Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TCS] Re: [BoI] Do you believe in God?

Expand Messages
  • Rami Rustom
    ... Do you think having fun is worth something? -- Rami Rustom http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 30, 2012
      On Sep 29, 2012 6:41 PM, <smitra@...> wrote:
      >
      > Citeren Rami Rustom <rombomb@...>:
      >
      > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Alan Forrester
      > > <alanmichaelforrester@...> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> On 28 Sep 2012, at 03:29, Rami Rustom <rombomb@...> wrote:
      > >>
      > >>> Kid: Do you believe in God?
      > >>>
      > >>> Parent: No.
      > >>>
      > >>> Kid: Why not?
      > >>>
      > >>> Parent: All life is problem solving. What problem does God solve?
      > >>>
      > >>> Kid: He solves being sad.
      > >>
      > >> The idea that god exists could solve feeling sad depending on your
      > >> standards, but that's not the same as god solving the problem. If
      > >> the parent likes reading Sherlock Holmes stories that's not the same
      > >> as Sherlock Holmes solving the problem of amusing the parent.
      > >>
      > >>> Parent: He doesn't solve *my* sadness.
      > >>
      > >> What does that have to do with anything? That leaves open the
      > >> possibility that if the parent did believe in god that would help
      > >> him be happy, or that such belief would be a good way to live
      > >> compared to rationality. (Many atheists are irrational and have
      > >> worse lives than most theists, but that's due to problems in their
      > >> worldview not just to atheism.)
      > >
      > > There will be many discussions between parent and child about this. So
      > > for example, the day after this discussion parent could say, "Do you
      > > remember the discussion we had yesterday your idea that God solves
      > > sadness?" "How does he do that exactly?"
      > >
      > >
      > >>> Kid: Thats because you don't get sad.
      > >>>
      > >>> Parent: I've been sad before. And each time I'm sad, its because I had
      > >>> a problem. And I found a solution to that problem and solved it. That
      > >>> means I didn't have that problem anymore.
      > >>>
      > >>> Kid: [goes back to watching tv]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> The child does get sad
      > >
      > > Or the child has another parent that gets sad and believes in God and
      > > talks to the child about how God helps him not be sad.
      > >
      > > -- Rami Rustom
      > > http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
      > >
      >
      > The (false) idea of a God solves the problem of giving (a false)
      > meaning to our existence. The problem really is that our lives are
      > completely worthless.

      Do you think having fun is worth something?

      -- Rami Rustom
      http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
    • smitra@zonnet.nl
      ... Yes, but then you have some finite set of states that can represent you, so you end up living forever but with memory loss (I m assuming that an entity
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 30, 2012
        Citeren Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>:

        >
        > On 29 Sep 2012, at 22:55, smitra@... wrote:
        >
        >> Citeren Rami Rustom <rombomb@...>:
        >>
        >> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Alan Forrester
        >> > <alanmichaelforrester@...> wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> On 28 Sep 2012, at 03:29, Rami Rustom <rombomb@...> wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >>> Kid: Do you believe in God?
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Parent: No.
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Kid: Why not?
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Parent: All life is problem solving. What problem does God solve?
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Kid: He solves being sad.
        >> >>
        >> >> The idea that god exists could solve feeling sad depending on your
        >> >> standards, but that's not the same as god solving the problem. If
        >> >> the parent likes reading Sherlock Holmes stories that's not the
        >> same
        >> >> as Sherlock Holmes solving the problem of amusing the parent.
        >> >>
        >> >>> Parent: He doesn't solve *my* sadness.
        >> >>
        >> >> What does that have to do with anything? That leaves open the
        >> >> possibility that if the parent did believe in god that would help
        >> >> him be happy, or that such belief would be a good way to live
        >> >> compared to rationality. (Many atheists are irrational and have
        >> >> worse lives than most theists, but that's due to problems in their
        >> >> worldview not just to atheism.)
        >> >
        >> > There will be many discussions between parent and child about
        >> this. So
        >> > for example, the day after this discussion parent could say, "Do you
        >> > remember the discussion we had yesterday your idea that God solves
        >> > sadness?" "How does he do that exactly?"
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >>> Kid: Thats because you don't get sad.
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Parent: I've been sad before. And each time I'm sad, its because
        >> I had
        >> >>> a problem. And I found a solution to that problem and solved it.
        >> That
        >> >>> means I didn't have that problem anymore.
        >> >>>
        >> >>> Kid: [goes back to watching tv]
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> The child does get sad
        >> >
        >> > Or the child has another parent that gets sad and believes in God
        >> and
        >> > talks to the child about how God helps him not be sad.
        >> >
        >> > -- Rami Rustom
        >> > http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
        >> >
        >>
        >> The (false) idea of a God solves the problem of giving (a false)
        >> meaning to our existence. The problem really is that our lives are
        >> completely worthless. Whatever you do in your life, it will all be
        >> lost
        >> after your death. Even if future generations benefit from your
        >> contributions, all will be lost eventually. The Sun will get hotter
        >> and
        >> the surface of the Earth will completely melt and then the Earth will
        >> be swallowed by the Sun as it becomes a Red Giant. Even if we escape
        >> all of this, the universe will effectively end in one way or another
        >> (e.g. all the protons will decay after 10^40 years).
        >>
        >
        >
        > You don't know that. It is a personal opinion based an Aristotelian
        > theologies, with
        >
        > It is also probably false in case we are digitalizable machine. We can
        > prevent physical universes to flourish again and again, in
        > appearances, with longer and longer histories.
        >
        > For a computationalist, the possible ending looks like wishful
        > thinking. Consciousness is a sort of inescapable arithmetical prison.

        Yes, but then you have some finite set of states that can represent
        you, so you end up living forever but with memory loss (I'm assuming
        that an entity with an infinite memory cannot be "me").

        >
        >
        >>
        >> Coping with life knowing that it is completely meaningless, is too
        >> difficult for most people.
        >>
        > Some possible meaning of life might be difficult to cope with, too,
        > for some people.

        That's why people tend to select that meaning that fits them best :) .



        Saibal
      • Bruno Marchal
        ... Quite plausible. But difficult question, technically. We can wakeup having two disconnected memories of dreams, and I cannot exclude logically states
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 1, 2012
          On 30 Sep 2012, at 22:29, smitra@... wrote:

          > Citeren Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>:
          >
          > >
          > > On 29 Sep 2012, at 22:55, smitra@... wrote:
          > >
          > >> Citeren Rami Rustom <rombomb@...>:
          > >>
          > >> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Alan Forrester
          > >> > <alanmichaelforrester@...> wrote:
          > >> >>
          > >> >> On 28 Sep 2012, at 03:29, Rami Rustom <rombomb@...> wrote:
          > >> >>
          > >> >>> Kid: Do you believe in God?
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Parent: No.
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Kid: Why not?
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Parent: All life is problem solving. What problem does God
          > solve?
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Kid: He solves being sad.
          > >> >>
          > >> >> The idea that god exists could solve feeling sad depending on
          > your
          > >> >> standards, but that's not the same as god solving the problem.
          > If
          > >> >> the parent likes reading Sherlock Holmes stories that's not the
          > >> same
          > >> >> as Sherlock Holmes solving the problem of amusing the parent.
          > >> >>
          > >> >>> Parent: He doesn't solve *my* sadness.
          > >> >>
          > >> >> What does that have to do with anything? That leaves open the
          > >> >> possibility that if the parent did believe in god that would
          > help
          > >> >> him be happy, or that such belief would be a good way to live
          > >> >> compared to rationality. (Many atheists are irrational and have
          > >> >> worse lives than most theists, but that's due to problems in
          > their
          > >> >> worldview not just to atheism.)
          > >> >
          > >> > There will be many discussions between parent and child about
          > >> this. So
          > >> > for example, the day after this discussion parent could say,
          > "Do you
          > >> > remember the discussion we had yesterday your idea that God
          > solves
          > >> > sadness?" "How does he do that exactly?"
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >>> Kid: Thats because you don't get sad.
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Parent: I've been sad before. And each time I'm sad, its
          > because
          > >> I had
          > >> >>> a problem. And I found a solution to that problem and solved
          > it.
          > >> That
          > >> >>> means I didn't have that problem anymore.
          > >> >>>
          > >> >>> Kid: [goes back to watching tv]
          > >> >>
          > >> >>
          > >> >> The child does get sad
          > >> >
          > >> > Or the child has another parent that gets sad and believes in God
          > >> and
          > >> > talks to the child about how God helps him not be sad.
          > >> >
          > >> > -- Rami Rustom
          > >> > http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
          > >> >
          > >>
          > >> The (false) idea of a God solves the problem of giving (a false)
          > >> meaning to our existence. The problem really is that our lives are
          > >> completely worthless. Whatever you do in your life, it will all be
          > >> lost
          > >> after your death. Even if future generations benefit from your
          > >> contributions, all will be lost eventually. The Sun will get hotter
          > >> and
          > >> the surface of the Earth will completely melt and then the Earth
          > will
          > >> be swallowed by the Sun as it becomes a Red Giant. Even if we
          > escape
          > >> all of this, the universe will effectively end in one way or
          > another
          > >> (e.g. all the protons will decay after 10^40 years).
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > > You don't know that. It is a personal opinion based an Aristotelian
          > > theologies, with
          > >
          > > It is also probably false in case we are digitalizable machine. We
          > can
          > > prevent physical universes to flourish again and again, in
          > > appearances, with longer and longer histories.
          > >
          > > For a computationalist, the possible ending looks like wishful
          > > thinking. Consciousness is a sort of inescapable arithmetical
          > prison.
          >
          > Yes, but then you have some finite set of states that can represent
          > you, so you end up living forever but with memory loss (I'm assuming
          > that an entity with an infinite memory cannot be "me").
          >

          Quite plausible. But difficult question, technically.
          We can wakeup having two disconnected memories of dreams, and I
          cannot exclude logically states where we could remember different
          disconnected lives, but I doubt it would make sense to remember an
          infinity of life. Actually, I don't know.


          >
          > >
          > >
          > >>
          > >> Coping with life knowing that it is completely meaningless, is too
          > >> difficult for most people.
          > >>
          > > Some possible meaning of life might be difficult to cope with, too,
          > > for some people.
          >
          > That's why people tend to select that meaning that fits them best :) .
          >
          That might be the point. Meaning is what we bring in the picture.

          Bruno



          http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ismail Atalay
          ...   ... The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence however this idea does not solve the existential problem of
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 1, 2012
            >On 30 Sep 2012, at 23:29, smitra@... wrote:



             
            >>Citeren Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>:

            >>> On 29 Sep 2012, at 22:55, smitra@... wrote:

            >>> The (false) idea of a God solves the problem of giving (a false)
            >>> meaning to our existence. The problem really is that our lives are
            >>> completely worthless.

            The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence however this idea does not solve the existential problem of meaning


            >>>Whatever you do in your life, it will all be
            >>> lost
            >>> after your death. Even if future generations benefit from your
            >>>contributions, all will be lost eventually. The Sun will get hotter
            >>>and
            >>>the surface of the Earth will completely melt and then the Earth will
            >>> be swallowed by the Sun as it becomes a Red Giant. Even if we escape
            >>>all of this, the universe will effectively end in one way or another
            >>>(e.g. all the protons will decay after 10^40 years).
            You are assuming that physical universe is existentially and ontologically fundamental. So the universe has popped out of nothingness and is coming back to nothingness after long time. According to this view, it would have made no fundamental difference if the universe (or any universe) did not exist at all. There is no real value or meaning in the universe then.
            There is a fundamental problem in above thought. Why the universe we live in that has no fundamental value/meaning in its existence includes conscious agents arousing from it with an understanding of meaning/value?
            Could the answer to this question be : The value and meaning are more fundamental then this universe and will not go away even if 1o^400 years passes.


            >Yes, but then you have some finite set of states that can represent
            >you, so you end up living forever but with memory loss (I'm assuming
            >that an entity with an infinite memory cannot be "me").

            Without value and meaning, there would not be "me".


            Ismail Atalay



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Rami Rustom
            ... How does the God idea solve that problem? ... Its not the universe that needs meaning. Each individual wants meaning in their lives. ... Individuals should
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 13, 2012
              On Oct 1, 2012 12:13 PM, "Ismail Atalay" <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
              >
              > >On 30 Sep 2012, at 23:29, smitra@... wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >>Citeren Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>:
              >
              > >>> On 29 Sep 2012, at 22:55, smitra@... wrote:
              >
              > >>> The (false) idea of a God solves the problem of giving (a false)
              > >>> meaning to our existence. The problem really is that our lives are
              > >>> completely worthless.
              >
              > The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence however this idea does not solve the existential problem of meaning

              How does the God idea solve that problem?


              >
              > >>>Whatever you do in your life, it will all be
              > >>> lost
              > >>> after your death. Even if future generations benefit from your
              > >>>contributions, all will be lost eventually. The Sun will get hotter
              > >>>and
              > >>>the surface of the Earth will completely melt and then the Earth will
              > >>> be swallowed by the Sun as it becomes a Red Giant. Even if we escape
              > >>>all of this, the universe will effectively end in one way or another
              > >>>(e.g. all the protons will decay after 10^40 years).
              > You are assuming that physical universe is existentially and ontologically fundamental. So the universe has popped out of nothingness and is coming back to nothingness after long time. According to this view, it would have made no fundamental difference if the universe (or any universe) did not exist at all. There is no real value or meaning in the universe then.

              Its not the universe that needs meaning. Each individual wants meaning
              in their lives.


              > There is a fundamental problem in above thought. Why the universe we live in that has no fundamental value/meaning in its existence includes conscious agents arousing from it with an understanding of meaning/value?

              Individuals should create meaning in their own lives. Only they know
              their preferences/interests. No one else can know what their
              preferences/interests are.

              -- Rami
            • Ismail Atalay
              ...   I presume you refer to The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence . The idea of God implies that our existence
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 13, 2012
                >On Oct 3, 2012 19:08 PM, Rami Rustom wrote:

                >>On Oct 1, 2012 12:13 PM, "Ismail Atalay" <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:

                >>The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence however this idea does not solve
                >>the existential problem of meaning

                >How does the God idea solve that problem?
                 
                I presume you refer to "The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence". The idea of God implies that our existence (human existence) does have existential/non-contextual meaning since humanbeing is created by God.
                 
                >> You are assuming that physical universe is existentially and ontologically fundamental. So the universe has popped >>out of nothingness and is coming back to nothingness after long time. According to this view, it would have made no >>fundamental difference if the universe (or any universe) did not exist at all. There is no real value or meaning in the >>universe then.

                >Its not the universe that needs meaning. Each individual wants meaning
                >in their lives.
                 
                Actually I do not think universe needs a meaning. The universe either has fundamental/non-contextual meaning or it has not fundamental/non-contextual meaning.
                 
                Yes you are absolutely right. Each human wants meaning in their lives. Actually it is a type of need in self-realization level. A meaningless life could be like a nightmare.
                 
                However we should always differentiate between personal/contextual and existential/non-contextual meaning. For example is the emotional meaning a product of human mind with no applicability or presence outside this domain/context. If yes we say that the meaning is a contextual property of existence.
                 
                The main problem with contextual meaning is that we should answer questions like
                1-Why human mind invented such very complicated contextual function such as meaning?
                2-Why is it so important for humans?
                 
                Assuming (correctness of) contextual meaning, I could not find any plausible responses to above questions. Any ideas are always most welcome. 
                 
                >> There is a fundamental problem in above thought. Why the universe we live in that has no fundamental >>value/meaning in its existence includes conscious agents arousing from it with an understanding of meaning/value?

                >Individuals should create meaning in their own lives. Only they know
                >their preferences/interests. No one else can know what their
                >preferences/interests are.
                 
                It seems that you are favoring personal/contextual meaning.
                 
                I disagree with you. I think personal/contextual meaning concept has problems in explaining the answers to the 2 questions I have asked above.
                 
                Assuming universal/non-contextual meaning the answers to these questions would be
                 
                1- The human mind did not invent meaning since it is a non-contextual/existential concept.
                2- Meaning/search for meaning/need for meaning is inherent in our existence.
                 
                Through 2, it is also very easy to explain why humans have understanding of meaning.
                 
                Ismail
              • Rami Rustom
                ... That might solve *your* problem of meaning in *your* life, but most people don t think that that solution works for *their* problem of meaning of *their*
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 14, 2012
                  On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
                  >>On Oct 3, 2012 19:08 PM, Rami Rustom wrote:
                  >
                  >>>On Oct 1, 2012 12:13 PM, "Ismail Atalay" <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>>The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence however this idea does not solve
                  >>>the existential problem of meaning
                  >
                  >>How does the God idea solve that problem?
                  >
                  > I presume you refer to "The idea of a God completely solves the problem of giving meaning to our existence". The idea of God implies that our existence (human existence) does have existential/non-contextual meaning since humanbeing is created by God.

                  That might solve *your* problem of meaning in *your* life, but most
                  people don't think that that solution works for *their* problem of
                  meaning of *their* lives.


                  >>> There is a fundamental problem in above thought. Why the universe we live in that has no fundamental >>value/meaning in its existence includes conscious agents arousing from it with an understanding of meaning/value?
                  >
                  >>Individuals should create meaning in their own lives. Only they know
                  >>their preferences/interests. No one else can know what their
                  >>preferences/interests are.
                  >
                  > It seems that you are favoring personal/contextual meaning.
                  >
                  > I disagree with you.

                  I don't see how you can disagree with me. I'm saying that people want
                  to know the meaning of their lives. I'm just reporting what they are
                  saying. Are you saying that they don't say that?

                  So their problem is that they don't know the meaning of their lives
                  but they want to know the meaning of their lives. And many people
                  solve this problem by accepting a religion which tells them the
                  meaning of their lives.

                  And I'm saying that the God idea is a poor solution to that problem.
                  Each one of us should create meaning in our own lives. No one knows
                  our interests or preferences besides ourselves so each one of us is
                  best equipped to figure out the meaning of his life.

                  -- Rami Rustom
                  http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.