Perhaps I will understand the practical meaning of your version about 'existence and non-existence' if I will be born again :D — KerimF

The problem that I noticed in your argument is that you have a personal view of existence and a certain resentment - perhaps - for existence. Obviously, if this is completely supported by your faith, there is no discussion about it, because then is dogma.

You decided to apply the concept of "reincarnation" in my argument, and at no time did I place the premise that "reincarnation" is something real and that can be experienced.

For existence to emerge, simple non-existence is enough. — Gus Lamarch

Done. There it is your transcendental "will to existence", but I prefer the term "The will of nothing", or "the will for egoism".

Do you believe that you're forced to breathe. Or forced to piss? That you wouldn't breathe or piss if you weren't being compelled to do so? Dreaming, breathing and pissing is just part of what we do as humans. Nobody's making us dream, breathe or piss.

The problem that I noticed in your argument is that you have a personal view of existence and a certain resentment - perhaps - for existence. Obviously, if this is completely supported by your faith, there is no discussion about it, because then is dogma — Gus Lamarch

My problem is that I can't accept blindly any idea (scientific or spiritual) provided by another. So yes, I have a personal view of existence (mine and of the world I live in). This view had to be based always on my own observations and analyses.
And you are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impression you mentioned here 'resentment'. My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while.

About "I will be born again", is a polite way to say 'it cannot happen'. It is like a father who says to the young man he dislikes: "Son, don't lose hope, my daughter will marry you in your next life" :)
By the way, Jesus used the expression "Ye must be born again" when Nicodemus couldn't understand him... . But many people took it very seriously and I used hearing someone says: "At last, I am born again... I am saved".

I think I have to point out that the 'Will' behind Creation, which I perceive, is surely not of one being; otherwise I cannot see my nature as being an image of 'IT', even to some extent. So when someone sees 'IT' as nothing or just one being, he simply describes his deep nature, with or without his knowledge :)

I wonder if you noticed my post about death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

Do you believe that you're forced to breathe. Or forced to piss? That you wouldn't breathe or piss if you weren't being compelled to do so? Dreaming, breathing and pissing is just part of what we do as humans. Nobody's making us dream, breathe or piss. — Ciceronianus the White

Should a robot perceive his maker to live and play the roles for which it was made?
Indeed all non-human living beings are supposed to act exactly like pre-programmed robots do, thanks to the guidance of their embedded instincts.

In case of humans, being forced to exist doesn't imply being made to act like a robot, like all other livings things do.
But, a person is also free to see himself a very intelligent robot or...

My problem is that I can't accept blindly any idea (scientific or spiritual) provided by another. So yes, I have a personal view of existence (mine and of the world I live in). This view had to be based always on my own observations and analyses. — KerimF

You have completely distorted my comment. What I really meant is that if you believe with dogmatic faith in your opinions - even if they can sometimes make sense only to you - there is no way to discuss your point.

And you are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impression you mentioned here 'resentment'. My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. — KerimF

Still, here you affirm that a "Will" forced you to exist:

"{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence."

Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while. — KerimF

Also known as "the masses" and "those who live by aesthetics". They are usually the majority of the population. I - personally - have a certain prejudice against this type of person. We are rational beings, with the ability to fight against our animalistic instincts to give life to the creativity that made us and continues to make us what we are — ambitious and beings of purpose and principle. Letting oneself exist simply to indulge in one's instinctual desires is not the reason why we are counscious of our actions.

I think I have to point out that the 'Will' behind Creation, which I perceive, is surely not of one being; otherwise I cannot see my nature as being an image of 'IT', even to some extent. So when someone sees 'IT' as nothing or just one being, he simply describes his deep nature, with or without his knowledge — KerimF

Here you have dismissed in favor of your argument the fact that every monotheistic religion - except Islam - preaches that humanity is a projection of God - your "Will" -. Your "IT" fits perfectly with the argument that God is eternal, being pure, static present, that precedes existence. If it was not withdrawn directly, your thinking is very much inspired by Christianity.

I wonder if you noticed my post about death and afterlife: — KerimF

No, I'm gonna take a look.

Well a possible alternative would be: You exist because your parents brought you here and that's all there is to that.

I am sorry that you are not aware that my parents were just a tool, not the Will which is behind my existence (and their existence as well). — KerimF

Sorry again, because if someone hears you mentioning the word 'God', he would have the impression that you also know what it means. On my side, I am not sure what do YOU mean by (or how YOU define) this word. — KerimF

It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".

If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it.

Still, here you affirm that a "Will" forced you to exist: — Gus Lamarch

You surprise me. I can't figure out how JUST being aware (before going into details) of such a 'Will' makes a human less rational and/or realistic.
And just because someone can write better than I do, I am not supposed seeing him believing with dogmatic faith in his opinions (his observations and analyses) :)
And just because the majority in the world tends to believe something as being true and/or real, I have to joining them while ignoring what I personally perceive and discovered. (This reminds me when Earth was supposed to be flat and the centre of the universe :) ).

We are rational beings, with the ability to fight against our animalistic instincts to give life to the creativity that made us and continues to make us what we are — ambitious and beings of purpose and principle. Letting oneself exist simply to indulge in one's instinctual desires is not the reason why we are counscious of our actions. — Gus Lamarch

To reach which end... in your opinion?
Or perhaps, you prefer not to think there is an end in the first place, other than death of the body and, perhaps, being remembered by some people while their mortal bodies are alive.

If it was not withdrawn directly, your thinking is very much inspired by Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

Actually, it is the inverse :)
I personally was surprised when I knew that Jesus didn't present, about 2000 years ago and as mentioned on the today's Gospel, 'the Will' (behind my existence) as of ONE being only; as Jews, formal Christians, Muslims and Pagans are supposed to believe.
By the way, I am usually ignored, if not banned, in any Christian forum, if related to a Church or Denomination, when I try comparing what Jesus says (on its own version of Gospel) with what its doctrine says because, it happens, they are different most of the time, if not opposite. But, truth be said, they should be different or opposite; otherwise, the men in charge of a Church can't let it survive for too long. (Yes, revealing openly and clearly some crucial natural truths, as Jesus does on the Gospel, lets many believer leave the Church and stop donating).

Well a possible alternative would be: You exist because your parents brought you here and that's all there is to that. — khaled

Then, where would be the fun of thinking :(

Perhaps try reading something about mysticism. There's too much ground to cover to answer your question here. .

It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".

If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it. — Philosophim

Let us remember that If a person mentions someone or something, it doesn't imply that he knows him or it well.
For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers.

As in science, I started from a definition (axiom perhaps) about an intelligent conscious Will behind all the natural rules that define how the universe, I am brought into, is made (including my being), So this definition or axiom, by itself, cannot be real useful in one's life. It is, as in scientific studies, just one of the first steps that a scientific branch may need to be based on; in my case here, it is what I may call 'Science of Life Reality'.

For example and to be clearer, I didn't stop learning geometry when my teacher started with the definition of the geometrical dot which is not supposed to be real :) But on this abstract definition (besides many other unreal ones) a useful branch of science was built (though not necessary useful to all people. I met many persons who hated learning geometry and are happy in their life now without it).

Perhaps try reading something about mysticism. There's too much ground to cover to answer your question here — FrancisRay

Truth be said, if I didn't know the answer already as I mentioned in {N}, I wouldn't start this thread in the first place. I liked hearing how others see the reason (if any) for which they are brought into this temporary life (existence).

I bow to an enlightened being.

You may like to comment on how I see 'my' death and afterlife... based on my logic :)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers. — KerimF

Certainly. The idea of a conscious being that created humanity is the heart of the philosophical God. There is no assumptions at this point of it being good, evil, Christian, Muslim, etc. It is merely the philosophical starting point of, "I believe there is a being beyond humanity that created humanity".

I'm just letting you know you can start there. =) You don't need to call it IT, as you're just using the philosophical God. So lets look at your premises to see if they are logical.

{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence. — KerimF

A "Will" assumes a conscious being. We have clear evidence of conscious beings being your parents. Yet you're claiming there's something beyond. The only thing we can conclude at this point is that there is something beyond humanity that created human beings that has a "Will" or consciousness. Thus the philosophical God.

The problem is this isn't necessarily true. It may be that life formed through chemical processes without consciousness. There is a scientific branch that studies this possibility called abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

{I} This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. — KerimF

So, lets just say for fun that there is a conscious existence that created life, you want to claim it is perfect, and desires us to be special. Again, this is a huge assumption that cannot be logically drawn.

What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy.

What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy. — Philosophim

My philosophy, concerning this free special offer, might be seen in how I see 'my' death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. I'm not advocating against that. But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical.

In case of humans, being forced to exist doesn't imply being made to act like a robot, like all other livings things do.
But, a person is also free to see himself a very intelligent robot or... — KerimF

Thinking is something we do (well or poorly) as well as dreaming, breathing and pissing. We do those things because we're creatures which evolved in a particular have certain biological and neurological characteristics. I think you're defining "forced"--which means coerced or compelled by someone or something--in a very odd way.

If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. — Philosophim

Which thoughts?

But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. — Philosophim

Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth).

If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical. — Philosophim

You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy :)
I wonder if there is a word to define an idea as being theological and philosophical, that is it could be seen theological by some people and philosophical by some others :D

Thinking is something we do (well or poorly) as well as dreaming, breathing and pissing. We do those things because we're creatures which evolved in a particular have certain biological and neurological characteristics. I think you're defining "forced"--which means coerced or compelled by someone or something--in a very odd way. — Ciceronianus the White

You are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impressions you mentioned here.

My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while. — KerimF

Which thoughts? — KerimF

The thoughts that you linked me.

Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth). — KerimF

No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion.

You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy — KerimF

Ha ha! Yes, I understand. Some people believe philosophy means people spouting off personal opinions on things. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or a desire to know and understand how reality works. One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test.

Once philosophy comes up with a reasonable hypothesis that is tested and found to be useful, it becomes science. So if you use philosophy in regards to a philosophical God, you want to construct something that could be provable within a person's life. For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study where we try to learn about that God. If we philosophically proved epistemology, that would become its own branch of science.

But this takes logic and reason to do so. There is a lot of speculation, but the speculation that is found worthwhile to pursue is that which is rational. Irrational or completely inductive ideas which can gain no solid grounds are ideas that are not seen as worthwhile.

Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard.

The thoughts that you linked me. — Philosophim

Doesn't this mean that, in your turn, you have your own thoughts (which are likely different from mine) that give comfort and help you live your life better? :)

No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion. — Philosophim

I see. Thank you.
It seems that philosophy has to focus on things that are supposed to be 'common to all humans' only. This explains why learning philosophy is very important, if not crucial, for the powerful rich groups if they like knowing how to keep controlling their masses and driving them to were they like them to be.

In this respect, I confess that I am far away from being a philosopher. I used focusing instead on studying my being first and what could be related to my existence in the world I live in. I leave others to discover themselves or else.
After all, every human is given a brilliant brain. But, to how far a person may like to use it differs from one to another. On my side, despite my body is imperfect in many respects, I am glad that my brain can always find out, for me in the least (to help me avoid confusion and/or fear due to lack of knowledge) the logical answer of any important question I may need to know. In other words, in my reality, there are no more unresolved mysteries which may exist in other's mind.

One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test. — Philosophim

I suppose these hypotheses have to be common to all humans. Every uncommon hypothesis has to be tested individually... as in my case :)

For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study — Philosophim

I am afraid that this is impossible to happen. As all living things are not supposed to perceive their maker, most human are also created just to serve the physical world and cannot, even if they try, be interested in searching seriously their maker (as they do in their scientific studies). On the other hand, the men in charge of any religious doctrine have to present their god as a Powerful Supernatural King looking for followers so that they can control better their believers in his name (not in their own name). They had to do this because it is rather hard to convince a human to submit to another human. But submitting to the will of a so-called Supernatural King (or 'We, The People' in politics, suitable for atheists :) ) is welcomed by almost all humans.

Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard. — Philosophim

I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.

Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way.

I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.

Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way. — KerimF

I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you.

"In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world."

Mmmmmmm..................you expect free will before you exist? That's a first or is that a result of the choice consumerism that you have been a victim of?

Mmmmmmm..................you expect free will before you exist? That's a first or is that a result of the choice consumerism that you have been a victim of? — david plumb

Of course not, this is why I simply said that I had no free will, at all, before I existed (even when I was a little baby).
Isn't it obvious?
Where is the problem?!

I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you. — Philosophim

Thank you.

By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely?

This question is tricky.
I guess no one deny that the ratio of the today's human population to the one of all living things (cells, plants, animals... etc.) is too close to ZERO. Even in one human body there are millions of living cells.

This question shows clearly that even a minority whose number is too small (very close to zero) relative to the number of all others could be the most important one among all, in a certain respect.
You likely expect what I can conclude from this fact :)

By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely? — KerimF

Yes, this is very much a philosophical question. First, what do we mean by, "meaning"? For me, meaning is the act of existence. I'll explain.

Many of us ask the question, "What should I do in my life? How should I act"? with the idea that there is a greater purpose past this than merely ourselves. But there is an even greater question. Why should there be humans? Plants, animals? Why should there be anything at all?

Scientists found that at the big bang's inception, there was more in matter in the universe than there is today. They theorize much of the matter was cancelled out by anti-matter. The rest has persisted for billions of years to this very moment today. The one thing it has done, has existed. We are made up of that matter which has existed for billions of years without ending. Within each and every one of us, is the will of a universe that doesn't quit after billions of years.

So what is our purpose? To exist. And to foster the existence around us. To let people express their greatest selves. To let animals and plants live as they should. To persist and create new existences out of the combination of matter, as it has done for billions of years.

So would there be meaning if humans ceased to existence? Yes, the universe would still exist. Would it be a diminished place without us? Yes, it would be a tragedy to lose such a unique intelligence. While I feel we are an important and valuable part of the entirety of existence, we are not the only thing. That is my take anyway. =)

In short and if I got you well, I have to see myself now as another piece of matter whose existence is important just to maintain the continuity of 'The Existence'.

Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse.

It is me who perceives 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter which has no connection, at all, with 'it' (and its Big Bang and whatever happened to matter and anti-matter) other than existing in some human minds who, unlike I (the inert matter), still perceive 'The Existence'; including the piece of matter, 'me'.

Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse. — KerimF

I will call you a thinker and a good person! =D I would rather hear true disagreement then false agreement.

It is me who perceive 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter — KerimF

With my outlook on existence, it does show that humans are very special. We are one of the few pieces of existence that has obtained sentience. As such, we get to see the universe, or ourselves, for what it is. As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces.

With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. Would a computer build itself? Not likely. Will a rock ponder the meaning of existence? Not so far anyway. We are a concentration of actual and potential existence like none other in the universe. We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well.

It has been a nice chat. Regardless of your conclusions, enjoy the day!

As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces. — Philosophim

But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :)

With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. — Philosophim

I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things.

We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well. — Philosophim

To me in the least, this respect is obvious. I even don't resist evil.