Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? — darthbarracuda

The absurdity of existence is an argument for comedy :)

Yes the absurdity of this world does in fact provide evidence of God.

For a purely natural world would not be this absurd.

The level of pure evil that exists in our species - think Hitler, etc - cannot be explained sufficiently by evolutionary processes alone.

We, as a species, are radically broken and terribly sinful.

The Biblical witness - that all this absurdity is caused by a supernatural fall from grace - makes the most sense of the evidence.

Why else do we have large gaps in our souls, which we constantly try to fill with our work, with pleasure, with power and money, and with all the things of this world?

Because our soul was made to find it's rest in God.

And you will see , if you look, that only those souls resting in God are truly at peace.

:)

Camus tendentiously presents his leap of faith (the belief that life has no inherent meaning) as not being a leap of faith at all, but as a resolute refusal to believe, as an abnegation of belief itself on the ground that there is no evidence. This is almost the archetypal modern presumption; the one-eyed outcome of the dominance of the scientific paradigm. — John

Yet procreation meant some people had a firm belief in something if you are here to contemplate it..so anyone who is born, their forebearers had conviction in something.

So God (whichever one we mean here) is a solace for his own creation which lead to suffering? If God is omniscient, and he knew humans had the possibility of straying and thus causing their own suffering, why even create the event in the first place? High hopes? But if he is all knowing, he knew the outcome as well, so it was perfectly in his "plan". Thus our suffering was there from the start. This is not to construe that I believe any of these unsubstantiated ideas that were essentially sold throughout the Roman Empire by conartists like Paul of Tarsus, his ideological descendants (the Church Fathers).

1) There is only God. many people are ignorant of him. many people have false ideas about him. many people call him by the wrong name. However, none of that changes the fact that there is only God who hears the prayers of every human. He is God, and there is no other.

2) Yes, God knew that we were going to rebel against Him and cause ourselves a whole ton of suffering. And He knew that as a result He would have to become a human being and endure excruciating torture (both physical and spiritual) in order to rescue us from rebellion. But He loves us anyways, and He was willing to do that for us. Do I fully understand why He allows suffering to go on? No. But He is Omniscient. He has good reasons that you or I could never imagine.

3) Paul gave up a life of wealth, status, and privilege in order to go on the road as a missionary. He lived a life of poverty, and was constantly arrested and tortured for his preaching. The end of his life was that of martyrdom. He did not gain wealth, or power, or status, or privilege from his preaching. He lost all those things. You can believe what you want to, but Paul was no con artist. He sincerely believed what he preached and gave up everything for Christ.

1) there is only God. many people are ignorant of him. many people have false ideas about him. many people call him by the wrong name. However, none of that changes the fact that there is only God who hears the prayers of every human. He is God, and there is no other. — taylordonbarrett

And your evidence is what? You know this because you were exposed to a culture that spread these ideas.. which were a set of evolving ideas that solidified overtime but could have been any other set of ideas at any other time.. A tribesman isolated, does not "know" this.. nor cares.. but somehow they need to.. It's just sales for a way of looking at the world instead of a product.. but it is sales nonetheless.. Christianity can be summed up in one word- evangelism.. That's all it really cares about.. If you want to meditate and think about escoteric musings.. you can do so in a cave... but no Christianity wants to go the extra step and make sure EVERYONE has to hear about it over and over and over again..because somehow the salvation of humanity NEEDS to just happen.. as if this was not a bug already in the system from the start.. Did you ever stop to think the designers of this ideology MEANT it this way so it would maximize its ability to spread and not die out? Talk about psychological warfare.. Paul of Tarsus should have taught Sales 101..

2) Yes, God knew that we were going to rebel against Him and cause ourselves a whole ton of suffering. And He knew that as a result He would have to become a human being and endure excruciating torture (both physical and spiritual) in order to rescue us from rebellion. But He loves us anyways, and He was willing to do that for us. Do I fully understand why He allows suffering to go on? No. But He is Omniscient. He has good reasons that you or I could never imagine. — taylordonbarrett

So, we have a situation where there is (to the human) a capricious god who does not mind that we are tortured or suffer for causes that we cannot fathom. How am I supposed to be grateful or supplicant to such a force? Simply because I need to learn submission and to lessen my own ego? I do that every day by encountering other people and just about anything.. I do not even need the added notion of a creator god that wants you to love him despite your misery. It sounds like this god was kind of bored.. if that is the case it is a metaphor of the absurdity and boredom of existence itself. It is just that the metaphor was taken seriously, WAY too seriously.. Snap out of it man!

3) Paul gave up a life of wealth, status, and privilege in order to go on the road as a missionary. He lived a life of poverty, and was constantly arrested and tortured for his preaching. The end of his life was that of martyrdom. He did not gain wealth, or power, or status, or privilege from his preaching. He lost all those things. You can believe what you want to, but Paul was no con artist. He sincerely believed what he preached and gave up everything for Christ. — taylordonbarrett

I really do not give a hoot what Paul did or did not do.. I do know the effect of his teachings and his ideological descendants is to sell ideas really well to the Roman communities and eventually the Roman hierarchy.. The rest is history.. Germanic tribes bought into it or were forced into it or forced converted their tribes into it and thus became "Christian" of one heretic variety or another, until the whole things stabilized around a certain accepted authorized version by the early Middle Ages. As far as I see, Paul was an opportunist who saw a small Essenic-leaning Jewish group (possibly associated with the likes of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect or others similar), that had more or less the usual understanding of Mosaic law as practiced by Judeans and Jews across the Mediterranean.. Saw a way to fit in ideas of Gnosticism (i.e. Mosaic laws no longer needed due to death and resurrection motif). and mystery cults (resurrection leads to redemption).. slapped it on top of the already existing more-or-less traditional Jewish group (the Jesus Movement) and made it his own thing which he then spread to "gentile" (non-Jewish) communities who really had no attachment to the original group being that they did not really care about what they would consider tribalistic ideas of Mosaic laws that did not apply to their particular community anyways..

Anyways, what actual thing does a resurrecting god do anyways besides being a metaphor for the seasonal rebirth of plants during the spring? It's all metaphorical bullshit that is taken too seriously. Nothing has changed since that myth was created except now we have a myth that is valorized and spread to millions of people.. If spreading an idea to millions of people is supposed to be the harbinger of what is truth, then that is not really truth as much as really good marketing.

Some opine that the situation in principle with which we humans are presented is, when considered objectively, unacceptable. (We know not from where we have come, why we are here, to where we are going, etc. and are dependent for our daily existance on factors with respect to which we are helplesly subservient). They then point out that if this observation is valid then logically it precludes the possibility of a Creator God - since to require the comprehension on our part of an objectively unacceptable situation is inherently contradictory, any imposition of such a demand being thus a nihilism and so in turn irreconcilable with the idea of our situation being one determined in accord with a Devinely ordained meaning.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "god".

Sapientia

I think we have to believe in universals, even though particulars are foundational. If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? It seems to work swell. Sure you can say no, you can be like that, but that's the issue, you can't be like that.

Seems to me there are two arguments here:

1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.

2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.

The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.

Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.

Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? — darthbarracuda

You are attempting the equivalent of dividing by zero by zero because you have neither a definition for God or the absurd. A philosophy composed of word salad does not make for a healthy diet.

If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? — Cavacava

Could you explain this question in other words?

I don't believe in universals by the way.

Yeah - 'n people say I write incomprehensible! ;)

The adoption of universals in dialogue, communication seem necessary. My point is that we can't get by in life without using them. We constuct our sense of space long before we understand its concept, but the concept is extremely useful since everything we experience seems to fall into its domain. I think while we can dispute the existence of any universal, we cannot discount their utility. There may be no good answer to the sceptical argument, but so what, everything seems to work fine, if what we experience can't be encapsulated by logic that is so much the worse for logic...this is what I mean by trust.

Whether or not universals exist might not be the right question, if they are functional aspects, tools of thought that we utilize to understand our situation.

Well, you know that nominalists are not saying that we don't create and utilize universal/type concepts/terms, right? The dispute is over whether we believe universals are something "real" (read "extramental") or not. So universals are our own construction, and they're very useful at that.

What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something.

What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something. — Terrapin Station

Allan Watts used the common Asian metaphor of "God is playing peek-a-boo". Its not a question of trust when even the concept of trust is just another construct.

Or they just failed to contracept successfully, or they just did what one does; both of which require no deep commitment.

Well, you know that nominalists are not saying that we don't create and utilize universal/type concepts/terms, right? The dispute is over whether we believe universals are something "real" (read "extramental") or not. So universals are our own construction, and they're very useful at that..

Yes, and I have recently thought that this may be the wrong question. Universals are not things, concepts are not things, but they do have utility, which has bounds.

What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something.

If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? What possible significance could it have. I think, even if valorization can not be shown to have a logical basis, it is still an inescapable function of life that we cannot not value our experiences in life..this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work.

If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? — Cavacava

Well it has the meanings and values that we give it, that we feel.

this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work.

Ah, I see. Was someone undermining the stuff we construct earlier in the thread? I overlooked that.

If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? What possible significance could it have. I think, even if valorization can not be shown to have a logical basis, it is still an inescapable function of life that we cannot not value our experiences in life..this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work. — Cavacava

The absurdities in life are unlimited and, so too, am I infinite absurd! I think, therefore I must be conscious!

Or they just failed to contracept successfully, or they just did what one does; both of which require no deep commitment. — John

I did not mention what kind of conviction... They can have a conviction in the pleasure of sexual relations.

I just wouldn't count sexual desire, whether it is being enacted in conventional marital contexts or not, "conviction". Even marriage in its most conventional expressions does not necessarily involve any deep conviction; it may just as easily, and arguably does more commonly, consist in a more or less blind following of convention. I just think a language of 'conviction' is out of place in the context you have been trying to employ it.

I wouldn't call sexual desire whether it is being enacted in conventional marital contexts or not "conviction". Even marriage in its most conventional expressions does not necessarily involve any deep conviction; it may just as easily consists in a more or less blind following of convention. I just think a language of 'conviction' is out of place in the context you have been trying to employ it. — John

Granted, but nowadays with abortion and all and contraception..I guess my point originally was that absurdity may be true in terms of no truths or right course of action is certain, but that if people procreate there is an underlying conviction that living is supposed to be good (not necessarily something I personally believe but is certainly the case with others)

I don't think it is really a question of certainty. The demand for that comes form being dominated by a narrowly carping intellect. In a spiritual sense life is a profound mystery; the kind of mystery that can never be 'solved' or dispelled by discursive thought.

I think our bodies instinctively want to live; and I think our spirits also, if they are not oppressed and unable to think and feel freely and creatively, also have a strong love and desire for life.

The demand for that comes form being dominated by a narrowly carping intellect. In a spiritual sense life is a profound mystery; the kind of mystery that can never be 'solved' or dispelled by discursive thought.

I think our bodies instinctively want to live; and I think our spirits also, if they are not oppressed and unable to think and feel freely and creatively, also have a strong love and desire for life. — John

Yet you seem to contradict yourself earlier when you stated: "There is nothing in the world, according to this notion, that tells us unequivocally, what it is right to believe about our lives, about human life and about Creation itself. So, we must take a leap of faith; we must believe one way or the other, if we are not to perennially 'sit on the fence'.

Camus tendentiously presents his leap of faith (the belief that life has no inherent meaning) as not being a leap of faith at all, but as a resolute refusal to believe, as an abnegation of belief itself on the ground that there is no evidence. This is almost the archetypal modern presumption; the one-eyed outcome of the dominance of the scientific paradigm."

Perhaps I misconstrued your own thinking with Kierkegaard and Camus? Or are you taking a leap of faith in believing the unconscious desire for more existence?

I say that believing either way that life is meaningful or not involves equally a leap of faith. On the other hand where you place your faith may strengthen either the spirit and love of life in an acceptance of mystery or intellectual illusions of certainty; so which way will we jump?.

I say that believing either way that life is meaningful or not involves equally a leap of faith. On the other hand where you place your faith may strengthen either the spirit and love of life in an acceptance of mystery or intellectual illusions of certainty; so which way will we jump?. — John

That seems to be contradictory in that you cannot have a "real" acceptance of uncertainty (mystery as you put it) if you assume a spirit and love of life is dependent on this.. That itself is an underlying assumption of certainty.

I don't understand you objection.

You can tell from your own feeling how thinking or believing one way or another makes you feel about life. Well at least I can; I guess I can't really speak for you, For myself I know; I have tried both.

So I can't see any contradiction.

I don't understand you objection.

You can tell from your own feeling how thinking or believing one way or another makes you feel about life. Well at least I can; I guess I can't really speak for you, For myself I know; I have tried both.

So I can't see any contradiction. — John

It seems that you want to take the stance that things are inherently uncertain. Then certainly, if things are uncertain, feelings of spirit and love depending on believing in uncertainty seems more certain than the stance of uncertainty would seem to imply.

But can't we be certain that things are, from the perspective of the rational intellect at least, uncertain? Doesn't this apply even, or especially, to science. The only things we can be certain of are what we experience, and we cannot even be absolutely certain about the provenance of what we say about those. So, what do we have to go on, when it comes to what we choose to believe, other than our intuitions or perhaps even our preferences?

In other words, in the absence of irrefutable evidence or proof what certainty could there ever be for us beyond the feeling of certainty?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "god". — Sapientia

Sapientia

I think we have to believe in universals, even though particulars are foundational. If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? It seems to work swell. Sure you can say no, you can be like that, but that's the issue, you can't be like that. — Cavacava

Please link me in when replying, so that I'm notified of your reply. This can be done a number of ways: by highlighting the text that you want to quote and then clicking the 'quote' button, by clicking 'reply', by using the '@' button, or by typing in the code.

I'm not sure I understand your question or its presumed relevance to my comment or the topic of discussion.

You propose two perspectives that hold implicit assumptions. They’re missing premises, so I added the assumptions to the your arguments:

First argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. God does not exist.
3. So, life is absurd. (MP 1, 2)

Second argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. Life is not absurd.
3. So, God exists. (MT 1, 2)

I want to address your definition of absurdity. You consider absurdity as the inexplicability of existence without God. But even if God exists, life is still absurd, or inexplicable. Consider the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. 3, 000 people died and over 80% of the city was destroyed. Or even something as simple as waking up before your alarm. We could attempt at explaining these horrors, but God merely existing would not be a sufficient reason. In fact, the existence of these horrors and God taint God’s character. If God allows these horrors, or absurdities, then he isn’t entirely good, but if he can’t control these horrors, then he isn’t entirely powerful. As a result, these absurdities remain inexplicable even after assuming God’s existence and also introduce components to God’s character that cannot be explained. So given that life is absurd regardless of God’s existence, the conclusion of the second argument is no longer secure. Instead, we would conclude that God does not exist because life is absurd. With this alteration to the second proof, both arguments now promote the nonexistence of God because of the absurdity that exists. According to your reasoning, once we acknowledge that inexplicability exists, we must believe that God doesn’t exist.