fact that I would at the very least anthropomorphise him with various human attributes such as morality to name a few. Hes all good and all loving etc but again I fall into the same trap that philosophers/theologians/atheists have encountered before me such as whence Evil?
So does this divine hiddenness of god not annoy you? If it has some of the answers you seek then why does it remain so hidden from you, even though you seem to try so hard to maintain your faith in it, as a real existent?
Quoting invicta
As a thinker, I don't think you can separate evil from the responsibility of any god posit, but most ardent theists simply defend with suggestions such as 'well , how can god test you, if it cant present you with scenario's with opposite and very significant consequences.' I am paraphrasing here, by using a 'summary' statement, of the many ways the problem of evil has been defended by theists.
Of course I will respond with stuff like 'so your god allows babies to die to test their parents?' or 'locked in syndrome,' is a test from god? and they will respond with, 'so god may be testing YOU through what it allows to happen to others,' and then it just spirals! 'How dare your god manipulate innocent people like Job to prove a point to its own creation, lucifer, etc, etc.'
Perhaps it's more important, to consider why you personally need a god, what gap does it fill for you? or what function does it perform for you, when you are musing about your current dissatisfaction with your lifespan? Is it merely that you hope against hope, that your god might favour you, and extend your life? or reanimate you, in a different format/plane of existence, after you die?
My view on this is that of a magic trick, after the mystery is revealed you start to lose your innate wonder as it has been explained to you, the mechanism the sleight of hand and thus the mystery vanishes.
Part of me wants life to maintain its airy mystery and part of me wants it revealed how it works they whys etc.
I do not see the divine hiddenness in a negative light from that point of view.
Despite being a theist I still view life with scientific realism rather than wishful magical thinking. Some of the laws of the universe we can understand and others we are trying to understand as they elude or defy rational expectations or explanations especially in the current realm of quantum mechanics.
Some theists can easily explain certain unexplainable phenomena by stating God did it, but that is not helpful to a scientific mind who wants to delve deeper and understand the mechanics behind it (reveal the magic trick if you like to use an analogy)
So why do I need God? Well I dont Ive just come to my own personal conclusion that there is a higher power in the universe. The extent of his involvement in his creation is just another area of speculation or mystery if you like.
Do I believe in him simply because I wish to live forever ? That would be awfully needy of me.
Well, Christianity through the years has borrowed heavily from neoplatonism. It's one of the ingredients in the vast hodgepodge, or stew, that is Christianity.
I find more wonder and awe in the natural world, than anything posited regarding the supernatural, so I have no need for the supernatural. This is of course also because my credence level towards a supernatural existent, is negligible. Are you not attracted to the complete and total ownership of your own wonder and awe? Why assign any credit for such to a god? Do you not diminish such, by placing it in the gift of a deity, rather than own it, as a manifestation of your own unique consciousness?
Quoting invicta
I am surprised you are not more attracted to a pantheism or a panpsychism.
I think many of the more ardent theists would not accept you as a theist. I assume you don't care about that.
Quoting invicta
There is no shame, or reduction in status, due to the fact that all humans are 'needy' imo.
What is shameful and is a definite reduction in status and morality imo, is a god that is purported to be loving and caring, but demonstrates no convincing evidence that that claim is true.
The blood sacrifice, that Christians claim as a demonstration of their gods love, is very bizarre to me.
A son who was an incarnation of god, allows the Romans to kill it. How can you kill an immortal?
You can't, so the sacrifice is fake, null and void, as it came back to life again. That's cheating, and is no sacrifice AT ALL!
Absolutely not, I hope that my faith retains some features of theism but shaped by my own experience rather than directly influenced by scripture whose reliability is questionable at the very least.
If I was a theist in the traditional sense then Id be a Quaker.
And as I do question scripture then the question of god being becoming man to be crucified for our sins is to me no more beneficial to my belief system then the Easter bunny is to a Christian.
Myths are useful albeit lacking credulity and if you get a holiday out of it all the merrier.
Thanks for the exchange invicta, I enjoyed reading about your worldviews.
Interesting.
Before I give you my account of this let me give you some authentic credible and respected theists in their fields.
And what better field is there than pure mathematics where we are dealing with highly abstract concepts.
Lets begin with Gödel, wildly regarded as the greatest logician since Aristotle. Heres an excerpt from wiki:
Gödel believed that God[38] was personal, and called his philosophy "rationalistic, idealistic, optimistic, and theological".[39]
Gödel believed in an afterlife, saying, "Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife].
It gets even more peculiar with Ramanujan where wiki has the following. I think Ive read somewhere that Ramanujan said his thereoms were divinely inspired or came from God.
Later he had visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[105] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."[106]
Then theres Pascal another ardent Christian who carried a quote from the bible woven into his trousers. We also have Liebniz another Great mathematician who invented calculus independently of Newton who was also a god believer unless Im mistaken.
However I must state that Im not a fan of militant atheism or theism when it comes to god. Although Id like to add that the work and efforts of the above mentioned individuals far surpass those of any evangelical atheist such as Dawkins et al
Will expand on my own views to your quote later.
I would be much more interested in your views now than in Gödel's, Ramanujan's (watched the movie about his life), Newton's, Pascal's or Liebniz' theism. I remain in awe of their academic skills in science and I am willing to discuss why I think their particular individual flavours of theism were completely misguided, but perhaps that would require individual threads, to respect the details involved, for each name you have cited.
Quoting invicta
I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be a 'militant' or 'evangelical' atheist. I consider him to be a very able scientist who's views on religion are very similar to my own. It's important to me that I don't seem to you other than I am.
"No dearer is man's life than that which he holds dear.
Take care that you hold not your precious life as cheap as gold"
If you put your values on "my actions and life and all my accomplishments" then death will take it all away and nihilism is inevitable. That's why people create consolations like afterlife, so one doesn't feel the nihility.
When the Buddha learned that one day he too will grow old and die he renounced everything so he can find "that which survives death".
So everyone has essentially two paths:
The temporary satisfaction of the worldly matter which end up in Nihility.
or The search for that within oneself which belongs to Eternity.
I have not always been a theist in fact I was a god bashing atheist myself ah those were the days. But again I was a youngster then so my conversion was a slow and gradual one with each experience leading me to question some firmly held assumptions of my atheistic views.
As these relate to personal life events I will leave them out but even my rational mind back then could not just dismiss them as mere coincidence.
It kinda was staring me in the face so to speak.
However despite being faced with overwhelming awe, the kind of awe that would lead one to ascribe it to providence rather than a mere beautiful sunset I still retained my rationality to an extent as well as my scepticism but in the face of such experience they were kinda moot.
I think I cried when I had my first religious/spiritual experience as an atheist thats how strong and magnificent it was to my non-believing eyes.
I wasnt no born again Christian type either just same old me whose atheism was about to be rocked to its very foundations.
As the moment itself passed and faded into memory it would be only to easy to dismiss it as some sort of emotional anomaly.
Just as any other person Im able to view nature and its wonders from a secular viewpoint and experience the same awe and wonder that they do without bringing god into it.
But by virtue of my religious experience at the time I remain grateful for that very experience which I guess changed my life forever. It has not elevated nor reduced my appreciation of nature and the diversity of it all but merely expanded my mindset to the possibility of something greater than I.
I have heard many individuals describe such experiences, in great detail.
This kind of witnessing has almost zero value as evidence of god.
Why was your experience momentary instead of continuous?
If you don't provide the details of your experience then the first assumption is that you were probably wacked out on scooby snacks or something like it. If no such chemical circumstances were involved and you were not under some kind of mental trauma, then the chances are, that you are just misinterpreting an experience.
What's more likely? A deity chose to contact you alone, and allow only you to experience it's presence or it's ability to communicate with a human, and has never re-established contact with you since, or you misinterpreted an experience?
Or do you have these experiences regularly?
Quoting invicta
To be honest, I am a little disappointed. If you surrendered your scepticism and your atheism, for the price of an experience you don't even feel comfortable enough, to publicly describe in detail, then I think you surrendered your atheism very cheaply.
Why would your story be any different to those who claim to have been abducted by aliens, experimented on and then returned to their lives? For that matter, how do you know it was not aliens who were involved in what you experienced?
Please do not construe this as any sort of evidence for Gods existence as some kinds of proof. I have very little interest in preaching nor am I inclined to convert anyone. Id probably insult your intelligence if I tried.
I was merely trying to answer your question as to whether I can look at nature with the awe and wonder without invoking god which I believe I did.
I find the dialogue between a theist and atheist has little middle ground. Less so than between an agnostic in any case.
And oh yes Ive had more experiences since as a way of reminding me
I hope I have not implied in my previous post that I am somehow special by virtue of having a shall we say divine experience theres probably many others too. After all being humble is a defining Christian trait.
I can't follow your rationale. Any awe and wonder you experience when viewing the flora and fauna of nature or the structures you can view in space via the Hubble images or the JWST, are surely not as awesome or wonderous as your 'supernatural 'experiences. Can you give me an example of any actual information that your esoteric 'experiences' have imparted to you?
What good are your esoteric experiences if they do not enable you to make much of a difference to the lives of others or perhaps even your own. I could even argue that such has harmed you, as it has caused you to take what I would consider backward steps into woo woo.
Firstly whatever I may have experienced were for me alone. I do not see the reason for such events to be some sort of catalyst to me fulfilling some sort of prophecy or such as a religious leader, Dalai Llama etc. Plus theres plenty of delusional nutcases who will take on the task spiritual experience or not.
I have no ambitions to start a cult anytime soon
Perhaps when I look at Hubble or nature you could say Im looking at it differently when Im seeing the creators handy work where someone else sees awe-inspiring natural phenomena
In any case the appreciation for it remains the same god or no god.
But anyway, Ive got an appointment with a few green men who wish to further probe my clever ass.
For the simple fact that once you die your consciousness goes with it. Akin to what happens when you go to sleep. Similarly the invocation of God helps in the same sense of what happens when you wake up from sleep. You regain your awareness and consciousness.
I wish to tackle your question properly I think I rushed my last response a tad.
Again all my thoughts below are of a speculative nature as neither do I claim to know the mind of G nor the nature of eternity.
Firstly you dont know that youve died, your self-awareness has been switched off. Thoughts, cognition post death occurs only in the minds of other living entities. Consciousness then persists outside of your mind in other minds does it not ?
We do not know enough about the nature of sleep or death itself as to what happens to consciousness. We do know that it stops and is undetectable by other beings or ECG.
As a human being your awareness is not unique to you. Your memories and experiences maybe.
Others have eyes which perceive the tree in the same way. What separates and makes you unique from the next person is that perhaps an apple landed on their head. You were the witness and the other guy experienced some kinda surprise. This is where different beings develop different memories etc yet awareness is universal to all beings.
The switching off of such awareness is no special thing at all in fact it happens more frequently than people are willing to admit. We all experience moments of voids in our consciousness, auto-pilot or the more familiar example of sleep.
the point is this, consciousness appears to be eternal with the human subject being merely a manifestation of it.
Now assume a telepathic link between to human beings self-identity dissolves from a purely mental point of view as such linked beings would be unable to distinguish who thought the thought.
In the same way our personal identity disappears with death our consciousness could persist.
Of course this is highly, highly unprovable if not wildly speculative.
Yet the power of creation and to think a thought is something we cannot consciously or deliberately choose. That choice is simply the illusion of free will
I have no idea perhaps its an automatic process post death and no god required. (Contradicting my earlier assertion here)
Or if we equate eternal consciousness with G then the above applies just as well. The cessation of awareness on a personal level does not rule out this universal awareness (g if you like)
Again talking about awareness and consciousness as if it is a disembodied thing helps to grasp the continuation of existence perhaps stripped of the self.
That would be to blatant :rofl:
The point I would like to make though is that consciousness is not as special as people would make it out to be. Although neuroscience is having a tough time explaining how it arises.
A cessation of such a thing (whatever consciousness may turn out to be) would be like a light being switched off. The absence of it is easily noted the same for a human consciousness.
Yet the assignment of thought, idea other cognitive or performative acts to physical entities in this case biological ones such as us merely perpetuates the illusion that we are seperate beings or even separate consciousness!
Feel like Im channeling my inner Alan Watts above. I remember becoming acquainted with him over 10 years ago through various channels but mostly YouTube.
Must revisit.
I hear you.
Whilst I maintain the position that consciousness is eternal and through human beings temporary for the duration of each beings lifespan able to fully experience life at a biological level of needs wants, fears hopes passions bodily and otherwise without denying them through false Buddhist ideology.
God here (the eternal consciousness or existence if the G word is too hard to swallow for you at this point) is the persistent consciousness not one that ceases as is the case for ours.
In our death this God or eternal consciousness that persists eliminates the need for brain/biology to reproduce that divine spark (consciousness).
I just needed some clarity.
Thank you
Yep, especially if @invicta has had personal conformation of a supernatural existent.
Why the angst indeed?
Quoting invicta
I don't understand why your supernatural existent, is not able to resolve the issues raised in your OP, better than the members of TPF?
For me the issue that I have is with holy scripture especially ones that say only if you believe will you get eternal life regardless if youre a good person.
So you can be an absolute helmet but as long as you believe you can still attain that.
Now thats got to be something wrong there.
The other thing I got out of this is that I was able to reflect on the nature of consciousness and through the discussion some things became clearer in my mind.
That is all. I think the diety would kinda be proud of me for figuring it out myself instead of being handed out answers like a toddler.
In any case even if my conclusions are wrong I arrive at them myself instead of relying on dogma which could be as wrong or as right.
The other reason despite my experiences I still value doubt, rational and critical thinking so posing it here is better than a religious forum.
Good to read an example of the fact that your original scepticism is still present, and your ability to apply critical thinking to 'holy' scripture, results in your last sentence above. Only one more step, would allow you to move forward again, into atheism. There IS something very wrong with all holy scripture, and it is that it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with the human tradition of satirical invention and storytelling.
Quoting invicta
What convinces you that 'the diety' has powers and abilities that you don't?
Quoting invicta
Good, then there is that, at least.
I am not comparing your 'experiences,' with the clip below. I just want to suggest that this dramatisation of the smeagol character defeating the 'gollum' manifestation from it's own psyche(if only temporarily), is a fun example of what can be achieved, when you decide to try to rid yourself of irrational thinking.
The assumption that theists are irrational is a common misconception and might even be true in a fair few cases, similar to the manner of people who believe in horoscopes or other superstitions.
My belief btw, has nothing to do with holy books, I wouldnt be convinced anyway but instead it stems from personal events or circumstances.
Events btw which I could not dismiss as purely happening by accident alone. The freaky and somewhat surprising nature of such scenarios which have actually occurred in my life affirms in me the belief in something extraordinary for the things that happened and actually continue to happen are nothing short of that.
Theyre now part of my everyday life if you like and can sometimes be way to numerous for me to recall each one.
Perhaps I am privileged in that respect.
As for me embracing atheism I do not see the point after all Im not devout or religious believer im just a some one who can recognise it and live my life as I would otherwise, still striving to be a good person not to please God but to do the right thing with good conscience. As such to me the existence of God is no longer a big deal.
Do you feel anything? when people like me, think you are deluding yourself, and your experiences are not of the supernatural in any way, shape or form. They are merely of your own psyche.
Many will mock you and laugh at your suggestions, especially when you cannot demonstrate your experiences to them, or demonstrate any enhanced or unusual ability, or new knowledge, as a result of your 'experiences.'
The idea of being ridiculed for expressing my views on the matter might have crossed my mind once or twice. Do I take it personally or take offence by it ? Not at all.
If my mind or psyche has overplayed the significance of such events is something that I have considered also and I could easily dismiss it there and then.
Let me ask you a question to the sceptical aspect of your reasoning which I assume you do not preclude the existence of a diety or a higher power
As a purely hypothetical scenario lets say you decided to purchase a lottery ticket and said to yourself, your conscience whatever if you do exist Mr God let all these numbers that Ive picked come up on the next draw would you believe then or would you simply ascribe it to some freaky mathematical probability?
Give me your opinion on this one.
I watch an atheist youtube call-in show ran by Jimmy Snow called 'the line.'
They used to get a regular caller who used the name 'Charlie.'
Charlie had many supernatural experiences and direct com with god.
He was very passionate about the validity of his experiences, and he kept saying that he was soon going to reveal 'some overwhelming truths,' to the world. He was still putting it all together, but would do the big reveal soon. Every time he phoned, and was asked for more details, and was 'ridiculed' by the hosts of the show, he would become more and more passionate, about how his big reveal would change the world, and would blow everyone's mind, and instantly convert all atheists to theists, and on and on he went.
He was eventually tolerated as an entertainment for a few more shows, and then the moderators of the show were told live, by Jimmy to not put him through any more, as he was obviously mentally ill, and should seek professional help. What do you think of Charlie?
Would agree with the assessment of the show hosts as someone potentially delusional if not misguided.
Feel free to put me in the same bracket as him if you like your judgement means very little to me and I in fact empathise with your scepticism.
I absolutely do think that no deity or higher supernatural power exists. I just cant PROVE I am correct.
Quoting invicta
Would I believe god exists because I prayed to win the national lottery and then I won it that very day!
NO, I would not consider that evidence of the existence of god in any way whatsoever, would you?
So what would constitute proof to you then? It seems to me that nothing would as youve completely ruled out the existence of such a thing
Sure, but what's your personal opinion of Charlie's claims?
Possibly a charlatan and probably meet him with the same disbelief as yourself.
Ok, that's very easy. God should appear on Earth and submit itself to scientific scrutiny.
OR, you can call on your 'experience' to stop me from posting my next response to you.
Can you demonstrate such?
I am now going to post this and wait 5 mins and then post the word 'hello' to you.
Let's see if your 'experiences' or any god, can stop me.
Nowhere in this thread have I portended to convince or provide proof.
'hello'
I waited until 5 minutes showed on my previous post before sending you my 'hello' post.
Your 'experience' and God, has no power. But, that's because it has no existence, imo.
Do you have any other reason to show why your 'experience' or god could not even meet this simple test?
Its a simple matter of proof, you could dismiss it to my misattribution of God for such an experience and youre entitled to do so which youve done.
Does it negate it in any way shape or form? Thats entirely up to you.
Oh I have went far further in my personal challenged to god when debating with theists.
I know some of them have been very tempted to try to make something happen via their own hands, in desperation to invent some evidence of a supernatural presence.
You can imagine all you like but god still demonstrates nothing but its absence.
Are you unable to get your 'experiences' to affect me in anyway?
Yes, you have no evidence!!!!!
I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT IT ABSOLUTELY IS, in the case of god.
Theyre not intended to.
Plus I think you might have misinterpreted me I did not claim these experiences contain within them any such supernatural powers as to directly influence the belief or non belief of others.
Anyway theres a horse at 16:25 at Wolverhampton called Dew You Believe at 6/1
Cheeky 5er for your lack of faith ?
Ok, your scepticism wins again! Hallelujah!
So you will understand when many react to you as you would react to Charlie.
My father was a gambler and it caused him much grief in his life and contributed to his early death at 67. He gambled mainly on horses, so I never have, and never will. I get no joy at all from gambling, it's not one of my pastimes.
I am away for a shower and a shave however. A night of eating and drinking will ensue.
Bye fur noo!
Quoting invicta
BTW I am not Dewish and I don't believe, at any favourable odds.
God decided to tip me on this one ??
Well Ill be damned. A horse called caracristi won it instead, cristi of course a derivative of the word Christ (or follower of Christ).
Incidentally it beat the favourite Captain St Lucifer by just over a neck.
I guess Ill eat my words
Ive thought about Wittgensteins quote and in some sense theres no escaping the present. When I recollect the past it happens in the present and when I look to the future that too happens in the present. When the past happened it was the present (at that present time) and when when I wait a few minutes the future is the present.
I believe the infinite temporal duration he refers to is often used as a paradigm as the concept might have more use.
I created a new thread for that very reason as when 180Proof posted that I had reflected on the same issue a few months back.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14100/is-the-future-real
From an evolutionary point of view, we think of ourselves as separate and distinct from the universe. After all, if I dont see myself as separate from the tiger, I may end up as lunch. But we also see the Earth as flat and at rest. Moral: what we perceive may not be the truth.
If we see ourselves as a temporary manifestation of the universe, then things are different. If I play Hamlet, when the play is over, I still exist. I dont mourn the fact that my Hamlet no longer exists. If I see myself as a temporary manifestation of the universe, I dont mourn when the temporary manifestation ends.
Of course, its easier said than done.
As far as I can remember, I personally have never felt powerless from that aspect. I don't remember ever wanting to live for eternity, i.e. to be immortal, like e.g. an angel or a god. And certainly not a vampire! :grin:
Wanting to live for eternity is a trait of vanity. And foolishness.
Now, this regards the physical part of the human beings. There's another part, about which --maybe more than half of the planet (think widely!)-- believes that it is eternal.
But this is of course out of the spirit of this topic ...
Thank you for your input.
Theres nothing vain about wanting to live forever to me its a fundamental right as a sentient being and not selfish at all. That is if my sentience was granted by the divine.
You could say a mortal wanting to live a long life like in their 80s etc is also vain, which is not btw. The difference between the two is one of scale with the other end of it being forever.
I'm sorry if the words "vanity" and "foolishness" offended you. They came out of me spontaneously, since I know well that most people in here and elsewhere believe that they are bodies and thinking that a body can survive forever is just absurd.
And certainly did not refer to your views, which I certainly respect.
Quoting invicta
Now, since you speak about divinity, and you are not constricted to the material part of you, I strongly believe that we are eternal beings. I hope that at least this might make you feel more comfortable. And of because not because I believe it. It is believed maybe by the most part of the planet, esp. the Eastern world.
Quoting invicta
Yes, I believe that someone wanting to live a long life --90, 100 and more-- is a trait of vanity. My aunt died at 102 and even in her 90s she could really accept that she "got old". She was hidding her age by 7 years and she even threw out her ID card and torne out the first page of her passportm for not letting people know her real age. She was a very vain woman in general.
When he was dying, Einstein refused surgery, saying "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly."
(https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/436253)
Seems like another one of those questions which is only a problem for agnostics and atheists.
Oh Im not offended by that, what Im offended by is your lack of ambition.
:gasp:
All existence is based on mine, and when I cease to be, so will the universe, for me at least. Nothing will survive my death from my perspective, and I feel comforted by that. I don't need to accomplish something great or worry about how I spent my days, my inevitable oblivion shall wipe the slate clean.
As for right now, I'm insignificant in terms of space and time when compared to the universe but I'm sentient and the universe isn't. I'm pretty sure it's actually my existence that is more amazing, it seems silly to be jealous of gasses and rocks.
But life goes on with or without you right. I have no problem with such solipsism such as yours but it fundamentally rejects reality.
Reality of course being that life does go on after you die. All solipsistic claims are equally valid for each person. I could make the claim that you are simply just an extension of my mind and imagination and that in fact you dont really exist but only that I do.
This would be incorrect.
All existence is not based on mine, its the other way round I am based on it or in it whichever one you prefer.
Is there some difference between the cause of your death being a meteor striking and destroying Earth, or dying after being hit by a car? If there is one, it's just some abstraction, practically, what's the difference? Is it that you'll "know"? Because no, you won't, we're talking about death remember?
Your objection is a technicality, you've used intelligence to pick an abstraction over your reality. All you've ever known are sensations, experiences, memories, thoughts and ideas. You say I'm real because you can interact with me, and you'd say what isn't real can't possibly be interacted with, right? What do you think is going to happen when you die!? That's the death of reality to you, what you speak of is a worthless abstraction, why would you call it a reality? Your methodology for determining what's real is completely dependent upon you being alive, but you're saying life will go on without you?
I'm not a solipsist. I know people die every day and life goes on, why would it be any different for my death? However, the only reality I've ever experienced has its existence completely dependent on me. That's what's going to be lost when I die, and that's the only reality I've ever known. Isn't that what matters, and not the idea of reality?
Because reality continues even if you discontinue.
Thats real, deny it all if you wish.
All solipsism rejects is the idea of absolute reality, analogous to special relativity's rejection of absolute motion. Solipsists are able to reconcile their surface-level disagreements by transforming the meaning of each other's assertions to fit their own frame of reference, in a manner analogous to using a Lorentz transformation.
So it isn't necessarily contradictory to assert that one is immortal from one's own perspective, yet mortal from another's perspective.
Perhaps it helps if the problem is simplified
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The old adage: I intend to live forever, so far so good.
Imagine Tom, Dick and Harry having a solipsistic conversation.
Tom says: Neither of you exist, im just having a hallucination.
Dick Says: that may be so but Im completely sober and your drugs will wear off soon and I will still be here.
Harry Says: drugs ? What drugs.
Harry of course is a schizophrenic and Tom and Dick are just two of his multiple personalities.
Faced with such a transcript who actually exists here ?
Because atheists believe that it is only for a limited time.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why is it a problem for believers? It should not make a believer feel powerless since physical life itself is the very opportunity to carry out God's plan and receive the reward. It's close to the opposite of powerlessness.
Sometimes as Christians we are not always aware of gods plan for us. This applies to most of us or other faiths of a monotheistic nature. On the subject of eternal life which this topic is about that is a promise and a given in the bible for those who do believe.
as a rational being however even this precept doesnt leave this concept open to doubt but I believe thats the upside of faith rather than its downside.
I doubt even JC knew whilst he was on the cross.
Im reminded of Rolling Stones - sympathy for the devil
I have attempted synthesis of various spiritual ideas which even the atheist might find useful as to the nature of consciousness.
What's real? Reality? Reality as in, the term that refers to all that's real? That reality is real? And it's going to continue after my death? I guess I'll never be able to find out, that's too bad.
Im not quite sure what your doubt concerning reality is about if Im honest.
The world existing independently of us is a given in the OP at least. So your questions seem slightly redundant.
My questions were rhetorical...
If you see what I've said as a rejection of reality, then either I've expressed myself poorly or you haven't made much of an effort to understand what I said. Either way, we'll have to leave it at that, I've lost interest.
Its ok to lose interest, I mean its only eternal life thats at stake. No biggie.
Yes, so our expectation is met and I, like most other nonbelievers, don't see only this one life as a problem. In fact, the low, or mininal, existential expectations of rational nonbelief cannot be disappointed, and only surprised if we're wrong. I like surprises. :wink:
Because all they have is a 'hope for more than this life' without any factual basis, just wishful thinking. Whatever seems too good to be true (e.g. "eternal life") is almost certainly not true. The believer's problem is (as always) s/he can't shake fearing what s/he undeniably knows: reality withstands faith. :pray: :eyes:
If reality whatever we may agree that to be is eternal and persists when we do not (as in dead) then that same state of affairs which granted a rational being with imagination and the desire to live forever (me included) requires no great leap of faith to at least consider it as a possibility.
Category error e.g. a metaphysical concept of "eternal life" in terms of, or equated to, a physical "likelihood".
Never claimed that. Even reincarnation gets tedious after a while.
Your drop in the ocean however is apt and along my lines of metaphysic.
The difference is that I state it in its affirmative I wanna live forever.
Its just if youre gonna dream, dream big right ?
And yet hope has no place in philosophy.
And yet I embrace eternal (sleep) and eternal life as two possibilities.
Likely or unlikely for each one is a matter of metaphysical realisation not rationalisation.
The ultimate (excuse the pun :smirk:) "rationalization".
in that case you do not dismiss the possibility of non-physical eternal life.
If you do dismiss it then on what grounds, sir?
Why? Do you think its childish ?
Grow up!
Quoting ucarr
Quoting invicta
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting invicta
Quoting invicta
In a cave one parsec from Sol, some writing on the wall was discovered: from the secret pages of a classified document: It's the critic's job to hoist intelligent complaints inside the heart of paradise; Where would Eden be without designs of the serpent; deity is m.c. to a conflict-driven, cosmic entertainment: human.
Deity: "Alright now, invicta. As the winner of our vocal-sparring-for spite-contest, you're given choice of eternal life. Say "yes" and it's yours. The offer, however, does come with conditions. You must agree to one of two choices: a) become chief literary critic for a tony New York-based magazine or b) become maven of a Washington-based gossip column rivaling the caustic bitchery of Hoover. And your choice is?"
Well I choose the bitchery of course, assuming of course that there are bitches.
Whoo hoo! Eternal life!!
:up:
:lol:
It certainly makes me feel powerless.