“…no matter how much the thoughts off the top of our heads won’t shut up.” — Joe Mello

Thinking is the most benign addiction.

Afraid of what? — EugeneW

This non-existent god, religious threats, oblivion!
My advice was and is more general than personal.

Haha! Why not? I'm gonna call them Stephen. If we know everything, will we all be Stephen? — EugeneW

Is it really freaky that my name is actually Stephen! No kidding!
Ah! wait a minute I think I may know you.
Expect a PM.

Yes. It's their only role. They created the universe. They don't tell us how to handle it. They clapped their hands or whatever and let it go. Without knowing what came to be. Providing the raw material. Which therefore is divine material.

This non-existent god, religious threats, oblivion! — universeness

I'm not afraid of god. I love them! Gave us the gift of live.

I'm not afraid of god. I love them! Gave us the gift of live — EugeneW

Does that mean you are too scared not to love them?
Your parents created you, gave you life, does that mean you must always love them no matter what they do to you or others?

Rather than disbelieving in a god because there is no proof, one should disbelieve because the concept itself is repugnant. — Joshs

Isn't that more a case of refusing to accept a god on the grounds of personal taste? Would that not be analogous to saying I don't believe in the laws of my country because they are repugnant and limit my individual freedoms?

Do you see the universe as a superbeing of which we are tiny parts?

Yeah, but I don't dwell too hard on it. Something like that, even if it's Star Wars' mystical Force binding all things.

Does that mean you are too scared not to love them?
Your parents created you, gave you life, does that mean you must always love them no matter what they do to you or others? — universeness

Good one! Well I don't love them because they make me. Tomorrow I might hate them. Just look at all pain in the world.

As a matter of fact, I don't involve them in my daily life. I just don't have another explanation why it's all there. And who cares actually. I just say science doesn't have all the answers. What's the nature of consciousness or matter? Where it all comes from? I love creation and think we should be careful with it. Not because God made it, but just... well... because... it's a nice creation.

Isn't that more a case of refusing to accept a god on the grounds of personal taste? Would that not be analogous to saying I don't believe in the laws of my country because they are repugnant and limit my individual freedoms — Tom Storm

Martin Hagglund’s argument is that essential
to faith in God is a belief in , and desire for, the eternal.
He argues instead that finitude is preferable to eternity.

“To be finite means primarily two things: to be dependent on others and to live in relation to death. I am finite because I cannot maintain my life on my own and because I will die. Likewise, the projects to which I am devoted are finite because they live only through the efforts of those who are committed to them and will cease to be if they are abandoned. The thought of my own death, and the death of everything I love, is utterly painful. I do not want to die, since I want to sustain my life and the life of what I love. At the same time, I do not want my life to be eternal. An eternal life is not only unattainable but also undesirable, since it would eliminate the care and passion that animate my life.

This problem can be traced even within religious traditions that espouse faith in eternal life. An article in U.S. Catholic asks: “Heaven: Will It be Boring?” The article answers no, for in heaven souls are called “not to eternal rest but to eternal activity—eternal social concern.”1 Yet this answer only underlines the problem, since there is nothing to be concerned about in heaven. Concern presupposes that something can go wrong or can be lost; otherwise we would not care. An eternal activity—just as much as an eternal rest—is of concern to no one, since it cannot be stopped and does not have to be maintained by anyone.

The problem is not that an eternal activity would be “boring” but that it would not be intelligible as my activity. Any activity of mine (including a boring activity) requires that I sustain it. In an eternal activity, there cannot be a person who is bored—or involved in any other way—since an eternal activity does not depend on being sustained by anyone. Far from making my life meaningful, eternity would make it meaningless, since my actions would have no purpose. What I do and what I love can matter to me only because I understand myself as mortal. The understanding of myself as mortal does not have to be explicit and theoretical but is implicit in all my practical commitments and priorities.”

Martin Hagglund’s argument is that essential
to faith in God is a belief in , and desire for, the eternal.
He argues instead that finitude is preferable to eternity. — Joshs

I don't disagree, but isn't that the act of choosing not to believe based on preferences, aesthetic or otherwise?

This problem can be traced even within religious traditions that espouse faith in eternal life. An article in U.S. Catholic asks: “Heaven: Will It be Boring?” — Joshs

These sorts of discussions were huge decades ago in circles I mixed in. A significant question we used to hear a lot was - Will there be penises in heaven?

The notion of eternity has never captured my imagination and I can't imagine how one would even conceptualize it.

Far from making my life meaningful, eternity would make it meaningless, since my actions would have no purpose. — Joshs

Certainly, but I'm assuming that in the logic of superphysical thinking, entering the realm of eternity with god would bring with it an entirely different perspective and value system, which would generate a different outlook on such matters.

I'm assuming that in the logic of super physical thinking, entering the realm of eternity with god would bring with it an entirely different perspective and value system, which would generate a different outlook on such matters. — Tom Storm

Exactly. The temporal bias of experience guarantees that there will always be an entirely different perspective and value system, generating a different outlook on the world. But there can never be a true or correct or original or final value system. Hagglund's argument goes deeper than simply critiquing the idea of heaven. He uses a Derridean deconstructive approach to show that any value that is assumed to be beyond cultural contingency, such as universal notions of the good , the moral , the just or the generous , are incoherent. It is not just that we should prefer finitude over the eternal, the unconditional or the universal, but that all such assumptions fall prey to their own deconstruction. All valuation is contingent and relative. This is just as true of our imagining of a timeless deity, value structure, notion of the good or the true as it is of scientific and aesthetic endeavor.

He uses a Derridean deconstructive approach to show that any value that is assumed to be beyond cultural contingency, such as universal notions of the good , the moral , the just or the generous , are incoherent. It is not just that we should prefer finitude over the eternal, the unconditional or the universal, but that all such assumptions fall prey to their own deconstruction. All valuation is contingent and relative. This is just as true of our imagining of a timeless deity, value structure, notion of the good or the true as it is of scientific and aesthetic endeavor. — Joshs

Of course.

Hagglund’s argument goes deeper than simply critiquing the idea of heaven. He uses a Derridean deconstructive approach to show that any value that is assumed to be beyond cultural contingency, such as universal notions of the good , the moral , the just or the generous , are incoherent. It is not just that we should prefer finitude over the eternal, the unconditional or the universal, but that all such assumptions fall prey to their own deconstruction. All valuation is contingent and relative. This is just as true of our imagining of a timeless deity, value structure, notion of the good or the true as it is of scientific and aesthetic endeavor. — Joshs

And so the alternative he suggests is ...?

And so the alternative he suggests is — baker

Play it by ear

Play it by ear — Joshs

Millennia of philosophy down the drain!

I guess the Clowns in the Clown Car on this forum drove to my neighborhood and got out.

They threw a lot of pies at me but only hit themselves in the face.

What a mess …

So Joe, it would seem that your thread on this forum has been a disappointment to you. You also mentioned that Mods on other sites had problems with your threads. So I suppose this experience could not have been particularly surprising to you. It would seem then that your motivation must be evangelical even though you say you are not religious. The site guidelines, which a lot of people don't read, state that unwelcome posters include "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having." This would explain why you are having so much trouble here. This thread is long but I wouldn't interpret that as popular.

So, you’re confused because I have written words you do not understand, and not because you do not understand the words I have written? Sorry, dude, that’s idiotic. — Joe Mello

Nope. That's your interpretation of my post. I can't blame you. You're gung ho about your view. Suit yourself.

I guess the Clowns in the Clown Car on this forum drove to my neighborhood and got out.

They threw a lot of pies at me but only hit themselves in the face.

What a mess … — Joe Mello

You are good at constructing feel-good narratives. I’ll give you that.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Who's to say what's lesser or greater? What would an example be, to make it concrete?

What are you driving at with this principle? God? Isn't Anselm's argument a better formulation?

"Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having." This would explain why you are having so much trouble here. This thread is long but I wouldn't interpret that as popular. — Monitor

Good reply :up: :100:

I guess the Clowns in the Clown Car on this forum drove to my neighborhood and got out.
They threw a lot of pies at me but only hit themselves in the face.
What a mess … — Joe Mello

I don't think your god cares very much about you. You and it are visiting the circus in your head instead of trying to defend your viewpoints. You would think that with all the power and knowledge it is supposed to have, it could 'reveal' or maybe just whisper in your head, some words or scientific facts that you could then tell to all us 'clowns' that would turn us all into followers of its new prophet on Earth, Joe Mello. Don't get angry Joe, stay 'mello.'

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things.

I look forward to our discussions — Joe Mello

What's the something greater? I think it's the divine spark. Hawking asked himself what bred life into his equations that actually made them work in reality. I think only God has the answer, but we can feel what he spoke or blew into his creation. The fact that stuff follows equations is just a contingency. You gotta move somehow.

@EugeneW

I’ve written that it is God’s omnipotent power a dozen times, not his electricity.

You’re not really reading and pondering, just getting to the thoughts off the top of your head.

And God’s answers are given to us, not put away in secret.

No one has seen God, but plenty of human beings have known and loved him, and in doing so learn the truth and become more and more like him through the gift of his Spirit.

Skeptics deny God’s Spirit and become trapped in their senses, only learning and loving what they can experience through them.

And they claim to be geniuses for it.

Call it power, electricity, a spark, a magic essence, soul, divine stuff, or whatever. We don't know what it is. We only can feel it.

God’s answers are given to us, not put away in secret — Joe Mello

Who's God? .

@emancipate

Go find out.

His existence is not a sentence that you can read, but an adventure that you go on.

The dry and rattling thoughts in your head aren’t as real as your experiences are.

The greatest person who ever lived said:

“God seeks out those who seek him in Spirit and Truth.”

You’re thinking thoughts and looking for him on the Internet.

He deserves much more of the time and commitment you squander on yourself.

@Monitor

Your judgment of Clowns being powerful and meaningful is funny too.

Since I’m such a failure, why don’t you go start a successful thread so I can see what one looks like.

@EugeneW

You make a lot of declarations about God when you admit that you don’t know anything about him and are confused.

The face you see in the mirror is your face not my face, or everyone’s face.

Go to school.

Jesus Joe! What is the matter with you? I've done too much school already. I don't need school to know what the world is made of. Nor to know what gods are made of. I can feel it.