now that was interesting

Hi Frank,

I guess I don't know what you mean by "conceptual singularity." It still looks like what you consider a "god" is arbitrary, but perhaps some light shed on this "conceptual singularity" bit will help.

Jordan

Post 21

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 6:06am

I'll be Frank again. Indeed, when did I stop beating my wife?

regards,
Fred

Post 22

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 11:12am

What's wrong with me!? Sorry Fred. I got Frank on the brain. If it's any consolation, lots of people hear like to call me Jordon.

Jordan

Post 23

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 12:45pm

It's OK. I have often enjoyed being Frank.

Of course definitions of 'God' are arbitrary; how could they be anything but, if conceptually, it is members of 'God's creations' that are making the definitions? We already exist; we are not empowered to place conditionals on our existence, our existence is a fait accompli. We can at most acknowledge our existence, not place conditionals on it. We've already happened, we can't dictate new traffic laws governing our own existence.

So, attempts to extend constructivist definitions back beyond our neighborhood of space-time -- before our own existence -- when we attempt such illogic -- would have to arbitrary and capricious and pretty much made up, when the subject matter ("God") is by definition beyond observational. By definition, a singularity.

Meaningful as a concept inside of skins, but not universally or objectively outside of skins.

A conceptual singularity, because of they way 'we' try to define a universal concept of what a God is. If God created/made us, then how could we or any band of naked sweaty apes ever actually define God, or prescribe God, or tell anyone else, universally, what God is, what God wants, what God doesn't want? And yet, we and so many before us apparently insist.

To try and make sense of this conundrum, the concept has been conflated with the concept of 'that which made/created us.' Whatever that is. Cold process is OK with me.

So, speaking purely for the cold process inside of my own skin, and resolving this conundrum only for myself, I've relied on observation. There is strong objective evidence that my 'maker' is the Universe, as it is, and my function in this Universe is to live in it, as it is. Who am I to question the wisdom of my maker? Moot to question, I'm here.

"Not God Enough?" For me, plenty. "Too much God?" Ditto. Logically answerable in any universal sense? I can't imagine how. Only by participants like me jarringly impressing 'Rules for God' onto others or I suppose, by a theoretical God itself/themselves, and thus conceptually, way beyond my paygrade, I don't claim to be a God.

Religion, Church, God. As a child, they were wrapped up in one big Easter Egg. As an adult, I realize the three concepts aren't even necessarily related.

Our 1st Amendment is a prohibition against impressing 'religion' by the state.

Ask yourself how the state does that without defining 'religion.' Not a Religion, but the meta-concept 'religion.' As in, what Religions are permitted by definition to be religions.

Uh-oh. Sounds like a legislative conundrum popping up around another conceptual singularity. Damn singularities...

I'm not really worried about that conundrum. If you search the US Code, in fact, you won't find a line that says 'the term religion shall mean...'

So then,,, how is the 1st amendment possibly enforced? How does one claim 'protection' under it? How is a claim of 'religion' judged 'religion or not religion?' Is thespianism religion? Is the state empowered to say yes or no, thespianism is or isn't a religion? Not even the IRS code does that.

Must I believe in thespianism to seek protection from it?

Must atheists?

Uh-oh.

If you look back at early attempts to define 'religion,' as Justice Story did a long time ago, you find the Va Bill of Rights, which is not federal statute, but a damn good attempt in the context of that or any Bill of Rights:

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

Almost got away clean, too, except for that inexplicable except via politics final clause...

Although not identical, this is damn close in meaning to the meta-definition I have been using most of my adult life, in this land of religious freedom:

Religion, to me, if nobody else: "The answering of the two questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing with my life now as a result of that?"

Whether we consciously ask those question or not, free people answer them simply by living their lives. That, to me, is what is meant by 'religious freedom.'

That is the 'duty' which we owe to our CREATOR. Reread the VA BOR, and our own 1st Amendment, with that interpretation of the meta-concept 'religion.'

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of "The answering of the two questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing with my life now as a result of that?", nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Compare that instead with what is politically regarded as 'religion' in a nation where the state is prohibited from even defining 'religion', by statute. "Belief in a supernatural being, God, Baby Jesus, the cross, etc."

No, those are examples of 'R'eligion, not religion.

A personal answer to those fundamental questions of religion might be 'God' or 'No God' or 'The Universe as it is", but those are all consistent with religious freedom.

Our 1st amendment says nothing about God, it addresses 'religion' without defining 'religion' even as it prohibits the state from uniquely defining 'religion.' It is brilliantly placed as the 1st amendment in a BOR.

'religion' is a man made thing, and our 1st amendment asserts that free men are free to make it what they willm unimpeded by the state.

'church' is clearly a man made thing not uniquely related to religion, but sometimes related to religion.

The concept 'God' may or may not be a man made thing, precisely because of the singular nature of its definition, as a concept, by mankind. Man has rigged the concept by placing it outside of the realm of definition, creating a conceptual singularity around which all kind of nonsense springs up. The concept 'God' is often related to religion, but not always vice versa.

By basing my personal religion on 'the Universe, as is, as my maker', I've resolved my personal war between the tribe and my soul; it's not up for grabs, and the Universe, as is, is plenty 'maker' enough, thank you.

Not God enough? Too much God?

How would I or any other naked sweaty ape possibly know that? It is what lets devout agnostics get on with their lives, here on earth.

regards,
Fred

Post 24

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 4:59pm

In Post 4, Fred Bartlett writes:

And if all process is cold process, then what cold process initiated the first cold process? "Singularities are a bitch."

No, they're not, Fred. You're overlooking something. If all process is cold process (whatever that's supposed to mean -- I assume it means a process that is non-intelligent), then there wasn't any first cold process, because if there were, then all process wouldn't be cold process. Some other kind of process would have proceeded it. Since something cannot come from nothing, any process that is "first" must be initiated by an antecedent process that is not of the same kind as the process that it initiated. "First" in this context means first of its kind.

Since (a) existence, whatever its primitive or irreducible form(s), could not have come into existence out of nothing, and (b) since there is nothing outside of existence, it follows that 'something' in one form or another must always have existed. Causation presupposes existence -- the existence of something to act as a cause; existence does not and cannot presuppose causation.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/03, 9:24pm)

Post 25

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 - 6:53pm

Fred,

I still don't get. Meh.

Jordan

Post 26

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 4:44am

You seem to have made a cognitive leap of faith. I'll assume from context clues that you are defining "singularity" as a state or event beyond which we can know nothing. What motivated you to decide that a prior state that by nature has no relevance to our current state should obliterate all knowledge of a subject? That is the essence of your argument, correct? That the inability to know past a certain point in our development invalidates our ability to infere knowledge from our current environment? How can a state or event about which we can know nothing possibly have relevance? How do you seperate your belief in the futility of spiritual or existential knowledge from your (presumed) belief that physics is a valid science, despite the evidence of singularities in the physical universe's past? Or have we entered the realm of Lovecraft?

Post 27

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 5:34am

William:

"Since (a) existence, whatever its primitive or irreducible form(s), could not have come into existence out of nothing..."

Well, if you are going to bring (a) into this, then I have to point out:

0 = 0 ie, nothing.

A + -A = 0,

There you go: two universes for the price of none, no violation of any conservative laws.

(Please don't take any of this nonsense too seriously...)

Your 'first of its kind' argument is pretty right on the mark, I'd think. Within our current local universe, there is an apparent observational singularity, but that presupposes ours is the only universe, and locked within our box, we'd have no easy way of knowing otherwise. As in, Membrane theory, etc., and the proposal that our 'Big Bang' singularity was one of many possible interactions of P-branes (as distinguished from interactions of pea-brains.) An alternate no beginning explanation is the oscillating universe, with the current universe as a cycle, and I'm fine with that, too. Either way, I'm constrained to live in the universe I find myself in, I have no problem with that, and wouldn't matter much if I did.

But the crux of the 'first cold process' argument is exactly analogous to the 'first creator' paradox; it is only a parochial paradox, which means, in our universe. If there are many universes, then there is no paradox within our universe, the one we exist in.

Which is a transparent way of kicking both paradoxes down the road...

We have an apparent road block at the scale of Planck length or time which seems to keep us from 'seeing' any theoretical deeper into our local past, in the direction of the Big Bang. At much larger timescales, there is the observed phenomena of 'oscillons' which are coherent long lived components of energy at one scale constructed from much smaller components. So, that is a possible template for physics on the other side of the Planck length-time gatekeeper to 'enter' our universe; oscillon like events would exist on a scale beyond Planck length-time, composed from elements on the far side. What we perceive as 'the smallest duration/size' particles in our universe are oscillon-like phenomena built on much smaller duration/size events. The physics 'within' our universe is not violated, but we can't perceive the smaller duration-size events.

And so on, all of which is very similar to the safe bet carnivalism of conceptualizing a 'God' that safely only exists outside of our own universe. "Safely" in that, totally independently unverifiable within our universe.

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 6:00am

Ryan:

Exactly. But, we can infer all we want, we just can't verify. Some concepts are safely conceptually tucked away, out of reach.

"Not God enough?" "Too much God?" Who could possibly know, other than 'God?' Those questions have no relevance in the universe we find ourselves in.

When the concept 'God' is defined as a conceptual singularity, to exist exactly where you aptly describe, safely out of reach by mere mortals, then how could such questions ever possibly be answered where we are, by any one of us, past or present, for all of us? And yet, most of the world insists on lifting its leg and asserting answers to those very questions.

They are, like many singularities, best handled on an imaginary plane.

Unfortunately for history's murdered millions, too often handled on actual plains of battle.

I've circled my personal existential conundrum, and instead of a mystery leading to war, have found a perfectly workable finite solution: My maker is the universe, as it is, and my job is to live where my maker, in its wisdom, put me. Here.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/04, 6:02am)

Post 29

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 6:17am

Why anthropomorphize the universe? Wisdom implies cognition. What rational evidence have you found to apply these attributes? What you are describing sounds like faith. How is faith over reason justified in only this situation, but no others? You say this concept works for you. Is that the sole determiner of the truth of a belief or concept? Practicality over evidence? How do you cope with the implied slippery slope?

Post 30

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 6:41am

"You say this concept works for you."

That I believe my maker to be the Universe, as it is?

Yes, I say that.

What slippery slope am I on with that belief, and what is the alternative I should be considering?

"Practicality over evidence?"

??? The only evidence I see is that the Universe, as it is, made me, and is therefore, my maker.

What is the evidence that is other than what I've been claiming?

Are you asserting that there is evidence suggesting I should believe that I exist without being made by anything, including, the Universe as it is, which is my observation?

I don't bias 'creator' with volitional intelligence, and thus equate 'creator/maker', but will gladly throw 'creator' under the bus if the term is biased too much with a boogeyman of somekind.

I admit, i am having trouble understanding what the objectivist objection is to my belief that I was made by the Universe, as it is.

What is the official objectivist alternative?

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/04, 6:59am)

Post 31

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 7:20am

Ryan:

"Why anthropomorphize the universe?"

That may be the crux of your objection, I am guessing. But, where did I do that?

I am not 'anthropomorphizing' maker. I mean it simply as the process that made me. If it is cold process, I am fine with that.

I've disclosed above my definition of 'religion.' I admit, it may not be a majority definition of 'religion.' I can make no sense out of the majority definition of 'religion', every definition I have ever heard instead sounded like a definition of a 'R'eligion. I've interpreted that deliberate confusion as a political act.

To me, the meta concept 'religion' is the following man made activity, the answering of the existential questions:

"The answering of the questions 'Why am I here?' and 'What am I supposed to be doing with my life as a result of that?"

That, to me, is a perfectly workable meta-definition of 'religion'. What we call classical 'R'eligions are examples of answers, most of them political answers, because the questions were leglifted into the following forms:

"Why are we here?" and "What are we supposed to be doing with our lives as a result of that?"

I don't subscribe to the 'we' impressed above, those are clearly politically motivated religious answers to questions that free individuals can only answer for themselves. 'Sharing' answers is one thing, consistent with free association, but that is not the basis of history's religious wars. The basis of history's religious wars is impressing the answer those questions posed as 'We'.

I've only asserted my personal religious beliefs, as I define religion, and as I define religion, religion does not necessarily have anything to do with God, religion has to do with personal, not universal, answers to those existential questions. So for me, personally, maker? Yes. Creator? yes. Without the bias of boogeyman volitional actor.

My answer to the first question is, "Because I was made by the Universe, as it is" and my answer to the second question is 'To live here, in this Universe, as it is."

My answer to the other questions, "Not God Enough? Too much God?" has always consistently been "As a devout agnostic, I don't know. How could I?"

There are 'R'eligions, ie, examples of religion, that prescribe the answer 'because of God' or 'because of Gods' or 'because of no God' or whatever. My answer is, 'because of the Universe, as it is."

regards,
Fred

Post 32

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 8:19am

Fred,

The term "universe," as I understand it, means everything in existence -- existence as such. "Universal" means all. So, there is only one universe. More than one makes no sense. It's like saying more than one totality -- more than one entirety -- which is a self-contradiction.

- Bill

Post 33

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 9:41am

William:

Well, that is what I meant by 'kick the paradox down the road.' If you define it that way when referring to 'the Universe', and I agree, that's a reasonable way to think of 'the Universe', then it may not be reasonable to regard that which we normally think of when regarding 'The Big Bang' and so on as 'the Universe,' any more than it is reasonable to regard the Milky Way Galaxy as 'the universe.'

So, one way to interpret my assertion that there is an apparent existential singularity in our observable universe(currently 'enforced' at the brief/tiny end by Planck length/time, beyond which we can't 'see' fully to t=0 in the Big Bang)only applies when viewed from our observable universe(on 'our' side of the Big Bang.)

For example, see Membrane / P-Brane theory. (The 'Big Bang' is a 'local' collision of two 'adjacent' Membranes, and our local 'Big Bang' universe is just one of possibly many...) All of which I agree, isn't observational, just as, for much of our history, that beyond our own galaxy was not observable.

All of that is interesting to me, but not what I meant by singularity in reference to the existence of me and those 'like' me, mankind. Mankind came about long after the Big Bang, and was preceded by a backward looking period of 'non-existence of mankind', followed by a finite period of 'existence of mankind', and therefore 'mankind' came into existence, ie, did not exist forever as 'mankind', ie, was 'made.' ('Created' is too biased with volition, so I won't use that term. But 'make' is not, or, that is not my intent when I use the term 'make/made' in regard to mankind.)

Some process 'made' the Aleutian Islands. Some process 'made' mankind. My existence is not in question if that was just cold process, but neither is the finiteness of my existence, that is why I can't deny the observation that I and mine were 'made.' If that process was shake and bake(pure chaos)then so be it, that is the Universe, as it is, I have no problem with that, and still ask the rhetorical question, "Not God Enough?" etc., because answering those questions still requires an act of illogic.

The existential game is 'rigged' when domain, process and/or actors outside of the observable universe are included, and that is where all of these theories -- including 'God' -- are conveniently homed.

There can be universal objective answers to things within our Universe, there do not need to be universal objective answers to concepts placed by definition 'outside' of our Universe, so how could such questions, using such terms, possibly be answered, one way or the other?

Devout agnostics are perfectly content answering questions such as those with 'I don't know, who possibly could, in this universe?'

Other than devout agnostics confidently answer such questions. I don't know why that, either, my assumption is, their logic permits them that.

regards,
Fred

Post 34

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 9:46am

In post 9 you allude to the wisdom of your creator. Wisdom is an attribute requiring discrimination, cognition, perception on a variety of levels, and judgement. Your use of the term was in the context of "Who am I to doubt the wisdom of my creator?". That statement also goes a further step to imply that the universe (which you have identified as your creator) makes volitional self-motivated (by its own wisdom) actions. All of the above qualities are anthropomorphizing. What you have done, either knowingly or unwittingly, is to ascribe human traits to natural phenomena. The approach is no different than worshiping the sun god, save that you use more technical sounding jargon to obfuscate what is happening. It is a contradiction to claim you don't think something has an attribute (intelligence, volition) and then ascribe actions to it that require such attributes (wisdom, judgement). With the qualifying statement, of course, that if what you just clearly stated were true you'd stop using such terms and find new ones to describe the same contradiction in thinking.

I believe the official objectivist alternative is atheism. At least my reading indicates such and provides sound arguments in its favor.

Post 35

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 10:01am

Fred, let me be frank with you:

I admit, i am having trouble understanding what the objectivist objection is to my belief that I was made by the Universe, as it is.

What is the official objectivist alternative?

The official objectivist alternative will be captured in an alternative method (of thinking/questioning), rather than in some alternative conclusion/answer (to life's big questions). Allow me to indirectly explain this by commenting on two quotes of yours:

Of course definitions of 'God' are arbitrary; how could they be anything but, if conceptually, it is members of 'God's creations' that are making the definitions? We already exist; we are not empowered to place conditionals on our existence, our existence is a fait accompli. We can at most acknowledge our existence, not place conditionals on it. We've already happened, we can't dictate new traffic laws governing our own existence.

There's error there. You are attempting to explain why definitions of God are arbitrary, but you do it suboptimally. It may merely be an error in communication, where you couldn't convey what's on your mind well enough (for me to understand). My guess is that the source of this error is that you have had to defend yourself against religionists in the past, and that that has changed the way that you "fight" (verbally).

The error is in using the phrases: "we are not empowered to place conditionals on our existence" and "we can't dictate ... laws governing our own existence." The reason that your use of these phrases is an error -- i.e., is "wrong" -- is because they beg-the-question about something false -- about a "primacy of consciousness."

If there was a Primacy of Consciousness (instead of the Primacy of Existence), then folks like yourself could meaningfully use phrases like: "we are not empowered to place conditionals on our existence" and "we can't dictate ... laws governing our own existence." The reason that folks could get away with using phrases like that meaningfully, is because the insinuation would be that you can't 'place the conditionals'' or 'dictate the laws' because some other consciousness (e.g. "God") had already done it.

What this whole line of reasoning misses is the fact that you can discover the conditionals and that you can discover the laws (even if you can't dictate them). Francis Bacon, echoed by Rand, said "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This is almost exactly what you are saying but there is a big enough difference to matter. To show that, here's the second quote:

"Why are we here?" and "What are we supposed to be doing with our lives as a result of that?" ...

... I've only asserted my personal religious beliefs, as I define religion, and as I define religion, religion does not necessarily have anything to do with God, religion has to do with personal, not universal, answers to those existential questions. So for me, personally, maker? Yes. Creator? yes. Without the bias of boogeyman volitional actor.

My answer to the first question is, "Because I was made by the Universe, as it is" and my answer to the second question is 'To live here, in this Universe, as it is."

This is existentialism (which is a wrong philosophy). Now, even though existentialism is a wrong philosophy, it can still be used beneficially as a stepping stone in life -- very much like a failed hypothesis in science (errors can guide us to truth). So I'm not saying that you are wrong in your personal life-trial of existentialism right now (it may be exactly what you need) -- all I'm saying is that it's a wrong ultimate answer to these questions (because of the lack of detail which is characteristic, perhaps defining, for "existentialism").

Going back to the first quote for a moment, an Objectivist would stop -- dead in her tracks -- upon discovering that what was being discussed was ultimately arbitrary. That's because the arbitrary can have no real meaning (though it can have imaginary meaning). For an Objectivist, there would be no need or benefit to bringing up the fact that we can't dictate laws, etc. -- because, for an Objectivist, no consciousness can.

Now for the finale. The Objectivist answer to the two, big questions:

Why are we here?
Because of evolution.

What are we supposed to be doing with our lives as a result of that?
We are supposed to be living as the kind of creatures we are -- i.e., as humans -- which involves a very special subset of some very special things, called virtues (perhaps less than a dozen important virtues) and values (which are in an objective hierarchy).

Existentialism might answer the same answer to the first question, but the existentialist answer to the second question -- the "Fred Bartlett, 2009" answer -- doesn't involve the needed mention of the key virtues or the necessary (objective) hierarchy of values. Instead, the life of man is left open to "individual" interpretation and is not constrained by the nature of man -- which, while "fun" (for some) or "comforting" (for others), is a wrong way to think.

In short, instead of answering:

"To live here, in this Universe, as it is." [italics mine]

... to the second question, an official Objectivist would answer:

"To live here, in this Universe, as I am."

... where the Objectivist first discovered truly human ideals (because her mind was more primed -- by right thinking -- to make such a discovery) and then personally realizes them in her life. Again, all of this might be mere mis-communication. Just let me know if I have mis-characterized your position.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/04, 11:59am)

Post 36

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 11:47am

Bill:

The term "universe," as I understand it, means everything in existence -- existence as such. "Universal" means all. So, there is only one universe. More than one makes no sense. It's like saying more than one totality -- more than one entirety -- which is a self-contradiction.

Bill I believe you are correct. But astrophysicists seem to have given the term universe a different meaning, or at least one with a different context. I believe, I could be mistaken, but I think they don't refer to universe as the totality of existence but rather a universe meaning a particular set of spatial dimensions.

Post 37

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 4:08pm

Ed:

I don't think you've mis-characterized me at all, or at least, not much.

Re;because some other consciousness (e.g. "God") had already done it.

Not my assumption. My assumption is, because the universe came first, and then I came later. Period. I only mean, I can't arbitrarily make up rules defining how I got here. ("rules for God" being an illogical subset of that.) I can at most discover those rules, my getting here is a fait accompli that I must acknowledge, not arbitrarily prescribe. Yes, Bacon. That doesn't mean, I have to leave the Universe as I found it. It means, I can only change it according to its own rules of changing it, but one of those rules is causality. The universe came first, I came second, not the other way around.

Re; Instead, the life of man is left open to "individual" interpretation and is not constrained by the nature of man -- which, while "fun" (for some) or "comforting" (for others), is a wrong way to think.

I can't help but see that as a little bit of leg lifting. To me, if not Objectivists, the 'why' of an individuals life is indeed left open not just for interpretation, but definition, by individuals. If not, then who defines the 'why?' of all of our lives?

Re: "Now for the finale. The Objectivist answer to the two, big questions:
Why are we here?
Because of evolution."

You lost me a little bit with the 'we' but fairly, that question has a universal answer if it is changed from 'Why am I here?' to 'How are we here?", the answer to which 'we' might all share. I acknowledge that I've muddied 'How' with 'Why' with my answer, and as well, that there is an objective universal answer to the 'How'. How is an objective scientific fact, though Why is the important religious question. However, I also recognize that both the 'how and why' have been conflated in modern religious tribal conflict, which is why my (I admit, defensive)stance is to limit my judgment to answering either question only as "I", not "We". Though I fully recognize that 'How' has an objective answer. To me, answering my personal 'Why' with the conflated 'Because of the Universe, as it is' short circuits any leg lifting external 'we' interference with the more important 'why'

'Because of evolution', to me, is a perfectly reasonable subset of 'Because of the universe, as it is', with our thinking focusing on the 'how' in that 'why', but neither are really applicable to the personal 'why?'

For instance, If I truly focus on the 'why' half of the conflated how/why, I don't regard the 'why am I here' to be 'because of evolution' or even 'because of the Universe, as it is.' And, personally, though in my view, others are free to place the 'why' externally, my personal answer to the 'why' is not placed externally, but internally. (A perfectly legitimate personal choice with that personal why might be to place the why into the hands of some unseen third party boogeyman, that is not my choice.)

By stating the 'how' in my personal 'how/why' as 'because of the Universe, as it is', ie, cold process, that leaves no room for placing any external whys. It should (but doesn't always)short circuit any discussions about external whys which I find incomprehensible, especially when they are claimed to be circuitously delivered to me by others just like me(indeed, you are astute, my very religious older sister, who incongruously was also the person in my life who, when I was 14, threw a copy of AS at me and said 'read this...)

My entire point is, there is no evidence that there is a universal answer to the 'why' in 'why am I here?' The answer to that question is, 'to live our lives,' which is what we provide by the living of our lives. If there really was a singular answer, then all of our lives would be identical, the same. That is what happens with collectivist, herd, mob movements, the entire tribe starts marching off in 'the' direction, the presxribed answer to the question, 'Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

How are we here? is a perfectly reasonable 'we' question.

Why are we here? is not. I only recognize the validity of 'Why am I here?' in any skin, including my own. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that all of us are here for exactly the same reason, and the collectivists have a fundamental point.

Re; What are we supposed to be doing with our lives as a result of that?
We are supposed to be living as the kind of creatures we are -- i.e., as humans -- which involves a very special subset of some very special things, called virtues (perhaps less than a dozen important virtues) and values (which are in an objective hierarchy).

Again, I don't recognize the 'we' in the question, only 'I'. To me, that seems to be a very narrow but acceptable subset of "To live here in it, as it is, which includes me in it, as I am."

I didn't disclose the following axiom, other than indirectly, in my extended info. I have a much simpler axiom to guide my 'I' morality in my religion: it is, "One skin, one driver." (the imnplication is, one in the same, not simple 'one per...')

Applied both internally ('to me') and externally ('to others'). I can live with it. It is much more specific than saying "I should have values", it defines and delimits those values, as a meta-rule.

Where do I go astray with that?

'One skin, one driver" is neither 'One skin uber alles' nor 'most skins uber alles.'

It may not be pure 'objectivism'. I can live with that.

regards,
Fred

Post 38

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 4:30pm

Ryan:

Re; "you allude to the wisdom of your creator"

Totally unfair of me to be snarky and not convey my tone in this medium...

I was asserting, "Who am I to question the wisdom of my maker/creator for putting me here, in this Universe", and it was really directed at anyone questioning the imagined wisdom of their creator/maker for putting me in this universe."

I was not clear about that, and much more.

Assuming I believe that I showed up here as a result of cold process, by the Universe, as it is, it can't possibly have a 'why' or wisdom or anything else in my belief system.

I've been often told, by others, directly or even indirectly, something like 'God has a bigger plan for you/us that transcends worldy concerns' or somesuch, and my stock response is, "Who am I to question the wisdom of my creator for putting me here in this worldy place? I must assume, such a creator intended me to live in this worldly place. For all I know, that is exactly why I am here. If I'm wrong about that, my Creator would know where to find me and set me straight. If I'm supposed to take the word of third parties, then so far, I haven't got that message, my creator has led me to the opposite conclusion. If your creator told you otherwise, then my creator works in mysterious ways, what can I tell you, he's f'n with one or both of us."

So, when I describe my clearly pagan existential religion to folks, and claim myself as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, the point is to ask the question, "Not God Enough?", to determine if it is actually disputable.

Am I really believing in a god when I do that? Is the Universe, as it is, Not God Enough? How could I possibly know? Enter the 'Rules For God...'

The resulting conversations are much more illuminating than any of the rote total gibberish I ever heard in church as a kid.

regards,
Fred

Post 39

Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 6:01am