Freethought & Rationalism Archive

abe smith · 02-04-2003, 06:48 AM

(not nice to pull-rank. I know.)
Yez are young yet, People.
Life (sic) is too short to waste attention on (junk-) questions of this sort, when we could be hearing Louie/Mozart/theOld Man/ and Papa Haydn's>>>> all chamber music.... before we lose our hearing. alas.

sweep · 02-04-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

We can talk about non-existent things that once existed, as if they still do

exactly- I was groping for words that would express this so clearly. I added the text in bold as it struck me

- stillness vs moving things

Plump-DJ · 02-08-2003, 12:58 AM

Philosoft

Quote:

Well, nihilism has nothing to do with hope.

Well I beg to disagree. If Nhlisim is true then we will fall into an epistemic and moral void never to escape again. Sounds pretty hopeless to me. Besides it's merely *part* of what I was saying, anyway.

Quote:

I don't think your common fears of death and non-existence are any indication of the emotional undesirability of atheism. In fact, I think such eternal thinking devalues the 80 or so years we spend in this universe, as if this life is some ho-hum testing ground on the way to eternal bliss and we're just going through the motions.

Well that's nice but when you're dead you won't care how valueable your 80 years of life were. You won't care about how you lived, or about love, or about your loved ones, or life or anything. This 80 years matters now you say? Well maybe it does, but as soon as I think about the scenario above I begin to question that. I suppose people have to cope with whatever scenario works for them.

Quote:

What could it possibly be "about"? What does a divine being need exept apparently, according to Christian doctrine, to be "freely" loved? If this is your idea of *something*, I'll pass.

No Idea. People can take stabs at it, of course.

atrahasis · 02-08-2003, 04:06 AM

It used to and still bothers me till now but after realising that my feeble faculties could not comprehend it i gave up but still waiting for science to at least give me an answer that is of course if any.

The most difficult question for me though is why , why this universe, why i am here, why the present configuration, this bothers me more that anything else but one quote that really cools me down is:

Quote:

The most important thing now is that we are here!

VivaHedone · 02-08-2003, 07:22 AM

There is a theory suggesting that there is and always has been an endless cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' as the universe expands and contracts. This would mean that there have been infinite arrangements of the matter in the universe, and as long as the chances of the world existing as it does are less than one in infinity, it was bound to happen at some point.

However, we can never actually define the sensations that constitute life or explain where they came from - they will always be inexplicable. For example, imagine I am blind, and always have been, and I asked you to describe sight. You would never be able to do so, no matter what the extent of your scientific knowledge.

Sensations are an entirely subjective experience, and not subject to objective scientific explanation. So why don't we just stop worrying about how we came to be, and get on with enjoying existence?

As for the worries about non-existence, the quote from Epicurus, 'When we are, death is not; when death is, we are not' may or may not offer some comfort. But no-one's ever been bothered by being dead.

The AntiChris · 02-08-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xisuthros
The most difficult question for me though is why

Why?

"How?" and "When?" I can understand , but what are you presupposing to even think of asking the question - "why?"

Chris

Some Loser · 02-08-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

There is a theory suggesting that there is and always has been an endless cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' as the universe expands and contracts. This would mean that there have been infinite arrangements of the matter in the universe, and as long as the chances of the world existing as it does are less than one in infinity, it was bound to happen at some point.

Yes and such a theory could imply that we live an infinite number of lives which correspond to different arrangements of the matter and energy of the universe (Hope for eternal life!). Nevertheless, I no longer believe such a theory since I have read that the universe is expanding at such a rate that it will never collapse back on itself. There simply isn't enough matter in the universe for that. Still, I think the fate of the universe is mostly speculation at this point in our knowledge.

Answerer · 02-08-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VivaHedone
There is a theory suggesting that there is and always has been an endless cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' as the universe expands and contracts. This would mean that there have been infinite arrangements of the matter in the universe, and as long as the chances of the world existing as it does are less than one in infinity, it was bound to happen at some point.

That is probably the case as energy-mass is conserved. There is no such things as pure destruction or permanent motionless state in reality. I believed that our universe will cease to expand and contract in the future.

Philosoft · 02-08-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plump-DJ

Well I beg to disagree. If Nhlisim is true then we will fall into an epistemic and moral void never to escape again. Sounds pretty hopeless to me. Besides it's merely *part* of what I was saying, anyway.

Hmm. Yes, I probably should have written, "Nihilism does not necessarily entail hopelessness." I can certainly see how someone could lose hope after accepting a nihilistic worldview.

Quote:

Well that's nice but when you're dead you won't care how valueable your 80 years of life were. You won't care about how you lived, or about love, or about your loved ones, or life or anything.

So what? Why is the care that I have now and the care that I will have on my deathbed in 50 years rendered meaningless now because I won't be alive in 51 years to continue to care about it? I have an idea what it means to care about something now. Why am I wrong simply because I won't be able to care about anything in 51 years?

Quote:

This 80 years matters now you say? Well maybe it does, but as soon as I think about the scenario above I begin to question that.

Is it possible that you question because you have presupposed eternal life? My lack of belief in eternal life causes me to consider this life that much more meaningful.

Quote:

I suppose people have to cope with whatever scenario works for them.

Now that I agree with.

Quote:

No Idea. People can take stabs at it, of course.

They have to. The "logic" of the situation seems to dictate that we are somehow pawns in God's grand scheme - that our existence is a means to some end that benefits God.

Keith Russell · 02-09-2003, 08:20 AM

Answerer said:
That (the oscillating universe theory) is probably the case as energy-mass is conserved. There is no such things as pure destruction or permanent motionless state in reality. I believed that our universe will cease to expand and contract in the future.

But, if our universe ceases to oscillate, won't that result in a permanent motionless state, the very state in which you don't beleive...?

Keith.

02-04-2003, 06:48 AM	#31
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Yez are young yet.... (not nice to pull-rank. I know.) Yez are young yet, People. Life (sic) is too short to waste attention on (junk-) questions of this sort, when we could be hearing Louie/Mozart/theOld Man/ and Papa Haydn's>>>> all chamber music.... before we lose our hearing. alas.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2003, 07:22 AM	#35
VivaHedone Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Norwich, England Posts: 146	There is a theory suggesting that there is and always has been an endless cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' as the universe expands and contracts. This would mean that there have been infinite arrangements of the matter in the universe, and as long as the chances of the world existing as it does are less than one in infinity, it was bound to happen at some point. However, we can never actually define the sensations that constitute life or explain where they came from - they will always be inexplicable. For example, imagine I am blind, and always have been, and I asked you to describe sight. You would never be able to do so, no matter what the extent of your scientific knowledge. Sensations are an entirely subjective experience, and not subject to objective scientific explanation. So why don't we just stop worrying about how we came to be, and get on with enjoying existence? As for the worries about non-existence, the quote from Epicurus, 'When we are, death is not; when death is, we are not' may or may not offer some comfort. But no-one's ever been bothered by being dead.

02-09-2003, 08:20 AM	#40
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Answerer said: That (the oscillating universe theory) is probably the case as energy-mass is conserved. There is no such things as pure destruction or permanent motionless state in reality. I believed that our universe will cease to expand and contract in the future. But, if our universe ceases to oscillate, won't that result in a permanent motionless state, the very state in which you don't beleive...? Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.