Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Received said:I take this from brightlight's fascinating thread, as well as Wiccan_Child's fascinating reply.
Imagine a world where everything -- absolutely everything -- is provided for. Every single moment of pain is nonexistent, all our wishes are provided for, no work is necessary, ad infinitum. Assume for a contradictory moment that we're still as we are now in terms of human nature, etc.
Would you want to live in this world? Why or why not?
In the OP's hypothetical, there is no pain or suffering. Therefore, you would not be allowed to satisfy your bloodlust on beings that could actually suffer or feel pain. Maybe philosophical zombies will be provided for your statistician?What if my pursuit is to kill others? Suppose I like nothing more than causing pain and suffering?
Lobotomies are available upon request.If I earn my way into this fictional paradise, all the while denying my true nature, will I be rewarded with whatever I choose? If so, it seems like poor deal for those who must share this heaven with me.
Imagine a world where everything -- absolutely everything -- is provided for. Every single moment of pain is nonexistent, all our wishes are provided for, no work is necessary, ad infinitum. Assume for a contradictory moment that we're still as we are now in terms of human nature, etc.
Would you want to live in this world? Why or why not?
No, I certainly would not.
Such a world would be counter-flourishing. It would be very difficult for anyone to self-actualize and fulfill their natures as human individuals. I don't equate the human good with mere feelings, such as the absence of pain or suffering. As Aristotle had wisely pointed out, eudaimonia is an activity.
As I see it, there is something fundamental to our natures that requires that we create values -- that we "work" (not necessarily in paid employment) -- in order to be fully human. We ought to "follow our bliss", not live in guaranteed, effortless bliss.
This world sounds to me like the emotionally shallow World State of the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where immediate gratification infantilizes people.
eudaimonia,
Mark
If I wanted a Lamborghini in this world, would it just appear or would someone buy me one or what?
Need room to breath? Bam, the world is biggerHmm, seems like people would fill the world so full of there wants and desires that there wouldn't be any room to breath, I'm out.
Local gravity is customised for your convenience. Golf may need new rulesHmm, I don't know if I would like the increased gravity.
You may want low gravity, others may want high gravity. Everyone gets their own gravity.Local gravity?
And this is a world you would understand?
It shouldn´t be unreasonable to God. It´s what used to be there prior to creation.Not exactly.
Maybe that's an unconscious point of this thread: an ideal world (i.e., one where God gives the best possible) is not a reasonable one.
It shouldn´t be unreasonable to God. It´s what used to be there prior to creation.
Not to derail this thread, but in the end all these ideas and god redefinitions always lead me back to the most basic problem I have with understanding theology:
What would be the point - for a perfect spiritual entity living in spiritual perfection - in creating a physical world...creating conscious beings (like himself) - into a situation that (unlike his own) necessarily comes with systemic problems?
Sure. But if there´s no problem whatsoever explaining something without introducing a certain god concept and the introduction of a god concept creates a huge amount of explanation problems the god concept (unless it´s very good at explaining something that can´t be explained without the concept) the god concept is..well, not helping with anything.Yeah, but I'm not talking about God. You know, God is supposed to be super-duper (maybe infinitely, whatever that means) smart. But we're really not, and it's our attempt to find rational justification in things related to God's existence that's problematic.
Yes, except that this was not my argument.That's a huge question, quatona, and I don't really think it's fair to use this as a pivot point determining the intelligibility of theism. It might be like a non-physicist coming along to a physicist and saying "well, I don't get how on earth the world could exist with quantum mechanics, so I'm just not going to believe in it." That is: rational incredulity about how something works warrants its rejection.
I´ll never swallow an explanation that by its very nature appeals to it´s inability to explain anything. Sorry.But perhaps the systemic problems are a function of our finite intelligence failing to understand different aspects of a higher intelligence (perhaps even one that works on a fundamentally different realm, like from eternity, whatever that means).
So let me try to explain. The world as it is is as it is. I have to accept it. Without the idea of a god the answer to existential "why"- questions is simply "because that´s the way it is". No intention behind it. That doesn´t make the world more convenient or pleasant but it doesn´t even prompt me to ask "why" (in the way a theist would ask it with his assumed intentional force behind everything).What I don't understand from the opposite stance is how a world without God and thus one that has none of the pluses of an afterlife, a benevolent force that sustains the cosmos, and other positives that come with spirituality is somehow more acceptable (better) than a world with God but no clear reason how certain evils can be understood in the grand scheme of things. That, I think, is the (not too often) opposite tangle from the stance of atheism.
Don´t you see how one of the stances comes with no problems whatsoever - unless you superimpose the paradigms of the other stance upon it? There is no meaningful "why?"- question - unless you preassume there to be an intentional power.And I struggle with both stances, btw.
quatona said:I´ll never swallow an explanation that by its very nature appeals to it´s inability to explain anything. Sorry.
This is my ADHD side-post collection.
No. I don´t accept something to be an explanation that doesn´t explain anything.How far does this reasoning go? You don't accept something that you can't understand?
As I said, I am completely clueless when it comes to quantum mechanics - but if it´s true that quantum mechanics tries to explain why there´s anything rather than nothing, and actually doesn´t help explaining it, my refusal would indeed include quantum mechanics (as an explanation why there´s something rather than nothing).Does this include things you can understand that are connected to things that are, if you plug deeper and look at other connected causes (e.g., quantum mechanics, the basic question of why there's anything rather than nothing, etc.), really mysterious?
Yes. That´s the point where a simple mind like me would summarize the state of affairs as "I/we don´t know"). Alternatively, I would consider the possibility that the question is loaded.Our power to explain things eventually reaches a point where we can't explain anymore.
I have no problem whatsoever with assuming that there are thing beyond my understanding. I´m just not willing to invent things or entities that are - by definition - beyond my understanding in order to not explain the stuff that´s beyond my understanding.That's just part of us being finite beings, who because of evolution have both limits and scope, which means by definition that things are at some point beyond our understanding -- analogously how a kitten doesn't get mathematics.
The answer has to parts.I don't understand how you can't apply this to something else, like God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?