Philosophy Now Forum

BradburyPound wrote: I simply can't see how atheism makes "nothing possible". Just does not add up.

First atheists deny reality and then claim that everything is possible.

thedoc wrote:

BradburyPound wrote: I simply can't see how atheism makes "nothing possible". Just does not add up.

First atheists deny reality and then claim that everything is possible.

You know what's truly pathetic is when an old fart comes along with such bullshit after all the years he's lived. Easy to make such stupid statements regardless of age isn't it...and just when I was beginning to have a higher opinion of you theist or not. I haven't got a clue as to how this even comes together regardless of whether one is this or that.

seeds wrote: However, as I have been asserting in other threads, I believe that we will never be allowed to understand the “ultimate truth” of reality (in any irrefutable way) while we still exist within the confines of the universe itself.

Dubious wrote: An "Ultimate Truth" by its very nature is of no importance to the existence of any living creature in the universe.

Oh, I don’t know about that.

Isn’t the search for “Ultimate Truth” kind of at the core of philosophy itself?

I mean if philosophy is the “love of wisdom,” then what greater wisdom could there be than that which is inherent in the answers to the ultimate questions of “how and why” we are here?

Dubious wrote: We shouldn’t concern ourselves at all with these over inflated phrases which merely amount to hubristic over-the-top inventions of our own.

There is absolutely nothing “hubristic” in thinking that somewhere within the context of the “ALL-THAT-IS,” there must surely exist an answer to why there is an “ALL-THERE-IS” to begin with.

Dubious wrote: The true significance of “ultimate reality” - a phrase used so often as if it meant something - is its reduction to zero.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

seeds wrote: However, isn’t there any way you could use that beautiful, critically thinking mind of yours to come up with offerings of “hope” to the billions of humans on earth who so obviously and desperately need it?

Dubious wrote: No need to be sarcastic though I can’t blame you for doing unto me what I often do unto others!

I wasn’t being sarcastic. From what little interaction I have had with you thus far, I have come to respect and appreciate your incisive and critical thinking.

seeds wrote: I am talking about the “hope” that there might be more to our existence than this “life sucks and then you die” meme you seem to be supporting.

Dubious wrote: Hope only makes sense to me in a here and now that we’re certain of and not some imagined hypothetical existence in a hereafter where hope is conveniently transferred having achieved a deficit where it was really meant to apply. What you’re espousing in your quote, to me, is a mythology of hope devoid of actuality.

That may be true, however, there is just no getting around the fact that there are many humans on earth who desperately cling to that hope, not only for themselves, but for the loved ones they have lost (think of a father, for example, who just lost his little girl in some tragic accident).

In which case, I will pose to you the same question that I pose to all those who share your point of view:

Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the beliefs that bring them so much hope, solace, and comfort in life...

...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and effect?
_______

Just wondering, what message would it be?

Greta wrote: Just wondering, what message would it be?

I think the gist of the question is that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing (a Being who could conceivably rearrange the stars to literally spell out his intentions in words across the night sky), then why hasn’t he done so?
_______

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote: Just wondering, what message would it be?

I think the gist of the question is that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing (a Being who could conceivably rearrange the stars to literally spell out his intentions in words across the night sky), then why hasn’t he done so?
_______

I guess all the vagueness means that either there's no all-powerful God or it's better that we don't know what the future holds.

Dubious wrote: You know what's truly pathetic is when an old fart comes along with such bullshit after all the years he's lived. Easy to make such stupid statements regardless of age isn't it...and just when I was beginning to have a higher opinion of you theist or not. I haven't got a clue as to how this even comes together regardless of whether one is this or that.

Please don't think too highly of me, the lower your expectations, the less I have to try to live up to. The reality I am referring to is the existence of God, and the possibilities are those of a religious nature. Everything else is out side the realm of this thread.

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote: Just wondering, what message would it be?

I think the gist of the question is that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing (a Being who could conceivably rearrange the stars to literally spell out his intentions in words across the night sky), then why hasn’t he done so?
_______

Why should God do that? Just to satisfy a few skeptics?

Which is a better friend, one who is only your friend as long as you are giving them gifts, or someone who is your friend with or without gifts?

thedoc wrote:

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote: Just wondering, what message would it be?

I think the gist of the question is that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing (a Being who could conceivably rearrange the stars to literally spell out his intentions in words across the night sky), then why hasn’t he done so?
_______

Why should God do that? Just to satisfy a few skeptics?

Which is a better friend, one who is only your friend as long as you are giving them gifts, or someone who is your friend with or without gifts?

Is it a gift for a boss to give her or his employees a job description before the performance reviews? That's just obvious business practice. Even small, limited humans know that. If a deity doesn't even understand that those under one's jurisdiction need clear training, direction and controls, then we live in an asylum run by a lunatic who has no clue. It would seem more likely that nothing like an anthropomorphic God exists, although this notion would not discount deist, pantheist or panentheist models.

For all we know, "God" may be an ideal that is a future potential for intelligent life in the universe (evolving over tens of billions of years). Maybe humans intuitively sense the potential emergence of godlike entities - but we mistake that potential for current reality? If God is not real an ideal and a potential, then we humans have an awful lot of work to do to get from "here" to "there", which will seemingly be achieved via practical and intellectual advancement via the scientific method rather than romanticism and hopefulness (eg. the second coming) of religions.

The scientific method has its flaws - such as the problem of objectivity in observing phenomena from within, and the difficulty of studying rare, brief and hard-to-predict phenomena. However, humans or their successors may well increasingly find ways around these challenges.

Dubious wrote:
An "Ultimate Truth" by its very nature is of no importance to the existence of any living creature in the universe.

seeds wrote:Oh, I don’t know about that.
Isn’t the search for “Ultimate Truth” kind of at the core of philosophy itself?

No! What kind of "ultimate" do you expect philosophy to discover? Is this ultimate truth meant to be applicable to all that live in the universe? Humans are so fond of their Ultimates and be forever in love with it like a Holy Grail which doesn't exist either. The only ultimate reality which lives up to its name is the universe itself. From there let philosophy at its most useless extract an ultimate truth to be decided by committee whether it is indeed such.

seeds wrote:I mean if philosophy is the “love of wisdom,” then what greater wisdom could there be than that which is inherent in the answers to the ultimate questions of “how and why” we are here?

Aren't we aware of the "how" already and why presume there must be a "why". Are these incipient "ultimate questions" meant to convey the idea that a "special" destiny must be inherent in our existence? If these "Ultimates" intimate that hope, then that is an absurd hope indeed engendered by a consciousness that hasn't been properly trained yet...speaking of which...!

Hope in life acts as an indispensable force driving us forward. We begin every endeavor in its glow by having confidence in the fulfillment of expectations which are the "life" intentions asserted by hope. Being such a striving force, we compel it to serve beyond its proper confines believing in assumptions which exceed our duration though here too it serves as an anodyne for those who are blessed to believe. I would never talk anyone out of it but if presented in philosophy forums, it becomes a subject for scrutiny.

Dubious wrote:
Hope only makes sense to me in a here and now that we’re certain of and not some imagined hypothetical existence in a hereafter where hope is conveniently transferred having achieved a deficit where it was really meant to apply. What you’re espousing in your quote, to me, is a mythology of hope devoid of actuality.

seeds wrote:That may be true, however, there is just no getting around the fact that there are many humans on earth who desperately cling to that hope, not only for themselves, but for the loved ones they have lost (think of a father, for example, who just lost his little girl in some tragic accident).

In which case, I will pose to you the same question that I pose to all those who share your point of view:

Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the beliefs that bring them so much hope, solace, and comfort in life...

...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and effect?

In my view, this question is both easy and hard. It resolves to whether you believe in a Being called God or a Process called Nature.

If the former, there is no replacement for the hope of an afterlife reunion or however that resurgence is envisioned. It's also one of the main motives for believing in a God empowered to reorder your fate into a new life upon death. Confronted, reality retreats when faced by such a favorable, enjoyable illusion...a hope powered by God as the ultimate example in the wishful thinking category. I can't imagine a replacement acceptable to those who cling to this hope.

...but speaking for myself or those like me who tend to believe in the second scenario, there is no need for that kind of consolation to begin with. The realization that upon my death I'll revert to the same state of non-existence from whence I came, a state where time itself doesn't exist is all the comfort I need in this life. It took how many billions of years for each of us to be born. Did anyone notice a single instance of deprivation or inconvenience during that period? As "Before" so "After" would by my consolation. According to Buddhism it would be better still if there were no "hiatus" at all separating the two.

Dubious wrote:
It resolves to whether you believe in a Being called God or a Process called Nature.

Who really believes the two are not interconnected as the one and the same thing anyway?

Both are a part of the One, and only same, thing - the Universe, Its Self.

Obviously one is just in the spiritual sense and the other is in the physical sense, of the One and only Everything.

bahman wrote:We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. This means that there should be one true religion. There are about 4000 religions. How God could fail to convey his message?

What makes you think the failure is God's?

The question is just another reframing of the problem of evil.

thedoc wrote:

BradburyPound wrote: I simply can't see how atheism makes "nothing possible". Just does not add up.

First atheists deny reality and then claim that everything is possible.

No and no.

I puzzled to fathom what the hell you are on about.
Theists deny reality, so much is obvious, by believing in their invisible friend.
Atheists, being free of religions are free to built ethical structures in the absence of an overbearing deity, who seem mute except in the mouths of priests and Imams.

Greta wrote:Just wondering, what message would it be?

"I AM NOT REAL. GET ON AND ENJOY WHAT LITTLE LIFE YOU HAVE.!!!!!"

"Oh, yes, and eat a little less fat."

Greta wrote: Is it a gift for a boss to give her or his employees a job description before the performance reviews? That's just obvious business practice.

I don't see God as a boss, nor do I see living as a job, so for me the analogy doesn't work. I don't see The relationship between God and a person as a business.