Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

Yes. But it's up to each person to determine how best to satisfy their desire to be fulfilled by their lives. Every mind is a little different.

Is fulfilling your desire exactly the same thing as fulfilling your potential? I don't think so.

Very questionable. The presumption that the universe is for you is likely to have some unintended psychological or rational consequences that undermine the goal of having a meaningful life.




I've never seen a good argument put forth for self-deception.

Are you saying that a meaningless and purposeless universe actually make it more likely for you to have purpose and meaning in your life? I don't think so.

 

[Danoff]

Is fulfilling your desire exactly the same thing as fulfilling your potential? I don't think so.

I said "satisfy their desire to be fulfilled". It's up to each individual to determine how best to leave a satisfying life, including fulfilling potential or any other desire.

Are you saying that a meaningless and purposeless universe actually make it more likely for you to have purpose and meaning in your life? I don't think so.

I'm saying that I've never seen a good argument put forth for self-deception. If the universe is actually meaningless and purposeless (which all evidence to date suggests), then telling yourself otherwise can have unintended psychological and rational consequences that can undermine the goal of having a meaningful life.

If the universe actually were meaningful or purposeful or created just for you, then recognizing that truth would not be self-deception.

Edit:

Looking externally to find meaning is exactly the wrong place. You need to look within, within your own brain. You need to understand yourself and what drives your particular mind and personality. Believing that a universe is made for you (when it is not) can provide you with a false sense of purpose from without, stifling your search for meaning.

 

[Dotini]

I said "satisfy their desire to be fulfilled". It's up to each individual to determine how best to leave a satisfying life, including fulfilling potential or any other desire.



I'm saying that I've never seen a good argument put forth for self-deception. If the universe is actually meaningless and purposeless (which all evidence to date suggests), then telling yourself otherwise can have unintended psychological and rational consequences that can undermine the goal of having a meaningful life.

If the universe actually were meaningful or purposeful or created just for you, then recognizing that truth would not be self-deception.

Edit:

Looking externally to find meaning is exactly the wrong place. You need to look within, within your own brain. You need to understand yourself and what drives your particular mind and personality. Believing that a universe is made for you (when it is not) can provide you with a false sense of purpose from without, stifling your search for meaning.

I used to believe that the universe lacked any meaning or purpose, and that the only meaning and purpose our lives have is what we individually instill into it. But now I suspect that approach leads to nihilism. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe not. Anyway, I'm satisfied that we don't agree, won't ever agree, and I'm quite willing to leave it there.

 

[Danoff]

I used to believe that the universe lacked any meaning or purpose, and that the only meaning and purpose our lives have is what we individually instill into it. But now I suspect that approach leads to nihilism.

...so it's better to invent one? I think nihilism is more likely to be bought by people who aren't used to having to flex those muscles suddenly having to stand on them. For example, someone who was brought up to believe in a meaning that was supplied by a dusty old bloody book, unaccustomed to thinking for themselves about the purpose of their lives, suddenly realizing that it's all a lie.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There's an "IMO" after that. So it is, in my opinion.

Is there any favorable thing said about homosexuality? I can only remember it being considered a sin punishable by death.

I don't know of any christian sect ever being favourable towards homosexuals until recently. They only play catch up with our social development, as in every other controversial issue. Some say the bible isn't clear now, because the pressure from the outside is strong.

I don't think there is. But should Christians follow the Bible absolutely?

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't think there is. But should Christians follow the Bible absolutely?

I don't know if they should. I think no one should follow any particular religious book. But most Christians cherry pick which parts to follow and which to ignore. As times go by, the parts they ignore (or have to ignore due to social and scientific development) is growing bigger and bigger.

Most self proclaimed Christians live lives undistinguishable from most atheists, except they have a somewhat abstract view of God and an inconsequential belief in Jesus. Is more of cultural thing than anything else, at least from what I see. Maybe they went to church as kids and still do once in a blue moon, but the commitment to the saviour of humanity and the creator of all things seems pretty much inexistent.

Are these still Christians if they don't follow the Bible and don't go to church? Dunno.

 

[Dotini]

...so it's better to invent one?

Every system of cosmology invents something, "tells a lie" as you say. These are called premises. If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then really there is no ultimate purpose in our lives. Individually you may or may not overcome this, but it undermines the moral underpinnings of society and civilization.

I'm looking at a theory which is completely consistent with everything so far discovered, including the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion year old Earth, and evolution. The only difference with standard cosmology is the preexistence of an infinite conscious intelligence. You cannot get away from the preexistence of something, whether an ensemble of physical laws generating infinite random universes or an infinite conscious intelligence. Science cannot resolve this. One view is not more rational than the other.

 

[Danoff]

Every system of cosmology invents something, "tells a lie" as you say. These are called premises. If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then really there is no ultimate purpose in our lives. Individually you may or may not overcome this, but it undermines the moral underpinnings of society and civilization.

So what you meant earlier about finding meaning in your own life leading to nihilism is that you yourself think nihilism is an inescapable conclusion. If you think humans originated by chance, you haven't been paying attention. If you think our universe is random, you haven't been paying attention. We exist in a stable universe because it is stable. Life exists within this stable universe because life is stable. Saying that we originated by chance in a random universe is like saying that stability just happens to exist in a stable universe.

Morality has nothing to do with meaning. The meaning of your life does not determine your morality. You may find it impossible to have a meaningful life without morality, but that does not mean that morality informs your meaning. Similarly, you may find it impossible to have a meaningful life without food, but that doesn't mean that food informs your meaning. It might be a necessary condition, but it's likely not a sufficient one.

The closest I can come to identifying people I know who take meaning from being moral are religious zealots - whose external life meaning is intertwined with complying with an external moral system. But even then, I think few religious people are content with their lives simply because they lived them in compliance with the laws written in their holy book.

You're caught a bit in a circular loop of reasoning and you don't see a way out. You've presupposed without realizing it that meaning must come externally. When you allow yourself to conclude that there is no external entity to provide this meaning to you, you conclude that meaning does not exist. Your flaw is in your premise. The universe does not care what you do, and there is no god to care. This does not leave you with a life of no meaning, it leaves you with no external source of meaning. Which is as it always was.

If you can't come up with a personal reason for existence, then nihilism may result. But that is as it always was.

I'm looking at a theory which is completely consistent with everything so far discovered, including the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion year old Earth, and evolution. The only difference with standard cosmology is the preexistence of an infinite conscious intelligence. You cannot get away from the preexistence of something, whether an ensemble of physical laws generating infinite random universes or an infinite conscious intelligence. Science cannot resolve this. One view is not more rational than the other.

I think you've shifted your goalpost here. An infinite conscious intelligence... full stop... is not god, it's certainly not the god of any holy book, and it's not a god whose mind you can know, or who cares about your existence, or who can provide you meaning. You want to take this step beyond what we have evidence to support and presuppose something that you do not need to presuppose, an intelligence, and you want to do that to solve a problem, meaning, but it's not solving that problem. You need to take many many more steps further and further into what you do not have a reason to believe before you could arrive at a god that you can have a relationship with and which can provide you meaning.

Your cosmic intelligence does not solve your problem any better than a cosmic lack of intelligence.

 

[Dotini]

So what you meant earlier about finding meaning in your own life leading to nihilism is that you yourself think nihilism is an inescapable conclusion. If you think humans originated by chance, you haven't been paying attention. If you think our universe is random, you haven't been paying attention. We exist in a stable universe because it is stable. Life exists within this stable universe because life is stable. Saying that we originated by chance in a random universe is like saying that stability just happens to exist in a stable universe.

Morality has nothing to do with meaning. The meaning of your life does not determine your morality. You may find it impossible to have a meaningful life without morality, but that does not mean that morality informs your meaning. Similarly, you may find it impossible to have a meaningful life without food, but that doesn't mean that food informs your meaning. It might be a necessary condition, but it's likely not a sufficient one.

The closest I can come to identifying people I know who take meaning from being moral are religious zealots - whose external life meaning is intertwined with complying with an external moral system. But even then, I think few religious people are content with their lives simply because they lived them in compliance with the laws written in their holy book.

You're caught a bit in a circular loop of reasoning and you don't see a way out. You've presupposed without realizing it that meaning must come externally. When you allow yourself to conclude that there is no external entity to provide this meaning to you, you conclude that meaning does not exist. Your flaw is in your premise. The universe does not care what you do, and there is no god to care. This does not leave you with a life of no meaning, it leaves you with no external source of meaning. Which is as it always was.

If you can't come up with a personal reason for existence, then nihilism may result. But that is as it always was.



I think you've shifted your goalpost here. An infinite conscious intelligence... full stop... is not god, it's certainly not the god of any holy book, and it's not a god whose mind you can know, or who cares about your existence, or who can provide you meaning. You want to take this step beyond what we have evidence to support and presuppose something that you do not need to presuppose, an intelligence, and you want to do that to solve a problem, meaning, but it's not solving that problem. You need to take many many more steps further and further into what you do not have a reason to believe before you could arrive at a god that you can have a relationship with and which can provide you meaning.

Your cosmic intelligence does not solve your problem any better than a cosmic lack of intelligence.

Thank you for your cosmic insights; everything you say is absolutely true and everything I say is absolutely false without room for question or discussion. I have deposited 25 cents in your slot, but will not accept further lessons from you.

 

[Danoff]

Thank you for your cosmic insights; everything you say is absolutely true and everything I say is absolutely false within room for question or discussion. I have deposited 25 cents in your slot, but will not accept further lessons from you.

You're the one who posted in a discussion forum. But fine, you don't want to hear from me, just stop reading my posts.

I find it interesting that you don't seem to have a substantive response here. Just a closed line of thinking. I'm not here to validate your worldview. If I think you have it wrong, I tell you.

 

[Dotini]

You're the one who posted in a discussion forum. But fine, you don't want to hear from me, just stop reading my posts.

I find it interesting that you don't seem to have a substantive response here. Just a closed line of thinking. I'm not here to validate your worldview. If I think you have it wrong, I tell you.

I don't think there is any semblance of discussion, only a confrontation, a one-sided beatdown.

 

[Danoff]

I don't thing there is any semblance of discussion, only a confrontation, a one-sided beatdown.

That's very disrespectful.

That post took time. I thought about what you had written, and gave you the analysis you seemed to want. To a certain extent, that post was a show of trust in at least that I was assuming that I had a willing conversational partner. I see now that it was misplaced. I very much want to demonstrate to you now what the confrontational post would really look like, so that you could see the difference, but I don't think it would further the discussion.

I get that you'd prefer that I seemed less sure of my responses. Maybe you'd like it if I said things like "In my experience" or "in my opinion" more often. Maybe you'd prefer it if I made the conversation seem difficult or unknowable, or shrugged my shoulders at the complexity of it all and didn't make an effort to sort it out. To do that I would have to mislead you, or myself. And I'm not a big fan of benevolent deception, or of self-deception. In fact, I've never seen a good case for it.

 

[Dotini]

That's very disrespectful.

That post took time. I thought about what you had written, and gave you the analysis you seemed to want. To a certain extent, that post was a show of trust in at least that I was assuming that I had a willing conversational partner. I see now that it was misplaced. I very much want to demonstrate to you now what the confrontational post would really look like, so that you could see the difference, but I don't think it would further the discussion.

I get that you'd prefer that I seemed less sure of my responses. Maybe you'd like it if I said things like "In my experience" or "in my opinion" more often. Maybe you'd prefer it if I made the conversation seem difficult or unknowable, or shrugged my shoulders at the complexity of it all and didn't make an effort to sort it out. To do that I would have to mislead you, or myself. And I'm not a big fan of benevolent deception, or of self-deception. In fact, I've never seen a good case for it.

Yes, I'm smarting a bit from the beating you administered, and it's time to move on to other issues. I have many things to do just now. Three days/week taken up in fencing, usually two on my fishing boat, and the rest in studying motor sports, politics, cosmology, UAP and religion. As I make my way through Bernard Haisch's books on his God Theory, I plan to make additional posts in the God thread for you to tear into.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't know if they should. I think no one should follow any particular religious book. But most Christians cherry pick which parts to follow and which to ignore. As times go by, the parts they ignore (or have to ignore due to social and scientific development) is growing bigger and bigger.

Most self proclaimed Christians live lives undistinguishable from most atheists, except they have a somewhat abstract view of God and an inconsequential belief in Jesus. Is more of cultural thing than anything else, at least from what I see. Maybe they went to church as kids and still do once in a blue moon, but the commitment to the saviour of humanity and the creator of all things seems pretty much inexistent.

Are these still Christians if they don't follow the Bible and don't go to church? Dunno.

It would be interesting to see what Christians more opposed to homosexuality think of those who advocate gay marriage or gay clergy.

Are they seen as somehow less Christian....

 

[zzz_pt]

It would be interesting to see what Christians more opposed to homosexuality think of those who advocate gay marriage or gay clergy.

Are they seen as somehow less Christian....

I think so. That's how sects are born. Someone thinks the interpretation of the church they belong to is wrong (sinful), leaves, and creates another church with the "correct" christian view of homosexuality.

That's the problem with (religious) texts. They're not maths, so there's room for all kinds of interpretations and nuance.

On the topic of homossexuality though, I can only see one christian view - if you xan even call it that - that allows for it to be viewed as normal human behaviour and not sinful behavior/nature. That's the view that "we should love out neighbor as ourselves". That view is pretty narrow according to the bible as a whole though, because ignores the whole death by stoning, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the documented persecution of gay people by the church - Roman Catholic and Protestant.

 

[Danoff]

That's the problem with (religious) texts. They're not maths, so there's room for all kinds of interpretations and nuance.

..and as you point out, pure revisionist wishful thinking.

 

[Dotini]

While I'm reading, I'll leave this short video of an interview with Bernard Haisch. I'm pretty sure some us are going to enjoy it even if only because its another opportunity to laugh.

 

[Danoff]

While I'm reading, I'll leave this short video of an interview with Bernard Haisch. I'm pretty sure some us are going to enjoy it even if only because its another opportunity to laugh.

He falls victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is to never involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is that if you're trying to answer the question of where the universe comes from, you accomplish nothing by supposing it comes from something else... because you don't know where that came from. It's especially bad when you lack evidence to demonstrate that the universe comes from this other thing that answers no questions.

 

[Dotini]

He falls victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is to never involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is that if you're trying to answer the question of where the universe comes from, you accomplish nothing by supposing it comes from something else... because you don't know where that came from. It's especially bad when you lack evidence to demonstrate that the universe comes from this other thing that answers no questions.

Does any cosmology say that the universe came from nothing? I think they assume a preexisting ensemble of physical laws.

 

[Danoff]

Show me anyone who makes no assumptions or premises whatever. Perhaps you are the one?

No True Scotsman Fallacy? Probably it's more of an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

It doesn't help establish that the idea of something causing the universe answers questions or has evidence to support it. So why bother with this question?

 

[Dotini]

No True Scotsman Fallacy?

It doesn't help establish that the idea of something causing the universe answers questions or has evidence to support it. So why bother with this question?

He says that standard cosmology assumes a preexisting ensemble off physical laws, and generally an infinite number of random universes. He merely makes a different presumption. There is rational evidence for anything existing before the universe.

It seems his idea is to purse meaning and purpose in life, rather than meaningless , purposeless, and nihilism.

 

[Danoff]

He says that standard cosmology assumes a preexisting ensemble off physical laws,

There is some evidence to support that.

and generally an infinite number of random universes.

There is some evidence to support this too.

He merely makes a different presumption.

With what evidence?

 

[Dotini]

There is some evidence to support that.



There is some evidence to support this too.



With what evidence?

He says there is no rational evidence to support ANY thing before the Big Bang. But he does say that most or all the subjective evidence supports something. Thus, the argument is a standoff.

 

[Danoff]

He says there is no rational evidence to support ANY thing before the Big Bang. But he does say that most or all the subjective evidence supports something. Thus, the argument is a standoff.

There's no proof, but there is some evidence. However, it doesn't matter. There is no argument here, only a search for truth, and in the search for the truth about the origins of the universe, you must go where the evidence points. There is no scientific reason to go further. So once again, the presumption of an intelligence does not answer the question, it merely kicks the can further down the road, and it introduces a whole host of new unanswered questions (what is the nature of this intelligence, what was its purpose, does it want something? what does it want? why?). And it introduces these problems with no evidence to support the need to do so.

It seems his idea is to purse meaning and purpose in life, rather than meaningless , purposeless, and nihilism.

Then he's looking in the wrong place, externally instead of internally. A desire for meaning does not change the truth either, it is external to his desires.

 

[Dotini]

it introduces a whole host of new unanswered questions (what is the nature of this intelligence, what was its purpose, does it want something? what does it want? why?). And it introduces these problems with no evidence to support the need to do so.

Finally you've begun asking intelligent questions. If you are serious, Haisch has published the answers, so you'd better start reading.

 

[Danoff]

Finally you've begun asking intelligent questions. If you are serious, Haisch has published the answers, so you'd better start reading.

Interesting that you think the question of why we should making this assumption is not intelligent and yet the question of what the assumption is somehow is intelligent. I'd need a reason to read his answers. So far I have none. I'd need some evidence to suggest that this explanation was needed. I have none.

 

[Dotini]

Interesting that you think the question of why we should making this assumption is not intelligent and yet the question of what the assumption is somehow is intelligent. I'd need a reason to read his answers. So far I have none. I'd need some evidence to suggest that this explanation was needed. I have none.

You have no need to learn more, so don't. You have, to your great credit, achieved meaning and purpose in life, fulfilling all your potential.

Me, I'm over 70 years old. Like you, I've always believed the universe to be without purpose or meaning, and that my greatest task was to instill meaning into my life. To an extent, I think I've done that. Even so, looking back, it's possible that I could have been more successful in doing that. Looking back, I've seen a whole lot of purposeless, miserable lives of those of my cohort pass on in addiction, violence, anger, hatred, confusion, almost total personal failure and nihilism. Looking back, I think life could have been a lot better for those unable to overcome their meaningless and purposeless universe.

 

[Danoff]

You have no need to learn more, so don't. You have, to your great credit, achieved meaning and purpose in life, fulfilling all your potential.

I don't know that I have fulfilled all of my potential. Or maybe it depends on what you consider to be my potential. I have achieved some of my goals in life anyway. Part of the meaning I have achieved is merely to bear witness to the universe, and some portion of that requires me to leave some potential on the table. However, part of the meaning I have achieved is in exploring my potential. And part of the meaning I have achieved is to participate in some small way in the wave which pushes humanity forward. I know that my individual contribution to that will die out quickly enough, but at least I was a part of what I consider to be progress.

Me, I'm over 70 years old. Like you, I've always believed the universe to be without purpose or meaning, and that my greatest task was to instill meaning into my life. To an extent, I think I've done that. Even so, looking back, it's possible that I could have been more successful in doing that.

...by... changing your belief?

Looking back, I've seen a whole lot of purposeless, miserable lives of those of my cohort pass on in addiction, violence, anger, hatred, confusion, almost total personal failure and nihilism.

And you think this is because of the belief that the universe does not supply an external purpose to people? Make no mistake, the universe is not supplying the purpose of religion either. That's man-made. It is not fundamentally different to have someone invent a god and tell you that your purpose is to adhere to god's laws than it is for someone to invent some other purpose (like accumulating the most money) and tell you that your purpose is to achieve that purpose. Either is man-made, and either is as hollow as the other depending on your personal reception of it.

Looking back, I think life could have been a lot better for those unable to overcome their meaningless and purposeless universe.

Self-deception.

It's a house of cards. First, you have to presuppose that it would have been better. Maybe it would have, maybe not. Second, you assume that it would have stuck. You assume that the self-deception could be maintained, it might not have, and the results of a failed lie can be worse than none at all.

 

[Dotini]

@Danoff
Sometimes a beautiful, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
Sometimes a beautiful, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth.

Citation needed.