More nothing

Originally posted by KellyJay
...so to describe an event as the beginning of all things from nothing is nonsensical...

Just like trying to describe things as being eternal in nature. To grasp
that you have to take a leap of faith and stop thinking or you'll go nuts.
Try to imagine the edges of our universe. Beyond it, more space. Find
the edge of that space. Beyond it, more space. Try to imagine... it just
doesn't work. Put a God there. Beyond God? Nothing? Surely not.

Now go the other direction. For every small particle you can detect,
imagine it being made up of even smaller particles. Those smaller
particles made by tiny little particles. Those tiny little... At some point
you must say: "Hmmm, this doesn't work". At some point, a particle
must contain, what? Nothing? No, that can't be. I mean, at the very least
it must contain space. Space with nothing in it? What is that? Is that
even space? Well, I suppose so by the virtue of being delimited by the
shell of our particle. The shell which is made of?.. Hmm, let's continue:
that tiniest little particle still made up of...

See my point? An eternal God as the creator, a self-caused eternal
universe or something from nothing. From a human perspective they're
all pretty wild mind games to consider, and each require an enormous
will to believe in. Why have I chosen to believe that nothing can be
thought of as precisely nothing, and that some primitive form of particle
existence can begin in that nothing? Because at some point, if I travel
through space in either direction, my mind tells me I must come across
the unthinkable nothing.

Originally posted by stocken
Just like trying to describe things as being eternal in nature. To grasp
that you have to take a leap of faith and stop thinking or you'll go nuts.
Try to imagine the edges of our universe. Beyond it, more space. Find
the edge of that space. Beyond it, more space. Try to imagine... it just
doesn't work. Put a God there. Beyond God? Nothing? Surely no ...[text shortened]... pace in either direction, my mind tells me I must come across
the unthinkable nothing.

...the unthinkable nothing.

And I think that’s the problem—that absolute “nothing” is unthinkable... It’s not just a not-this or not-that, or an empty box, or not anything but us, or not anything but someone else. But that’s as far as our conceptual grammar can take us.

At least I find it unthinkable; though, while I don’t think I’m the dumbest rock in the pile, I’m not the smartest one either...

But what is unthinkable may still be the case, but it is unsayable—in any way that can make sense to us. And so I choose not to say anything about “it.”

BTW, there’s a wonderful book called Aleph, about mathematicians who have worked on infinity: when they get deeply enough into it, it seems to have a deleterious affect on their sanity...

Originally posted by stocken
Just like trying to describe things as being eternal in nature. To grasp
that you have to take a leap of faith and stop thinking or you'll go nuts.
Try to imagine the edges of our universe. Beyond it, more space. Find
the edge of that space. Beyond it, more space. Try to imagine... it just
doesn't work. Put a God there. Beyond God? Nothing? Surely no ...[text shortened]... pace in either direction, my mind tells me I must come across
the unthinkable nothing.

Even on a number line there is always one other number to go to next, yet I don't worry about the end of it. I do not however believe there was ever a point where all there was, was nothing. You may accept that as true, I do not, where you may believe there was/is/will be nothing I believe that there was/is/will be God. You may believe nothing to be beyond the edges, I believe the universe cannot contain God, so the only real differences I see in what you have said is that what I believe is personal and living, what you seem to believe in is not, which sets up the way all other things are be viewed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Even on a number line there is always one other number to go to next, yet I don't worry about the end of it. I do not however believe there was ever a point where all there was, was nothing. You may accept that as true, I do not, where you may believe there was/is/will be nothing I believe that there was/is/will be God. You may believe nothing to be beyond ...[text shortened]... hat you seem to believe in is not, which sets up the way all other things are be viewed.
Kelly

My point was that you take on faith an idea which is as hard for the human
mind to truly comprehend as the one I'm presenting. You seem to think that
if your beliefs are true it brings a meaning to existence and my belief
doesn't. If that's the case, I think you're wrong. Our existence, the universe
and all has no less meaning or value because it came from nothing. In fact,
I'd say that makes it a very interesting existence indeed.

Originally posted by stocken
My point was that you take on faith an idea which is as hard for the human
mind to truly comprehend as the one I'm presenting. You seem to think that
if your beliefs are true it brings a meaning to existence and my belief
doesn't. If that's the case, I think you're wrong. Our existence, the universe
and all has no less meaning or value because it came from nothing. In fact,
I'd say that makes it a very interesting existence indeed.

You seem to think that if your beliefs are true it brings a meaning to existence and my belief doesn't. If that's the case, I think you're wrong.

Well, I would say that I not only think that’s wrong—I think it’s clearly and demonstrably wrong. However, I don’t think Kelly intends that kind of one-upsmanship with regard to whose understanding is really meaningful, and whose isn’t. I think his argument is that belief in a God gives more grounding to the questions of meaning and value.

He argues, as I understand him, that without some ultimate source of value, all values are matters of personal taste. I disagree with that as well, but from a wholly different angle and understanding... And even if I did agree with him, I would have to bite the bullet and say, “Then that’s the way it is,” because I cannot honestly posit a supreme being to escape from the dilemma.

Which is why KJ and I end up at a—hopefully mutually respectful and friendly—impasse on this whole question.

I'd say that makes it a very interesting existence indeed.

With that, I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think his argument is that belief in a God gives more grounding to the questions of meaning and value.

I fail to see how these questions would be any more relevant (hoping I
understand your use of the word grounding) if there is indeed a God.
Everything I value in life are things that I know I can't take for granted.
(Personal relationships being the most important.) I have to constantly
work on these things and in return it gives my life meaning and value.
This would still be true if I believed a God existed that created
everything for a purpose only It would understand. But belief in this
God would take away some of my joy in life as it would have me think
that whatever I do and say I will play the game just the way my God has
intended. After all, It created me and the universe in which live, so I
couldn't possibly affect anything in any other way than I do.

Originally posted by stocken
I fail to see how these questions would be any more relevant (hoping I
understand your use of the word grounding) if there is indeed a God.
Everything I value in life are things that I know I can't take for granted.
(Personal relationships being the most important.) I have to constantly
work on these things and in return it gives my life meani ...[text shortened]... e universe in which live, so I
couldn't possibly affect anything in any other way than I do.

Fair statement; however, if you have a person that believes in doing on to others whatever they will so long as they get pleasure out of it, without regard to the damage done to others, are they better than you, worse than you, equally as good/bad as you, if they too work hard to fulfill their desires at great cost to everyone they can harm for their own enjoyment? Without God there is not "as intended" now is there, there really isn't any should have either, there really is just what there is, value statements are just personal calls.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Without God there is not "as intended" now is there, there really isn't any should have either, there really is just what there is, value statements are just personal calls.

You may need to rely on something "bigger" than yourself to control your
actions but I don't. To me it's just common sense not to act on instinct
all the time. It makes it possible for me to function in this society without
too much anguish by not causing it myself. A simple equation that not
everyone, religious or not, has figured out. It usually takes some
maturing before you even start to seriously think about these things,
which is why kids will kids and some people just never grow up. It's not
because they don't believe in God. It's because they don't care about
people around them, or they believe they're special and privileged
because of their God. Belief in a God won't guarantee anything in terms
of social behaviour. It's up to each individual to figure these things out
for themselves.

Addition: Oh, and why aren't you using newlines anymore? I
adopted this format because I found it easier to read, and then you stop
using it. Too bad. 😕

Originally posted by stocken
You may need to rely on something "bigger" than yourself to control your
actions but I don't. To me it's just common sense not to act on instinct
all the time. It makes it possible for me to function in this society without
too much anguish by not causing it myself. A simple equation that not
everyone, religious or not, has figured out. It usually ta ...[text shortened]... format because I found it easier to read, and then you stop
using it. Too bad. 😕

🙂 Okay, back to new lines!
You didn't answer my question about the selfish person being better,
worse, or as good/bad as you are, why is that? That is the real issue,
is there a need for there to be something 'bigger' to make that call,
or is simply your views better because they are your views? If comes
down to whose ways are better, I'd side with you, but what if there are
a lot of people who choose to live caring only about themselves, would
that make you and I something worse than they are?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You didn't answer my question about the selfish person being better,
worse, or as good/bad as you are, why is that? That is the real issue,
is there a need for there to be something 'bigger' to make that call,
or is simply your views better because they are your views? If comes
down to whose ways are better, I'd side with you, but what if there are
a l ...[text shortened]... live caring only about themselves, would
that make you and I something worse than they are?

I don't think your actions makes you anything more or less than human. We
are all still made up of the same crap (or fairy-dust-stuff if you prefer). The
question, to me, is not whether or not we have a set of definitions to try and
distinct between people being good and bad. The question is if such a
framework will actually make people behave more selfishly or not, and I say
it doesn't. People still make their own choices and whatever they believe in
spiritually, they will act in accordance with what they think/feel is right at the
moment (God or no God). And there are always ways to justify your actions,
if to no one else yourself (God or no God).

Originally posted by stocken
I don't think your actions makes you anything more or less than human. We
are all still made up of the same crap (or fairy-dust-stuff if you prefer). The
question, to me, is not whether or not we have a set of definitions to try and
distinct between people being good and bad. The question is if such a
framework will actually make people behave more s d there are always ways to justify your actions,
if to no one else yourself (God or no God).

Well that was what I said, if all there is, is just what there is, meaning
people are just people, there really isn't any difference between one
or the other, we all act the way we act, that speaks volumes to me
about reality. CS Lewis wrote a book called Mere Christianity that
got me thinking along these lines, where if a space ship was
monitoring human behavior much like we do lions, what would they
think of the human race, would they categorize us like we do lions?
What one does they all do so when we have people lying, stealing,
bombing, murdering, raping, hating and so on, is it a fair assessment
than we are a race that simply does these things, we are human and
that is what humans do? There really isn’t any one is better than
another, we are what we are, human, because in essence you
acknowledge that by what you just said unless I misunderstood your
position.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well that was what I said, if all there is, is just what there is, meaning
people are just people, there really isn't any difference between one
or the other, we all act the way we act, that speaks volumes to me
about reality. CS Lewis wrote a book called Mere Christianity that
got me thinking along these lines, where if a space ship was
monitoring hum ...[text shortened]... sence you
acknowledge that by what you just said unless I misunderstood your
position.
Kelly

My position is that yes, we are all more or less driven by the same basic
instincts and our behaviour in various situations are more or less
the same. There are differences but they may be too subtle for an
external observer to detect unless they spend some time studying us.
I'm sure there are many individual differences between lions too, we just
can't see them. We don't even understand their communication properly.

But, by using reason and our ability to understand consequences to
some level before we actually perform a given act, we can resist some
instincts because we know in the long run it will be best for all. We can all
do that. Now, whether we do it or not is an individual choice, and that
choice is most often irrelevant of which religion you adhere to (or not).
We know this because a lot of atheists follow some of the more
important (or what they consider important) commandments. They do it
for other reasons than that a God supposedly says they must, but they
come to the same conclusions: that in almost all situations it's wrong to
murder and steal from other people (for example). This clearly shows
that such moral guidelines are irrelevant of religion, and instead comes
from individual reasoning.

So, I don't think there are better or worse people. Our choices are better
or worse, and most often the rest of society will punish us if we behave in
ways that are harmful to the rest (unless we're filthy rich or command
great "respect" ) .

Originally posted by stocken
My position is that yes, we are all more or less driven by the same basic
instincts and our behaviour in various situations are more or less
the same. There are differences but they may be too subtle for an
external observer to detect unless they spend some time studying us.
I'm sure there are many individual differences between lions too, we just
...[text shortened]... that are harmful to the rest (unless we're filthy rich or command
great "respect" ) .

Than you are claiming we are not good or evil by just our
physical makeup which I agree with, that would calling a rock
good or evil just because it is a rock however, our actions can
be called good or evil, or better or worse? Not trying to put
words in your mouth, but to understand your position better;
it seems that you dismiss ones actions as a means to call
someone good or bad, which is part of our make up in my
opinion, even a child is known by their actions. They may
have the same physical characteristics in our material world
as hearts, livers, brains, hands feet, and so on, yet how we act,
what things we do can be completely different. What is within
a person that drives us to make such completely different
actions? It isn’t our environment since we can have those born
and raised in poverty be a ‘good’ as can be, and those born and
raised into wealth be as ‘bad’ as can be.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Than you are claiming we are not good or evil by just our
physical makeup which I agree with, that would calling a rock
good or evil just because it is a rock however, our actions can
be called good or evil, or better or worse? Not trying to put
words in your mouth, but to understand your position better;
it seems that you dismiss ones actions as a mea ...[text shortened]... erty be a ‘good’ as can be, and those born and
raised into wealth be as ‘bad’ as can be.
Kelly

Good point. I would say that the reason I react with scepticism whenever
someone talks about good and bad people is that it sounds so definite.
Since it's our actions that makes us appear good and bad, and
depending on our current situation our actions may be chosen differently,
the very same person can be both good and bad. So, to say that this
person is better than that one because (s)he's made the "right" choices
more often is wrong in my opinion. First, who's to say what is the right
choices? It's a matter of what you're trying to achieve. For instance, let's
say there's someone in a room about to die unless you leave the door
open long enough for him to enter your room, because some fire is
raging through the hall and you're behind a good firewall if you
close the door. You have a choice. Either you wait for this someone to
come and hope he'll make it, or you make the decision to close the door
positive that a lot more people will be guaranteed to survive. What is the
right choice? You can't be sure this person makes it, and you don't have
enough knowledge and experience to tell when it's too late; when the fire
will suddenly just come bursting in through the door due to airflow
changing or whatever.

Good and bad choices are very hard to define. It's why you make a
choice, not what choice you make, isn't it? If you close the door to
save your own butt with certainty, or to save more than that person. If
you didn't close the door because you really thought this other person
would make it but instead not only he but several others died, or if you
didn't close the door because it was a friend and you thought his life was
more important than everyone standing in the room. And the only one
who knows why you make a choice that in the end turns out to be good
or bad is you. So how can anyone else stand in front of you and say you
are a bad person because you took the wrong action in this or that
situation? They can't. I can't tell by your actions alone whether you are a
person who cares about other people or if you do it solely for your own
long-term benefit.

So, to sum up, I guess I don't like the division of good and bad people
simply because we're all good and bad during different parts of life given
the right (or wrong) circumstances.

Originally posted by stocken
Good point. I would say that the reason I react with scepticism whenever
someone talks about good and bad people is that it sounds so definite.
Since it's our actions that makes us appear good and bad, and
depending on our current situation our actions may be chosen differently,
the very same person can be both good and bad. So, to say that this
pe during different parts of life given
the right (or wrong) circumstances.

Than what you are saying is that even if there are good and bad
choices you don't want to lay a label on someone as good or bad,
because you don't want to lay a label on anyone, no matter the
body of works, or the choices they have made in their lives?
Kelly

ps.
This does mean that there is such a thing as good and bad.