Serious Discussion: Life

[LtKillroy]

I tend to say hold on to life because its the only one you've got you are going to die regardless, and therefore any chance of living longer is good enough for me even if it seems there is no way of me living.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

One interesting philosopher I advise all of you to look into is Rene Descartes. His life was lived trying to prove scientifically that there is a higher being. Also, he came up with two unfaltered truthes. The first, "I think." has to be true, because simply by thinking that statement, you prove that it is correct. His second un faltered truth, "I exist." is also true. Then Descartes combined them to the famous phrase we know and love today,

"I think, Therefore I am (exist)."

Heh, I feel a little out of place arguing with a guy like that, but let's give it a whirl.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

"I exist."
As crazy as it sounds, does self-awareness really prove existence? The simplest counter-example would be a video game.  No matter how much a virtual environment emulates reality, and how much the characters in it understand that environment and even themselves, the simple flip of a switch eradicates them.  Can existence that transient really be called existence at all? And in the same way, might we all be some sort of actors in a virtual world, such as in the Matrix?

Note that this isn't me disagreeing with you at all.  I'm just playing devil's advocate against ol' Rene.

[Smegma]

Actually, that all depends on how you define "I".

Also, his statement is the classic form of petitio principii, or begging the question. Maybe he was just an elaborate troll.

The simplest counter example is that. The query is if he exists. The use of I is an assumption of existence.

[frogboy]

First, he realized that for anything to exist, it has to be perfect. Don't try and argue; everything down to the content of marrow in our bones to the Earth's atmosphere is perfect. And Descartes realized that ONLY a higher being, one above all of us, could create perfection.

the human body is not perfect at all. bone marrow is a good example of that. it's just luck and coincidence anyway; there's trillions of joules of matter in the universe, some of that has arranged itself in a way which is hospitable to life.

descartes was a quack just like einstein. "god does not play dice" so ive gotta go fix my perfectly good theory which is pretty much accepted as truth now

[echo_trail]

it's just luck and coincidence anyway; there's trillions of joules of matter in the universe, some of that has arranged itself in a way which is hospitable to life.

Agreed 100%. The problem with the human race is that their selfawareness goes way beyond themselfs. There used to be a time when it was just a matter of survival, where we were no more entitled to this planet than any other animal. But now as we gain increased intelligence, we start to realise what a rarity life is and how fragile it really is. Therefor, it must be out of this world in terms of the supernatural.

I don't believe in any god, I believe nature arranged itself in a highly unlikely pattern, and we are the result(that is also why I do believe life exists on other planets, 'cause though the pattern needed to form life is quite the rarity, it's just a matter of looking hard enough to fnd it. But that's another thread). It's not the most romantic of visions, but it's really not so bad. I mean, after all... why not? Many of you believe in some kinda god, the most popular choice in here probably being "God", and that's swell. I hold nothing against you for that. But tell me, as much as you are convinced of creational theory, or at least some kind of divine intervention along the way, why isn't it possible or even likely that we are nothing more than a lucky setup?

[excruciator]

If you can do quazillion of tries, Anything can be done.

[Lt. Sprizz]

Heh, I feel a little out of place arguing with a guy like that, but let's give it a whirl.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

 Yes, you can call that thinking, in my opinion. I feel that even instincts, the most primitive of thought processes, still involves thinking. I also think we are in complete control of our minds. Even though people say that God has a plan for all of us, and though that may sound like fate, he still gave us free will. No outside source can determine how someone will react, not even God, because of free will.

That's my opinion.

"I exist."
As crazy as it sounds, does self-awareness really prove existence? The simplest counter-example would be a video game.  No matter how much a virtual environment emulates reality, and how much the characters in it understand that environment and even themselves, the simple flip of a switch eradicates them.  Can existence that transient really be called existence at all? And in the same way, might we all be some sort of actors in a virtual world, such as in the Matrix?

 Even if the world was a simulation, like the matrix, even if our thoughts equaled nothing and that we're really balls of goo inside of some alien's mouth, we still have to exist. To not exist is a pretty absolute idea. We could not do anything if we didn't exist, regardless if our existence wasn't what we thought it was.


Again, my opinion.

Agreed 100%. The problem with the human race is that their selfawareness goes way beyond themselfs. There used to be a time when it was just a matter of survival, where we were no more entitled to this planet than any other animal. But now as we gain increased intelligence, we start to realise what a rarity life is and how fragile it really is. Therefor, it must be out of this world in terms of the supernatural.

I realize what you're saying. That we used to be no better than animals, and our thoughts were basically instinct. And the human race has overdramatized the whole "supernatural" beliefs. I get that. I acknowledge that my God could probably be looking down on me right now, disagreeing with all my opinions on him. We cannot understand God, no matter how hard we try, and the human race is trying to do what we always will; put a label on everything, and make it so that we can completely understand it.

We can't. God can't be put into a book. To this day, I don't count the Bible as a credible source, because first of, it was written a long time ago and has gone under so many translations that I'm sure today the Bible we read was nothing like the way Moses or David intended it to be. Secondly, the people back then were obviously more primitive and probably thought that everything was done by God's help, not the way that we see things today.

Did you know that around the time of Jesus, there were about THREE other people in Europe, all claiming to be the son of God, all having folowers, and ALL being crucified? Why does Jesus get so much attention? I don't think that the way the church sees God is credible at all, but I still go to church because the basic meaning is still there, that God does love us, and that church is just a handy tool to help you get through life. Church can open up so many doors for you, that even if you don't believe in God, you can still meet some pretty cool people, get some help with your emotional problems, and maybe some free coffee and doughnuts .

But tell me, as much as you are convinced of creational theory, or at least some kind of divine intervention along the way, why isn't it possible or even likely that we are nothing more than a lucky setup?

It is totally possible that it was just luck, but explained above, even if God wasn't real, being part of something like a church can help your life in more ways than one.

The odds are like this:
 
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to be one, I go to some afterlife, presumably good, maybe it's heaven, but I'm not sure
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, There turns out to one, I die and go to some afterlife, good or bad, for eternity.

 Why, in all honesty, would you take that chance? There's only one bad outcome, and the chance is that you could go to some bad afterlife for ETERNITY, simply because you didn't get that holy water poured on your head. The effort put in to be saved is so little, and the chance of the WORST PUNISHMENT in history is so HUGE, why would you take the chance?

 Wow, that's a lot of typing. Btw, all my opinion, just in case I forgot to put it somewhere.

[echo_trail]

I can tell you've thought things through, and I'm quite impressed with what you said about the bible, it not being much of a credible source and all. I like your 'realistic' point of view, good for you. But you're also saying "why take the chance?". I find that contradicting. If I choose to believe in God 'cause it's convenient and I mjight as well, just to cover myself, will that earn me any credit at all when I face judgementday?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Did you know that around the time of Jesus, there were about THREE other people in Europe, all claiming to be the son of God, all having folowers, and ALL being crucified?

I did not.  Source?

To this day, I don't count the Bible as a credible source, because first of, it was written a long time ago and has gone under so many translations that I'm sure today the Bible we read was nothing like the way Moses or David intended it to be. Secondly, the people back then were obviously more primitive and probably thought that everything was done by God's help, not the way that we see things today.

I'm not sure how I want to approach this, because I really don't want to attack you over this, but I am curious about your justification.  Guess I'll just respond and hope it comes out sounding alright.

I guess the biggest problem I have is that you say you're saved, but you also say that you don't believe the Bible is credible.  What makes those parts of the New Testament about being a Christian any more valid than the rest of the book? Or if it really is just as simple as "being saved is better than the alternative," what makes the Bible a better source for getting to the afterlife than anything else? Furthermore, the Bible says that Jesus is the only source of salvation; how did you decide which of your Jesuses to rely on?

I agree that it's good to have a healthy skepticism when it comes to these things, rather than just following blindly.  However, that makes it all the more important to have solid justification when you finally do settle on a particular set of tenets to follow.

[Mangled*]

The odds are like this:
 
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I believe in God, I'm saved, there turns out to be one, I go to some afterlife, presumably good, maybe it's heaven, but I'm not sure
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, there turns out to not be one, I die and nothing happens to me.(or I'm reincarnated, whatever)
 I don't believe in God, I'm not saved, There turns out to one, I die and go to some afterlife, good or bad, for eternity.

 Why, in all honesty, would you take that chance? There's only one bad outcome, and the chance is that you could go to some bad afterlife for ETERNITY, simply because you didn't get that holy water poured on your head. The effort put in to be saved is so little, and the chance of the WORST PUNISHMENT in history is so HUGE, why would you take the chance?

 Wow, that's a lot of typing. Btw, all my opinion, just in case I forgot to put it somewhere.

That kind of weak rationalisation has a flaw in it. There are thousands of Gods that man has worshipped over hundreds of thousands of years, you're assuming that you have the right one and in many religions worshipping a false God is just as bad and sometimes worse than worshipping none. Afterall, Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and yet the religions that are still alive today have been around for only a few thousand years at the most.

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

[Psycho]

I would not think of it that way Mangled. The earlier the age, the less people knew about the world around them. The lack of scriptures and information left pretty much everything open to be explained by the first guy with a divine theory.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I would not think of it that way Mangled. The earlier the age, the less people knew about the world around them. The lack of scriptures and information left pretty much everything open to be explained by the first guy with a divine theory.

On the other hand, if people DID have a divine origin, the first people would be the ones closest to God.  In Genesis, for example, it says that Adam literally walked with God.  That's pretty close.

[Smegma]

Even if the world was a simulation, like the matrix, even if our thoughts equaled nothing and that we're really balls of goo inside of some alien's mouth, we still have to exist. To not exist is a pretty absolute idea. We could not do anything if we didn't exist, regardless if our existence wasn't what we thought it was.

Unfortunately, this does not satisfy my objection.

The odds are like this:

I believe in God. I don't exist. God is me.

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

Just as the earliest of theories is bound to be the most correct.

[jerich]

Descartes was a great philosopher when his philosophy was based on absolutely certainty. Rather, doubt everything unless it is absolutely certain.

I, myself, was born a Catholic, and yes I do believe in God. Do I believe every word in the Bible. Nope. Do I believe God is perfect. Nope. I treat my life as if it is my very last second every second. I don't consider the consequences of death, rather the gift of life. If God chooses to send me wherever, that's up to God. I will live life morally and ethically sound because I choose to.

I can see this, just like many philosophical arguments, cross lines with the existence of God, especially with life and death arguments. So before it goes there, here are my thoughts. A night before essay I wrote for a philosophy class last semester. I made a self-debate in a paragraph.

One problem that is created is that God is undefinable. God does not suit a universal definition and it is hard to solve a problem if one does not know the source of the problem itself. Not only do philosophers have to try and prove if God exists, but also prove if God is all-powerful. Today, God is usually looked upon as a perfect monotheistic being with supreme power. However, something that is all-powerful and all-knowing would never permit something evil to come to existence. Believers in God could state the idea of free will and that we as humans have the ability to choose good or evil and thus evil exists. Others against the idea of God would suggest that if God was really all-goodness, he would make humans be able to choose good every time. But instead of restricting free will and limiting humans to righteousness, this God of pure goodness would decide to accept the possibilities of evil. Well, a possible resolution that someone would come up with is that what humans perceive as evil is not really evil and that God has a divine plan that will ultimately end in omni benevolence(pure goodness). Again, a counter argument would probably state if God is pure in goodness, then God can not make pure evil. However, if pure goodness can exist, then so can pure evil. And if pure evil did exist, then this pure evil could be as powerful as God and puts God's superiority into question. Even after all that debating, there was virtually no progress in proving if God is all-powerful or if he even exist.

This is probably the reason I don't really aim my focus on the afterlife. I'm just going to keep asking questions, rather than enjoy the time I have.

[Kazuki]

Would you agree, Smegma, that the ability to be experienced is not required in order for something to exist, yet existence is required in order for that something to be experienced? That simple premise is the basis of my belief: since we experience, we must exist in one sense or another. It is true that the way we view our existence is a contingency, but I believe that our existence in itself is a necessary truth.

"I think."
There's a pretty strong argument for our behavior being purely deterministic, with our actions being the natural consequences of all the stimuli in our lives.  Therefore, since anyone with a big enough knowledge base could say definitely what a given person would do in a given situation, can you really call that thinking? If we don't control our minds, how is life anything more than stimulus-response?

I don't think you're completely wrong, but you're not in the green, either. In all technicality, the act of thinking is a physical one. The brain reacts to stimuli, whether they are self-induced or not. However, these reactions are not always the same. This can be viewed as free will. One's mind is trained from the moment he or she is born and is therefore bound by society, thereby allowing it to be fairly predictable by anyone with a dash of wisdom. Free will is an antimony because it isn't strictly defined. Are we free because we rationalize; because we are given choices to choose from? Or are we not because there are things we cannot control, such as our own existence?

[Smegma]

Would you agree, Smegma, that the ability to be experienced is not required in order for something to exist, yet existence is required in order for that something to be experienced?

This still does not satisfy (a defeater) to my original claim. I see no reason to believe this dogma other than one does not bring a more sound proposition to the table. Even if it were true, the case of the cogito still would be in some trouble.

It being that I is what is in question of existence. If I experiences thinking, well then I suppose we can say I exists at first glance. Yet, the initial clause of your statement would say that this thinking may NOT exist for the potential for experience does not imply existence and as such there is a possibility that the subject (I) may not be experiencing anything.

However, in the english language it would seem to be suitable for these paradoxes. The way we view the self may lead us into these odd rabbit holes and that including a subject automatically assumes existence. I still stick by the idea that the cogito follows the classic form of begging the question. Even if the knots of your claim are unwound, I see no real reason to accept it, but I'm willing to play with the rope.

It is true that the way we view our existence is a contingency, but I believe that our existence in itself is a necessary truth.

What if, and if you don't believe me just step back and try to view how it would if possible, the subject experienced nothing. Would the subject then cease to exist?

[Kazuki]

Hopefully I'm understanding your point properly, but I doubt that I am. It doesn't help my case at all that I worded my initial statement incorrectly. Since we are experienced, we must exist in one sense or another.

So you're saying that thoughts only have potential to exist, rather than simply existing? In such a case, I suppose you're correct. Using one's own ability to experience as proof that one exists may be too far of a shot to be rational. I agree with you here. So let's move slightly outside of Descartes' statement.

What of universality -- the ability to be experienced? If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence? That is, unless said ability to experience a subject can somehow be imposed upon others by the subject.

You, sir, have much to teach me. I like how thought-provoking this conversation is.

[Smegma]

If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence?

If we stick with your initial proposition, no, because you said that the ability to be experienced is not a quality of existence, or not necessary for existence.

Since we are experienced, we must exist in one sense or another.

But then what are we experiencing? Can you prove that this is true even with the large assumption that you exist?

[Kazuki]

If we can be experienced by others, does it not imply our existence?

If we stick with your initial proposition, no, because you said that the ability to be experienced is not a quality of existence, or not necessary for existence.

Correct, but I also said that existence is necessary in order to experience something. Just because something exists does not mean you can experience it. But if you experience something, then it must exist.

[Smegma]

But then all that means is that thinking exists.