The Fact of Death

Very good point, but I think one could argue that the surf's obedience would be considered an accomplishment by the surf.We have all always been egotistical.

chris simon
porteus jr Our beliefs are a natural construct we use to ease the fear of death and loss of loved ones that are threatening to many people. In what way do you feel my view is limited? If you mean that I view the world oas being void of gods and ghosts and such things I admit that this is the case. We are in many ways still afraid of the world and our mortality.We are less fearful in that we have learned that many of the semmingly oppressive enviromental factors such a lightning,floods,earthquakes are natural results of natural processes.We excercise a level of control on many of the things that in the past {famine,disease,natural disasters} claimed lives on a regular basis. I am not sure what you are aiming at here. Could you please clarify?

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

To get a better feel for your point of view can you answer the following question?Why are we here?

---

listen to phil collins and nas

chris simon
poteus jrI do not think there is a why woven into the world.We are the result of forces interacting in a mysterious way that we are slowly uncovering as we learn to ask the right questions.The mystery is only such until we reveal its workings.
Interestingly the universe shows us that first impressions of the nature of how we think about origins is heavily biased by our attempts to relate subtle nuances of the world to our preconcieved but false notions.This is not to say that life can have no purpose.

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

I think that you are mistaken,in that reasoning to see a God is not a false notion.If we are biased we are biased only because of this world that we are in (which is in no way wrong) to see a God.Saying mystery is a convenient way to word the limitations of self, of that we don't know why we are here and may never know.Who's to say this isn't plausible or not "false" reasoning. You certainly can't. You are human also. You are heavily biased whether you would wish to believe so or not. It is human to think that your reasoning is correct.

quote:

---

our preconcieved but false notions.

---

The first human beings thought process and reasoning wasn't preconcieved, they were living it. You must realize that they had the knowledge, the experience.Your closing statement led me to ponder this question, I do believe we have purpose but if this existence has no purpose and is completely random, if this world possesses only random qualities...
How can life have a purpose when there is no purpose for being here like you stated?

---

listen to phil collins and nas

chris simon
porteus jr Not at all.That we are limited in what we can learn is a consequence of our ability to investigate scientifically.There are limits imposed on investigation simply by the nature of the world.Quantum physics only allows us to set probabilities of events in space-time and also presents to us a clear stricture on the properties of the universe as a consequence of the structure of the universe.We all die as a consequence of the way the physical laws of the world unfold.We are subject to those physical laws and they are immutable. Just so we are clear as to my statement concerning false notions The error in human reasoning is to suppose that our usual experience of existence is true to the nature of the world.We are normally content to assume that the world our senses relate to us are true but they are quite often in error.That we make mistakes in judgement when we do not carefully investigate phenomena is well documented.
We have debates endlessly about how the universe began but due to misunderstanding of the actual nature of things we never stop to pay attention to the ramifications of physical laws.You may or may not have heard of the uncertainty principle.This law of the universe states that we cannot know both the position of a particle and its momentum to a better accuracy than a certain limit.So what you say? OK, because of this we cannot ever reach the limit of temperature known as absolute zero since if all motion were to cease as required by absolute zero then we would therefore kwno both the position and momentum to better than the limit of the uncertainty principle.If we know the momentum very accurately then the particle has a wide range of places{position} where it can be.Conversely if we know its position well we have no real idea of the momentum.This also holds true for energy and time.So what? OK now we have a question as to where the energy of the universe comes from.Since a large amount of energy is allowed by the uncertainty principle the amount of time within which that energy can be available must be exceedingly brief.Here comes the fun part.We do not know {since experiments to confirm this are difficult in the extreme} if the laws of physics apply at the extremes of temperature back at the start of the universe we know today however if the uncertainty principle is still valid then the universe need not have had a definite beginning for the following reason.
Since the background radiation we measure today means that the temperature {and thus the avaiable energy} was not infinite then the amount of time that could be available to begin the universe had to be exceddingly tiny in order for the energy -time relation of the uncertainty principle to stay within the limit imposed.
There could not have been an actual beginning either since this would also violate the uncertainty principle because the momentum and position of all paricles would be zero and thus below the limit the universe itself imposes.So where does this leave us? It now restricts us to a given set of possibilties and we must change our way of viewing momentum position time and energy of the particles which make upo the universe. I never said it was preconcieved. I said it was constructed as a defense mechanism to deal with a frightening uncertain world governed by unkowable{to them} forces attributed to god or gods.Or dragons etc. We make our own out of the interplay of ourselves with others to enjoy life for as long as we have it:to sing,to dance,to go canoeing, to rest on a beach watching waves to raise children aand watch them grow. The list is endless.That a mortal life is our irreversible fate does not make it meaningless while we can produce our own raison d^etre right?This message has been edited by sidelined, Thu, 2005-05-19 12:42 AM

For me, accomplishment pertains to life's optional extras: the things above and beyond that which you have to do to maintain adequate levels of health. Its the cool stuff like excelling or improving in art, or other intellectual and physical pursuits.If everything you do that helps you stay alive a bit longer is an accomplishment, then I'm not sure how meaningful the idea of accomplishment is.To return to our medieval peasants, I don't know if their obedience to their feudal lord can be considered an accomplishment as we understand it. It certainly helps keep them healthy, but I don't think it does much more than that.I'm not sure if that's actually much help, or has any bearing on your argument at all. Perhaps I shall shut my trap now.

I would think that what one thinks of as an "accomplishment" varies greatly and is quite subjective. I can visualize someone in a desparate situation viewing their ability to stay alive as a great accomplishment. If one's circumstances are easy, and it is quite easy to "stay alive," then one's mind turns to extra-curricular activities, so to speak. But I stand with the idea that "accomplishment," however low or high, on whatever level of life, is of primary importance to people. Some are quite easy with their level of accomplishment; others are rather hard on themselves.As to the serf, I had in mind a different worldview than we might have. I don't know what the worldview of the typical serf might have been, but one can speculate. It might have been religious, and he conceived of his religious duties in terms of obedience to the serf Lord, and he could very well consider it an accomplisment to do what was expected him and perhaps do them better than other serfs. Or he might have considered it an accomplishment to get himself a piece of meat to eat on Friday night, an unusual treat. Or perhaps he would consider it an accomplishment to learn some skill that was difficult for him to know about.What we consider accomplishment is interwoven with our particular circumstances.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-19-2005 04:26 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-19-2005 04:27 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-19-2005 04:28 PM

I think we agree for the most part or at least, your point of view is respectable and would have no reason or need to dispute what u wrote.You came to a decnt conclusion

Yes, I went back through the archives and dug this up. You ask the real questions. This one didn't get the attention it deserved. I agree with everything you said in your OP. I thought a lot like you at one time. But things are so completely different now. Although I would like to be able to discuss that frame of mind to some extent, I don't know if I can any more. God reached down and plucked me out of it. It was a tremendous event, a total upheaval, an overturning of everything. It is hard to get back to there from here. Both because I don't remember too clearly how I used to think, and because I know that the answer to everything is Jesus Christ, and am anxious to communicate that.Accomplishment does seem to be the goal of life for most of us, and if we fail to reach it we experience the disappointment in ourselves you are talking about.And yes, the great tragedy of life IS the fact that we must die.BUT: Somebody at EvC recently said he didn't like Augustine. Was that you? If so, you won't appreciate his answer to your question:"Our hearts are restless till they find their rest in thee."As the Westminster Catechism says: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever."Robin, we are all immortal souls, God is real, He offers eternal life, how do I convince you?This message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 03:53 AM

{messages 16 through 18 in this thread}Regarding Faith's last remark, my conclusion would be the exact opposite: we know more now than we used to know then. That's why modern science dismisses the afterlife as a myth.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 29-Dec-2005 10:22 AM

---

Modern science cannot have one thing to say about the possibility of an afterlife.

On the contrary, it can. Based on what science has found out about nature in general, and about brains and minds in particular, it can say of the afterlife that it is rather unlikely. Science could be wrong on that account, but as long as each and every investigation into the matter, under controlled circumstances, yields zero results, I think we can safely assume that the afterlife is most probably a myth.('Safely', 'assume', and 'most probably', that's three terms of tentativity in one sentence. A bit overdone?)

---

The afterlife is beyond nature, Para, and beyond all the testing capacities of science. If the brain is merely a physical instrument for the use of the soul, rather than the seat of it as science assumes, you cannot learn one thing about the afterlife or the life of the soul from science.

Agreed. Eternal misery is quite scary. Unfortunately, we really don't know which eternal misery we would fall prey to. From my point of view, choosing which God to follow is the most important decision we could make (for the athiest/agnostic: a check mark in the "No god today, thanks" box is still a choice). However, evidence supporting a particular belief over the others is severely lacking. I find it amazing that people who would spend hours or days comparing automobiles before buying spend less time deciding what God to worship than they did choosing their margarine.
So, how does one determine the right God to worship?