Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

You can believe anything you like as long as you accept it's pure baseless fantasy. If it makes you feel better thinking you have a purpose in life, great. That doesn't make it true, of course.

If everybody believed life was a miserably, purposeless treadmill and lived that way, that would sort of make it true. But if everybody believed life has the purpose of actualizing all the potential we are capable of and lived that way, that would be equally true - or false. But it would be ever so much better for us. Don't you think?

 

[BobK]

If everybody believed life was a miserably, purposeless treadmill and lived that way, that would sort of make it true. But if everybody believed life has the purpose of actualizing all the potential we are capable of and lived that way, that would be equally true - or false. But it would be ever so much better for us. Don't you think?

No, not really.

Everybody believing something to be true doesn't of course make it true.

 

[Dotini]

No, not really.

Everybody believing something to be true doesn't of course make it true.

If you really believed your life was without purpose and meaning, then the life you actually live would probably lack very much purposes and meaning. True?

But if you actually believed your life was purposeful and meaningful, then it stands to reason that you would be more likely to actually live your life with meaning and purpose. You would have a much better life. Yes?

In other words, your belief system, your philosophy, your code, whatever you choose to call it, can be a means to guide and improve the quality and experience of your life. We can consciously affect the reality - the truth - of our lives.

 

[TexRex]

The premise here is flawed.

If someone finds meaning in life through belief in someone else's imaginary friend, surely belief in someone else's imaginary friend isn't the only thing through which someone can find meaning in life.

 

[Dotini]

The premise here is flawed.

If someone finds meaning in life through belief in someone else's imaginary friend, surely belief in someone else's imaginary friend isn't the only thing through which someone can find meaning in life.

Can we agree that it is better to have meaning and purpose in life than it is to have no meaning and purpose?

 

[TexRex]

It can be better. It can be worse. The presence or absence isn't in and of itself a determining factor.

 

[Dotini]

It can be better. It can be worse. The presence or absence isn't in and of itself a determining factor.

Well, I do suppose it is better to be lucky than not to be lucky. But a purpose-driven life is bound to be more successful than a haphazard one.
Roger Penske gives us the 6P's: "Proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance."

 

[TexRex]

Nope. Goals can exist in the absence of "meaning" or "purpose". "Meaning" and "purpose" can be heavy things, to the point that they hinder achievement of goals. Goals are not "meaning" or "purpose", but having goals and working to achieve them without dependance on luck is more likely to lead to success than having "meaning" or "purpose".

 

[Dotini]

Let's say your goal is to pay your bills and be financially independent, without depending on luck or crime. But why would you want to work particularly hard to achieve this goal? Maybe it would be easier to achieve if you simply limited your spending and led a simpler, more frugal lifestyle? Don't get married. Never have children. Don't buy a car. Don't visit Europe and South America. Eat beans and drink Coors Lite beer.

I'm saying that having lofty goals and having the purpose of actualizing your highest potential for experiencing the physical world is one and the same thing.

 

[TexRex]

Goals vary in scope and difficulty. They also vary in desirability. Not everyone wants to get married, have children, own a car or travel, so these would obviously not be goals worth the work necessary to achieve them.

Getting married, having children, owning a car and travel also don't inherently provide one with "meaning" or "purpose". They may for some, and that's just fine if it works for them.

 

[Dotini]

Goals vary in scope and difficulty. They also vary in desirability. Not everyone wants to get married, have children, own a car or travel, so these would obviously not be goals worth the work necessary to achieve them.

Getting married, having children, owning a car and travel also don't inherently provide one with "meaning" or "purpose". They may for some, and that's just fine if it works for them.

Goals, realistic valuable and meaningful achievements in life will vary with your given abilities. If you are born a low caste beggar in India, very likely you are condemned to experiencing a life of suffering. If you are smart, able and born to a wholesome, wealthy family, your prospects are higher. If you are gifted with great potential and you fritter it away on booze, drugs and gambling, then you will have failed to actualize your potential for experiencing life in the Kingdom.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not married, don't own a car and have no children so am probably a failure in the eyes of the universe according to the above posts, however the additional disposable income from the latter two choices comes in handy when it comes to buying booze on which to fritter away my potential.

 

[TexRex]

Words like "meaning", "purpose" and "potential" are often empty in the context in which they are used.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not married, don't own a car and have no children so am probably a failure in the eyes of the universe according to the above posts, however the additional disposable income from the latter two choices comes in handy when it comes to buying booze on which to fritter away my potential.

Probably your key test in the eyes of the universe will be in how you treat the people and animals you encounter in your life, no matter how humble. If you can meet this test, then you are not a failure. Same thing applies to the beggar in India.

 

[TexRex]

The universe has no eyes.

 

[Dotini]

The universe has no eyes.

Correct. I used the phrase only because our friend Mikey did so.

But the premise is that the universe - or really the higher intelligence that created it with the goal of experiencing physical reality - is infinite consciousness, of which you are a fragment temporarily visiting physical reality.

 

[TexRex]

Malarkey.

 

[Dotini]

Malarkey.

Opinion. Philosophy. Cosmology. Ethics.

 

[TexRex]

Poppycock. Codswallop. Bull****.

 

[Dotini]

Poppycock. Codswallop. Bull****.

Thanks to all who participated the conversation. Have a nice evening!

 

[BobK]

If you really believed your life was without purpose and meaning, then the life you actually live would probably lack very much purposes and meaning. True?

Of course

But if you actually believed your life was purposeful and meaningful, then it stands to reason that you would be more likely to actually live your life with meaning and purpose. You would have a much better life. Yes?

Not necessarily

In other words, your belief system, your philosophy, your code, whatever you choose to call it, can be a means to guide and improve the quality and experience of your life. We can consciously affect the reality - the truth - of our lives.

Again, belief does not make it true.

 

[Danoff]

If you really believed your life was without purpose and meaning, then the life you actually live would probably lack very much purposes and meaning. True?

To whom? To you? That's tautological. If you think it is without meaning, it is without meaning to you.

But if you actually believed your life was purposeful and meaningful, then it stands to reason that you would be more likely to actually live your life with meaning and purpose.

Totally depends on the meaning and purpose. If you meaning and purpose is to kill the infidel, for example, then you might try and fail to live according to that meaning and purpose.

You would have a much better life. Yes?

This is highly dependent on the mind and its ability to satisfy itself. A lot of people might have been happy with what Robbin Williams accomplished with his life. That might have been sufficient to allow a lot of people to die happy.

In other words, your belief system, your philosophy, your code, whatever you choose to call it, can be a means to guide and improve the quality and experience of your life. We can consciously affect the reality - the truth - of our lives.

I'm not sure that you have as much external control over what you believe or what makes you happy as you seem to propose here.

Can we agree that it is better to have meaning and purpose in life than it is to have no meaning and purpose?

To whom? To the person? It entirely depends on the person.

 

[Denur]

Apologies. I'd begun to go cross-eyed. If indeed he accepts the Trinity then I'm not quite sure what the point he's trying to argue is.



From your own link:



They are three and they are one at the same time. They are each a slice of the whole cake that they themselves are. It depends how/where/when you see them in/from/at. They are not, as your link points out, self-contradictory because they each form part of the whole that they themselves are individually-onely-all-ly.

EDIT: Forgot the funky little graphic from your post. Note that all of them Is God.

View attachment 843864

I don't really like that funky little graph. The "Is" connections make it seem as if a single one (or two) of the three connections would suffice to have a complete God. I like this analogy from the same link better: "...space contains three dimensions, yet the dimensions are not ‘parts’ — the concept of ‘space’ is meaningless without all three dimensions".

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't really like that funky little graph. The "Is" connections make it seem as if a single one (or two) of the three connections would suffice to have a complete God.

Yes, they would, that's the difficulty of the trinity. All of the sides of god are each god at the same time and are separable and inseparable at once. However many of them you add up, one, two or three, it's still one god. The trinity isn't three pieces that add up to one big thing, you have to forget size/time/space for it to work.

 

[Dotini]

...the difficulty of the trinity. All of the sides of god are each god at the same time and are separable and inseparable at once. However many of them you add up, one, two or three, it's still one god. The trinity isn't three pieces that add up to one big thing, you have to forget size/time/space for it to work.

Sure, forget size and space, not a problem, since they are matter, which is secondary to consciousness and time.

 

[Imari]

If I understand you correctly, then nobody can say much that is meaningful about the creation of the universe.

Your sentence here is ambiguous, and your later statements seem to suggest the impossibility of ever knowing or understanding the creation of the universe. That's not what I meant. With the current state of human knowledge, we're unable to make meaningful statements about the creation of the universe. I don't claim that it is impossible to ever know, however. Humans are resourceful and any number of weird things may be learned or discovered in the future which may make the creation of the universe explicable.

So the argument becomes essentially moot, or a draw, if you ignore subjective evidence. Perhaps we then are free to choose how it began?

If you want a fiction, sure. If you want to actually know how it began, you'd be better off taking up astrophysics or some suitable field in which you might actually contribute to the sum of human knowledge about the creation of the universe.

If that is the case, why would we choose to believe that the universe is without purpose or meaning - and so must be our own lives - when the reasonable alternative is to choose to live in a universe of purpose and meaning in which our lives also have innate purpose and meaning, and are not just an aimlessly enforced treadmill of toil and reward?

Because people like you are uncomfortable with the idea of a universe without purpose and meaning. People like me are fine with the idea that the universe is what it appears to be, and if that's without explicit purpose and meaning then that's quite OK. I'm quite capable of creating my own motivation and satisfaction without needing to resort to sky daddies and cosmic intelligences, thank you very much. I live my life the way I do because I think it best in my own considered opinion, not because I believe that I'm conforming to some divinely inspired natural law of purpose.

You continue to look for answers in a greater power, even to the extent that you suggest that it's better to lie to yourself about it than live in a universe without an innate purpose. I find my answers in myself and my fellow humans.

 

[Dotini]

Your sentence here is ambiguous, and your later statements seem to suggest the impossibility of ever knowing or understanding the creation of the universe. That's not what I meant. With the current state of human knowledge, we're unable to make meaningful statements about the creation of the universe. I don't claim that it is impossible to ever know, however. Humans are resourceful and any number of weird things may be learned or discovered in the future which may make the creation of the universe explicable.



If you want a fiction, sure. If you want to actually know how it began, you'd be better off taking up astrophysics or some suitable field in which you might actually contribute to the sum of human knowledge about the creation of the universe.



Because people like you are uncomfortable with the idea of a universe without purpose and meaning. People like me are fine with the idea that the universe is what it appears to be, and if that's without explicit purpose and meaning then that's quite OK. I'm quite capable of creating my own motivation and satisfaction without needing to resort to sky daddies and cosmic intelligences, thank you very much. I live my life the way I do because I think it best in my own considered opinion, not because I believe that I'm conforming to some divinely inspired natural law of purpose.

You continue to look for answers in a greater power, even to the extent that you suggest that it's better to lie to yourself about it than live in a universe without an innate purpose. I find my answers in myself and my fellow humans.

For seventy years of life I believed the universe was without purpose. I became rich, healthy, happy and well socialized. Now I pick up a book by AN ASTROPHYSICIST who has a new take on an old idea. Feel very free to reject it. I haven't accepted it myself, only toying with it.

 

[Imari]

For seventy years of life I believed the universe was without purpose. I became rich, healthy, happy and well socialized. Now I pick up a book by AN ASTROPHYSICIST who has a new take on an old idea. Feel very free to reject it.

We've had this discussion barely more than two weeks and four pages ago.

Is this one of those things that you don't actually want to discuss? An "entertaining camp fire story"? Or is this something that you're willing to engage in, and perhaps attempt to provide some definition and explanation to other people instead of simply fobbing them off to other media?

I haven't accepted it myself, only toying with it.

If you're only toying with it, you've worded all your posts completely wrong. You make far too many definitive statements for any reasonable person to get the impression that this is something that you haven't accepted. Again, as I pointed out to you last time.

 

[Dotini]

Is this one of those things that you don't actually want to discuss? An "entertaining camp fire story"? Or is this something that you're willing to engage in, and perhaps attempt to provide some definition and explanation to other people instead of simply fobbing them off to other media?

That's not a bad question. I don't mind HAVING A CONVERSATION. That means give and take. It's not having a conversation when one party is shouting NO NO NOPE! NO!! It's not a conversation when the premise or the grounds are ruled out at the beginning.

That said, I'm off to my fencing class for the evening. If you want a conversation, think of one good question to work on. I'll check back tomorrow.

 

[Danoff]

is this something that you're willing to engage in

If you want a conversation, think of one good question to work on. I'll check back tomorrow.

A simple no would have sufficed.