Existence: What is the point?

Pilgrim, if there is no God, there is no truth - only facts which serve the interests of the despotically inclined.

TRUTH

Every second the power generated by the sun is equivalent to 1 billion tons of TNT. The next big Solar Storm could wipe out Electricity on continents facing the sun at the time. An extra large Solar storm could wipe out life on the Earth. Then where is your 'truth'?

 

When that is hooray for my side, it's win-lose mentality.

May seem strange only because our evolution hasn't progressed far enough to thoroughly establish this in history, but it is at least potentially promising for the future. Lose-lose is predominant? Including WWI & WWII etc.? Well, some lose-lose outcomes were likely intended to be win-lose. I would agree that past mistakes are too often repeated, as if a society isn't mindful of the failures of previous societies.

 

Sure, just like I find murder unthinkable where another finds it more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

So this truth is only true in certain parts of the universe. Have I got that about right?

Self-awareness challenged, are you?

So your personal comfort zone suffices for you as reality. Whodathunkit?

Wherever God is, obviously. You're welcome.

So you agree that evolution is just as likely to lead to that as to a win-win mentality. Right?

Including everything, of course it is.

Sure, like there's a dime's worth of difference.

Society is plenty mindful of historical failures. What it's not mindful of is the cause of all those failures.

 

1. Unless a particular 'religious truth', happens to be, 'objective truth'. I include atheistic naturalism in that possibility, as a religious belief, that might be objective truth. We lack empirical information to ascertain that.
2. Exactly. That is why i differentiate between beliefs, and objective reality. They are not the same. It is possible that one of the beliefs, about the nature of the universe, is correct, and all others would be false.
3. Science can only deal with the natural, and the material. So any 'theory', or belief about the Big Questions, are automatically religious or philosophical in nature, outside of the realm of science.
4. All religions are logical, once you assume the premises. And all are illogical, if you dismiss their assumptions. Atheistic naturalism is included in this. You merely dismiss another religion's assumptions, while holding fast to your own.

Here were my original points, for reference:

 

"yguy, post: 1070042288, member: 36186"]Sure, just like I find murder unthinkable where another finds it more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
So this truth is only true in certain parts of the universe. Have I got that about right?
You're assuming there is 'a truth' or 'truths'. A creature from another planet in the Universe might 'see things' completely differently - if, of course, it could 'think' the same way as humans do. Would they be, as CSLewis calls them, 'hnau or 'nau—a rational being, capable of speech, intellect, and personhood, and containing a soul'. .
Is a 'chimp' a rational being? It has its own form of basic speech, it can, and has learnt, does it have a soul?. Other creatures are the same. We have evolved from the animal kingdom. How do they see 'truth'? 'THIS truth' is simply applicable to this civilisation.

`Self-awareness challenged, are you?
Do you know you exist and are not a part of some beings gigantic game. Can you prove your next post to me has not been preprogrammed?

So your personal comfort zone suffices for you as reality. Whodathunkit?
That's an assumption focused on an aside. Reality is the suffering of many peoples and the ignoring of this by many other people, Reality is what you see around you. What is happening around you. You can only see 'god/truth'' because you interpret things 'your' way. This 'god' is a figment of man's imagination.

Wherever God is, obviously.
And where is this 'god'?

.

 

This exchange by trevor and yguy is very pertinent to the OP.

T: Well, I came to it by understanding that human life is not to be taken lightly.
Y: And your basis for that claim is...?
T: I have no right to take a life just because I don't like someone.
Y: You are of course entitled to that opinion. What's missing is any reason why anyone else should be bound by it.

It shows that the BASIS for our moral views are rooted in something not tangible.

IF.. there is a God, there might be a moral code, imbedded (and expected) by this God, for humanity to follow.

IF.. there is no God, but only atheistic naturalism, then all moraluty is a human construct, with no meaning or basis. Everyone can do and believe as they wish, since there are no absolutes.

It is also the basis for the OP.

In a godless, material universe, there is no 'point', and everyone can just pretend, or make something up.

But IF.. there is a God, AND IF, He has expectations for our behavior, THEN.. there might indeed be a 'point' for our existence.

That is the dilemma we humans find ourselves in. One of these beliefs about the universe could be true, and the other a delusion. How do we come to a conclusion, about this profound mystery of life?

 

You missed my further explanation. My fathers emotion was indeed tangible.

IF ? You are quite right. IF there is a God. IF he made us? IF he is concerned about us? IF there is a god why not reveal himself in a way we can understand.
Or IF he allowed evolution.? IF he is not concerned? That's an awful lot of IF'S.


Emily Dickinson

In this short Life that only lasts an hour
How much - how little - is within our power

 

1. I do not consider emotion, 'tangible'. ..Neither the core beliefs that provide bases for morality. Feeling and faith are not tangible, by definition.
2. All other 'Ifs!' are dependent on the assumptions of the first, major 'If'. Is there a God, or not?
3. Life is a tale told by an idiot.. full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bill S.

Can you just choose significance or absurdity, or is there something tangible to base decisions (and beliefs) on?

 

I do not consider emotion, 'tangible'. Of course you don't. My father's emotion certainly touched and changed my life.

The silence as she lifts the lid is almost tangible.
The passion of the writing was so tangible she almost cried.
Macca converted this and the relief was tangible.

 

I agree that scientific hypotheses on the Big questions can be categorized as natural philosophy since they are non falsifiable. OTOH Scientific Law and Scientific Theory (capital T) can peal back our understanding of the processes involved to mere moments AFTER "creation" (small c) of This.

Assumption of an illogical premise to begin with, is itself wholly illogical and guarantees one's acceptance of its fallacious validation in the first place. quite symmetric and effective.

 

If you don't use the quote function per rule 15, don't expect any more responses after this.

No, you are assuming your idiotic assertion is true.

As for actual truth, I've no need to assume it exists, because I know it exists.

No. You're welcome.

That's a lie.

You betcha.

Of course I am, just like you.

What the hell for?

More accurately, that aside, and the conclusion I drew from it, fits hand in glove with everything else you've said.

In the last place you want to be.

So you're safe.

 

IMO, the only satisfactory answer to the point of existence is to forge one's own point. One of the most fundamental things about conscious existence, if not THE most fundamental point, is that it is subjective; we should expect any "point" to it to be similarly subjective. Is that terrifying? In some ways, sure, but if you allow it to be then it can be thrillingly so. Expecting some sort of handed-to-you absolute "meaning" on a universal scale is megalomania, not philosophy.

Most people offering an absolute solution are trying to answer the absurdity of existence with denialism where either a healthy sense of humor and irony, a sense of stoic integrity, or a sense of artistic appreciation will do just fine, and all three options are far less fragile.

 

Well, if you know it exists, carry on dreaming. You don't know if you're reply is preprogrammed of not? If God is omni... everything, it certainly is.
And you can't tell me where God is? He's in the last place I'd want to be! Let me think. If I thought there was a heaven I would like to be there - though not the Christian heaven. The JW's heaven would be OK. The last place I'd want to be is in hell, if I thought there was one. But you say God is there.
I'm reminded of Festus to Paul ' too much learning doth make thee mad'.

Have a good day.

 

No, the last place you'd want to be is Heaven.

 

You could have said "Christian" instead of "Christmas".

The root assumption of science is that mankind can meaningfully observve the universe.

Are you suggesting that you reject that assumption?

On the other hand, religion requiires that we assume a supernatural, all powerful, timeless being that both made and continues to control every aspect of the universe.

I do reject that, as it is an assumption for which there is no evidence.

 

Likely at some point before reaching further advancement. The pattern of progressive evolution is toward successive improvement. Inferior aspects become superseded by superior ones.

Good point.

 

That may be, but it is more apparent in said holiday season because related activity is increased.

Christianity underwent some distinct changes during its history of formation and continuation, some of which were perhaps not betterment. Maybe I'll come back with a particular item of interest after refreshing my grasp on the source.

Evidence is unnecessary for dismissal of nonsense, IMO, although some concepts of a Creator seem to qualify as sensible.

 

I suggested exactly what i said, and will not 'debate', those who distort and twist my intended meaning to promote their phony anti-christian narratives. Your call.

 

This is a philosophical thread, more existential than ethereal. Lame attacks on alternate religious views only expose an agenda of hostility and bigotry, and are not topical, but are just propaganda memes from indoctrinees.

If you want to examine the philisophical basis of a belief, and follow the conclusions it presents, that is a useful, valid exercise. But merely spewing anti-christian rhetoric, because it is hip and trendy, is not topical, helpful, or rational.

 

We could see what happens when those people take over-at least 20 million dead Christians in short few years. Somehow, our Orthodox Church survived all of their horrors in the region where I came from, and when the Church regained power not a single ‘atheist’ was murdered.

 

?
I see no connection to anything i said...

Is there a point to existence? Why? Or, why not?

Believing there is a 'purpose' or 'meaning' for our existence is the most common human opinion, even among some of the atheists here, who argue that point with passion.

So, do you believe there is a purpose for our existence, or is that just a reaction from fear or wishful thinking?

20 million dead xtians in a few short years? Are you predicting genocide?

 

So now you can read my mind. Nice one.

 

I asked a straight forward question.

I asked if you reject the fundamental assumption upon which science is based - that we may meaningfully observe our universe.

 

I'm interested in what you have to say, but I'm not going to watch a video.