Hi,

So my sister has died young a few days ago :( and I'm still trying to process&come to terms with the permanent effect of it, so i thought it may be interesting to get some discusion going about origins&existence in general here. Maybe controversial.

So what views do you cherish about how the universe began?

What is it that has always been versus that which has a starting point or beginning?

Why so much pain& neglect in the world?

What gives you motivation to continue on living?

Do you do it for the honor &reputation that might live on for some time after we go unconscious without resurrection- if you have no confidence that anyone will resurrect after unconsciousness that is supposed to be permanent?

Feel free to answer in any way, no pressure.

For me I tend to have confidence that a duo of Persons in the universe have no beginning so it's not a particle, not a quantum fluctuation to me, not unpredicatable fate.

As for why so much pain& neglect, I have confidence in the narrative that humans have been given charge of this world& have generally refused guidance from the Persons that have no beginning, so they are being allowed to mess things up until Those who dont have a beginning decide that enough is enough& restore and resurrect that which can be preserved for eternity.

My motivation to continue living is the fact that I'm not on this journey alone& similar things have happened to people before me& they made it through. Plus the destination I have confidence in gives me hope. I dont need to be a big somebody, just want to live a simple life.
I am sorry for your loss, and I don't think anyone's words can make the pain less. Occupying the mind with other life related chores helps, as a patch on a scar.

I am an absolute materialist, nothing metaphysical concerns me, never did. Grieving for those that have passed is very culturally determined though. Some cultures, not necessarily religious beliefs, deal with death and perceive it in a very different way than most European Judeo-christians. Some natives of the Americas perceive it as liberation...

Why so much pain and agony through life? I attribute most of it in the various systems of inequality as the prime cause. Capitalism, the state, organized violence (the state), material and power inequality. Very few believe or are willing to struggle for equality, they accept the crap we have been subjected to as "human nature". If it is so human why do we feel so uncomfortable?

Motivation is the struggle for equality (all forms of it), and to revert the damage done to earth while we can still evade extinction. Capitalism is accelerating our path to extinction. If we see life as the life of humanity, extinction is the only real death.

Get up soldier, we have a war to fight.
No god no master
Thank you, for your words to strengthen my endurance.

I'm not confident in absolute materialism, but I will entertain a discussion of what gives you confidence there.

Was the existence of the human brain predictable or unpredictable?

Do you think there will always be the play &counterplay of opposing intrests so long as there is human life?

Is volunteerism the best way to make things equal?

How can people be encouraged to volunteer rather than be forced by the threat of jail or penalty to give to the poor&funds to maintain infrastructure, etc?

Seems people default to being complacent & accepting "the crap we have been subjected to"


You mentioned equality, in a world where finite resources are always somehow pooled among few, will there ever be an equal distribution of resources? How can an unequal distribution of finite resources be alleviated?

I agree we gotta be advocates for making a living in a way that preserves earth's cleanliness, which hasn't beeen happening.

Is human extinction inveitable?

I bet your view is we aren't supposed to viewextinction as inevitable so we can keep up our fight against the objectionable stuff in this tiny speck of a world in the vast universe? Am I incorrect?
First, please let me extend my deepest condolences on your loss. I feel for you and hope that you continue to find strength, and eventually, some solace.

I guess I might be the token believer on this forum. Although it seems we have a lot in common politically and philosophically, I personally now find it impossible to maintain a belief in a materialist metaphysics. I was brought up in an atheist family and as a young man, became a staunch atheist and even antitheist. However, about the age of 35 I started to question things more and more with regards to the fundamentals, and found all of a sudden that when seriously called into question, materialism crumbled in my mind.

After a few years of journeying, I settled on a metaphysic that is often described as 'panentheism'. It was the model adopted by (among others) Einstein, nearly all of the leading quantum physicists, Hegel, Spinoza, and many, many other interesting characters.

I'm not gonna go too much into detail about this, as it's best understood by individual research and reflection, but a snapshot of it will be available by my answers to your questions: (some were not in the OP, but I'm taking the liberty of addressing them anyway).

I offer you these thoughts not to proselytise but merely to offer you some food for thought, which seems from the OP to be something that you are seeking in your life right now. I hope that some of them are helpful to you.

- - -
1. So what views do you cherish about how the universe began?
I think that the universe (defined as 'everything that exists that we can ever perceive or interact with') is eternal: a timeless, constantly unfolding creation. We have this concept of time, but I do not think it is in any way real. Furthermore, all of the accounts of 'creation' (as a singular event), whether coming from science or religion, are very problematic. The Big Bang (even with the Big Crunch variant) might be the most problematic of all.
2. Why so much pain& neglect in the world?
This is a really tricky question, and one I don't pretend to have all the answers to. Philosophers call it 'the problem of evil', and the best of all the answers I've come across is best summarized by this excerpt from C.S. Lewis:
an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World. And, of course, that raises problems. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?

But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy.

The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible.

It is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible.

Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will—that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings—then we may take it it is worth paying.

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: "Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?" The better stuff a creature is made of—the cleverer and stronger and freer it is—then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best—or worst—of all. C. S. Lewis
3. What gives you motivation to continue on living?
The world is wide and beautiful (as well as harsh) and in nature, connections with others, spirituality and other things, I find joy, astonishment, pleasure and above all, meaning.
4. Do you do it for the honor &reputation that might live on for some time after we go unconscious without resurrection- if you have no confidence that anyone will resurrect after unconsciousness that is supposed to be permanent?
I believe that after death, all souls will rejoin the Absolute and be united with the highest forms of intelligence and energy. I believe that whether one 'goes' 'there' relatively quickly after death, or some very long time later, will be determined by how 'ready' one is to go through this reunion. How one behaves morally in this life determines readiness.

ONE component of my morality and my religious practice, therefore, is considering how my actions will be judged at this time.
5. Is volunteerism the best way to make things equal?
I think that economic inequality is, indeed, a major cause of evil in the world. I do think, however, that we need to prioritize truth, liberty and moral truth above equality of outcome. I think that favouring the former can lead to the latter, but not vice versa.

In other words, the correct morality will lead to economic equality as well, but focusing on equality and putting morality secondary will lead to us getting neither.

- - -

I would be interested in discussing these ideas further with anyone, but if my views are too unpopular here, then obviously I'll just keep my mouth shut, as this is a Linux forum after all and for that reason, my presence here is more focused on learning everything I can about Obarun and promoting it to everyone I know.
Thanks for your condolences. It is an interesting discussion for me...

I do lean toward what is written about Christ& his beliefs in certain books compiled so I aim to use those beliefs as a template for mine.

There is no way to escape that we must have confidence in someones testimony, past or present, to conclude concerning origins&certain questions.

I appreciate your responses. May I ask that you clarify your view of whether our consciousness can live on in a new non-material interface after our current interface- human body&brain dies?

I tend to lean my confidence toward the view that we need a material interface for our consciousness to process&passthru.

Also clarify what is eternal with no beginning versus what is eternal but with a beginning?
focusing on equality and putting morality secondary will lead to us getting neither
I agree
In other words, the correct morality will lead to economic equality as well, but focusing on equality and putting morality secondary will lead to us getting neither.
What most call economic equality I call material equality, but it is only half of the equality, or maybe the lesser half. True equality is political equality, where everyone has an equal say in the decision making process about anything we have in common. Material equality can only be part of what equals decide on. So this equality really describes the only morality we need, any moral rules above this equality would be some set of moral rules imposed and enforced from above the equals.

Those who have tried to argue that political equality and economic equality as separate, different, independent, they have failed miserably, so they would rather not discuss it than have to explain their authoritarian infatuation with economic equality.
Those that have tried to deny modern and archaic anthropological findings, of communities/tribes/nations of people who practiced true equality for centuries, in a very stable social environment, are the same who pretend it is an impossible ideal, and that humans are incapable of surviving without a shepherd.
time
Can we conceive time without mater and energy? If we can conceive time being infinite for the future why can't we consider time being equally infinite in the past? Just as logic, if there was such a thing as god, logic/time must have preceded this entity. So mathematics pre-existed, we are just discovering it slowly.
Wat-now wroteI do lean toward what is written about Christ& his beliefs in certain books compiled so I aim to use those beliefs as a template for mine.
That's very interesting to me. I must ask you if you have discovered 'the first Bible', compiled by Marcion? Marcion appears to me to be a tragically misunderstood, slandered and demonized figure of early Christianity and I for one think he needs a careful revisiting.
There is no way to escape that we must have confidence in someones testimony, past or present, to conclude concerning origins&certain questions.
Sure, but we don't have to take it on faith and even most atheist scholars acknowledge a historical basis for the majority of the events described in the books that make up the NT/Evangelion/Apostolikon.
May I ask that you clarify your view of whether our consciousness can live on in a new non-material interface after our current interface- human body&brain dies?
From everything I've looked at, I would imagine that the soul survives, but is changed, and therefore our uniqueness as a subjective prehension of God would be there, but the nature of our consciousness would be very different, and we might not 'feel like ourselves'. Ultimately, we cannot know, so NDEs, scripture and intuition is the best we have to go on.
Also clarify what is eternal with no beginning versus what is eternal but with a beginning?
Eternal for me means no beginning or ending. It's extremely difficult for us to get our heads round this, but I think it is the most parsimonious and likely explanation.

- - -

> Fungal Net:

I agree with your points about the evidence of our distant past suggesting a pre-fall state that was almost entirely egalitarian (and in balance with nature, etc.)

I disagree with the point you've made about God as an entity. I recommend that you read the first 2 chapters of David Bentley Hart's 'The Experience of God', wherein he lays out the idea that God is not an entity but the ground of all being, consciousness and bliss. I would consider it to be essential reading for anyone grappling with the idea of God.

Best of wishes to both of you
I can't understand consciousness beyond life. All life forms "we know about" are included in this very thin film in the surface of the earth, which includes the sea, which is the overwhelming majority of life on earth. Beyond the bottom of the sea and a few kilometers above the surface we have found no evidence of any other life. Statistically there has to be much more scattered around the universe. If we were to assume that life on earth, all forms, ended, what form of consciousness can there be?

An atheist is someone who has a specific thesis on the lack of existence of god, and anything metaphysical. An atheist is concerned about the existence of god. A materialist can't be bothered with such idealism, or the question of the existence of any form of metaphysical existence. A materialist will not even respond to anything along those lines as it is not really a question. How can you make a question out of terms that don't exist?

Then there is science, which couldn't possibly exist without materialist thought. Science solely belongs to materialism, as a process and as methodology. The fact that there were scientists that entertained metaphysical thought, "beyond their work", doesn't mean that there can be science and metaphysics together.

But the big one is, society. Metaphysical thought blurs, destructs, and confuses the masses about their material conditions. It invents false alliances with enemies, it diverts the goal of equality to an equality of spirits, and maintains the order of inequality, exploitation, and oppression which is exclusively material.

No wonder that all religions, all states, all emperors and dictators (with the most perverse of them all, Alexander), all regimes, have been in war against all forms of materialist thought since its inception (as we know it Heraclitos' thought, father of the dialectic) 25-2600 years ago. Why, because it endangers the status quo of authoritarian maintenance of inequality. There was a brief pause of this war in ancient Athens, where theist agents (aristocratic supporters) like Plato and his buddies tried to undermine and overthrow the government in protection of materialism. Aristocracy was the earliest form of democracy's enemy.

Metaphysical thought can only be individual. The false collective of common metaphysical thought organized under the dictatorship of "middle men"/clergy, still maintains the isolated individual belief on the metaphysical. Collectively, we can only organize and communicate through material speech (verbal or written), leaving all metaphysics out. Otherwise we can not really have a rational conversation and nothing affecting material conditions can be of metaphysical nature. It is pointless to have an "irrational conversation" as two opposing views can both be correct in the mindset of metaphysical thought. Hence no agreement, therefore no action. Meanwhile those that rule, economically and politically, can manage to leave all metaphysics out, organize and communicate in a very material basis amongst themselves, and be very effective.

So, any effort to avert discussion from real, material, problems to metaphysics, is a waste of time and an obstacle to the drive for equality, justice, peace, environmental/ecological stability. Metaphysics is a tool of the enemy of humanity, for tens of thousands of years, and it is just the past 2 millenniums we are beginning to see a glimpse of the light, through science. The enemy is always a very small group of people whose decisions are enforced through extreme mechanisms of violence, blackmail against survival, and mind manipulation (metaphysics).

If Einstein wasn't a materialist then who was? Despite of the social pressures to under-write certain belief systems, Einstein briefly made statements on things that were beyond his work, he left no room for metaphysics, and he left no room for the justification of capitalism. But, would the theory of relativity be of lesser importance or validity if he had said he was a Jew, or a Buddhist? It certainly can't be refuted in metaphysical terms. He also liked to joke more than the average physicist does. He said he believed that only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and that he wasn't that sure of the infinity of the universe.
4L1V3 wrote I must ask you if you have discovered 'the first Bible', compiled by Marcion? Marcion appears to me to be a tragically misunderstood, slandered and demonized figure of early Christianity and I for one think he needs a careful revisiting.
I have never heard of him but at 1st glance of researching him it seems that he was separating the Old testament God from Christ. This is something that Christ written of in -Matthew,Mark,Luke,John- didn't set a precedent for so I think he was venturing where the Christ I have confidence in wouldn't lead.

Sure, but we don't have to take it on faith and even most atheist scholars acknowledge a historical basis for the majority of the events described in the books that make up the NT/Evangelion/Apostolikon.
Sure but we must have faith that the "rigorous" standards that are used, by people still liable to err despite their training. in investiagation of these matters are sufficient to come to a correct conclusion pertaining to all the questions raised.
Ultimately, we cannot know, so NDEs, scripture and intuition is the best we have to go on.
I guess a wait& see approach is called for but certain things like untimely death make me impariont to find out some unknowables.

fungal_net wrote Those that have tried to deny modern and archaic anthropological findings, of communities/tribes/nations of people who practiced true equality for centuries, in a very stable social environment, are the same who pretend it is an impossible ideal, and that humans are incapable of surviving without a shepherd.
Those communities/tribes/nations eventually collapsed even after enjoying the impossible ideals. So how long is the aformentioned ideal maintainable for? 400 yrs, 2000yrs? Why must it be a finite time period when humans are left to maintaining it or trying to?
Meanwhile those that rule, economically and politically, can manage to leave all metaphysics out, organize and communicate in a very material basis amongst themselves, and be very effective.
Though those that rule do this they leave out possibilities that will come back to put them in an unfavorable position. It helps to think that some of the aforementioned rulers are exchanging a favorable position in most of their finite life for an unfavorable end.

Voltaire for example was quite rich&in a favored position for most of his finite life but at the end I read somewhere that, basically, he wished he had never been born& held the view that most people are equally criminal, walking carcasses.

I guess some of us are unsatisfied by a finite life desite all the enjoyable stuff inbetween its beginning&end. It may be stupid or objectionable but we bet/wager that there has got to be more& live in the expectation that we will come out in a favorable position. Like a gambler makes a gamble&wins something when what he rooted for comes as he expected when he gambled.

We hope all who only want a finite life& that is all they wish for, enjoy as much of it as possible.
There is not much here for me to continue. It is exactly the reason someone allows metaphysical speculation to take place in a "rational" discussion that the perception of the current state of life on earth is universal and natural. You are denying key historical processes that allowed things to be this way. You are also projecting relations of predators and dominated animals in nature/jungle to be normal "within the same specie", cannibalism that is, and you make the philosophical leap to justify the dominant predator as a "positive" and the victims of cannibals as "deficient".

Things like cannibalism, common in Europe (where people massively killed for the sake of killing) were inconceivable in some new worlds, in the case of Australia/NZ only a couple of centuries ago. People lived harmoniously, respecting each other's presence/community/territory, without engaging in genocide to grab land and exploit slaves to extract wealth. They did live like this as long as we can find traces of human presence, then the W.Europeans landed and capitalism developed. This is tiny instant of time of life on earth, and during this moment people were too confused my metaphysics to avert this phenomenon.

You can't look at history as a picture of current conditions, when I say current I mean 500-1000-2000 years. Just the dog has been domesticated by humans 10k years, during a very unfortunate turn of human development. What should be puzzling is all scientific findings that show that there can't be a 22nd century for humanity, it ends in the 21st. There is growing dispute that there is still a way to avert this or slow it down.
Lets continue as much with the little we can. Our desires do play a part in what we consider rational notwithstanding how much as we like to separate them.

Masses/majorities of people unintentionaly desire certain people to be in charge& have more influence more than others based on how pleasing they address fellow people, topics&issues, talent, ability...etc...then heirachies+separation between rulers&ruled then form based on peoples desire for the path of least resistence&ease. So im not sure the cannibalism metaphor could encapsulate what that phenomenon is.

I think there has always been war -based on jealousy,disagreement on what is&isn't a crime, and desire for a centralized ruling location with worldwide control- about as long as humans brains&human natures with the capabilities that are currently possible in them have existed in this world.

I bet people generally were suspicious of people who didnt act&or think like them just as we have today. This has always had the potential to result in unintentional or cherished misunderstanding which sometimes can cause conflict& alienation with all the potential manifestations of it. Rationally, all that should resolve misunderstanding should be discussion, but when people are unwilling to discuss, worse happens.

I tend to think human nature acts similarly thoughout history without execption, so how people conduct themselves today is generally repetition of the past- as far back in human history as one can go- principally, but in a different expression&context. So we can agree to disagree there.

Am I incorrect to state that you think all that exists is measurable? That there is nothing that humans cannot figure out how to measure?
While I bet that there exists unmeasurable life for example as plausible&attainable?

So you desire equality as much as possible within a measurable life, which, as far as your concerned, is all that there is. As for me, while I'm not going to get in your way, I'm gonna think there is more than a measurable life&desire it.
What should be puzzling is all scientific findings that show that there can't be a 22nd century for humanity, it ends in the 21st.
Do human extintion is scientifically inevitable before the 22nd century. That is perplexing/puzzling indeed.

I don't think humans can preserve their own race, it will take something more than human&unmeasurable- imho. Fascinating though, I bet most anyone can comment about what they think concerning that puzzle.
> Masses/majorities of people unintentionaly desire certain people to be in charge

This sounds like a sexual fetish. "Unintentional desire". A psychoanalyst may have a party dealing with this one. I am not trying to play with words, I admit I have an extreme aversion with the word desire when discussing politics/philosophy. Some people bless this word as holly, "human desire", and that it has to be respected. Respected by an individual for the next? Or respected collectively? There is a difference, a child molester and an animal molester may respect each other's "desires" and accept them. Collectively we tend to see them as abusive and will not tolerate them. Unintentional sounds even more scary when it comes to desire. The desire deep inside the psyche of the individual is something we tend to either not see or be able to do anything about. The desire that materializes has direct ramifications to either people, animals, or the environment around those materializing desires. This becomes a material problem when it materializes. The desire to have, control, dictated, occupy, more than your fair share, is something that CAN be collectively harnessed. Otherwise some Bezos can really swallow the entire earth up.

> im not sure the cannibalism metaphor could encapsulate what that phenomenon is

I don't think of it as phenomenon, it is chaotic rule of individualism. This system breeds competition on humans for survival. Each and every one has to individually survive, which is contrary to human tradition. Humans survived as communities in the past, in almost all cultures and corners of the earth. It is the only known and commonly acceptable part of human nature we know. We are not like panthers or wildcats. We survive in groups as groups. Capitalism is striving to alter this very nature of humans, and although it projects massive urban societies, it attempts to break down any connection and unity among people. One of the ways it achieves this is to promote false sense of unity under false characteristics, religion, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, sports, ... and by doing this it eliminates class barriers. Meanwhile, to survive within this mass chaotic society you must compete with your peers, for salary, educational achievement, position within a bureaucracy (even though it may be industrial technical work, all work has hierarchies/bureaucracies), Your access to shelter and food, medical care, education, is a commodity that is not equally shared, but you have to compete for it.

Hence cannibalism, class cannibalism that is. You don't fight with your boss as much as you are with your co-worker. You are at each other's throat about getting a promotion. Not all workers together get a promotion. Instead of questioning the promoter, you question those who are promoted instead of you. The sliest fallacy is that if we all work harder and smarter, and produce more and more, we will "all" benefit and be "advanced". So the rats keep spinning the wheels faster and faster wanting to be the ONLY rat that gets the cheese.

> I think there has always been war .... have existed in this world.

I am sorry, I can't give a brief reference to the entire field of anthropology, but this is very contrary to scientific findings and I will not dispute them to agree with your perception on human history. Some may even argue that there are very very few communities of native tribes hidden in some jungle corners where valuable resources haven't been identified, and are still contradicting what you are saying. Chief Seattle once said that earth owns us, we can not own earth. This is black/white difference between the philosophy of those people and the European invaders/rapists/murderers. The "civil"ized being invaded by the "uncivil"ized. The uncivilized always win this war.

The zapatistas since day 1 (1-1-1994) have said we want everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves.

> I bet people generally were ........ This has always had .........

We must have read very different books on history and human development. Because our understandings are very very contradictory. Based on two very different datasets with contradictory data, how can we discuss much?

> .... but when people are unwilling to discuss, worse happens .....

Here is some first solid ground we can agree on. So, let us talk about discussion in specific. Equals can discuss things, and keep discussing things till they come to a mutual understanding and possibly an agreement. Let's take an example, which I love and use often. Let's say our community has a problem with the septic system, and we need to do something about it, and the reasons why we should are very convincing to everyone. How do we go about fixing it? There are many proposals, some conflicting with each other, some laughed at, some perceived as unattainable, ... and the discussion continues till we examine all of them, realize why even a good proposal can and must be rejected, and how sometimes even a poor proposal, based on other arguments, may be the best course of action. Now step back, and think how in your community the septic system that is broken gets fixed. Why isn't there discussion, some neighbors may have better proposals, cheaper, easier, faster, more durable, more sanitary, .... more beneficial. Who stops this discussion from taking place, and even if it did among neighbors, who decides and who fixes it, and who pays for it is none of their business. So it takes an AUTHORITY to END a discsussion, to disregard a discussion or its agreements.

Now imagine a community, having an urgent meeting to discuss about the existence of god, and whether she is good or evil. I simply would rather discuss the septic system and choose to skip this meeting and the almighty goddess.

Ending a discussion is the worst form of violence, it is actually THE ONLY REASON for violence. If discussion was to go on there would be no violence. Violence, organized violence, such as RIOT POLICE, is a tool by authorities to END A DISCUSSION, a conversation, a debate. You shut the fuck up, I DECIDE, and you pay for what I decide is best for you. If you don't like it I will beat you up and you can vote for one of my other friends, bribed by the same sewage contractor.

> ... So we can agree to disagree there ...

This is a cliche that is empty of meaning. This is actually the border between the rational and irrational conversation. If you tell me that matter and even a life form made of matter, can travel 1.2 times the speed of light, and I show you with equations that this is not possible, it is absolutely illogical, there is not much to agree to disagree about. Alternatively we can admit that my arguments are not enough to convince you, and yours are not enough to convince me, and we just give up mutually understanding that we are incapable of defending two hypotheses adequately. This is very different than saying that two contradicting arguments can both be correct. If neither one of us is good at theoretical physics and you believe in time travel and I don't, we may not be able to convince each other who is correct. So we agree not to disagree, but that we are both ignorant on the subject we are debating about.

> I tend to think human nature ,....

Theists, all along history, have used this term as a crotch to escape on the necessities of belief of a higher force, the supernatural, and to portray humans as deficient to this other being that only "they" know and understand better, hence it is natural for them to be the middle men between this higher form of life and this deficient one of humans. Except for humans being nomadic animals, to be able to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next, to be able to make more ingenious tools, we know nothing more about such a thing as human nature. We have not been convinced that we are the only animal that communicates or has memory, or any of it. We are still speculating about known life forms. We study and try to learn. Whales for sure communicate about complex matters, as their communication seems complex. Beavers make dams during the right season for the benefit of the next season, and ants make homes for thousands of lives underground, that never flood and destroy their colonies. There is not a spec of evidence that some being not made of matter and energy ever existed and created anything or affected anything.. Hence it can't be a scientific object. Fungi on the other hand may be as close as a life form to what we call god.

I believe that life resources on the planet earth are finite, they can change forms, they can become less beneficial to life forms, but they are finite, not infinite.

Equality as in equal respect for each other, equality as a tendency to share rather than prohibiting access to resources, equality in participating in discussion and decision about what we have in common, this I believe is order and it is humanly achievable. Chaos and inequality is disorder, it is a source of conflict, violence, competition, and eventually loss of life of those defeated. If we were to say that chaos and inequality is "natural" then let us see if it is possible for humans to attain equality if they were to pursue it.

> Do human extinction is scientifically inevitable before the 22nd century. That is perplexing/puzzling indeed.

There is growing evidence and modeling on biological diversity that shows that there is a threshold where any ecosystem when reaching a certain low level of diversity, collapses and then no life is possible. Unfortunately we can only estimate diversity and it changes daily. There is clear evidence that there are always new species materializing, evolving, and species vanishing, becoming extinct. There is growing evidence that we have entered an era where the new species are a fraction of the extinct species. There is all kinds of evidence that industrialization, mining, deforestation, etc. have been accelerating this phenomenon in an alarming rate.

The very definition of a forest is long term stability of enormous biological diversity, the more and the longer this stability exists the more enduring the forest and the more abundant the life. We have been practicing quite the opposite for way too long. We have gone to an all out war against ALL other life forms, we want to dominate and exploit. Permaculture as a concept is about the only hope we may have had, but it is so contradictory to the way of life we have it will only become relevant and understandable among the very last few humans that will remain, and it may then be too late to practice. Science --> technology --> practice/industrial production, has contributed 0 to what we can eat, to what we need to eat, or how we can survive as a whole. You take those arrows away, and there is plenty of science that leads to 0 technology and practice, because it contradicts industrial development. It is systematically negated as irrelevant because money can not be made with it.

So next time you spray some bugs, take an antibiotic, a fungicide, wash your kitchen, your bathroom, your clothes, your body, and flush it all out, think about being a mass murderer. The next time you spray your yard, take "weeds" out, and plant dutch GMOs because they make pretty colors and smell nice, trim your bushes, and gather leaves and throw them as trash, think about diversity. The only reason clean drinkable water runs in streams is because thousands of lives live by taking substances out of the water while it is running down from the forest to the valley. Without them, water wouldn't be drinkable. EVERYTHING we eat, except for industrial chemicals like medicine, is organic forms, life forms. We don't eat anything that wasn't some form of life. We continuously for more than 10k years been choosing to eat a smaller and smaller variety.

We are so fucked it is indescribable.

We are so stupid it is immeasurable.

We know so much about what we do being so wrong that we must be mentally retarded to continue, and we do.
6 days later
fungal_net wrote>
This sounds like a sexual fetish. "Unintentional desire". A psychoanalyst may have a party dealing with this one. I am not trying to play with words, I admit I have an extreme aversion with the word desire when discussing politics/philosophy. Some people bless this word as holly, "human desire", and that it has to be respected. Respected by an individual for the next? Or respected collectively? There is a difference, a child molester and an animal molester may respect each other's "desires" and accept them. Collectively we tend to see them as abusive and will not tolerate them. Unintentional sounds even more scary when it comes to desire. The desire deep inside the psyche of the individual is something we tend to either not see or be able to do anything about. The desire that materializes has direct ramifications to either people, animals, or the environment around those materializing desires. This becomes a material problem when it materializes. The desire to have, control, dictated, occupy, more than your fair share, is something that CAN be collectively harnessed. Otherwise some Bezos can really swallow the entire earth up.
I lol'ed at the first part. Well, I'm not determinist enough to say that every desire must materialize to prove that it exists. Nor do I think of that word as holy.

The word collective doesnt apply universally to all earths population of creatures with human brains, perhaps you mean the majority by that word? Some group somewhere collectively wants every abusive&intolerable thing going on on earth to continue its existence.

Most countries/groups try to design written laws to limit material problems because it is impossible to limit their source within the human brain, core,psyche without something immeasurable interfering. Otherwize the strongest, most talented, most capable will dominate/rule those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities. The US, imo, has the best design to maximize freedom& voluntarism but this is changing because of the neglect in voluntarily taking care of those those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities.

We cannot force people to take care of each other. The systems that are prevolent basically force people, at threat of jail or some penalty, to pool funds that are then distributed by some group of people who of course cannot distribute properly because of human liabily to err& be biased toward self-interest&nepotism.

fungal_net wrote ....it is chaotic rule of individualism. This system breeds competition on humans for survival. Each and every one has to individually survive, which is contrary to human tradition. Humans survived as communities in the past, in almost all cultures and corners of the earth. It is the only known and commonly acceptable part of human nature we know. .... One of the ways it achieves this is to promote false sense of unity under false characteristics, religion, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, sports, ... and by doing this it eliminates class barriers. Meanwhile, to survive within this mass chaotic society you must compete....all work has hierarchies/bureaucracies ..... Your access to shelter and food, medical care, education, is a commodity that is not equally shared, but you have to compete for it.
Human existence comes with problems without human solution. There are only tradeoffs. In collectivist ways, not everyone takes a part in the distribution of what should be equally shared. Inevitably there will be issues with the representatives of the collective, who are chosen to distribute equal shares, eventually ruling because everyone will be looking to these for access to their equal part.

I don't like the individualism which neglects voluntarism in looking out for one's neighbors. I think we could find middle ground to somewhat agree there.It's a complex problem because any access that has be provided by someones services such as doctor, teacher, etc. requires the person to volunteer for those who cannot pay or have someone voluntarily donate to cover the costs those require.

When it comes to food I liked the idea of gleaning societies where farmers where required to give those in need access to their farms& those with access were allowed to pick produce for a days meal only for their family. For shelter, better land distribution could be done& all country groups have failed in this without exception, unless you can inform me of one that I can reconsider.
fungal_net wroteHence cannibalism, class cannibalism that is. You don't fight with your boss as much as you are with your co-worker. You are at each other's throat about getting a promotion. Not all workers together get a promotion. Instead of questioning the promoter, you question those who are promoted instead of you. The sliest fallacy is that if we all work harder and smarter, and produce more and more, we will "all" benefit and be "advanced". So the rats keep spinning the wheels faster and faster wanting to be the ONLY rat that gets the cheese.
Ideally people should work in order move toward a self-sustaining existence. However, because people have allowed themselves to be programmed to be constant consumers& fill feelings of emptiness with material gains, so many see no escape from having to constantly work for someone instead of seeing that as trasitory towards working for themselves& their group only.
fungal_net wrote I am sorry, I can't give a brief reference to the entire field of anthropology, but this is very contrary to scientific findings and I will not dispute them to agree with your perception on human history. Some may even argue that there are very very few communities of native tribes hidden in some jungle corners where valuable resources haven't been identified, and are still contradicting what you are saying. Chief Seattle once said that earth owns us, we can not own earth. This is black/white difference between the philosophy of those people and the European invaders/rapists/murderers. The "civil"ized being invaded by the "uncivil"ized. The uncivilized always win this war.

The zapatistas since day 1 (1-1-1994) have said we want everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves.

> I bet people generally were ........ This has always had .........

We must have read very different books on history and human development. Because our understandings are very very contradictory. Based on two very different datasets with contradictory data, how can we discuss much?
Well, what is constant& what is varying or variable about human thought&action throughout human population history?

I tend to be uniformitarian when it comes to human though&action in this world just as some tend to be uniformitariam when it comes to plate tectonics for example. Uniformitarian, meaning the constants sensed&documented for some recent time period inform us of how it must have always been.

The strongest, most talented, most capable will dominate/rule those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities, unless limitations are set- is generally a rule that is validated by my dataset.
Maybe it is easier to be fond of the past societies that seemed to get along well for long time periods before eventually collapsing or being conquered because we could not see all the problems they had internally living as they were. Also, we cannot see the problems the "uncivilized" have now, but perhaps it is enviable that they seem to live unsullied by many developed &even undeveloped country group problems.
fungal_net wrote Here is some first solid ground we can agree on. So, let us talk about discussion in specific. Equals can discuss things, and keep discussing things till they come to a mutual understanding and possibly an agreement. ....... it takes an AUTHORITY to END a discsussion, to disregard a discussion or its agreements.

Now imagine a community, having an urgent meeting to discuss about the existence of god, and whether she is good or evil. I simply would rather discuss the septic system and choose to skip this meeting and the almighty goddess.
True, I'm quite practical myself so I would be for fixing a sewer system. I agree there would be no solutions, only tradeoffs & I would be for any that would work based on durability/ longevity. I tend to think that the answer to a problem that lasts the longest is the best.

The existence of deity is part of the quest for the "eternal fountain of youth." Some think the aformentioned quest can be completed only by technological advancement, but you may not be interested in finding eternal youth if all you're concerned about it what is measurable, and also are convinced that measurable longevity is all that can exist.

fungal_net wrote we can admit that my arguments are not enough to convince you, and yours are not enough to convince me, and we just give up mutually understanding that we are incapable of defending two hypotheses adequately. This is very different than saying that two contradicting arguments can both be correct.
I do not say the two contradictory arguments can both be correct, I rather defer to a wait and see approach because I bet the truth will be clear in the end. While it is not clear in the present for many people, maybe including me, for various reasons. If there is no truth to be clear to all in the end,but rather only oblivion, then I will have lost my gamble and have advocated for something that has no longevity.
fungal_net wrote There is not a spec of evidence that some being not made of matter and energy ever existed and created anything or affected anything.. Hence it can't be a scientific object. Fungi on the other hand may be as close as a life form to what we call god.
The human brain&form and more should not exist statistically-scientifically but it does. So there is rational room for gambling against what should&shouldn't be scientifically possible i bet.
fungal_net wrote Equality as in equal respect for each other, equality as a tendency to share rather than prohibiting access to resources, equality in participating in discussion and decision about what we have in common, this I believe is order and it is humanly achievable. Chaos and inequality is disorder, it is a source of conflict, violence, competition, and eventually loss of life of those defeated. If we were to say that chaos and inequality is "natural" then let us see if it is possible for humans to attain equality if they were to pursue it.
Thank you for the clarification, I laud your advocacy& pursuit of this equality. I wonder what percentage of the human population would be required to also pursue this to guarantee success of it from your perspective?
fungal_net wrote
We know so much about what we do being so wrong that we must be mentally retarded to continue, and we do.
Yes, for various reasons that only the Immeasurable can fully quantify. The anguish that goes on because humans in general don't use their best judgement is inexpressible.
6 months later
Since no one has presented the traditional Biblical view, I'll try to do so. Of course there are plenty of books on the subject that do a much better job at explaining it than I can, but perhaps I can at least explain what I believe and why.
Wat-now wroteSo what views do you cherish about how the universe began?
One of the simplest forms of life, a single celled bacteria, is incredibly complex. It has a flagellum that can spin at 100,000 rpms, can instantly stop or reverse rotation, and does not overheat from friction. So far, we are unable to make anything like it--not even close. The cell has many "machines" of similar complexity, all of which have parts that are useless by themselves. The cell can find its own raw materials, process them, transport the useful materials to the location in the cell in which they are needed, and eliminate waste. The cell can repair itself and, most remarkable of all, can duplicate itself with incredible precision. I am unable to accept the claim that all this came about by random processes. Everything around us shows evidence of intelligent design which points to an intelligent designer.

That is enough for me to look for a Creator. There are at least 4 different ways the Creator could have proceeded. 1) The Deist typically believe the Creator made all things and then went off to do other things. 2) Many theists believe that the Creator is still involved in Creation but has left the mysteries of the why for us to figure out. 3) By prayer and meditation the Creator will reveal truth to us. 4) The Creator has already revealed to us everything we need to know.

I contend that the first 3 are unworkable as to having any confidence of knowing anything at all. # 1 is like a boy buying a puppy dog and refusing to take any responsibility for it. # 2 is just a guessing game. # 3, which is probably the most common for those who believe in a Creator is too subjective. One can never have any confidence that such "truth" is any more reliable than the guesses of # 2. We are all capable of self-deception and prone to create a god in our own image. That leaves me with # 4. The Bible is the only revelation that I have found to be consistent and reliable.

All that to say, the Bible teaches that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That seems to me to be quite reasonable.
What is it that has always been versus that which has a starting point or beginning?
I think I've already answered that, but, the God of the Bible if I wasn't clear.
Why so much pain& neglect in the world?
God gave the first man and woman a choice to either obey or rebel against His rule. They chose to rebel and the earth was cursed. Pain and suffering can either drive us to God's mercy or drive us to continue in rebellion.
What gives you motivation to continue on living?
Knowing God. Knowing that through Christ I can leave the rebellion and be reconciled to God and become part of His Kingdom. Knowing through His Word that I was created for a specific purpose.
Do you do it for the honor &reputation that might live on for some time after we go unconscious without resurrection- if you have no confidence that anyone will resurrect after unconsciousness that is supposed to be permanent?
The Bible teaches resurrection and I believe it.
Thank you for your resonse @ UnclePa, much of your answer does represent the view labeled as traditionally biblical, but Im curious about your views on the resurrection because of what is popularly believed about immortal existence.

Does everyone get an immortal existance of pain or in heaven& the only choice is between the two, or is pain temporary, even if it must be exeperienced for some time?

If everyone gets an immortal existence, what is the point of a resurrection?
Does everyone get an immortal existance of pain or in heaven& the only choice is between the two, or is pain temporary, even if it must be exeperienced for some time?
There is no short answer to your question. A complete answer would require looking at all the Scriptures on the subject. I'll give just a few but if you want to look into it further, see https://reformed.org/eschatology/eternal-punishment-by-aw-pink/. Dr. Pink answers just about any objection. Jesus speaks of those who will receive greater judgment/condemnation which implies some will receive lesser judgment/condemnation. He also speaks of some being least in the Kingdom of Heaven and some being the greatest in it. Thus it seems the eternal state is more analog than binary. However, He also speaks of the body of the rebellious being cast into Hell, everlasting fire, the fire of Hell, the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. So, there is clearly an eternal separation from God for the rebellious.

Just to be clear, Jesus defines the rebellious as those who refuse to come to Him in faith and repentance.
If everyone gets an immortal existence, what is the point of a resurrection?
God created the world and all things good. After creating man and woman He called it "very good." We were created to exercise Godly dominion over the earth as vice-regents under God, stewards of the earth. Because of man's rebellion, evil has reigned and mankind destroys God's Creation instead of nurturing and tending it. Jesus came to restore mankind to its original purpose. Thus, with the final judgment, there will be new heavens and earth with God's resurrected people exercising dominion and Godly stewardship as originally intended. What a day that will be!
UnclePa wroteThere is no short answer to your question. A complete answer would require looking at all the Scriptures on the subject. I'll give just a few but if you want to look into it further, see [link]. Dr. Pink answers just about any objection.
I scrolled though to get a gist of his explanation because I've been looking at this issue for a while& noticed that he did not address the scripture:
[Gen 3:4 KJV] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
It seems to me that the serpent[aka the unholy angel posessing the serpent] wanted Eve to believe that she would die....but not surely. That she would still have an eternal existence in some state, while in contrast, the Creator said death would be sure because immortality was soley maintained on the conditon of not being separated from Him in any way.

So I must believe that A.W. Piink was mistaken on this point....

The mentions of eternal fire also aren't convincing because Sodom and Gomorrah was burned by "eternal fire", yet what it was burning did not have the immortality required for eternal burning, so it turned to ashes& the "eternal fire" withdrew because it had nothing left to burn.

Also Jesus mentioned the soul can burn until it becomes as though it never existed, leaving nothing for even "everlasting fire" to burn.

I deduce from this, that, the New Earth will be restored on the smoke&ashes of those who could not enjoy an eternal existence, and as absurd as it seems\ed to A.W Pink, that some will be resurrected just to finally go into oblivion afterwards "in the presence of holy angels&the Lamb"Rev 14:10, is the most consistent way to interpret based on conditional immortality.

Immortality makes sense to be on condition of not being separated from the Creator. I'm looking forward to the restoration by the Creator when his limits have reached their threshold, seeing how humans and unholy angels have messed up this planet.
You lost me on that one. I don't understand the claim that Pink is mistaken because he didn't reference a verse that arguably has nothing to do with the topic. Nor do I understand what significance a statement from one that Jesus called the father of lies can have in determining truth other than teaching us his methods of deception.

As for the punishment being eternal--the Greek word translated "destroy" (as in Matthew 10:28) does not mean annihilation or to cause to cease to exist. As I previously mentioned, Jesus says that the rebellious would suffer the same fate as the devil and his angels. Revelation 20:10 says that those would be tormented day and night forever and ever. Compare Revelation 14:11 which applies this to their human followers as well.

I certainly can understand why many do not like this doctrine, but God's decrees are not determined by how we feel about them. Matthew 25:46: The rebellious go to everlasting punishment and the redeemed to everlasting life. Seems quite clear to me.
Well, even if we must disagree, I enjoy discussion.

Since you mentioned the translation "forever and ever" we may as well mention the Greek word that it is translated from: aiónios or aión.
This word has more than one meaning in Greek, and makes ample room for the interpretation that I find most accurrate:

Immortality is on condition of no separation from God, so no one separated from Him, has the immortality required to live a life of endless misery or pain, not even the devil and his angels. Yes, they will suffer but it will be for as long as God sees fit, not endless though.

It's not that I don't like this doctrine, nothing to do with how I feel, It's that I seek consistency& truth.
Yes, aionios can be translated "to the ages" or "for eons" or something along those lines. It seems to me that the *consistent* interpretation is that if Jesus used it twice in the same sentence it would have the same meaning in both cases.
Yes, they will suffer but it will be for as long as God sees fit, not endless though.
If you ended the sentence with the word "fit," we would agree. :) Why put a condition on what God can do? Anyway, hopefully we can agree that punishment and torment "to the ages" should be a deterrent to remaining in rebellion against God and an encouragement to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Powered by Obarun