The Philosophy thread
Time to share your views on what's happening in the universe. While I'm not a big fan of turning philosophy into a profession, I think it's a great thinking exercise, because you can experiment with things you don't see in your daily life.
So here are my thoughts on the nature of the universe:
The fun thing about the universe is that it's infinite in time and space. It's something humans have a hard time understanding. We usually measure emptiness, like in "an empty hand" or "an empty glass". We try to specify amounts of emptiness in an (in our opinion) filled world.
The void of the universe is of an entirely different nature. So different that it's hard to put into human words: The universe is not the absence of anything, it's the natural state of not-being.
In the universe there's no here and no now, because if you have a plane that extends endlessly there's no beginning, no fixed point that you could you can put the here and now in relation to.
There also is no first time for anything, because everything has always happened. There's no one big bang that formed matter out of nothing, because that would imply that there wasn't anything before that, but since the time before is infinite, it must have happened before. And because the space is infinite it must be happening somewhere right now as a matter of fact. Somewhere right now there are a infinite number of worlds just like this where you are married to the equivalent of Salma Hayek. There's also an infinite numbers of worlds where you don't exist, so all in all I'd say being on our earth isn't all that bad.
There's no purpose, no point to anything. Stuff just happens. But you know what the really fun part is? It doesn't matter. We live in what we perceive as the here and now, and we create reference points that only matter to us. Moral values that don't have any logical basis. You can call them "god", "believe", you can call them "good in people", it doesn't really matter. People who try to find the logic in our being here are at best unhappy and at worst suicidal. These oversimplifications keep us happy. It feels good to be good. And that's what matters to us.
So here are my thoughts on the nature of the universe:
The fun thing about the universe is that it's infinite in time and space. It's something humans have a hard time understanding. We usually measure emptiness, like in "an empty hand" or "an empty glass". We try to specify amounts of emptiness in an (in our opinion) filled world.
The void of the universe is of an entirely different nature. So different that it's hard to put into human words: The universe is not the absence of anything, it's the natural state of not-being.
In the universe there's no here and no now, because if you have a plane that extends endlessly there's no beginning, no fixed point that you could you can put the here and now in relation to.
There also is no first time for anything, because everything has always happened. There's no one big bang that formed matter out of nothing, because that would imply that there wasn't anything before that, but since the time before is infinite, it must have happened before. And because the space is infinite it must be happening somewhere right now as a matter of fact. Somewhere right now there are a infinite number of worlds just like this where you are married to the equivalent of Salma Hayek. There's also an infinite numbers of worlds where you don't exist, so all in all I'd say being on our earth isn't all that bad.
There's no purpose, no point to anything. Stuff just happens. But you know what the really fun part is? It doesn't matter. We live in what we perceive as the here and now, and we create reference points that only matter to us. Moral values that don't have any logical basis. You can call them "god", "believe", you can call them "good in people", it doesn't really matter. People who try to find the logic in our being here are at best unhappy and at worst suicidal. These oversimplifications keep us happy. It feels good to be good. And that's what matters to us.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I don't think there's no sense in life and the universe. We surely must be here with a mission besides living each day with no purpose at all. Moral values are relative, but we have something innerent to us, which you may call a concience that will tell you if something is good or not. And the universe is surely the result of an intelligent design, not the result of chaos, which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of chaos in this universe.
I agree that universe is infinite, but time is real, at least to us, because it is how we perceive it along the other dimensions. Maybe it's real only for us, but in our limited knowledge it is something that we use to measure the movement between spaces.
With all of these developments in the realm of theoretical physics, it doesn't seem far fetched to me to see the universe as a system folded in on and flowing into itself; infinite only in the sense of a Mobius strip.
Just a thought.
This isn't true. Morals are the invention of mankind, as is the notion of "good" in its most abstract, but we exist in a human world, and within that world, there most certainly is a logic. Much can be said of good and morality without ever invoking "God." Just because not all things are human is no reason to shrug off humanity.
Basically the argument as you've framed it goes thus:
"The universe is so complex and well-ordered that it could only have been created by God."
So complexity is framed as something that can only be created. And yet the virtue by which it was created is that of a superior, or more complex, being creating something lesser than itself.
Now we've caught ourselves in a loop. God hasn't solved the equation, he's brought us further from it! We now have an even more impressive entity than the universe, in need of a better than perfect creator himself!
Thus the sarcastic cynic might retort to your argument, "It's obvious that the universe was created by God, just as it's obvious that God was created by Supergod! Surely a being as great as God could not have happened into existence without Supergod!"
It's a very poor argument. If we can accept that something like God can "simply always be" without the need to be created, then surely we can accept that the same is true (and indeed more plausible) of the less-impressive thing called "the universe."
You don't believe in Supergod?!?! BLASPHEMY! HANG HIM!!!!
But seriously, I agree with everything you said there, heh.
2. Existing adds to "greatness", while not existing takes away from "greatness"
3. Since God is the "greatest", God must exist.
Ontological Argument. It's flawless.
2. The Merit of an acheivement is the product of (a) its instrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of the creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of a existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God who did not exist
Ergo:
7. God does not exist
Anyway, I have no problem with people that want to believe in God, and I think athiests that blame evils of man on religion are deluded and looking selectively.
But I get aggravated when people act like they can prove got exists, while simultaneously defining him outside of the bounds of the provable. Nobody can prove or disprove such a being.
We can't prove or disprove such a being by philosophical arguments. But just because science can't disprove God now, doesn't mean we won't be able to at a later date. Scientists in the 18th century talked about how we will never be able to determine the composition of stars, but we can do it now with spectroscopy.
Science is pretty awesome, it'll work something out eventually. Religion isn't immune from science, just like the world being flat isn't either.
But I doubt we'll get there in our lifetimes.
Homer accidentally disproved god while he was doing his taxes once.
Once, we believed Gods lived on mount Olympus. Then we learned to climb it and we saw he wasn't there. Then God lived above the clouds. Then we traveled there, too, and he was nowhere to be found, so we said he lived in the furthest reaches of the sky. We went into space and gazed nearly to the ends of the universe, and so god was relocated to another dimension. If we explore other dimensions and find no God, they will simply say he lives in another reality entirely.
God will never be provable, because God has never been defined. What I find fascinating is the diversity of concepts that people will attach to God. People will say "Well maybe God is something inside all of us" or "maybe God is the prime move of physical reality at the basest level of physics." People want to name SOMETHING God, and it almost doesn't seem to matter what that thing is, as long as it's absolute and they can call it "God".
Humans are a self-duplicating organic machine.
Subsequently, we need to consume.
Subsequently, when drain everything around us. We're a leech, like any other kind of life. Problem is, we're the biggest leech. Most humans think that we have a goal out there, to go out into space and conquer and take part in intergalactic wars, but we all know how it's going to end. We're going to ruin this planet, and everything on it, because we're intelligent enough to be selfish.
And apparently, stupid and lazy enough to ruin out only chance. You can believe in heaven, God, whatever, as long as it keeps you happy. But I don't think those things are real.
I value animals more, because they feel, they don't think much. They're not intelligent enough to overpopulate the earth, to ruin it for everyone else. I think we should stop leaning on them for food, because it may have been necessary once, but no longer is. I support veganism with every single cell in my body. PETA... not as much.
It's obvious that I'm a misanthrope.
But I'm human myself, which is a pity.
Now you got me depressed again. I'm going to play some video games. Ta-ta.
You've got a point there, but as science and the realm of knowledge moves forward, the probability of an omniprescent being is rapidly decreasing. Just because we can't disprove it atm doesn't mean it has a 50/50 chance of existing. The probability of an all powerful god existing is really low, and as we understand more and more of the universe, this figure is gonna get less and less.
Sure, calling a part inside of us God is fine and all, but that's not really the all-powerful being people keep talking about.
GENESIS 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
I am a christian, but please dont think im here to cram GODs word down your throat. As a christian GOD calls me to spread his word to everyone so that everyone can hear the good news about our GOD
2 TIMOTHY 4
All Scripture is God-Breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
COLOSSIANS 2:8-9
"Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body."
This passage talks about how GOD feels about the philosophies of man.
The Bible has been recorded as being 3500 years old before any of these man made philosophies existed.
you were saying that "people who try to find logic in there being are at best unhappy and at worst suicidal." But ever since ive allowed GOD to come into my life and teach me the meaning of my life on this earth, I have never been happier!
JOHN 4:13-14
Jesus replied, “Anyone who drinks this water will soon become thirsty again. But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again. It becomes a fresh, bubbling spring within them, giving them eternal life.
MATTHEW 6:19
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Sorry im kinda getting off the subject, its easy to talk alot when its about GODs word. I hope i didnt offend anyone. If any of you want to talk a little more about GODs word please dont be afraid to send me a message or something. I would be more then happy to talk with you:)
Grace to you
You can prove or disprove characteristics of God, perhaps, but if no one agrees on a fixed meaning you can never disprove the entity itself.
The canon of the Old Testament was actually established by the Sanhedrin about 80 years after Jesus was born. Before then, books like Enoch and Jubilees were widely accepted. In fact, Peter refers specifically to Enoch.
If several false works could become widely accepted, who could say that the same is not possible for all of the books?
At the time Timothy was written (around 70 AD) these books were still considered part of the Hebrew Torah. The New Testament itself was infiltrated by false works, and the canon was established in the fourth century. Once again, we have to doubt the credibility of any of these works, let alone their authenticity.
My point here is not that you shouldn't believe the Bible. Anything that gives you strength and makes you a better person is a good thing. But remember never to stop doubting. Doubt is what makes us human, it's what allows us to determine right from wrong. Doubt is a moral obligation, and without it, we're just stumbling blindly and not owning our actions.
Looks like someone didn't know how to enjoy a good thing
Seriously, though, everyone needs a moral center and a bit of philosophical grounding, but Jesus doesn't own the patent on that. There are many ways to find your peace, and I know I've found mine just fine.
although many people believe the book of Enoch is not from GODpeoples words don't hold any merit over GODs. Noah was the great grandson of Enoch, so he could have easily known the book by heart.....or GOD gave him the words to re-write it, hence " All scripture is GOD-breathed. Plus portions of the book of Enoch were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which is over 2000 years old.) Plus I highly doubt GODwould allow false teachings in HIS word, especially since he has scriptures about false teachings.
ROMANS 16: 17-18
And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.
You can't quote the bible in proving/disproving the existence of god. I mean, there's no proof any of it is true, and it's full of contradictions, for example Joesph's ancestry is listed twice, and it's vastly different each time. Seems a bit silly to be using the bible as proof when it's so full of holes.
Circular logic always fails.
He's just, so he gives people infinite punishments for a finite crime.
He's loving, so he sends people who never even heard of christianity to burn forever.
He's all powerful, so he can't remove all the corruption from the world.
He's all knowing, so he did not know that the snake would tempt Eve with the forbidden fruit. And if he did, he did not stop the snake.
I am not anti-religion, I am just against any religion that's based on the bible. A book so ambiguous, that you can justify rape, murder, sexism, homophobia, racism, slavery... the list goes on. And ironically, you can also justify gender equality, gay rights, anti racism etc. as well.
But I still hold my stance, the bible has been the single most destructive book in the history of mankind.
Like I said, I'm not anti-religion, only anti-bible. I fully approve of buddhism.
So no one has ever spoken falsely for God? Every cult is true? Mormons are right, too? You just believe anyone who claims they know the word of God? This seems like a dangerous road to go down. (To say nothing of the fact that Gods that don't exist can do little to stop people from speaking falsely, so your logic is backwards anyway).
The oldest Dead Sea Scrolls may be 2100 or so years old, but this is still about 1400 years after the time they were supposedly given by God. That's a very, very long time especially before real written history. It would be very easy to falsify such a thing. Literary analysis places all of the books at very different times. The language and philosophy of each is unique and influenced by contemporaries.
Then there's the issue of plagiarism. Exact phrases and strong parallels crop up in the bible, lifted from earlier works. The story of Noah is almost exactly the Epic of Giglamesh right down to very small specifics, except one is about pagan Gods and is presented as a myth. "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" is from the Code of Hamurabi. Why would God steal words from a man?
I'm just saying, it's possible and indeed very likely that these words are false, and you owe it to yourself to at least consider that possibility, lest you allow yourself to be manipulated.
1 JOHN 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 JOHN 1:7-11
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
Christianity isn't a religion.....Its a relationship with GOD. It teaches how to have a meaningful relationship with the almighty creator of everything who sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for all of our sins.The bible is the ultimate book of love, and as a person who is absolutely in love with the Lord of Lords, and the King of Kings, I am commanded to spread the message of his love and sacrifice around so that ALL might here the good news:)
Buddhism is a man made philosophy. Mormons have several wife's which in the bible says is wrong. See below for some references. Catholics pray to Mary as if she were a holy being,(DEUTERONOMY 5:8-9 says. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. This verse says " do not make an idol in the form of anything in heaven" Mary is in heaven...but the verse clearly says do not worship her.
1 TIMOTHY 3:12
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well
1 TIMOTHY 3:2
DEUTERONOMY 17:17
As you can see there is scripture to answer what you have asked in your first paragraph. Since GODsword clearly says it is wrong to do those things, and i believe what the Heavenly Father has said to be true.....I must say no I do not believe cults are true( cause they are man made ) I do not believe Mormons are right cause they deliberately disobey the Lords commands.
JOHN 3:16-18
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " I owe nothing to myself...but in return owe everything to my loving and gracious GOD who sent his only son to die for our sins, and save me from an eternity in Hell.
MATTHEW 7:21
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
More accurately, when you base your argument on faith it is by nature less effective than one based on logic. The faith-based argument relies on the receiver having the same faith. A logical argument stands a stronger chance of convincing somebody who is not already on your side.
That is to say that Bible quotes only have value to people who value the Bible. There are better ways to reach out to people, I think.
The idea that the Bible itself is a source of evil seems, to me, to be a half-baked idea. The evil that generally is attributed to the Bible is the same evil that could and would be justified under any sufficiently complex, vague, or re-interpreted dogma.
I would never argue that organizations that use aspects of the Bible as a centerpiece of their beliefs have produced incredible amounts of evil, but I don't think the book itself is the cause. It's what people will do, regardless of the name of the cultural construct they manipulate to their own ends. It has happened to other religions, it has happened to moral systems outside of religion.
Also, I think any religion that doesn't support people feeling accountable for what they do on their only life on this planet, must be filtered out.
Oh, and by the way - Happy Blasphemy Day - http://www.blasphemyday.com/
Right, that's what I was getting at, but I wasn't in a wordy mood, heh.
How do you quantify damage? How do you quantify evil? Do many petty crimes defeat few horrendous ones by sheer numbers?
There is one footnote that unites all people under the banner of "Christian". Jesus died, rose, and did so for the salvation of human souls. Even that definition is not wide enough for some dogmas within the insanely large net that is cast by the term "Christian" or the use of the Bible.
You are lumping together:
Catholics, Mormons, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Amish, Mennonites, Methodists, Jehova's Witnesses, Giddeons, Unitarians, and countless other vastly different belief systems.
You are lumping a person I know into this category. This person is a Christian missionary in Japan. He is against the idea of organized religion, seeing the organization of religion as being inherently subversive, seeing religion on a far more individual level. The way he sees, it, religion is to be used on the individual level as a personal spiritual journey to find and develop meaning and purpose, and whatever path one takes will end up in the same place if their intention is pure. His job as a missionary, as he sees it, is to help people find a personal spiritual path, and he sees the Christian movement in Japan to be far more "pure" than the cultural norm it has become in the US, as it almost MUST be a distinct religious CHOICE to be Christian in Japan.
Does his belief system fall into the definition of inherent harm? Why not? Who else that declares themselves under that banner doesn't count?
Does it count if they declare it because it is a social norm? Those who go through organized religion as a social function, but otherwise the teachings have no meaning. The church is a gathering place and a social center for them. Do they count in the number?
What of the good? The art? The philosophy? The charity? My own argument can be used against me here, I understand, to ask "How much of the good is the charitable aspects of human nature?" But if you're going to say that the Bible inherently causes this evil, then the idea that it causes good is not too far of a stretch.
Why are we saying that The Bible is inherently destructive? Why stop on that level? Why not say that being a theist is inherently destructive? Having a belief in a higher power? A greater purpose? You certainly snag more evil with larger groupings, and it is all the same interchangeable straw men built up to say that certain ways of thinking are damnable. And the issue is actually far more complex than "People believe the Bible is true. The Bible is illogical, therefore, there is evil."
I had a post about twice this long all written up and the forum ate it. Sorry, or you're welcome, depending on your perspective.
Being a christian doesn't take away conscience, we are still held accountable, you still fell guilty for the bad things you do on this earth. Christians aren't perfect, they never have been, and neither am I. We can be tempted to do things like steal or murder or any other crime there is in society. We slip up all the time, and when you do those things it never leaves our minds. Its always there saying, why did you do that? We are still human beings....just like you and everyone else. We live in a society....like you and everyone else. as a christian I am held accountable for the things I do on this earth.
2 CORINTHIANS 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
2 CORINTHIANS 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
This verse is about GOD sending Jesus Christ his only son, a man without sin.
To become sin itself by dying on the cross for our sins, so that we may inherit the Kingdom of GOD
You need to look outside the bible to prove the bible. Or even substantiate it. There's no other way.
For as much as you're able to pull quotes from the bible, it's positively shocking you could say something this obviously wrong about it. Many of the bible's most virtuous men had many wives. Solomon had over 700 wives.
But in any event your logic here is broken. You said before that God would not allow someone to falsely represent him, and then here you're clearly saying he's falsely represented by the Mormons. You're completely contradicting yourself.
If you can, please do so.
See? Gandalf is real, this quote from a book proves it!
I asked my mother this exact question when I was about six years old.
She still hasn't come up with an answer. I guess God is a very busy man.
I mean, if you are religious, then the bible is true etc. But if you aren't, and you don't believe that the bible is true (like me), then quotes from the bible aren't convincing in the slightest.
The Bible is a book, written hundreds of years after these events occurred. Think how little we know of 3 hundred years ago, if you were to write a book on the 1700's, most of it would be based on second hand accounts and folklore, there wouldn't be any way to verify if any of it was true or not.
And the bible isn't a flawless book either. Even assumming that god exists and everything it says is true, it has some issues. For example, Joesph is supposedly descended from David (even though that's irrelevant, because if Mary is a virgin then the doesn't count as Jesus relative in the slightest), and his lineage is listed. Twice. But the lineages don't match up, there's almost no overlap, one (or both) are clearly fabricated, it's impossible for them both to be right.
It also has it's dates wrong in a number of areas as well.
If you want to convince us of god's existence, then use evidence other than the bible, cos the bible is only true IF god exists, and the probability of god existing is extremely low, and there's no proof at all that exists.
To bring this point off of the bible and back to philosophy, I pose the following ethics problem:
Now, Immanuel Kant, when rebutting the Utilitarian ethics model of John Stuart Mill, proposed that we cannot accept an ethics model in which there was "moral luck." In short, Utilitarian model proposes that whichever action creates the most human happiness (or whatever utility we want to substitute for virtue), then it is righteous.
I don't recall Kant's exact example, but an analogous example might be: A man, Max, gets drunk and goes out with the intention of causing trouble. He decides to punch and knock out the first man he sees, who, unbeknownst to him, turns out to be a terrorist on his way to blow up a kindergarten. The terrorist is captured solely because of what has happened. Now, Max has certainly made the world a better place, but can we say his actions were moral? Certainly not.
Kant solved this problem with his Categorical Imperative, but I don't really think this solution is sufficient, because intent is not the only factor in moral luck. I propose the following as further examples of moral luck, dealing with the issue of responsibility:
1) Max is drunk when one of his friends, Paul, notes that his appendix is hurting. Max, despite being quite impaired, decides to drive his friend to the hospital. They crash on the way and both die. Max means well, but was not moral because he did not properly gauge his capacity.
2) Max is out and about and he comes across Paul, crying out in pain that his appendix hurts. Max determines that he needs his appendix removed, and, despite the fact that he has no medical training, Max pulls out his penknife and tries to cut out Pauls appendix. Paul dies as a result. Max had the best of intentions, and had he been qualified and equipped with the right facilities, his action would have been correct, but as is he did not behave in an ethical way.
3) Max is a skilled surgeon. Paul is admitted to his care shortly after his appendix has burst. His system is flooded with toxins, and Max does his best to contain the problem, but despite his best efforts, Paul dies. Max has behaved morally in this case, despite the result, because he was qualified to make the decision.
So basically we have a moral responsibility to make sure that our actions are qualified ones. If we simply behave as our parents tell us, as our preacher tells us, or any other attempt to simply defer our judgment onto someone else is inherently not moral, because we aren't owning it. If this does lead to righteous action, it is only by luck, and thus not moral at all.
No one's perfect and no one knows all the right answers, but I think we have a responsibility to do everything within our power to answer those difficult questions. It's an ongoing imperative. Hence why I say doubt is an obligation.
So what this means is that we can only say that we're behaving in a moral way if
Regardless of if any religion is true in the sense of being an accurate representation of the world's history and metaphysics, religions have a lot to teach us, and are the single greatest source of human philosophy and thought. You're foolish if you shrug that off.
(Which is why I'm an atheist with a philosophy and religion degree)
Don't worry, that was educative. But I was saying what I said with stuff like this in mind -
A gay man I know was once beaten up by around five men. As it turned out, two of them were closet homosexuals themselves. One of them dealt with it over a few years, and turned out to live a healthy life. The other one, however was a staunch christian. He tried to ask people he knew to help him, but ultimately, there was no "cure" to be found, and one final day, he killed himself.
What I'm saying is this - when so many people believe that they can indirectly damage(it may be against their religion to kill someone, but the entire earth is given to them by God. So what if we break a few things on it?) the world around them, and feel no guilt because God will call them up to party.
Again, I'm not neglecting the good this particular religion has done. But in general, there are so many more religions I'd rather have to be this popular. I wanted to clarify, but the first time I made my post it was way longer than yours.