More on religion

Since we've had some very interesting discussion recently on similar topics, I thought this might be worth posting.

How can a perfect God exist, given that there is evil in the world?

This is something that I wrote a few months ago on that question: http://www.snarkpit.com/pits/gollum/Evil.zip . I'd be interested to hear what people think about it.

on topic of "flammable" discussions...

i was considering asking one of my own, but... figured i had not been back long enuff yet to withstand another ordeal..

i think i'll wait a while yet... i kinda like, not being yelled at.

as to your question mike.. i have no good thoughts about religion, i think it best i not comment to often on the topic.. but i do enjoy reading them tho, so.. good luck with this one :smile:

I'm hoping that my document will be sufficiently even-handed to start a balanced debate - it's hardly what you'd call provocative - but that's probably naive of me.

You may not have any good thoughts about religion, but what do you think of my analysis of the question? Are my arguments sound?

Gollum said:
I'm hoping that my document will be sufficiently even-handed to start a balanced debate - it's hardly what you'd call provocative - but that's probably naive of me.

You may not have any good thoughts about religion, but what do you think of my analysis of the question? Are my arguments sound?

whispers

'if its in text form, its open to mis-interpretation mike" :wink:



and i have not read it as yet.. but may since you peak my interest :smile:

Hmmrph, edits & re-reads

Leperous said:
Hmmrph, edits & re-reads

/me has to wonder, what it said before

A very thought provoking paper Gollum. I'll have to think a while on it before I can respond inteligently. I rarely have time to think deeply on these matters.

Tracer Bullet said:
A very thought provoking paper Gollum. I'll have to think a while on it before I can respond inteligently. I rarely have time to think deeply on these matters.

then do like everyone else.. wing it :biggrin:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
More on religion</I>
the problem of evil

[/quote]
given I'm agnostic I read this as a suggestion that religion is in fact a an evil problem we have to deal with

I'll take a look at your paper later :smile:

(atheism takes too much effort... I don't care enough about god to actively disbelieve in him)

i have tried to explain to those who believe that they are atheist, it takes a level of commitment very damned few are able, or willing to commit to.

most are mis-informed or mis-conceived agnostics

if you believe you are atheist, so be it.. you only need convince yourself... i already think otherwise.

A pure atheist doesn't need to 'actively' do anything, they're not required by anyone to tell others of their beliefs and any arguements presented fall on their face for whatever reason, so arguing isn't that hard either. It's quite easy really :smile:

Our definition of 'good' and 'evil' comes from what we are able to do, which you don't seem to have touched on very much- you should really define them, or have a preamble. If we were more compassionate, don't you think our good/evil goalposts would move? Otherwise you're probably going to need a god in order to define 'ultimate' good/evil against.

A look at what 'free will' actually is would also be a good idea- I'm discussing this right now with a Christian friend, who seems to assume that his free will is 'true free will' and that it's somehow 'greater' than nature...

However, I really like your comments regarding that having free will is more important than having evil in the world- there is also the point that a Christian God does not interfere in our free will, which also makes it seem more important than His will..!

Leperous said:
A pure atheist doesn't need to 'actively' do anything, they're not required by anyone to tell others of their beliefs and any arguements presented fall on their face for whatever reason, so arguing isn't that hard either. It's quite easy really :smile:

somehow, this sounds awfully arrogant to me.. kinda like, "i said it, so its so, end of story"

doesn't leave much room for error anyways.

IMO, there is no ONE ALMIGHTY, but i do believe in a race of them..

its just in the definition one has in all mighty... mine is just more grand than the average "only one" version :/

Good point about free will and ethics. There's a fair amount of assumed background knowledge here, which makes parts of this essay somewhat impenetrable to the uninitiated.

Briefly, compatibilism is the thesis that determinism and free will are compatible. Under this concept, an action is free just if it is causally connected with the right sort of thought processes (decisions) in an appropriate way.

Libertarianism free will is much stronger than this. A libertarian would insist that our decisions are somehow independent of causal influences - that is, we possess some kind of contra-causal power. I think this is a totally misguided and confused notion.

Under a compatibilist account, an action can be free even if it is predictable. Under a libertarian account, free actions cannot be predicted even in principle.

i dont know who the theo guy is that you mention a lot, but he seems to think that god is the god of love and flowers and little fluffy bunnies. i suppose thats one way to see it, but anyone who reckons the bible has a decent handle on this stuff, might be drawn away from the 4 tenets that theo has, and how you've interpreted them.

king james version>old testament>1st cronicles>chapter 21>verse 15;

"and god sent an angel unto jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is enough, stay now thine hand."

god was sorry for the evil HE had done. which also included, btw, the slaying of 70,000 of israels finest.

how would theo explain that? :rolleyes:

(I haven't read Gollum's writing yet, but I have to go soon, so here's a quick response.)

I think the more important question is, how could God exist without evil?

If there is no evil fates or desires that can befall us, there is no reason to believe in a diety that can protect us from it. I was reading a Medival account of a priest's temptation to lust by 'the devil', which he resisted by steadfastedly praying to God; and one realizes that without that 'evil lust' there would have been no reason to pray at all.

Good things are created by evil things - without the oppression of Rome or the religious needs of Israel at the time, there would have been no messiah. I think very few people of this day really have the kind of judgement to see when pain and suffering is necessary, and instead we try to instantly patch up every problem that may arise.

Gollum said:
Under a compatibilist account, an action can be free even if it is predictable. Under a libertarian account, free actions cannot be predicted even in principle.

So a compatibilist requires there to be some kind of accountability still..? What kind of account has it where we are simply a 'box of chaos' and that all our thoughts/actions, regardless of how complex, are still rational? Surely our brain is simply a very complex computer? If not, why not, what is the 'supra-nature' part of it that makes us better? I'd argue that when we choose to do anything it's based on the conditions alone- upbringing, genes, the moment etc.- and hence there is no such thing as 'free will', and thus no accountability.

A Christian would say we have true free will; however, anyone would still say that a lot of what we do is based on our 'parameters'. Why can't any God change those and make us nicer- why would it interfere with our free will? We make plenty of irrational descisions every day, or descisions based on incorrect observations, so why can't God elbow in some parameter-changing-thoughts that way..?

And Cassisus, when we were still going out I loved my girlfriend- by your logic, that wouldn't be possible unless I hated someone? Would I have loved her any less if there was less evil in the world, if one less person had been killed through 'evil'?

Cassius said:
Good things are created by evil things -

uhh, why cannot good things be rated against other good things?

why is it necessary to have evil, in order to have good?

i acknowledge both exist, but i do not believe one is conducive, or required to have another.

Very well written Mike.

(Nice spelling on my name, Lep )

From the Tao Te Ching -

"What is the wise man but the fool's teacher?

And what is the fool but the wise man's student?"

Having read Gollum's essay, I would like to say that the concept of 'eternal balance' stretches farther than what you've said, in my mind.

The Buddha, after years of both extreme comfort and carefree life and then of extreme ascetism and suffering, found Nirvana by staying in a place inbetween. What always struck me about this final reaction is that he taught others to avoid extremes completely; didn't he learn that by being extreme in the first place?

In relevant terms - extremes of good and evil have to exist if a balance inbetween them does as well. Zoroastrianism (sp?) and Catharism, to name just two, have the 'God and the Devil' concept, that good things are of God's making, and evil things the Devil's. If a religion says that 'everything was made by a neutral force', then, well, that's fine, but that leaves absolutely nothing to do. If good is fine, and evil is just good in the long term, that leaves everyone with absolutely no reason to do anything; you can just lie around all day, and it'll all turn out for the better in the end.

Thus the religions or philosophies that are really noted are the ones who do advocate some extreme lifestyle, even if they call that extreme 'balance'.

So, I look at it like this. Good and evil are just words attached to different mental indicators that we have to tell us what is destructive and what is productive; the actions that trigger these are independant of these feelings, so likewise emotions have the capacity to exist independant of what is real. That's why, I think, different people have different concepts of time; thats why we can look back on particularly painful or particularly beautiful moments as lasting an eternity.

Since by that theory, everything, including time, space, and pretty much our whole world, is in our mind, then yes, people do have the capacity to live lives in which the world is one-sided; where they see everything as good or everything as negative. But I think in plain, perception-free (so to speak) reality, negative things must occur for positives, even though we as humans may, by our own choices, subliminal or otherwise, not have to feel emotions on either side of the spectrum.

For example, 8th grade for me was probably the best year of my life; I was in a place where I was totally secure and confident - I knew my friends, knew my enemies, I pretty much had it all figured out. But when I look back on it now, in reality it was not such a good year; very tumultuous time for my family, and my relationships with some people I thought my friends were not so good as I thought they were. However, in the end, it still doesn't matter to me what actually happened; it matters that I felt that way.

So to extend on the first quote - since we're humans, and we have choices, wether or not our instincts influence them, we do have the capacity to be all 'fools' or all 'teachers', but if we do, then there is no longer a reason to be either.

Now that I?ve had some time to think?
My beliefs are predicated on the 4 principles which Gollum puts forth, yet I have another requirement as a scientist:

5. The universe must be continuous and logical.

There is nothing in the universe which cannot eventually be explained by science, with the exception of God. Having a deity elbowing into the system and changing how it works arbitrarily would be unreasonable based on this assumption. You might then ask why not create a different universe to begin with which behaves in a fundamentally different fashion lacking ?evil?. To this I have no answer, as I find myself incapable of imagining a fundamentally different form of reality.

One perspective is to view the universe as still in the process of creation, and therefore unsurprisingly imperfect? when we reach the iron crisis, and the eventual entropic heat-death of the universe, complete peace will have been achieved. The question is; is that what you define as Good? It seems pretty depressing to me.

Well, when something is nothing at all, it is perfect, and at exact balance; obviously, we don't want this. Good is whatever we feel it to be.

Whenever somebody has told me, "Well, you have no place to do/say so-and-so, because that's just your feeling on what should be done," I like to remind them that's their opinion as well; their own feeling of what is good led them to think that they should tell me that.

Any cultivation of our beliefs of right and wrong is a result of a previous judgement from that same system, so we're always making choices that our own (limited) perception considers best.

Thus, if God is an illogical entity, he could not have the capacity to meddle in human affairs, because to do so would be to make logical choices on his part on what is good and what is bad, since these feelings of what is logical and what is harmful are also feelings resulting from our own evolution as organisms.

Cassius said:
If a religion says that 'everything was made by a neutral force', then, well, that's fine, but that leaves absolutely nothing to do. If good is fine, and evil is just good in the long term, that leaves everyone with absolutely no reason to do anything; you can just lie around all day, and it'll all turn out for the better in the end.

Of course, that does depend on there being a 'reason'..? And then again if you're saying they must balance, what, does a killing balance out someone falling in love? How does the Universe know if there's a balance or not, and how does it rectify the situation? Yes there is such a thing as an equilibrium, but that's in a system with feedback and not some arbitrary, unlinked human emotions.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking; however, balance is not just a facet of human perception, it does actually exist in things that do not have the capacity to feel emotion or exist completely without it. That doesn't change the fact that there is feedback, because if you're on a system of balance, then everything is connected, extreme or not.

There is no memo in God's office saying 'note to self - Balance Universe.' I think by my theory, everything is imbalanced; but over the course of evolution, and indeed in many other facets of reality, balance becomes the overall picture instead of the individual focus, if you see what I mean.

I think balance can't altogether exist in one thing; it has to come together over many things (which when balanced create one thing, and so on, but that's a different story). Thus, you were fully able to love your woman, and not have to hate anyone; but obviously there was hate somewhere, in someone else.

That being said, on a more practical/reasonable level more pertaining to my theory, one can love a woman for his whole life, and define that time as 'eternity' or 'forever' because it really does feel like it. However, in reality, love does not have a definition; there is no particular set of actions or behaviors that, having all emotion stripped from them, could even remotely resemble love, thus love can exist without hate.

So a compatibilist requires there to be some kind of accountability still..? What kind of account has it where we are simply a 'box of chaos' and that all our thoughts/actions, regardless of how complex, are still rational? Surely our brain is simply a very complex computer? If not, why not, what is the 'supra-nature' part of it that makes us better? I'd argue that when we choose to do anything it's based on the conditions alone- upbringing, genes, the moment etc.- and hence there is no such thing as 'free will', and thus no accountability.

The whole point of the compatibilist account is that it accepts that our actions are fully determined by circumstances. That is, everything we do is ultimately caused by something over which we have no control - our very thoughts are predetermined by our local causal history, and in general by the total causal history of the universe.

The compatibilist holds that this is compatible with free will. Not the kind of free will that you get in most Christianity, for sure. The point is that, predetermined and causal though our thoughts and decisions may be, they are still our thoughts and decisions. Just because we are part of a larger system does not rob us of agency.

If you were "the perfect scientist", or indeed if you were God, you would be able to predict my every choice. But so what? I still perform an act of choice, even if there is no way that it could have happened differently! The choice consists in me thinking about what I want to do; it's irrelevant that these thoughts are ultimately determined by "outside" causes.

I think that your discussions with Christians may have led to a slightly skewed view of free will. The general (non-theological) issue is whether, given my actions are predetermined, I could have chosen to do otherwise. Clearly I can't "change the rules of the universe", but that just isn't relevant to my processes of choice.

Here's something to ponder on about free will. This isn't a direct quote, but good old David Hume, when challenged that free will depending on causal necessity (i.e. compatibilist free will) wasn't good enough, famously responded:

"What other kind of free will is worth having?"

In other words, what more could we possibly want from free will other than the appropriate causal link between thoughts and actions? Some kind of random event that didn't obey causal laws? But surely a "random" will would be much worse!

I'm confused.... did you read my post right, Orpheus, it sounded like you thought I said I was an atheist.

I don't think I'm going to contribute further, I discussed this so much in undergrad that I'm just bored with it now. God bores me. Good bores me. Evil... well it mostly bores me... :biggrin:

[edit] both free will & predestination also bore me, I almost forgot. :razz:

Jinx said:
I'm confused.... did you read my post right, Orpheus, it sounded like you thought I said I was an atheist.

nah, i read it right, i was just making conversation, to those who sometimes confuse the terms.

and... i'm so tired, of being tired :sad:

I think it's fair to say, that a Christian point of view would say, the world is evil, and only the sinless are classed as good. Or, the redeemed and hence forgiven. Evil beings can do Good, Good beings cannot do evil and stay Good.

God is not PART of this world, he is not restricted to this world, the arguments seemed to make the assumption that God is restricted in some way by our Logic. Which isn't necessarliy true. It's like time, God isn't part of time, rather if time was a line, he encapsulates the entire line there is no tomorrow, yesterday as such, he sees it all.

God Begat Jesus, but he made us, and he made us good, but he didn't make robots who would only do what he commanded he made us, who would choose to do what he liked, otherwise he couldn't be worshipped, which is the ONLY thing he can't get on his own.(Trinity theology), yet Robots couldn't worship, only beings who choose to worship, worship. He gave us free will by putting the two trees in the Garden of Eden, and hence making sure we chose to obey the ONLY rule. Which we didn't. God knows the outcome of every decision I will ever make, he doesn't know exactly what my decision will be though.

We can still worship though. Because it's a choice. And he loves it when we choose to worship him.

Gav, how are we different from (super complex) robots? What have we got that they don't and never will have, how do the laws of the Universe apply differently to us in terms of how our brains work? What, we have choice, 'free will'? But what is that and why can't a machine have it?

It's funny how you can argue to a Christian and force him into a defence along the lines of 'God is infinite and supersedes these things' for practically any arguement (if you're clever enough), i.e. there isn't really any logical way to knock you down. That is why the notion has lasted for so long, but it doesn't make it right.

If you believe in Christianity, I think you're forced to believe any other form of intelligent life is just like us in terms of compassion and love etc., and that they live in the same world as us (the best possible world), and that they have their own Christ/Bible. If/when we do discover intelligent life somewhere else, then we will see if you're right or not :smile:

God is not PART of this world, he is not restricted to this world, the arguments seemed to make the assumption that God is restricted in some way by our Logic.

Popular Christian discussion seems to fall back on this point a great deal. Like Lep. said, a Christian, faced with strong arguments against the existence of God, can easily escape them by denying that God has to obey logic.

But this isn't even an argument. It amounts to "We'll I'm just right, so there." If Christians are not constrained to argue within the confines of logic, then they simply cannot be reasoned with. Reasoning just is inductive and deductive inference. To deny that God must obey logic is to deny that you can make any argument about Him that includes any deductive elements.

So much for "popular" Christian responses. Serious theist thinkers have universally shunned this shallow popular attitude, and with good reason. Any modern-day theodicy must accept that God does not have the power to bring about contradictory events. Modern accounts of omnipotence acknowledge that God can only do things that are logically possible (he cannot, for example, create a round square).

This in itself is no real limitation on His power, since contradictory descriptions ("round square") are simply abuses of language. But combine this with other aspects of God's nature, and we come across a few difficult problems for theism to resolve. I believe that the problem of evil is the only one of these problems that is truly intractable, though the others are interesting too.

I'll be the first to admit that I will never proove to anyone that God exists, it isn't possible, but in the same way I don't think it's possible to Disprove God based on the same reasoning. God is out of our depth. You must surely admit that we cannot fully comprehend all the facets of the nature of God, how therefore can we argue for or against the existence of (I should say a Christian) God by ways of how he might work or his very nature. :smile:

There's a big difference between disproving something and arguing forcefully that it is an incoherent concept. In the strictest possible sense we can never prove anything, but we can certainly come up with strong reasons to believe in it or to doubt it.

Your response is like shrugging your shoulders and saying, "I give up. It's all too complex for me". For philosophers, that's just not good enough!

So he's out of our depth, transcends logic, etc. etc. but Christians still claim to know what he wants of us and how to 'please' him?

this is the biggest problem ive always had with religion in general...and why i hate the discussion in general....nothing at this point can be proven, or disproven, its a stalemate from the word go, and it becomes passionate to the point of wars, for no real apparent reason....its not tangible, and the philosophies on both sides are equally valid.....go to the pub, have a beer, talk about politics, or syphillus, or something else that can be changed....cheers :beerchug:

Doc B... :dodgy:

To be perfectly Honest, It is too complex for me, I'm not a philosopher.

My beliefs are not based on theology, or ecclesiology or Angelology that someone stood up and spoke to me. Rather they are based on my own personal experience of God that I couldn't possibly explain, or you could argue, why? because it's experience. That is why I beleive on God, and why I will continue to defend my beliefs.

I don't take it personally or take offence at any ones arguments, I just put my own across too.

And of course, in Christianity there will always be slight doubts, but they are more than combated by Faith.

But Touch? Gollum and Lep. I couldn't begin to debate with you! :smile:

Just leave religion alone is my view.

No, fools. There is no barrier; rather, there is a point where people always give up. This always happens at the Snarkpit, every, last, time, and it's beginning to get repetitive that we have these amazing threads and stop dead when we get to this place, and we ALWAYS do.

And the next step is asking Gav what experience in his life caused him to have this belief, which he acknowledges is irrational (not saying so in a bad way of course). Like I said, things like these never ever happen in a vacuum. From there, yes, it is quite possible to review his decision and choice of 'to believe or not to believe' so to speak.

Lep, yeah, if you invented a robot that has all the chemical and electrical reactions that a human does, it would be human in a sense; but it cannot consume food as we do, it would not need or have the capability to reproduce as we do, and as it would be programmed, have no desire for philosophical discussions. I concede, if you could build one that accomplishes those, you would have a human, but indeed he would not be any less human than any other.

But wait, I mean, come on, let's say there is a being of incomprehensible intelligence and power in the universe; and there's one of his planets called Earth off in the Milky Way. Can you tell me he honestly cares if you eat pork or work on one particular rotation of the Earth? Does he care if his 'believers' call him God or Allah? Probably not. Do you think he cares if we do something good for the world? If anything, I'd say yes.

looks in room, see's nothing of interest, leaves quietly

Do you think he 'cares' about anything, seeing as he transcends logic and human emotion? And surely he'd understand my reasons for not believing in them and forgive me anway, or will I hurt his feelings? (I'm quite happy to forgive people for doing things to me, even if they're not aware or don't repent, but hey I'm not a perfect infinite being so I guess it doesn't count)

And Cassisus, program the robot to learn, and I'm sure it will enter into philosophical debate (but kick everyone's ass at it!). I think the idea of a 'soul' was invented to try to lamely plug this kind of loophole (historically regarding animals).

i thought i made a perfectly valid point, at least from a christians or jews [scriptural] perspective, that evil and god can exist together. the god that the bible tells us of admits he done evil. is that so hard to accept? and if so, is it hard to accept because people want to believe their own version of what god is, rather than gods version?

Your point amounts to rejecting one of the theist's fundamental premises. There's nothing wrong with this viewpoint - saying that God is not perfectly good - but it's not the viewpoint at which I had targetted my discussion.

I see no logical reason why we should not be able to create bilogical, or electronic life forms that are equal or supirior to ourselves (in the far future). If there is such a thing as a soul, I believe such a machiene would have one.

From my perspective Lep, God might will repect your decision to be an atheist. I believe in an afterlife, though beyond that I've no idea what it is. I also believe that you do not have to be a christian to experience it. I'm perfectly willing to assume that I may meet you in "heaven".

I don't think the contradiction in theisim is so much the existance of evil, as it is the accertion of omnipotance. My scientific constraint of logical continueous events helps to resolve the issue for me.

I think you guys may be missing the point of religion. would it be emotionaly meaningfull if it was fully logicaly consisatant? if you could make a bullet-proof arguement for the exisitance of God, there would be no arguement. no faith; no doubt. God would be a mundane fact rather than a great mystery. It may well be that a God is simply a product of a psychological need of the human organism for a greater power. a product of a world before the advent of formal logic and science to explain otherwise incomprehencable events; I don't know. I guess I will find out when I die. I'm sort of looking forward to it.

Oh dear...

Quick run down of thoughts:
- An omnibenevolent God existing in a world of evil is an extremely old problem
- IMHO, although I am agnostic myself, I think that if there is a God, then today's beliefs are outdated, and based on what may well have been exaggerations and misinterpretations made by man - who is essentially flawed - when he tried to interpret God's words. This is simply an explanation I might throw together if I could be bothered to argue.

Ignore me.

? posted by Cassius
There is no barrier; rather, there is a point where people always give up.

yes...exactly my point....over the ages the technologies are better, the world is worse, and the questions still remain exactly as they have always been, and imho, as they always will be....and when you get to be my age, there comes a point in time when you look at the stars, and say something to the effect of, "well, if there is a God, why has he foresaken me..."...THAT is inevitable, as sure as death itself. after that point in your life, you learn to press on, knowing full well the answers to all these questions will not be answered in this lifetime, and do the best you can, turning to the people and things in your life you truly care about...carry on the best you can, with what you have, do good unto others, exactly as you want them to do unto you

.....say what you will, but philosophy is not a science, or an art....but the pursuit of answeres to unanswerable questions.

call me cynical, or jaded, or even narcisistic if you will, but mark my words, evryone on this planet will reach that point one day....and the rest becomes....mute.

Doc Brass....................

Freud's point of vue on the subject: God represents the image of the father, the leader. That's why He was often represented as an old bearded man, like in the most famous Michel Angelo's fresco.

People who are too anti-religious might have a problem with authority, maybe with their father, their teachers (that was my case)... but this is only my theory; i should probably read more psychologic essays on religion... or check out a less serious thread :smile:

Tracer Bullet said:
I think you guys may be missing the point of religion. would it be emotionaly meaningfull if it was fully logicaly consisatant? if you could make a bullet-proof arguement for the exisitance of God, there would be no arguement. no faith; no doubt. God would be a mundane fact rather than a great mystery. It may well be that a God is simply a product of a psychological need of the human organism for a greater power. a product of a world before the advent of formal logic and science to explain otherwise incomprehencable events; I don't know. I guess I will find out when I die. I'm sort of looking forward to it.

Again, there is a big difference between a belief being logically consistent and possessing a bullet-proof argument. Logical consistency is the bare minimum requirement that something must satisfy in order to be possible.

I don't think that the "advent of formal logic and science" can ever replace the psychological need for meaning in life.

True, I do think however, that my contention of continuity in the universe creates a system which is logicaly consistant. it circumvents the problems of why God doesn't simply fix all our problems fairly nicely.

I supose this does in a way strike down the idea of omnipotance, but really, I'm not overly concerned about the premises of mainstream religion.

There are those who would argue that the meaning of life is learning. I was of that opinion for a while but now I am not so sure. I think the "meaning of life" changes on a day to day basis, it evolves in tandem with your personality.

I think, meaning, and God, are where you find them. it's different for every individual. you can either choose to find them or not. The problem many people have is that they search to high up and far away, when the answere is right under their nose.

Well said - those are all cogent and insightful thoughts.

Meaning, meaning, meaning... there are reasons and consequences, but why do you need meaning too? Meaning is something we apply to things, so to say there must be a meaning to life or the Universe then you're saying it must have been the will of some more powerful entity (who you assume to give meaning to things), and thus you will 'find God' because of a psychological hole in your brain :razz:

Meaning, meaning, meaning... there are reasons and consequences, but why do you need meaning too?

Because we're human, you pedantic twerp :heee: