Deep thoughts for certain, hurtle.

I think in order to find the answers you're looking for, you would have to find an ethical theologian. Now if the church would listen to its own rules once in a while, you would find this an easy task...however...

Welcome aboard, and I do hope you find the answers you are looking for.
Try out the boards for a bit, and then start your question as a topic in ethics/religion/metaphysics/who-knows.

Thanks for your reply. An ethical theologian, mmmm. Now where would I find one of those? lol

You're right, of course. I suppose that what I'm looking for is a way to frame the question so that it answers to the presumptive question of what we consider to be the values associated with life itself. I wonder what sort of value a human life would have if there is no death. And if death does confer some value upon a life as it is lived, in so much as it acts as a 'rounding off or out,' or as a limiting value upon which our lives are given a certain unity, even if that is only a unity perceived by the still living after our deaths, then I wonder what our desire to avoid aging towards our deaths says about the psychological state of our societies.
More than this though, I'm interested in how a human would go through the course of a day, or a week, knowing that death was no longer possible. What would take place in terms of that humans values and experiences of the normal day to day things which take place? What would happen to that humans imagination, to their experience of beauty, or love, or passion?--how would they deal with that knowledge in 'real' human terms?

hurtle,

:)Interesting premise, I think you will get a good response to that one. Some interesting side shoots could well develop, an environment in decline, what does that infer about man's future spirtual conditon. Any way, we are happy you have joined us, always good to see some new blood. Make yourself at home hurtle, see you on the boards!!

Hi. Just joined and this was the first post I opened - I had to stick my first few thoughts in here:

There are so many ways of looking at this. People often start out by talking about a perfect world. We live in a world of chaos. granted. Does that make it imperfect? Probably not. Typical arguaments that are used imply that the state of the world is evidence against an intelligent creator.

In most religions god is portrayed as the divine creator. Imagine yourself and nothing else. Why create anything? If you want company, would you make yourself a model with no intelligence that blindly does as it is told? You could but what would be the point of that? The only logical conclusion is that you would create a model which doesn't agree. You would intentionally add chaos. There's another point about the human mind that often gets overlooked. We spend so much of our time trying to make things go the way we want them to, but if everything did, the inevitable outome would be boredom and the desire for change.

So there is chaos in the world. Death. If you had a world such as ours with no death, where would the diversity be? The could be no children for fear of overcrowding. How would we adapt and cope with the unexpected? If there is more to the world than that we see at face value, does death really matter? If you raise a child, do you sit it in a peaceful corner with no outside contact for fear of corruption or do you seek to advance the child's knowledge and see more of the world?

I've heard a number of arguaments in the lines of "if you can't see it"...
Can you see what I'm thinking? I recall many years back a large number of scientists laughing at a poor fellow who proclaimed he had discovered "air". Gas is now taken for granted, but my statement is purely that an open mind is better than a foolish mind.

You would prefer to turn to the big bang and the subject of an ever growing universe? Why does man even when grown still have a childlike need to touch, to see shapes in everything? Why the need for constancy? Let's suppose fo a moment that the universe isn't growing at all. In simple terms, suppose we live in the ripples of a pond. No, not carried by the ripples. We are the ripples. The only sense of matter we have is the ripples themelves. There is nothing in our universe but curvature. Introduce overlaps and peaks you your universe soon becomes increasingly complex. Still imagining this flat plane of the pool, imagine a pea dropped onto the surface. There it rests, but it curves the surface where it lands. More peas fall. Where they hit the curve they are drawn in. There is no less matter. These "peas" are merely other curves. We recognise nothing of the nature of this. From our perspectve, it matters little how big a curve is or how far away. Add some ripples to the water and the universe becomes infinately bigger. The ripples in the centre become more compact but to us seem the same.

I've gone off at a tangent, but my point is that anyone can argue what they see is all there is, but the possibilities are always open.

re: Ethical,

That's sadly an aspect of all people. We all vary in our life experiences, and therefore all have different concepts of what is normal. It's rare for people to consider what they deem as normal and acceptable and question it without prompt. It's true to say that religious positions have had an appeal to the "power hungry" as a means to dictate or rule. Without mentioning any specific institutions, there are many that preech purity and peace yet drive others to war on that basis.

hurtle - perhaps i'll change my mind. I've thought about that a few times, but at the moment I can't say I mind either way. I'm not sure I fully understand time. Does what I perceived as happening yesterday still lay there, happening yesterday, right now? If time is always there and any moment in time is captured indefinately, does it make any difference how long we live for?

Post #5

Para.1 - Problem with Aesthetics
Para.2 - Cosmogonical/argument from design problem
Para.3 - Problem in Existentialism
Para.4 - Problem with relativism, cognition, a-priori/a-posteriori knowledge, etc.
Para.5 - Cosmological argument?

Your thoughts on the space/time are interesting though. I would like to converse more on that, because I think you have a good thing here. Are you familiar with mobian theory and Aristotelian geometrical generation? Please start a new post on your thoughts, there's a lot to say.

But anyway, welcome! And you write in a very coherent way. Also, you'll experience more recent and relativistic discoveries of hot air in upcoming posts. LOL! Just kidding.

Simon,

I see you have gotten your feet wet already, interesting post, "Consciousness As Reaction." Welcome Simon, you seem an interesting chap, glad to have you aboard. boagie

lol thanks all. I would say it's a new subject to me, but as Philosophy tends to classify as thinking in general I guess it's a crime we're all guilty of, politicians aside.

Vide - please elaborate. You appear to have a number of "problems" above.

re: Aristotelian geometrical generation, to be perfectly honest I have no idea. I've not heard of it before. If the theories match then names aside, I guess I am!

Welcome both Simon and Hurtle! Nice to meet both of you and hope you enjoy the forums. Let's not elaborate in the intro forum but start a new topic with a definitive title. Maybe a couple new discussions should be opened.

Thank you both for introducing yourselves and some interesting thoughts.