But some people in remote regions seem happy, at peace, living in harmony with each other and their environment. So whence all this suffering? — leo

The real problem is people do not want to lead a simple, peaceful life. Perhaps it is ambition, greed, ignorance, but in the end it's a choice. How many people would like to leave all they have behind in order to live happy and in harmony? Very few. Then there's those, who have put up the bars and walls of their own prison, who would like to, but think they can't.

In truth, most do not want to leave the comfort and luxury behind, and they will be unhappy as a consequence. They want careers, expensive cars and clothing, a big house, and preferably a little bit bigger and better than the neighbors.

So whence all this suffering? Because we choose to.

And how do we changes someone who really doesn't want to change?

Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate." — BrianW

Well, I think that the effort of thinking about one's beliefs, including the proof which may or may not exist is vitally important to the whole debate as well. Any thinker worth their salt should be testing their beliefs to see if they still hold up to scrutiny.

Again, it's the intention with which a lot of people engage in such debates that causes its often nonconstructive form. If one engages in such discussions not to refine one's own beliefs, but to seek confirmation (in the form of being able to convince someone of one's own beliefs), the reasons for discussion are wrong to begin with and people are bound to get frustrated.

I like your way of reasoning, but I don't see why we should aspire to end the debate. Religion and spirituality are important parts of human existence. Isn't it therefore prudent that we should engage in debate? If not to convince others, to solidify and crystallize our own beliefs?

People dislike the "God debate" primarily because they get frustrated that their conversation partners aren't convinced by the same things as them. The problem lies with the way we engage in the debate, not in the debate itself.

Interesting reactions so far. I see there are some different views about what exactly is depression, but let me just reiterate that I view it as a spectrum. Clinical depression or very severe depression being at one extreme. My intention is to view it in a broad sense, including those less severe forms of depression every person experiences. I understand the terms "healthy" and "normal" being used, but I would invite you to go a bit deeper. A doctor that treats a wounded or sick patient doesn't ask himself "How do I make this person normal again?", but "How do I stop this wound from bleeding?" or "How do I make this organ function again?"

The term that sprung into my mind when contemplating my original question is "inspired". Before I delve into this, let me say that I base this on my personal experiences and by no means am I trying to "present the truth", but rather I'm trying to offer a perspective.

It occurred to me that in many of the instances I've felt depressed, it was often a form of inspiration that got me out of it. Inspiration comes in many forms. Sometimes it is temporary, sometimes it is permanent. It can spring from a finding a new hobby or a new interest, being introduced to new ideas and philosophies, it can spring from art or people. It can almost come from anything. Things and persons that inspire me have done a lot to give me a sense of purpose, and I cannot think of a situation in which I felt inspired and depressed at the same time. On the flip side, it's hard to determine how exactly to reach this state and needless to say it is different for everyone.

What are your thoughts on inspiration being opposite to depression?

4. God would never allow unjustified sad events. — Yajur

You should specify that you are talking about an omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent God. In my short time on this forum I noticed that God seems synonymous with the Abrahamic concept of God, even though a lot of people believe in entirely different forms of God, deity or the Divine.

But even in the case of an omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent God, it is not said that suffering shouldn't exist. Suffering, however unjustified it may be, often strengthens the people who undergo it. Those who succumb to it may go to heaven or hell, depending on how they lived, or perhaps they are granted another chance in the afterlife, but I wouldn't dare speculate about that.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but one can heatedly debate politics and still be completely ignorant. In fact, generally the more heated the debate, the more ignorant its participants. Maybe I didn't understand your message.

If I understand you correctly, there is nothing about this example that is objectively immoral? The screams of the person in pain, the arm on the ground, the blood, the anguish of friends and family, none of this is objectively true? This, it seems, is a paragon case of immorality. One doesn't need to appeal to anything beyond the case itself. — Sam26

There's nothing objectively immoral about it, if we argue from a secular standpoint, because without religion there is no basis for objective morality.

What you sketch cannot be the basis of objective morality, because it would imply that people's dispositions are what determine whether or not an action is immoral. This means that if you take into account the victim and the onlookers, you must also take into account the disposition of the perpetrator and perhaps he is quite happy with what he's done. Or perhaps some of the onlookers did not like the victim and are quite content seeing him suffer. If you want to base objective morality on emotions, which sounds impossible at the onset, you cannot ignore the other side of the coin.

In virtually every case of immorality, the harm done is the reason it's referred to as immoral. And in cases where we argue over whether something is or is not immoral, usually it's because we don't see the harm, i.e., it's not clear that harm was done. — Sam26

Yet, I can think of dozens of examples where harm is done, but the act is not immoral. Thus, harm cannot be the sole factor. In a previous post you argued "harm without good reason", and I think we have established that "good reason" is entirely subjective and therefore cannot be used (logically) to argue objective morality.

The question is, why do I need to appeal to anything beyond the example to defend the idea that this act (my example) is immoral? Are you making the claim that the only way I would know this act is immoral is by appealing to something metaphysical, for example, God? — Sam26

I would argue that you're using the word 'immoral' wrong. Morality is the absolute definition of good and evil. It cannot be pliable, otherwise it loses all its meaning. You're describing your disposition towards something, namely you think it's bad to cut someone's arm off for no reason. That's a reasonable thing to say. But calling it immoral is to say it is objectively bad, and without a force greater than man to determine what is objectively good and bad, that argument does not work. A force greater than man implies a vertical relationship, in other words, man would have a master. If there is no such force, then man has no master and thus the emotions and disposition of the perpetrator in your argument is worth just as much as the emotions and disposition as the victim, and therefore we cannot call it objectively bad.

All I need to appeal to is the harm, nothing further. If I can make a clear case of the harm done, then I can make the claim that it's immoral, as in the example. — Sam26

Unless your willing to argue that in all cases where harm is caused, it is caused by an immoral act (including for example, self defense), this is unsatisfactory.

Who decides what's reasonable? We do. There are principles of correct reason that are applied, just as there are principles of mathematics that determine the correct and incorrect use of mathematical symbols. Moreover, I would say that these principles are discoverable. They are built into the universe, i.e., they are built into the background of reality. — Sam26

This sounds very nonsecular to me. I've heard similar theories described in lectures by Manly P. Hall and studies of Hermeticism, for example. There's nothing wrong with such views. In fact, I would largely sympathize with this approach, but to imply that there are principles built into reality that dictate how man should act is basically the same as admitting to a power greater than man, and thus to a form of God, or deity, or divine, but in a different sense than we're used to with the Abrahamic religions.

I wonder what would happen to "the energy issue" if we would simply get rid of all the useless things we don't need. I speculate there would be no energy issue.

The problem is not with the system, but with the people. However, the system provides a nice excuse for the people to keep blaming each other for what's wrong, instead of facing their near-total ignorance and the insatiable materialism that has crept into their souls.

I think there is an objective moral principle that we generally follow as people, viz., that we shouldn't inflict undo pain on others for no good reason. — Sam26

I disagree with the claim that this would be objective. You already state it yourself; "... for no good reason." Who decides what is a good reason? The perpetrator? The victim? A neutral third? All of these will have very different ideas of what a good reason might be. And why would any of their opinions be more valuable than that of the other?

If we were to take such a narrow definition of morality, the only thing that would be immoral would be those acts committed by a psychopath. And even then I doubt you can provide an objective argument to why the psychopath's reasons are "not good".

I believe what I'm saying is not only objectively true, but I'm saying that most people recognize it as true, it's self-evident for most people. — Sam26

You can't believe something is objectively true. This is like saying "I believe God is objectively real". It is either true, or you simply do not know whether it is true. Whether such a (perceived) truth would be objective is an entirely different matter and given the inherent subjective nature of human existence highly unlikely. Especially on a topic like morality I doubt anyone's ability to present a good case for objective truth.

That people recognize it as true or regard it as self-evident is no proof of objective truth. People used to think the Earth was flat. Even if the whole world believed it, it wouldn't make it true.

Another final point that I already alluded to, but needs to be emphasized. It also has to do with what we value in our lives, and a life free of senseless pain seems to be a something that almost all people value; and this arises out of the kind of biological beings we are (and I'm not thinking necessarily in terms of evolution), i.e., it's the background reality of our biology, what we value, what we feel, how we reason, etc. — Sam26

Reasoning out of biology seems unsound. There is no morality in nature, just survival. We also can't start cherry picking. If we make the (curious) claim that morality should be based on our biology, our entire biology should be moral, and by modern standards it clearly isn't. Think for example of the fact that girls become fertile around the age of twelve and what that implicates.

In short, morality based on biology would essentially be based on survival, which, if we could even call it morality, would be worth next to nothing.

Morality has to be objective to make sense, because if it were subjective it means it is pliable, and the entire concept of good and evil falls apart. The only way one could soundly argue the existence of morality is by reference to a force greater than man to impose these rules upon him. But that only brings us to the next hurdle; proving there is such a force, but that is a different debate.

I don't think the immune system is able to function when it is separated from the brain, but I'm no expert. I'd actually say the immune system is a great example for the case. The brain unconsciously influences it, for example through stress. The mind can consciously influence it by engaging in activities that strengthen it, like exercise, cold showers and eating healthy. Perhaps the immune system is a bit of an outlier, but it's one of the systems that's easy to influence.

I think I see where the disconnect happened. I distinguish between three things. Mind, brain and body. For simplicity's sake I will define 'mind' as conscious thought. Through the brain, the mind can influence the body, for the body is controlled by the brain. I thought this was generally accepted, but without a connection to the brain(stem), the human body cannot function. With a notable exception namely the inner sinus node in your heart which regulates your heartbeat. This can function autonomously from the brain for some time.

The mind's control over the brain is another matter, since many of the brain's functions happen unconsciously. Influencing these processes is a lot harder, because it requires the mind to become conscious of unconscious proceedings within the body. However, it is possible. Think for example of using breathing techniques to slow the heart rate, or meditation to influence thermoregulation.

And this brings us to the placebo. This is an example of the conscious mind influencing the unconscious part of the brain. The conscious action and thought from mind to brain: "I took a pill that will help me." and the unconscious signal from the brain to the body: "We are being helped so calm down/stop whatever you're doing." The reason the placebo-effect is so interesting is because it shows the mind's ability to influence unconscious processes in the body.

This gets us to the question I raised earlier: To what degree can the mind influence the body? Can mind become master over the brain and thus become master over the body? We have seen the mind can control conscious as well as unconscious processes, so can it control all of them? You seem skeptical, but personally I believe the influence of the mind, with practice, can become very significant. We can discuss that, but we should first make sure we understand each other to avoid a repetition of our earlier situation.

Dear writer, our lawsuit hasn't even started and yet you already accuse me of pounding the table. It would behoove you to take a look in the mirror.

You talk about my position and my facts, but I haven't done more than introduce my view on the matter. The only fact that has gotten attention in our brief and so far unpleasant encounter is the fact that the brain controls (and thus is master of) the body. You seem to disagree. We can discuss this.

I am curious what positions you think I have taken and what facts you think I have brought to bear to support these, because I'm trying to understand what has gotten you so riled up. I cannot imagine that a disagreement over the degree to which the brain influences the body (as per your first response) is what invited all this hostility.

"The brain is master of the body?" Please... — SophistiCat

Everything the body does has it's origin in the brain. This is scientific fact and as far as I know not up for debate. Do spare me the condescending "Please..." at the end of your messages. I'll converse with you, but not if you cannot show a modicum of grace towards people you may not agree with.

The brain is master of the body. Everything that happens inside the body is caused by signals from the brain, and almost all of this happens subconsciously. Theoretically, if our minds could control these signals we could control all processes in the body, including many illnesses. Indeed, a lot of illnesses and ailments are caused by the body or brain itself, and not by an external source. For an example, think of all the symptoms associated with stress.

The placebo is an attempt to tell the subconscious brain to stop initiating a certain process. Clearly, influencing the subconscious brain is not easy. For example, if the person in question is convinced their condition will kill them, that message to the subconscious brain is potentially much more powerful than the placebo. In addition, there are probably factors beyond our knowledge.

What does it mean? It should make us aware of the immense power the brain has over the body, and the possibilities that lie open if we would be capable to control the brain on a more conscious level.

What is it specifically about the placebo effect that philosophy of mind ought to address? — SophistiCat

The fact that the brain has such a large influence on the body lends credibility to the claim that the brain is master over the body. If we take the concepts of subconsciously influencing the brain, but instead make the influence conscious, we may state the mind becomes master over the brain, and thus over the body. And thus we arrive at the famous phrase "Mind over body". I think such ideas are relevant within the philosophy of mind. Don't you?

First paragraph: My point was that you are making claims of something you (and I aswell) are completely ignorant and you are dismissing the claims of those who have dedicated their lives to the subject. This is unreasonable.

Second paragraph: When we accept that values are relative, good and evil become undefinable and thus morality becomes an empty concept. It seems you are suggesting good and evil should be pliable according to the situation. This is something I cannot agree with, but it is a different discussion and I do not wish to sidetrack.

Third paragraph: I could just as easily point towards all the morals and values the world's religions have in common, and have had in common for thousands of years. But for objective truth to exist it isn't necessarily required that man has already found it. Perhaps some have found a part. Perhaps we have found nothing. Haven't we already established that such things are extremely difficult to find, if not impossible? This an unsatisfying argument.

Secondly, I am unsure which claims of mine you are referring to. I am not claiming the existence of objective value. I am questioning your position on the matter. If you must know, I believe there are good arguments for either side and given our ignorance on the matter I choose the only position reasonable: I don't know.

Fourth paragraph: A theist who doubts the existence of deity is not a theist, but an agnostic. So is an atheist who doubts the non-existence of deity, regardless of what they might label themselves as. Nihilism makes a claim, and it doesn't say anything about doubt. The fact that you are in doubt makes your position a lot more reasonable, but I also wouldn't call you nihilistic. You seem to be willing to make assumptions for practical reasons (as I think you hinted at in your third paragraph), but someone who believes in deity for practical reasons can hardly be called a believer.

Last paragraph: There are those who find comfort in the meaninglessness of things. However, I was not implying this should be true for you, merely guessing at the reason(s) you might have for making an assumption about something you admit you do not know.

There are some who claim to have experienced it, and such persons are revered in many places on Earth, but it is up to you whether you believe them or not. Other than that, I would argue the nihilistic point of view is all but reasonable. You're claiming something so central to the human experience does not exist, you're also denying the possibility of its existence beyond the human experience, which is an area you and I are completely ignorant of, and you are dismissing any claims of those who have made very thorough attempts at finding the truth. I wouldn't call that any more reasonable than a person who claims that there is nothing beyond our universe, despite not being a scientist and despite scientists' educated guesses that there might be more.

Reasonable would be to accept that we have no idea.

Furthermore, what would be the purpose of your assumption? Will you now act in accordance to your beliefs that nothing has value and morality that doesn't exist? I doubt it. Do you think it is a constructive model upon which our society should be built? For much the same reasons, I doubt it. The only purpose I can think of that such an assumption would serve is personal comfort. Perhaps some prefer to feign certainty than to accept doubt. Perhaps it is comforting to some individuals that they can project their own perceived meaninglessness on others. But I am open to hearing other grounds for your assumption.

While I do not think it is paradoxical, as I do not see the impossibility of objective experience as a proven fact, I understand your point. However, Buddha was an example. If, as we have agreed, even a person like Buddha, who dedicated his entire life to transcendence of the human experience, cannot present us with indisputable evidence of the nature of reality, then who are we, as ignorant as we are of the true nature of reality, to claim the contrary?

Clearly, I cannot tell you what Buddha has experienced. Nor am I in a position to define objective reality myself. My point is that to experience objective reality, thus transcending the human experience, if it is at all possible, is not trivial and will probably take a lifetime of dedication. Those who may have gotten close, at the very least closer than I, did not return with the message that nothing has meaning. While this isn't conclusive evidence, it is enough for me to accept the possibility of inherent meaning.

The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

Considering it is very difficult (dare I say impossible) for a human being to experience objective reality, I would find that such beliefs are generally based upon shaky foundations.

There are those who may have glimpsed objective reality, like Gautama Buddha, but I doubt he would describe his experiences as meaningless.

What exactly are your reasons for believing animals have a consciousness greater than that provided by the brain? To me, the animal controls its body with its brain, resulting in an unconscious form of consciousness. Man was granted a mind capable of controlling the brain, resulting in a conscious form of consciousness. I use 'mind', because I dislike the word 'soul'. I do believe animals have souls, but I do not believe they have the same form of consciousness humans do, although some humans are only marginally more conscious than animals.

The reason I believe this is because unlike animals the human mind is capable of discipline. I define discipline as the mind resisting impulses from the brain and the body. This indicates to me that there is something higher than the brain, which I will call 'mind', but others may call it 'soul', which is master of the brain as the brain is master of the body.

Consciousness to me is a spectrum. On one side "Unconscious consciousness", which is what most animals have, and on the other side "conscious consciousness" or "true consciousness" which is perhaps glimpsed only by those who attain a form of enlightenment.

Your view suggests that consciousness CAN exist in that scenario but I find it really difficult to imagine experiencing no experience (it is a contradiction) — khaled

Why would the mind be incapable of a form of experience on its own? Or is your point of view that whatever the mind experiences on its own it referenced from the physical senses? Personally, I have no problem accepting that if we regard the mind as immaterial, it is capable of experiencing immaterial things. Of course, proving such things is a whole other matter.

However, don't practitioners of meditation or seekers of enlightenment seek to experience "just being"? This is I think what you are trying to describe when you say "experiencing no experience". They seek to experience separation of mind from body.