Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 12:26:05 GMT
Consider this: positive experiences only have any value to sentient organisms which are capable of appreciating both positive and negative. A non-existent organism has no use for any positive experiences, without the capacity for pleasure, or to feel the absence of negativity. Also consider that positive experiences are mainly defined by the absence of negativity.
So why would a creator of infinite wisdom bring sentient life into the universe when there was a near-certainty of each organism experiencing great harm, and when the reward for a lifetime of harm and hardship was meaningless? If there were no afterlife, but just oblivion after death, this would be JUST AS GOOD as any heavenly reward that could be envisaged, because we would no longer have any need or desire for the reward. Non-existence is objectively just as good as a good life. God's entire rationale for creating humanity, including the reward that he has given us the chance to earn, is based on very unstable foundations.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2017 15:56:39 GMT
I think we debated this before - I think defining positivity as the absence of negativity just depends on your point of view. You could just as legitimately do the opposite and define negativity as the absence of positivity (eg loneliness is the absence of companionship).
But I do agree in a sense that the western view of heaven is lacking in some ways. I think the problem is it is wedded to the idea of a prevailing self. I think there's only so much gratification a person can get before they would get bored and want more. This is acknowledged in Buddhism - living an exemplar life could see you being reincarnated as a god where you have fantastic powers and can avail of anything you could ever wish for. But this will eventually lead to boredom and unhappiness. The proper goal, once you are ready, is to relinquish the idea there is a you to be gratified. Hinduism has a similar approach but instead of denying the self, we realise that it is much more expansive than we ever thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 15:59:33 GMT
Somewhere to meet up with all our beloved passed on dogs when we die 🐶
And if there wasn't somewhere to go after death, how would we keep up with the footy results?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 20:22:30 GMT
I think we debated this before - I think defining positivity as the absence of negativity just depends on your point of view. You could just as legitimately do the opposite and define negativity as the absence of positivity (eg loneliness is the absence of companionship). But I do agree in a sense that the western view of heaven is lacking in some ways. I think the problem is it is wedded to the idea of a prevailing self. I think there's only so much gratification a person can get before they would get bored and want more. This is acknowledged in Buddhism - living an exemplar life could see you being reincarnated as a god where you have fantastic powers and can avail of anything you could ever wish for. But this will eventually lead to boredom and unhappiness. The proper goal, once you are ready, is to relinquish the idea there is a you to be gratified. Hinduism has a similar approach but instead of denying the self, we realise that it is much more expansive than we ever thought. You don't need the positivity if you don't have the consciousness to begin with. So my office desk, for example, may as well be experiencing utopia. We don't feel sorry for our office desks and the fact that they are stuck inside an office with strip lighting 24/7/365 and never get to go on backpacking holidays to Peru. You only need experiences like that if you have the problem of consciousness. Consciousness is the problem in need of a solution, and that is why your reversal of the proposition is not equally valid. And of course, there isn't any version of heaven that we could think up that would be both eternally pleasurable and also allow us to retain our own personality. For example if I can never be bored and can never experience negative emotions, then I'm not 'me' any more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 20:39:31 GMT
tpfkar "positive experiences only have any value to sentient organisms which are capable of appreciating both positive and negative"Mystical woo. Elaborate. Does inanimate matter value positive experiences? Does it feel deprived of any of the experiences that humans enjoy? Should I take my pet rock on vacation out of pity and so that it can gain joy from seeing the world?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 22, 2017 22:19:45 GMT
tpfkar "Elaborate. Does inanimate matter value positive experiences? Does it feel deprived of any of the experiences that humans enjoy? Should I take my pet rock on vacation out of pity and so that it can gain joy from seeing the world?"I was on a quick run-through and misread. I thought you were arguing the "no good without bad", "no joy without sorrow" thing.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 22, 2017 23:10:29 GMT
Heaven sounds horrific to me. Any eternal existence is an unimaginable punishment. Sure - in some paradise it'd be great for the first few thousand years perhaps, but can you imagine that dragging on for billions upon billions of years? You would have experienced every single permutation of every single experience imaginable millions of times over and you'd still have eternity ahead of you.
Heaven was dreamed up by people that don't really understand the concept of infinity.
I'll choose oblivion every single time please.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 23, 2017 1:59:29 GMT
Consider this: positive experiences only have any value to sentient organisms which are capable of appreciating both positive and negative. A non-existent organism has no use for any positive experiences, without the capacity for pleasure, or to feel the absence of negativity. Also consider that positive experiences are mainly defined by the absence of negativity.
So why would a creator of infinite wisdom bring sentient life into the universe when there was a near-certainty of each organism experiencing great harm, and when the reward for a lifetime of harm and hardship was meaningless? If there were no afterlife, but just oblivion after death, this would be JUST AS GOOD as any heavenly reward that could be envisaged, because we would no longer have any need or desire for the reward. Non-existence is objectively just as good as a good life. God's entire rationale for creating humanity, including the reward that he has given us the chance to earn, is based on very unstable foundations.
Not sure what the question has to do with the argument. Besides positive experience , by nature of living, does exist despite negativity rather than in absence of it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 23, 2017 2:00:32 GMT
In answer to the basic question.
Heaven doesn't need a point.
It's a location, not simply a reward.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 23, 2017 4:00:21 GMT
It makes it a lot easier to sell religion
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 23, 2017 5:32:32 GMT
There is no "point". Heaven is where God is. It was not made for people but for God. As such it's God's choice who goes there. I find it weird that atheists whine about being excluded yet whine about it's being horrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:33:41 GMT
Heaven sounds horrific to me. Any eternal existence is an unimaginable punishment. Sure - in some paradise it'd be great for the first few thousand years perhaps, but can you imagine that dragging on for billions upon billions of years? You would have experienced every single permutation of every single experience imaginable millions of times over and you'd still have eternity ahead of you. Heaven was dreamed up by people that don't really understand the concept of infinity. I'll choose oblivion every single time please. This is what I always think, although Christians assure us that we won't have the capacity to get bored, or get angry or depressed in heaven. Although if our personalities are so radically altered, I can't figure out how they would be us in any sense.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 23, 2017 9:36:08 GMT
Heaven sounds horrific to me. Any eternal existence is an unimaginable punishment. Sure - in some paradise it'd be great for the first few thousand years perhaps, but can you imagine that dragging on for billions upon billions of years? You would have experienced every single permutation of every single experience imaginable millions of times over and you'd still have eternity ahead of you. Heaven was dreamed up by people that don't really understand the concept of infinity. I'll choose oblivion every single time please. This is what I always think, although Christians assure us that we won't have the capacity to get bored, or get angry or depressed in heaven. Although if our personalities are so radically altered, I can't figure out how they would be us in any sense. You don't understand. It's not a change of personality, it's the bature of Heaven, which is not just this life infinitely extended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:39:42 GMT
In answer to the basic question. Heaven doesn't need a point. It's a location, not simply a reward. Christians, as far as I am aware, usually justify suffering in this life with the assurance that they will go to heaven. But it's a meaningless reward at the end of a meaningless existence. If God had simply refrained from making sentient life, then there wouldn't be anything here which would crave or feel rewarded by the positive experiences, either in earthly life, or in heaven. He can't be both infinitely wise and infinitely benevolent, if even I can see why his 'grand plan' doesn't make any sense except for God's own amusement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:48:57 GMT
This is what I always think, although Christians assure us that we won't have the capacity to get bored, or get angry or depressed in heaven. Although if our personalities are so radically altered, I can't figure out how they would be us in any sense. You don't understand. It's not a change of personality, it's the bature of Heaven, which is not just this life infinitely extended. So it's all things to all people, and there are no conflicts in heaven even though people who dislike each other would be there together, etc. It still doesn't justify creating sentient life and putting it in harm's way here on Earth, given that anyone who did not exist would not have any use for heaven and therefore non-existence would be preferable, all things considered. Also, given that newborns are given the chance to go directly to this wondrous land of no boredom or suffering (according to many Christians), would it not just be better and more humane to abort 100% of foetuses?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2017 10:52:51 GMT
I think we debated this before - I think defining positivity as the absence of negativity just depends on your point of view. You could just as legitimately do the opposite and define negativity as the absence of positivity (eg loneliness is the absence of companionship). But I do agree in a sense that the western view of heaven is lacking in some ways. I think the problem is it is wedded to the idea of a prevailing self. I think there's only so much gratification a person can get before they would get bored and want more. This is acknowledged in Buddhism - living an exemplar life could see you being reincarnated as a god where you have fantastic powers and can avail of anything you could ever wish for. But this will eventually lead to boredom and unhappiness. The proper goal, once you are ready, is to relinquish the idea there is a you to be gratified. Hinduism has a similar approach but instead of denying the self, we realise that it is much more expansive than we ever thought. You don't need the positivity if you don't have the consciousness to begin with. So my office desk, for example, may as well be experiencing utopia. We don't feel sorry for our office desks and the fact that they are stuck inside an office with strip lighting 24/7/365 and never get to go on backpacking holidays to Peru. You only need experiences like that if you have the problem of consciousness. Consciousness is the problem in need of a solution, and that is why your reversal of the proposition is not equally valid. And of course, there isn't any version of heaven that we could think up that would be both eternally pleasurable and also allow us to retain our own personality. For example if I can never be bored and can never experience negative emotions, then I'm not 'me' any more. Non-consciousness would be a neutral position, neither positive nor negative. Consciousness can be positive or negative. You seem to be rephrasing things to say consciousness will always be a sliding scale of negativity - that negative feelings are negative but positive feelings merely mitigate negativity rather than add anything themselves. On your second point I agree. Everlasting bliss seems incompatible with enduring personal identity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 10:59:09 GMT
You don't need the positivity if you don't have the consciousness to begin with. So my office desk, for example, may as well be experiencing utopia. We don't feel sorry for our office desks and the fact that they are stuck inside an office with strip lighting 24/7/365 and never get to go on backpacking holidays to Peru. You only need experiences like that if you have the problem of consciousness. Consciousness is the problem in need of a solution, and that is why your reversal of the proposition is not equally valid. And of course, there isn't any version of heaven that we could think up that would be both eternally pleasurable and also allow us to retain our own personality. For example if I can never be bored and can never experience negative emotions, then I'm not 'me' any more. Non-consciousness would be a neutral position, neither positive nor negative. Consciousness can be positive or negative. You seem to be rephrasing things to say consciousness will always be a sliding scale of negativity - that negative feelings are negative but positive feelings merely mitigate negativity rather than add anything themselves. On your second point I agree. Everlasting bliss seems incompatible with enduring personal identity. Non-consciousness cannot be turned into some form of torture, and therefore I believe that it is morally unacceptable to put someone at risk of harm for a gain which is both ephemeral and unnecessary. The positive is unnecessary, because nothing would have been lost and there would be no deprivation in the event that consciousness were not created to begin with. Whether you are a deity creating sentient life, or a parent procreating. It's an asymmetry which you haven't addressed.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 23, 2017 12:24:20 GMT
In answer to the basic question. Heaven doesn't need a point. It's a location, not simply a reward. Christians, as far as I am aware, usually justify suffering in this life with the assurance that they will go to heaven. But it's a meaningless reward at the end of a meaningless existence. If God had simply refrained from making sentient life, then there wouldn't be anything here which would crave or feel rewarded by the positive experiences, either in earthly life, or in heaven. He can't be both infinitely wise and infinitely benevolent, if even I can see why his 'grand plan' doesn't make any sense except for God's own amusement. Not sure you understand why people are religious. I am certainly not religious on the basis of where I wind up since I have no idea. Then again, since I am religious, I don;t face too much suffering right now. I'm a pretty content guy regardless of how whacky the world is around me. I also don;t think you have an understanding of his grand plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:28:44 GMT
Christians, as far as I am aware, usually justify suffering in this life with the assurance that they will go to heaven. But it's a meaningless reward at the end of a meaningless existence. If God had simply refrained from making sentient life, then there wouldn't be anything here which would crave or feel rewarded by the positive experiences, either in earthly life, or in heaven. He can't be both infinitely wise and infinitely benevolent, if even I can see why his 'grand plan' doesn't make any sense except for God's own amusement. Not sure you understand why people are religious. I am certainly not religious on the basis of where I wind up since I have no idea. Then again, since I am religious, I don;t face too much suffering right now. I'm a pretty content guy regardless of how whacky the world is around me. I also don;t think you have an understanding of his grand plan. I think that I do understand, actually. People are religious because they want to believe that this all means something. For many people, an important element of that meaningfulness is that their existence is not ephemeral, like a footprint in the sand, to be washed away by the tides of time. I don't know if that is the case for you, but I think that the notion that life is meaningless does induce an existential crisis in many people. Whatever the 'grand plan' is, there would need to be an answer to the question of why something is better than nothing, especially when the 'something' will put a sentient being in the path of unasked for harm and risk. I can't think that there is a sound philosophical justification for this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:36:20 GMT
Consider this: positive experiences only have any value to sentient organisms which are capable of appreciating both positive and negative. A non-existent organism has no use for any positive experiences, without the capacity for pleasure, or to feel the absence of negativity. Also consider that positive experiences are mainly defined by the absence of negativity.
So why would a creator of infinite wisdom bring sentient life into the universe when there was a near-certainty of each organism experiencing great harm, and when the reward for a lifetime of harm and hardship was meaningless? If there were no afterlife, but just oblivion after death, this would be JUST AS GOOD as any heavenly reward that could be envisaged, because we would no longer have any need or desire for the reward. Non-existence is objectively just as good as a good life. God's entire rationale for creating humanity, including the reward that he has given us the chance to earn, is based on very unstable foundations.
You have forgotten one big fact of life: It is unfair. Some people have everything and others have nothing. Some have their hands chopped off for trying to steal bread to feed themselves. While some people spend their whole lives in utter pleasure. If there is no afterlife, it makes no sense whatsoever that some people spent their whole lives happy while others died in utter misery.
|
|