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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.True, but life should not be something you feel must go on forever.Usually and overall, life is preferable to death and existence is preferable to non existence.
Either meaning or meaninglessness exists forever eventually. I prefer meaning, and hope that is the one that is true.You want meaning to exist forever, I don't think it should.It matters to me that eventually nothing will matter and all will be meaningless. I don't believe that to be the case.
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 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.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 see it as intellligent.I see it as myopic, not foolish.I don't see it being foolish to focus on intelligence.
If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.Ultimacy does not equal meaning, they are separate terms.Why is the search for meaning a problem?
And you have not proven your belief is true.You can believe that all you want, but you have not presented grounds for why your belief is true.Your belief is incorrect.
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.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.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.
I never denied temporary meaning was possible.But not without the potential for meaning as we exist.That is what I just said. Anything that only relies on our own minds is eventually meaningless.
What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.Brain function results in thoughts that we experience. That's the general notionI don't know that matter causes the thoughts.
Why would you value something just because it was temporary? Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?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.That sounds more like the unhealthy clinging you often refer to.
Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being 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?
Not true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eterna life.Not really, by the very name afterlife it implies this life is nothing very important at all except as it relates to the afterlife,I think the truth is and reality is, belief in an afterlife makes you appreciate this life all the more.
This is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.which means life is merely a means to the end that is the afterlife, which means life is not valued in itself.
What make it a rule that it is the default?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.No because I don't claim to be able to prove the positive, but you claim to be able to prove the negative.
Its non existence, as I recall.What facts did I claim about your "spiritual realm?I am pointing out your facts are not facts.
I don't know--but I don't think so.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?You cannot observe the next life. Assuming it to be like this one is wrong
I don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.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.
You have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledgy meaninglessness is reality.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.No, I refuse to acknowledge it because its reality has not been proven.
I did not say we must believe in ultimate meaning to appreciate life. I think I did say it can help us appreciate life.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 see no logical argument there.
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 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.
I never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.We escape your oblivion by a particular belief in God and Jesus, not just any general belief.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.
You don't know what the absolute state of things is.Better, but not ultimate. Preferable, but not the absolute state of things.And in life there is someone to appreciate that state, so the state of existence is better than the state of non existence.
Is time relative?That's part of the problem, in my opinion. Time is intrinsic, like space, to any real understanding of life at all.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 is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.to speak of life without time or life without space is like speaking of a shape without sides or sight without eyes
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.
.Either meaning or meaninglessness exists forever eventually. I prefer meaning, and hope that is the one that is true
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.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.
Intelligence is not always broad minded, it can be narrow mindedI see it as intellligent.
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.If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.
You have not adequately presented your belief, so I am left with my basic default belief of naturalism and existentialism.And you have not proven your belief is true.
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 denied temporary meaning was possible.
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.What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.
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.Why would you value something just because it was temporary? Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?
I don't cling to the fact of something being temporary, I accept it.Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being temporary.
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 true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eterna life.
That you don't think you don't believe this doesn't mean it isn't true by outside observationThis is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.
Occam's razor. When presented with two explanations, go with the simpler one.What make it a rule that it is the default?
I don't think I ever claimed that was absolutely conclusively true, thoughIts non existence, as I recall.
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 know--but I don't think so.
Then you sound more and more like a gnostic in the metaphysical sense and the ethical judgment about metaphysics of the physical/materialI don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.
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' termsYou have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledgy meaninglessness is reality.
Only appreciate life in the sense of becoming more attached to it, to crave it more and more, it would seem.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 never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.
Neither do you, so that point is moot.You don't know what the absolute state of things is.
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.Is time relative?
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"That is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.
A good position, especially in terms of humility. What about the 14th Dalai Lama? Is his heart Christian, you think?
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.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
Meaninglessness may not be reality..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.
I agree I can only speak for myself.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.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.
Not when there is a lack of certainty.Intelligence is not always broad minded, it can be narrow mindedI see it as intellligent.
But only temorarily significant.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.If there is ulltimate meaning they may not be.
Why is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?You have not adequately presented your belief, so I am left with my basic default belief of naturalism and existentialism.And you have not proven your belief is true.
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.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.What causes the Brain to function? I don't think we know.
I agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary makes it valuable.Can you not find another value to go along with temporary?Why would you value something just because it was 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 seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.I don't cling to the fact of something being temporary, I accept it.Yes I can value something without clinging to the fact of it being temporary.
Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant.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 true. I do not have to believe this life is not important just because I believe in the possibillity of eternal life.
I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.That you don't think you don't believe this doesn't mean it isn't true by outside observationThis is only in your imagination--not part of my reality.
I don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.Occam's razor. When presented with two explanations, go with the simpler one.What make it a rule that it is the default?
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.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 know--but I don't think so.
I do not believe we reach the spiritual existence through secret knowledge--that means I am not a gnostic in the sence you refer.Then you sound more and more like a gnostic in the metaphysical sense and the ethical judgment about metaphysics of the physical/materialI don't believe the physical is the other half of the spiritual.
I understand but your belief may not be 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' termsYou have not proven our existence is meaningless. I will not acknowledge meaninglessness is reality.
It would not seem that way to me.Only appreciate life in the sense of becoming more attached to it, to crave it more and more, it would seem.I did not say we must believe in ultimate meaning to appreciate life. I think I did say it can help us appreciate life.
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.Love does not give us ultimate immortality, but at best, virtual immortality. We survive through the memories of loved ones.I never said that. I believe we escape oblivion, if we become loving beings--no other way.
So you disagree with Einstein?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.
Again your belief that may not be reality.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"That is true in this world where everything is subject to time. The spiritual realm may not be subject to time or space.
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'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.Meaninglessness may not be reality.
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?I agree I can only speak for myself.
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.Not when there is a lack of certainty.
Something being temporary does not make it less important.But only temorarily significant.
Because it has no compelling evidence or credibility, even if it can't be "proven". Therefore, the default position is skepticism on its truthfulnessWhy is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?
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.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.
I agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary 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.I seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.
Thing is, you can still make a comparison between this life and your afterlife and you'd find this life wanting, would you not?Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant.
I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.
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 don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.
No one said the Creator was the creation, because any God you believe is the creator isn't actually the creator in reality.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 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 do not believe we reach the spiritual existence through secret knowledge--that means I am not a gnostic in the sence you refer.
I understand but your belief may not be reality.
It would not seem that way to me.
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.
So you disagree with Einstein?
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.Again your belief that may not be reality.
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.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.
We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.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.Meaninglessness may not be reality.
Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.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?I agree I can only speak for myself.
Yes when it is over or ended it is less important.Something being temporary does not make it less important.But only temorarily significant.
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.Because it has no compelling evidence or credibility, even if it can't be "proven". Therefore, the default position is skepticism on its truthfulnessWhy is your postion the default, if I fail to prove what I have said is unprovable?
Bio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.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 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.
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.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 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.Because you think the only real value is permanent, which I think is delusionalI agree something can be valuable temporarily. I don't follow that being temporary makes it valuable.
When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.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.I seem to hear you saying that being temporary is what makes it valuable.
I don't find this life perfect and I am sure you also do not find it perfect.Thing is, you can still make a comparison between this life and your afterlife and you'd find this life wanting, would you not?Not being as important as eternal life does not make this life unimportant. I have not observed this to be true--just the opplosite.
I find no cause, just happened unreasonable.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 don't accept that as a good idea in all cases. Sometimes the truth and reality is complicated.
This is your belief. It may not be reality.No one said the Creator was the creation, because any God you believe is the creator isn't actually the creator in reality.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.
I am not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.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 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..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 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.Or God's grace could be the source of immortality from a slightly different position of that general annihilationist belief.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.
I was referring to Einstein saying time was relative.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.So you disagree with Einstein?
It is good to remember neither of us are dealing with facts--only speculation.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.Again your belief that may not be reality.
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.
Only if that really has any practical effect on meaning existentially.We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.
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.Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.
Hardly. There are the aftereffects of the actions in the karmic sense of cause and effectYes when it is over or ended it is less important.
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.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'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 associationBio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.
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 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, it simply means at some point it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean you don't find meaning in it at all.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.
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.When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.
.I don't find this life perfect and I am sure you also do not find it perfect
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.I find no cause, just happened unreasonable.
This is your belief. It may not be reality.
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 not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.
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.
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.
I was referring to Einstein saying time was relative.
.It is good to remember neither of us are dealing with facts--only speculation
I don't believe you can prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than 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.
Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.Only if that really has any practical effect on meaning existentially.We have been all through that. I agree there is temporary meaning. I was talking about ultimate lack of meaning.
MY subjective experiences are evidence to me, not to you.You have failed to present any evidence that is falsifiable, therefore there is not evidence.Because you were taking the postion there was no evidence. The true position is there is no evidence you are willing to see.
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.You think personal subjective experience of things that can be explained with brain scans in many cases suffices as evidence,but it doesn't.
No, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.Hardly. There are the aftereffects of the actions in the karmic sense of cause and effectYes when it is over or ended it is less important.
No, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.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.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.
I don't see your point.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 associationBio electricty is how the brain functions. You don't know what causes it to function.
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.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 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.
Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.No, it simply means at some point it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean you don't find meaning in it at all.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.
It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.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.When the something is you, you do not appreciate it when it is gone.
I expect the next realm to be an improvment..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.
Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there.There doesn't need to be reason in nature, it simply happens.I find no cause, just happened, unreasonable.
I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to 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?This is your belief. It may not be reality.
I think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.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 not concerned with the opinion of others in the search for truth.
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.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 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.
Perhaps not, but most Christians would.Then your real issue is that you believe in the grace of the creator, which not all believers in a creator believe in.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.
Sounds like time is relative to me.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.
Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so..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.
I don't believe you can prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than meaning.
Only in the ontological sense, but not in the sense that meaning could exist through other conscious beings.Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.
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.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.
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, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.
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, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.
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?I don't see your point.
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.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.
Only for the individual in question, not for other individuals still living.Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.
It is when you think it ultimately ends meaning and appreciation for everyone else as opposed to the one person who dies.It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.
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.I expect the next realm to be an improvment.
Now you're just making an argument from ignorance, logical fallacy that it is.Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there
Proof in the conclusive sense, no, proof in a probable sense, yes.I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to be reality.
I am not a nihilist in that sense, so your description cannot therefore apply to meI think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.
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.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.
Your point? Christians don't determine reality, you said so yourself. Why speak of them as authoritative for all theists?Perhaps not, but most Christians would.
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.Sounds like time is relative to me.
Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so.
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.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 prove meaninglessnes nor can you prove it to be more practical than meaning.
Not if there are no conscious beings.Only in the ontological sense, but not in the sense that meaning could exist through other conscious beings.Lack of meaning would have an effect on meaning.
My experiences are evidence to me not withstanding mental disease is possible for all of us.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.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.MY subjective experiences are evidence to me, not to you.
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.You having an experience does not make it reality for anyone else in any sense except as you try to communicate it.
No I have been talking all the time about after the extinction of humanity to point out that eventualy meaninglessness of no Creator.We weren't talking about everything going away, but merely a single person's self disappearing.No, if there is a time when everything is over, then there will be a time when cause and effect are immaterial.
It stops for us, and it no longer matters to us that it does not stop for someone else.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 your showing there is the possibility of natural or non supernatural causes would not contradict what I said.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, people cannot contradict my experience and any attempts would be futile.
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 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?I don't see your point.
But what if the intelligent being set up things to allow for existence occuring through random chemical processess?If an intelligent being is responsible for an accident, then that being isn't so intelligent, seems to me.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 think God was intelligent if He created everything or if He created everything in such a way that life and intelligence evolved.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.
Random or accidental, the point being, it was not caused by an intelligent being.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.
No comfort for the one gone and we still have the point when there are no living individuals.Only for the individual in question, not for other individuals still living.Yes one can find temporary meaning until the point of non existence at which point meaning also does not exist.
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.It is when you think it ultimately ends meaning and appreciation for everyone else as opposed to the one person who dies.It is not a fixation on self that finds the non existence of self would end any appreciation of anything.
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.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.I expect the next realm to be an improvment.
One can be unable to understand things and still logically speculate on their possibility. That is not ignorance or logical fallacy.Now you're just making an argument from ignorance, logical fallacy that it is.Perhaps, and perhaps there are reasons you are not aware of being there
No. You cannot prove meaninglessness to be probable.Proof in the conclusive sense, no, proof in a probable sense, yes.I have already agreed either position may be reality; but neither can be proven to be reality.
You believe in ultimate meaninglessness. In what sense are you not a nihilist?I am not a nihilist in that sense, so your description cannot therefore apply to meI think there are many who have decided all is meaningless and have stopped searching.
Realism regarding life includes joy and peace and love, not just harshness and accepting life as harsh.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.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.
Until I find a theist with a better idea, I will stay with Christianity.Your point? Christians don't determine reality, you said so yourself. Why speak of them as authoritative for all theists?Perhaps not, but most Christians would.
Actually it seems to me you live based on principles that assume the non existence of deities.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.Are you going to start speaking as if you might be wrong? I did not think so.
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?