Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[elman]

Usually and overall, life is preferable to death and existence is preferable to non existence.

True, but life should not be something you feel must go on forever.

Why must I constantly remind myself I will die, in order to enjoy life? My answer is I don't have to do that. I can enjoy the moment without worrying about the fact that I will die some day.

 

[elman]

It matters to me that eventually nothing will matter and all will be meaningless. I don't believe that to be the case.

You want meaning to exist forever, I don't think it should.

Either meaning or meaninglessness exists forever eventually. I prefer meaning, and hope that is the one that is true.

You assume and do not know this world is all there is--there is no reality other than this universe. You simply do not know that to be a fact.

I have no reason to believe otherwise, so I go with the default of naturalism. And you have not presented any compelling or convincing reason why I should believe otherwise.

One has to be open to such reasons and looking for them. God and the spiritual realm cannot be proven, but after one accepts the possibility and is open seeing evidence one can see some evidence of it.

I don't see it being foolish to focus on intelligence.

I see it as myopic, not foolish.

I see it as intellligent.

Why is the search for meaning a problem?

Ultimacy does not equal meaning, they are separate terms.

If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.

Your belief is incorrect.

You can believe that all you want, but you have not presented grounds for why your belief is true.

And you have not proven your belief is true.

This is only true if there is no Creator who has a purpose for our existence. It has been my experience the Christian is usually the more calm one at peace with eventual death.

Say that to Buddhist monks who have immolated themselves, say that to Gandhi who was doing a hunger protest and almost died because his kidneys failed. And these were protests for human rights of one sort or another, it wasn't anything about witnessing for God and becoming a martyr, which is only meaningful to believers in that faith that the martyr died for.

I am not sure Gandhi would have agreed with your theology. In any event, my experience with death has been limited to people who believe in God and those who do not and the ones who believed ususally had the more peaceful and accepting aproach.

That is what I just said. Anything that only relies on our own minds is eventually meaningless.

But not without the potential for meaning as we exist.

I never denied temporary meaning was possible.

I don't know that matter causes the thoughts.

Brain function results in thoughts that we experience. That's the general notion

What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.

That sounds more like the unhealthy clinging you often refer to.

You seem to think that if I value something because it is temporary that I want it to exist forever. That is not the case at all. If I wanted things to exist forever, that would be clinging.

Why would you value something just because it was temporary? Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?

If I instead accept that they will go away, but value them as they are in every moment they exist, I don't see any way you could fallaciously interpret clinging in any sense, because clinging implies you want something to remain the same forever. Am I wrong?

Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being temporary.

I think the truth is and reality is, belief in an afterlife makes you appreciate this life all the more.

Not really, by the very name afterlife it implies this life is nothing very important at all except as it relates to the afterlife,

Not true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eterna life.

which means life is merely a means to the end that is the afterlife, which means life is not valued in itself.

This is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.

No because I don't claim to be able to prove the positive, but you claim to be able to prove the negative.

I never said I could prove the negative, I merely say that the negative is the default in virtually any situation of such a grand scale as the entire universe.

What make it a rule that it is the default?

I am pointing out your facts are not facts.

What facts did I claim about your "spiritual realm?

Its non existence, as I recall.

You cannot observe the next life. Assuming it to be like this one is wrong

Then why do you assume it is even moderately like the next one? Do we not have something like physical bodies, in a fusion with spiritual bodies?

I don't know--but I don't think so.

Christian metaphysics doesn't seem to be gnostic in the sense of hating the physical, but they instead seem to acknowledge that the physical is the other half of the spiritual in that it completes it.

I don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.

No, I refuse to acknowledge it because its reality has not been proven.

You refuse to acknowledge meaning as being anything other than what you stubbornly believe it to be. You don't want to get out of this comfort zone.

You have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledgy meaninglessness is reality.

I see no logical argument there.

A strictly formulaic argument it is not, but you have failed to argue why we must believe in ultimacy in order to appreciate life.

I did not say we must believe in ultimate meaning to appreciate life. I think I did say it can help us appreciate life.

I have always agreed we do not know and what I believe cannot be proven. You however have claimed to be able to prove the negative
I have never claimed this and unless you can quote me as saying this, I remain skeptical of this claim. I only resort to the default position, like atheism to theism. I cannot prove a negative, I merely say that unless evidence is presented for the positive, the original position of skepticism is preferable.

Not to me and there is evidence that can be seen, but cannot be presented to the one who does not wish to see it or is not open to the possibility of its existence.

You are being evasive. There are not that many kinds of oblivion and I never said we escaped oblivion by mental belief in God and Jesus.

We escape your oblivion by a particular belief in God and Jesus, not just any general belief.

I never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.

And in life there is someone to appreciate that state, so the state of existence is better than the state of non existence.

Better, but not ultimate. Preferable, but not the absolute state of things.

You don't know what the absolute state of things is.

I don't have contempt for the notion of impermanence and agree it is reality in this life. I do believe there is the potential for a life that is not subject to time.

That's part of the problem, in my opinion. Time is intrinsic, like space, to any real understanding of life at all.

Is time relative?

to speak of life without time or life without space is like speaking of a shape without sides or sight without eyes

That is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Why must I constantly remind myself I will die, in order to enjoy life? My answer is I don't have to do that. I can enjoy the moment without worrying about the fact that I will die some day.

I don't think I ever said you should constantly remind yourself, but that you should be constantly aware of that fact in the background. You can enjoy the moment all the more by realizing you will die someday

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Either meaning or meaninglessness exists forever eventually. I prefer meaning, and hope that is the one that is true

.
Hope does not make something true in any significant sense to anyone other than the hopeful. Perhaps it's better for people to accept reality in the harsh form of the absurd where we have to forge our own meaning.

One has to be open to such reasons and looking for them. God and the spiritual realm cannot be proven, but after one accepts the possibility and is open seeing evidence one can see some evidence of it.

That's just presuming everyone's brain works exactly the same. Even if I tried, you can't presume that I would start seeing anything of evidence to suggest that it was true. I might still just see things as natural without any recourse to the supernatural.

I see it as intellligent.

Intelligence is not always broad minded, it can be narrow minded

If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.

That's just conflating the terms together to suit your conclusion, you haven't argued why ultimacy has to be directly connected to meaning. Meaning can be non ultimate and still be significant.

And you have not proven your belief is true.

You have not adequately presented your belief, so I am left with my basic default belief of naturalism and existentialism.

I am not sure Gandhi would have agreed with your theology. In any event, my experience with death has been limited to people who believe in God and those who do not and the ones who believed ususally had the more peaceful and accepting aproach.

I never said he would. He was distinct, but he was not someone who condescended to others just because they had different beliefs than he did.

Your presuming someone was more peaceful in their death is dependent on their belief in the afterlife. Problem with that is that they have no reason to be afraid because the afterlife is more certain to those who use faith to justify it than those who try to prove it in any other sense. Someone who doesn't believe there is an afterlife does not necessarily become a nihilist at all.

I never denied temporary meaning was possible.

What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.

You're trying to say that because we don't know something, we must resort to a supernatural explanation, which is merely an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The brain works through electricity. Your question is leading to a criticism of abiogenesis theory, seems to me. And that's where you start injecting the supernatural, because you don't think there is any explanation of a natural occurrence of life from nonlife.

Why would you value something just because it was temporary? Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?

I prefer temporary values in the sense of things that are especially concrete. Ultimate values might not be the term for what I value in some more extended or significnat sense, but simply natural values, those values that we all tend to agree about.

Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being temporary.

I don't cling to the fact of something being temporary, I accept it.

Not true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eterna life.

But this life is never as important as the afterlife, that much seems clear enough by a general comparison of this life to "heaven"

This is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.

That you don't think you don't believe this doesn't mean it isn't true by outside observation

What make it a rule that it is the default?

Occam's razor. When presented with two explanations, go with the simpler one.

Its non existence, as I recall.

I don't think I ever claimed that was absolutely conclusively true, though

I don't know--but I don't think so.

Then you're even more in the general minority than you probably were to begin with in your ancillary belief in annihilationism, but now you also believe in more Platonic ideas of heaven where we're disembodied and commune with the ultimate in a non physical sense.

I don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.

Then you sound more and more like a gnostic in the metaphysical sense and the ethical judgment about metaphysics of the physical/material

You have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledgy meaninglessness is reality.

Meaninglessness in an absolute sense is not what I'm claiming, only in an ultimate sense. We have individual meanings we discern through experience and living. In that sense, life has meaning. But we don't all have some absolute/ultimate meaning that applies to everyone regardless. In that sense, life is meaningless, or more appropriately, absurd, to use Camus' terms

I did not say we must believe in ultimate meaning to appreciate life. I think I did say it can help us appreciate life.

Only appreciate life in the sense of becoming more attached to it, to crave it more and more, it would seem.


Not to me and there is evidence that can be seen, but cannot be presented to the one who does not wish to see it or is not open to the possibility of its existence.

I never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.

Love does not give us ultimate immortality, but at best, virtual immortality. We survive through the memories of loved ones.

You don't know what the absolute state of things is.

Neither do you, so that point is moot.

Is time relative?

the perception of it is relative, but the general progression of it is objective in that it would go on even if we weren't here to measure and/or perceive it.

That is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.

What's the difference between a realm that is not subject to either time or space and a realm that doesn't exist at all? It's basically a pure wishful thinking, a dream, a fantasy to make yourself feel special that you believe something so "unique"

 

[Dorothea]

A good position, especially in terms of humility. What about the 14th Dalai Lama? Is his heart Christian, you think?

I am ignorant on what he believes, and I do not know much about him. Could you give me a short summary of his life and beliefs, or a link to something on him when you have time if you don't have time to write about him here?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I can summarize his beliefs as Tibetan Buddhist, but I'd recommend his website, dalailama.com

 

[elman]

I don't think I ever said you should constantly remind yourself, but that you should be constantly aware of that fact in the background. You can enjoy the moment all the more by realizing you will die someday

I can enjoy the moment at much as you and realize I have the potention of eternal life. I know I am going to die someday. That is never a non option. The issue is not if I am going to die. The issue is if I am going to not exist. Your belief that you will not exist someday does not mean you enjoy this life more than I do. That is a fiction in your own mind. Not reality.

 

[elman]

Either meaning or meaninglessness exists forever eventually. I prefer meaning, and hope that is the one that is true

.
Hope does not make something true in any significant sense to anyone other than the hopeful. Perhaps it's better for people to accept reality in the harsh form of the absurd where we have to forge our own meaning.

Meaninglessness may not be reality.

One has to be open to such reasons and looking for them. God and the spiritual realm cannot be proven, but after one accepts the possibility and is open to seeing evidence one can see some evidence of it.

That's just presuming everyone's brain works exactly the same. Even if I tried, you can't presume that I would start seeing anything of evidence to suggest that it was true. I might still just see things as natural without any recourse to the supernatural.

I agree I can only speak for myself.

I see it as intellligent.

Intelligence is not always broad minded, it can be narrow minded

Not when there is a lack of certainty.

If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.

That's just conflating the terms together to suit your conclusion, you haven't argued why ultimacy has to be directly connected to meaning. Meaning can be non ultimate and still be significant.

But only temorarily significant.

And you have not proven your belief is true.

You have not adequately presented your belief, so I am left with my basic default belief of naturalism and existentialism.

Why is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?

What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.

You're trying to say that because we don't know something, we must resort to a supernatural explanation, which is merely an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The brain works through electricity. Your question is leading to a criticism of abiogenesis theory, seems to me. And that's where you start injecting the supernatural, because you don't think there is any explanation of a natural occurrence of life from nonlife.

You are the one bringing up brain function to prove there is no supernatural and I was simply pointing out you don't know what causes the brain to function. This being true, you cannot use it to prove there is no supernatural.

Why would you value something just because it was temporary?

Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?
I prefer temporary values in the sense of things that are especially concrete. Ultimate values might not be the term for what I value in some more extended or significnat sense, but simply natural values, those values that we all tend to agree about.

I agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary makes it valuable.

Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being temporary.

I don't cling to the fact of something being temporary, I accept it.

I seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.

Not true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eternal life.

But this life is never as important as the afterlife, that much seems clear enough by a general comparison of this life to "heaven"

Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant.

This is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.

That you don't think you don't believe this doesn't mean it isn't true by outside observation

I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.

What make it a rule that it is the default?

Occam's razor. When presented with two explanations, go with the simpler one.

I don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.

I don't know--but I don't think so.

Then you're even more in the general minority than you probably were to begin with in your ancillary belief in annihilationism, but now you also believe in more Platonic ideas of heaven where we're disembodied and commune with the ultimate in a non physical sense.

I believe the Creator is not logically the creation. They are different and not the same. I believe God is a spirit, meaning non physical and not of this world. I believe our destiny is ultimately in the spiritual realm. I am unconcerned about minorities and majorities agreeing with me or not; and also I am unconcerned if Plato believe something with similarities to this of not.

I don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.

Then you sound more and more like a gnostic in the metaphysical sense and the ethical judgment about metaphysics of the physical/material

I do not believe we reach the spiritual existence through secret knowledge--that means I am not a gnostic in the sence you refer.

You have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledge meaninglessness is reality.

Meaninglessness in an absolute sense is not what I'm claiming, only in an ultimate sense. We have individual meanings we discern through experience and living. In that sense, life has meaning. But we don't all have some absolute/ultimate meaning that applies to everyone regardless. In that sense, life is meaningless, or more appropriately, absurd, to use Camus' terms

I understand but your belief may not be reality.

I did not say we must believe in ultimate meaning to appreciate life. I think I did say it can help us appreciate life.

Only appreciate life in the sense of becoming more attached to it, to crave it more and more, it would seem.

It would not seem that way to me.

I never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.

Love does not give us ultimate immortality, but at best, virtual immortality. We survive through the memories of loved ones.

If the Creator loves us and created us to be loving beings and if the Creator gifts those who attempt to be loving being with eternal existence, then love may be part of the source of immortality.

Is time relative?

the perception of it is relative, but the general progression of it is objective in that it would go on even if we weren't here to measure and/or perceive it.

So you disagree with Einstein?

That is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.

What's the difference between a realm that is not subject to either time or space and a realm that doesn't exist at all? It's basically a pure wishful thinking, a dream, a fantasy to make yourself feel special that you believe something so "unique"

Again your belief that may not be reality.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I can enjoy the moment at much as you and realize I have the potention of eternal life. I know I am going to die someday. That is never a non option. The issue is not if I am going to die. The issue is if I am going to not exist. Your belief that you will not exist someday does not mean you enjoy this life more than I do. That is a fiction in your own mind. Not reality.

You have failed to demonstrate why this is so. Reality is not something either of us can conclusively prove, so your statements are overstepping the boundaries of reason to begin with. I can enjoy life more with the knowledge that I will not exist after death in that I have only the present to focus on.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Meaninglessness may not be reality.

You're still confusing what I mean by meaninglessness. The only meaninglessness is in the sense of an ultimate meaning; there are always meanings to be found in life by individuals. And even if they're temporary, they are meaningful to the individual,and that's important enough.

I agree I can only speak for myself.

Then why even seem to imply you could speak for me in any sense of me finding any truth in what you claim about the afterlife or belief in it?

Not when there is a lack of certainty.

One doesn't have to choose only one option with a lack of certainty, you can reserve judgment in general or pick a tentative position as true.

But only temorarily significant.

Something being temporary does not make it less important.

Why is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?

Because it has no compelling evidence or credibility, even if it can't be "proven". Therefore, the default position is skepticism on its truthfulness

You are the one bringing up brain function to prove there is no supernatural and I was simply pointing out you don't know what causes the brain to function. This being true, you cannot use it to prove there is no supernatural.

Bio electricity causes the brain to function, what more do you want to know that a neurologist couldn't explain to you in simple terms? You're really trying to criticize me on a point I didn't explicitly bring up and that's how life comes from non life. You don't believe that is true, so you substitute a supernatural explanation in lieu of ignorance.

I agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary makes it valuable.

Because you think the only real value is permanent, which I think is delusional

I seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.

It is. When something could disappear at any time, you appreciate it for the time it does exist and then accept that it is gone when it does disappear.

Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant.
I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.

Thing is, you can still make a comparison between this life and your afterlife and you'd find this life wanting, would you not?

I don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.

As complicated as it might be, there's no need to further complicate it by saying a supernatural cause is needed to explain it.

I believe the Creator is not logically the creation. They are different and not the same. I believe God is a spirit, meaning non physical and not of this world. I believe our destiny is ultimately in the spiritual realm. I am unconcerned about minorities and majorities agreeing with me or not; and also I am unconcerned if Plato believe something with similarities to this of not.

No one said the Creator was the creation, because any God you believe is the creator isn't actually the creator in reality.

I think you should be more concerned with Plato agreeing with you, because many would claim you're a heretic and flirting with Greek paganism of Plato's variety.

I do not believe we reach the spiritual existence through secret knowledge--that means I am not a gnostic in the sence you refer.

I didn't refer to gnostic in that sense, I referred to it in the sense of gnostics being very anti physical in the sense that the physical is something we escape from.

I understand but your belief may not be reality.
It would not seem that way to me.

Just because it doesn't seem that way to you doesn't mean it isn't true. You may just be in denial because you don't like the idea of things being different than what you believe them to be.

If the Creator loves us and created us to be loving beings and if the Creator gifts those who attempt to be loving being with eternal existence, then love may be part of the source of immortality.

Or God's grace could be the source of immortality from a slightly different position of that general annihilationist belief.

So you disagree with Einstein?

What you believe Einstein to believe might not be the case. I don't think he said time was a physical property of the universe, but something that is contingent on our observations of it as a result of measurements in relation to spatio-temporal events. Time is only real to those who experience it and attempt to measure it, in the same way color is only real to those who can experience it.

Again your belief that may not be reality.

The fact that you turn this claim of uncertainty on me does not make my position less tenable or practical or make yours more tenable or practical. It just makes you try to boil this down to faith in something unfalsifiable and impractical and then say that you're right because it makes you feel more fulfilled than you think I am.

 

[elman]

You have failed to demonstrate why this is so. Reality is not something either of us can conclusively prove, so your statements are overstepping the boundaries of reason to begin with. I can enjoy life more with the knowledge that I will not exist after death in that I have only the present to focus on.

You just did what you accused me of doing--overstepted the boundaries of reason. Reality is not sumething either of us can prove and you cannot therefore prove that you can enjoy life more with the knowledge that all will become meaningless than someone who lives with the hope of ultimate meaning.

 

[elman]

Meaninglessness may not be reality.

You're still confusing what I mean by meaninglessness. The only meaninglessness is in the sense of an ultimate meaning; there are always meanings to be found in life by individuals. And even if they're temporary, they are meaningful to the individual,and that's important enough.

We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.

I agree I can only speak for myself.

Then why even seem to imply you could speak for me in any sense of me finding any truth in what you claim about the afterlife or belief in it?

Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.

But only temorarily significant.

Something being temporary does not make it less important.

Yes when it is over or ended it is less important.

Why is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?

Because it has no compelling evidence or credibility, even if it can't be "proven". Therefore, the default position is skepticism on its truthfulness

Again that may be the default position to you but not to me because I have some evidence. I agree my evidence is not and can never be your evidence.

You are the one bringing up brain function to prove there is no supernatural and I was simply pointing out you don't know what causes the brain to function. This being true, you cannot use it to prove there is no supernatural.

Bio electricity causes the brain to function, what more do you want to know that a neurologist couldn't explain to you in simple terms?

Bio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.

You're really trying to criticize me on a point I didn't explicitly bring up and that's how life comes from non life. You don't believe that is true, so you substitute a supernatural explanation in lieu of ignorance.

I find it less than reasonable that life spontaenously appears if you heat up a rock or whatever and science has not yet proven life comes spontaeneously from non life.

I agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary makes it valuable.

Because you think the only real value is permanent, which I think is delusional

I did not say the only real value is permanent but if something is temporary that means at some point it has no value. That is what temporary means.

I seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.

It is. When something could disappear at any time, you appreciate it for the time it does exist and then accept that it is gone when it does disappear.

When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.

Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant. I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.

Thing is, you can still make a comparison between this life and your afterlife and you'd find this life wanting, would you not?

I don't find this life perfect and I am sure you also do not find it perfect.

I don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.

As complicated as it might be, there's no need to further complicate it by saying a supernatural cause is needed to explain it.

I find no cause, just happened unreasonable.

I believe the Creator is not logically the creation. They are different and not the same. I believe God is a spirit, meaning non physical and not of this world. I believe our destiny is ultimately in the spiritual realm. I am unconcerned about minorities and majorities agreeing with me or not; and also I am unconcerned if Plato believed something with similarities to this of not.

No one said the Creator was the creation, because any God you believe is the creator isn't actually the creator in reality.

This is your belief. It may not be reality.

I think you should be more concerned with Plato agreeing with you, because many would claim you're a heretic and flirting with Greek paganism of Plato's variety.

I am not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.

I do not believe we reach the spiritual existence through secret knowledge--that means I am not a gnostic in the sence you refer

.
I didn't refer to gnostic in that sense, I referred to it in the sense of gnostics being very anti physical in the sense that the physical is something we escape from.

I am also not gnostic in the sense of believing the physical is bad and must be escapted from. I do believe the physical realm is temporary and there is suffering and pain here.

If the Creator loves us and created us to be loving beings and if the Creator gifts those who attempt to be loving being with eternal existence, then love may be part of the source of immortality.

Or God's grace could be the source of immortality from a slightly different position of that general annihilationist belief.

I believe grace is part of the source because we are unable to love perfectly and completely and will forever need the mercy and forgiveness of our Creator.

So you disagree with Einstein?

What you believe Einstein to believe might not be the case. I don't think he said time was a physical property of the universe, but something that is contingent on our observations of it as a result of measurements in relation to spatio-temporal events. Time is only real to those who experience it and attempt to measure it, in the same way color is only real to those who can experience it.

I was referring to Einstein saying time was relative.

Again your belief that may not be reality.

The fact that you turn this claim of uncertainty on me does not make my position less tenable or practical or make yours more tenable or practical. It just makes you try to boil this down to faith in something unfalsifiable and impractical and then say that you're right because it makes you feel more fulfilled than you think I am.

It is good to remember neither of us are dealing with facts--only speculation.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You just did what you accused me of doing--overstepted the boundaries of reason. Reality is not sumething either of us can prove and you cannot therefore prove that you can enjoy life more with the knowledge that all will become meaningless than someone who lives with the hope of ultimate meaning.

Part of the problem is that reason has boundaries and distinctions of proof. I could show that it's more practical without overstepping the boundaries of reason.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.

Only if that really has any practical effect on meaning existentially.

Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.

You have failed to present any evidence that is falsifiable, therefore there is not evidence. You think personal subjective experience of things that can be explained with brain scans in many cases suffices as evidence,but it doesn't.

Yes when it is over or ended it is less important.

Hardly. There are the aftereffects of the actions in the karmic sense of cause and effect

Again that may be the default position to you but not to me because I have some evidence. I agree my evidence is not and can never be your evidence.

It's not evidence except in the sense that you believe it is evident. But people can contradict your experience with claims about other gods and you cannot disprove them except with your own faith, so it is pointless.

Bio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.

You're trying to make this about the brain, but you're ignoring your implication that this is not about the brain, but about how life comes to be and function by association

I find it less than reasonable that life spontaenously appears if you heat up a rock or whatever and science has not yet proven life comes spontaeneously from non life.

No one said spontaneously. More creationist nonsense. Life comes from non life by natural processes, albeit in a particular situation of sorts as far as we hypothesize.

I did not say the only real value is permanent but if something is temporary that means at some point it has no value. That is what temporary means.

No, it simply means at some point it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean you don't find meaning in it at all.

When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.

again, your fixation on the self is detracting from any realization that perhaps you are not the ultimate source of meaning overall, but only as an individual and temporarily.

I don't find this life perfect and I am sure you also do not find it perfect

.
I didn't say you found this life perfect, I said you found it good in comparison to what you think/believe heaven to be.

I find no cause, just happened unreasonable.

There doesn't need to be reason in nature, it simply happens. Humans try to organize and categorize and understand it, but that's after the fact.

This is your belief. It may not be reality.

Again with this...so what about your belief? It may not be reality, so what's the point of telling me that mine may not be reality except to try to imply that yours is?

I am not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.

Then you shouldn't even be concerned with your own search for truth, because it's just opinions too. You're not special, don't act like you are as an individual searching for truth, because we all are.

I am also not gnostic in the sense of believing the physical is bad and must be escapted from. I do believe the physical realm is temporary and there is suffering and pain here.

Then you're at least partly gnostic. Buddhism, unlike the stereotype, does not view physicality as bad, but simply part of life in that it can be great as well. It depends on how you approach it. If you see it as evil, it becomes evil to you, even if it isn't evil. The suffering and pain you see is temporary,so you seem to want to escape from the temporary and want permanence, which is a problem in itself.

I believe grace is part of the source because we are unable to love perfectly and completely and will forever need the mercy and forgiveness of our Creator.

Then your real issue is that you believe in the grace of the creator, which not all believers in a creator believe in.

I was referring to Einstein saying time was relative.

Time dilation doesn't mean time is absolutely relative, but relative to context. I don't deny that, but time is still consistent in its general laws as we observe them. But time itself is not necessarily an objective and physical part of the world, but a result of space motion.

It is good to remember neither of us are dealing with facts--only speculation

.
Then start speaking as if you might be wrong instead of with this unjustified and selfish confidence that you're right because you feel you're right and I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Dorothea]

I can summarize his beliefs as Tibetan Buddhist, but I'd recommend his website, dalailama.com

Thanks much. I'll read up on it.

 

[elman]

Part of the problem is that reason has boundaries and distinctions of proof. I could show that it's more practical without overstepping the boundaries of reason.

I don't believe you can prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than meaning.

 

[elman]

We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.

Only if that really has any practical effect on meaning existentially.

Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.

Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.

You have failed to present any evidence that is falsifiable, therefore there is not evidence.

MY subjective experiences are evidence to me, not to you.

You think personal subjective experience of things that can be explained with brain scans in many cases suffices as evidence,but it doesn't.

What I experienced cannot be explained with brain scans. I did not claim, my experience suffices as evidence for you. We each must look at our own experiences.

Yes when it is over or ended it is less important.

Hardly. There are the aftereffects of the actions in the karmic sense of cause and effect

No, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.

Again that may be the default position to you but not to me because I have some evidence. I agree my evidence is not and can never be your evidence.

It's not evidence except in the sense that you believe it is evident. But people can contradict your experience with claims about other gods and you cannot disprove them except with your own faith, so it is pointless.

No, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.

Bio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.

You're trying to make this about the brain, but you're ignoring your implication that this is not about the brain, but about how life comes to be and function by association

I don't see your point.

I find it less than reasonable that life spontaenously appears if you heat up a rock or whatever and science has not yet proven life comes spontaeneously from non life.

No one said spontaneously. More creationist nonsense. Life comes from non life by natural processes, albeit in a particular situation of sorts as far as we hypothesize.

You believe life comes from non life. It is simply an unproven theory. I don't believe life accidently evolves from non life, but even if that were proven to happen it would not mean there is no intelligent being that is responsible for the process being in place.

I did not say the only real value is permanent but if something is temporary that means at some point it has no value. That is what temporary means.

No, it simply means at some point it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean you don't find meaning in it at all.

Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.

When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.

again, your fixation on the self is detracting from any realization that perhaps you are not the ultimate source of meaning overall, but only as an individual and temporarily.

It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.

I don't find this life perfect and I am sure you also do not find it perfect

.
I didn't say you found this life perfect, I said you found it good in comparison to what you think/believe heaven to be.

I expect the next realm to be an improvment.

I find no cause, just happened, unreasonable.

There doesn't need to be reason in nature, it simply happens.

Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there.

This is your belief. It may not be reality.

Again with this...so what about your belief? It may not be reality, so what's the point of telling me that mine may not be reality except to try to imply that yours is?

I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to be reality.

I am not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.

Then you shouldn't even be concerned with your own search for truth, because it's just opinions too. You're not special, don't act like you are as an individual searching for truth, because we all are.

I think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.

I am also not gnostic in the sense of believing the physical is bad and must be escaped from. I do believe the physical realm is temporary and there is suffering and pain here.

Then you're at least partly gnostic. Buddhism, unlike the stereotype, does not view physicality as bad, but simply part of life in that it can be great as well. It depends on how you approach it. If you see it as evil, it becomes evil to you, even if it isn't evil. The suffering and pain you see is temporary,so you seem to want to escape from the temporary and want permanence, which is a problem in itself.

I don't think your take on Buddhism is exactly like what the Buddha thought and taught. As I understand it he searched and found a way of escaping the suffering of this life. He did not seem to see life as great.

I believe grace is part of the source because we are unable to love perfectly and completely and will forever need the mercy and forgiveness of our Creator.

Then your real issue is that you believe in the grace of the creator, which not all believers in a creator believe in.

Perhaps not, but most Christians would.

I was referring to Einstein saying time was relative.
Time dilation doesn't mean time is absolutely relative, but relative to context. I don't deny that, but time is still consistent in its general laws as we observe them. But time itself is not necessarily an objective and physical part of the world, but a result of space motion.

Sounds like time is relative to me.

It is good to remember neither of us are dealing with facts--only speculation

.
Then start speaking as if you might be wrong instead of with this unjustified and selfish confidence that you're right because you feel you're right and I'm just not seeing it.

Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't believe you can prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than meaning.

I never said I could absolutely prove meaninglessness was the case absolutely. At best, I could demonstrate its probability or plausibility given the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary. Not to mention I've qualified multiple times that I never agreed we were ultimately meaningless because we don't have an ultimate meaning to lose, nor is ultimate meaning the ultimate end of things in general, but merely the loss of meaning on a larger scale.

Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.

Only in the ontological sense, but not in the sense that meaning could exist through other conscious beings.

MY subjective experiences are evidence to me, not to you.

What I experienced cannot be explained with brain scans. I did not claim, my experience suffices as evidence for you. We each must look at our own experiences.

Problem is, your evidence doesn't even necessarily count as evidence, but mere experience. If I experience something equivalent to an acid trip, does that mean it's true even if I didn't take any LSD? No, I don't think any reasonable person would believe that. You having an experience does not make it reality for anyone else in any sense except as you try to communicate it.

No, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.

We weren't talking about everything going away, but merely a single person's self disappearing. Of course cause and effect would be void when everything stops, but it doesn't stop at all just because you or me ceases to exist.

No, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.

Yes I can. If you experience the sky as purple, there's something amiss. If you experience something that can be explained naturally with a supernatural source, you're adding an extraneous source to an already sufficiently complex set.

I don't see your point.

You are attacking a claim that wasn't implied when I was speaking about bio electricity. Whenever you ask what causes something to function, you seem to be actually asking what ultimately causes it to exist and function by association, which is a question of intelligent design of some sort, if I'm not mistaken. You seem to be claiming the brain is so complex in function that it must be intelligently designed. Am I wrong?

You believe life comes from non life. It is simply an unproven theory. I don't believe life accidently evolves from non life, but even if that were proven to happen it would not mean there is no intelligent being that is responsible for the process being in place.

If an intelligent being is responsible for an accident, then that being isn't so intelligent, seems to me. Once you admit things being accidental and then under the influence of your god, you have an issue of whether that god is actually as intelligent as you claim it is. Not to mention the word accident has implications that might not actually be the case in terms of natural occurrences, which are random, not accidental.

Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.

Only for the individual in question, not for other individuals still living.

It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.

It is when you think it ultimately ends meaning and appreciation for everyone else as opposed to the one person who dies.

I expect the next realm to be an improvment.

One can expect anything they want, it's just wishful thinking ultimately unless you have some justification or defense that people might agree upon. And the Bible isn't that justification for everyone.

Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there

Now you're just making an argument from ignorance, logical fallacy that it is.

I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to be reality.

Proof in the conclusive sense, no, proof in a probable sense, yes.

I think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.

I am not a nihilist in that sense, so your description cannot therefore apply to me

I don't think your take on Buddhism is exactly like what the Buddha thought and taught. As I understand it he searched and found a way of escaping the suffering of this life. He did not seem to see life as great.

Life was not merely suffering. The translation of dukkha as suffering is too simplistic for the idea he was communicating. Life was unsatisfactory, but that was because of our initially mistaken ideas about the world and our attachments to it. He did not teach escapism, but realism, facing reality in its harshness and appreciating it without our blinders of presupposition about what it ought to be.

Perhaps not, but most Christians would.

Your point? Christians don't determine reality, you said so yourself. Why speak of them as authoritative for all theists?

Sounds like time is relative to me.

Time can be relative to perspective, but in terms of actual progress, it still follows objective laws. Any slow down of time in reality would seem to only occur in isolated incidents.

Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so.

I don't deny I could be wrong, I simply live based on principles that don't concern themselves with the existence or nonexistence of deities.

 

[elman]

I don't believe you can prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than meaning.

I never said I could absolutely prove meaninglessness was the case absolutely. At best, I could demonstrate its probability or plausibility given the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary. Not to mention I've qualified multiple times that I never agreed we were ultimately meaningless because we don't have an ultimate meaning to lose, nor is ultimate meaning the ultimate end of things in general, but merely the loss of meaning on a larger scale.

I don't believe you can demonstrate the probability of meaninglessness. If there is no ultimate meaning to lose we reach the same bottom line of meaninglessness.

Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.

Only in the ontological sense, but not in the sense that meaning could exist through other conscious beings.

Not if there are no conscious beings.

MY subjective experiences are evidence to me, not to you.

What I experienced cannot be explained with brain scans. I did not claim, my experience suffices as evidence for you. We each must look at our own experiences.

Problem is, your evidence doesn't even necessarily count as evidence, but mere experience. If I experience something equivalent to an acid trip, does that mean it's true even if I didn't take any LSD? No, I don't think any reasonable person would believe that.

My experiences are evidence to me not withstanding mental disease is possible for all of us.

You having an experience does not make it reality for anyone else in any sense except as you try to communicate it.

I have already said that--it is not evidence of reality for you, but when you say there is no evidence, that is only saying there is no evidence for you, because I have some.

No, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.

We weren't talking about everything going away, but merely a single person's self disappearing.

No I have been talking all the time about after the extinction of humanity to point out that eventualy meaninglessness of no Creator.

Of course cause and effect would be void when everything stops, but it doesn't stop at all just because you or me ceases to exist.

It stops for us, and it no longer matters to us that it does not stop for someone else.

No, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.

Yes I can. If you experience the sky as purple, there's something amiss. If you experience something that can be explained naturally with a supernatural source, you're adding an extraneous source to an already sufficiently complex set.

No your showing there is the possibility of natural or non supernatural causes would not contradict what I said.

I don't see your point.

You are attacking a claim that wasn't implied when I was speaking about bio electricity. Whenever you ask what causes something to function, you seem to be actually asking what ultimately causes it to exist and function by association, which is a question of intelligent design of some sort, if I'm not mistaken. You seem to be claiming the brain is so complex in function that it must be intelligently designed. Am I wrong?

Yes, I think so. I was not talking so much about intelligent design as I was the bio electricity not being a reasonable explanation to me for the existence of the brain and our intelligence if there is no Creator. As I type that, I think maybe that is getting close to the intelligent design argument after all.

You believe life comes from non life. It is simply an unproven theory. I don't believe life accidently evolves from non life, but even if that were proven to happen it would not mean there is no intelligent being that is responsible for the process being in place.

If an intelligent being is responsible for an accident, then that being isn't so intelligent, seems to me.

But what if the intelligent being set up things to allow for existence occuring through random chemical processess?

Once you admit things being accidental and then under the influence of your god, you have an issue of whether that god is actually as intelligent as you claim it is.

I think God was intelligent if He created everything or if He created everything in such a way that life and intelligence evolved.

Not to mention the word accident has implications that might not actually be the case in terms of natural occurrences, which are random, not accidental.

Random or accidental, the point being, it was not caused by an intelligent being.

Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.

Only for the individual in question, not for other individuals still living.

No comfort for the one gone and we still have the point when there are no living individuals.

It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.

It is when you think it ultimately ends meaning and appreciation for everyone else as opposed to the one person who dies.

You put too much value on everyone else. If I am gone, everyone else will not matter to me at that point, nor will I be aware of everyone else.

I expect the next realm to be an improvment.

One can expect anything they want, it's just wishful thinking ultimately unless you have some justification or defense that people might agree upon. And the Bible isn't that justification for everyone.

It is reasonable to assume a Creator and not reasonable to assume I exist as a random accident. When one has assumed a Creator, that logically brings a reason for the Creator to have created. If we assume a loving Creator which is also more reasonable than an evil Creator or a Creator that does not care, we then have the proability of extended existence. That would be no point to extended existence if it was not a improvment over this one.

Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there

Now you're just making an argument from ignorance, logical fallacy that it is.

One can be unable to understand things and still logically speculate on their possibility. That is not ignorance or logical fallacy.

I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to be reality.

Proof in the conclusive sense, no, proof in a probable sense, yes.

No. You cannot prove meaninglessness to be probable.

I think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.

I am not a nihilist in that sense, so your description cannot therefore apply to me

You believe in ultimate meaninglessness. In what sense are you not a nihilist?

I don't think your take on Buddhism is exactly like what the Buddha thought and taught. As I understand it he searched and found a way of escaping the suffering of this life. He did not seem to see life as great.

Life was not merely suffering. The translation of dukkha as suffering is too simplistic for the idea he was communicating. Life was unsatisfactory, but that was because of our initially mistaken ideas about the world and our attachments to it. He did not teach escapism, but realism, facing reality in its harshness and appreciating it without our blinders of presupposition about what it ought to be.

Realism regarding life includes joy and peace and love, not just harshness and accepting life as harsh.

Perhaps not, but most Christians would.

Your point? Christians don't determine reality, you said so yourself. Why speak of them as authoritative for all theists?

Until I find a theist with a better idea, I will stay with Christianity.

Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so.

I don't deny I could be wrong, I simply live based on principles that don't concern themselves with the existence or nonexistence of deities.

Actually it seems to me you live based on principles that assume the non existence of deities.

 

[razeontherock]

Came across this, that seems to fit in some part of this thread:

"Christ, in his incarnation, united God to man. By his resurrection, he overcame death. That is the good news. I hardly see why anybody would want to spend eternity with a God who hated them up until he sent his son to perish in their place... no, I don't understand that at all. However, the good news that Christ allows us to be united to our creator by his birth, death and resurrection, because of the love of his Father, should be a breath of fresh air to all humanity."