.

.

.

SegFault:
(I advise christians to keep off from this thread)
"Existence precedes essence" this is a quote by one of the greatest French philosophers to have ever touched the face of the earth, Jean-Paul Aymard Sartre, and one of the four leading philosophers of existentialism alongside Sørren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche. But what does it really mean, to understand that quote we have to go back to the times of the great Greek philosophers, Plato in particular.

Plato believed that man has an essence before existing, that is what you might call destiny, and man must rise up to achieve this essence and must live along with it, it's just like a knife which is made to cut things, the essential part of this knife is the blade, when the blade is taking off it is no longer a knife, the knife has no choice but to live up to this essence. This is how Plato viewed us as humans, this was of course the standard until around the 19th century when people like Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky's writings went against this popular notion, they believed that man is born without a meaning in life but we ourselves find this meaning by ourselves. Now this sounds utterly weird especially for those that believe in a god or gods that set and arranged the universe, but I would like to note that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were strong Christians, though most existential philosophers are atheists these two father's of the school of existentialism were Christians, but why would they believe in such, I can't say because I haven't really gone into their writings so I advise you to do that if you'd like to move further. Now back to the matter, how does our existence precede our essence, I'll try to explain why this is so, I am not forcing my thought upon you I'm simply explaining this (because someone asked me last night).

(sorry I had some things to do, couldn't risk the app closing and this whole epistle going to waste).

[center]The non existence of a God figure[/center]
Now, let's face the fact, there is no such thing as a god or gods amongst us, I'll give you some questions which disproves the existence of a god figure:

1) Can an entity or an object force itself into existence?
This question stems from two laws theists use to prove that a god figure exists which is "for each object there is a designer" and "every being, entity or body has a beginning", they would say a chair exists because it has a designer (forgetting that wood exists before it becomes a chair), this law they claim therefore proves that an ultimate designer exists, but wait since there is a designer and this law exists who made this designer, then some of them claim that it is beyond human understanding (forgetting that they established this law with human understanding) or they might claim he always was or he existed from nothing, all these excuses point to one question, the one above. How can this being exist without a designer, there is no proper answer to this question and if he indeed is an exception to this law of being, why is he an exception, take for instance "every free moving object that is thrown up must come down", in space this law doesn't hold because of the lack of gravitational pull, for every law that has an exception there must be a valid and provable reason for this exception but unfortunately this being has no reason for being an exception, anything could have been an exception but why this one god figure. And if it is an exception how do you know?

2) If a being is called omnipotent and omniscient, can this same being do something he is unaware of? Now imagine a being that knows everything about anything in existence, including he that lives in this box of existence, because he is all knowing and that same being can do anything, can he do something he is not aware of? If yes, then he is not omniscient, if no then he is not omnipotent and these two qualities are the qualities of a standard god figure without one of them he is no god.

3) If there is an omnibenevolent being why is there evil? I am not talking about the evil that stems from the freewill of man, I am talking about the evil wreaked on us by nature and other organisms. If this god figure is so good, then suffering is not meant to exist, walk into any hospital and experience the suffering people go through, if a God exists who is all good why does this suffering and evil exist?
These questions terminate the possibility of the existence of a god figure, and if you suggest that a god figure is above human understanding, then that means you'd be lying to say that a god exists because it is this same human reason and understanding in the first place you used to establish the existence of a god figure.

hello, you need to study Soren kierkegaard's works before you classify him in the league of Nietzche,Satre,et al. Kierkegaard was a passionate christian existentialist unlike the others.

sageb:
hello, you need to study Soren kierkegaard's works before you classify him in the league of Nietzche,Satre,et al. Kierkegaard was a passionate christian existentialist unlike the others.

I said so there na, just like Dostoevsky who is a Christian too. I haven't really done my homework on him. I'm only well versed in atheistic existentialism not the theistic one.

SegFault:

I said so there na, just like Dostoevsky who is a Christian too. I haven't really done my homework on him. I'm only well versed in atheistic existentialism not the theistic one.

okay, go and study "sickness unto death" and "either/or" you will understand kierkegaard's existential beliefs.

sageb:
okay, go and study "sickness unto death" and "either/or" you will understand kierkegaard's existential beliefs.

Okay, I hope they are short unlike "Being and Nothingness"

SegFault:
Choices

We are doomed to be free. What does this even mean? How is freewill a bad thing? You won't realise how dangerous freewill is until you look deeply at what a choice is. A choice is a really special thing, it opens an infinite amount of possibilities and at the same time closes many others, they are like keys that open new doors while others close, but the annoying thing about choices is, how do you know which will bring good (pleasure) and which will bring bad (pain) to you. You can't really know for sure, the annoying thing about a choice is that once you make one, it won't point out the right one to choose next, for example you might choose to apply for biochemistry in a university, but that choice does not save you from the choices you will meet: the choice to go for lectures or not, the choice to read or not, the choice to join a cult or not, likewise if you choose to become a businessman it doesn't save you from other choices you would make that could crash your business, each path you choose in life might lead to regret unfortunately and you will face the pain and pleasures of these choices, only you would know how the aftertaste of each choice is.

You might say your parents have the ability to choose the right choices for you, or society does, but then you are denying the meaningless, lack of answers and orderlessness of the world, you are denying the absurd therefore leading to bad faith which is dangerous because a wrong choice (by wrong I mean one which would bring pain to you) made by you is better than a wrong one made by someone else. So are we doomed to be free, yes and no, we are left alone to make these choices and they won't save us from other choices that might make or break all that an initial choice might have built, this is how crazy and absurd our lives are, it might sound scary of course that you have to choose, but don't be frightened, no matter how bad a choice turns out you still have the freedom to choose, it's really frightening yes, but it would make you aware of how precious choices are.

I really like your write up. I have a question that may not directly relate topic but is related to what you say about choices.
I'm guessing you're an atheist and a materialist, so what's your view on the concept of free will as an illusion given that consciousness is believed to reside in the brain and the brain is expected to follow the laws of cause and effect.

God sure exists... The only problem is the way humans go about him/her. Atheist are fucking idealist. Look up Voltair and Spinoza and have a rethink. 'if circumstances are seen as unfortunate, it is only because of our inadequate conception of realities.'

Fvcknames:


I really like your write up. I have a question that may not directly relate topic but is related to what you say about choices.
I'm guessing you're an atheist and a materialist, so what's your view on the concept of free will as an illusion given that consciousness is believed to reside in the brain and the brain is expected to follow the laws of cause and effect.

This is a really tricky question I've thought of before, I could not answer it even till now, I don't think I can because I am not really sure that the brain follows that rule, this question is one of the reasons I find this world confusing, too many questions that are horribly complex to answer, let's say that the brain follows this rule then freewill is an illusion which leads to more questions and confusion. Bros, I suggest you find the answer yourself, because truth be told, I'm afraid of this question.

Exmilitant:
God sure exists... The only problem is the way humans go about him/her. Atheist are fucking idealist. Look up Voltair and Spinoza and have a rethink. 'if circumstances are seen as unfortunate, it is only because of our inadequate conception of realities.'

I have my reasons why I dismiss the existence of god figures, not only because of the confusion of multiple religions, but other things too. I can't start with them this morning, the question below you really threw me into a state of critical thinking and confusion. I've done some small rounds of research on Voltaire and Spinoza too, but at the end Nietzsche and Sartre captured me with their works. Most especially Nietzsche.

SegFault:

I have my reasons why I dismiss the existence of god figures, not only because of the confusion of multiple religions, but other things too. I can't start with them this morning, the question below you really threw me into a state of critical thinking and confusion. I've done some small rounds of research on Voltaire and Spinoza too, but at the end Nietzsche and Sartre captured me with their works. Most especially Nietzsche.

Apart from Nietzsche, Sartre is an idealist so basically, you haven't research yet. I would advise you look up Anthony Flew.

Exmilitant:
Apart from Nietzsche, Sartre is an idealist so basically, you haven't research yet. I would advise you look up Anthony Flew.

Okay. I'll do that.

SegFault:

This is a really tricky question I've thought of before, I could not answer it even till now, I don't think I can because I am not really sure that the brain follows that rule, this question is one of the reasons I find this world confusing, too many questions that are horribly complex to answer, let's say that the brain follows this rule then freewill is an illusion which leads to more questions and confusion. Bros, I suggest you find the answer yourself, because truth be told, I'm afraid of this question.

Haha, love your reply. To be honest, I'm starting to lean towards freewill as an illusion.
Someone once said all theory goes against the existence of freewill while all experience supports it.
For me it's one of my favorite topics to ponder along with trying to understand the idea of identity

Fvcknames:

Haha, love your reply. To be honest, I'm starting to lean towards freewill as an illusion.
Someone once said all theory goes against the existence of freewill while all experience supports it.
For me it's one of my favorite topics to ponder along with trying to understand the idea of identity

The obvious problem lies in the bolded.

SegFault:

Okay. I'll do that.

i know you crave for answers, we all do so, don't be lazy intellectually. After Flew, read 'the stranger' by Camus. And then compare.

Interesting thread.

SegFault:

The obvious problem lies in the bolded.

True. That's why it's said to be an illusion. I'm currently reading a book that attempts to answer the question but I'll need to read more than one book as they tend to be biased towards a particular answer

In Life, there are questions that differ the application of logic and reason.
Spiritually speaking, there are critical life questions whose answers lie only with immortality. In other words, This answers maybe revealed by divine revelation or other spiritual medium, though the natural man usually find it very difficult to comprehend these revelations due to the weakness of the human nature.
Nevertheless, some of the answers we seek while Alive, are only found when we cross over to immortality.(Death is the only gateway to such answers. Eg, the question of heaven and hell.