Surely it has already been determined that there are those, who, given an infinite amount of time to repent of their _____, wouldn't. Or,... whatever...
Personally, I've been thinking about eternal torment a lot lately (and not only when I see Karl Posting in MY Threads!!),... what happens the moment after you take your last breath, and all things like that.
ETERNITY.
THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING INTO THE INFINITE UNREADY... EXTRAPOLATE THAAAT, M@%#3rFUU*KKP*#...
Anyhow, so, do you have anything of interest to add? Frankly, a simple "There's no such thing as eternal torment/hell/lake of fire/whatever" isn't going to be received as an intellectual answer in this Thread. I need something more,... come on, admit it, it's the only reason you hate the Bible, right? I mean, that's what I gather from everyone who's ever expressed this opinion. It just isn't, ... cause,... it can't be,... that's it, right?
I mean, what if there was no God, but there was a Hell,... I mean, why not even divorce the two concepts,... I just want to know how you you feel about a Cosmic Black Hole That Sucks Up All You Are And Traps You In Your Doubt, Forever, Whole, and Fully Formed.
And then, you who believe in this, what of you? Are you so Saved that you have no thoughts on the matter? Or what?
I mean, eery spiritual system known to man has a hell, so, why pick on just the Bible? And, if so many traditions espouse one, why is there no modern credence? Why has not the modern world been able to translate this?
Oh, and in this Thread "Hell is here on earth" won't cut it either. It sure isn't hell for the ones grinding us all under their fiscal slavery thumbs. No, there is no justice on this plane of existence,... it does appear that a Cosmic Dump is needed.
And what of the Biblical despictions of the lake of fitre sounding an aweful lot like a black hole- who really knows WHAT's in a black hole, maybe the souls of the damned???
I dunno ::)
I'm asking your thoughts,... your DEEP thoughts on the matter,... no sarcasm allowed, no cynicism allowed, no mocking allowed, just the most intellectual and/or visceral thoughts on the matter.
I'm personally terrified of the possibilities, especially given the new Elon Musk AI fears- that they could go back in time and torture people who didn't realize their existence quick enough,... maybe the lake of fire is being made right now? maybe hell is something we create in the future, unwittingly, CERn?, open portals,...
eternal suffering
it sounds like it would suck
anyhow
Cato will have something to say I'm sure
Greetings!
I am so happy that you have arrived at a deep area of contemplation! 0:)
Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to your curiously posed question. I assume you know this already. 0:)
Science will tell you not to worry: your atoms will be reabsorbed into the Universe, and you will have no consciousness, no existence. Of course, in one sense, you have already not existed, since the you from e.g. 5 years ago is not the you right now. Science has no comment on whether your life has meaning. However, you can create meaning for it right now...or refuse. Science seems to indicate that your moral life is of no interest to the mathematical factors involved in operating the Universe.
Black holes seem to be an area of infinite gravity, or maybe the buddings of Big Bangs creating other universes, or maybe severe warps of the space-time continuum folding it back upon itself, or maybe all of these are wrong. It may also be possible that they evaporate. Black holes would not seem to be involved with death. Pope Gregory the Great thought volcanoes were entrances to Hell, but as you know, that is wrong.
So calm down about black holes! 8)
However, if you sense that Science is not correct, you may consider the following.
If some sort of Divine force exists, and if it allows beings who can discover (some would say "create") the concept of Divinity, and if it allows those beings to choose the directions of their lives freely, and assuming that such a Divine force is not illogical but follows - so to speak - a mathematical imperative, then it would make sense for consequences to exist for said beings when they commit evil, especially the worst crime of taking Life away, outside of self-defense.
There are objections to the concept of a Divinity who micro-judges the moral life of every morality-capable creature in the Universe, i.e. that Divinity worries about your thoughts to steal cookies at age 10. A consideration not without merit: to use a specific example from religion, recall how Jesus ignores various Jewish laws, speaks of them as distractions from a proper path for life, and boils things down to the basics.
Something else to consider: if a kind of evolution is at the nature of the Universe, i.e. that nothing stays the same because it cannot, since change is the basis of the Universe, then it may be that the elimination of evil is the purpose of the Universe. Now this would seem to violate basic duality, i.e. that the existence of Good means that its opposite (Evil) must be allowed ("He who says 'A' must say 'B'.") However, one could argue that an endpoint is reached in the history of the Universe where only Good exists, and Evil still exists, but only as an intellectual possibility which is never chosen.
Such a situation is assumed to have existed with the angels, or pure spirits, if you allow their existence.
In one sense, however, there is an answer to your question: if you are worried about this, don't commit evil, don't be unprepared to "shake hands with Divinity," and you have nothing to worry about. Your life will be less anxious. 8) If the scientists are correct, it will not matter, except that your life was better because you chose The Good (at least more often than not).
You may want to examine Teilhard de Chardin for further contemplation, and here is an essay by a Catholic Cardinal giving an overview of the problem:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-population-of-hell (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-population-of-hell)
Dante depicted the innermost circle of hell as a lake of ice.
Well, there's three possibilities in the afterlife.
Either you go to hell and train with these losers:
(http://www.oocities.org/yashinfan/hellnothfil.jpg)
Or you make it past Snake Way and have to put up with this guy's corny jokes forever.
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/teamfourstar/images/6/61/KingKaiNV.png/revision/latest?cb=20130624045549)
Alternately, you can also be revived if you are saving the world from a massive threat...
One of the most fascinating things of the last years is how in the nerdy fantasies of transhumanism, Evil AI and so on, technologically advanced (but otherwise often fairly naive) versions of philosophical and religious concepts pop up again. That they are often fairly naive seems partly due to the almost complete ignorance these very smart AI speculators show with respect to the history of philosophy and religion. (This does not only concern religious ideas. A transhumanist, all-knowing AI sounds very similar to Hegel's Absolute Spirit.)
In any case, as far as I understand (very little) some of the karmic religions (Buddhism and some versions of Hinduism and Jainism), one does not need a personally judging deity for a hellish fate: Doing evil literally stains/hurts/destroys one's soul and it is a quasi-natural Law that such a stained soul will suffer in a following existence (although it usually has the option for some kind of cleansing as well).
At least in some passages, e.g. in "Gorgias" and the "Republic", the Platonic Socrates seems to hold a similar position: Doing evil hurts your soul already now and even worse in some afterlife. Not because some judge condemning you but because the nature of one's soul is such that evil doing stains it or prevents it from "functioning properly". Therefore suffering evil is better than doing evil.
I have no interest in spending any time in any hell.
Quote from: SartreL'enfer, c'est les autres.
From the essay by
Cardinal Dulles mentioned above:
QuoteAll told, it is good that God has left us without exact information. If we knew that virtually everybody would be damned, we would be tempted to despair. If we knew that all, or nearly all, are saved, we might become presumptuous. If we knew that some fixed percent, say fifty, would be saved, we would be caught in an unholy rivalry. We would rejoice in every sign that others were among the lost, since our own chances of election would thereby be increased. Such a competitive spirit would hardly be compatible with the gospel.
My emphasis above, and I point it out specifically, because it is interesting that the Universe seems to be at least partially predicated upon inexact information, or a denial of information. I am referring to the concept of Quantum Physics called "weirdness" wherein we are denied knowing both the specific charge and place of a particle. As far as I know, it has yet to be demonstrated
why such a quality or property must exist for the Universe to exist. All we know is that it does exist, or seems to according to our understanding of the phenomenon right now.
So, one can say that our inexact knowledge about the existence of God is in the same company. Divinity appears to give us only possibilities rather than exact facts about His/Her/Its existence. Knowing too much may interfere with our absolute freedom of choice in Life: we are free to accept the possibility that God does not exist, and follow other ideas where the Universe is eternal, or where there are an infinite number of Universes, or a Multiverse. We are free to ask "Where did God come from?" and hit a wall, or "How does the Universe just arise by itself?" and hit a similar wall.
The old idea, that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, has faded somewhat, as the essay shows. Still, even without such a threat of a judging God, Life shows that the good person always seems happier than the person who tends not to be good. The energy expended to do good things: is it always more than for doing evil? I would say no.
What of energy expended in ranting? 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 22, 2015, 03:50:27 AM
What of energy expended in ranting? 0:)
I shudder to think of the punishment involved! 0:)
From Cardinal Dulles
the one being everlasting happiness in the presence of God, the other everlasting torment in the absence of God.
Heaven of course the former,Hell the latter.
But the direct inference from such a definition is that Hell does not exist, since God is present in all places, and absent in no place.
Jewish thinking is rather hazy, but normally thinks of the afterdeath state as something like Purgatory followed by a place in Paradise appropriate to the good deeds performed in life. Certain souls are so wrapped in evil that they can never gain Paradise, but the details are puposely obscure. The Torah speaks of the soul being cut off, which is usually taken to mean not eternal punishment but ceasing to exist, a literal second death. Cut off the link to God and the soul withers to nothingness, a natural result of sin. I believe 7th Day Adventist teaching adopts the "cease to exist" view.
Also to remember: eternity means not time without end, an infinite succession of seconds, but being outside Time altogether.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 22, 2015, 07:06:45 AM
From Cardinal Dulles
the one being everlasting happiness in the presence of God, the other everlasting torment in the absence of God.
Heaven of course the former,Hell the latter.
But the direct inference from such a definition is that Hell does not exist, since God is present in all places, and absent in no place.
Jewish thinking is rather hazy, but normally thinks of the afterdeath state as something like Purgatory followed by a place in Paradise appropriate to the good deeds performed in life. Certain souls are so wrapped in evil that they can never gain Paradise, but the details are puposely obscure. The Torah speaks of the soul being cut off, which is usually taken to mean not eternal punishment but ceasing to exist, a literal second death. Cut off the link to God and the soul withers to nothingness, a natural result of sin. I believe 7th Day Adventist teaching adopts the "cease to exist" view.
Also to remember: eternity means not time without end, an infinite succession of seconds, but being outside Time altogether.
Or the inference is that a different definition of the word applies. As you point out, eternity is the absence of time, but also of space. How one is supposed to imagine that...? A Russian mathematician claimed he could imagine 4 dimensions, and of course one aspect of physics claims that there are many dimensions which have collapsed down into our visible 3. But what that would be like...?
And yes, the "ceasing to exist" is an interesting interpretation. In other religions, of course, ceasing to exist is the idea of bliss. 0:)
Ultimately, we don't know, since no one has returned from any further within Heaven or Hell than the threshold. I am counting near-death experiences here. Many describe light and peace; a few describe darkness and torment and terrifyingly evil beings; but none seem to have returned from the deep circles of either "destination." We only have enough information--ancient literature, modern fears and desires, and so on--to postulate that they are probably real places, although not in the four dimensions in which we now live.
(It is amazing how Dante's Divine Comedy, originally a political satire, became looked upon as a legitimate source of information! ::) )
Quote from: Cato on July 21, 2015, 06:16:26 PMYou may want to examine Teilhard de Chardin for further contemplation
Or not:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Teilhard_De_Chardin_and_the_Christian_Vision-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx
Quote from: jochanaan on July 22, 2015, 07:57:05 AMIt is amazing how Dante's Divine Comedy, originally a political satire
You may want to rethink that:
http://www.sophiaperennis.com/books/christianity/the-esoterism-of-dante/
Quote from: Purusha on July 22, 2015, 08:08:31 AM
Or not:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Teilhard_De_Chardin_and_the_Christian_Vision-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx
Chardin is an acquired taste! ;) Some would say his name should be
Charlatan. 0:)
Kübler-Ross said that in her experience two kinds of people face death with strength : believers and unbelievers. Those of us who are on the fence have the most difficulty in the end game. I can readily sympathize with believers of whatever faith : Life is complex, ambiguous, enigmatic. Answers are few and the questions innumerable. Wouldn't it be extraordinary if Death were any different? Alas, it's not, but it is a measure of the depth of our fear (and presumption) that religions purporting to provide "the truth" exist. Unfortunately, religions also invoke fear to gain converts and some of Snipe's worries are the result of those efforts. Personally, I wish humanity could get to a place where 1.) we realize that we are in this world together with others of our kind and after us our accomplishments and deeds, kin, friends, fellow humans and the music we love continue on (does that sound like Death to you? It doesn't to me, or as a character on Red Dwarf quips "death is not the handicap it used to be"). Frankly, our obsession with self borders on the obscene. And 2.) that we learn to embrace ambiguity (life inc: death), willingly, gracefully, experientially. And also, as for science, while one respects and rejoices in its tremendous strides, "let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species." Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science:
Quote from: snyprrr on July 21, 2015, 04:34:26 PM
THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING INTO THE INFINITE UNREADY...
The Infinite Unready . . . I surely don't want to go
there! 8)
There's a Zen koan that illustrates my view on the matter but I don't remember it well enough now. In the meanwhile, some quotes from
Milton:
'The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.''Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.' 0:)
Also from
Emily Dickinson:
"Captivity is Consciousness -- so's Liberty"
PartingMY LIFE closed twice before its close;
It yet remains to see
If Immortality unveil
A third event to me
So huge, so hopeless to conceive,
As these that twice befell.
Parting is all we know of heaven,
And all we need
E: Here is the koan:
Quote
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 22, 2015, 10:14:06 AM
The Infinite Unready . . . I surely don't want to go there! 8)
Heh-heh!
The phrase fairly well describes my students! 8)
I've been following this thread and finding it interesting, informative and enjoyable. However my own opinion is far more mundane and uninspired, because although I always make sure I occasionally glance ahead, I'm far more of the "Ah, I'll worry about it when it happens" type of person.
Apropos:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Concerning_the_Notion_of_Eternity-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx
https://lumineboreali.net/threads/schuon-on-hell.158/
http://www.frithjofschuon.com/uploads/pdfs/articles/85.pdf
I know, TL;DR, but what the hell, maybe somebody will find this stuff interesting.
Quote from: North Star on July 22, 2015, 12:21:41 PM
'Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.'
That is the very origin of The Fall: pride. Beware!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yeah. Humanism was the grant idea that man could be exalted in place of God. Fast forward a few centuries, and now man seems to have had enough of "man". Wonder why.
Quote from: Purusha on July 22, 2015, 03:39:03 PM
Yeah. Humanism was the grant idea that man could be exalted in place of God. Fast forward a few centuries, and now man seems to have had enough of "man". Wonder why.
Ask
Goethe Job... ;D
Life is hard and then you die. The End
Quote from: Sef on July 23, 2015, 05:49:43 AM
Life is hard and then you die. The End
Ah, but what if it isn't? :)
Quote from: jochanaan on July 23, 2015, 07:31:02 AM
Ah, but what if it isn't? :)
Then I guess I'll be pleasantly surprised!
Quote from: Sef on July 23, 2015, 07:37:35 AM
Then I guess I'll be pleasantly surprised!
Or not pleasantly surprised. >:D ;)
The thermodynamics of hell
http://www.quantumlounge.com/data/hell.htm
Quote from: jochanaan on July 23, 2015, 07:38:46 AM
Or not pleasantly surprised. >:D ;)
Not the kind of God I'd be much interested in if this was His thing! I'm with Stephen Fry:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)
Quote from: Sef on July 23, 2015, 08:56:30 AM
Not the kind of God I'd be much interested in if this was His thing! I'm with Stephen Fry:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)
See, but that's the point: you're not "allowed" to act like God is the one "punishing" anyone,... it's just that those who do against His Will CAN'T be allowed in His Presence--- IT'S NOT HIS FAULT!!
His attitude is like: "Duuude, I told you a looong time ago not to live your life that way. I'm just NOT going to turn a pickle back into a cucumber AFTER it's all over, that would be silly. So, duuuude, I live in a Perfect Place, and I just can't have your filthy mind polluting My Place for all My People,... y'see? It's really nothing personal,... and, it's really all your own fault. I mean,... you can't just start believing in Me right AFTER you take your last breath, right?"
and so on
Can't you see that, dear Poster? It's all OUR OWN Pride and such that puts us into the position of "torture",... God really has nothing to do with it in this manner of speaking.
Like, in the Garden of Eden,... look very closely at HOW the conversation goes- God's like, "Woooah, duuuude, WHAT DID YOU DO???? Duuuude, I TOLD you- and now, what? there's nothing I CAN do for you (without destroying everything else..."
God's not like, "Dude, I'm gonna torture the f outta you for yelling at your mom."
He's more like: "Duuuude, don't you know that the way I have things set up, if you yell at your mom there's gonna be stuff comin' your way, and, sincerely, I AM "powerless" to stop it (without, again, destroying everything else),... so, duuuude, why'd ya do it?"
Quote from: Cato on July 21, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
Greetings!
I am so happy that you have arrived at a deep area of contemplation! 0:)
Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to your curiously posed question. I assume you know this already. 0:)
Science will tell you not to worry: your atoms will be reabsorbed into the Universe, and you will have no consciousness, no existence. Of course, in one sense, you have already not existed, since the you from e.g. 5 years ago is not the you right now. Science has no comment on whether your life has meaning. However, you can create meaning for it right now...or refuse. Science seems to indicate that your moral life is of no interest to the mathematical factors involved in operating the Universe.
Black holes seem to be an area of infinite gravity, or maybe the buddings of Big Bangs creating other universes, or maybe severe warps of the space-time continuum folding it back upon itself, or maybe all of these are wrong. It may also be possible that they evaporate. Black holes would not seem to be involved with death. Pope Gregory the Great thought volcanoes were entrances to Hell, but as you know, that is wrong.
So calm down about black holes! 8)
However, if you sense that Science is not correct, you may consider the following.
If some sort of Divine force exists, and if it allows beings who can discover (some would say "create") the concept of Divinity, and if it allows those beings to choose the directions of their lives freely, and assuming that such a Divine force is not illogical but follows - so to speak - a mathematical imperative, then it would make sense for consequences to exist for said beings when they commit evil, especially the worst crime of taking Life away, outside of self-defense.
There are objections to the concept of a Divinity who micro-judges the moral life of every morality-capable creature in the Universe, i.e. that Divinity worries about your thoughts to steal cookies at age 10. A consideration not without merit: to use a specific example from religion, recall how Jesus ignores various Jewish laws, speaks of them as distractions from a proper path for life, and boils things down to the basics.
Something else to consider: if a kind of evolution is at the nature of the Universe, i.e. that nothing stays the same because it cannot, since change is the basis of the Universe, then it may be that the elimination of evil is the purpose of the Universe. Now this would seem to violate basic duality, i.e. that the existence of Good means that its opposite (Evil) must be allowed ("He who says 'A' must say 'B'.") However, one could argue that an endpoint is reached in the history of the Universe where only Good exists, and Evil still exists, but only as an intellectual possibility which is never chosen.
Such a situation is assumed to have existed with the angels, or pure spirits, if you allow their existence.
In one sense, however, there is an answer to your question: if you are worried about this, don't commit evil, don't be unprepared to "shake hands with Divinity," and you have nothing to worry about. Your life will be less anxious. 8) If the scientists are correct, it will not matter, except that your life was better because you chose The Good (at least more often than not).
You may want to examine Teilhard de Chardin for further contemplation, and here is an essay by a Catholic Cardinal giving an overview of the problem:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-population-of-hell (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-population-of-hell)
aye aye aye---- everyone's comments are tending towards the deep end of the pool. !!!!!!! Impressive!! This will take more time reading..........
$:)??? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)drrr drrrr drrrr
Quote from: snyprrr on July 23, 2015, 12:31:59 PM
Like, in the Garden of Eden,... look very closely at HOW the conversation goes- God's like, "Woooah, duuuude, WHAT DID YOU DO???? Duuuude, I TOLD you- and now, what? there's nothing I CAN do for you (without destroying everything else..."
God's not like, "Dude, I'm gonna torture the f outta you for yelling at your mom."
He's more like: "Duuuude, don't you know that the way I have things set up, if you yell at your mom there's gonna be stuff comin' your way, and, sincerely, I AM "powerless" to stop it (without, again, destroying everything else),... so, duuuude, why'd ya do it?"
Lol, at least it's slightly better than Job.
God: "Hey, dude, Satan, I wanna make a bet. I already know what the outcome will be, but just to prove how freaking awesome I am, I'm gonna murder Job's whole family and take everything he worked hard for his whole life, and he'll still worship me!"
Satan: "Hehehe... your ideas are better than mine. And you're the good guy? lolz"
God: "Here goes..."
end result...
God: "What'd I tell ya? And you think he'd ever worship you? Pfffft. Cuz I'm teh awesomeness."
Satan: *rolls eyes*
Speaking of Adam and Eve...
https://www.youtube.com/v/A_a6RjR_AHY
Quote from: NikF on July 22, 2015, 01:42:57 PM
I've been following this thread and finding it interesting, informative and enjoyable. However my own opinion is far more mundane and uninspired, because although I always make sure I occasionally glance ahead, I'm far more of the "Ah, I'll worry about it when it happens" type of person.
But isn't a major point of most religions (and maybe also implied in the quasi-karmic thinking of some classical philosophers like Socrates and Plato) that it's really *too late* "to worry about it when it happens". Because then you are in hell or trapped in some nasty re-incarnation you deserved due to bad karma and there's nothing you can do about it...
Among some protestant denominations there is at least the idea that atheists get what they expect (and not what they deserve according to more traditional orthodoxy): When they die their consciousness is simply annihilated, not eternally tortured or sth. like that. Whereas believers are miraculously resurrected to eternal bliss.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 24, 2015, 01:09:36 AM
But isn't a major point of most religions (and maybe also implied in the quasi-karmic thinking of some classical philosophers like Socrates and Plato) that it's really *too late* "to worry about it when it happens". Because then you are in hell or trapped in some nasty re-incarnation you deserved due to bad karma and there's nothing you can do about it...
Yes, if that's the case then it would definitely be too late. And that would be my own fault. However, I've chosen to live my life in a certain manner, and so of the options available to me I prefer "I'll worry about it when it happens". But feel free to read that as " If/when it happens, I'm fucked and I know I'm fucked."
http://www.youtube.com/v/srZkEZNk7i8
The monumentally trivial way that believers treat the question of existence after existence, good and bad neighborhoods and all, is not so secret as to be undetectable to observers. You say you "believe" that belief, the dreadful "faith", establishes entities, belief as reasons, not reasons for beliefs. What the believer does, the eternal Shrug of Bogusity, makes him a Knight who says........what he says. It's the Saying, not the "object" of what's said, that counts. A real object, bad neighborhood, demon landlord, whatever, would just be in the way.
Of course, raw scorn is another approach.
Nothing isn't something, so it can't come in heaven/hell flavors, and scorn is appropriate. Scorn is the correct approach to ideologies that claim that believing hard enough establishes entities, but doesn't establish the "wrong ones", which must be the case or every Bizarro World kryptonite god is on the same footing! Of course, they are on the same banana peel of un-is-ness. That must be a bummer, all those fake "fake" gods are fake by the same reasoning that the "real" ones are fake. Best then not to put too high a profile on the mechanism if differentiating among them. Hey, I have an idea! Let's go one step beyond and make the difference between real and fake gods, real and fantasy neighborhoods in erewhon, itself a (heh!) Divine Mystery! The problem is solved, and we see no dilemma of this sort is beyond a liberal lathering of Profound Hogwash!
OK, this is fun and all, but I do have a serious objection to beliefs trading places with reasons to support them. That is, it makes mashed potatoes out of worldly epistemology, and that is important. Carving out exceptions for sheltered beliefs in ones truth procedures has no cutoff point. Some scientists and other intellectuals can keep 2 sets of books, one for beliefs, the other for what doesn't have to be believed to be true, but has to be found true to be believed IOW the constitution of the world as we find it. I accept this arrangement and it appears stable in some people and may offer comfort to them, but it massively enables every pseudo-scientific tendency in our culture.
Nice rationalization. As if the ready expression of contempt were any virtue. I'm right to be scornful, I tell you!
There's is plenty of stupidity in the world to be rightly scornful about. Your blanket condemnation of scorn is more unfocused and unjustified than my scorn.
I would say that attacking me may help ones morale, but addressing my argument that a belief can't serve as evidence for its truth would be productive and help anyone who might be reading to learn something.
May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence. You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.
Quote from: Greg on July 23, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
Speaking of Adam and Eve...
https://www.youtube.com/v/A_a6RjR_AHY
If humankind had obeyed God, we wouldn't need those black boxes on our monitors! Just sayin'. :)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 10:16:34 AM
May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence. You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.
+1 :)
And I say again that most of us who believe have evidence for our beliefs. It may not be evidence by materialistic standards, but it is evidence still. The fact that so many humans crave a reality beyond themselves may be considered evidence that we were made by Someone. (Why do you think so many people are looking for extraterrestrial life? They too hunger for a reality beyond what we know, for a universe in which we are not alone.)
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 09:40:06 AM
Nothing isn't something, so it can't come in heaven/hell flavors, and scorn is appropriate. Scorn is the correct approach to ideologies that claim that believing hard enough establishes entities, but doesn't establish the "wrong ones", which must be the case or every Bizarro World kryptonite god is on the same footing! Of course, they are on the same banana peel of un-is-ness. That must be a bummer, all those fake "fake" gods are fake by the same reasoning that the "real" ones are fake. Best then not to put too high a profile on the mechanism if differentiating among them. Hey, I have an idea! Let's go one step beyond and make the difference between real and fake gods, real and fantasy neighborhoods in erewhon, itself a (heh!) Divine Mystery! The problem is solved, and we see no dilemma of this sort is beyond a liberal lathering of Profound Hogwash!
OK, this is fun and all, but I do have a serious objection to beliefs trading places with reasons to support them. That is, it makes mashed potatoes out of worldly epistemology, and that is important. Carving out exceptions for sheltered beliefs in ones truth procedures has no cutoff point. Some scientists and other intellectuals can keep 2 sets of books, one for beliefs, the other for what doesn't have to be believed to be true, but has to be found true to be believed IOW the constitution of the world as we find it. I accept this arrangement and it appears stable in some people and may offer comfort to them, but it massively enables every pseudo-scientific tendency in our culture.
There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him.
And "belief" is not the only alternative to reason. There is direct intellectual intuition:
http://www.sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Primacy_of_Intellection-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx
Or in the words of Rumi:
Love has rosebowers amid the veil of blood; lovers have affairs
to transact with the beauty of incomparable Love.
Reason says, "The six directions are the boundary, and there
is no way out"; Love says, "There is a way, and I have many
times travelled it."
Reason beheld a bazaar, and began trading; Love has beheld
many bazaars beyond Reason's bazaar.
Many a hidden Mansur there is who, confiding in the soul of
Love, abandoned the pulpit and mounted the scaffold.
Dreg-sucking lovers possess ecstatic perceptions inwardly;
men of reason, dark of heart, entertain denials within them.
Reason says, "Set not your foot down, for in the courtyard
there is naught but thorns"; Love says, "These thorns belong to
the reason which is within you."
Beware, be silent; pluck the thorn of being out of the heart's
foot, that you may behold the rosebowers within you.
Shams-i Tabrızı, you are the sun within the cloud of words;
when your sun arose, all speech was obliterated.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 10:16:34 AM
May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence. You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.
Why would anyone think evidence of nonexistence could be attached to nonexistent "entities"? How at this late date could anyone in ex-Christendom not understand where the burden of proof really falls?
Ed: x exists
Ned: no it don't
Ed: prove it
Ned: no, you have to provide the proof or my motion passes by default
Of course Ned is correct and wins the argument, because nothing exists by virtue of "you can't say it doesn't". No one accepts this about anything important. I conclude that beliefists are not serious, not lying, but engaging in self deceptive bullshitting. If what they say can't be justified they'll confabulate and attack the challengers motives.
I say Britney Spears is a greater musical genius than Beethoven, and that there is nothing immoral in impaling babies. Can reason prove me wrong? No, therefore, intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone, if intelligence is supposed to mean anything in the first place. All your sophisticated syllogisms are completely helpless in the end. By reducing everything to reason alone, western so called "thinkers" drove themselves to an intellectual cul-de-sac from which there appears to be no escape.
"There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him."
Yeah, I kind of said that, didn't I? All the fake fakes and real fakes are the same, that's why it's so easy for me to (heh!) get to them.
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:11:15 AM
"There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him."
Yeah, I kind of said that, didn't I? All the fake fakes and real fakes are the same, that's why it's so easy for me to (heh!) get to them.
Right. Also, there is no truth, and everything is relative. Correct?
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:07:52 AM
Why would anyone think evidence of nonexistence could be attached to nonexistent "entities"? How at this late date could anyone in ex-Christendom not understand where the burden of proof really falls?
Ed: x exists
Ned: no it don't
Ed: prove it
Ned: no, you have to provide the proof or my motion passes by default
Of course Ned is correct and wins the argument, because nothing exists by virtue of "you can't say it doesn't". No one accepts this about anything important. I conclude that beliefists are not serious, not lying, but engaging in self deceptive bullshitting. If what they say can't be justified they'll confabulate and attack the challengers motives.
You believe the entities in question do not exist, and that belief is based, not on evidence of their non existence, but on your belief that such evidence does not exist. This despite the fact the vast majority of the human race over the centuries was satisfied with the evidence that such entities existed. Your assertion that such things do not exist is merely a faith based assertion of the very sort you claim to be attacking.
There is a sort of experience which can be called religious or spiritual, and those of us that have had such experiences believe they are ample evidence that the Entity in Question does in fact exist. You see the heavens, I see the heavens declaring the glory of God. That is the difference that religious experience makes. You would be better off grappling with the question of what that sort of experience is and what it means than simply pretending it does not exist.
Quote from: Purusha on July 24, 2015, 11:10:33 AM
I say Britney Spears is a greater musical genius than Beethoven, and that there is nothing immoral in impaling babies. Can reason prove me wrong?
Can your precious unreason do better? I note for the record that unreason has a pretty shitty history. Anyway, I think it's a little bit unreasonable of you to trample the value/fact distinction so heedlessly. Reason itself is not determinate on ethical or aesthetic values but a great deal of reason operates in our understanding of our responses and the direction we want them to take.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 11:15:56 AM
You believe the entities in question do not exist, and that belief is based, not on evidence of their non existence, but on your belief that such evidence does not exist.
Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Can your precious unreason do better? I note for the record that unreason has a pretty shitty history. Anyway, I think it's a little bit unreasonable of you to trample the value/fact distinction so heedlessly. Reason itself is not determinate on ethical or aesthetic values but a great deal of reason operates in our understanding of our responses and the direction we want them to take.
My intelligence tells me that Beethoven is a greater artist than Britney Spears, and that murdering babies is wrong. Since reason had nothing to do with those realizations, than it means that intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone,
if intelligence is to mean anything.
BTW, intellection is not "unrational", it is
suprarational.
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?
Is truth an entity? I'm just wondering how consistent your "atheism" truly is. Dawkins or Nietzsche?
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?
The Entity I have directly experienced and which you think does not exist. More broadly, your faith based assertion that the divine does not exist, despite the fact that most of humanity believes the evidence shows it does exist.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 11:30:08 AM
The Entity I have directly experienced and which you think does not exist.
Just think off all the trouble Einstein could have saved himself if his direct experience of the truth of relativity meant he didn't have to make arguments supporting his claim.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 11:30:08 AM
More broadly, your faith based assertion that the divine does not exist, despite the fact that most of humanity believes the evidence shows it does exist.
My assertion is there's no reason to think it does, and ample reason to think it's as hoaxy as it looks. As for your experience providing proof, you give me ample reason, in part by ignoring my question but mostly by the incoherence of the "true by belief" architecture, to doubt you have any idea what your experience means. You jumped to an implausible conclusion and don't care, as it serves your belief. Neither evidence nor the lack of it shakes you. You are not a reliable witness.
Quote from: Purusha on July 24, 2015, 11:15:22 AM
Right. Also, there is no truth, and everything is relative. Correct?
I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Our knowledge of what's true comes from what we observe and the application of reason to it. Any approach which says truths are established by the process of believing them means it's impossible to correct errors in beliefs because there could be no errors. If you can't be wrong you can't be right.
What's accepted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence. Thanks, Hitch.
The justification of a proposition lies in the evidence that supports it - Some Guy
* * I think it was A.J. Ayer. Read his book Language, Truth and Logic. It's become something of a piñata in Philosophy 101 but there's still plenty of good stuff in it.
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
Just think off all the trouble Einstein could have saved himself if his direct experience of the truth of relativity meant he didn't have to make arguments supporting his claim.
My assertion is there's no reason to think it does, and ample reason to think it's as hoaxy as it looks. As for your experience providing proof, you give me ample reason, in part by ignoring my question but mostly by the incoherence of the "true by belief" architecture, to doubt you have any idea what your experience means. You jumped to an implausible conclusion and don't care, as it serves your belief. Neither evidence nor the lack of it shakes you. You are not a reliable witness.
The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph, since you have no knowledge of what my experience was/is, or why I draw the conclusion I did from it. You merely dismiss out of hand, because you have an a priori belief that God does not exist.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 12:15:07 PM
The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph, since you have no knowledge of what my experience was/is, or why I draw the conclusion I did from it. You merely dismiss out of hand, because you have an a priori belief that God does not exist.
Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?
The primary deception, of yours, that I note is that "Our knowledge of what's true comes from
what we observe and the application of reason to it" accounts for everything that exists in our reality.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 12:15:07 PM
The faith based nature of your belief is evidenced in that last paragraph
This is what I mean about the bullshitting of the faithy. Did you really mean to reveal your true opinion of "faith based" like this? What can I say but on this point you're right. By the same token my nonacceptance of your faithy standard can't be construed as faith-based, why that's silly "you too" style crap. You want to argue like that?
Quote from: sanantonio on July 24, 2015, 12:48:29 PM
The primary deception, of yours, that I note is that "Our knowledge of what's true comes from what we observe and the application of reason to it" accounts for everything that exists in our reality.
That's incoherent. What knowledge do you have about what we have no knowledge of that would justify you saying that to me? Do you have knowledge of what isn't known? Are you a divine wizard. or do you merely want to be taken for one?
OK, I'll play, you're a wizard. Your track record stinks by the way, so you may want to reconsider.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
Whose fault is that? You give preposterous testimony and blame the recipient for not finding some excuse to believe your assertion. I know people deceive themselves like this, and about many other "experiences" of similar nature. Can we do alien kidnappings next? If you want to be believed say believable things or restrict your intended audience to your majority of smiling nodders. I'd be embarassed to invoke such a low standard. Why aren't you?
I said I had a religious experience, and believe in God because of that. Nothing more than that.
You then dismiss it without knowing anything about it. Faith based assertion.
Or are you saying I did not have a religious experience? Then you deny reality.
Your argument boils down to,
I do not want to believe, so I will believe there is no evidence even though there is, and enough to make most of the human race decide God exists.
In fact, observing reality and deducing therefrom lead to the conclusion that it is a very rational thing to believe God exists.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 01:28:55 PM
I said I had a religious experience, and believe in God because of that. Nothing more than that.
You then dismiss it without knowing anything about it. Faith based assertion.
Or are you saying I did not have a religious experience? Then you deny reality.
I don't deny the reality that people have experiences of the kind you had. You had it. What I'm saying is these experiences don't establish god entities or ghost entities or Pazuzu entities or Martian Bat-Rat-Spider entities (awesome as the latter are!) just because you leap to that explanation without bothering with more plausible ones first.
Anyway, as I pointed out before, what entitles you to faith-based assertions and not me? It's
my rule that it violates, obviously not yours or you wouldn't violate it so recklessly.
If faith based assertions are not valid why would anyone defend them against my (heh!) "faith-based" assertions that they're not?
All we need to cut this knot is for everyone to agree that the invalidity of faith based propositions/entities applies across the board, and that objecting to the faith based metric can't logically be itself faith based. Alles Klar? By golly we've done it! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)*
* Say hello to my lil' fren' (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/v/QzkBJA-Tlxw
The documentary above was a kind of religious experience for me. I hope I didn't leap to unwarranted conclusions concerning our otherworldly savior. Be fair now, isn't it just divine?!?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 24, 2015, 01:28:55 PM
Or are you saying I did not have a religious experience? Then you deny reality.
That was actually Lord Ubloobideega speaking to you. He misplaced the cheat code for the destruction of the universe and wanted you to go find it. Just ignore him.
I do not think anyone claimed that scientific discoveries or theories (like Einstein's) could be gained by "pure intuition".
Rather, there is a body of knowledge like maths, logics and a few other very general principles (also of morals) that logically precede empirical knowledge. Until the 18th century most thinkers in most cultures believed that some "natural theology" also belonged to that kind of knowledge. It's not necessarily "innate" but it can be established by reflection on very general features of the world we experience or on very general principles we need in any case to establish any knowledge at all. Therefore the core of such "metaphysical" knowledge is not to be understood as idle speculation, neither can it be in contradiction to empirical science.
But it cannot be "disproved" by empirical science as empirical science cannot disprove mathematics. It could merely show that a certain type of mathematical scheme would not be applicable to a certain domain of empirical nature but to argue for something like that the scientist would certainly have to use forms of logic (and probably also mathematics), therefore again has to presuppose the validity of some bits of non-empirical knowledge.
But it can probably be safely said that it is very hard to derive specific ideas about afterlife, punishments, karmic retributions etc. from general metaphysics or "natural theology" (unlike arguments for a "prime mover", "Absolute Being" or sth. like that). This was largely the domain of "revealed knowledge" and religious thinkers would try to show that it is compatible with the more general metaphysical framework that could be established from reason alone.
(For me as a layman it is also fascinating how unspecific and inconsistent e.g. the christian scriptures are with respect to "afterlife" etc. Most of the new testament is much more concerned with eschatology, i.e. the End of the World (as we know it) and the Kingdom of God was expected to come very soon and not the end of individual lives, immortal souls etc. It took a thousand years of theology to arrive at Dante's sophisticated model of hell, purgatory and heaven.)
The tautologies of mathematics might be said to be tools rather than entities. Tools have use value, which is empirical. But I differ somewhat from other pragmatists, though not all, in my view that mathematics is as empirical in its origin as any use valued scheme can be. The logical priority of mathematics to empirical truth processes is less important than the fact that our counting bootstrapped us into mathematical knowledge. We counted, then developed rules from that.
To paraphrase the great philosopher Slim Charles, my pragmatism is always pragmatism, it just got more fierce! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/v/XozWJgzgnT8
Quote from: Jo498 on July 25, 2015, 12:33:35 AM
([...] It took a thousand years of theology to arrive at Dante's sophisticated model of hell, purgatory and heaven.)
Over-engineered, rather than
sophisticated, I think 8)
Quote from: Purusha on July 24, 2015, 11:25:26 AM
My intelligence tells me that Beethoven is a greater artist than Britney Spears, and that murdering babies is wrong. Since reason had nothing to do with those realizations, than it means that intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone, if intelligence is to mean anything....
Ah, but there is reason on your side, which is mine also.
1. The music of Beethoven is far more complex than that of Ms. Spears or her "handlers," and draws a more complex response from listeners who, on the whole, have greater experience with more kinds of music.
2. Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.
Quod erat demonstrat.
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:26:23 AM
Ah, but there is reason on your side, which is mine also.
1. The music of Beethoven is far more complex than that of Ms. Spears or her "handlers," and draws a more complex response from listeners who, on the whole, have greater experience with more kinds of music.
2. Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.
Quod erat demonstrat.
Yes, I agree. Values are not facts, but if they go willy nilly in denial of facts or take incoherent and obscure stances as a pseudo-foundation, so that we've presumed to be moral out of fear of an avenging monster, our values will decay from flawed attribution. Nothing is moral because a god made it so. That was the greatest thing Plato (as Socrates) was right about, ultimately only we can decide what's right. If murder is wrong can a god make it right? Plato destroyed that argument for eternity, good job!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 21, 2015, 04:34:26 PM
Personally, I've been thinking about eternal torment a lot lately (and not only when I see Karl Posting in MY Threads!!),...
Somehow I missed this at first.
Thanks for the chuckle!
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:26:23 AM
Murdering babies tends toward the extinction of the species, or at least toward lessened vitality since it reduces the available genetic pool.
CONSISTENT ATHEIST: So what? Who says that the conservation of the species or an increased vitality is good or should be promoted? After all, we come from nothingness and go into nothingness, so ultimately nothing that we do is of any importance whatsoever. Stalin is no worse than Mother Theresa, nor is St. Francis of Assisi any better than Ted Bundy.
People, experts on what they want, say they want an idea of goodness to govern them. It's true of atheists and theists alike. We decide, even if we try to offload it onto a fantasy it's our fantasy. Like Plato taught, his great lesson, there is no escape from this judgement, to a god or a computer or any outside authority. Morality is intrinsically Our Business.
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2015, 11:13:43 AM
CONSISTENT ATHEIST: So what? Who says that the conservation of the species or an increased vitality is good or should be promoted? After all, we come from nothingness and go into nothingness, so ultimately nothing that we do is of any importance whatsoever. Stalin is no worse than Mother Theresa, nor is St. Francis of Assisi any better than Ted Bundy.
Well, perhaps there is need for a few axioms whose self-evidence seems evident, if not to all, then to most...
Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2015, 08:26:23 AM
1. The music of Beethoven is far more complex than that of Ms. Spears or her "handlers" [...]
"I'd like to handle Ms. Spears, guv'nor."
Quote from: drogulus on July 27, 2015, 12:25:22 PM
People, experts on what they want, say they want an idea of goodness to govern them. It's true of atheists and theists alike. We decide, even if we try to offload it onto a fantasy it's our fantasy. Like Plato taught, his great lesson, there is no escape from this judgement, to a god or a computer or any outside authority. Morality is intrinsically Our Business.
could you tell me where exactly this thread has gone....?.... I can't even keep up.... oy!!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 28, 2015, 01:13:04 PM
could you tell me where exactly this thread has gone....?.... I can't even keep up.... oy!!
You know
Ernie: give him half a chance to bash people of faith, and he gladly demonstrates that atheists can be intolerant boors, too.