Originally posted by AThousandYoungI understand what you are saying and it comes from a place of logic but, at some point, don't you think logic (laws, etc) has to get thrown to the waistside? I'm not really looking to "make sense" of it, I think. I am more so interested in the personal "belief" of others. So am I correct in assuming that you believe these laws have just always existed? That there was never any event to set all of what everybody knows (or thinks they know) into motion? From your point of view, I am guessing you are an atheist? If that's the case, do you not ever question how wonderfully strange all around is and more so how everything up to date came to be? Again, if this comes across as an attack I assure you it is unintentional. I am just very curious about yours and others responses.
I don't know. Why do they have to "come from" anywhere? If they did come from somewhere else, or were created by someone, where did that person or place come from? How does it make more sense to add a creator of the laws when we can ask the same questions of the creator we ask of the laws?
The laws of physics probably always been, but maybe not. I don't know.
JoeFist -
I understand what you are saying and it comes from a place of logic but, at some point, don't you think logic (laws, etc) has to get thrown to the waistside?
Not really. Why should it be?
I am more so interested in the personal "belief" of others.
Which means what exactly?
So am I correct in assuming that you believe these laws have just always existed? That there was never any event to set all of what everybody knows (or thinks they know) into motion?
I think that's likely, but I am not sure. I don't really have much information to work with in order to make a conclusion regarding that topic. Please realize that I consider whatever happened at the Big Bang, if this event did take place, as still being a result of the physical laws of the universe.
From your point of view, I am guessing you are an atheist?
I would say yes, but there's been a lot of debate lately about what the word 'atheist' "really" means, so I don't want you to jump to conclusions about me based on that word.
If that's the case, do you not ever question how wonderfully strange all around is and more so how everything up to date came to be?
Sure, once in a while.
Originally posted by Joe FistOriginally posted by Joe Fist
I understand what you are saying and it comes from a place of logic but, at some point, don't you think logic (laws, etc) has to get thrown to the waistside? I'm not really looking to "make sense" of it, I think. I am more so interested in the personal "belief" of others. So am I correct in assuming that you believe these laws have just always exis ...[text shortened]... tack I assure you it is unintentional. I am just very curious about yours and others responses.
I understand what you are saying and it comes from a place of logic but, at some point, don't you think logic (laws, etc) has to get thrown to the waistside?
I had thoughts like this for a while, and I do still wonder if since humans are a subset of all of the universe (materialistic thinking here), they cannot understand anything not completely contained in the natural universe (if such a statement makes any sense at all).
But why should should logic (reason) get thrown to the wayside? Any response to this is either jibberish or based on reason. So we've logically eliminated logic? Wierd huh? The problem is things only get weirder from there. Once we abandon reason, what can we say? Every statement crumbles into nonsense.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps you dont understand what meaning I gave to vanity when I started this? Admittedly I could have perhaps phrased it better...
Roses are pretty because pollinating animals can find them easier if they are pretty.
Vanity as in the motivation to "look good" and be appreciated/desired for looking good.
Is that not equivalent to what you have just described?
MÅ¥HÅRM
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Everyone (consciously or subconsciously) is influenced (consistently or inconsistently) by a worldview - a set of pressupositions/assumptions (which may be true, or partially true, or false).
Our worldview needs to answer the basic questions of life:
1. What is reality?
2. What is our basis of knowledge?
3. How can we know what is right or wrong?
4. What is man?
5. What happens to a person after death?
6. What is the meaning of history?
7. Why is there suffering and evil?
8. What is the purpose of our existence?
9. Why should we live?
The only worldview that makes sense to me is the Biblical worldview.
EXISTENTIALISM is basically just an attempt to create a personal identity from a meaningless universe based on the subjective feelings of the individual. You only "live for the moment". All revolves around "NOW".
What about the future?
Originally posted by dj2beckerErm...at best you can be said to be re-stating the question, but seriously, where is your theory as to "where we all come from"? A "worldview" may determine what your answer would be, but it doesn't in and of itself help in answering the question.
Everyone (consciously or subconsciously) is influenced (consistently or inconsistently) by a worldview - a set of pressupositions/assumptions (which may be true, or partially true, or false).
Our worldview needs to answer the basic questions of life:
1. What is reality?
2. What is our basis of knowledge?
3. How can we know what is right or wrong?
...[text shortened]... vidual. You only "live for the moment". All revolves around "NOW".
What about the future?
Although I would be curious as to why the biblical worldview is the only one you can make sense of...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmI don't see the connection you are trying to make? I don't think of roses as being vain but I think of them as pretty. Let's just say though I did think of them as vain. Those are values that I have assigned to them. Vanity and things being "pretty" are values mankind has assigned to things. Just as selflessness and things being "ugly" are.
If that's the case, roses cannot be vain, so why are they pretty?
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by Joe FistSheesh....we're really gonna have to take it down to the nitpicking details with you aren't we? 😉
I don't see the connection you are trying to make? I don't think of roses as being vain but I think of them as pretty. Let's just say though I did think of them as vain. Those are values that I have assigned to them. Vanity and things being "pretty" are values mankind has assigned to things. Just as selflessness and things being "ugly" are.
Why are roses the way they are? (whether or not "we" consider them to be pretty)
MÅ¥HÅRM
This is a big ask, but perhaps there needs to be a collective sharing by all cultures (starting with 'us' on this forum) to appreciate the magnitude of such a question.
All cultures have their origin mythologies, based on their respective ontology, and many seem to share common beliefs and happenings. If we all post human origin stories/beliefs from our respective cultures, we may be able to discern commonalities, and create a consensus and perhaps even a theory ( 🙂)
We could be guided by the maxim, 'Where theres smoke theres fire'.