The great mystery of life is that people who devote themselves to the welfare of others tend to be happy. It is a mystery, not a principle.
It is easy enough to say someone with a lot of general goals (job, family, ending starvation) have meaningful lives, but it is not so easy to explain what that meaning is. A homeless person has to decide where to sleep every night. It sounds to me like you are saying you are superior to a homeless person because you help others.
I commend you for admitting that God exists and that our freedom is before God. Jesus and Mohammad taught mankind that God gathers up our past when we die. It is this belief that makes life meaningful.
we don’t know enough about the structure of our universe, the nature of human conciousness, or the laws of physics to make such a statement that it is a priori that this infinite being exists
How do you know it’s an infinite being?
How do you know it’s one being?
If it turns out that the God you worship currently has its own Ubergod, would you keep on worshiping God or would you switch to worshiping the Ubergod instead?
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we can’t see the truth of it but we know it is true because God is telling us.
I don’t believe that an infinite being exists, I know an infinite being exists. I know this from the method of inquiry called metaphysics. An infinite being is a pure act of existence. This is a state of perfection. There can be no change in God and no improvement.
Your question about a God that created more finite beings is like asking: “Why did God create any finite beings at all?” The only thing that could motivate God to do anything is self love. God created finite beings because He loved himself as giving. But he could have loved himself without creating finite beings. Hence, the question of why God created finite beings is a mystery. Why God created the universe He did create is also a mystery.
It is physically impossible for a perfect being to act upon the universe as he thereby negates his own perfection (perfect doesn’t make mistakes). So, either “God” is perfect, and the Bible is BS on many of its claims. Or the Bible’s claims are true, and God is not perfect. You can only have one. Or, both of them are BS… either way, it matters not to me. I will dedicate my life to upkeep and progression of existence (God’s creation, if you will) and let the chips fall where they will (probably with me rotting in the ground, no afterlife).
When Jesus was on the cross, he told the thief on his right that he would be with him soon in paradise. That he said nothing to the other thief should scare us all. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should not be feared because He doesn’t know our actions, or cannot act upon us, or will not act upon us is irresponsible and irrational. I suggest you re-think your decision not to believe in the Bible.
When Jesus was on the cross, he told the thief on his right that he would be with him soon in paradise. That he said nothing to the other thief should scare us all. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should not be feared because He doesn’t know our actions, or cannot act upon us, or will not act upon us is irresponsible and irrational. I suggest you re-think your decision not to believe in the Bible.
I advise you to re-think whether you support a perfect God or an acting God. You can’t have both.
Why the Bible and not the Upanishads and the Baghavad Gita? Brahman is monotheistic. Why christianity? Or a better question… why do you care? Do you think atheism is irrational? If so… why do you have a problem with them thinking theism is irrational?
<~~moral ignostic. God/soul/afterlife is unknowable in the physical world. it is litterally “non-sense.” I don’t know. You don’t know. We will never know. Just be a good person and let the chips fall where they will.
(Besides if God only lets you in heavan out of vanity (worship of/faith in him), regardless of one’s actions to upkeep his creation, God is a jerk and I will gladly take purgatory)
You are quite right to see the contradiction in thinking of an acting God and a perfect God. What I believe is that our freedom is before God and that when we die out past will somehow be gathered up and become the defining moment of our lives. The question of why God created finite beings is a mystery. He created us out of self-love, but He could just as well loved himself without giving finite beings existence.
Buddhists and Hindus believe in life after death. They believe that Jesus is alive in heaven, just as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
What is irrational and immature is thinking that Hindus, Christians, etc are irrational or unenlightened. Such immature people are liberals/atheists/humanist and are prone to acting out their psychological demons. They are deceiving themselves when they think they are more rational than people who believe in the Bible and the Upanishads. They are deceiving themselves when they think serving their fellow man makes their life meaningful.
You are quite right to see the contradiction in thinking of an acting God and a perfect God. What I believe is that our freedom is before God and that when we die out past will somehow be gathered up and become the defining moment of our lives. The question of why God created finite beings is a mystery. He created us out of self-love, but He could just as well loved himself without giving finite beings existence.
It’s just what you “believe.” You don’t know. I don’t know. The Pope doesn’t know. None of us will know until we die. It is “Non sense,” literally.
Buddhists and Hindus believe in life after death. They believe that Jesus is alive in heaven, just as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
What is irrational and immature is thinking that Hindus, Christians, etc are irrational or unenlightened. Such immature people are liberals/atheists/humanist and are prone to acting out their psychological demons. They are deceiving themselves when they think they are more rational than people who believe in the Bible and the Upanishads.
I’m with you up to here… but then you say…
They are deceiving themselves when they think serving their fellow man makes their life meaningful.
It’s “bollocks”, but yeah, that’s one of the main things I was trying to get David to justifiy. We don’t know there is one, and there’s no reason to believe one exists outside of religous texts. I would imagine a life spent preparing for an afterlife, that it turns out doesn’t exist, would have a whole lot more “wasted” time and less meaning, than one that was spent bettering our current existance. Why not work to better this life and let the chips fall where they may if there is an afterlife? Sort of like an anti-pascal’s wager.
Well even working to better the current existence can be argued to be wasted time with no meaning seeing as everything is transient. Even the best will crumble and fall away so whats it all for?
I understand what you’re getting at- its noble to work towards reducing suffering- its just that I don’t think this line of argument to “let the chips fall where they may” means anything to someone who believes in an afterlife and religious texts.(Who don’t oppose bettering the current existence, its just not seen as the end goal)
Originally when the thread was created, I read the first one or two pages and then gave up on it.
Now I see why it’s been going on for so long!
David, hot tip: Answer your objectors point for point. You guys seem to be missing each other in the dark. And if you want to argue using a cosmological argument, just lay out the premises and justify each one, else this could just go on for fifty more pages and nothing would be accomplished.
Also, define your terms. By the way, I think I recall someone asking above about whether ‘the’ cosmological argument gets us one or many gods. There are many different versions, and different ones will say different things about that problem. However, just on the surface, many tend to use Ockham’s razor (to eliminate a multiplicity of causes) or an ontological argument coupled with the logical conflicts of multiple gods because of how some of the attributes would interact.
Well even working to better the current existence can be argued to be wasted time with no meaning seeing as everything is transient. Even the best will crumble and fall away so whats it all for?
Why does something have to be eternal to have meaning? What if all we can build in life is just sandcastles? Does this mean we shouldn’t build them? Why waste your time preparing an attractive and tastey meal when it will just be consumed and destroyed? “Meaning” is a human concept, thought, that leads me to think that there is no objective answer. I don’t think that the result of my actions have to be persistent or eternal for them to have meaning to myself, loved ones, or fellow humans.
I understand what you’re getting at- its noble to work towards reducing suffering- its just that I don’t think this line of argument to “let the chips fall where they may” means anything to someone who believes in an afterlife and religious texts.(Who don’t oppose bettering the current existence, its just not seen as the end goal)
Well, myself and others have been asking David to justify his belief in the afterlife without falling back on “it’s faith”. If you claim “faith” it’s really hard to convince that person otherwise. It’s like trying to have a rational discussion over, for example, the nationalization of healthcare. You ask the pro-nationalization person to justify thier position, and they say “I just believe it should be”. It’s a non-arguement.
MrSchnapps
David, hot tip: Answer your objectors point for point. You guys seem to be missing each other in the dark. And if you want to argue using a cosmological argument, just lay out the premises and justify each one, else this could just go on for fifty more pages and nothing would be accomplished.
Also, define your terms…
I’m pretty sure several of us have asked him to do this, it really would help further the conversation.
I have given my reasons for believing in life after death and I am summoning everyone to believe. Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. You can’t prove something whose truth you cannot see. It would be irrational of me to criticize someone who did not believe in life after death.
However, I can prove that someone who does not believe does not have a meaningful life. I prove it simply by asking what meaning does your life have? The burden of proof is on you. You have to explain what meaning your life has. My purpose in life is to serve God in this world to be with him in the next. I am hoping to be saved by following the ten commandments and storing up treasures in heaven when I can.
However, I can prove that someone who does not believe does not have a meaningful life. I prove it simply by asking what meaning does your life have? The burden of proof is on you.
Just like to point out that you are the one making the positive statement that life has an objective meaning. I have yet to see you respond seriously to any requests to support that assertion.
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. The statement, “we don’t know there is an afterlife,” is nonsense. What a rational and mature person would say is, “I don’t believe in an afterlife.” A mature rational person would admit that God exists and that the reasons to believe are persuasive.