A New Argument from Evil

[Koldo]

I try to not take omnipotence to ridiculous levels. At some point infinite power is powerful enough and and being able to overcome restrictions is also good enough.

I am clueless as to the relation of this post ( and the last one ) to the subject of our conversation.

 

[idav]

And yet, if you allow the possible to be actual, you do.

Possible doesn't mean it will ever come to pass, a path still has to be taken despite the choices and possibilities.

 

[Sir Doom]

I've been away for the weekend, sorry about the tardy reply.

Okay! I don't mind a little self-interest every now and then .

:namaste

Its sort of a constant state for me, though. It should become clear as to why later in the post.

But wait. I didn't say that God is omnbenevolent. I am not even sure what that is supposed to entail. Is God perfectly loving? Okay. What does perfectly loving mean? Is God perfectly just? What does perfectly just mean? What does it mean to have any attribute or quality perfectly? Does perfection allow room for choice or is perfection, in this context, a synonym for necessity?

Omnibenevolent just means the being does everything for benevelent reasons. This is the typical way the abrahamic deity is described. You say it as 'necessarily just'. Omnibenevolence would be the reason god is 'necessarily just'.

But this assumes that omniscience is in full service of a plan in such a way that everything is planned. What if an omniscient divine being knows everything but hasn't planned everything? If I accidently drop a glass cup and it shatters on the floor because I am startled by a mouse in my kitchen, a omniscient being may have known that this would happen but this is still an accident. Why?

Because many theists will argue that there is something called God's permissive will. God permits certain events and knows both the events and the outcomes of such events even though he/it may not like them. He/It may even know some of the events (such as lightening strike) may be entirely incidental and other events (like a misunderstanding between two armies that can lead to armed conflict) are accidental. God may not want this to happen but may permit it for the purpose of acheiving one of his/its ends.

So omniscience doesn't entail that everything is planned and nothing is left to chance, chaos, incidence, or accidents.

If you have the power to stop an event that you know to be impending and you do so in furtherance of a goal, then this is a planned event. Not an accident. What sort of will we are going to call this decision makes no difference to the intentional design of an event's occurrence. Which is exactly what this would be. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelette does not mean the omelette is suddenly an accident (assuming you didn't necessarily want to break the eggs so much as wanting to make an omelette).

I think you will agree with me that not every god-concept in existence embodies all of the attributes that I described in my OP. Some theists believe that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing but may be morally neutral or even disinterested in human affairs. This may have been some of the beliefs of deists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of these deists may have believed in a First Cause sort of god who got the ball rolling but hasn't intervened. Some theists may believe that God is a very loving and merciful being but isn't all-powerful and all-knowing.

Different god-concepts have differing sets of attributes. The Abrahamic god-concept tends to list the ones that I described in my OP. Therefore, my argument would apply mostly to that particular god-concept. However, it wouldn't apply to someone who is a process theist or a panentheist. This is the best way I can think of to explain it.

I understand that part. What I don't understand is why you said, "...merely omnipotent and omniscient." What is mere about these two traits being that they are essentially the upward limit of hypothetical 'powers'?

Well, I don't have a theological dictionary handy nor any kind of encyclopedia of theology or religion so I am going to have to describe it the best way I understand it. Divine sovereignty, as I understand it, is a authoritative control or rule over the created order in which everything that happens is either the result of God's commanding will or his permissive will. God either wants something to happen because it accomplishes a goal of his or allows it to happen, despite not liking it, because it's the best way of accomplishing a goal of his.

Okay, this is pretty much what I thought it meant. So, how is it that the divine creator/controller/master/commander/owner/operator of all reality doesn't have this sovereignty?

The authority would lie with the creator of reality but that depends on the relationship of the creator to the created. If the creator creates the universe and is disinterested in the creation and abandons it for whatever reason, then the relationship between the creator and the creation is not an authoritative one at all. If the creator wills for everything to happen and takes a commanding role in both universal and human history, then the relationship between the creator and the creation is an authoritative one and the authority derives from the creator's sovereignty.

No, the creator retains sovereignty regardless. There is nothing else to hold this authority.

It really hasn't. I have actually known this for a long time. I have asked people who believe that justice is subjective to explain how for the sake of discussion. But I notice that many people, especially whose worldview is secular, believe that morality and justice are subjective and actually relative. I am not a relativist when it comes to morality and justice (I am also not an absolutist, either).

So you do understand that justice is subjective and also not pointless? I can't really figure out if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me here.

This is my greatest peeve with secularism. Most atheists who I have dialouged with, either on here or elsewhere, talk as though justice is objective. If they hear a story of some shooting, a child being abused, or a woman being hurt, they demand justice. Yet justice is relative as is morality. No moral theory or theory of justice is any better than any other. To me, morality and justice are incapable of justification in any secular worldview, especially Secular Humanism.

The statement I've put in bold is not correct. There is always a version of morality and justice that trumps all the other ones. That is our personal version of each. We always operate on this version as opposed to any other version.

I think this is what it boils down to. Selfishness. There is ultimately no reason why we should or ought to have a justice system or televisions for that matter. It's just selfishness, period.

Ultimately the reason we should or ought to have a justice system and televisions is because we are selfish and we want those things. Why isn't this a good enough reason? Its the only reason we ever do anything. That includes jumping on grenades and feeding the homeless, btw.

I find myself amused at the complaints of many atheists with regards to the afterlife beliefs of many theists. Many atheists wil say, "You're desire to be reincarnated, go to heaven, enter nirvana, or whatever it is is just the height of egoism and petty selfishness". When I hear atheists say this or see it written, I think, Well Mr. Pot, I see you have met Ms. Kettle.

Atheists frequently make me laugh for similar reasons. The funniest one I run into a lot is the strange notion that god must create all of reality and be all powerful in order to count as a god. Interesting how defined god can be to someone who doesn't believe in any such thing. I think this is much more common among the recently 'atheized' as they have a tendency to lash out against their previous 'oppressors'. Humans are hilarious.

Let me reply in my next post if you don't mind.


Matthew

Take your time. It is an impossible task, after all.

 

[idav]

I am clueless as to the relation of this post ( and the last one ) to the subject of our conversation.

My responses are about your posts saying omnipotence should follow logic but then you post that omnipotence should do all things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My responses are about your posts saying omnipotence should follow logic but then you post that omnipotence should do all things.

Perhaps this suggests that the concept of omnipotence is inherently contradictory.

Things that follow logic (and exist) can only do possible things. Things that are omnipotent can do all things. Does the term "all things" include impossible things?

 

[Koldo]

My responses are about your posts saying omnipotence should follow logic but then you post that omnipotence should do all things.

Omnipotence can ( rather than should ) do all things. Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it. I never said otherwise.

I don't count logically impossible things in this 'all things' group though.

 

[Willamena]

The universe, as it exists naturally, has no words. It has no physics, no maths, no logic; it has no up, no down, no good, no bad; it has no possibilities and no constraints. A conscious mind "fractures" bits of the universe into smaller, managable, understandable parts and labels them. Then it builds on those. It rebuilds the universe on those--the natural world replaced with a world of words. They are not the same thing.

The "perfection" of God is the undifferentiated universe. The "omnimax" God is of that fractured, differentiated universe--it is build on and of words, so it will always be subject to logic, subject to contradiction, subject to whatever differential perspectives we choose to apply--it will be a subject, where the undifferentiated universe will never. All it is, though, is words that are meant to denote the "perfection" of God. For every word, there is knowing or thought of the undifferentiated universe bringing it into being; for every word, there is presence or immediacy of the undifferentiated universe; for every word, there is the undifferentiated universe supporting its being.

 

[Matthew78]

Omnibenevolent just means the being does everything for benevelent reasons. This is the typical way the abrahamic deity is described. You say it as 'necessarily just'. Omnibenevolence would be the reason god is 'necessarily just'.

Actually, most theists would argue that it's the other way around. Being perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly honest, and all other perfect character traits are what make God omnibenevolent. I think the question boils down to what a being like God or a human being must be like in order to be considered "good". We consider honesty to be good. So a person who is honest and values honesty is considered a good person. We consider kindness to be good so anyone who is kind is considered a good person. We value justice and so anyone who acts justly is considered a good person.

But this assumes that omniscience is in full service of a plan in such a way that everything is planned. What if an omniscient divine being knows everything but hasn't planned everything? If I accidently drop a glass cup and it shatters on the floor because I am startled by a mouse in my kitchen, a omniscient being may have known that this would happen but this is still an accident. Why?

If you have the power to stop an event that you know to be impending and you do so in furtherance of a goal, then this is a planned event. Not an accident. What sort of will we are going to call this decision makes no difference to the intentional design of an event's occurrence. Which is exactly what this would be. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelette does not mean the omelette is suddenly an accident (assuming you didn't necessarily want to break the eggs so much as wanting to make an omelette).

If someone has the power to stop an event and that someone stops the event in furtherance of a goal, the event that is stopped could still be an accident. Only the action taken to prevent the event would be considered planned, not the event being stopped.

I understand that part. What I don't understand is why you said, "...merely omnipotent and omniscient." What is mere about these two traits being that they are essentially the upward limit of hypothetical 'powers'?

Let me concede that this was a poor choice of words on my part. It doesn't convey what I had in mind so I retract it. What I had in mind, having given this more thought is simply this: suppose you were talking with some theist and the theist stated that omnipotence and omniscience were two attributes that theists like himself could say with complete certainty that God has. God could possibly have other attributes but theists like him were less certain and possibly agnostic about these other attributes-but omnipotence and omniscience theists like him were totally certain about. I think this is a better way of explaining it, rather than saying "merely omnipotent and omniscient".

Okay, this is pretty much what I thought it meant. So, how is it that the divine creator/controller/master/commander/owner/operator of all reality doesn't have this sovereignty?

Doesn't it depend on the relationship of the divine creator to the created cosmos? If the creator didn't intend to create the cosmos and it's an accidental byproduct or if the creator gets bored or somehow disinterested in the cosmos and its affairs and decided to abandon it, wouldn't an accident mean that the creator never intended any kind of sovereignty? Wouldn't abandoning the cosmos mean that the creator is absolving sovereign control over creation? If not, why not?

No, the creator retains sovereignty regardless. There is nothing else to hold this authority.

Unless the creator voluntarily absolves sovereignty or never intended to have sovereign control over the cosmos.

So you do understand that justice is subjective and also not pointless? I can't really figure out if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me here.

I understand that naturalists (most atheists and agnostics) believe that justice is subjective. My position is that if justice is subjective, it's rather pointless. Just like existence. In my opinion, if our existence was unplanned and there is no purpose or point to existence beyond what we individually decide-then for me life becomes pointless and not at all worth living. That's just me. I strongly suspect that our existence was planned.

This is my greatest peeve with secularism. Most atheists who I have dialouged with, either on here or elsewhere, talk as though justice is objective. If they hear a story of some shooting, a child being abused, or a woman being hurt, they demand justice. Yet justice is relative as is morality. No moral theory or theory of justice is any better than any other. To me, morality and justice are incapable of justification in any secular worldview, especially Secular Humanism.

The statement I've put in bold is not correct. There is always a version of morality and justice that trumps all the other ones. That is our personal version of each. We always operate on this version as opposed to any other version.

Actually, I disagree. A version of morality and justice may trump all other ones or just competitors that happen to exist but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It often means that it just works better for the goals and desires of the majority of people that it serves. There is no reason to conclude that one theory of morality is morally superior to any other or that one theory of justice is more just than any other. To say, for instance, that one theory of morality is morally superior to another is to invoke a moral standard for judging moral theories but if we invent such a moral standard we have to ask why is that moral standard a morally good standard? We can't answer that unless we are arguing in a circle and justifying nothing.

Ultimately the reason we should or ought to have a justice system and televisions is because we are selfish and we want those things. Why isn't this a good enough reason? Its the only reason we ever do anything. That includes jumping on grenades and feeding the homeless, btw.

I frankly don't see any point or purpose behind sheer selfishness. If the only point in living was being selfish and there was no other point or purpose, I would not be alive right now, participating in this thread. There is no reason we should or ought to live; we only live because we have a selfish desire to. If this was the case, I would just chose not to live. But since I strongly suspect that life was planned, I rejoice in my existence and I am happy to live. One of the reasons why I renounced atheism is because I started suffering from serious clinical depression as an atheist. Life had no purpose or meaning and so I found it empty and unsatisfying.

Now, as for why would a omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, and necessarily just God would be duty-bound to prevent acts of injustice, I have given this some thought since I last posted in reply to you. I realized it's frankly due to our choice of words and how we use them. We simply cannot call any divine being a "just" or, using my phrasing, a "necessarily just" being and not argue that this being is culpable for acts of injustice because then these words lack meaning for us. Think of it this way: if I knew an innocent person was going to be attacked by a criminal and did nothing to stop it, knowing full well that I had the power and knowledge of how to stop the criminal, I would be guilty of negligence, right? If I am legally guilty of any kind of negligence, then words like "justice" and "negligence" have to mean something. If I fail to do something that makes me guilty of, say, criminal negligence, then the phrase "criminal negligence" has to mean something in order for me to be guilty of it.

When it comes to a divine being who is just, whether we describe such a being as "perfectly just" or "necessarily just" and that divine being fails to prevent acts of injustice in ways that we would be guilty of negligence if we failed to prevent those same acts of injustice, then "negligence" really doesn't mean anything. If a divine being is "perfectly just" or "necessarily just" and yet fails to prevvent acts of injustice, whereas if we failed in exactly those ways, thereby making us guilty of negligence, then the word "just" doesn't mean anything. What does it mean to say a divine being is just? Well, nothing really. It's empty semantics.

Let me give an another example just in case my wording above causes any confusion. If I tell someone a bald-faced lie, then I am being dishonest. If a divine being tells someone an untrue statement and that divine being knows that the statement is not true, then that divine being is dishonest. That divine being is a liar. If we say that the divine being is not being dishonest or is not a liar, then the words "dishonest" and "liar" really don't have any meaning if it doesn't describe someone who knowingly tells someone a untrue statement. If a divine being says to me, "Matthew, you will live forever" and this divine being has told me something that he/she/it knows is not true, that divine being is dishonest. Otherwise, dishonesty doesn't have any real meaning if not to describe people who knowingly tell people untrue statements.

So if theists say that a divine being is "perfectly just" or "necessarily just" and these phrases are just two different ways of saying that this divine being can do no wrong and cannot act in any evil way, then if a divine being does act in an evil way, then that divine being is not "perfectly just" or "necessarly just". Otherwise, the word "just" has no meaning to it.

Matthew

 

[Koldo]

In my opinion, if our existence was unplanned and there is no purpose or point to existence beyond what we individually decide-then for me life becomes pointless and not at all worth living. That's just me.

That's quite extreme. Why do you think this way? What difference would it make if our existence was planned? Does it count if it was planned by our parents?

 

[Matthew78]

That's quite extreme. Why do you think this way? What difference would it make if our existence was planned? Does it count if it was planned by our parents?

Well, you may judge it as extreme and that is up to you. The fact of the matter is that I consider us to be a teleological species; we engage in activities only when we see a point to them. What is the point to eating? To satisfy hunger. What is the point to sleeping? To satisify a need to rest. The only reason for someone like me to start a thread like this was if I had a point in doing so. The reason people respond to threads like this is if they have a point in responding.

So, we do everything for a point even if the point is our own desire for pleasure or our desire to be amused. I am no different. I will only live if I have a point for living. To say there is "a point" to doing something is synonymous for saying that we have a reason for doing something. If someone says, "What is the point to that activity?" they're asking "What is the reason for doing that activity". So I believe that life has to have a purpose for me to live.

But if life is incidental and there is no planning behind it and it's up to each of us to assign purpose or meaning to our lives, then I must ask: what is the point to that? Why bother to live? What is the point to living? If life was not planned or willed into existence and there is no real point to existence, why bother to assign purpose to where there is no ultimate purpose and there never was any to begin with? If atheists are honest about it, they will have to admit that they live and assign their own subjective purpose because they are selfish and for no other reason. I suspect that any atheist who says differently is severely confused, hasn't thought of all of this through, or is not being honest.

As for what difference would it make if our lives were planned-I can think of a serious difference. If our life was planned for a peaceful and just purpose, as I suspect it has been, then it makes sense for us to be honest, kind, respectful, and to treat each other with dignity. If life has no ultimate purpose or plan, then it's every human being for him or herself and there is nothing really wrong with murder, cheating, lying, or stealing to get ahead of life. If atheists object to any of this it's only because such actions intefere with their selfish lives, in my opinion. I suspect that treating people with respect, kindness, or any kind of dignity can only be self-serving for atheists.

As for my parents planning my life-my parents are Christian fundamentalists and want me to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and want me to believe that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God" all of which I cheerfully rejected ten years ago when I was 24 years old. Enough said.

Matthew

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if life is incidental and there is no planning behind it and it's up to each of us to assign purpose or meaning to our lives, then I must ask: what is the point to that? Why bother to live? What is the point to living? If life was not planned or willed into existence and there is no real point to existence, why bother to assign purpose to where there is no ultimate purpose and there never was any to begin with? If atheists are honest about it, they will have to admit that they live and assign their own subjective purpose because they are selfish and for no other reason. I suspect that any atheist who says differently is severely confused, hasn't thought of all of this through, or is not being honest.

By that measure, we'd have no reason to not live, either. What cosmic source are you using for your (apparent) assumption that minimizing "bother" should be a goal?

Personally, I just can't understand the mindset that says "something can't be important to me unless it's important to the universe."

 

[Matthew78]

By that measure, we'd have no reason to not live, either.

I don't understand your reasoning. Would you explain this?

What cosmic source are you using for your (apparent) assumption that minimizing "bother" should be a goal?

What do you mean by this? Where is it my (apparent) assumption that minimizing "bother" should be a goal?

Personally, I just can't understand the mindset that says "something can't be important to me unless it's important to the universe."

So you think that this is my mindset? My mindset is rather I see no point in attaching any purpose to something that exists for no purpose and never has. I just can't understand the mindset of atheists who will perform activities in life because they see a point to such activities (eating, sleeping, living, going to a job, raising a family, etc,..) and yet fail to see the irony of the fact that life has no ultimate purpose and there is no real purpose or point to assigning a subjective meaning to life itself yet atheists do it anyways. It just leaves me scratching my head.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand your reasoning. Would you explain this?

If we really are completely without purpose, then anything we choose to do is just as good as anything else. Why not do the things we think are important? If what you're saying is right, then there's nothing to suggest we shouldn't do them.

What do you mean by this? Where is it my (apparent) assumption that minimizing "bother" should be a goal?

I saw that (or maybe inferred it) from this:

If life was not planned or willed into existence and there is no real point to existence, why bother to assign purpose to where there is no ultimate purpose and there never was any to begin with?

My response is "why not?" The only reasons that would work are either:

a) that it goes against some higher purpose, but you just finished arguing that there aren't any, or
b) there's some reason out there to minimize our "bother".

If nothing matters, then there's nothing wrong with expending our efforts on whatever we want.

So you think that this is my mindset?

It seems to me that it's the implication of your argument.

My mindset is rather I see no point in attaching any purpose to something that exists for no purpose and never has.

But it does have purpose. Just about everything that anyone does deliberately has some sort of purpose behind it, even if that purpose is only subjective. It seems to me that you're complaining about the lack of objective purpose... what I characterized as being "important to the universe."

I just can't understand the mindset of atheists who will perform activities in life because they see a point to such activities (eating, sleeping, living, going to a job, raising a family, etc,..) and yet fail to see the irony of the fact that life has no ultimate purpose and there is no real purpose or point to assigning a subjective meaning to life itself yet atheists do it anyways. It just leaves me scratching my head.

Two images might help you understand the mindset:

(just a link for the first one because it's way too huge to insert into a post)

http://www.statementsofintent.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/inspiration-free.jpg

 

[Koldo]

Well, you may judge it as extreme and that is up to you. The fact of the matter is that I consider us to be a teleological species; we engage in activities only when we see a point to them. What is the point to eating? To satisfy hunger. What is the point to sleeping? To satisify a need to rest. The only reason for someone like me to start a thread like this was if I had a point in doing so. The reason people respond to threads like this is if they have a point in responding.

So, we do everything for a point even if the point is our own desire for pleasure or our desire to be amused. I am no different. I will only live if I have a point for living. To say there is "a point" to doing something is synonymous for saying that we have a reason for doing something. If someone says, "What is the point to that activity?" they're asking "What is the reason for doing that activity". So I believe that life has to have a purpose for me to live.

But if life is incidental and there is no planning behind it and it's up to each of us to assign purpose or meaning to our lives, then I must ask: what is the point to that? Why bother to live? What is the point to living? If life was not planned or willed into existence and there is no real point to existence, why bother to assign purpose to where there is no ultimate purpose and there never was any to begin with? If atheists are honest about it, they will have to admit that they live and assign their own subjective purpose because they are selfish and for no other reason. I suspect that any atheist who says differently is severely confused, hasn't thought of all of this through, or is not being honest.

So living to satisfy your will to live doesn't count as a reason? Why?

As for what difference would it make if our lives were planned-I can think of a serious difference. If our life was planned for a peaceful and just purpose, as I suspect it has been, then it makes sense for us to be honest, kind, respectful, and to treat each other with dignity. If life has no ultimate purpose or plan, then it's every human being for him or herself and there is nothing really wrong with murder, cheating, lying, or stealing to get ahead of life. If atheists object to any of this it's only because such actions intefere with their selfish lives, in my opinion. I suspect that treating people with respect, kindness, or any kind of dignity can only be self-serving for atheists.

Why would it make sense for us to be honest, kind, respectful, and to treat each other with dignity if our life was planned for a peaceful and just purpose?

There seems to be something amiss in this reasoning. If our life was planned in a given way and we are able to do differently, why do we have to do it the way it was planned? What creates this normative?

As for my parents planning my life-my parents are Christian fundamentalists and want me to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and want me to believe that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God" all of which I cheerfully rejected ten years ago when I was 24 years old. Enough said.

Matthew

And here we have an excellent example.
Your parents planned something for you and you are going against the plan.
Just because they had a plan for you, it doesn't mean you ought to follow the plan. You can do otherwise. These kinds of plans don't have any normative power.

 

[Matthew78]

If we really are completely without purpose, then anything we choose to do is just as good as anything else. Why not do the things we think are important? If what you're saying is right, then there's nothing to suggest we shouldn't do them.

"Just as good"? But isn't this invoking some kind of standard? If so, is this standard something we humans invent? If so, then the question becomes "Why invent such a standard?"

Why not do things we think are important? I can only respond: well, I don't know about "we" but I couldn't see any point to them. The things that are important to me would cease to be important to me and I would become hopelessly apathetic.

What do you mean by this? Where is it my (apparent) assumption that minimizing "bother" should be a goal?

I saw that (or maybe inferred it) from this:

If life was not planned or willed into existence and there is no real point to existence, why bother to assign purpose to where there is no ultimate purpose and there never was any to begin with?

My response is "why not?" The only reasons that would work are either:
a) that it goes against some higher purpose, but you just finished arguing that there aren't any, or

b) there's some reason out there to minimize our "bother".
If nothing matters, then there's nothing wrong with expending our efforts on whatever we want.

The only reason I can imagine secularists asking "Why not?" is simple selfishness. But I wasn't arguing against a higher purpose because I believe that there is none. I was granting it, arguendo, just to make a point.

If secularists are alarmed or bothered by the fact that I would find no reason or purpose to life in absence of an objective purpose to life, then I consider this their problem, not mine. But as for nothing wrong with expending our efforts on whatever we want, then by the same token, you have to admit that there is also nothing wrong with murder, rape, war, and torturing human beings for amusement's sake. Yet every secularist that I know of objects to this and I can't for the life of me understand why. It literally boggles my mind. I have come to the conclusion that most secularists are just as irrational and silly as the religionists that some of them lambaste for irrational beliefs.

My mindset is rather I see no point in attaching any purpose to something that exists for no purpose and never has.

But it does have purpose. Just about everything that anyone does deliberately has some sort of purpose behind it, even if that purpose is only subjective. It seems to me that you're complaining about the lack of objective purpose... what I characterized as being "important to the universe."

Everything human beings do, they do so for a purpose. And you're right; I am referring the the lack of an objective purpose to human existence. As for "important to the universe"-I really don't see it this way because that would assume that the universe, as a collective whole, is some kind intelligent, thoughtful, conscious being, which I have no reason to believe. If there is a divine being who exists transcendentally with respect to the universe or is a part of the universe (I lean towards Larry Copling's "panendeism") then the objective purpose may lie in the mind of such a divine being and it may be important to this being while not being important to the universe.

 

[Matthew78]

So living to satisfy your will to live doesn't count as a reason? Why?

For me that's no reason at all. Why? Because I couldn't see any point to living merely satisify my will. Why? Because my will wouldn't matter in the larger scheme of things. My will wouldn't even matter to me. I would become apathetic whether anyone likes it or not. I don't like the idea of a purely selfish existence.

Why would it make sense for us to be honest, kind, respectful, and to treat each other with dignity if our life was planned for a peaceful and just purpose?

Well, honesty, kindness, and respect usually allow us to leave in peace and acting kind and respectful and being honest are considered just. Somehow I doubt that everyone being cruel, dishonest, and torturing everyone would result in a peaceful and just world.

There seems to be something amiss in this reasoning. If our life was planned in a given way and we are able to do differently, why do we have to do it the way it was planned? What creates this normative?

I never said I believe that we have to or would have to. I suspect that we ought to. I am just speculating here-it could be the sense of fairness and empathy that most, if not all, human beings have, that could possibly be endowed by a divine being, that creates this normative.

 

[Koldo]

For me that's no reason at all. Why? Because I couldn't see any point to living merely satisify my will. Why? Because my will wouldn't matter in the larger scheme of things. My will wouldn't even matter to me. I would become apathetic whether anyone likes it or not. I don't like the idea of a purely selfish existence.

But you eat to satisfy your hunger, and you sleep to satisfy your need of sleep. None of these matter in the ( very ) larger scheme of things either. And these are selfish acts by nature. You are not being consistent here.

Well, honesty, kindness, and respect usually allow us to leave in peace and acting kind and respectful and being honest are considered just. Somehow I doubt that everyone being cruel, dishonest, and torturing everyone would result in a peaceful and just world.

But by saying this you are exposing your own will, your own feelings. You haven't even mentioned any sort of ultimate plan or purpose given to you by a god. You are using a rationale that doesn't require any god.

I never said I believe that we have to or would have to. I suspect that we ought to. I am just speculating here-it could be the sense of fairness and empathy that most, if not all, human beings have, that could possibly be endowed by a divine being, that creates this normative.

If we don't have to or would have to, why do you deem the ultimate plan that important at all? Why would it be relevant as to whether you should live?

 

[Matthew78]

But you eat to satisfy your hunger, and you sleep to satisfy your need of sleep. None of these matter in the ( very ) larger scheme of things either. And these are selfish acts by nature. You are not being consistent here.

Not at all. I see no point in living merely to satisfy my will to survive. The key word here is merely. Satisfying hunger, sleep, and any other survival fuction are selfish acts and do not ultimately matter in a secularist view of life but a secularist view of life is not one that I subscribe to. I am alive because I suspect that I was brought into existence for a larger purpose as part of an objective purpose to human existence; I suspect that fulfilling my existence-driven needs is part of that objective purpose. No inconsistency here.

But by saying this you are exposing your own will, your own feelings. You haven't even mentioned any sort of ultimate plan or purpose given to you by a god. You are using a rationale that doesn't require any god.

Of course I am exposing my own will and feelings. I hope that it's in alignment with a higher and objective purpose for humanity and my life is on a quest to find out what that objective purpose may be if there is one. I am on a spiritual quest to find out if there is an objective purpose to life.

If we don't have to or would have to, why do you deem the ultimate plan that important at all? Why would it be relevant as to whether you should live?

With great respect to you, I don't think you know much about my background and it's probably time that I made it more pertinent to our discussion so it might help you understand why I think I do.

I was an atheist for seven years and I considered myself a Secular Humanist. At first, I felt great and very liberated because I felt that I could have all the guilt-free sex that I wanted to with very beautiful women as long as they were legal adults. However, this initial excitement eventually wore off. When I started to strongly introspect my life, I realized that it was all just sheer selfisheness and there was nothing really out there for the Secular Humanist in terms of purpose.

For every sex-worshipping atheist, which included myself, there comes a time where living life just to have sex with very beautiful women becomes empty. Is that all there is to life? For me, that's all there was. That didn't prove to be a very satisfying life. And when I thought about it, after a long while, life started to prove very empty. Reading all the science books and being filled with wonder about this universe, going to a job every day, eating delicious food and not worrying about being judged for indulging in an occasional guilty pleasure, became very unsatisfying.

I am a very analytical person. In fact, I am hyperanalytical. That's just a character trait that I have. But I introspect often and eventually life proved not to be empty but also depressing. This may be impossible for some atheists to believe but after a while I started to become depressed. In fact, I started to suffer serious clinical depression and I often contemplated ending it all because there was no purpose to life. For me, having no objective purpose to life is an extremely mortifying and extremely depressing realization. Coming to believe that there is no objective purpose to life or to human existence would result in a very severe depression for me that I cannot imagine surviving.However, my life is not at all gloomy or depressing these days; in fact, I am joyful with the spiritual quest that I am on and I have very cheerful hope that it will prove rewarding with conclusions that will satisfy me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Just as good"? But isn't this invoking some kind of standard?

No, it's pointing out the lack of standard that you've assumed in your premises. Without a standard, we don't have any way to say that one option is better or worse than another.

Why not do things we think are important? I can only respond: well, I don't know about "we" but I couldn't see any point to them. The things that are important to me would cease to be important to me and I would become hopelessly apathetic.

What point would you see in sitting around on your butt doing nothing? In the words of the band Rush, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

The only reason I can imagine secularists asking "Why not?" is simple selfishness.

The only reason you can imagine for someone automatically, unquestioningly accepting your position is selfishness? Really?

If secularists are alarmed or bothered by the fact that I would find no reason or purpose to life in absence of an objective purpose to life, then I consider this their problem, not mine.

But it's not our problem. It would only be our problem if we accepted your worldview, and so far, you haven't shown why this is necessary.

Personally, I see some inherent conflict in your argument that it should matter to us that nothing should matter to us.

But as for nothing wrong with expending our efforts on whatever we want, then by the same token, you have to admit that there is also nothing wrong with murder, rape, war, and torturing human beings for amusement's sake. Yet every secularist that I know of objects to this and I can't for the life of me understand why. It literally boggles my mind. I have come to the conclusion that most secularists are just as irrational and silly as the religionists that some of them lambaste for irrational beliefs.

I think the problem might be that you're confusing a lack of objective, "cosmic" purpose with a lack of purpose altogether. Like I said a while back, the mere fact that the universe doesn't care about something doesn't necessarily imply that I shouldn't care about it. My frame of reference is not the whole universe, so I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to expect that "universal" priorities would sync up with my priorities.

And I keep getting the sense that you're unwilling to fully acknowledge the implications of what you're arguing. You say things like how I "have to" admit that there's nothing wrong with rape and murder, but if your argument is correct, then there's nothing wrong with objecting to rape and murder. If you're going to complain about perceived irrationality in other people, then the least you could do is make an effort to be consistent and actually think through the implications of what you're arguing.

Basically, you're arguing that we should really care about the fact that we shouldn't care about anything. You can see how this is inherently contradictory, can't you?

Everything human beings do, they do so for a purpose. And you're right; I am referring the the lack of an objective purpose to human existence. As for "important to the universe"-I really don't see it this way because that would assume that the universe, as a collective whole, is some kind intelligent, thoughtful, conscious being, which I have no reason to believe. If there is a divine being who exists transcendentally with respect to the universe or is a part of the universe (I lean towards Larry Copling's "panendeism") then the objective purpose may lie in the mind of such a divine being and it may be important to this being while not being important to the universe.

I don't think that this is an implication of what I was arguing... or at least that's not how I intended it. I meant "important to the universe" in a similar sense to "important to the country" or "important to the environment." I'm only trying to refer to a frame of reference, not imply that the universe is sentient.

It seems to me that you're confusing an "is" with an "ought": your argument basically boils down to this:

- nothing matters to the universe
- therefore, nothing should matter to us.

Setting aside the fact that I don't think you've really demonstrated your first point, I don't think the second point actually flows from the first.

 

[Matthew78]

I would like to continue the discussion with 9-10th and Koldo on another thread regarding meaning and morality in a secular worldview. However, I don't want it to continue in this thread as this was made with the point of discussing my new proposal for an argument from evil, with evil defined as injustice. I'm afraid this thread has gone somewhat off-topic but I assume that everyone who has something to say has put their two cents in?