Why live at all?

[Jeremy E Walker]

Perhaps. And I certainly dont outright deny such a capacity within humans.

But... from my perspective it looks like that may well turn out to be some combination of imagination and faith.

If that is your belief, that is fine. I respect that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Getting back to what you and I were discussing.

So you maintain that there was no designer or creator who made the universe for a specific purpose or plan right?

If so, then the universe came to be as a result of natural processes that somehow caused the singularity of immense density to somehow explode.

Is this what you believe?

I believe the big bang happened, the observable evidence we have is overwhelming in that regard.

How the big bang was sparked, I have no idea. But, that doesn't give me reason to assert a cause for it without evidence. There is no evidence that a designer or creator set it into motion, so we are unjustified in believing that, and even more so in asserting that as a fact.

In short, we don't know how it happened. Hopefully one day we'll be able to figure it out. Until that day however, it's an unknown.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I believe the big bang happened, the observable evidence we have is overwhelming in that regard.

How the big bang was sparked, I have no idea. But, that doesn't give me reason to assert a cause for it without evidence. There is no evidence that a designer or creator set it into motion, so we are unjustified in believing that, and even more so in asserting that as a fact.

In short, we don't know how it happened. Hopefully one day we'll be able to figure it out. Until that day however, it's an unknown.

Thank you.

Moving forward speedily...

So from the above we can gather that the universe does not have a purpose or a reason for existing in the sense that no one made it for a purpose or reason.

Is that reasonable to say?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thank you.

Moving forward speedily...

So from the above we can gather that the universe does not have a purpose or a reason for existing in the sense that no one made it for a purpose or reason.

Is that reasonable to say?

Not that we can tell.... why do you ask?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Not that we can tell.... why do you ask?

So from the above we can reasonably say that the events that take place right now can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Correct?

For example, your thoughts. Is it reasonable to say that the various thoughts you have are simply the by-products of certain chemical and neurological processes occuring in the grey matter in your cranium?

 

[Ken-1122]

Nothing

Thus your claim is wrong.

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

So from the above we can reasonably say that the events that take place right now can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Correct?

For example, your thoughts. Is it reasonable to say that the various thoughts you have are simply the by-products of certain chemical and neurological processes occuring in the grey matter in your cranium?

We don't have any reason to assume otherwise, so sure... Go on...

 

[Ana the Ist]

We don't have any reason to assume otherwise, so sure... Go on...

Maybe these questions are supposed to be like the universe in that respect lol.

 

[super animator]

Where did he say they were?

I will admit he didn't say that exactly, but that's the strong implication I got when he is referring to theology.
Meh, must be the internet.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Because the good in life outweighs the bad.


Because I do not want to miss all the wonderful things life has to offer. As I said before, the good far outweighs the bad.


Are you aware that people who do not believe in God also have reasons to live, and goals in their lives as well?

If I believed an after life is better than what I am experiencing right now, I would be more than ready to get to this next life as soon as possible. High risk activity that might end my life may look like an attractive idea

Ken

You mean Good objectively or Good subjectively? Im assuming you meant Good subjectively because in your worldview there is no such thing as an objective Good.

and If you say that life is good subjectively there can easily be many reasonable objections for saying that the opposite of life is Good as well.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

I believe the big bang happened, the observable evidence we have is overwhelming in that regard.

How the big bang was sparked, I have no idea. But, that doesn't give me reason to assert a cause for it without evidence. There is no evidence that a designer or creator set it into motion, so we are unjustified in believing that, and even more so in asserting that as a fact.

In short, we don't know how it happened. Hopefully one day we'll be able to figure it out. Until that day however, it's an unknown.

That is incorrect as the fine tuning argument makes us reasonable to assume that this fine tuning is more likely the cause of an intelligent agent then just blind chance, just as the integrated complexity of life gives us more then valid reason to assume that Life itself was brought about by some form of intelligent mind behind it all.
Now is this 100% knock down drag down proof? No. But what we are talking about here is inference to the most reasonable and best explanation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You mean Good objectively or Good subjectively? Im assuming you meant Good subjectively because in your worldview there is no such thing as an objective Good.

Where did he say that? I must have missed that post.

In my worldview, there is an objective good. What is beneficial to human life is good because of the objective nature of human existence and its requirements, not because of any subjectivity, such as mere opinion or desire.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To exist is greater than non-existence.

Not necessarily. You asked for the greatest conceivable being. I proposed that the greatest being conceivable is one that is capable of causing things to exist from nothing, while not existing.

And anyway your post is non sensical. For how could we speak of a being creating something if it did not exist? Existence is a necessaty condition for volitional acts.

Who said anything about it having to make sense? Most of the stuff that passes for religion doesn't make sense, yet you still believe it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

my sensus divinitatis.

If that is the case, then you have no grounds for finding epistemic fault in those who do not reach the same conclusions as you with regard to the divine.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is incorrect as the fine tuning argument makes us reasonable to assume that this fine tuning is more likely the cause of an intelligent agent then just blind chance, just as the integrated complexity of life gives us more then valid reason to assume that Life itself was brought about by some form of intelligent mind behind it all.
Now is this 100% knock down drag down proof? No. But what we are talking about here is inference to the most reasonable and best explanation.

The fine tuning argument is not in the least bit convincing, mainly because it contains a number of unjustified assumptions.

First off, we don't know that we are the only universe, in fact the evidence that we do have points to a multiverse existing. If that is indeed the case, then the laws of physics and other properties of a universe could very well likely change from universe to universe.

From there, it's inevitable that some universes will not be able to support life, other universes would be able to support life as we know it, and even others may be able to support types of life we can't even comprehend. Going by the anthropic principle, we would expect to find ourselves in a universe in which we could live.

As an alternative viewpoint, if this is actually the only universe, we don't know that the "finely tuned" settings could be set any other way. Maybe it's impossible for a universe to form if things aren't the way they are. In which case, it's inevitable that the universe would form as is.


And realistically speaking, if this was the work of an all powerful, brilliant creator who designed the universe with us in mind, he did a horrible job of it. The only place that we are aware of in which we can live out of the vast expanses of the cosmos, is a single planet. And we can't even live on vast portions of that single planet (i.e. the oceans, or the polar regions). If there are any other habitable planets, they're so far away it's quite possible we'll never reach them. There are untold billions of galaxies so distant from us, that we can never get there. This is not the work of an intelligent designer.

And besides, how on earth would a super-powerful, all intelligent being simply pop into existence in order to create the universe? God is not an answer, it has no explanatory power because we don't know what it is, and you can't even justify it's existence.


I'll give you something to think about as well regarding fine tuning. Your genetic code is one of a kind, and for it to come into existence, not only would it be required that your mom and dad got together, but one specific sperm cell out of the millions (trillions?) that your dad produced over his lifetime would meet up with that one specific egg that your mom happened to release that month. Those by itself are extremely long odds... think of it, if one other sperm made it to the egg first, you never get born, and you never come into existence. The odds against that are astronomical.

But then consider, for your parents to come about, that exact same scenario had to happen for both sets of your grandparents, and your mom and dad had to happen to meet each other and fall in love. Same goes for your great, and great, great grandparents back for thousands upon thousands of generations over millions and millions of years since the beginning of life. If there was one hiccup along the way, you would never have been born. Your genetic code would never have come into existence.

If you went back to the beginning of life a billion years ago or whatnot, the odds against you ever being born are so astronomically absurd it would be incalculable.... But here you are, and here I am, And here are the other 7 billion people with a "finely tuned" genetic code that this scenario also applies to.

In short, just because something appears finely tuned, or the odds against something "finely tuned" appears astronomical does not necessarily mean it's all that unlikely or abnormal. It may in fact be inevitable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean Good objectively or Good subjectively? Im assuming you meant Good subjectively because in your worldview there is no such thing as an objective Good.

and If you say that life is good subjectively there can easily be many reasonable objections for saying that the opposite of life is Good as well.

Supposing that life is good subjectively, then each subject makes the decision whether life or its opposite is most good. If Ken says he prefers life to the alternative, that's his judgment. Some people who commit suicide may have the opposite opinion, but that has no effect on Ken's.

 

[Ken-1122]

You mean Good objectively or Good subjectively? Im assuming you meant Good subjectively because in your worldview there is no such thing as an objective Good.

I don't think you are qualified to claim knowledge of my world view; you don't know me well enough.

and If you say that life is good subjectively there can easily be many reasonable objections for saying that the opposite of life is Good as well.

But those objections would come from somebody else, because they would be reasonable to that somebody else; not me. I was answering the question from my POV, not somebody elses.

Ken

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Where did he say that? I must have missed that post.

In my worldview, there is an objective good. What is beneficial to human life is good because of the objective nature of human existence and its requirements, not because of any subjectivity, such as mere opinion or desire.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I didnt say he said that , Im asking whether he meant an objective good or subjective good, and your assertion that life is good is still a subjective opinion. If human existence is merely molecules in motion and we end up in nonexistence in the end then there is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence.
As an atheist you can make an argument that your existence is subjectively good or bad but you cant say its objectively good or bad. I can also say that since the goal of human existence is eventually non existence that a quick non existence saves us the trouble of suffering in the end.

There is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence in an atheistic worldview and that goes for morality as well.
In atheism a person that butchers a million people is no more objectively good or bad then a person helping an old lady across the street.

In that worldview life is nothing but chemical interaction and blind chance acting upon great odds to bring about life. We are nothing but materials coming together. Blind indifference, nothing objectively good or bad.

No different then nihilism. In fact I have always believed that Atheism is nihilism by another name.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Supposing that life is good subjectively, then each subject makes the decision whether life or its opposite is most good. If Ken says he prefers life to the alternative, that's his judgment. Some people who commit suicide may have the opposite opinion, but that has no effect on Ken's.

Correct and that means exactly what I said, in atheism existence or non existence is subjectively good or bad depending on a persons opinion, there is no objective good or bad in atheism and there is absolutely nothing special about us.

But in Christianity there is an objective good and an objective bad and this is the difference and that is why we say in Christianity that all human beings are special because they were created to be special by our creator God.

 

[durangodawood]

...your assertion that life is good is still a subjective opinion....

I dont think so.

Its the nature of the human being to value living and life. This is an objective fact about the world. This is not just this person or that person's personal opinion.