Answering the Big Questions of Life

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bigquest.html ^ | Sue Bohlin

[DittoJed2]

Good article on ultimate issues.

[DittoJed2]

Ping.

[betty boop]

Naturalism, believing that there is nothing beyond space, time and energy, would answer the question [of "How do you know that you know?] by pointing to the human mind. Rational thought--figuring things out deductively--is one prime way we gain knowledge. Human reason is a good enough method to find out what we need to know. The mind is the center of our source of knowledge. Another way to knowledge is by accumulating hard scientific data of observable and measurable experience. This view says that the source of our knowledge is found in the senses. We know what we can perceive through what we can measure. Since naturalism denies any supernaturalism (anything above or outside of the natural world), what the human mind can reason and measure is the only standard for gaining knowledge.

Fine post, DittoJed2. Thanks for the ping!

[VRWCmember]

nothingness bump

[OWK]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't yet know, but am satisfied with that.

I feel no need to say I don't know, therefore "Giant Invisible Bearded Guy".

How do you explain human nature?

As a complex accumulation of naturally selected behavioral traits.

What happens to a person at death?

They become food for microorganisms.

How do you determine right and wrong?

By appealing to a rationally derived and objective moral code.

How do you know that you know?

By testing what I think I know, against the confines of reality.

[DittoJed2]

Thank you! See post 5. I believe OWK is still using a term he hasn't defined for you sufficiently- reality.

[tpaine]

DittoJed2 wrote:
"Thank you! See post 5. I believe OWK is still using a term he hasn't defined for you sufficiently- reality."




How do you two define reality?

-- I see reality happening all about me, and think it best defined by what happens when I forget to take it into account..
My actions have consequenses which can hurt. Reality can hurt.

Whereas imagination cannot hurt unless acted upon.

- Thus, we can imagine anything, but acting upon those delusions will bring back reality.
Most who deny reality then blame the pain on 'God' or, on their fellow man.
- Strange folks.

[DittoJed2]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't yet know, but am satisfied with that.
That may be good and well from a personal standpoint, but it is a question that most folks need an answer to. Evolution/Atheism, by removing the Creator from the course of events has ended up with a huge Creator-sized hole in their theory that none of their naturalistic explanations can touch. You don't get something from nothing in the natural world at all. Even if there are protons, those are SOMETHING.

I feel no need to say I don't know, therefore "Giant Invisible Bearded Guy".

Cute.

How do you explain human nature?

As a complex accumulation of naturally selected behavioral traits.
And the personal coming from impersonal matter? And the idea of an objective basis for morality?

What happens to a person at death?

They become food for microorganisms.

Sad point of view.

How do you determine right and wrong?

By appealing to a rationally derived and objective moral code.
It isn't objective. It may be rationally derived, but it is derived from human beings preference and opinion- subjective elements which vary from person to person, group to group. As such, morality changes as society changes. There is no stable objective moral code in atheism.

How do you know that you know?

By testing what I think I know, against the confines of reality.
And what is reality? How do you test what reality is in order to know that reality is "real"?

[DittoJed2]

Hi tpaine,

How do you two define reality?

-- I see reality happening all about me, and think it best defined by what happens when I forget to take it into account..
Boy that's a rather abstract definition. Please elaborate on what you mean here.

My actions have consequenses which can hurt. Reality can hurt.

Whereas imagination cannot hurt unless acted upon.

Imagination can hurt too. Ask any paranoid schizophrenic or person with OCD. Some things occur in the mind that are either a result of malfunctioning senses, being lied to and deceived, or any other number of non-imaginary things. Also, a reality that is defined by what hurts or doesn't hurt doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, I'm not being confrontational here, just trying to understand what you are saying.

- Thus, we can imagine anything, but acting upon those delusions will bring back reality. Most who deny reality then blame the pain on 'God' or, on their fellow man. - Strange folks.

Seems rather subjective. If it hurts me, I must have been denying reality. You kinda edge towards Buddhism there where the way to avoid pain is to deny want. If you don't want, you won't hurt, but is that real?

[tpaine]

-- I see reality happening all about me, and think it best defined by what happens when I forget to take it into account.. My actions have consequenses which can hurt. Reality can hurt.
Whereas imagination cannot hurt unless acted upon.
- Thus, we can imagine anything, but acting upon those delusions will bring back reality.

Most who deny reality then blame the pain on 'God' or, on their fellow man.
- Strange folks

Imagination can hurt too. Ask any paranoid schizophrenic or person with OCD. Some things occur in the mind that are either a result of malfunctioning senses, being lied to and deceived, or any other number of non-imaginary things.

You are, in effect, imagining that you know what is going on in that individuals mind. Unless/until that person acts, [or you do] no harm is done, in reality, to others. -- Get it?

Also, a reality that is defined by what hurts or doesn't hurt doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, I'm not being confrontational here, just trying to understand what you are saying.

When I'm in pain, it's reality to me, -- a real action hurt me.
-- Unless, of course I imagine I'm hurt. But my imagining that pain is also an action on my part, even if it is not a mental disease. And that action hurts only me while kept private.

----------------------------------

- Most who deny reality then blame the pain on 'God' or, on their fellow man. - Strange folks.

Seems rather subjective. If it hurts me, I must have been denying reality.

Yep, it's a strange sort of subjectivism. Blame must be assigned to others so that the reality of ones actions can be denied. Catch 22.

You kinda edge towards Buddhism there where the way to avoid pain is to deny want. If you don't want, you won't hurt, but is that real?

Straw budda.. Find a real argument.

[f.Christian]

It amazes me ...

how many ' conservatives ' (( catholic - christians too )) on the FR embrace leftism --- atheism - aclu - social engineering !

[tpaine]

Nothing you can say amazes me anymore... As you long ago abandoned most of your grip on reality.

[DittoJed2]

I'll admit that Buddha doesn't exactly fit your definition of reality, but his thoughts concentrated on avoiding pain. It seems to me that you are defining reality as that which causes pain when you forget about it. But how can you forget about something that the only way you can know its real is when it causes pain? I mean, what if something doesn't cause you pain. Is it real? Are objects real? Are people real? You may not act upon them, but do they represent reality? Reality as defined by that which causes pain seems to be an awfully dark view of life.

[AndrewC]

I see we have people here who apparently have no conscience or empathy. It is quite easy for someone's mental images to harm another. A mother or father is most certainly damaged by an insane loved one, without any overt action by the loved one. It is also quite easy for a parent to harm a child by inadvertantly showing more love to another.

Reality existed before I was and I'm fairly certain before you were. Thus it certainly existed apart from us and consequently our pain or lack thereof is not an adequate measure of it.

[DittoJed2]

You're absolutely correct. And one need not even be insane. Just get a little chemistry in the brain off as in depression and a person may not even be thinking bad thoughts but be in tremendous pain. That person's pain can also cause others pain though no action has been done by the others or by the person who is in pain. Reality as that which when you forget it causes pain is not an adequate definition. History doesn't cause pain, yet it is reality. The mere existance of creation doesn't either. Nor, if you forget something in creation does it necessarily cause pain. As you so often are, AndrewC, you're right.

[tpaine]

-- I see reality happening all about me, and think it best defined by what happens when I forget to take it into account..
My actions have consequenses which can hurt. Reality can hurt.
Whereas imagination cannot hurt unless acted upon.

- Thus, we can imagine anything, but acting upon those delusions will bring back reality.
Most who deny reality then blame the pain on 'God' or, on their fellow man.
- Strange folks.

I'll admit that Buddha doesn't exactly fit your definition of reality, but his thoughts concentrated on avoiding pain.
It seems to me that you are defining reality as that which causes pain when you forget about it.

Yep, thats a rough rephrasing of what I posted just above.

But how can you forget about something that the only way you can know its real is when it causes pain?

If I forget to take reality into account, my actions can have consequenses which could hurt me, or others.

I mean, what if something doesn't cause you pain. Is it real? Are objects real? Are people real?

Yes virginia, santa's real, pain or not.

You may not act upon them, but do they represent reality? Reality as defined by that which causes pain seems to be an awfully dark view of life.

No doubt you think so.. You also probably imagine you've made some sort of counterpoint to my original post to you and betty..
-- By all means, dream on.

[DittoJed2]

No counter point. Just that your explanation isn't adequate at explaining what is real. I do appreciate your defining it for us. Its more than a lot have done.

[tpaine]

You guys are great at backslapping, but short on the logic of defining actions.

[DittoJed2]

Other than the post itself, we haven't written detailed explanations of our view of reality. I don't think that reality as that which if you forget it will cause pain is not a very good definition. But, I didn't attack you personally. Just don't like your definition.

[tpaine]

No counter point. Just that your explanation isn't adequate at explaining what is real. I do appreciate your defining it for us. Its more than a lot have done.
-17-


Well, yes, of course my inadequacies expain everything.. Yep..