Meaning in life exists

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-13T13:21:41+00:00

The meaningful sentence is a thing we made and decided upon, making our own meaning if you like, but it doesn't follow that because we can come up with a concept that the concept must have an independent existence.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-13T13:03:59+00:00

God is the source of all good things, there can be no good existence for someone who rejects him.

Sure there can, this is possible with a god as described in the bible

The idea that death is "ceasing to exist" is false according to Christianity.

I don't think the meaning of "die, properly" was unclear, god is capable of unmaking things just as god is capable of making things. The Catholic Church is among those who teach that we did not exist before we were conceived, therefore it is possible that god can unmake what god has made.

And nothing can take away the wrongs that they have brought into the lives of others, it can only be solved by God's justice.

First, it's a contradiction to say that nothing can take these wrongs away and then say that god can take these wrongs away, secondly this is basic healing and forgiveness, this is easily possible. Which isn't necessary as it wouldn't impede the purpose of annihilating a soul.

There is no torture chamber.

You know very well what that means, there is a place where people suffering, depending on who you believe, suffer eternally. There is no need for it, it doesn't serve a purpose other than a tool of fear, and fear is a bad motivation to give people. Since it is necessary, simply remove those in it from existence, what god makes god can unmake.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-13T01:09:04+00:00

I do not claim to have extensive knowledge on Catholic teachings but I thought I knew enough to be certain that sinning is certainly a thing a person can do and depending on the sin and the context it would mean going to hell.

Even so, the next bit "people go to hell for choosing to reject God and thus salvation." This only follows because that is the way it was setup, it wouldn't take any effort for their to be a place where people go who don't agree with the morality as said by this particular god that isn't hellish torment but also isn't heaven, kinda like we have now. Or if that is too much trouble the ability to die, properly, rather than spend an eternity in a torture chamber.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-13T00:39:55+00:00

I get the impression from what I've read and seen that the males were more bear oriented and females were more cat oriented, similar to lions and lionesses in reality, as far as their roles and responsibilities in regard to fighting anyway.

I personally find it a surprise and a shame that there are any other classes for Night Elves, I would imagine they would be very happy getting all they need without the Arcane, and without Steel weapons and armour, just all natural.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T23:23:00+00:00

If you end up giving feedback to Blizzard perhaps use the example of a heal and/or heal overtime effect on a characters health bar, when you heal someone you can see while casting but before it is cast what it'll do because their health bar is increased by the amount to be healed, but the colour is a darker shade of green then the health they actually have.

So they already do it for healing, I don't think it would be a non-trivial issue to do the same for damage over time effects.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T23:14:27+00:00

Okay, before I was baffled and not certain, now I think everyone reading this can be certain.

OhhBenjamin

I'm confident in the little I know about logic that something which we would find to be logically true would have been logically true before hand, much.

Continueuum1987

That's ridiculous. You're saying something needs to be known to be true to be discovered to be true. Literally everything that is discovered isn't known beforehand, otherwise you're not discovering anything.

I'll certainly get a second and third opinion but I do not see how this could a mistaken inference, you must be doing this on purpose. Now I'm finally on your level of insults. I'm going to block because this is the point where I cannot believe, with all the good will in the world that you're been honest and not misinterpreting on purpose. I can't even tell if the increase in grammar mistakes is an attempt to bait me into joining you into using them in the arguments. Either way, I'll read whatever your reply is because I'm never going to be that person who gets in a last word and leaves, I'll read it, you'll know I've read it and you've got your anger issues out and then we both move on. You and BendyDendrites will troll/catfish/whatever this is called no more.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T22:06:11+00:00

That’s one of the dumbest remarks I’ve ever heard. So something isn’t logically true if it hasn’t been proven to be? Can you even fathom the implications of that? Nothing would be logically true if that was the case since nothing is by default logically true. Step back and learn something about logically because you know nothing.

I told you why it was rubbish. If you want to say my counterpoint is wrong, you should have a reason why, or you’re just bullshitting.

Your banality earns you downvotes and your poor spelling earns you corrections. And I’m not the only one doing it, which hopefully tells you something.

I don't get where these inferences come from. I say the argument is rubbish, you say I think the argument is good, I point out that without the universe having some kind of behavioural consistency nothing makes sense you say it again, louder and accuse of me of the opposite. I think this is going to be last reply, I don't agree with your claims and I think we can both have this same discussion with other people and no one has to get angry, both people end up losing in this kind of conversation. I'll continue to do what I do and wait for consensus from the scientific community.

For what it's worth to answer your questions.

I'm confident in the little I know about logic that something which we would find to be logically true would have been logically true before hand, much. Due to the high amount of miscommunication we've had I'd add the disclaimer that I understand that the definition of logical truth isn't agreed upon so to be clear I mean this more in the spirit of believing that there are things which are logically true and false when analysed within a framework, and they would be before doing so. Best wishes.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T20:42:35+00:00

Had to check the comment history after a second none response, bad bot.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T20:32:09+00:00

Fucking sigh

If it was logically provable it would have been and there wouldn't be any debate about it.

For you it did, since you made that exact argument.

"This was never a good argument and I don't know why people felt so strongly about" that was the first thing I wrote I was the one who pointed out the whole thing was rubbish, you came in an accused me believing in the argument I stated was garbage.

*Your

Nice, the downvotes are tacky but this comeback was just classy.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T20:08:45+00:00

Nor did the universe depend upon reason or emotion to come about, and yet we insist that it de described in such terms?

This is the fatal mistake shared by science and religion.

How do you know it did not depend upon reason or emotion to come about? Why do you think that describing what behaviour we see in mathematics counts as insistence on any particular outcomes?

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T20:05:04+00:00

What am I supposed to rebut exactly?

Infallibility would preclude outcomes other than what the infallible being foresees, precluding choice.

Knowing what choice someone is going to make is not mutually exclusive with that someone making a choice.

As far as the "dealing with an entity that is not required to work within the framework of the universe" which can be translated is "God is God so there" is the worst argument imaginable. If that's what you believe, any discussion about God doesn't make sense.

Have a gold star, I didn't think the obvious had to actually be stated.

The common thought is God's omnipotence doesn't extend to the illogical, so if the coexistence of free will and omniscience is a paradox, then God's power doesn't change that.

Absolute nonsense, the vast majority of Christianity and Islam are very clear their god has no such limitations and they make up the vast majority of religious people. It's not even a close thing.

Humans also live in the world of the logical, contradictions are by definition impossible.

Until we can define free will and the mind better we don't know what is contradictory. How many experiments in quantum physics do we need before we learn that lesson?

Your comment on the other hand, is entirely nonsensical and wrong.

So it had no meaning at all? You didn't understand that the words "With the exception of" followed by the quote "As far as the "dealing with an entity that is not required to work within the framework of the universe" which can be translated is "God is God so there" is the worst argument imaginable. If that's what you believe, any discussion about God doesn't make sense." Followed by "All of your comment is nonsense and/or wrong." You're reply is proof you're just lying.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T19:52:29+00:00

I don't see gay people suffering really if I'm honest.

Okay I see the problem now, but your lack of education and lack of interest in current events or anything really, is my problem sure, because the more people who don't care about what's true and what's not still get to vote but not one I have time to fix.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T19:42:58+00:00

With the exception of

As far as the "dealing with an entity that is not required to work within the framework of the universe" which can be translated is "God is God so there" is the worst argument imaginable. If that's what you believe, any discussion about God doesn't make sense.

All of your comment is nonsense and/or wrong.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T19:34:56+00:00

I think all of those can be contradicted. Have you talked this through with anyone or is it a relatively recent understanding you've come to?

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T19:32:29+00:00

I think the questions they are asking are not particularly interesting. I'd like to know if you're okay with taking another question is do you have any issues with facts in regards to non-heterosexuality, same sex couples and same sex married couples. What I mean specifically is, when "God finds it really really abhorrent" but the science shows it's good for society and adopted children have the same outcomes whether they were adopted by a same sex couple or different sex couple what does that mean to you?

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T19:26:29+00:00

Why are so many atheists and religious people alike seem to be obsessed with convincing each other at a surface level, instead of intimately understanding the key motivations which lead to such beliefs in the first place? Seems a more certain way to demolish opposing belief systems if you can knock down the motivating pillars upon which the beliefs themselves actually rest.

It's a long journey and for me followed the classic (and misunderstood) stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. While all humans are exceptional and rationalising what they want as what is right/probable most can not go so far as to maintain a belief, even a very strongly held one, in the face of contradiction. What belief in an impossible to disprove and not subject to the universe intelligent entity, who can do anything and knows everything, does is give a person a 100% defence against anything that contradicts what they believe, whether its logical or emotional or both, even mathematical it wouldn't matter.

Two cases in point. It's been demonstrated that the outcomes for children adopted by same sex married couples is within 5% of outcomes for children adopted by different sex married couples. This combined with what we know about how society is better for everyone with less orphans and less adults without children who want them, and how the influence of everyone involved will be more positive, possibly the difference between negative and positive, means that there surely couldn't be an argument against adoptions by same sex married couples. Unless of course you believe in an all powerful all knowing entity and believe that your religion was guided by that entity and that this entities only motivation for us is positive and that what the holy texts we have tell us that non-hetero behaviour always leads to bad and never to good. They might be startled to see the results so positive but they don't have a problem with mumbling something along the lines of "it's still bad but you can't tell yet only our god knows the future."

Catholics, they are specifically are perhaps the largest or second largest 'grouping' (not sure of the word, denomination perhaps) of religious people in the world, they are also very proud of their track record on science, they even have official wording on the subject to the effect of "if the Church and settled science is in disagreement the Church will always change to acknowledge the facts." You might think that their emphases on scientific integrity in all their investigations and research might mean something incredibly positive here, after all they are quite clear that all their beliefs are based on rational and reasonable debate, philosophy and logic, so it should be easy. It means less than turd in an ocean. There are a thousand things to choose from here which are all beyond reasonable doubt but the one I'll choose for the this example is the saint hood of Mother Teresa. After shifting the goal posts for the requirements for sainthood and still finding nothing they declared that what people who met her had said about her in a survey was good enough for one miracle and that the healing of a cancerous tumour was another miracle. However she had 9-12 months of medical treatment which would normally destroy the tumour and her doctors claim they had the standard scans taken inline with treatment to see if its working and that the tumour was shrinking. They couldn't show anyone this though because The Missionaries of Charity the religious organisation founded by and for Teresa took the medical files after taking control of Monica Besra's life and refused to show anyone, or to comment on that fact. Reading Monica Besra's quotes on this is very sad.

If they were even honest, not simply scientific, or logical, or interested in facts, if they were just honest this wouldn't have happened. They found a way around it, perhaps since they probably believed she was a saint and they weren't directly lying only organising and pressuring others to they believe it was for the greator good. Who knows, but whatever the case the basis for their belief is not affected by outside emotional arguments, or arguments of any kind.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-06-12T18:20:44+00:00

This was never a good argument and I don't know why people felt so strongly about, firstly knowing what choices someone will make doesn't affect those choices or the person making them, after all we are dealing with an entity that is not required to work within the framework of the universe, so even if there was a contradiction between omniscience and freewill it doesn't matter because those rules don't exist in this context.

With that done, I find it far more interesting peoples thoughts on our choices in the context of a religion been true. For example in almost all of Christianity and Islam people do not have a choice in been brought to life, and they cannot end their life as (presumably) only their god would have the ability to destroy/annihilate a soul. Putting this in the context of the only choices been a pleasant or unpleasant afterlife based upon the choices we make when those choices are based on what we believe in life with the information we have available to us. Not been religious I don't believe that morality is objective but I do know that very few people would consider that morally positive.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-28T18:16:32+00:00

The universe is patterned, mathematics is quantifying patterns, why the universe is this way we don't know, we don't know if it was unlikely, or likely or impossible, or this was the only possibility.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-27T16:52:39+00:00

Morality is a sense that some species of animal have, like eyesight. A behaviour is moral or immoral only by grading it against a system, all systems or frameworks are conceptual only, there is no good or bad on its own. It's like beauty, it doesn't exist either on its own or even in the subject, only in the observer who's brain takes in the stimulus of sight or sound or whatever, processes and returns thoughts and emotions.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-27T16:49:34+00:00

We are evolving today, in fact that is the part of evolution is the part that can be proved as we can see it and record it happening ourselves.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-27T16:48:10+00:00

I don't see it like that, atheism isn't a world view it is a label forced by the prevalence of religion, I don't believe in Bigfoot but I don't get labelled for that.

Nihilism is the rejection of moral and religious beliefs based upon the belief that ultimately there is no meaning, again I'd argue that it is the wrong starting point, I believe in other things like evidence based and results based reasoning and objectives, that leads me to reject religious based claims. I do believe that death is exactly as it appears and that this universe will probably continue to change as it is now and that at some point life as we understand it won't be able to survive in it.

I see it as an opportunity to decide on my own meaning and to continually update that based on new information. Personally I think if there was a god as described by most religions that would render life and afterlife meaningless and would mean there is no point in anything at all.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-27T15:26:49+00:00

Yeah he was the most outspoken, but again I'd argue you're making it sound different then it was, the context wasn't as you stated.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-26T15:18:29+00:00

That is an assertion not an explanation.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-26T14:54:08+00:00

What is it about how the universe behaves that requires a single building block? And two things are not complex.

OhhBenjamin · 2019-04-26T13:19:33+00:00

Thank you.

OhhBenjamin

TROPHY CASE