₦airaland Forum

You have not said anything, Bastage.

So let us be clear: a man lights the candle for a purpose.

The candle could not exist in darkness without that purpose.

Something external to it is responsible for its purpose.

Could there be something external to us that is responsible for our purpose?

WHO NEEDS IT TO DO THAT?

From nothingness to nothingness presupposes a purposes of nothingness and that is mathematical - to wit - the result (=) Nothing.

If you will answer the WHO question above, then you will see that it summarily proves that there is always an external purpose so long as we remain finite.

The candle is not its own purpose. A man needs it to see in the darkness.

WHO OR WHAT NEEDS MANKIND?

aletheia:
I don't know that the life after death hypothesis (as you put it) makes life more meaningful. I have not stated so here. You attempt to second guess me.
You try to limit your argument to the here and now. But what makes you believe that your activities for the brief span of your life are meaningful or purposeful? Perhaps, it's just an illusory perception. Maybe you are genetically programmed to believe that your existence makes sense. More like it has no meaning or purpose.



Or to use a visual allegory: that a candle burns brightly in the dark for the space of a few hours and then goes out. When the candle is gone, has the darkness being diminished or changed in any way?

I love this. Just briliant.

This -

[center]from nothing>>------------[mazaje's lifespan]-------------------->>to nothing[/center]

- Shows the lifespan in between two extremes of nothingness to be absolutely irrelevant.

I disagree that the after-life thesis does not make life more meaningful.

That is like saying that a destination is irrelevant to a journey.

aletheia:
. . . seeing as it will all end in futility.

IN NOTHINGNESS!

Let us make it clear -

The chart below shows clearly that the ultimate purpose in Mazaje's view is nothingness.


[center]Nothingness
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Death
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑

Purposes while on Earth
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Birth into life on Earth[/center]

Bastage:
^^ Question:

The goal in Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana.

Nirvana is an absolute state of nothingness.

So would you say that a Buddhist's life is empty and purposeless and without meaning?

Nirvana is NOT a state of Nothingness.

Nirvana (Sanskrit: निर्वाण; Pali: निब्बान; Prakrit: णिव्वाण) is the state of being free from suffering (or dukkha) in sramanic thought. In Pāli, "Nibbāna" means "blowing out" — that is, blowing out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.[1] The word refers to central concepts in both Buddhism and Jainism.

The Buddha described Nirvāṇa as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas). It is also the "end of the world"; there is no identity left, and no boundaries for the mind. The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated. In Nirvāṇa the root causes of craving and aversion have been extinguished, so that one is no longer subject to human suffering (Pali: dukkha) or further rebirth in Samsara.

Inexie - You may not believe it, but since you asked me to read the thread again, I have just done so now and read the whole thread again.

I did not see an answer to my questions anywhere.

Rejecting Christs rule for me has to do with rejection of his rules - that is  - his laws and commandments of love. Those laws are the essentials of his kingdom and thus of his rule.

Thus the specific case of a devout and sincere muslim. Such a one actually accepts Christ as a Prophet of God - even regards him as one of the highest ranking!

Further, Islam teaches that Jesus (not Mohammad) will come to Judge the world at the end of days.

Could such a one who reveres Jesus so highly and sees him as a Prophet of God still be damned - even if he is genuinely good, sincere, loving of God and his fellow man. . .?

St. Paul. . . incredible fanatic. . . . incredible misogynist. . .

^^^ Is it not convenient to imagine that there is a special place for the Christian which will be closed to all other men of good - conscience of other faiths?

What happens to a Muslim who is a man of good conscience and loves God and his Fellow-man sincerely all his life?

Mr. Agbaje -

How can you assert that the Bible is not a se.xist document that advocates gender-apartheid against women? It is.

For starters, can you tell me why on Earth St. Paul insists that women must not speak when men are speaking?

   1. Are the women brainless?

   2. What if it is a woman in the gathering that actually has the anointing? What if the anointing is on a woman in the group, and not on the men?

Abi women do not receive anointing?

Tell me.

^^^ Can God therefore create a stone that is impossible for him to lift and proceed to lift it?

KAG! Where u been at? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I opened this thread for you a while back but you never showed up . . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-357796.0.html

mazaje:
By meaning I mean a sense of purpose, belonging, happiness and direction.

Right. Let’s start with the term “meaning” as you have defined it.

You talked about a sense of Purpose, and direction. I will address these two terms first.

Now I am going to lay down TWO premises: and if you disagree with the premises then do not bother with the further arguments – just state to me your reasons for disagreeing with the premises.

The first premise is this –

- If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

It is in line with this premise that I seek to challenge your view which suggests that it is possible to have “Purpose and Direction” in a life which will end in nothingness – that is  - a life that does not have a spiritual post-script or further continuation.

The premise above is a holistic premise that covers all of existence. . . this also extends to our individual existence. I explain further.

If ALL existence were to collapse suddenly, such that nothing exists, anymore, then what would have been the purpose of all that went before?

Incontrovertibly, all that went before has ended in nothingness, accordingly, the ultimate purpose of all that existed would be nothingness – thus that there was no such thing as purpose or direction.

Now this is where the second premise comes in. .

The Second Premise is this –

- If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objectives will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Now this simply means that we have to contextualize the first premise – when I talked about everything ending in nothingness.

On an individual personal scale, this is the direct equivalent of a human death in the event that there is no afterlife – everything has ended in nothingness for him[/b]

That simply and logically infers  -

1. That his whole life has meant nothingness

2. The objectives and purposes within his life which were all leading towards “nothing” are also empty and purposeless objectives which end in “nothingness.”

Summarily, a worldview which regards this earthlife as all that there is for the human individual equates with a worldview that regards life and being purposeless and directionless.

I hope you are able to see very carefully how I have elucidated the principles that support this.

But to make it simple – I might simply state it as such: If everything ends in nothingness (human death) then all the purposes in human life are also nothing.

The purpose of doing what I stated above is that it provides life with meaning. . . .Do you love your family because some supernatural force told you to love them, or do you appreciate your environment because oneness of infinity told you to do so?. . . .I just don't understand what you are trying to say. . .What has spirituality got to do with loving your family, and others around you?. . . .I try to be good to people around me because doing good it self is good. . .People should try to do good because doing good is a good thing not because of some undefined spirituality that serves no purpose. . . .

There we go again. What is “good?”

Why does “good” feel “good?”

The very description of self-inherent goodness that you have laid out presupposes that there is something good about goodness.

WHAT IS THAT THING?

No, It seems you have no concept of disinterested goodness,

Don’t worry, I do.

The question is this –

1. Do I do good because I expect a reward. Answer – NO.

2. Why do I do good? –Answer – Because it feels good and right.

3. What makes it feel good and right?

Question 3 is what I need you to answer.

I verily believe that it would be right to state that there is a “feeling”, a “common passion” and “pathos” which we share which is the fount of the good feeling – and such a “pathos” would amount to nothingness if we all die off. It would be absolutely purposeless. But before I go further, let me have your own answer to Q.3 above.

Why then should a person be good, Because being good and living virtuously is the only way to a fulfilled and self actualized life. By living virtuously we sustain those vital social relations friendship, family, community without which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Vice leads to misery.

IN A FINITE EXISTENCE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. . . .

Because if it all ends at death, a person who utilizes vice to obtain great wealth and enjoys himself in the Bahamas with much Jezebels around him, will have no misery at all. . . when he dies, all will amount to nothingness, and his actions will be nothingness.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

^^^^ Errrr. . . You have misunderstood me o. . . I have persistently argued on this Forum that an Atheist, Buddhist, whoever - can stand right so long as his conscience is good o. . . and you are VERY WELL AWARE OF MY NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO ARGUE THAT. . . so please put my post in context - I will elucidate. . .

Romeo4real:
As you asked the question from a Biblical perspective, so i will answer from the same perspective.

It is no news that the Bible is a one-sided se.xist document which openly advocates Gender Apartheid against women.

For this reason “the Biblical Perspective” on this matter is not a perspective I will be keen to associate myself with. It is after all this same Bible that states arrogantly that women must never take leadership positions in the Church, and also commands them never to speak when men are speaking. This is a document that has scant regard for the rights of the woman – and this is scarcely surprising given that it was written by acclaimed male chauvinists such as Moses and Paul.

The first thing to understand is that this is a commandment from God to both Husband and Wives. It is non-negotiable.

The commandments of ancient misogynists are definitely negotiable and every modern person must negotiate such primitive commandments out of his worldview.

A woman should submit to her husband irrespective of whether she thinks he deserves that submission, and a man should love his wife irrespective of whether he thinks she is worthy of that love.

I am sorry, but this is hoary spin. I am aghast that any person could make this statement.

How dare you state that - “A woman should submit to her husband irrespective of whether she thinks he deserves that submission . . .” – are you suggesting to me that a manifestly unworthy husband – such as one who engages in wife-beating, should still receive the “submission” of his wife? ? ?

Such a man should be decked right back by the wife, not submitted to.

How do we know it is unconditional? Well, look at the scripture again -

Here, the writer gives us an example of what he means, so there is no confusion or misguided interpretation. Wives should submit to Husbands as; (1) as they do unto the Lord, (2) As the Church submits to Christ. How does a Christian submit unto God and the Church submits to Christ? Unconditionally, and through Faith-

This is frankly horrible. For what you suggest is that the woman should view her husband as God – that she should submit unconditionally, and through faith.

This a a plain mockery of the reasoning faculties of women. You appear to make it clear that your Christian view is that women have no brains of their own, and as such must “unconditionally” yield to the thoughts of their husbands.

Does it not occur to you that in this or that matter the woman might have a better perspective or better idea than her husband? Should she not in such situations prevail on him to yield to her view – rather than “unconditionally” submitting to whatever he says!

This is the whole essence of a “partnership” – two people are able to put heads together and come up with something richer than the ideas of just one person. It is no dictatorship, requiring absolute submission of any party: it is a loving democratic partnership – and this view I absolutely assert to be vastly superior to the fascist ideology which you have set out above in collusion with your fascist and chauvinist St. Paul.

Let us make this clear; your analogy states that women should submit to men as the church submits to Christ. Now the Church does not question or argue with Christ does it? It does his every bidding. So you are suggesting to me that a women should never question her husband? ? ?

In what age are you living, Romeo?

This means a wife needs to have faith in her husband's capabilities, otherwise she would be unable to submit to him. More importantly though, this faith cannot be based on what he has done, or what he does not do. It has to be a "blind" faith or belief, so to speak.

Romeo, I verily tell you that I try to be a polite person at all times but this statement above tries my patience severely.

I can comfortably state that this is way and above the most tragic remark I have EVER heard in my life or on this forum.

You state that a woman’s faith in her husband should be blind?

And you dare underscore that by adding that it should not be based on anything he does or does not do? ? ? ? ? ?

So a woman should have faith in her husband even if HE DOES NOT WORK AND REMAINS A LAZY FARTING WIFE-BEATING DRUNKARD ALL HIS LIFE? ? ? ?

Please your statements are offensive in the extreme.

Would you hold the men to the same standard? ? ?

Would you insist that a man must love his wife even if she has become the greatest who.re in Christendom? ? ?

, Submitting to your Husband is a bigger guarantee of marital success than Loving him.

This is only true where the husband is a pig-headed egoistic chauvinist.

Reason is (1) A Husband needs his wife's submission more than her love,

This is too shocking to respond to. Again, only a megalomaniac – and a very insecure one for that matter, would cherish his wife’s submission over her love.

As a footnote to this, i was in a marriage counselling class about 7yrs ago. When asked what men most wanted from their wives, almost to a man, they said they wanted their wives to submit more to them

No doubt they were a bunch of insecure weaklings.

I would say "spiritual experience."

Bastage:
In this one.

The number One is not physical is it?
And how about Red or Blue? They are not physical are they?

Yet we percieve them in this dimension.

That you perceive something whilst you are within the physical dimension does not mean that it has its existence within physical matter.

Otherwise you will have to show me what physical matter contains time, for example. Does time exist WITHIN physical things?

Doubtless it does not. It is a completely immaterial and non-contingent factor. Yet we perceive it in the physical. I thus disagree when you state that those elements are within this dimension - that is if you mean the strictly physical world of matter.

Thoughts are not physical things like you have noted, accordingly although we may generate and perceive them whilst in the physical, they are definitely ethereal and as such belong to an ethereal dimension which is different from gross matter such as a stone or a stapler.

mazaje:
The purpose of life IMO is to strive to fill each of the days we have to spend here on earth (hours, and minutes) with meaning.

Can you please elucidate on what you mean by "meaning?"

We should strive to fill them with learning and gaining wisdom, with compassion for the less fortunate, with love and tolerance for friends, strangers and family

In a void of spirituality - namely - a universe and world without a supervening order or purpose - what is the point in doing any of these things?

Would it not be equally sensible to grab all that you can for yourself, brutally eliminate your competitors, live large and enjoy the best that feminine temptations have to offer?

After all, when you die. . . nothing awaits you - whether you were good or bad.

Also a strong argument can be made that brutality and survival of the fittest is healthy for society as it makes each individual stronger and thereby improves the strengh, resistance and longevity of the Group as a whole.

Given this, why is there a need to be moral or loving of your fellow man at all?

Sure non physical things exists. . .Your thoughts are non physical but they exists. . . .

What dimension do such things exist in?

Looking at the scripture you posted again -

It says -

1. The man should love

2. The woman should submit

Does this mean that the woman is not also required to love? Of course not.

Thus we can see that it does not mean that the man is not also required to submit: he is!

Both should love and submit to each other.

^^^ Methinks in the modern world, marriage is a partnership.

Both should love each other.

Submission? What does submission mean? A man may sometimes submit to his wife's wishes.

I think that submission in a strictly social context should only refer to the recognition of the head of the home - in most societies this is the man.

Recognition, however, should not mean slavery - it may indicate that the man is the first among equals - that he leads the family at home and before the world. Some deference may be in order: but i cannot see that it is any different from the deference that a man should also accord to his wife.

These would not be a problem for a couple who love and understand each other.

Romeo4real:
It is clear there is a spiritual dimension to this physical world, and ethereal plane, where physical or natural laws do not apply.

Hi Romeo -

Do you think that different laws apply in different realms?

My perception is that the laws within ALL creation - on ALL realms - are the same eternal laws of God - which simply have different manifestations.

Not different laws. A slight example would be magnetism in the physical - it could manifest as Karma in the spiritual - but it really is the same primordial Law of Attraction at work.

Given this context, do you perceive the the omnipotence of God only works in terms of given primordial and unchangeable precepts. . . what is your view. . . ?

Krayola:
@ deepsight. Can u please give me examples of these non physical things that u mean? And please if u are asking me questions, try not to answer them too, on my behalf, and then draw conclusions based on answers that did not come from me. Thanks

1. Infinite Space

2. Infinite Time

3. Idea

4. Mind.

I am sorely tempted to elucidate, but you have warned me.

So: your ball.

I do not understand what you are saying.

1. Do non-physical things exist?

2. If they do, are they contingent on the physical universe?

3. If they are not: then please we can readily see that "existence" is a compound word which transcends the physical universe.

At all events, whatever brought matter into existence cannot itself be matter - that is a prime logical reverse.

Accordingly there is irrefutably more to existence than the physical universe.

If this is the case, we cannot limit the powers of that which is responsible for all existence to an analysis of a physical universe.

Oya, fire on.

I am aware that you first entered this forum as a Christian. I am also aware that you denounced christianity and chose to become an atheist after the experiences you related here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-316436.0.html

Given that you now hawk an atheistic worldview, can you share with us the following -

1. What the purpose of LIFE is - if any

2. What the purpose of YOUR life is - if any

3. Whether your atheism also connotes strict materialism - to wit - do you believe that non-physical things exist.

Many thanks.

D.S.

Krayola:
I can accept, just for the sake of debate, that the Universe was brought into being by a very powerful and intelligent something. Whether it is all powerful and omnieverything, me i no know o. But from what I see it was powerful enough to create, but not to sustain in a way that I think makes it worthy of total, absolute adoration or respect. . . but that is just from my own vantage point which I agree may be limited.

This can only be an acceptable starting point if we assume that THIS universe is ALL that EXISTS.

I cannot accept that as a starting premise in any terms.

Hi Noetic. . . can you share what your understanding is of the omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience of God. . .?

Thanks.

ilosiwaju:
Deepsight, this yahweh guy actually chased me away from the church and worse still, i find it hard to believe some people still see him as papa. This is a guy who wants children stoned to death for disobedience, struck uzziah dead for not wanting the ark to fall, connived with his adversary to punish job for not even sinning(what a game!) and so on. This same guy who had time to legislate against tattos in leviticus, se.x before marriage, some meat and so on slept off or folded his arms when hitler inflicted maximum damage on 6million of HIS OWN/FAVOURITE PEOPLE during the holocaust.
He is a sadist, a prolific abortionist(given the number of natural miscarriages), he is blood thirsty, jealous and power-centric.
The good news is that his profile fits that of his creators(desert-dwelling jews). This should further tell us that most ancient gods reflect the cultures of their inventors.
O ma she o. _{what a pity. . .}

It really should not surprise you that the dogmatist has nothing to say to rebutt these - as these are explicit contained in her scriptures.

Like you said it begs belief that people could subscribe to such notions of God.

^^^ Brilliant.

Krayola:
What is, IMO, inconceivable is for a nonexistent entity to do anything. If nothing exists, neither can God. I think that is pretty simple.

What do you make of what I had earlier said - "But everything that exists is, I might very carefully say – the expressed form of a formless idea. That ultimate formless idea, again, I may apprehend as the infinite mind of Existence itself: thus again that Existence itself is God and thus again that God is everything that exists."

Is an idea, or better put - a principle -  something that exists?

Does God exist? If so, he did not bring ALL into existence. That is what i'm saying.

Again, what do you apprehend by the term "a principle?" Is it not possible for a principle to be the rationale for itself?

The God principle is, in my view, the rationale for itself and for all existent things.

Also, being aware of all that exists, does not equate to being in control of all that exists.

This would depend on what the God Principle is. I have already stated that I do not believe pure illogicalities can exist. Everything must be anchored on a self-existent principle, the ultimate self-existent principle being God.

Now these principles key-in in sets and patterns and therefore it is not possible in my view, for a reason-less thing to exist.

In summary, if something DOES exist, then ot must be subject to the ultimate principle - which is the God principle, and this for me grounds the idea of omnipotence.

But let us again note that this does not extend to pure illogicalities, which i earlier stated i do not believe exist at all. Examples -

   1. A shape which is a perfect circle and a perfect square

   2. For God to create a stone that is impossible for God to lift and then proceed to lift it

   3. For a self-existent thing or principle to cease to exist.

I do not believe that the foregoing examples are possible for even an omnipotent God. This is because omnipotence, in my view, concerns and governs existent things. The foregoing are pure illogicalities which do not and cannot exist at all.

^^^ Is it really conceivable for an immaterial entity to be responsible for ALL that exists, and conversely not be aware of somethings that exist?

Is that not an illogicality?

I need to clarify that in the foregoing post, the concept of omnipotence of an unlimited entity that is responsible for ALL existence does not extend to a capacity to perform pure illogicalities.

I believe that a pure illogicallity cannot exist on any dimension.

God is responsible for all that exists - this in itself presupposes a responsiblity only for things that exist and not things that do not exist.

Pure illogicalities, in my view, do not exist.

Krayola:
I think the whole Omni thing is just to make "God" out to be "supremely supreme".  I wouldn't put too much on those.  "God" may be very powerful, but not all powerful, very knowledgeable, but not all knowing.  God could be great enough to create and sustain the Universe and have us totally in awe of him/her, but still not powerful enough to do absolutely everything. . .

It is interesting when you state - "but still not powerful enough to do absolutely everything. . . " - Because I would have imagined that this could only apply to a finite or limited being.

If we philosophize in existential terms, we must commence with that with brought ALL existence into being - or better put (since "existence" as a concept is possibly eternal and without a beginning - perhaps we might say - "that factor which is responsible for ALL EXISTENCE."

If there is a being or entity that is responsible for such: then such a being cannot conceivably be limited or finite - because it would itself be the fountain of ALL things. Accordingly ther ecould be nothing that could be closed to it. This is for me the essential of omnipotence.

I might put it differently by stating that what you have set forth would apply only if the universe was in fact created by a finite being - perhaps some super-developed alien/ extra-terrestial so advanced that it has mastered the art of creating whole universes. This would however not be a reference to God - for by "God" - we refer to the uncaused cause of ALL existence - which as such cannot be limited in any way given that it is the cause and principle of ALL existence.

I have this feeling that one of the best ways to define God would simply be to apprehend God as everything that exists.

But everything that exists is, I might very carefully say – the expressed form of a formless idea. That ultimate formless idea, again, I may apprehend as the infinite mind of Existence itself: thus again that Existence itself is God and thus again that God is everything that exists.

Within this construct one can readily apprehend the notion of omnipresence – for if God is everything that exists, then God is omnipresent. This construct also provides a basis for omniscience and omnipotence.

Now with utmost care let me place a caveat: I state the foregoing merely to invite thoughts from others – for I am firmly aware that it is not necessarily true: to wit – an expression of something is not necessarily the thing itself –

- Thus if everything that exists is the expressed form of a formless idea – then that Formless Idea is what is God – and not the expressed forms.

This would mean that God as the ultimate formless idea is absolutely intangible, inexpressible, ineffable, inapproachable, incomprehensible and non-substantiate in a way that renders God – careful with this one now – almost non-existent: that is – to the finite mind.

Now this brings altogether different premises to the questions of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

But before going further and confusing myself anymore – let me delve to the purpose of this thread.

Quote from M_Nwankwo –

Maybe when the opportunity presents itself, I will offer a detailed explanation of my perception of what omnipotence and omniscience are.

I would be most obliged if you could share those perspectives sir.

I would also like to invite the Christian perspective of the OMNI attributes of God.

Warm regards;

D.S.