Personally, I see philosophy and science as going hand in hand. It's the very questions of metaphysical and epistemological importance that then drive us to search for quantifiable or understandable answers through science right? In which case, philosophy will always be relevant.

In our culture though, I suppose it depends on which culture you speak of. If it is the current, modern Western cultural climate, it can easily be perceived that science and philosophy have taken a backseat. Right now it seems that the West is in some sort of depraved political cultural war of ideas. Many feel lost. Many feel anger and resentment. Some are too jaded to care. This cultural war is not driven by science and philosophy, but rather by anger, resentment, and in many ways, a nihilism. In my opinion at least.

Thought, this doesn't mean we are without hope. As Nietzsche stated:

There is something like decay in everything modern, but alongside the prevailing sickness there are signs of an inner strength yet to be tested. The very things that diminish us the most drive the stronger and more exceptional to greatness. As a matter of fact, great growth is always accompanied by tremendous fragmentation and destruction; suffering and the symptoms of decline are a part of every period of tremendous progress. Every fruitful and powerful development of humankind has at the same time helped to create a corresponding nihilistic development. It might be a sign of the most essential and decisive growth, of the transition to new conditions of existence, where the most extreme form of pessimism, genuine nihilism, to come into the world.

We are in the salad phase my friend. All of the deviations and crossroads have yet to converge.

If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Then of course, there is no God.

moral standards are set by God - that is, for an act to be right is for it to be an act God wills us to perform, and for something to be morally good is for it to be approved of by God.

What are these moral standards? Are we talking the ten commandments or a version of such? As you state later this isn't always clear. Following this idea, it seems we are stuck playing a game of which we don't even know the rules. A game designed for us to lose, simply because this God, has deemed it necessary to punish us for eternity for a deed we do not even understand. The original act of depravity we have committed must have been extreme, for a God to punish us so for eternity.

This God does not seem omnibenevolent at all then. If she were, then wouldn't she seek to rehabilitate us rather than to punish us? Or is this a do some evil for the greater good type scenario? In which case this God is capable of evil. Therefore, cannot be omnibenevolent. A God that freely allows us to wallow in our ignorance, and allows all the evils of the world to occur to us, on random chance (think of children that die too young, or suffer needlessly in isolation and despair in parts of our world that have the lowest of standards of living); is not a benevolent God. The fact that we are left ignorant in our depravity, deprives us of the very opportunity to correct our wrongdoing.

But, you did mention that this God loathes us anyway. We are hated. And we deserve it. This makes God vindictive, not benevolent. A benevolent God would not watch us suffer. This instead sounds like the work of a sadist.

No, that's not the main goal at all, that's simply an opportunity we have been given. An omnipotent being has no problem realizing her goals - she could eradicate our depravity in the blink of an eye if she wanted. (Plus it is not always clear what the right thing to do is, yet it would be crystal clear if rehabilitation was a primary goal). Again, we are not living here for our benefit - the idea that we are is heretical for it supposes that God was incapable of giving us such benefits absent the harms, or that God is an arsehole and only likes giving people benefits if she can harm you as well into the bargain. Either thought reveals a corrupt nature on the part of the thinker. The goal - which she could realize in any way she wanted, but has chosen this way - is to protect others from us and to give us our just deserts.

Our existence then is pointless beyond the act of just serving out our time.

And yes, I can see the logic of the form of your argument if we accept the premise as true.

Again, that's pointless and arrogant. The meaning - the purpose - of your life is not in your gift. Any purpose you want your life here to serve is impotent to make that the purpose of your life, for it is too late on the scene.

This is a matter of perspective, and only true when accepting this premise.

Personally, I'd rather find /create meaning in the act of my rebellion, and decorate my cell. This God can piss off, she doesn't care anyway, and neither should we, hey?

I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. I know there are some people who seem to be good with our condition. Some children (not all) and some of those touchy-feely yogi types (unless they are bullshitting us).

I agree here. The feeling, at least from a Kierkegaardian perspective would represent a person that is in despair through the unbalance of his / her self. The self being a verb, that is, the active and ever-changing self relation to finitude and infinitude. This unbalance, occurring when someone attempts to search for meaning in the outside world by relating the self to the infinite through finite things.

The experiment is self-destructive and from the perspective of us bits, very possibly a failure. If God's bits are capable of becoming God then this is something he would already know if he knew himself.

An interesting thought. The experiment is self-destructive, and perhaps the failure is us. And if God does not know Himself, then perhaps He is not God, not in the way we picture Him at least (from a Christian perspective). Thus our imperfections mirror His, if he in fact, is not omnipotent, but instead, just a powerful enough being to create life, with that life being as flawed as Himself.

what about those of us who find the world wonderful and who enjoy the company of our fellow humans. Who aren't in despair. Who recognize suffering for what it is. Who may even believe as Buddhists do that we are responsible for our own suffering.

If I can answer this from a Kierkegaardian perspective, then I'd say that those that aren't in despair are either living as a balanced self relation (to finitude / infinitude) and live in harmony, or, are in despair and don't know it. I suppose this is where authenticity may come into play. Do you truly believe the world to be wonderful, do you truly enjoy the company of your fellow man, have you shouldered the burden of your responsibility with commitment, passion and love? Do these convictions truly represent you, your beliefs, your ideals, your desires, your motives? If yes, then perhaps you're on the path of inner peace and true harmony with yourself, others and the world around you.

Unfortunately, not all of us have reached that point as yet, and perhaps some may never reach it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. With all our effort.

Well, to be fair, this was more stream of consciousness flow from the idea posited in God Debris as per my OP. I don't think my thoughts here are fleshed out enough to be any theory, but have contributed to worthwhile discussion, which I've enjoyed.

I do agree that society plays an important role, as perhaps these ideas represent a more modern / contemporary Western view, one that has become more secular given the fall of Christianity as the prevailing worldview, or, following the "death of God" as Nietszche has famously stated (and predicted).

I too am not a religious person, raised Catholic but abandoning that worldview in my late teens, I've flirted between atheism / agnosticism, and toyed with the idea of pandeism. Although I'd say I'm primarily existentialist in my views and have been for quite some time.

I think the matter of there being a God or God-like diety is irrelevant to the day to day functioning of life, however engaging the idea of it is always interesting to me. Pondering the possibilites of God, or no God, and the implications of each possibility in its effects on humankind.

Personally, I think that the idea of God holding a primary worldview in a modern, Western, and primarily secular society no longer has the rapturous pull required to keep us all in awe. We need something new. Something to snap us out of our indiffernce, and perhaps, to snap us out of the elements of nihilism we've found ourselves in. At least in my opinion of us, the contemporary Western, modern individual. Jaded and apathetic, but not without hope.

Define morally perfect, or objective morals. What standard are you measuring man to exactly? What makes us depraved? Are we all depraved? How? Why?

Your rehabilitation idea is interesting though. Are we to assume here, that the goal is to elevate ourselves from our depravity?

Also interesting, this idea of placing us here instead of destroying us.

I said may because I do not necessarily agree with your position, but I'am thoroughly enjoying the conversation and want to explore this further. Out of curiosity, this evidence you mention, could you provide a source? Interested to explore the idea.

I'm all for individual agency, and taking active and purposeful control of your own life with passion, love, and courage. Ultimately, to find your own meaning and to grow, I suppose, out of despair, or perhaps, out of the depravity you may be referring to, towards something greater / higher. However, for those that do not see it this way, and for those that suffer, I do not necessarily want them to suffer, or remain that way. I'd like to help those I can, or those that want to be helped. To do some good. In this short blip of time that I have here in this prison or purgatory perhaps.

How is it demonstrably true? I have some idea of where you might be headed, but would rather have you clarify and expand on this idea so I can comment back on it with clarity.

@Kenosha Kid

I see what you mean. Poor choice of words in my previous reply to you. Then, I should try to clarify, whether you're a deist, atheist, etc. at the stage of older child to adult, we may feel this feeling regardless (abandoned / alone / lost / despairing) (?), and perhaps we each attribute that feeling to something different, based on subjective / personal experiences and individual beliefs.

Of course, this is pure conjecture on my part.

@Bartricks

So, let's see if I can align myself here to what you're thinking. Basically, following this idea, our lives are a punishment for a "crime" committed by us, even if we do not understand what that crime is / was, and the act of living is solely to serve out our time here, on this "prison" created by a God to punish us for this crime. This is the purpose of our life. To serve our time.

So unlike say, the idea that our existence precedes essence, we instead have been designed for a purpose, that purpose being to serve our time in this prison. Therefore we are like the knife, made for cutting things.

Also, God may not have actually created us. Yet, punishes us anyway? We must have really pissed the old man off...

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? Of course this would be subjective. A matter of perspective. But within the confines of "serving" our time out, we could at least perhaps, try to make the act of serving that time slightly more pleasant for us. Sure, rebellion might be pointless since there is no escape, but not if we subjectively find meaning in the act of that rebellion - rebellion here being to find beauty in the dissonance of life, to reduce our suffering and maximize our joy.

Just like a prisoner may, say, workout in his cell everyday to keep his body sharp, or read a book or two if available to keep his mind sharp, whilst still existing within the confines of his own prison (the cell), could we not also make our cell more comfortable?

Assuming 4. again, continuing this thread. Then we can perhaps agree that God is not omnibenevolent. So how to rebel against an abusive parent? Give them the middle finger and strike out on your own perhaps?

Following this line of thought though, what do you think would be great ways to strike out against an abusive, omnipotent being? If we are even capable of it. Given that the being in question would already know everything we could do, then nothing we could do, could piss Him off (?). Or perhaps we could, and He knows it. An omnipotent being knowing His "child" is going to piss Him off in future is an amusing thought.

It seems more likely that He, doesn't give a F*&%, and neither should we. If we have been created to suffer, and there is no overarching meaning to this life, then it's up to us to create our own meaning and purpose to our lives, thereby reducing our own suffering as much as we can through our own actions. Obviously, within the constraints of what's possible given our circumstances (each being unique to our own place in history and the society we grow into).

Or perhaps the ultimate act of rebellion is to shoot ourselves in the head as the ultimate "up yours, I'm not playing your game". Though personally, I'd rather live, and fight against the suffering. Perhaps finding that joy, or beauty, in the dissonance of life is its own reward (and the ultimate rebellion against a sadistic Creator). To think that even after all the suffering he does brings us, or in spite of it, we can still find joy and meaning in our lives, created by us, and therefore given to us, by us, through our own actions. The ultimate "up yours" indeed.

Interesting, I have looked into a couple of Watts' monologues in the past, I may have to add this book to my reading list. Thanks.

3. Therefore, if God exists, we are not innocent

And as

4. God exists

5. We are not innocent

The purpose for which we are living lives here, then, is not to facilitate God's quest for knowledge, but to satisfy God's desire that we suffer. Simple.

This is interesting. Reminds me of a line of dialogue from one of Terrance Malick's more recent films (Knight of Cups): "If you are unhappy, you shouldn't take it as a sign of God's disfavor. Just the contrary. Might be the very sign He loves you. He shows His love not by helping avoid suffering, but by sending you suffering, by keeping you there. To suffer binds you to something higher than yourself, higher than your own will. Takes you from the world to find what lies beyond it."

Assuming 4. is correct, perhaps the suffering we experience, or this life in general is some sort of test. Perhaps God is asking us what makes us worthy of his love? Like a parent pushing his child to be all they can be, to strive towards the apex of their own innate human potential to be all they can be.

The idea of God annihilating himself in order to get laid again is infinitely amusing lol. thanks.

@Kenosha Kid

Subjective, personal experience perhaps. Some of Nietzsche's Will to Power too I'd say. God being dead and all... us humans now left with the task of providing a new rapture for ourselves. To keep us in awe. To inspire. I think the idea of it all falling on us to create our own meaning, and perhaps working towards an apex of humankind / human potential is inspiring.

Still makes you wonder if there is / was some sort of Creator. I suppose we'll find out for sure when we're dead.

@Tom Storm

To me this idea reads a bit like a Marvel adaptation of deism.

Would make for a banging origin story :lol:

@Nils Loc

The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost.

I like this idea. That it's up to us to create our own new "God" now, or to become "Gods" ourselves to push our species forward into something greater. A new rapture, with a newfound vigor and zest for life and the possible, for our future in this infinite cosmos.

@Gnomon

Agreed, it reads like tongue-in-cheek. However, the idea is still there. Infinitely interesting idea, I think at least. One I've thought about :chin:

@TheMadFool

Ah of course, I forgot the floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. How careless of me :wink:

@Kenosha Kid

I should have been more clear, I think the older child to adult. Also yes, it would be something more felt if raised as a deist, and then perhaps through own research and enquiry, after a change of mind / heart followed by the inevitable questions to ponder.

@180 Proof

Thanks for the welcome. Looking forward to the discussions in here. I've been lurking for a little while and only recently decided to create an account.