Christianity

[RCSaunders]

1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.
__________________________________

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise.

The opposite of superstitious is factual, rational, scientific, etc., but it certainly cannot be fairly said that only those who are superstitious and *irrational* ponder a) the reasons why all this exists, and b) why we exist in it are necessarily irrational or superstitious.

So to ask questions about 'the reason' (why) and about the end of all things, are obviously not at all irrational in themselves. It can be highly rational to ask. However, it is true that there are many superstitious people and superstitious answers.

But when you think about it any answer given must be seen as flawed. How can anyone know? Who therefore can give a definitive answer? All our answers are based on suppositions.

It is irrational to entertain a question that requires a baseless premise. That there is existence cannot be denied. That it must have some nature is based on the fact everything that exists must have some nature, i.e. some attributes, qualities, and properties that identify what it is and what its nature is. That is the whole objective of science. The question, "what exists and what is its nature," is a legitimate question.

The question, "why does it exist," makes an assumption for which there is no basis whatsoever. It assumes something must lie behind existence, something which is its, "cause," or, "reason for existing," but there is absolutely not evidence for any such thing. To believe there is anything for which there is no evidence is irrational superstition.

Existence is its own explanation. It exists and is what it is, and is not contingent on anything else. To look for anything beyond existence is to look for what only exists in some people's superstitious minds. Facts are only that for which there is evidence or is discovered to be true from that evidence.

All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Yet we must assume that when we say human consciousness we mean all consciousness that has ever existed, and can ever exist, in our world, in all previous manifestations of *worlds*, in the infinite past and in the infinite future.

To assume anything without evidence is always wrong. Such assumptions only belong in mysticism and fantasy fiction.

Human consciousness only exists in living individual human beings. Sans living individual human beings there is no consciousness.

'Meaning" and *value" (in my view) must exist as necessities. That is, they exist latently in the unmanifest. Along with everything else!

That is the same superstitious assumption as a belief that existence requires some cause. Its called intrincism. Nothing is just good, bad, right or wrong if it is not good, bad, right, or wrong for something to someone. I think you do not understand what values are.

"The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

But moreover so is the declarative stance and assertion in the one who made this bold statement. It might not be a mystical statement (derived from a mystical-intuited perception) but it is nonsensical if one were inclined to fairness.

I'm not inclined to fairness. I'm only interest in truth and reason. If that's not, "fair," fairness is evil.

1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.

My assertions are made under pressure from ignorance, fear, trust in semi-rational gasp, as well as false conceptions about causation.

I have no idea what your motives are, but if you are telling the truth, your views are superstition, have no basis in fact, and are a mistundersanding of what, "cause," is. Nothing makes you have those views. There is no, "pressure." For whatever reasons, it is what you choose to think and believe. Only you can say why. I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm sorry you are so mistaken.

[RCSaunders]

A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose.

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise. All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Absolutely! Anyone who occasionally ponders the science of physics and cosmology is at least forced to consider that there's nothing in it which specifies a purpose...not even hypothetically.

Of course!

[promethean75]

Yeah 'purpose' prolly only exists for goal oriented organisms with working memories. Everything else in the universe is just stuff moving around for no reason.

[Dubious]

Yeah 'purpose' prolly only exists for goal oriented organisms with working memories. Everything else in the universe is just stuff moving around for no reason.

There's always a reason as long as the reason is factual and not a figment of wishful thinking. "Reason" is only how WE would explain it. The universe itself doesn't function according to any reason as we understand it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Existence is its own explanation. It exists and is what it is, and is not contingent on anything else. To look for anything beyond existence is to look for what only exists in some people's superstitious minds. Facts are only that for which there is evidence or is discovered to be true from that evidence.

This, and many other things that you said, are nothing more than mere assertions. I do capture what it is you wish to convey however. No part of it is beyond my grasp. And I also grasp what you say about superstition.

But that existence exists is now and will forever be a puzzle which faces mankind and any possible conscious being that comes into awareness. And no matter what there will always arise an individual who is asked the question . . . and also finds an answer to it.

Even you do this except that you build a strange sort of wall or edifice that results from your questioning. That wall and that edifice is what you then assert.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To assume anything without evidence is always wrong. Such assumptions only belong in mysticism and fantasy fiction.

Human consciousness only exists in living individual human beings. Sans living individual human beings there is no consciousness.

This is proven wrong very easily. We assume that there are very many planets like enough to the Earth to be similar. That is, water planets with a suitable distance from the sun comparable to ours. We have not seen one, certainly not visited on, but it stands to very sound reason (not guess, not superstition) that such exist. That is 'scientific'.

I agree that there are mystical modes of perception, seeing and expression; and I agree that there are science fiction speculation. So no issues there.

I assert that it is reasonable to assert that at one time or another, in this manifest universe or in others (along an infinite span of time) that conscious beings like ourselves have arisen. I also assert that it is a reasonable scientific-like assertion to make and does not have to include any accreted mystical or superstitious add-ons.

So to assume is not always wrong. It can sometimes be wrong though. And such assumptions do not only belong to mysticism and science fiction.

There. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have no idea what your motives are, but if you are telling the truth, your views are superstition, have no basis in fact, and are a mistundersanding of what, "cause," is. Nothing makes you have those views. There is no, "pressure." For whatever reasons, it is what you choose to think and believe. Only you can say why. I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm sorry you are so mistaken.

I think you misunderstood. I put up the following definition of superstition:

1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.

My own view is that Life -- our being in it, our navigation of it, and the reasons for our life here -- are topics that require the use of all our faculties, not just an accentuation within one or two. I see you as giving examples of lopsided accentuation within those one or two.

So for those who are stuck, say, in modes of which they say, and believe that "these are the only ones that lead to truth!", I merely point out that fear, ignorance and all of ignorance's derivatives may also be operative in those persons. I also believe that for those who get very very rigid within their assertions and accentuations that life itself often proves them wrong. But I was actually thinking more of what we understand of the *tragic flaw* that operates in Greek drama. The protagonist is unaware of the (tragic) trait and must come, eventually, to 'recognize it'.

Anagnorisis is the recognition by the tragic hero of some truth about his or her identity or actions that accompanies the reversal of the situation in the plot, the peripeteia. Oedipus's realization that he is, in fact, his father's murderer and his mother's lover is an example of anagnorisis.

This is not a statement directed at you. It is more a statement directed at the time we live in, the age.

I do get a sense of what your motives are, and I do sense that you really & truly believe you are 'telling the truth'. I also grasp that you can only put emphasis here and can only (i.e. have no other alternative; must) see my views, ideas and also assertions as manifestations of 'superstition'.

I also understand, having read these sorts of staments by you many times:

"For whatever reasons, it is what you choose to think and believe. Only you can say why. I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm sorry you are so mistaken."

That you really & honestly believe you have a truth-platform and can make the sort of statement that you do. All of that is of course understood and respected.

My only statement is, essentially, that there seems to me to be more to things than you can allow. So 'can allow' reveals choices you make, and for your own purposes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah 'purpose' prolly only exists for goal oriented organisms with working memories. Everything else in the universe is just stuff moving around for no reason.

We know for a fact -- if such facts are accepted -- that indeed what has been set in motion can act out of no 'will' and 'is just stuff moving around' (absent a 'reason' and absent a conceived or visualized end). So 'moving with no reason' makes sense'. True.

But when it comes to existence -- and in this sense I mean Being/Existence -- it is simply not possible to dismiss the possibility that 'worlds get set in motion for reasons'. And I would put special emphasis on those 'spheres of life', such as our Earth, where conscious being develops.

I certainly realize that the speculation may be quaint, or vain, or any number of different things. Take for example how the Vedics explain it: lila or 'divine play' (lila, (Sanskrit: “play,” “sport,” “spontaneity,” or “drama”) in Hinduism, a term that has several different meanings, most focusing in one way or another on the effortless or playful relation between the Absolute, or brahman, and the contingent world.)

[Belinda]

Yeah 'purpose' prolly only exists for goal oriented organisms with working memories. Everything else in the universe is just stuff moving around for no reason.

We know for a fact -- if such facts are accepted -- that indeed what has been set in motion can act out of no 'will' and 'is just stuff moving around' (absent a 'reason' and absent a conceived or visualized end). So 'moving with no reason' makes sense'. True.

But when it comes to existence -- and in this sense I mean Being/Existence -- it is simply not possible to dismiss the possibility that 'worlds get set in motion for reasons'. And I would put special emphasis on those 'spheres of life', such as our Earth, where conscious being develops.

I certainly realize that the speculation may be quaint, or vain, or any number of different things. Take for example how the Vedics explain it: lila or 'divine play' (lila, (Sanskrit: “play,” “sport,” “spontaneity,” or “drama”) in Hinduism, a term that has several different meanings, most focusing in one way or another on the effortless or playful relation between the Absolute, or brahman, and the contingent world.)

But the Absolute does not intervene in history. Religionists think the Absolute does intervene in history. What does intervene in otherwise 'moving with no reason' is human reason and purposes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mircea Eliade in The Sacred and the Profane:

The non-religious man refuses transcendence, accepts the relativity of “reality” and may even come to doubt the meaning of existence .... Modern non-religious man assumes a new existential situation; he regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and he refuses all appeal to transcendence. In other words, he accepts no model for humanity outside the human condition as it can be seen by the various historical situations. Man makes bimself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. The sacred is the prime obstacle to his freedom. He will become himself only when he is totally demysticized. He will not be truly free until he has killed the last god.

A couple of observations which I think worthy of note. One is simply a restatement of something I have said before: we have to be willing to discover, see, and examine our core predicates and, I also think, we need to help the people around us to understand those predicates by helping them to locate us. Location is essential if we hope to make ourselves understood by others. In a sense, failing to help others locate us is a form of dishonesty.

Nick: A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose.

RC: Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise. All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Dubious: Absolutely! Anyone who occasionally ponders the science of physics and cosmology is at least forced to consider that there's nothing in it which specifies a purpose...not even hypothetically.

RC: Of course!

[Nick_A]

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise. All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Absolutely! Anyone who occasionally ponders the science of physics and cosmology is at least forced to consider that there's nothing in it which specifies a purpose...not even hypothetically.

Of course!

I've learned by experience not to discuss a third alternative. People are content to argue the purpose of life including Christianity from the perspective of a personal God or no God. Alternatives can get one banned so is not worth starting. If another introduces a third alternative, I'll gladly help out but see no reason to begin such a thread and risked being banned.

[henry quirk]

I'll gladly help out but see no reason to begin such a thread and risked being banned.

You already did...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34432

...if we all ignore biggy you could revive it.

And: ain't nobody gonna ban you.

[Nick_A]

I'll gladly help out but see no reason to begin such a thread and risked being banned.

You already did...

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34432

...if we all ignore biggy you could revive it.

And: ain't nobody gonna ban you.

I've already been banned several times for disruptive ideas. I'm not referring to Deism which is legit. I am referring to the concept that the universe is the body of God. Think of what your body does and its purpose for your whole human organism? Certain ideas are better preserved for those with respect for conscious contemplation as opposed to blind belief vs blind denial.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've learned by experience not to discuss a third alternative. People are content to argue the purpose of life including Christianity from the perspective of a personal God or no God. Alternatives can get one banned so is not worth starting. If another introduces a third alternative, I'll gladly help out but see no reason to begin such a thread and risked being banned.

Recently, and I think productively and with good reason, the notion of Dionysus came up as a something-or-other on some sort of other end of concept about divinity termed the Apollonian.

This is a philosophy forum and analytical language is our molding clay, is it not? And all of our ideas will be expressed in the lingo of analytic philosophy, more or less. Promethean and also Henry break out of this to a degree by interjecting colloquial speech as if to deflate the pretension of highfaluting terms.

But here is the thing: divinity cannot be dissected and described, and descriptions describe away. Someone said *a god that is understood is no god at all*. What does that mean? I know that what I have just said will disturb those who regard all that can be suggested about divinity (or the sacred) as mumbo-jumbo and superstition. They may or may not realize that in saying what they say they are just repeating easy-access tropes.

This is naturally! the prevailing attitude on this forum, no? Therefore, it is this attitude of mind, it is this which occurred within general ideation, that should be examined. I suggest it is disconnection and disconnection on many levels.

But who will do it? Who can do it? No one of the core protagonists whose shtick is, as it were, to completely discredit the possibility of the *existence* of God and to annihilate through focused critique the possibility of *having relationship* with God.

So they do a very fine job of demonstrating what happens when 'relationship' has been undermined. The head arrives at the conclusion that it is all false and 'made-up' and, to push the metaphor forward, the head overrides 'the heart'. If you take this as synonym for sentimentality you will miss my point -- which may be what you want to do so don't let me stand in your way!

Curiously, the notion of the 'dead being' that is dissected is really the core issue here. And that being had to be killed, more or less, for there to be a dissection-process.

But here is the funny thing: when Dionysus was mentioned, thought-about, brought up, considered, then it became an 'edifying' conversation, and it seemed as though something-or-other came back to life. And what is that? I think I can say with a high degree of certainty that if God is to be perceived as real, it will occur not through analytic thought, but through some level or other of experience and participation. How does that happen?

Some description could be offered. But more centrally is the real issue: That of being blocked from the possibility of existing in, feeling, understanding and knowing what that is. Not through an analytical description but through an inner experience. And what is that 'block'? It is a wall and an edifice as I suggested to RC.

the purpose of life including Christianity from the perspective of a personal God or no God

But what is the first thing here? What is the real thing? the core thing? It is life itself. And put in other terms it is Being-Existence. I assume that my term Being-Existence will not be understood.

Be that as it may I have to turn back to our contemporary world. This conversation is simply too abstract, to removed from our vital concerns, if it remains non-topical.

The time-slot will be (for convenience) the post-Sixties. Generations felt intense dissatisfaction within their little sealed boxes of experience and fought like the Devil (pun more or less inevitable and intended) to break out of those boxes. Why? For what? But everyone already knows that. People will continually sacrifice almost anything for one drop of vital, alive experience, be it poetical love (Aphrodite) or some depth of feeling-experience (Dionysus) and when they have tasted that experience they rarely submit to return to the constraining box.

So what I try to point out is that to understand who we are, now and today, we have to understand a great deal of what has happened, and why. And what has happened is not so easy to describe. It is sociological, cultural, intellectual, but also takes place within the economic world -- to put it in vulgar Marxist terms. One of the main reasons why it is a difficult topic is because religious experience, that is real experience, tends to shatter boundaries. And in case it ain't obvious that has been a central theme of the post-Sixties. (In this sense I'd say that is something set in motion by Nietzsche, as well as DH Lawrence, Andre Gide, and also people like Huxley.

Now I will again mention Dionysus as entheos: full of the god, inspired, possessed.

Curiously, we are on the verge once again (the intimations are there, the signs and omens have appeared) of massive death, destructive conflict, intense frustration channeled in hatred, and general destruction-processes -- the world around us brings these messages every day, stirring up anxieties, provoking paranoid fear -- when really what is wanted is that depth-experience. Not of death but of life.

[henry quirk]

I am referring to the concept that the universe is the body of God.

Pantheism?

It doesn't seem to me this is the way of things.