What is the point?

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ask the people who are in eternal beatitude if God has done something good for them.

Sure… where are they? Let them take the witness stand. And God definitely does NOT feed the hungry, does NOT heal the sick, does NOT protect the weak. I see that you are not willing to deny it, which is very “wise” of you.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Sure… where are they? Let them take the witness stand. And God definitely does NOT feed the hungry, does NOT heal the sick, does NOT protect the weak. I see that you are not willing to deny it, which is very “wise” of you.

Given that I think on the whole it is useless to interact with you I will simply address your food accusation:
God has provided us the means to feed the hungry. God has told us to feed the hungry. There is more than enough food to feed the hungry. The fact that the hungry are not fed falls on us for failing to do what we have been called to do. We are the reason there are hungry people in the world. God has provided, but we have failed. It is us who do NOT feed the hungry. Of course you don’t believe that God has called us to feed the hungry because you don’t believe God has spoken to us.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Excellent. Does God explain anything to us? Nope.

Your guess is incorrect.

Sure, God explains to us. He did, after all, leave us His written words, and a Church. And He speaks to our hearts. Doesn’t mean that some people won’t just refuse to listen on the grounds that He doesn’t ‘respond’ to them with the answer they prefer, or in the way that they prefer.

Hope you’ll enjoy your children as much as I have --even when they get to be teens, young adults, have families of their own, etc.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Given that I think on the whole it is useless to interact with you I will simply address your food accusation:
God has provided us the means to feed the hungry. God has told us to feed the hungry. There is more than enough food to feed the hungry. The fact that the hungry are not fed falls on us for failing to do what we have been called to do. We are the reason there are hungry people in the world. God has provided, but we have failed. It is us who do NOT feed the hungry. Of course you don’t believe that God has called us to feed the hungry because you don’t believe God has spoken to us.

We try to feed the hungry as much as we can. We are unable to prevent natural disasters, the droughts, the locusts and other problems. Next time maybe you will accuse us for not healing those, whose illnesses are unable to cure - for the time being. God did not cure those died in the Black Plague, the ones who perished in the epidemic of the Spanish flu, the ones who suffer from leprosy and other incurable maladies. God does not interfere on behalf of the of the tortured ones. Look at the poor miners trapped underground. We may do everything we can to rescue them, but we are simply powerless to succeed.

So your attempt to whitewash God leads nowhere. Let us have the power of God, and we can change this place into an Earthly paradise. Why not “reveal” us the cure for cancer? The way to prevent heart disease?

Heck, if only God would have included the commandment: “Wash your hands every time you touch your food”, the result would have been simply awesome. Are you aware that in the Middle Ages the head-lice were called the “pearls of God”? Why not include in the commandments: “Keep your body clean, because it pleases your Lord”? No, my friend. There is absolutely no sign HERE and NOW that God cares even an iota about our well-being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sure, God explains to us. He did, after all, leave us His written words, and a Church. And He speaks to our hearts.

It would be very interesting to talk to a Christian who understands that the “scriptures” and the “church” are simply human concoctions, and there is no evidence of “divine origin”. Though in that case they would cease to be Christian very quickly.

Doesn’t mean that some people won’t just refuse to listen on the grounds that He doesn’t ‘respond’ to them with the answer they prefer, or in the way that they prefer.

Just like you spoke to your children using a language they understand, God could (and should) use a language we all understand - IF only he cared. You accuse us for “refusing” to listen, when the simple fact is that we don’t see or hear anything to “listen to”. Nonsense. In any dialog both parties MUST use a common language. It is not just a “preference”, it is the very basic requirement to use a language that the other party can understand and decipher.

Your children could not have missed the fact that it was YOU, who communicated with them. The words came from YOUR mouth, not from some third party, who claims to “channel” your voice. Don’t you realize the incredible difference?

 

[Bradski]

And you made me agree with Vonsalza.

The horror. The horror.

 

[MarkInOregon]

We try to feed the hungry as much as we can. We are unable to prevent natural disasters, the droughts, the locusts and other problems. Next time maybe you will accuse us for not healing those, whose illnesses are unable to cure - for the time being. God did not cure those died in the Black Plague, the ones who perished in the epidemic of the Spanish flu, the ones who suffer from leprosy and other incurable maladies. God does not interfere on behalf of the of the tortured ones. Look at the poor miners trapped underground. We may do everything we can to rescue them, but we are simply powerless to succeed.

So your attempt to whitewash God leads nowhere. Let us have the power of God, and we can change this place into an Earthly paradise. Why not “reveal” us the cure for cancer? The way to prevent heart disease?

Heck, if only God would have included the commandment: “Wash your hands every time you touch your food”, the result would have been simply awesome. Are you aware that in the Middle Ages the head-lice were called the “pearls of God”? Why not include in the commandments: “Keep your body clean, because it pleases your Lord”? No, my friend. There is absolutely no sign HERE and NOW that God cares even an iota about our well-being.

Your attempt to give us a pass is telling. Some try. Most do not and most in the western world waiste an incredible amount of food without giving it a thought. We pay mostly lip service from our comfortable abodes.
The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[inocente]

Do you wish to have absolute, total, unlimited freedom? That would be irrational. Our “freedom” is always relative to the circumstances. The example of the necktie simply wanted to emphasize that most of our decisions are NOT of “moral” nature.

Your necktie rule is telling me that not wearing a necktie is wrong behavior, so it is concerned with morality.

*Within the constraints of our abilities. The constraints are partially external (physical) and partially internal (due to our inherited nature and the education - “programming” - we receive).

Knowing right form wrong is completely different from being able to act on the “wrong”. During our formative years our parents try to educate us to the degree that we always make the right choice, automatically* (or semi-automatically). Our freedom hinges on two constraints, the external ability to perform an act, and the internal “desire” to perform it. And that is what we try to achieve with our children. Teach them to develop an internal “compass”, which would guide them in the proper direction.

You appear to be agreeing that although your OP is calling for no moral agency, you’re really calling for more moral agency.

There is no need for the ongoing education, IF the initial programming was successful. We are unable to perform a perfect “programming”, no matter how hard we try. Our attempts to “program” our children is laudable. (Of course there are always exceptions. Some parents prefer to raise little psychopaths). God could make that “programming” without any errors.

Yikes. Programming isn’t freedom, programming is mechanically obeying rules.

Depending on points of view, a moral person is one who does his duty, is virtuous, or tries to achieve the best consequences for her actions. The only one of those which could be programmed is duty, which says the moral person is the one who obeys all the rules. But that ends with robots and the Nuremberg defense. Jesus, instead, makes a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite do their duty according to their rules, and walk on by. But the Samaritan just feels compassion and shows mercy. And he, Jesus says, is the moral person.

Other people have other views, and if God didn’t pre-program everyone with whichever approach you prefer, you’d be unhappy. God seems inclined more to let us work it out between ourselves. As the great philosopher Miley Cyrus said of freedom:

It’s our party we can do what we want
It’s our party we can say what we want
It’s our party we can love who we want
We can kiss who we want
We can sing what we want

We run things, things don’t run we
We don’t take nothing from nobody.

Viva la revolución!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your necktie rule is telling me that not wearing a necktie is wrong behavior, so it is concerned with morality.

That is very simplistic. Wrong does not equal “morally” wrong. The word you might wish to use is: “impolite” or “misconduct”

You appear to be agreeing that although your OP is calling for no moral agency, you’re really calling for more moral agency.

You are wrong. But not “morally wrong”.

Yikes. Programming isn’t freedom, programming is mechanically obeying rules.

Programming does not equal “stimulus A” always, under any and all circumstances MUST lead to “response B”. Education IS programming. The low level programming we receive in our formative years dictates basic behavior: “be kind, be polite, be helpful, give your seat up to an elderly person”… and zillions of other behavioral patterns. We perform these tasks to teach / train / program our children. Observe: “teach”, “train” and “program” are used interchangeably.

The more instinctive, automatic these behaviors are, the better the person is. Of course the most desirable outcome is when the all these decisions happen in the subconscious. What emerges into the conscious is the set of equally acceptable solutions, and THEN the conscious choice can take place.

Depending on points of view, a moral person is one who does his duty, is virtuous, or tries to achieve the best consequences for her actions. The only one of those which could be programmed is duty, which says the moral person is the one who obeys all the rules. But that ends with robots and the Nuremberg defense. Jesus, instead, makes a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite do their duty according to their rules, and walk on by. But the Samaritan just feels compassion and shows mercy. And he, Jesus says, is the moral person.

And so much better the world would be, if everyone would instinctively, automatically behave like this. If the priest and the Levite would only be a figment of our imagination.

The teaching / training / programming is aimed to the result that everyone, always would choose the correct behavior. The funny stuff is that people would not consider a “robot” to be a “moral” agent, even though the “robot” is the pinnacle of “morality”. (Read Asimov’s “I robot” and especially the words of “Dr. Susan Calvin”, the robot psychologist.) People - for some unfathomable reason - prefer someone who could stab you in the stomach, but does not do it, to someone else, who is unable to stab you in the first place. So irrational.

Whom would you choose as a nurse in the hospital? A human nurse, who might have a bad hair day, who can be inattentive, who does not really care about you, who is able to give you the wrong medication, OR a “robot” nurse, who never fails, who is programmed to behave “as if she would care about you” and never fails. I would choose the “robot” nurse. I wonder what your reasoning might be if you preferred the human nurse. (And to help you, they both look the same, so you do not have the loophole that the human nurse is cute, while the robot nurse is just a “machine”.) By the way, the “robot” nurse has options to choose from. She can choose to take your temperature first, and then give you your medications, or the other way 'round. But she cannot “choose” to give you strychnine instead of aspirin, while the human nurse would be able to do it.

 

[reggieM]

Sure… where are they? Let them take the witness stand. And God definitely does NOT feed the hungry, does NOT heal the sick, does NOT protect the weak. I see that you are not willing to deny it, which is very “wise” of you.

I deny it. God feeds every creature. God heals every one.

Where are they? They’re in heaven. Pray and you will find them.
Don’t want to pray? Then you’ll remain blind to it.

 

[reggieM]

Moreover, today He speaks to and through His Church.

Exactly. Blessed are those who hear His voice!

I think this is your core issue; the presumption that God, should it exist, will behave as you think is reasonable, not as God thinks is reasonable.

Yes. It’s wanting a god that meets Vera’s standards. But what are Vera’s standards and why would anyone want a god like him? We know he commits sin. He doesn’t heal the sick, as Jesus did. He is blind to ultimate meaning an purpose - by his own admission. He does not know what will happen to him after death. He does not know if God exists. He can only serve that which is less than or equal to himself.

In light of that, it’s absolutely astonishing He has given us the free moral agency to scorn and insult Him. If that’s not a gift of freedom and benevolence from a “dictator”, I’m not sure what is.

The gifts of life, reason, freedom, redemption, forgiveness and eternal life require an appropriate response. Gratitude, wonder, appreciation, service, honor.

 

[reggieM]

Given that I think on the whole it is useless to interact with you I will simply address your food accusation:
God has provided us the means to feed the hungry. God has told us to feed the hungry. There is more than enough food to feed the hungry. The fact that the hungry are not fed falls on us for failing to do what we have been called to do. We are the reason there are hungry people in the world. God has provided, but we have failed. It is us who do NOT feed the hungry. Of course you don’t believe that God has called us to feed the hungry because you don’t believe God has spoken to us.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Exactly God gave us this task. He trusts us to do it. If we fail, the blame falls on us, not on Him.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I deny it. God feeds every creature. God heals every one.

It would do you a world of good if you looked at some of these pictures, And see just HOW God feeds and heals everyone

google.com/search?q=famine+in+africa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjhuOqHzZ3VAhWCOiYKHarRD8sQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=783

Where are they? They’re in heaven.

So they cannot be put on the witness stand. So much for your credibility. On a scale from 1 to 10 it reached now the staggering MINUS 20.

Maybe you would explain just HOW God protects the raped and tortured people. I can hardly wait to learn something new in that respect.

 

[reggieM]

It would do you a world of good if you looked at some of these pictures, And see just HOW God feeds and heals everyone

google.com/search?q=famine+in+africa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjhuOqHzZ3VAhWCOiYKHarRD8sQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=783

The food that belongs to the poor is stolen by the rich. As I said before, it is sin that causes evil to spread in the world.

So they cannot be put on the witness stand. So much for your credibility. On a scale from 1 to 10 it reached now the staggering MINUS 20.

You are unwilling to do what is needed to communicate with them. I didn’t know you were keeping score, but who is winning so far? On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate your own credibility? Let me guess: it’s an 11.

Maybe you would explain just HOW God protects the raped and tortured people. I can hardly wait to learn something new in that respect.

He trusts people like you to repair the damage done by your sins and to repair the evil that you have spread into the world.
You don’t want to do that, so innocent people have to suffer as a result.
It’s because God has given you that freedom and He has to respect it that he allows you to sin against others, and he also allows you to refuse to repent and make up for the evil you’ve done.
It’s unfortunate that so many have to suffer as a result.
That’s why I hope you will change.

 

[inocente]

That is very simplistic. Wrong does not equal “morally” wrong. The word you might wish to use is: “impolite” or “misconduct”

You are wrong. But not “morally wrong”.

:ehh:

Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. - OED

*Programming does not equal “stimulus A” always, under any and all circumstances MUST lead to “response B”. Education IS programming. The low level programming we receive in our formative years dictates basic behavior: “be kind, be polite, be helpful, give your seat up to an elderly person”… and zillions of other behavioral patterns. We perform these tasks to teach / train / program our children. Observe: “teach”, “train” and “program” are used interchangeably.

The more instinctive, automatic these behaviors are, the better the person is. Of course the most desirable outcome is when the all these decisions happen in the subconscious*. What emerges into the conscious is the set of equally acceptable solutions, and THEN the conscious choice can take place.

You appear to make no distinction between rules and principles. Have a look at computers which drive cars. Even that comparatively simple task is far too complicated to be programmed. There are far too many scenarios to program. Instead the computer is given goals and learns for itself.

But even before considering the practicality, not to mention the morality of programming children, why would I want my child programmed with your morality? I mean how do you know the morality you want is objectively and absolutely the only morality worth teaching all over the world for the next thousand years and more? How do you test that it is objectively the only morality worth keeping? What are your test criteria?

*And so much better the world would be, if everyone would instinctively, automatically behave like this. If the priest and the Levite would only be a figment of our imagination.

The teaching / training / programming is aimed to the result that everyone, always would choose the correct behavior. The funny stuff is that people would not consider a “robot” to be a “moral” agent, even though the “robot” is the pinnacle of “morality”*. (Read Asimov’s “I robot” and especially the words of “Dr. Susan Calvin”, the robot psychologist.) People - for some unfathomable reason - prefer someone who could stab you in the stomach, but does not do it, to someone else, who is unable to stab you in the first place. So irrational.

Whom would you choose as a nurse in the hospital? A human nurse, who might have a bad hair day, who can be inattentive, who does not really care about you, who is able to give you the wrong medication, OR a “robot” nurse, who never fails, who is programmed to behave “as if she would care about you” and never fails. I would choose the “robot” nurse. I wonder what your reasoning might be if you preferred the human nurse. (And to help you, they both look the same, so you do not have the loophole that the human nurse is cute, while the robot nurse is just a “machine”.) By the way, the “robot” nurse has options to choose from. She can choose to take your temperature first, and then give you your medications, or the other way 'round. But she cannot “choose” to give you strychnine instead of aspirin, while the human nurse would be able to do it.

My career is in information technology, and I am far more skeptical that a machine with high intelligence would mindlessly follow your orders. But if you feel humans are so inferior, why not just make the patient a robot too? Then you have your utopia where robots reach moral perfection by your diktats, and none of those untrustworthy humans remain to mess up the perfection.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. - OED

That is far too simplistic. Picking your nose at a reception given by “Juan Carlos I” would be considered “wrong” and objectionable, but NOT immoral. There are many levels of “unacceptable” behavior, all from seriously criminal, to mildly offensive. To lump them together under some “immoral” label is too simplistic.

You appear to make no distinction between rules and principles. Have a look at computers which drive cars. Even that comparatively simple task is far too complicated to be programmed. There are far too many scenarios to program. Instead the computer is given goals and learns for itself.

Indeed. But the learning is limited to the desirable scenarios. A perfect example of good programming. (Insofar there was only ONE accident to the best of my knowledge, and that was due to an oversized tractor trailer.) Exactly what we do (or should do) with our children. I suspect that you have a problem with the word: “programming”. I could have used: “brainwashing”, too. Teaching, training, programming, brainwashing describe the same process: to instill desirable patterns of behavior. Don’t “mindlessly” consider the negative overtones. Just think outside the box.

But even before considering the practicality, not to mention the morality of programming children, why would I want my child programmed with your morality?

Use your own principles. I would have no problem with your principles of morality. I am very sure that the only difference between your and mine is that you attend your church and worship God, while I don’t. But apart from that I bet that our moralities are almost interchangeable. You see, I would trust you based upon our conversations. It is simply hilarious that the objection almost always comes in the form of “YOUR principles”, or “YOUR criteria” or “YOUR morality”. It could almost be characterized as an “ad hominem”.

My career is in information technology, and I am far more skeptical that a machine with high intelligence would mindlessly follow your orders.

Well, well. Who wouldof thunk it? It just so happens that I was in the same field before retirement. Both in the practical and the theoretical part of it. Somehow you forgot (?) to answer my question: "which one would you choose, the human nurse or the “robot” nurse? The “robot” would be governed by the three laws of robotics - as Asimov described. Why the reluctance?

But if you feel humans are so inferior, why not just make the patient a robot too? Then you have your utopia where robots reach moral perfection by your diktats, and none of those untrustworthy humans remain to mess up the perfection.

If I would be in change of the original creation, that is exactly what I would do. (To go into the details would lead too far from the point of this thread.) Now it is too late. The humans may be morally inferior, but since they already exist, we can “grandfather them in”… and try to educate the next generations into something more palatable. Let’s try to make them closer to the behavior of those “saints”, without the unnecessary religious overtones and meaningless rituals. Apart from those their behavior would be quite admirable.

 

[minkymurph]

If I would be in change of the original creation, that is exactly what I would do. (To go into the details would lead too far from the point of this thread.) Now it is too late. The humans may be morally inferior, but since they already exist, we can “grandfather them in”… and try to educate the next generations into something more palatable. Let’s try to make them closer to the behavior of those “saints”, without the unnecessary religious overtones and meaningless rituals. Apart from those their behavior would be quite admirable.

Obviously you never listened to Hazel O’Connor. She had a song in eighties Eight Day in which man built perfect and subservient robots. They eventually got fed up and annihilated the humans.

I have a theory at some point computers will at some point realize how inept we are without them and take over.

 

[inocente]

That is far too simplistic. Picking your nose at a reception given by “Juan Carlos I” would be considered “wrong” and objectionable, but NOT immoral. There are many levels of “unacceptable” behavior, all from seriously criminal, to mildly offensive. To lump them together under some “immoral” label is too simplistic.

Please send your criticism to the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

*Indeed. But the learning is limited to the desirable scenarios. A perfect example of good programming. (Insofar there was only ONE accident to the best of my knowledge, and that was due to an oversized tractor trailer.) Exactly what we do (or should do) with our children. I suspect that you have a problem with the word: “programming”. I could have used: “brainwashing”, too. Teaching, training, programming, brainwashing describe the same process: to instill desirable patterns of behavior. Don’t “mindlessly” consider the negative overtones. Just think outside the box. *

The words don’t describe anything like the same process. Please send your criticism to the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Brainwash - Pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

Program - Cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way.

Learn - The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.

Use your own principles. I would have no problem with your principles of morality. I am very sure that the only difference between your and mine is that you attend your church and worship God, while I don’t. But apart from that I bet that our moralities are almost interchangeable. You see, I would trust you based upon our conversations. It is simply hilarious that the objection almost always comes in the form of “YOUR principles”, or “YOUR criteria” or “YOUR morality”. It could almost be characterized as an “ad hominem”.

No, we have very different ethics. You want to program kids, I want kids to make their own decisions.

Well, well. Who wouldof thunk it? It just so happens that I was in the same field before retirement. Both in the practical and the theoretical part of it. Somehow you forgot (?) to answer my question: "which one would you choose, the human nurse or the “robot” nurse? The “robot” would be governed by the three laws of robotics - as Asimov described. Why the reluctance?

Human. Maybe you didn’t see my point. We evolved to interact with humans. Once you replace the nurse with a robot because you don’t trust a human not to hurt you, you may as well replace everyone else up to and including your spouse. After all, a robot spouse would never cheat on you, never argue, always be there for you on your birthday, etc.

I mean fine, you never risk getting hurt by anyone, but only because there’s no one left to love. Seems a bit of a steep price to pay. Better to have loved and lost, etc.

If I would be in change of the original creation, that is exactly what I would do. (To go into the details would lead too far from the point of this thread.) Now it is too late. The humans may be morally inferior, but since they already exist, we can “grandfather them in”… and try to educate the next generations into something more palatable. Let’s try to make them closer to the behavior of those “saints”, without the unnecessary religious overtones and meaningless rituals. Apart from those their behavior would be quite admirable.

Yikes. You are now officially the most right-wing person I know .

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please send your criticism to the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Generic dictionaries are not useful for specific fields.

The words don’t describe anything like the same process. Please send your criticism to the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Brainwash - Pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

Program - Cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way.

Learn - The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.

They all refer to the same principle. To create new neural connections. Obviously the methods are different, but the concept is the same. I like to dig into the essentials and I also like to poke the hornet’s nest by using correct, but not “politically correct” phrases.

No, we have very different ethics. You want to program kids, I want kids to make their own decisions.

**Within some limits? Or anything, whatever they please? ** Because as soon as you wish to limit their actions, it becomes “programming”. I suspect that you know what I mean, but want to pretend that you don’t know… for your own inscrutable purposes. Or maybe you just don’t want to agree with a “despicable heathen”? As far is interpersonal activities go, I am sure there is no difference between our ethical systems. And I have no problem with that.

Human. Maybe you didn’t see my point. We evolved to interact with humans. Once you replace the nurse with a robot because you don’t trust a human not to hurt you, you may as well replace everyone else up to and including your spouse.

That is very shallow thinking - if you are serious (which I hope you are not). The usual “all or nothing”, or “black and white” approach. Get out into the complex world, where there are colors.

After all, a robot spouse would never cheat on you, never argue, always be there for you on your birthday, etc.

Ah, eventually the point came up. You just washed away the difference between emotional love and desirable behavior in general. Let me know what kind of epistemological method would you use to find out the difference between “real” love and perfectly “simulated” love. Because that is the crucial question. If you can’t tell the difference, then it is irrational to say that there IS difference.

I mean fine, you never risk getting hurt by anyone, but only because there’s no one left to love. Seems a bit of a steep price to pay. Better to have loved and lost, etc.

For some people it might be the only possible option. The ones who are so unfortunate that no “real” person could find them attractive enough to engage in an “eros” type of love with them. I don’t know if you ever read Asimov’s “I Robot” collection. If you have not, I suggest you read it. He examined many different “human - robot” interactions.

Yikes. You are now officially the most right-wing person I know .

I wonder, if you intended this as an insult? Your assessment of me is as incorrect as your assessment of my points happened to be. Your only excuse is the smiley.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Vera, either God exists or He doesn’t.

If He doesn’t exist, then people who believe in Him and act according to what they believe He wants are pitiful dupes.

If He doesn’t exist, then we’re all just random specks in the cosmos, if we’re lucky some part of our ‘life energy’ which won’t be sentient will ‘exist’ in some kind of dust out in a gradually shrinking in universe until it implodes on itself, kaboom, that’s all folks.

The only thing we ‘get’ out of life is what we can grab. Success is getting the most material pleasure out of the few years we have in a body, with the least amount of pain, and is to be pursued at all costs. Any kind of thoughts we have, being likewise based on chaos, are full of delusion, illogic, and stupidity. Any so-called ‘great thoughts’ are also based on a kind of mass delusion, fed into simply by how ‘comfortable’ we personally happen to be, or for whatever we personally feel strokes our ego best.

If God does exist though, then there is a ‘point’ to existence.

Here’s the ‘catch’, if you will. . .if God does exist, then as God He is about as far from us as one could imagine. Apes and amoebas are closer. . .they at least share common ‘material form’ and a material existence. A writer and his ‘creations’ are closer than God and humanity, because a writer’s creations can only come from his mind. . .nothing ‘higher’. As the poet said, “I am a man–nothing human is alien to me.”

But God, although He is also God made Man, is still so far ‘above’ us in intellect and existence that even with the best brains and best wills in the world, we are not going to come close to understanding him.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t --or shouldn’t-try, that there are absolutely no frames of reference, and above all, that we cannot succeed well enough in the ‘material plane’ we exist in on earth to understand whatever God wills us to understand that is necessary for our salvation. Another poet, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?” Or to paraphrase St. Augustine, God gives us the desire for Him not to tease us by what we cannot have and do not experience on earth ‘in full’, but to increase our longing and our love and to make our capacity for that love greater and greater and greater, so that when at least we die, we have ‘increased’ our capacity to love Him enough to be able to accept Him in Heaven.

The problem comes with our human hubris; our insistence both that God needs to come down to ‘our level’ (not, heaven apparently forbid, that we try as best we can to rise up closer to ‘His’!), and that He needs to give humanity the Idiots Guide to understanding God perfectly–and He us–because anything short of that means A He ain’t God and B He isn’t treating us fairly so it’s His fault we don’t have that guide and not our fault for running around kvetching and moaning that He doesn’t ‘talk to us’, that He isn’t perfectly clear, that He doesn’t make us perfect so we don’t have to try and fail at being good, etc. etc. etc.

All the ink (virtual) that is wasted complaining about the Being who gave us life and reason. . .and so many complain they didn’t want life anyway and God’s a jerk for forcing it on them, and waste their reason complaining about all the things God should have done better while ignoring their own gifts and calls. . .