tarasan
Well-Known Member
Hey guys!! I have just gotten my last assignment back for my degree in Christian theology! Yay!!
I was talking to a fellow student of Christian theology yesterday about Ontology. More specifically it was about whether it is better to exist in eternal suffering or to not exist at all.
My friend said that it seemed obvious that it was better to not exist than to suffer eternally for the obvious reason that to not exist at all means that the person in question does not suffer, I however am not so convinced. Now before someone blows the bull horn at me please here me out because Im more than willing to be convinced of the other side.
It seems to me the dividing questions between me and my friend is firstly
1) is the meaning of life to be happy/comfortable
and
2) it is possible for suffering in someones life to genuinely outweigh the positives of existence. (Thereby making non-existence preferable)
I will answer both questions in my view now I will try to keep it short-winded.
1) I believe that the happiness of ones life is not the end goal, but rather the pursuit of meaning and relevance of your life (to me and my friend this is the Christian God, but other views are very welcome in this discussion).
2) Following from 1 I believe that no matter the suffering it is always worth existing and I believe this for a number of reasons
a) to deny the existence of a thing, you must deny all the experiences that said thing could have had.
What I mean by this is that to deny its existence is to deny the happiness that it had, as well denying the happiness that it gave to people, and the repercussions of that happiness.
b) You must deny the legacy that said entity gave to the world.
That is you must deny the learning experience that the entity left behind.
c) You must deny the thing true meaning
to me meaning is that it has a legitimate affect on individuals or God (again my interpretation) by being denied existence then it has not had the chance to fulfil either of these things, because its potential significance of either God or people has been denied to it.
I know these seem like fairly simple ideas but I know that people probably wont read an essay. I hope that this made sense please everyone feel free to comment.
I was talking to a fellow student of Christian theology yesterday about Ontology. More specifically it was about whether it is better to exist in eternal suffering or to not exist at all.
My friend said that it seemed obvious that it was better to not exist than to suffer eternally for the obvious reason that to not exist at all means that the person in question does not suffer, I however am not so convinced. Now before someone blows the bull horn at me please here me out because Im more than willing to be convinced of the other side.
It seems to me the dividing questions between me and my friend is firstly
1) is the meaning of life to be happy/comfortable
and
2) it is possible for suffering in someones life to genuinely outweigh the positives of existence. (Thereby making non-existence preferable)
I will answer both questions in my view now I will try to keep it short-winded.
1) I believe that the happiness of ones life is not the end goal, but rather the pursuit of meaning and relevance of your life (to me and my friend this is the Christian God, but other views are very welcome in this discussion).
2) Following from 1 I believe that no matter the suffering it is always worth existing and I believe this for a number of reasons
a) to deny the existence of a thing, you must deny all the experiences that said thing could have had.
What I mean by this is that to deny its existence is to deny the happiness that it had, as well denying the happiness that it gave to people, and the repercussions of that happiness.
b) You must deny the legacy that said entity gave to the world.
That is you must deny the learning experience that the entity left behind.
c) You must deny the thing true meaning
to me meaning is that it has a legitimate affect on individuals or God (again my interpretation) by being denied existence then it has not had the chance to fulfil either of these things, because its potential significance of either God or people has been denied to it.
I know these seem like fairly simple ideas but I know that people probably wont read an essay. I hope that this made sense please everyone feel free to comment.