I don't know what to believe. — Purple Pond

Me too. Think of a forest in the darkness of our ignorance. The shadows take different forms, in response to our imagination. We fear and we see ghosts. We laugh and we see clowns. In ignorance our imagination runs wild and tries to engage possibilities of which are infinite. We don't know what to believe.

why did you get chosen? — Purple Pond

it is just so unlikely — Purple Pond

It's like the universe conspired to have me exist — Purple Pond

absurd to believe that I'm here for no reason at all — Purple Pond

I beat the odds — Purple Pond

Our existence makes us biased in assessing the significance of our existence.

Since humans became a species, there have been perhaps 100 billion of us conceived and born. So no, we're nothing special, really. We weren't chosen, we happened. You didn't beat the odds. Like it or not, you are here for no reason whatsoever. The universe has bigger fish to fry than plotting how to bring you or me into existence.

However, now that we do exist, we might as well make the most of our brief time before we are annihilated and rejoin the infinite tribe of the non-existent. It will be back to the vacuum and cold dust of the universe all too soon.

How's that for emotional uplift?

You paint a dismal picture. If I may say so I think you're being too scientific. Science is great but it's not the only stuff we have to play with. What about religion? Of course we need to delete some of the icky stuff like slavery, human sacrifice, etc. but the possibility of a creator, all good and loving, can and does uplift some souls.

You paint a dismal picture. — TheMadFool

Oh, sorry about that. Didn't mean to rain on the parade. Let me offer you an umbrella.

I have nothing against religion -- if it works for you, it's great. Granted, the existence of a Creator, the Logos, the Word in the Beginning, is very comforting. One doesn't have to own any fundamentalist creationist crap stock to believe in a creator, of course. Used to be a mainline Protestant believer myself.

I don't find our unexplained existence sans grand purpose to be a problem, any more than dealing with the various problems which arise from creator myths. Whatever theological overlay one applies, life is still the same. One should still be nice to children, still say you are sorry to the dog if you step on her foot, still call or visit one's parents regularly; still stay in touch with one's siblings, still feed the hungry, care for the sick, comfort the bereaved; still brush daily, floss regularly, exercise, eat healthy food rather that junk; stay informed, vote liberal-left, and so on.

We should still do those things because they make our brief stay nicer, whether there is a god to approve or disapprove.

a creator, all good and loving, can and does uplift some souls. — TheMadFool

An 'all good and loving' creator of cancer, malaria, Aids, famine, Hitler, Pol Pot, earthquakes... ? Sounds a bit disturbing to me. Is it some kind of weird psychopathic control-freak type of love you're thinking of?

Bitter Crank:

Well said. And another point. If you find the dog hesitates over whether to accept your apology then it's probably time to get other kinds of help.

You paint a dismal picture. If I may say so I think you're being too scientific. Science is great but it's not the only stuff we have to play with. What about religion? Of course we need to delete some of the icky stuff like slavery, human sacrifice, etc. but the possibility of a creator, all good and loving, can and does uplift some souls. — TheMadFool

So, truth is what makes us feel good?

Nope.

Of all the possible combinations of matter why did you get chosen? — Purple Pond

How do you know that the other possible combinations don't exist too? Because you can't see them? Surely the existence of something doesn't depend on you seeing it.

The problems that you state are indeed problems, under Materialism. They go with the metaphysical belief called Materialism.

But they, and Materialism, are unnecessary

There are inevitable abstract if-then facts. For example, there are syllogisms such as:

If all Slithytoves are brillig, and all Jaberwockeys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockeys are brillig.

And there are inevitable abstract if-then facts about physical quantities and physical laws.

A set of hypothetical physical-quantity values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a "physical law") constitute the "if " premise of an inevitable abstract if-then fact.

...except that one of those physical quantity-values can be taken as the "then" conclusion of that if-then fact.

A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if " premise includes, but needn't be limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).

And there are complex systems of interlocking inevitable abstract if-then facts, such as those mentioned above.

Those systems, too, are inevitable.

That means it isn't necessary to ask why they are.

Your life-experience possibility-story is one of those infinitely-many inevitable complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.


I can't prove that the fundamentally, objectively existent world that Materialists believe in doesn't superfluously exist alongside the hypothetical world that is the setting for the complex logical system that is your life-experience possibility-story.

...but, any claim that it does, is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition about a brute-fact, an unnecessary, unsupported assumption.

Why is there you? Why are you in a life? Because there's a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story that has someone just like you (you, in fact) as its protagonist.

That's why you're here. That's why you're in a life.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Because there couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. ...and therefore complex inter-referring systems of them. ...infinitely-many of them.

There's no reason to bring a religious debate into this subject. The subject of this thread is metaphysics, and metaphysics isn't (or shouldn't be) claimed to cover, explain or describe other than things that are describable and disussable. There' s no reason to believe or claim that metaphysics covers or describes all of Reality. ..or that physics does.

Or there could have been no universe at all.

No. See above.
\

If you think about it is sort of a cosmic accident of things coming together in the exact combination to produce such a being as yourself.

Not surprising, when you consider that there are infinitely-many life-experience possibiity-stories, as described above.

I feel like I shouldn't exist, it is just so unlikely.

It's hardly surprising, as one of infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, one with you as protagonist.

It's like the universe conspired to have me exist, but surely that's absurd.

Metaphysical reality has infinitely many life-experience possibility-stories.

It's also seems absurd to believe that I'm here for no reason at all.

I wouldn't say "not for any reason". The hypothetical person who is the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, is someone who is in some way predisposed for life, someone with subconscious predisposition of some kind, toward life.

So it could almost be said that you were born into a life because you wanted to, needed to, or were otherwise predisposed to. ...were already the hypothetical protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.

If all this sounds fantastic or unlikely, then what better explanation can you find?

But yes, I agree that, even though there can be this verbal metaphysical explanation, it still is no less amazing and astonishing that we're in a life, that this life started. No matter how good a metaphysical explanation there is, it's still astonishing, and we still find ourselves asking, "Why did this life start?"

As I said, metaphysics doesn't cover, explain, or describe all of Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

It will be back to the vacuum and cold dust of the universe all too soon. — Bitter Crank

Strictly speaking, of course it won't be "of the universe', because, as one is entering the timeless sleep at the end of life, s/he doesn't remember that there was ever such a thing as a universe, worldly-life, identity, time, or events.

(It goes without saying that you'll never experience a time when you don't experience. There's no "oblivion".)

And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep?

Michael Ossipoff

The notion of "Creation" is over-anthropomorphiic.

Yes, there are awful things that happen to people in this world. Because much of it has societal origin, I often refer to this world as "The Land Of The Lost".

If Materialism is true, we're screwed

Well, but even then, the ordeal is only temporary.

But life should never be regarded as something to get through, to get overwith, That's a formula for continued dis-satisfaction and unhappiness. Obviously, being here, and knowing that it's tempporary, and therefore not that big a deal, we might as well make the best of it,

Also, It's been pointed out that, as animals, purposefully-responsive devices, we're here for our built-in purposes, but we're not here for things to happen to.
.
Michael Ossipoff

And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep? — Michael Ossipoff

Strictly speaking, of course it won't be... — Michael Ossipoff

anything like sleeping, because one presumably will never dream or wake up. Sleep is a euphemism for death, which has no ending.

Life just stops, and that's it. Nothing more. The prospect of death is a tremendous incentive to enjoy life while it lasts. Carpe diem.

"And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep?" — Michael Ossipoff
— Michael Ossipoff


Strictly speaking, of course it won't be anything like sleeping, because one presumably will never dream
— Bitter Crank

1. There's dreamless sleep.

2. Shakespeare had a good point when he said, "To sleep, perchance to dream."

Of course that needn't refer strictly to the dreams in ordinary everyday sleep He probably was referring to any eventful experience when someone isn't in waking consciousness.

For example, I've suggested an eventful experience occurring during the time without waking consciousness, at the end of a life, but you don't believe in it. But even that eventually won't occur, and then death will for sure be dreamless sleep. What's wrong with that?

or wake up.

You won't know that, or care, because, at the deep stage of death, near complete shutdown, just before awareness stops (by your survivor's timescale), you won't know that your body is going to shut down, and that youu aren't going to wake up, because you won't know that there ever was or could be a body, or wakeful life.

At the end of life, it's just going to sleep, not unlike ordinary nightly sleep.

You're making it into something that it's not.

Sleep is a euphemism for death, which has no ending.

As I said, during that process, you soon won't know that, or expect or want an ending, or know that there is or was or could be anything other than that sleep.

Life just stops

Of course. At the end of life. But, at the end of life, you won't miss it or know that there was ever such a thing.

I realize that you don't believe in reincarnation. I believe that there probably is reincarnation because it's implied by my metaphysics. I just want to clarify that when I say "the end of life", I'm referring to the end of lives, which, if there isn't reincarnation, just refers to the end of this life.

When I want to refer specifically to the end of this life, or the end of a particular life, I'll say, "the end of this life, or "the end of a life."

, and that's it. Nothing more.

No, there's sleep. You seem to be saying that a person arrives at a time when s/he has no experience. How could that be? Do you think that you could experience such a time? As I said, there's no such thing as oblivion.

he prospect of death is a tremendous incentive to enjoy life while it lasts. Carpe diem.

Of course.

Michael Ossipoff

Because this life (or this finite sequence of finite lives) is finite and temporary, and because sleep at the end of lives is final and timeless, constituting the end of the life-period, I suggest that that final timeless sleep at the end of lives is the natural state of affairs, and that waking eventful life is the anomaly, the exception. ..a blip in eternity.

I usually avoid using the word "endless" for the sleep at the end of lives, because, as I said, in that sleep a person has no wish for an end, or knowledge of such a thing as waking life.

So I prefer the word "timeless".

One definition of "Natural" is "usual or ordinary" Therefore I suggest that the timeless sleep is the natural state of affairs.

Then should we call this temporary, finite time in life, in the "physical' world of events "the Supernatural"?

I suggest that, because we're so used to this life, we have it backwards, regarding what's natural and usual.

Michael Ossipoff

We exist as part of a bigger whole. We were created like our cells were created. Everything is created for a function. Like cells that no longer serve their purpose, and multiply uncontrollably, humans have become the cancer of this planet. That is why life seems pointless; because it is.

Tell me more about "infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, one with you as protagonist". Is such a story like any of the narrative discourses that abound today(Charles Taylor, Jerome Bruner, etc)? Where does it fit within the analytic tradition, in relation to lingustic models of meaning proposed by authors like Fodor, Searle or Putnam, for example? Is it closer to a corespondence, coherence or pragmatic model of truth?


.

Tell me more about "infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, one with you as protagonist".

.
Gladly. Ask me something specific. And feel free to say, if you feel that the meaning of something I said isn’t clear. But be specific.
.

Is such a story like any of the narrative discourses that abound today(Charles Taylor, Jerome Bruner, etc)?

.
When I looked at articles by Bruner and about Taylor, I didn’t find a topic in common with what I’ve been talking about.
.
So, in answer to your question, I’d say "Not that I’m aware of".
.

Where does it fit within the analytic tradition, in relation to lingustic [sic] models of meaning proposed by authors like Fodor, Searle or Putnam, for example?

.
I wasn’t speaking of linguistics. But this website has a Philosophy-of-Language forum that you might be interested in.
.
I don’t doubt that Fodor, Searle and Putnam could, and do, ramble endlessly about models of meaning….if what I’ve found so far is any indication.
.
You’re asking me how those things fit around what I’ve said. Then I encourage you to read those things, and judge for yourself.
.
Or are you saying that you need me to interpret those topics and authors for you?
.
When I looked up Fodor, he was described as a philosopher-of-mind. Philosophy-of-mind is garbage.
.
Is your question about Searle & Putnam, too, a matter of philosophy-of-mind?
.
From what I’ve read by Searle, he believes in Mind as something nonphysical, something meaningful to speak of apart from the body, but believes that “of course” the physical world is the ultimate origin and explanation for everything.
.

Is it closer to a corespondence (sic), coherence or pragmatic model of truth?

.
You thought maybe I was talking about pragmatic matters? :D
.
First, the article that I found, about those 3 theories of truth, was talking about the truth of statements.
.
Have I been speaking of statements?
.
I’ve been speaking of facts.
.
A statement is an utterance claiming a fact.
.
But, since you ask:
.
A statement of a genuine fact would be true by the correspondence meaning of truth.
.
Western academic philosophical writing is a beautifully vast resource for a humungous amount of verbal diarrhea. …meaningful and relevant only to those who spew it forth (if even to them), and to the few people who follow them.
.
I prefer to speak in plain English, and I try to speak concisely and to the point. If academic philosophers limited themselves to that, they wouldn’t be able to publish all that filler. Remember the “Publish-or-Perish” imperative.
.
If an author wants to propose, present or offer his ideas to me and to most people, then I invite him to say it concisely in non-jargon English. (or whatever is the language of those he wants to say it to).
.
You could ask me how what I’ve been saying relates to parts of it (the vast academic verbal diarrhea) , and (if I were willing to go along with that), this kind of question-and-answer could go on for many decades. No, thanks.
.
But, if I may get back to the topic:
.
As I said to Janus, feel free to specify which statement(s) of mine you disagree with, or which statement(s) I didn’t support, or which statement(s), word(s), phrase(s) or term(s) you don’t know the meaning of.
.
But be specific.
.
If you don’t disagree with any of it, that’s fine too.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Oh, sorry about that. Didn't mean to rain on the parade. Let me offer you an umbrella — Bitter Crank

No need to apologize. My life isn't a parade. It's a funeral.

I have nothing against religion -- if it works for you, it's great. — Bitter Crank

To tell you the truth I'm in a bit of a fix. I have two options before me. One is religion and the other atheism. My present situation is, let's say, ''inconvenient'' both ways. In a nutshell, God seems bloodthirsty and the nihilism of atheism is depressing.

We should still do those things because they make our brief stay nicer, whether there is a god to approve or disapprove. — Bitter Crank

You are good person despite your name BitterCrank. I like your positive attitude; it's rare. I don't know if it's true or not but lately I've begun to realize that to be good we need to give up reasoning. As I once wrote on the forum: there's no good reason to be good. The best theory of life, The Theory of Evolution, can't explain morality which is NOT about survival of the fittest but about survival of the weakest.

An 'all good and loving' creator of cancer, malaria, Aids, famine, Hitler, Pol Pot, earthquakes... ? Sounds a bit disturbing to me. Is it some kind of weird psychopathic control-freak type of love you're thinking of? — Inter Alia

The current version of my God I'm struggling to come to terms with is, well, bloodthirsty. However, what about the good in this world? You can't ignore the silver lining, no matter how thin it is, can you? Speaking of myself I'm confused. Among the religions I find Buddhism explains evil very well - karmic retribution. Karma isn't that outlandish a claim to me because it simply derives of what even a child can observe - causality. You're right though about all the evil in this world - negative probabilities for God's existence mutliply.

So, truth is what makes us feel good? — Harry Hindu

Not always. Lies can be comforting too. Let's just say that the issue is quite complex. We need to be in touch with reality (know truths) to survive and evade pain but to be happy we sometimes need the odd lie, lies about our looks, our sexual prowess, our intelligence, our worth in society, etc.

I don't know if it's true or not but lately I've begun to realize that to be good we need to give up reasoning. — TheMadFool

Please don't give up reasoning. Like Jesus said, we must be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpents.

To tell you the truth I'm in a bit of a fix. I have two options before me. One is religion and the other atheism. My present situation is, let's say, ''inconvenient'' both ways. In a nutshell, God seems bloodthirsty and the nihilism of atheism is depressing. — TheMadFool

You are in a fix because the two categories -- atheist nihilism and bloodthirsty God belief, are, indeed, dismal alternatives. But you don't have to look at atheism or god in those ways. God is too much a mystery to nail highly specific adjectives onto.

One can be an atheist nihilist, but atheism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism. Loosen up your categories. They are to small, too rigid.

I exist because my parents have created me and so on. The question is when and how man began to think about his existence, unlike animals.

can any one answer to me is there a world outside my or his senses?

Please don't give up reasoning. Like Jesus said, we must be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpents. — Bitter Crank

Wise words.(Y)

God is too much a mystery to nail highly specific adjectives onto. — Bitter Crank

I'm feeling better already. Thanks.

God is too much a mystery to nail highly specific adjectives onto. — Bitter Crank — TheMadFool

The trouble is we do though, it is the deception of metaphors. when we talk about God we inevitably think of a person, just like the people you meet from day to day, our brains simply can't help doing it any more than when we see a table we cannot see it as mostly empty space between tiny quantum particles, no matter how much we tell ourselves that's what it really is.

So when people consider the bad things in the world they say "Oh God's not that simple, it's all just an esoteric generalisation, he's more like a feeling than a person and we couldn't ever understand". Satisfied that they've covered that particular crack they ignore it. Next day, God comes back again in his usual guise, some really kind and protective bloke with a big beard, mysteriously like the dad we all wanted but never quite had...

I was just about to have a paradeX-)

Well, a non-relgious view isn't that great for the heart either. Philosophers have searched for the meaning of life, which I think would look good on the atheistic CV, and come up with nothing. To me that means we may choose to do what we like, don't you think so? Why shouldn't someone believe in God then, even if such a belief ignores what you call cracks?

Nothing wrong with a belief in God, but you've not given any reason why that should be the 'God' of any particular religion. Saying you believe in God is like saying you believe in 'gfuthflit', useless unless you know what it is. That's why, way back, I talked about the real decisions we have to make day-to-day. It's not about answering the question of who created the world, so what if God did, or 'gfuthflit' did, what matters is what you're going to do about it.

So you're not deciding between versions of metaphysics, but between different actions. Think about what you said "Well, a non-relgious view isn't that great for the heart either.", what's the most obvious rational conclusion from that? We've established between us that neither religious, nor non-religious metaphysics are 'good for the heart' so what would be the simplest, most unbiased explanation for that? That the 'heart' doesn't give fuck about metaphysics. It's wants people to like you, it wants you to do good things for your community, to be fit, watch sunsets, enjoy a good story, have a laugh. To do these things you have to actually make decisions about what actions are going to bring them about. We have the real world as a massive test-bed for that. Do the religious seem to doing well on that front?

Well, as I said, we're free to choose, aren't we? Why can't I pick the best parts of all God-beliefs and put them together in a way that makes sense to me. After all there is no meaning to life is there?

Religious people seem to be more at peace with themselves don't you think? Of course religion is a cause for many conflicts but when it comes to inmer peace religion seems to be doing quite well.

Why can't I pick the best parts of all God-beliefs and put them together in a way that makes sense to me. — TheMadFool

Nothing intrinsically, but think about what you would actually be doing. How are you going to know what 'the best bits' are? if you already know whether a bit is 'good' or not, then what are you actually gaining from it, you knew what the right thing to do/believe was all along, otherwise you would not have been able to make that judgement. The only way to gain new knowledge about what to do/believe is to trust the person giving you that knowledge, such that even if it seems a bit counter-intuitive at the time you're going to go along with it anyway. If it, in fact, matches your intuition then they haven't given you any knowledge at all, just told you what you already knew.

So gaining any new knowledge (that you can't personally verify), still comes back down to trust, and how can what the church institutions have done possibly qualify to earn your trust?

Religious people are obviously not more at peace with themselves, I'm mystified as to why anyone would think that. Religious people abuse children, they then cover-up that abuse, they torture people, murder those who don't agree with them, start wars over a stupid building/wall/relic, subjugate women, ostracise homosexuals, stone adulterers, cut people's hands off for stealing, close their church doors to the homeless because 'god made them poor', jail people for touching another man, blow themselves up in public places, murder innocent children because they went to a pop concert. What on earth makes you think religious people are at peace with themselves?

Not always. Lies can be comforting too. Let's just say that the issue is quite complex. We need to be in touch with reality (know truths) to survive and evade pain but to be happy we sometimes need the odd lie, lies about our looks, our sexual prowess, our intelligence, our worth in society, etc. — TheMadFool

Not me. I want the truth - always. My feelings are secondary to the truth.

If it, in fact, matches your intuition then they haven't given you any knowledge at all, just told you what you already knew. — Inter Alia

But that doesn't make sense. Do you think morality is innate? Are we born with it? I don't think so. People from poor backgrounds with little education and living in neighborhoods where crime is rampant tend to be criminals while people who're better off, not necessarily in terms of money, are morally better. I think morality is a learned behavior and so comes from outside as opposed to inside. What do you think?

What on earth makes you think religious people are at peace with themselves? — Inter Alia

Well, they seem to have purpose in their lives, they believe in an eternal soul. Atheists, on the other hand have to constantly struggle to find a purpose in their lives, their morality is weak, etc.

Not me. I want the truth - always. My feelings are secondary to the truth. — Harry Hindu

Good for you. What about the truth of the finitude of existence, suffering and death? I'm sure you hope that truths didn't exist?