Thomas,
...

I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just interested in your thoughts if you are interested in sharing them.

Respectfully,

Josh

…The main one is the lack of a goal for this universe. With "goal" I mean an ideal state. It is not only that I can not picture any possible ideal state (heaven), it is also the simple question why such an ideal state (even if it could exist) was not implemented right from the start. And with a goal lacking, I can only picture our existance as either purely coincidental, or for the purpose of entertainment. Both are shades of nihilism. I can be wrong, I can be missing something or making a mistake, but I can't find out if I am, and I think I'm right.

Please let me now shortly elaborate on my theory of the universe (also, possibly wrong, I admit) that I consider most probable. Most people do not share it or even consider it ridiculous, so I won't feel offended if you do, too. Of the two possibilities I mentioned above I consider the theory of an entertainment purpose more probable. The reason is this: If you picture humankind in the far future (if it still exists then), you will have a super civilization of immortals or quasi-immortals with an almost complete understanding of and control over the universe. Nothing would be left to them except eternal boredom. It is almost certain to me that such a super civilization would try to escape that boredom by creating and living in an endless series of virtual realities (not necessarily the computer VRs so popular today; maybe dreams, hallucinations, whatever). They (we) would relive history and alternate histories over and over, purposely erasing or blocking the memory of past "lives" during those VR experiences. At any given time, it would be infinitely more probable to exist during such a VR experience than during the one single time of "real" history. Since we would not know it and could not prove it, we would probably not believe it and behappy to live a life seemingly filled with purpose - in fact, that would be the point.

I know that the assumption to live in one's own fantasies to escape the senselessness of everything is pretty sad and dark, in an intellectual way. On the other hand, it would explain why we felt one with the universe: we would be one of its programmers/authors/creators, maybe even *the* programmer/author/creator. In a way, we *would* be one with god, only a god who was sad that no meta-god existed for him.

So, at least to some degree, our beliefs are not that different after all. It's just that mine is more pessimistic. But that may just be the age difference talking - you said "young person" about yourself, I am not that old in body but a very old and tired man in spirit. Or, if you want to express that more philosophically, we differ in the conclusion to draw from a contingent universe. You conclude that something noncontingent (called god by you, or meta-god by me) must exist, I conclude that there is no noncontingent principle.

I'm glad to hear you are not interested in a debate on this topic, though, since nobody can ever know for sure if something beyond his own comprehension *by definition* is true or false. You can only argue about probability estimates, and that's a pretty pointless thing.

Yours,

Thomas

Thomas,

I very much enjoyed reading your response and feel honored that you would share your time and thoughts with me. Your words were thought provoking and motivated me to respond.

I very much liked your prediction of intelligent species in a world without a real, ultimate purpose. I too imagine that without the meta-god providing a lasting purpose, a scenario like the one you described would be probable. I imagine, minds being networked together into a single Mind. But as entropy increases, the molecules will destabilize, and things will even out into basically nothingness. From nothing, for no purpose, and back into nothing… Yes, it is a pessimistic view, but I think it’s an honest account of life without God. Surely, we long for reality to be less austere, less tiresome to our spirits. But our longings cannot objectify reality to fill them anymore than the VRs could relieve humanity from the remaining nihilism.

And yet somehow I see the world so differently; for me the deepest hopes in my heart are met in what my mind tells me is true (at least very likely true). Are you aware that if the physics of the universe (e.g. cosmological constant, density, luminosity, fundamental force constants, etc) had varied by a very tiny percent, the delicacy of biological evolution would not have been physically possible? As this anthropic principle is being verified, some scientists are proposing alternative universes in order to make the existence of our very rare universe (conservatively less than 1 in 10^-30, refer to Barrow and Tipler's work or http://userweb.nashville.com/~al.schroeder/anthcoi.htm) less surprising. For the one would hope for something more than an austere reality of nihilism, astrophysics seems to show evidence of a meta-god who planned our existence.

I am intrigued by your difficulty with an ideal state and with its delayed implementation. Maybe you would be interested in my thought on the matter. In my imagination, it seems that an ideal state would be one that meets a common human desire, which is to experience unconditional love and to return love. But I also remember how my sister in a state of self-pity denied my efforts to comfort her and show her love (she actually perverted facts and made me look like the bad guy). So it seems like the degree to which we can experience love depends on our own choices and attitudes. I also remember, how much more I loved my father and experienced his love when after angrily accusing him falsely I felt sorry, and he showed me forgiveness. So the ideal state of experiencing real loving relationships with others might first involve sorrow in free creatures who would otherwise refuse deeper love in the absence of the knowledge of forgiveness. I think this is why God doesn’t implement pain-free circumstances right-off; He knows that many free creatures wouldn’t choose attitudes of love (which is most fulfilling) in those circumstances, and so God brought about humans in a "nearly" austere reality to test and challenge the deepest qualities of people and ultimately to demonstrate His forgiveness for them. This is my summary understanding of why heaven wasn’t implemented right off, but of course I know there are a million other issues, such as creaturely freedom, theological "middle knowledge", improbable amounts and kinds of pain and suffering, etc.

I am also intrigued by your comments concerning epistemology in relation to knowledge of a god or of reality in general. It seems Kant wisely recognized our fallibility in grasping reality as it actually is, and there is a humble skepticism that subsequent philosophers have adopted. And yet, if "nothing can be said with 100% certainty," then wouldn’t that mean that the statement in quotes couldn’t be said with 100% certainty? I suppose even if "nothing is certain" is not certain, I could still rationally believe "nothing is certain" concerning my knowledge of reality. But then to be consistent I would also not be 100% certain that I have a belief about certainty. I doubt I should even believe that I am certainly over X% sure that I have such a belief, where X can be as low as 0. I admit these thoughts make me think that there are some things we can be certain of, even though we unfortunately often believe or claim we are certain about things that we really are not certain of at all. I don’t want to make this point too strongly though, since the pendulum of thought naturally tends toward dogmatism, and humility is often a friend of skepticism.

I am unsure whether god’s existence can fall into the category of knowledge that can be certain by my mind (versus affirmed or denied based on probabilities), and I was intrigued by your suggestion we can’t know for sure about the question of god since it’s beyond our comprehension. I wonder though if the idea of complete Power, Love, and Knowledge existing in a perfect Being is beyond comprehension even if its full implications would be. Some philosophers for example, claim that theism can be comprehended as a set of incoherent or contradictory propositions and so must be false. I guess I’m not ready to think these philosophers must be incorrect in their epistemological strategy, at least not with certainty. :-)

I do very much, though, appreciate the humility of someone who is careful in making conclusions about such difficult questions.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I enjoyed them.

With Care,

Josh