Existence, Preservation of State

[AndyF]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply
an exercise in the preservation of state?.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principal will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

Thoughts?.

Andy

 

[yosupman]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply
an exercise in the preservation of state?.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principal will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

Thoughts?.

Andy

Your premise seems to be that God is capricious and just plays around with us. God sustains us, and we have to do what he says because God is bigger than us and made the rules.

This premise does not accord with logic. If there is a creator that is before all creation, namely God, this first cause must be self subsitent, and totally containing all perfection. When God does something, it can only be for a just, perfect reason. The psalms all say, all the ways of God are perfect.

God made us to be in ultimate communion with him. God will not force this perfect life on us. Hence the life on earth in which we either choose him or not depending on our choices. This creates the possiblity of evil, suffering, death. Even God’s on son died on the cross to bring us back to heaven.

This incarnation of God was completely amazing to the angels. It better be amazing to us. The mysteries will always elude our total understanding, and thus be a source of amazement, because the ulitimate cause of the divine mysteries is God, who is inexhaustable.

Nothing is just practical. To the person surrendered to the divine will, every moment of life is a miracle.

 

[Spock]

God will not force this perfect life on us.

Hmm, but we did not choose to exist. Does that not mean that God “forced” this imperfect life on us? I would much rather exist is a “prefect life”, then in an imperfect one. Wouldn’t everyone, if given a chance? Think about it.

 

[yosupman]

Hmm, but we did not choose to exist. Does that not mean that God “forced” this imperfect life on us? I would much rather exist is a “prefect life”, then in an imperfect one. Wouldn’t everyone, if given a chance? Think about it.

If you want the perfect life then you need to choose God. If you choose your passions, the world, pride, excess, greed, then that becomes your choice. Imagine Hell as a place where you get what ever you want, a lot of it for eternity. But the only thing you can’t have is God. Eventually, it becomes well…uhh…Hell.

The question isn’t “why do I exist”. That is an obvious answer. You do exist, so whatcha gonna do 'bout it.

 

[tonyrey]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply an exercise in the preservation of state?

It is more than that because it is an opportunity for development and transformation.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

“not offending” is a negative interpretation of existence which disregards the positive aspect of love.

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principle will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

Our basic principle should be that existence is an immensely valuable source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment!

 

[Spock]

The question isn’t “why do I exist”.

Yes, it is. That is the exact question. You said that God did not want to force us into the perfect life with him. Yet he forced us into this “imperfect” life. None of us had a say-so in the process. God could have “forced” us into the prefect existence. We all would be better off. Yet he did not. The question is: “why not”?

 

[yosupman]

Yes, it is. That is the exact question. You said that God did not want to force us into the perfect life with him. Yet he forced us into this “imperfect” life. None of us had a say-so in the process. God could have “forced” us into the prefect existence. We all would be better off. Yet he did not. The question is: “why not”?

There are 2 questions now going on here:

1.) Why did God create me? - we know from philosophy and human reason that God is perfect, and therefore cannot error. We may not understand the reason, as the reason may transcend human reason, but not be against human reason.

2.) If God made me, why not just make me perfect the first time? If God forced heaven on us, we would all be “Chatty Cathy” dolls. Have you checkout these Chatty Cathy dolls on Ebay? They sell for quite a lot. But back on point…our love must be voluntary. Only those that freely choose to love will be admited into heaven.

 

[donsnow]

Hmm, but we did not choose to exist. Does that not mean that God “forced” this imperfect life on us? I would much rather exist is a “prefect life”, then in an imperfect one. Wouldn’t everyone, if given a chance? Think about it.

Hi, Spock,

With all due respect, I think the “We did not choose to exist” argument sort of a non-sequiter. Because, to my knowledge, no one chooses to not exist, before they’re conceived.

At least, 'though, you do appreciate the choice of a perfect life to an imperfect one. I’m just content with my present situation.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Yes, it is. That is the exact question. You said that God did not want to force us into the perfect life with him. Yet he forced us into this “imperfect” life. None of us had a say-so in the process. God could have “forced” us into the prefect existence. We all would be better off. Yet he did not. The question is: “why not”?

Hi, again,

Maybe because that’s the only two basic choices there are, and He gave us freedom of choice. I’d rather the freedom of choice when we mature, which is exercised for us by our parents as children.

Actually, there’s just some things which I do not question, because “that’s just the way things are.” It reassures me that there’s somethings of God which skeptics may not negate nor change.

God loves you,
Don

 

[yosupman]

Hi, again,

Maybe because that’s the only two basic choices there are, and He gave us freedom of choice. I’d rather the freedom of choice when we mature, which is exercised for us by our parents as children.

Actually, there’s just some things which I do not question, because “that’s just the way things are.” It reassures me that there’s somethings of God which skeptics may not negate nor change.

God loves you,
Don

Its important to demonstrate the faith is totally in accord with faith. The beginning point are those things that are self evident. Then you can build from there. If an athiest will not agree with those things that are self evident, you cannot continue with the logical demonstration.

 

[donsnow]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply an exercise in the preservation of state?.

Nope. Existence at one point or another in a creature’s life becomes a learning exercise. If it doesn’t, that creature ceases to exist, sooner or later. This learning concept goes for both animals and humans.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

The exercise in not offending or not, depends on where you are on the learning curve. Once we learn to cling to the truth, living and dying, then we can see why our example and Savior, Jesus Christ, did not worry about offending the public nor the Jewish authorities during His ministry. The truth with love upsets Satan, politically correct people, some skeptics and atheists, etc but that cannot be helped, to stay true to the faith.
According to Jesus Christ, following Him will “trip the trapdoors of life and set off the klaxons…” on all types of issues. But, Jesus Christ tells us when we do what His Heavenly Father tells us, we will “…be called before judges, imprisoned, persecuted and even slain.” We are to keep faith, in love and the truth, unto imprisonment, torture and/or even death.
So, this changes the exercise of life, doesn’t it?

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principal will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

When you consider my reply in full, you can see that following Jesus Christ in the face of persecution, name calling, imprisonment, torture and being killed, that changes our base principal, which becomes no longer survival, but now keeping faith with love and truth. Lots of people on Earth find themselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant government and America is falling to that fate because of those who want to take our rights and liberties away for security and welfare. Nevertheless, the principle of keeping faith to love and God’s truths with love and truth overcomes other principles and becomes the founding exercise in the new life.

Thoughts?.

Andy

So, those are my thoughts. I’ve been trying to live the life I’ve described to you for several decades, now. It’s never easy; but it’s always worth it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Its important to demonstrate the faith is totally in accord with faith. The beginning point are those things that are self evident. Then you can build from there. If an athiest will not agree with those things that are self evident, you cannot continue with the logical demonstration.

Well, yosupman,

You certainly can’t continue with that particular atheist, but you must continue with the faith in love and truth with your own life and death.

God loves you,
Don

 

[yosupman]

Well, yosupman,

You certainly can’t continue with that particular atheist, but you must continue with the faith in love and truth with your own life and death.

God loves you,
Don

I haven’t see any evidence that the athiest in this thread does not acknowledge basic logic.

 

[donsnow]

I haven’t see any evidence that the athiest in this thread does not acknowledge basic logic.

True, yosupman,

Spock is logical and reasonable. I like him because he doesn’t make fun of us.

God loves you,
Don

 

[John21652]

If having found oneself existing and no option to return, then is not existence simply
an exercise in the preservation of state?.

Return to what? An unknown? It could be something far worse than whatever existence is, measured by whatever you measure it by! It could even be nothing. I think I’ll stay, thanks.

Your use of the word ‘simply’ implies that existence has only one purpose. That is not necessarily the case. We have more choices than that. We can choose how to exist.

Consider. We wish to either gain positively, or at least not to experience a worse state. Primarily, all efforts then become an exercise in not offending, doing what we are told because a more powerful being now has full control of us, etc and in a nutshell bettering the sensory and spiritual mystical nature that we are without tripping the trap doors of life or setting off the claxtons of failure. Basically, and I said basically, nothing is really amazing or in wonderment, but simply practical.

Here you jump straight from a subjective analysis of self to an attempt at an objective analysis of what others demand, require, or need and in the process you do a quantum leap in logic by relegating existence to the necessary pleasing of others as the necessary requirement for your existence. The state of your existence may, or may not depend upon the desires and expectations of others. You need to demonstrate why and if and how this could be true. Or false!

However we feel we may find inspiration through elevation to transcendence or rapture as much has this is possible in this world, our base principal will always be the underlying foundation to our predicament. Ironically, it is a solid base principle as well, since if the situation differed and we found ourselves subjects of an oppressing tyrant creator, the principle would still exist, albeit more urgently endeavored.

Transcendence and rapture are mental states. Existence includes both mental states and physical states. Which one is the primary one for the maintenance of existence?

 

[Spock]

There are 2 questions now going on here:

1.) Why did God create me? - we know from philosophy and human reason that God is perfect, and therefore cannot error. We may not understand the reason, as the reason may transcend human reason, but not be against human reason.

That is just another old and tired argument from ignorance: “we don’t (and cannot) know God’s reasons, but they surely must be there”. Wearing very thin now from overuse. (By the way, you don’t “know” God’s attributes either. You “believe” them.) So this is not an answer.

2.) If God made me, why not just make me perfect the first time? If God forced heaven on us, we would all be “Chatty Cathy” dolls. Have you checkout these Chatty Cathy dolls on Ebay? They sell for quite a lot. But back on point…our love must be voluntary. Only those that freely choose to love will be admited into heaven.

No, I have no idea what those “chatty cathy dolls” are. You said that God did not want to “force” us into a perfect life. We did not choose to exist. Therefore God did force us into this imperfect life.

However, a “loving” creator would not “force” an imperfect existence onto his creation if a better solution is available. Start from this axiom if you wish to find a rational (as opposed to faith-based) answer.

 

[Spock]

With all due respect, I think the “We did not choose to exist” argument sort of a non-sequiter. Because, to my knowledge, no one chooses to not exist, before they’re conceived.

Obviously. We cannot choose either to exist or not to exist before we exist (and are sufficiently advanced to even contemplate this question). Our existence is a “forced” one, no matter what. Yosupman argued that God did not want to “force” us into the perfect existence. Yet God “forced” us into this inferior existence. I am asking how can God’s alleged “love” be reconciled with forcing anyone into an inferior existence when a better solution (perfect existence) is available.

 

[Spock]

With all due respect, I think the “We did not choose to exist” argument sort of a non-sequiter. Because, to my knowledge, no one chooses to not exist, before they’re conceived.

Obviously. We cannot choose either to exist or not to exist before we exist (and even after existence we are sufficiently advanced to even contemplate this question). Our existence is a “forced” one, no matter what. Yosupman argued that God did not want to “force” us into the perfect existence. Yet God “forced” us into this inferior existence. I am asking how can God’s alleged “love” be reconciled with forcing anyone into an inferior existence when a better solution (perfect existence) is available.

Maybe because that’s the only two basic choices there are, and He gave us freedom of choice. I’d rather the freedom of choice when we mature, which is exercised for us by our parents as children.

Well, that is a reasonable possibility. Personally, I don’t consider “freedom of choice” a superior solution. I would much rather be “forced” into the perfect existence, then to be forced into an “imperfect one” - even if there is a chance of getting into the perfect one (which is far from certain - this perfect existence being a matter of faith, not knowledge). There is the risk of “missing the mark” to get into that perfect existence - and then one faces eternal torture. The trouble is that there is no “up-side” of this risk, but there is a huge “down-side”. We gain nothing having been forced into this existence and can lose everything (and more) in hell.

I cannot imagine anyone who would choose hell over heaven, if one could make an informed decision - which means after having a guided tour of both places, and given a clear, unambiguous list of instructions which enumerate what are the “do’s” and “don’t’s” to get to heaven. Mind you, this action would not negate our freedom of choice in the least. We would be perfectly free to make our selection, but we would have the necessary information to make an informed decision. But we are not given this information. We must make our choices “blindfolded”. This is where the problem lies. To demad full responsibility, while not giving full information is not an act of “love”.

Actually, there’s just some things which I do not question, because “that’s just the way things are.”

Yes, indeed. There are brute facts. We probably disagree on just what those brute facts are. But that is ok. If we agreed on everything, there would be no reason to conduct a conversation.

 

[yosupman]

That is just another old and tired argument from ignorance: “we don’t (and cannot) know God’s reasons, but they surely must be there”. Wearing very thin now from overuse. (By the way, you don’t “know” God’s attributes either. You “believe” them.) So this is not an answer.

No, I have no idea what those “chatty cathy dolls” are. You said that God did not want to “force” us into a perfect life. We did not choose to exist. Therefore God did force us into this imperfect life.

However, a “loving” creator would not “force” an imperfect existence onto his creation if a better solution is available. Start from this axiom if you wish to find a rational (as opposed to faith-based) answer.

Spock,

Lets try a different approach…first buy a bottle of Sky vodka, some olives. Have a martini. Then try to existentialize.

 

[Spock]

Lets try a different approach…first buy a bottle of Sky vodka, some olives. Have a martini.

Ok, got it.

Then try to existentialize.

I have no idea what that word means. Did not find it in any dictionary either. Also you will have to tell me, how is that pertinent to the question I asked. (To repeat: how can God’s love be reconclied with forcing us into an inferior existence, when a perfect existence is available?)