Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Mar 23, 2019.
this is what we are supposed to be doing:
Then explaining why exactly such a God would have no intelligent thoughts won't be a problem.
I don't know any such thing, any more than you do.
Well then surely you will not pass up this opportunity to put me in my place by providing the context, so ante up already.
And you get that idea where, exactly?
A logical, possible explanation for the widespread, wholesale delusion of man in a godless universe is this:
We are NOT in a godless universe, but a God ordered one.
IOW, delusion is NOT that widespread, but minimal, in the human animal, and his instincts are correct. There IS morality, purpose, Love, and Beauty in the world. Man HAS a soul, and the longing of eternity dwells in it.
We KNOW, in the depths of our innermost being, that our Creator is reaching to us.. calling us back to the state for which we were created. We have the ability, to answer that call, or ignore it.
Welcome, to a God ordered universe..
You are back to your (still unaddressed) infinite regress problem. If order requires an explanation, than God requires an additional God to explain his own orderliness, ad infinitum.
More like a void describing a vacancy.
Very thought-provoking. I think the implications for "God made it" are well known since they are so prevalent. But I can offer a thought on the notion that "No god made it". And that is that if we consider our existence as it is in the context of a universe of trillions of celestial bodies of different types behaving in ways that we not only cannot control, but do not understand, and which continue to orbit or not, collide or not, and persist or not, and with all these things happening over a distance so enormous that light requires billions of years to traverse the expanse, we may begin to grasp the cold, hard truth that all of humanity could be snuffed out in an instant by one of several cosmic events that are really quite common and the universe would never notice. Our extinction, complete with the total destruction of all we have created and learned through the millennia, would in reality be as insignificant as the explosion and annihilation of one red dwarf star among the billions of other stars. No one would shed a tear. The universe wouldn't care. It. Wouldn't. Matter. It would just be another insignificant event among many. Then realize that one day all we think we are and have will, indeed, be annihilated. And no god will intervene to prevent it.
Our notion of our own self-importance as a specie is part of the Great Illusion to which that Einstein quote referred. We created our reality and it consists of what we have made and what we do with it and within it. That is the "reality" that is actually the illusion. And the universe isn't impressed. It just is. Our extinction won't mean anything. It will just be.
Good post, and solid reasoning.
Yes, this is absolutely the only logical conclusion of a godless universe. IF, 'nuthindidit', THEN nothing matters.. morality, the soul, Love, beauty, meaning, purpose.. these are all empty, meaningless platitudes, in an indifferent, meaningless universe. They would be delusions, to placate the fear of death, nothing more.
And whether we live on, as a planet, for a few more centuries, millennia, eons, or hours, makes no difference. We are a blip on the cosmic radar screen, and will disappear into infinite obscurity.
So all of these delusions, that hang on as leftover remnants from belief in a God ordered universe, are just feel good platitudes, that the enlightened person might as well face, if they want to accept the reality of living in a godless universe. Why would living in delusion be preferable to facing reality?
you are using the word delusion wrong, and you've been corrected enough times to know that.
You've been heckling right.. lots of practice, i guess!
correcting your misuse of words isn't heckling. It's correcting your misuse.
Ah, not happy disrupting the other thread, so you want to trash this one too?
I'm trying to get you to use words correctly. Use them, or don't use them. Doesn't matter to me. But when you use them incorrectly, people are going to call you on it.
You have assertions and accusations, not definitions or examples. I define my words, and exemplify the meaning, while you accuse, deflect, and disrupt, with no tooical content.
What else can i conclude, but you're either disrupting with antifa tactics, or obsessed with me, personally, over some homoerotic fantasy?
"3. There is a soul"
Traditionally, 'soul' simply meant: 'person'.
If I understand correctly, it is now generally accepted to mean some mysterious and supernatural "thing" which is a part of us, yet unknowable, and "lives" forever. There is no evidence to support such a view. If it was unknowable by us, it couldn't be "us".
One can accept a variation of this modern understanding by tweaking the definition to simply mean: 'consciousness'. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that 'conciousness' is a mysterious and invisible "thing" which defines us.
Yes, if we mean 'person', then 'soul' is simply a synonym, with no metaphysical implication.
But 'soul' is also (and contextually, here), used as a mystical, spiritual essence that is connected with the physical, but transcends it.
IOW, 'soul' implies a spiritual being.. an ethereal part of each human body, but living on after the body is gone.
'Evidence' is sketchy.. there definitely is evidence.. NDEs, personal anecdotes, and experiences, but certainly there is not material evidence of an immaterial property.
And, if we posit a godless universe, the idea of a soul becomes absurd. If the universe is purely material, how could there be a spiritual dimension, of ethereal beings?
Consciousness is different, as it is limited to living, material beings, with a brain, in the purely materialistic view.
You guys are both wrong. Einstein was an agnostic who didn't believe in life after death.
Letters about his religious views were published extensively 10 or 15 years ago.
Im pretty sure that often used quote is a fake one.
I don't really see that there is any difference in a universe with or without a God. Not until you start ascribing characteristics to that God .
With just this hypothetical God could be a total prick who wants us to kill our neighbors and only gives afterlives to suicide bombers.
I'd say morality is better in a godless universe, as clearly evidenced by the fact morality is better in more secular countries. Its a glaringly obvious correlation.
you of course know that is false. You've been given the definition of ad hom, and delusion several times. You intentionally use the incorrectly. it's silly
If this God is distant, indifferent, amoral, and uninvolved, then i would agree. There would be little functional difference between a godless universe, and one with such a God.
But the usual dichotomy is not a distant, indifferent God, but One who has defined a moral code, given a conscience, implied a Soul (or afterlife existence), and is personally involved in the spiritual well being and directives of people.
There would be quite a difference between those 2 hypothetical universes.
Attributing evil motivations to God raises too many inconsistencies.:
1. If God wanted us dead, He could do it with no difficulty. He is, after all, God.
2. Attributing the evil among humans to God is misdirected. Humans can bear the responsibility for their choices. Why would that be God's fault?
3. Where does a sense of 'evil' come from? In a godless universe, there just is. Things happen with no moral qualifier. Death, life, random events.. just happen with no higher purpose or direction.
Morality is meaningless, manipulative, and delusional, in a godless universe. How can there be any value judgement of 'good & evil', in an amoral, random universe? Existence and survival is the only instinctive directive, and even that 'means' nothing. Living to old age comfortably or dying at birth mean the same thing: nothing.
You've had your fun.. now run along, and let the adults talk.. i won't be giving you more attention, so any whining or acting up will be wasted.
An agnostic believer in Spinoza's God, you mean.
The relevance to anything I said being...?
A faith based conclusion if ever I saw one.
So do Stalinist Russia and Maoist China not count as secular countries, by your calculus?
That is a very flawed leap, made in order to discredit what was said previously. I never said "nothing matters." I said that AT THAT TIME, our extinction won't matter to anyone or anything. Either you failed to comprehend what I said, or you intentionally spun it to give you what you needed.
I accept your concession.
But no real evidence.
Who is claiming, 'evidence!'? I'm saying, in a godless universe, belief in a soul is a delusion.
I defined soul with the other poster..
Separate names with a comma.