That's a "nice" if not very convincing argument for a god who created suffering in the first place. — Vera Mont
Well, in fact, all organized religious arguments are circular, since they want it both ways: a big enough god to have created everything, but only takes credit for the good half, while shoving blame for the bad half onto its creatures. — Vera Mont
That, plus the suffering of all the experimental animals, and the collateral damage of the toxic waste I'm responsible for. Selfish enough to accept the good; not quite hypocritical enough to ignore the bad. (At least I didn't hedge my bets by paying anyone to pray for me.) — Vera Mont
Well, we must acknowledge that suffering here is human suffering. — Benj96
For example, the climate changing may lead to detriment for humanity, decreased productivity, more human suffering, but those same dynamics may be protective for other aspects of nature by making it ever harder for us to contribute to toxic or harmful environmental activities. — Benj96
If a universal god has a duty to all things' "suffering", as in if the prime directive is to establish equilibrium, and humans persistently push equilibrium into disequilibrium, then of course we are going to see more human suffering as counter measures arise to oppose us. — Benj96
In this way, suffering leads to karma (the ré establishment of balance). — Benj96
Hit your thumb with a hammer. There, now, aren't you happy that sometime next century, a baby turtle won't be eaten by a seagull?
I believe specific, individual, personal pain when I experience or witness it. I don't believe in karma. — Vera Mont
This is an observation that we have verified. First of all we must clarify that energy is NOT a substance or an entity or an agent. ITs a label of a process observed in nature where this quantitative property (ability to do work) is transferred to physical elements or systems . The conservative quality of this property allows it to be dispersed in different forms but the total sum of them will be equal to the initial "load" of work of the system.Energy as something that cannot be created or destroyed is a huge assumption to make — Benj96
-Those (why questions) are irrelevant questions which are not addressed by the Descriptive Nature of Science. Asking why energy exists is like asking why the Universe exists. "Why" questions are fallacious, teleological questions. Intentions and purposes are not intrinsic qualities of Nature but qualities projected by beings with goals and needs. We tend to see agents in nature so we tend to ask why a natural phenomenon occurs. Science doesn't allow such assumptions in our hypotheses.As it allows not to establish where it originates from, why it occurs at all. — Benj96
-Again "Energy" is not the name of an entity or a substance or an agent. Its the label of an observable, quantifiable phenomenon caused by a process. ITs not a "vague generalization" for the existence of an invisible "cosmic battery" but a Law like Generalization of the ability of Quantum Glitches(fundamental particles) to produce work and form structures which in turn produce different forms of work and structures.And it being basically the fundamental constituent of all material as well as all interactions, is virtually indefinable. Something that is fundamentally everything cannot really be further defined/restricted in character/properties beyond this vague generalisation. — Benj96
We don't presuppose those properties. Our observations reveal them to us. There is a huge difference there. The "eternal" nature of energy can only be verified within the local representation of our universe. We can assume that a preexisting unknown type of cosmic field preexisted which gave rise to the energetic field that we call universe. Since we don't have any observations available outside our universe there is no way to put such assumptions to the test or to justify an answer.And yet we do manage to subdivide it and characterise specific types of energy, despite the fact that they can convert from one form to the next. But only because of its presupposed eternality and ability to create anything (sensations/objects/happenings) in existence. — Benj96
-I think your understanding of what energy is.. is based on our common "bad language mode". As I already explained the term "energy" in science is not an ontological claim of a substance or an entity in existence. Its just an observable phenomena where fundamental particles in fields have the ability to "carry" work resulting to the creation of structures and evolving processes.For me, energy is as about as close to magic as science gets. It's both invisible and visible, can be felt and also not felt at all, can take any form whatsoever, we have no idea where it comes from initially or why, and yet we gloss over that so that we may use it as a basic principle of science. — Benj96
-I understand. In Philosophy gods are represented by far more vague concepts. Natural process like Energy, Consciousness , Mind,etc are often used to satisfy our need to answer our "why" questions (why we exist, why things are the way they are). This is done by converting the label of a process (i.e. Consciousness/the ability of a biological brain to direct its attention to environmental/organic stimuli and to reflect upon them by using the rest of its mental abilities like symbolic language, memory, previous experience, reasoning, pattern recognition, etc) to an entity and then declaring to be a powerful one.When i search for meaning in a concept of God I'm not referring to some big bearded fellow floating in the clouds. Of course not. It's more nuanced than that. I'm simply suggesting that we don't yet have verification of whether consciousness is a fundamental force that began with the universe or why it is possible for it to emerge from substance (the hard problem). — Benj96
That is a fallacy of composition. The label Universe includes many more things that do not have the property of awareness. We can only be a direct example of a system being able to display this specific property within the universe. The universe is not an entity, but its a process, the total sum of different processes giving rise to systems and entities. Only a fraction of those systems and entities (us) have this ability.(awareness).Many people leave the door open to a god theory to explain such a profound dynamic as this. The fact that us, as parts of the universe, are a direct example of the universe being aware of itself. — Benj96
-Well those three steps should be included only if we demand our conclusions(or questions) to be wise.IF not then by definition our conclusions can not be wise...hence they can not be part of our philosophy.I think if philosophy can question its own tenets: epistemology, physika and metaphysics as you pointed out - as in how to define them, what falls within each definition, why they exist as components, are there more components we haven't considered, where they come from, how they may overlap, I'm not so sure everything needs to satisfy all three to be considered worthy of philosophical endeavour. — Benj96
- First of all we shouldn't start by accepting the assumption we are trying to demonstrate. Second equally important is....in order to equate the Universe with god we should demonstrate their shared properties. Most people claim that god is a thinking agent. If you accept that claim you will need to demonstrate that this property is shared by the process we identify as a universe.If one is to consider the universe itself as a "God" and then figure out how to caracterise/understand or explain that, surely philosophy which is not external to the universe, must be applicable to the universe? — Benj96
Sure, but there is a difference between declaring claims as knowledge without any objective evidence and verifying actual knowledge!In the end it is still a love of knowledge. Is the particular subject of said knowledge so important? — Benj96
Perhaps you're totally right and there is such cases as pseudo philosophy. Subjects that ought not be broached by the subject. But I have not yet encountered a major topic that hasn't be brought to the attention of this forum to seek insight, or just for general speculation. — Benj96
Are you sure? If a god is universal and all aspects of existence are parts of itself, why would it not have a duty to itself? — Benj96
Not sure its as obvious and transactional as that. I don't think actively causing oneself pain/suffering neccesarily diminishes the pain of another. — Benj96
If you destroy the environment. The now toxic environment destroys you. — Benj96
But I don't see it either balancing or unbalancing the universe: I don't see that mutual destruction causing an equal quantity of creation. — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.