The Reason for which I was forced to exist temporarily in this world
Hello,
Let us first analyse some words in this question:
{1} I said ‘I’ not ‘we’ because if I couldn’t find the answer concerning my own being first, how could I know it concerning the being of anyone else?
{2} The word ‘forced’ is likely not pleasant to many of you. But, in my philosophy, I don’t fool myself to please someone else :) As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world.
{3} But, on the other hand, the word ‘forced’ doesn’t imply that I have no free-will to end my existence in this world anytime it seems necessary to me.
{4} Also, the word ‘forced’ doesn’t imply that I couldn’t be grateful for being allowed to exist the way I am.
{5} The word ‘temporarily’ denotes that I am aware in advance that my journey will not last forever in this world. In fact, even our huge universe will not last forever as well; but this is another topic.
After this brief introductory :) , it is time for me to recall the steps on which my answer have progressed:
{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence.
{B} Since I can’t ask this ‘Will’ directly about the reason for which ‘IT’ allowed me to exist, I can still use my brain; the tool which ‘IT’ gave me to perceive ‘IT’.
{C} My first thought was to assume that ‘IT’ expects something from me for ‘ITSELF’. In this case, I have to find out what it could be (this may be equivalent to knowing God’s Will for some of you).
{D} It is natural for me to build a robot or a robotic system to serve me in a certain way. If the case in {C} true, shouldn’t I imagine this ‘Will’ as of an imperfect being(s) as I am? Although nothing can stop me seeing myself a robot made by a needy external maker, I thought it may be better for me to keep thinking :).
{E} My second thought was to assume that ‘IT’, being perfect (relative to me), doesn’t need anything from me. Although this idea sounds great perhaps, it doesn’t answer my question. In other words, I have to find out a certain reason for which ‘IT’ bothered ‘ITSELF’ to brought me into this temporarily life.
{F} Unfortunately, the reason, I am looking for, could be, as in math, simply a null set. In other words, even if there is a reason, it could be that a tiny creature in this huge universe, as I, is not supposed to perceive it or even know it exists in the first place.
{G} The answer in {F} reminds me how zillion of non-human living things (cells, plants, animals... etc.) are supposed not only be ignorant of the end purpose for which they are created, they are also supposed not to perceive, in any way, their maker. This leads me to ask myself: ”Am I really just another living thing with the exception that, to some extent, I perceive that a certain ‘Will’ is behind my existence?"
{H} I personally didn’t like the answer in {G}. And this leaves me with the last available answer.
{I} This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. And, therefore, it is up to me to deserve getting it or not. In any case, my mortal body will simply return back, sooner or later, to its state of void (the state before its birth).
{J} Sorry, because no matter what you think or believe, I liked the answer in {I}. And the following step is to find out what could be this personal gift which is offered for free and I have the free-will to accept it or not (actually to try to deserve it or not).
{K} Truth be said, I can’t be interested seriously in getting from 'IT' a special/personal gift which belongs to the temporary world since my mortal body will lose it anyway, sooner or later.
{L} A very special gift usually reflects the nature/position of the donor. So what could be the gift in {I}? In brief, ‘IT’ offers me knowing, if I want to, how to replace my temporary existence in this world with an eternal one in ‘ITs’ Realm which is not defined/limited by the notions of time and space (it is much like the dream realm in which I existed many times... also without my will :) ).
{M} It is clear that {L} took me to answer the following question. What could be the process which I need to follow if I like joining my Maker’s Realm? But since it is just an offered gift and if I couldn’t succeed taking advantage of it for some reasons, I will simply return back to my state of void (it is equivalent to what we may call ‘Everlasting Fire’... as we throw into fire whatever we see of no use at all, in order to return it back to its raw state).
{N} Do you think it is good/wise that I also give you my answer of the question in {M}? I bet that many of you, if not all :) , prefer not to hear it. And I respect your wish.
Best Regards,
Kerim
Let us first analyse some words in this question:
{1} I said ‘I’ not ‘we’ because if I couldn’t find the answer concerning my own being first, how could I know it concerning the being of anyone else?
{2} The word ‘forced’ is likely not pleasant to many of you. But, in my philosophy, I don’t fool myself to please someone else :) As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world.
{3} But, on the other hand, the word ‘forced’ doesn’t imply that I have no free-will to end my existence in this world anytime it seems necessary to me.
{4} Also, the word ‘forced’ doesn’t imply that I couldn’t be grateful for being allowed to exist the way I am.
{5} The word ‘temporarily’ denotes that I am aware in advance that my journey will not last forever in this world. In fact, even our huge universe will not last forever as well; but this is another topic.
After this brief introductory :) , it is time for me to recall the steps on which my answer have progressed:
{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence.
{B} Since I can’t ask this ‘Will’ directly about the reason for which ‘IT’ allowed me to exist, I can still use my brain; the tool which ‘IT’ gave me to perceive ‘IT’.
{C} My first thought was to assume that ‘IT’ expects something from me for ‘ITSELF’. In this case, I have to find out what it could be (this may be equivalent to knowing God’s Will for some of you).
{D} It is natural for me to build a robot or a robotic system to serve me in a certain way. If the case in {C} true, shouldn’t I imagine this ‘Will’ as of an imperfect being(s) as I am? Although nothing can stop me seeing myself a robot made by a needy external maker, I thought it may be better for me to keep thinking :).
{E} My second thought was to assume that ‘IT’, being perfect (relative to me), doesn’t need anything from me. Although this idea sounds great perhaps, it doesn’t answer my question. In other words, I have to find out a certain reason for which ‘IT’ bothered ‘ITSELF’ to brought me into this temporarily life.
{F} Unfortunately, the reason, I am looking for, could be, as in math, simply a null set. In other words, even if there is a reason, it could be that a tiny creature in this huge universe, as I, is not supposed to perceive it or even know it exists in the first place.
{G} The answer in {F} reminds me how zillion of non-human living things (cells, plants, animals... etc.) are supposed not only be ignorant of the end purpose for which they are created, they are also supposed not to perceive, in any way, their maker. This leads me to ask myself: ”Am I really just another living thing with the exception that, to some extent, I perceive that a certain ‘Will’ is behind my existence?"
{H} I personally didn’t like the answer in {G}. And this leaves me with the last available answer.
{I} This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. And, therefore, it is up to me to deserve getting it or not. In any case, my mortal body will simply return back, sooner or later, to its state of void (the state before its birth).
{J} Sorry, because no matter what you think or believe, I liked the answer in {I}. And the following step is to find out what could be this personal gift which is offered for free and I have the free-will to accept it or not (actually to try to deserve it or not).
{K} Truth be said, I can’t be interested seriously in getting from 'IT' a special/personal gift which belongs to the temporary world since my mortal body will lose it anyway, sooner or later.
{L} A very special gift usually reflects the nature/position of the donor. So what could be the gift in {I}? In brief, ‘IT’ offers me knowing, if I want to, how to replace my temporary existence in this world with an eternal one in ‘ITs’ Realm which is not defined/limited by the notions of time and space (it is much like the dream realm in which I existed many times... also without my will :) ).
{M} It is clear that {L} took me to answer the following question. What could be the process which I need to follow if I like joining my Maker’s Realm? But since it is just an offered gift and if I couldn’t succeed taking advantage of it for some reasons, I will simply return back to my state of void (it is equivalent to what we may call ‘Everlasting Fire’... as we throw into fire whatever we see of no use at all, in order to return it back to its raw state).
{N} Do you think it is good/wise that I also give you my answer of the question in {M}? I bet that many of you, if not all :) , prefer not to hear it. And I respect your wish.
Best Regards,
Kerim
Comments (87)
I think that you answered your own question in clause I in saying that the will allowed you something personal and special and it is up to you to get it or not.
This is based on the view that we each have a set of circumstances, including our strengths and weaknesses and we can choose to make our own destiny in the world. Of course there will be obstacles and some suffering but we learn in the process.
Also, just to say that life is temporary is not sufficient to say it is pointless. In fact, for the people who are suffering life can seem very long indeed. This can lead to suicidal ideas, but this can frequently be based on clinical depression and in some cases antidepressants can make a big difference.
Whatever, whether life is enjoyable or deep misery is all a matter of perspective. It may also be about intent because I have found that the more negative I become everything becomes worse and worse. And then, it takes a jolt from within, or outside oneself through some uplifting experiences, to break the negative cycle.
Ultimately, while we are in this life we create our own reality for better or worse, with the aid of the means available for us.
Well, there was no "you" to ask, before you existed, nor was there any "you" to be "forced" to exist before you existed. So, there was no IT forcing anything.
Sorry, did I say that every living being is supposed to perceive 'IT'?
Just the contrary, zillion of beings are supposed just to follow their instincts and serve life in the world by building it and/or destroying it. They are not supposed even to think of 'IT', in any way, during their temporary journey in this world.
And these beings, among humans too, are very important in life, including my personal life. For example, the instincts of survival guide such humans to know how to exchange cleverly their hard works with various pleasures preprogramed in their body (this reminds me the saying I used hearing: "Every man has his price"). Their hard works allowed others to have good food and dresses besides many other important things to make their life more enjoyable (or miserable in bloody conflicts and wars, for example).
The good news is that one's happiness in life doesn't require the perception of 'IT'.
And without this perception or without having any idea for which end purpose one lives, life would look like a big game in which all sort of players talk about how to win and lose till one by one quits it while new players are joining it.
On my side, I don't say I create my own reality. I say instead I discover my own reality (of my being and the world I live in).
While I walk under the Light of Knowledge I have no reason to be confused or have fear in any situation.
I am sorry that you see yourself in the dark about this. I wasn't born in the light of knowledge either.
In fact, by design, the common weakness with which all intelligent human babies are born is being totally ignorant.
This universal weakness had to be known/called in the far past as the 'Original Sin' by Jews. Yes, many millenniums ago, when medicine was primitive, every serious weakness/damage in one's body was attributed to sin; disobedience of a certain god (Moses’ God, in Judaism).
Being in the 'Light of the Relative Perfect Knowledge' (relative to one's reality) could be seen, therefore, as being saved from this common weakness (the Original Sin). For example, if Jesus came to save me, he has to help me get the logical answers to all my important questions I am looking for; that is to help me go out from the dark of ignorance into the light of knowledge. Did he succeed or not to be the all-knowledge teacher of my reality? I may explore the answer later, on a separate thread, if some active members here like to share :)
How did we come to be here?
And
For what purpose?
In the absence of this information, it is difficult to answer your question.
I am sorry that you are not aware that my parents were just a tool, not the Will which is behind my existence (and their existence as well). Parents have no idea about the nature of which their baby will be made before their decision to get one. At best, they may choose its gender perhaps. I also heard that it may be possible to make a human newcomer as a living robot (much like the human babies who had to be born because of Law, not Love).
Sorry again, because if someone hears you mentioning the word 'God', he would have the impression that you also know what it means. On my side, I am not sure what do YOU mean by (or how YOU define) this word.
For example, should the God, you mentioned here, apply certain justice on his tiny creatures, called humans; as humans do among themselves on earth?
I asked you this because such a supernatural judge or ruling king doesn't exist in my reality.
It happens that I am a rational scientist. So when I heard the definition of straight lines, I didn't ask myself where they start and end. I simply adopted a suitable notion for this case (besides many other cases) which is 'infinity'. Although we can't reach 'infinity', this doesn't prevent an engineer to use it while drawing useful perspective images (parallel straights intersect at infinity).
What I try saying is that it is enough for me to know how I came here without losing my time in discovering the start and the end of the world existence and life.
For example, I know that, right before my birth, there were two tiny independent living cells. When they had to chance to meet each other, they followed a preprogramed algorithm/process and became just one living cell 'me' (who says two independent living beings cannot become one being only :) ) Then, more programs entered the play and this starting living cell was able to evolve gradually (as the very ancient primitive living cells did; though in zillion years) but in a rather very fast way (taking advantage of all data that were inherited from one generation to another throughout history; a very very long one). This quick evolution has needed about 9 months in my case :)
Quoting Punshhh
I thought I already gave the different thoughts about it on my first post!
You are on topic indeed. You present another path that leads to {G} and {F} above.
Good to hear! :up:
No. What you did say, however, was that you weren't asked if you wanted to exist, and were "forced" to do so, by IT. That was what I referred to, as should be obvious.
After all, you know about your existence more than I do.
In my reality, I am even forced :) to also exist many times in a dream realm (not limited by the notions of time and space).
But, perhaps in your reality, I mean how YOU perceive reality, you have your good reasons to believe that you had also the free-will to accept or not to be brought into this life. And when you are in 'deep sleep', you are able to also start or not a dream; if not choosing the events in which you like living, in every dream.
On my side, my philosophy is about analysing and describing facts (besides other things) as I personally live and perceive them.
So It is always okay that someone doesn't agree with me on something, if not everything, which I may say (philosophical or scientific).
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I wished you went on and told me your version about this that gave you a better understanding of your own existence in the least.
You are right.This is equivalent to 'being forced to accept life at it is, at birth'. :)
Quoting Gregory
The facts in the world are just facts. A fact could be seen good or not relative to the observer, ‘Relativity’ :) In other words, an absolute list of what is good and what is bad doesn't exist. But such a list, if it is relative to an observer, does exist.
Quoting Gregory
I think this is equivalent to 'even the impossible may happen'. I think even an atheist may live such experience by insisting to do what was supposed to be impossible.
On the other hand, some facts which happened to me in my life are supposed to be of the impossibilities. For example, one day, I had a call that someone accused me of a serious crime whose penalty is death and some armed policemen were running after me. Soon after the call, I tried to know in which police station the accusation was done. When I knew it, I got a taxi to it. At my arrival, I was surprised that the accusation was totally dropped. There, the chief policemen told me that someone (I didn't know) came to the station and provided what proved my innocence then went away. So I simply returned back home as if nothing happened.
Perhaps I will understand the practical meaning of your version about 'existence and non-existence' if I will be born again :D
For what purpose?
— Punshhh
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know any purposes for which we came to be here. One of your thoughts might be correct, or the real purpose might be something else entirely, we just don't know.
You do seem to be looking for some kind of spiritual purpose, or is it more that that makes more sense for you?
I don't want to sound antagonistic here, but almost none of that made sense to me.
Quoting KerimF
Is there "A Will" for everything happening? Are physical forces "Wills"?
Quoting KerimF
This assumes some form of intelligence which isn't justified
Quoting KerimF
Would be another unjustified assumption
Quoting KerimF
Which doesn't make it false (just clarifying)
Quoting KerimF
Or maybe it just thought that it would be funny
Quoting KerimF
Or maybe there is no gift. Or that the gift is the life itself.
Quoting KerimF
Sure
You are right and this is why I summarized the start of my existence, in the least, by saying... I was forced to exist the way I am. What remains to do, to me in the least, is discovering whatever is related to my actual existence and seeing to how far I can take advantage of it (this is science to me).
Quoting Punshhh
Just to please your curiosity about this, you may like reading my post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
It will up to you to consider what you read if it is spiritual, material or else.
After reading your comments, it seems to me, so perhaps I am wrong, you have no alternatives about what I said (unless they are supposed to be your secrets :) ).
I would like to add something for you to consider.
Firstly, it is relevant to view humanity as a whole, we are a colony, each independent on the population for our survival and sociolo-cultural development. I will go further and suggest that in a sense, humanity is one organism, indeed the whole of the biosphere is one organism. So you can't consider yourself in isolation, if you are considering reality.
Secondly, the purpose that can be deduced from the world we find ourselves in is simply for humanity to sustain the biosphere in a healthy state in the short term and in the long term, to secure its long term survival in the universe at large. Any other purposes, of our being here can then work themselves out during this plan.
I think I have good reason to believe it makes no sense to speak of us as if we existed before we exist,. Because, I hope it doesn't surprise you to learn, we don't exist until we exist. We exist only when we exist. So there is no me, nor is there a you, pondering or deciding whether or not we should exist until we exist. Nor is there a me or a you that can be forced exist when neither you nor I exist.
.
The mystics would say that transcending life and death is not a gift but your birthright. Or to put it another way, there would be nobody to give you this gift except yourself.
Your current existence would be explained by accumulated karma. Only when consciousness is purified can it be stable and not have to come back as another life for more school-work to be done.. . , . .
In a sense, you are right. Every living being, human or non-human, is important for the continuity of the structure that you referred to as 'organism'.
On the other hand, I am aware, unlike my dog and cat are :) that this organism, on earth in the least, will not last forever, by design (many scientists try their best already to estimate when its end will likely happen, speaking scientifically).
Therefore, if I was brought into life just to play a certain role or roles for this ‘organism’, I can’t see any real serious meaning of being involved in such a lost case. This may explain why I searched, since I was very young, a path that lets me be not of this limited world, and why I didn’t have the need to be guided by my instincts of survival (the prerequisite to be an active member in the ‘organism’).
Obviously, I expect that a few, if not rare, people only may see their personal existence and life as I do.
Let me agree with you on what you said... concerning my first birth :)
I mean by 'my first birth' when the world received me as a human baby.
But this is not all...
I can't deny that it is not unusual that I am forced to exist in a realm which is not limited by time/space. This realm is usually known a dream. And I don't realise that I was living in a dream till my body wakes up.
Now, I guess someone can't say I am not forced to exist in a dream because I didn't exist first to know what existence is :D
I am afraid that if I wasn't forced to exist in this life first, there would be no gift to be offered and also no meaning/sign of what I call 'myself' now.
The accumulated karma might be a reality for some others.
But, as far as I perceive, I am in my first journey in this world.
Perhaps, if I, as Kerim, will return back to it after the death of my mortal body, I will likely see karma in my reality too.
By the way, I live the unconditional love and care towards all others. Does this mean that my consciousness is purified and there will be no need to exist again; that is I will end up as if I never existed in the first place?
The problem that I noticed in your argument is that you have a personal view of existence and a certain resentment - perhaps - for existence. Obviously, if this is completely supported by your faith, there is no discussion about it, because then is dogma.
You decided to apply the concept of "reincarnation" in my argument, and at no time did I place the premise that "reincarnation" is something real and that can be experienced.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Done. There it is your transcendental "will to existence", but I prefer the term "The will of nothing", or "the will for egoism".
Do you believe that you're forced to breathe. Or forced to piss? That you wouldn't breathe or piss if you weren't being compelled to do so? Dreaming, breathing and pissing is just part of what we do as humans. Nobody's making us dream, breathe or piss.
My problem is that I can't accept blindly any idea (scientific or spiritual) provided by another. So yes, I have a personal view of existence (mine and of the world I live in). This view had to be based always on my own observations and analyses.
And you are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impression you mentioned here 'resentment'. My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while.
About "I will be born again", is a polite way to say 'it cannot happen'. It is like a father who says to the young man he dislikes: "Son, don't lose hope, my daughter will marry you in your next life" :)
By the way, Jesus used the expression "Ye must be born again" when Nicodemus couldn't understand him... . But many people took it very seriously and I used hearing someone says: "At last, I am born again... I am saved".
I think I have to point out that the 'Will' behind Creation, which I perceive, is surely not of one being; otherwise I cannot see my nature as being an image of 'IT', even to some extent. So when someone sees 'IT' as nothing or just one being, he simply describes his deep nature, with or without his knowledge :)
I wonder if you noticed my post about death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
Should a robot perceive his maker to live and play the roles for which it was made?
Indeed all non-human living beings are supposed to act exactly like pre-programmed robots do, thanks to the guidance of their embedded instincts.
In case of humans, being forced to exist doesn't imply being made to act like a robot, like all other livings things do.
But, a person is also free to see himself a very intelligent robot or...
You have completely distorted my comment. What I really meant is that if you believe with dogmatic faith in your opinions - even if they can sometimes make sense only to you - there is no way to discuss your point.
Quoting KerimF
Still, here you affirm that a "Will" forced you to exist:
"{A} Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence."
Quoting KerimF
Also known as "the masses" and "those who live by aesthetics". They are usually the majority of the population. I - personally - have a certain prejudice against this type of person. We are rational beings, with the ability to fight against our animalistic instincts to give life to the creativity that made us and continues to make us what we are — ambitious and beings of purpose and principle. Letting oneself exist simply to indulge in one's instinctual desires is not the reason why we are counscious of our actions.
Quoting KerimF
Here you have dismissed in favor of your argument the fact that every monotheistic religion - except Islam - preaches that humanity is a projection of God - your "Will" -. Your "IT" fits perfectly with the argument that God is eternal, being pure, static present, that precedes existence. If it was not withdrawn directly, your thinking is very much inspired by Christianity.
Quoting KerimF
No, I'm gonna take a look.
Quoting KerimF
It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".
If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it.
You surprise me. I can't figure out how JUST being aware (before going into details) of such a 'Will' makes a human less rational and/or realistic.
And just because someone can write better than I do, I am not supposed seeing him believing with dogmatic faith in his opinions (his observations and analyses) :)
And just because the majority in the world tends to believe something as being true and/or real, I have to joining them while ignoring what I personally perceive and discovered. (This reminds me when Earth was supposed to be flat and the centre of the universe :) ).
Quoting Gus Lamarch
To reach which end... in your opinion?
Or perhaps, you prefer not to think there is an end in the first place, other than death of the body and, perhaps, being remembered by some people while their mortal bodies are alive.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Actually, it is the inverse :)
I personally was surprised when I knew that Jesus didn't present, about 2000 years ago and as mentioned on the today's Gospel, 'the Will' (behind my existence) as of ONE being only; as Jews, formal Christians, Muslims and Pagans are supposed to believe.
By the way, I am usually ignored, if not banned, in any Christian forum, if related to a Church or Denomination, when I try comparing what Jesus says (on its own version of Gospel) with what its doctrine says because, it happens, they are different most of the time, if not opposite. But, truth be said, they should be different or opposite; otherwise, the men in charge of a Church can't let it survive for too long. (Yes, revealing openly and clearly some crucial natural truths, as Jesus does on the Gospel, lets many believer leave the Church and stop donating).
Then, where would be the fun of thinking :(
Let us remember that If a person mentions someone or something, it doesn't imply that he knows him or it well.
For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers.
As in science, I started from a definition (axiom perhaps) about an intelligent conscious Will behind all the natural rules that define how the universe, I am brought into, is made (including my being), So this definition or axiom, by itself, cannot be real useful in one's life. It is, as in scientific studies, just one of the first steps that a scientific branch may need to be based on; in my case here, it is what I may call 'Science of Life Reality'.
For example and to be clearer, I didn't stop learning geometry when my teacher started with the definition of the geometrical dot which is not supposed to be real :) But on this abstract definition (besides many other unreal ones) a useful branch of science was built (though not necessary useful to all people. I met many persons who hated learning geometry and are happy in their life now without it).
Truth be said, if I didn't know the answer already as I mentioned in {N}, I wouldn't start this thread in the first place. I liked hearing how others see the reason (if any) for which they are brought into this temporary life (existence).
You may like to comment on how I see 'my' death and afterlife... based on my logic :)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
Certainly. The idea of a conscious being that created humanity is the heart of the philosophical God. There is no assumptions at this point of it being good, evil, Christian, Muslim, etc. It is merely the philosophical starting point of, "I believe there is a being beyond humanity that created humanity".
I'm just letting you know you can start there. =) You don't need to call it IT, as you're just using the philosophical God. So lets look at your premises to see if they are logical.
Quoting KerimF
A "Will" assumes a conscious being. We have clear evidence of conscious beings being your parents. Yet you're claiming there's something beyond. The only thing we can conclude at this point is that there is something beyond humanity that created human beings that has a "Will" or consciousness. Thus the philosophical God.
The problem is this isn't necessarily true. It may be that life formed through chemical processes without consciousness. There is a scientific branch that studies this possibility called abiogenesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Quoting KerimF
So, lets just say for fun that there is a conscious existence that created life, you want to claim it is perfect, and desires us to be special. Again, this is a huge assumption that cannot be logically drawn.
What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy.
My philosophy, concerning this free special offer, might be seen in how I see 'my' death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. I'm not advocating against that. But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical.
Thinking is something we do (well or poorly) as well as dreaming, breathing and pissing. We do those things because we're creatures which evolved in a particular have certain biological and neurological characteristics. I think you're defining "forced"--which means coerced or compelled by someone or something--in a very odd way.
Which thoughts?
Quoting Philosophim
Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth).
Quoting Philosophim
You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy :)
I wonder if there is a word to define an idea as being theological and philosophical, that is it could be seen theological by some people and philosophical by some others :D
You are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impressions you mentioned here.
Quoting KerimF
The thoughts that you linked me.
Quoting KerimF
No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion.
Quoting KerimF
Ha ha! Yes, I understand. Some people believe philosophy means people spouting off personal opinions on things. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or a desire to know and understand how reality works. One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test.
Once philosophy comes up with a reasonable hypothesis that is tested and found to be useful, it becomes science. So if you use philosophy in regards to a philosophical God, you want to construct something that could be provable within a person's life. For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study where we try to learn about that God. If we philosophically proved epistemology, that would become its own branch of science.
But this takes logic and reason to do so. There is a lot of speculation, but the speculation that is found worthwhile to pursue is that which is rational. Irrational or completely inductive ideas which can gain no solid grounds are ideas that are not seen as worthwhile.
Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard.
Doesn't this mean that, in your turn, you have your own thoughts (which are likely different from mine) that give comfort and help you live your life better? :)
Quoting Philosophim
I see. Thank you.
It seems that philosophy has to focus on things that are supposed to be 'common to all humans' only. This explains why learning philosophy is very important, if not crucial, for the powerful rich groups if they like knowing how to keep controlling their masses and driving them to were they like them to be.
In this respect, I confess that I am far away from being a philosopher. I used focusing instead on studying my being first and what could be related to my existence in the world I live in. I leave others to discover themselves or else.
After all, every human is given a brilliant brain. But, to how far a person may like to use it differs from one to another. On my side, despite my body is imperfect in many respects, I am glad that my brain can always find out, for me in the least (to help me avoid confusion and/or fear due to lack of knowledge) the logical answer of any important question I may need to know. In other words, in my reality, there are no more unresolved mysteries which may exist in other's mind.
Quoting Philosophim
I suppose these hypotheses have to be common to all humans. Every uncommon hypothesis has to be tested individually... as in my case :)
Quoting Philosophim
I am afraid that this is impossible to happen. As all living things are not supposed to perceive their maker, most human are also created just to serve the physical world and cannot, even if they try, be interested in searching seriously their maker (as they do in their scientific studies). On the other hand, the men in charge of any religious doctrine have to present their god as a Powerful Supernatural King looking for followers so that they can control better their believers in his name (not in their own name). They had to do this because it is rather hard to convince a human to submit to another human. But submitting to the will of a so-called Supernatural King (or 'We, The People' in politics, suitable for atheists :) ) is welcomed by almost all humans.
Quoting Philosophim
I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.
Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way.
I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you.
"In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world."
Mmmmmmm..................you expect free will before you exist? That's a first or is that a result of the choice consumerism that you have been a victim of?
Of course not, this is why I simply said that I had no free will, at all, before I existed (even when I was a little baby).
Isn't it obvious?
Where is the problem?!
Thank you.
By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely?
This question is tricky.
I guess no one deny that the ratio of the today's human population to the one of all living things (cells, plants, animals... etc.) is too close to ZERO. Even in one human body there are millions of living cells.
This question shows clearly that even a minority whose number is too small (very close to zero) relative to the number of all others could be the most important one among all, in a certain respect.
You likely expect what I can conclude from this fact :)
Yes, this is very much a philosophical question. First, what do we mean by, "meaning"? For me, meaning is the act of existence. I'll explain.
Many of us ask the question, "What should I do in my life? How should I act"? with the idea that there is a greater purpose past this than merely ourselves. But there is an even greater question. Why should there be humans? Plants, animals? Why should there be anything at all?
Scientists found that at the big bang's inception, there was more in matter in the universe than there is today. They theorize much of the matter was cancelled out by anti-matter. The rest has persisted for billions of years to this very moment today. The one thing it has done, has existed. We are made up of that matter which has existed for billions of years without ending. Within each and every one of us, is the will of a universe that doesn't quit after billions of years.
So what is our purpose? To exist. And to foster the existence around us. To let people express their greatest selves. To let animals and plants live as they should. To persist and create new existences out of the combination of matter, as it has done for billions of years.
So would there be meaning if humans ceased to existence? Yes, the universe would still exist. Would it be a diminished place without us? Yes, it would be a tragedy to lose such a unique intelligence. While I feel we are an important and valuable part of the entirety of existence, we are not the only thing. That is my take anyway. =)
In short and if I got you well, I have to see myself now as another piece of matter whose existence is important just to maintain the continuity of 'The Existence'.
Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse.
It is me who perceives 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter which has no connection, at all, with 'it' (and its Big Bang and whatever happened to matter and anti-matter) other than existing in some human minds who, unlike I (the inert matter), still perceive 'The Existence'; including the piece of matter, 'me'.
I will call you a thinker and a good person! =D I would rather hear true disagreement then false agreement.
Quoting KerimF
With my outlook on existence, it does show that humans are very special. We are one of the few pieces of existence that has obtained sentience. As such, we get to see the universe, or ourselves, for what it is. As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces.
With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. Would a computer build itself? Not likely. Will a rock ponder the meaning of existence? Not so far anyway. We are a concentration of actual and potential existence like none other in the universe. We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well.
It has been a nice chat. Regardless of your conclusions, enjoy the day!
But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :)
Quoting Philosophim
I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things.
Quoting Philosophim
To me in the least, this respect is obvious. I even don't resist evil.
"As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world."
"As I recall well".............you did? Stranger and stranger.
"No-one asked me"..........that would be a tad difficult before you existed?
"I had no free will, at all, concerning my birth in this world".............not surprising considering you weren't born.
Thank you for your interesting remarks.
You are right, I had to say instead: "As far as I can recall..." :)
But, I wonder why you said 'that would be a tad difficult before I existed'. Right after my birth, no-one asked the human baby, I was (I existed here, right? :) ), if he likes or not to live in this world :)
Obviously, no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)
The Christ’s model represents the action of the individual as a function of the ultimate purpose of all things. For Gandhi — who is a prototype of Christ— only his relationship with a purpose that transcends the biological life and life of the human species is of interest. When both were over, God would be left, and it is waiting for this moment that his action is guided.
In Gandhi’s case, not even the political objective explains his behavior, since he did not accept India’s independence in any way, placing moral demands far above what humans usually imagine. Gandhi acted just the opposite of political reasoning, appealing to the center of the issue and offering as a guarantee not only his own life, but his postmortem fate. In Jesus’s life all actions were guided by the following rule: “What will God think of this?” Such is the subject who, walks before God and knows what He is thinking. Normally, even an exceptional person does not submit all acts to this criterion. The confrontation with God presupposes that man must be able to conceive his every act in an eternal light.
Duty fulfillment regarding a social role presupposes the existence of people who have an expectation regarding the occupant of that role. To act on the coherence of one’s own biography presupposes that it must continue. Acting toward goals dictated by the culture and intelligence presupposes that there are achievable ends within the time frame of a historical existence. But if the individual acts solely on the basis of an end, he is acting precisely on the inexistence of a world around him. With or without the world, he would act the same way. Acts then acquire a supra-temporal, supra-historical meaning, that is, eternally man should do so before the world exists or when it ceases to exist. Here action is taken as the direct expression of a divine quality that acts without the existence of the world.
Anyone who believes in God eventually proceeds from the eternal, though it is difficult to understand someone who acts permanently, such as Gandhi, for whom we must use another key to behavior. It’s as if he knows what God wants, as if he is talking to God all the time.
An accomplished holy man acts on the eternal sense of existence, has no other motive, not even History
In the divine, the actions of the individual seem too complex and enigmatic. To understand the actions of a saint just believing in him. Then everything falls into place, we begin to realize a coherence, an explanatory principle of actions. This occurs regardless of vocational motivations that have arisen in the course of biography, related to the previous goals in life (social approval), that may have contributed to put the subject in a certain way, but are not enough to clarify the unfolding of his history.
We can speak of holiness only when one’s relationship with an eternal God motivates each of his actions. Not only accidental acts, but all, one by one, there is no single act that can be explained outside this dialogue. Who does the guy talk to, who does he respond to? If we erase this connection, his life becomes a collection of meaningless acts. There are individuals who are already born in this eternal realm, so much so that as they go through the antecedents they are quickly absorbed.
In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life.
" no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)"
You had free will as a baby but it wasn't of much use to you at the time. A baby has the free will to cry as
they do.
What puzzles me is this almost resentful feeling you have about not being asked beforehand about whether you wanted to be born. As if your human right not to be born was abused.
Surely there is a difference between resentment about not having a choice about being born which is simply your hurt feelings on the matter ( never come across anyone wishing they had been asked before being conceived or straight after the birth but ) and stating that you had no free will on the subject. Free will is not being able to control events outside yourself but about the freedom to do whatever you like. Existentially free will must be difficult to activate.
Please don't be puzzled, this thread is not about resentment or like :)
I deliberately used the word 'forced' (instead of any 'softer' one) to justify, to myself in the least since I was teenager (many decades ago), the initial personal search of whatever or whoever could be behind my existence, so that I could discover the reason (the end purpose) for which I was brought temporarily into this life (into the realm which is defined/limited by time/space).
In my OP, I mentioned in {N} that I got the answer, I was looking for, already. This answer was the first step to what I may call 'science of life reality'. So, as you see, it is not suitable to be explored and discussed in a forum about philosophy :)
Yes! Fantastic! I did not want to add such details until I find people are willing to think on them. Some find such details "annoying", but philosophers enjoy them.
Yes, we are no different from the atoms around us, we ARE the atoms around us. Our brains are the result of these chemical reactions. So why are brains special? Because a brain is essentially "life". Look at the universe and watch any chemical reaction. It does not regulate itself, it simply burns out eventually. Life however seeks to renew its own chemical reaction. When it is running out of energy, it actively seeks to obtain more.
This is the beginning of sentience. An awareness of the world beyond your own personal chemical combination. Humans have the evolutionary height of this awareness. We can recognize far more then food vs not food like basic life does. We can see how chemical processes happen, and manipulate them for our use.
Quoting KerimF
Yes, exactly.
Thank you for summarizing your philosophical post above in this rather simple sentence.
By the way, one of my personal axioms (on which my knowledge is based) is that the nature of which I am made should have clearly something crucial in common with the Will/Energy behind my existence (or God, if you like).
Your question "What will God think of this?" implies that the person in question refers to the God he used hearing of. But, as you know, a faithful Jew, a faithful Muslim, a faith believer of a Christian doctrine or a faithful Pagan tries his best to fulfil, what, he thinks/believes, pleases 'his' God, not 'the' God..
So every believer of those is supposed to observe the Law which is, in turn, supposed being inspired by the God he worships. We end up having many God's Laws, not just one God's Law. Even in the same religion, and no matter if it is Judaism, Islam, Christian or Pagan, God's Law may also differ from one sect to another.
In reality, we like it or not, the question which guides a human could be one (or more) of the followings:
"Will what I will do let me have peace and joy in me?"
"Will what I will do let (some others) be proud of me?"
"Will what I will do help me deserve a special reward or position (civil, religious or political)?"
"Will what I will do give me, my family and/or my friends a better chance to survive?"
"Will what I will do please my leader (my boss)?"
..
and, as you mentioned already:
"Will what I will do please 'my' God?"
On my side, I asked first the first question on the list above but updated a little:
"Will what I will do let me have a permanent peace and joy in me?"
Then, it became
"Will what I will do help me keep and protect my permanent inner peace and joy?
I am afraid that going on further to talk about the path that suits my nature and how I found it is not a philosophical topic to be discussed here :)
I liked comparing what I heard from you and what a typical theist believes.
It seems to me there is a common point. But, let us see if I will be able to explain it:
A typical theist doesn't mind believing that he can control remotely the state of his supernatural Creator (or God). He has a list of actions by which he can let his God be in a good mood or angry. Such interaction may occur between two beings having about the same level of sentience (I got this word from you :) ) A human may control, deliberately, the state of another human. But an ant cannot control, deliberately, the state of a human. Therefore, a typical theist believes that he and his God could also be rivals; making himself at the same level of his God who is supposed being... super of super... in many aspects.
Back to what I understood from you, we, humans, are chosen by 'The Existence' to be the ultimate creators in it, if not for it.
I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :(
Fortunately, I found the one I was looking for. And this is why it is no more hard for me to understand and even respect all other human natures; no matter how they are.
Happiness is always something that comes from outside: it is a situation, a state, any gift you receive. For example, if you fall in love with a girl, your happiness depends on her repaying you, and the most unhappiness will be her indifference. There comes a time when the succession of these emotional experiences is over and the individual realizes that in some ways he is the author of his own states, that much of what he feels does not depend on what is happening or what others do, but his own. It is the moment when he needs to take possession of himself, in the total existential sense. That is, he has to show that he is the master of his own destiny.
From then on the criterion is no longer happiness versus unhappiness, but victory versus defeat. The individual has to win and prove to himself first — not to others — that he is something. It may have some coefficient of exhibitionism as well, but the key is to take possession of its strength, to feel like a creator of situations that depend solely on it. During this period, the coefficient of happiness or unhappiness received from outside is no longer so important, because even the factors that can depress him are seen as challenges that he has to overcome. In this period the individual has to come out on top in everything but is just trying to prove something to himself. What matters is subjective victory, being able to look at yourself and feel a certain pride. Being proud of yourself is important during this time.
I am no longer seeking my happiness. The axis has now moved elsewhere. That is, I understood that happiness is a more or less accidental result. Happiness is like pleasure, said St. Thomas Aquinas. Pleasure is a side effect resulting from something that worked. It is not a goal. It is never a goal. After all, pleasure is an abstract term that designates a constellation of feelings that can differ greatly from one person to another. The pleasure is too evanescent for you to pick it up. You will have to look for something concrete.
For example, what is gastronomic pleasure? Can you eat the gastronomic pleasure? Of course you can’t. You will have to eat something concrete. This thing can give you pleasure or displeasure. Saint Thomas Aquinas is absolutely right. You ate, that worked, so you say you’re happy. Pleasure is the name you give to the subjective side effect of something. With happiness the same thing happens.
Seeking happiness is the most useless thing in the world because you never know what will make you happy or not.
Admittedly, some things make you happy and some things make you unhappy, so these are the things you will have to look for. Our endeavor is always to do something, to achieve something, not something abstract called happiness. These days there is a kind of material view of happiness. Happiness is like something that can be guaranteed to this or that person, as some kind of right.
But this I have understood for a long time: to seek happiness is to make a hole in the water. If you seek happiness you will be unhappy, so it is better to seek victory, self-assertion, strength, etc. At this point, you are past the stage of the pursuit of happiness.
In my view, we as human beings, essentially seek two things: to be perennial and satisfaction. With these two things in mind, the only search that makes sense is that of religion, there is no other. But you asked a good question about which of the countless gods to serve, I can give you a general outline and suggest that you read some authors.
Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon note brilliantly that all religions start from the same basic metaphysics. It is clear that the symbols and archetypes of pagan myths are the same and they all condense and articulate in the person of Jesus Christ. These symbols were not in vain, they were not nonsense. The difference is that they were imaginary, and the life of Jesus actually happened, I mean, his life has a mythical scope, and it is a historical myth. Our biographies are copies of copies of his true biography.
Another point that differentiates the Christian religion from the others is the miraculous events that are abundant. The true God is the one who acts in his religion. There are people who say that God stopped talking to us, that the last time he appeared was in the Bible and it was over; it couldn't be further from the truth. The Marian apparitions during the 20th century are historical facts, which already predicted both Russian imperialism (in Fatima) and the corruption of the Catholic clergy (in Garabandal) without counting the miracles proper to these apparitions. And the lives of the saints too, who are full of miracles, and bleeding wafers, etc. Such things don't even come close to happening in any other religious tradition.
It is perfectly possible to reach God through reason. To believe in miracles you don't need faith, because they are well documented facts with countless testimonies, even if you were not fortunate enough to have witnessed them personally. Also, to understand the structure of the universe, I recommend Plato, Louis Lavelle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who prove the need for an uncaused first cause, among other things.
I am far from being a good writer (in any language). So I am sorry to give you the impression that I am looking for the happiness you elaborated (on your first reply above), thinking I am talking about the temporary feelings of certain pleasures which are pre-programmed in one's body.
Quoting Lokii
Naturally, I also didn't need to seek victory or strength to deserve living temporary certain pleasant sensations (the main stimulus that lets most humans around the world work hard without complain :) ).
Quoting Lokii
You are right.
Real peace and joy may exist in one's inner only. On the other hand, a permanent fear of someone or something is somehow always due to lack of knowledge.
Quoting Lokii
Miracles may let a person having faith in someone else (not gaining knowledge) and this is just the first step, at best, to get knowledge from THIS someone.
Having faith, by itself, has, therefore, no real value other than seeing it perhaps a path to a certain magical/mythical ending (which differs from one religion to another).
Finally, I bet you never imagined that, someday, someone will tell you that his best perfect teacher of 'life reality' is Jesus Christ only; not anyone else throughout history, not even those who talked in his name or on his behalf... as prophets, apostles, saints... etc.
But discussing the knowledge of this branch of science is not appropriate in a philosophical section as here, ‘Philosophy of Religion’.
There is nothing wrong with this. Every one of us has our own path to walk, and outlook on life. At the end of the day, it is about whether our outlooks make us be better or worse people in life. You seem to be a fantastic individual KerimF, so it seems to work for you.
But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =)
Oh, thanks, by the way, you are the first one, in my rather long life (71 so far), who says this, directly and clearly :)
Our conversation has been great because of you too.
A plane to fly well should have two similar strong wings though they could be painted differently :)
"In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life."
That's an interesting comment to make. It's more than a word though.
Equally there are so many in this world who would say : " A life that is guided by the question: "What will God think of this?" is an unfulfilled life. Hence the problems that "we" get ourselves into due to selfish needs and behaviours.
If this question refers to certain rules imposed by a god (or God), I am afraid it refers simply to some man-made rules (this reminds me Pharaoh :) ) which were cleverly attributed to a certain supernatural being (as God).
It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons.
"It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons."
Where did Jesus reveal that God is lawless? Are you talking about Satan?
Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).
{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Do you see any law or justice here :)
As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)
"Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).
{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Do you see any law or justice here :)
As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)"
Matthew 5:45 is about love, unlimited love. When it rains we all get wet, rain falls on everyone. There is no marking out of some but not all. God loves everyone as we should too.
How often do you hear of Christians forgiving the person who has murdered their son, for example.
Lawless is Satan who obeys no-one other than himself and he is the lawless one.
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.
You're confusing the human laws to right a wrong, which would not be needed were we all to love each other as God commands, with God urging us to be righteous and love each other regardless.
This is why I call such Christians formal ones. In this respect, they are not supposed to react differently from how a Jew, Muslim or Pagan (if not atheist) is supposed to do.
Quoting david plumb
Let us suppose that Satan does exist as a being (not just a mere notion). Actually, he also follows a law; his law. The essence of his rules is simply disobeying the rules which are imposed by another; in this case the god of a religion (Yes, I am afraid that, as there are different images of God, there are different images of Satan).
Quoting david plumb
Oh, did Jesus say this?!
Quoting david plumb
By the way, it was impossible for me to live the unconditional love, if God didn't also create humans to play evil roles against me. But, we don't need to be worried about those actors (to play evil) because they are also made to be happy the way they are... till they return back to the state of void; their state before birth (as it is the case of all other non-human living things).
If a being will be made that will exist if X, Y, Z actions are taken, why can that not be considered "forcing" an existence of another? In other words, can you be caught up on semantics that actually don't align with the intended meaning here? If I have parts of a chair, and intend to make one, am I not in a way, making a chair exist where there was only its potential parts? Now, when the "making X exist" outcome will be a living being, forcing does indeed become an appropriate word as there is a being that will experience that results from another person's actions. So "forced" here doesn't need to imply that the actual person born has to exist prior to the actions, but rather, that actions taken by someone else can make that experiential being come about as a result. That is the sentiment being conveyed. The "forcing" is implying an action which results in a person (an experiential being) being caused to exist by another person's action that was not their own.
All the reasons you give can be more really about the attitudes of people who want to maintain society. You exist because at some level, people think it is okay to bring more people into the world and thus, de facto, work at maintaining the institutions to maintain society and bring about more people who will do so. It is just that over and over. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, unfortunately. You either get with the program, try to hack it in the wilderness and die a slow death or die a fast death through suicide. Getting with the program means using the institutions of a given society to get your deprivation needs met of survival, comfort, entertainment.
You are totally right in describing a human being who perceives that he is made of a human living flesh 'only'. In this case, he has no choice but to take care of it (if not his family, friends and species as well), at any cost, while being guided by his pre-programmed instincts; mainly of survival.
To achieve this goal properly, he just needs (as you mentioned) to render, as possible, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; that is whatever the ruling system, he chose or imposed on him, expects from him to do (and say). This ruling system could be social, religious or political.
It happens that I perceived in me, since I was teenager (now 71), another being than my living flesh. But it is not easy at all, for me in the least, to explain clearly my case. It is like perceiving first what a radio set is as a generator of sound (voice, music or noise) coming out from its speaker(s). But this is also a receiver/detector of electromagnetic waves. These waves are defined by rules that are different from the ones of sound waves. These waves have existed since always and humans lived in the past without the need to believe in their existence.
This is the closest analogy in the physical world (I was able to think of) to what could be called spiritual sentience :(
I think there is a problem that arises from the improper use of words, but that problem is that "forced" is being used in an unusual manner here. We may speak of something being caused. But when we speak of something being caused, we're not referring to something being forced. You may cause a chair to be made, but you don't force a chair to be made. You make a chair, you don't force, or compel the components of a chair to become a chair.
Similarly, a man and a woman may make a baby, or "cause" a baby (though that would be an unusual way of putting it). But they don't force a baby. There is nothing being compelled. Parents don't say "Let's force (or compel) a baby to exist" or "I want to force a baby to come into the world."
As the OP seems to acknowledge, "force" is being used in an strange manner in this case, for effect. I don't know why, and I don't think it works.
I'm not sure about the OP but I think I have sufficiently explained why force can be used when what is being caused is indeed an experiential being. I've seen it used in these forums in this way besides just me, so if your criteria is use (and not just Ciceronianus' hangup with this kind of use) I think it would be valid as people know what the sentiment means without the perplexity you are attaching to it. So either case, use, or just definitially (that an experiential being that is caused to exist from actions that are not from their actions) it works.
Obviously, the mere fact I might understand the words you use doesn't mean you're using them as they're commonly used. I know what someone is saying when they say that a pencil in a glass of water appears bent, but the pencil obviously doesn't appear bent at all--it doesn't look like it's curved. Thus are misconceptions created, especially in philosophy. Many philosophers aren't inclined to use words as commonly understood. If they were they wouldn't refer to things like "the nothing."
To say someone is "forced" to exist is an exercise in rhetoric. The word is used in an effort to persuade others that it's wrong to reproduce, or characterize reproduction as evil. To say someone's existence was caused doesn't have the same negative connotations. That's what I think. Perhaps, though, I was forced to think by my parents. I certainly could not think if I didn't exist.
I think this is a case of (most likely) double standard on things you don't like to hear. I mean someone's death could have simply been caused to happen, or it could have been forced to happen. Force implies no consent was obtained. Just because in the case of procreation, can never be obtained, doesn't mean this isn't true. You were forced to exist, because you had no say and it was not you who caused your own existence. Caused doesn't get at the notion either.
We exist where prior we did not exist. No one can ask us this, and to take ourselves out of the game is surely suicide and death. So, what does one call this scenario? I contend that force is the word that captures the meaning conveyed here. It might not be "violently" done (though maybe birth can be seen somewhat that way), but certainly it is something that is happening to someone else that is physically happening to them.
This has similar themes to what I was discussing before. If it was known someone would be 100% known to be tortured if they were born, and everyone KNEW that was going to happen to the baby, should that person that will be born not be considered? If you think yes it should be considered, then certainly in the same sense, "FORCE" is applying here to the same sentiment. In other words, it would certainly be wrong to say, "No, the baby has to be born to be tortured, so that we can then consider that the baby not be tortured". That would indeed be crazy talk.
So I propose this anti-usage of "FORCE" is a rhetorical tool, to show disdain for the idea that birth is indeed something not caused by the individual it is happening to, and without consent because it indeed does imply negative connotations. But so it is.
I can also argue at another angle that the instant, Time T that someone is born, THAT indeed is the force in question. You don't even need anything prior to that. The instant a human exists and that human had something as serious as a whole lifetime of living upon them, that indeed counts as "forced".
For me, it makes no sense to bemoan the fact I had no say when I necessarily couldn't have any say in any case. Similarly, it makes no sense to me to claim I should have had some say when I couldn't possibly have a say, or that it's wrong that I had no say in that case.
But we've been down this road before