The Problem of a Missing Motive

[Chriliman]

But that isn't WHY we have kids. We have kids because the drive to survive compels us to procreate. We live short lives, so must breed.

Once the kids are born, we then parent them for THEIR sake, more than we do our own.

That's not why I have kids. I have kids because I made love to my wife and we knew a child would result from our love making. We definitely were not thinking "we must procreate so humanity does not go extinct!"

 

[Locutus]

That's not why I have kids. I have kids because I made love to my wife and we knew a child would result from our love making. We definitely were not thinking "we must procreate so humanity does not go extinct!"

It's a lovely sentiment, but it's a vanity. We ALL have kids because we're programmed to reproduce. There is a biological imperative to continue our species. Insects do it. Fish do it. Plants do it. Our species simply adds a layer of meaning because we think about it more. The perils of being a smart ape!

 

[Chriliman]

There is a biological imperative to continue our species.

I agree with this, the challenge for you is explaining why this particular universe has generated intelligent life on this particular planet that has a biological imperative to procreate and is capable of meaningful observations of this planet and the universe. If you can explain why this has happened without the need to invoke a higher intelligence that has purposefully created it all for specific reasons, then I'm sure you'll win a nobel prize of some sort from your fellow atheists/agnostics who agree with you.

 

[toLiJC]

First off two things:
1. This isn´t meant to prove the Christian God non-existent (albeit imo, it is related to e.g. the Problem of Evil). It´s just about something at the core of Christian theology that doesn´t make any sense at all, to me.
2. Obviously, I am looking for an explanation that makes sense on human terms. Thus, if your explanation or line of reasoning will eventually come down to or contains at some point "God´s ways are mysterious" or "It´s beyond human understanding" or some other non-explanatory element, I would kindly ask you to abstain from participating.

The question in short:
Why would a non-material/non-physical (entirely "spiritual") being create a material/physical world when the actual goal (that which it is all about) is again a "spiritual" state of affairs?

More in detail:

"Spiritual" realms and physical/natural/material realms are quite apparently very different in nature, the problems (assuming for a moment there are problems in the "spiritual realm" at all) are of very different nature and manifestations, and problem-solving requires totally different means and competences in those different realms.

Just to name the first two things that come to mind as appearing exclusive to the physical realm (and which seem to be the basis for most "evil", "suffering", "trouble", "struggles", "sins" (or whatever you want to call it - I hope you get the idea) :
- Limited resources
- Zero sum games.

The most frequent explanations I have heard for creating this physical realm:
It´s some kind of test run for the "spiritual" afterlife, a method to separate those who are fit for this afterlife from those who aren´t.
Now, what´s the point in creating realmB as a test for our fitness for realmA when those problems that we have to deal with/overcome in realmB don´t even exist in realmA?

Or IOW: why create a world exclusively for beings to prove that they are "not of this world"?

it is not right to view the two worlds as spiritual and physical (issue), because God created this world as a place of paradisaical life, which is evident from what we can read in the first three chapters of Genesis, it is written there everything that He made was quite good, however, eternity is a circle of life and existence, and that's why there has been evil for all millennia and centuries since the day of (the) original sin(fall), but sin can reign in the world only for no more than about 5-6 millennia as from that day, however, if we have to draw/make a right distinction between paradise and hell, then we should talk about good and evil

forget about the realms - that concept(ion) is false, because it is intended to draw the attention of the worshipers away from the show of love for their neighbor and the commitment/contribution to overall salvation in the true God toward selfishness and self-interested salvation, because if worshipers follow it, they thus turn out to live in the super egoistic world of (the) satanic illusion - such worshipers can turn out to be very hasty to receive comfort that is not of the true God, but that is actually self-interest, and even mass murder - i saw and know from experience how millions of such worshipers just didn't care about the humankind and were even very hasty to kill many unreasonably, and even destroyed millions of human lives

Blessings

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with this, the challenge for you is explaining why this particular universe has generated intelligent life on this particular planet that has a biological imperative to procreate and is capable of meaningful observations of this planet and the universe. If you can explain why this has happened without the need to invoke a higher intelligence that has purposefully created it all for specific reasons, then I'm sure you'll win a nobel prize of some sort from your fellow atheists/agnostics who agree with you.

Because it can.

 

[Colter]

False.




Nonsense.

If the Atheist belief system were accurate and there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom.

 

[quatona]

If the Atheist belief system were accurate and there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom.

If there were such a thing as "the Atheist belief system", to begin with...

 

[Colter]

If there were such a thing as "the Atheist belief system", to begin with...

As for this discussion, whatever it is, Atheist would be a demographic that believe in a Godless universe. The faith group would presume to draw on experience in the future, the Atheist group don't see themselves as having a future beyond termination of their mortal body's. So whatever the work of life is as concerns the self, that growth is ultimately useless to a vanishing self.

 

[quatona]

As for this discussion, whatever it is, Atheist would be a demographic that believe in a Godless universe.

That´s adding redundant stuff to what makes an atheist: they don´t believe in a God. This isn´t a belief system.

The faith group would presume to draw on experience in the future, the Atheist group don't see themselves as having a future beyond termination of their mortal body's.

This isn´t actually covered by "atheist".

So whatever the work of life is as concerns the self, that growth is ultimately useless to a vanishing self.

Even if I believed all the stuff you added to "atheism" - I´d still believe that it´s ultimately useful, since ultimate means "the highest/greatest possible". You don´t get to superimpose your ideas of "ultimate" upon someone else´s world view, and then sell the result as the belief of the other person.

 

[Locutus]

I agree with this, the challenge for you is explaining why this particular universe has generated intelligent life on this particular planet that has a biological imperative to procreate and is capable of meaningful observations of this planet and the universe. If you can explain why this has happened without the need to invoke a higher intelligence that has purposefully created it all for specific reasons, then I'm sure you'll win a nobel prize of some sort from your fellow atheists/agnostics who agree with you.

Why? Don't you mean "how"?

There may be no why, and there doesn't need to be a why, but the how is not yet understood. Could be a thousand little prompts converging, and that convergence could be repeated all over the universe. We're logistically isolated from that information at present.

 

[Chriliman]

Why? Don't you mean "how"?

There may be no why, and there doesn't need to be a why, but the how is not yet understood. Could be a thousand little prompts converging, and that convergence could be repeated all over the universe. We're logistically isolated from that information at present.

We all have to ask "why?" before we can understand the "how". If we ask "how" first then we've already bypassed the meaning for why something works the way it works. Essentially, only asking "how" and not "why", limits the complete understanding of a process.

 

[quatona]

We all have to ask "why?" before we can understand the "how". If we ask "how" first then we've already bypassed the meaning for why something works the way it works. Essentially, only asking "how" and not "why", limits the complete understanding of a process.

I´m not sure what you mean by "Why?" when not referring to an intentional process.

 

[Chriliman]

I´m not sure what you mean by "Why?" when not referring to an intentional process.

What makes you think we know some processes are unintentional?

The fact that we don't know is exactly why we should always ask "Why?"

 

[Locutus]

We all have to ask "why?" before we can understand the "how". If we ask "how" first then we've already bypassed the meaning for why something works the way it works. Essentially, only asking "how" and not "why", limits the complete understanding of a process.

When someone dies we ask how. We can ask why, but it's merely a bleat of protest. A child asks why she has freckles, or needs glasses, but the answer is the how. Why is simply the ego's way of asking the how regarding processes.

 

[Chriliman]

When someone dies we ask how. We can ask why, but it's merely a bleat of protest. A child asks why she has freckles, or needs glasses, but the answer is the how. Why is simply the ego's way of asking the how regarding processes.

If you're okay with never asking "why" regarding the biggest questions about reality and existence then that is your choice that you're free to make.

Thanks for your time.

 

[quatona]

What makes you think we know some processes are unintentional?

I don´t - what makes you assume that that´s what I think?
I am just not starting epistemological processes by asking a loaded question.

The fact that we don't know is exactly why we should always ask "Why?"

No, that´s putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Locutus]

No, that´s putting the cart before the horse.

agreed

 

[Locutus]

If you're okay with never asking "why" regarding the biggest questions about reality and existence then that is your choice that you're free to make.

Thanks for your time.

I do ask 'why', in the appropriate context.

I don't ask why someone dies of cancer. Asking why would be the equivalent of "###### was extra super duper special, so I demand an explanation". As mentioned, a bleat of protest. Human, and understandable, but a bleat of protest nonetheless. A more logical question would be "what lifestyle factors might have contributed to ######'s development of cancer?".

There is a massive difference between seeking information (for practical purposes), and 'demanding an explanation'. Asking why out of context is a demand for an explanation. It hinges upon the belief that the self is owed such, or deserves it. That kind of egocentricity is generally left behind in childhood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the Atheist belief system were accurate and there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom.

Seems to me that recollection of experience and the passage of wisdom across generations is handled by language and culture; e.g. learning from previous generation(s) & passing knowledge to the next.

What part do you feel that life beyond death plays in recollection of experience and wisdom?

 

[Colter]

Seems to me that recollection of experience and the passage of wisdom across generations is handled by language and culture; e.g. learning from previous generation(s) & passing knowledge to the next.

What part do you feel that life beyond death plays in recollection of experience and wisdom?

Our experiences in this life stay with us going forward in the next life.