Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ok, hell!
Topic Started: Mar 29 2009, 10:35 PM (3,371 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Uhhh... no. The notion of God is being outside of time and space. That is not even a problem, let alone a fatal blow.


Since time and space and matter are interwoven the very notion of a creator stops making any sense:

If there is no beginning and the universe stretches back forever there is nothing for a creator to do.

If there is a beginning to the universe, since that beginning also marks a beginning of time, there is no notion of "before" that beginning that is logically valid, there is no notion of a "cause" to that beginning that is logically valid, there is no notion of a process of "creation" that is logically valid. There is no notion of a creator that is logically valid.

Saying "God is outside of time" doesn't help you - not unless you're going to stick your neck out and say that it means time really doesn't begin with space and matter. That physicists are wrong about that. I.e . unless you claim that your theistic hypothesis makes actual predictions (which might turn out to be falsifiable).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I believe in God, but I don't believe in God as some anthropomorphic being. I think that God, being a spiritual being, is concerned (if indeed, concerned with anything at all) with spiritual matters. There exists, as I see it, three forces that act upon matter in the universes. They are positive, or loving/benevolent/constructive (i.e. commonly termed "godly"), neutral, and negative/destructive/malignant (commonly called "evil" or "sinful")

I would submit that both positive and negative balance each other, and the whole universe runs according to the basic principles of physics, and that the divine, benevolent force, (love) may be seen reflected all around and manifests in a myriad of different ways.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Oops sorry missed it.

Quote:
 

Good, keep your hypothetical hat on. If that's the case, why might it be so?


Because he doesn't care whether people suffer?

Quote:
 

here's a flaw here, the same flaw in much of what else you wrote. If God creates a world in which people have been granted will - which in very real essence, makes them co-creators with God - and if will means anything vaguely resembling what we'd normally think it does - then divine foreknowledge doesn't negate the reality that in any given situation, the human has the ability to change the score by exercising his will differently - one of the key components of being human is the ability to do so, and not being pre-programmed . In essence, God isn't choosing a single page, but has in fact, selected them all simultaneously. The page layouts can change, with every single exercise of human will.


This argument doesn't work. Sure people have the ability to think something then change their mind a million times before they make some action. But that makes no difference, God has infinite foreknowledge, he knows that you're going to chop and change your mind and he knows with 100% certainty what you're going to end up choosing. That you chop and change your mind makes no difference at all.

One set of events have happened in the past and will happen in the future and God knew precisely what they would be in infinite detail before he even created the universe. Thus by the definition i have given of the what these cosmic pages are - he picked a single page.

Quote:
 

In any case, if the will is preserved, and the human may choose A or B, then God's reward or punishment for that choice is hardly a legitimate grievance against God.


Whatever the human chooses is by definition what God chose.

If the human 1 chooses option A at time psi that means God chose a universe such that human 1 chooses option A at time psi, if human 1 chooses option B at time psi that means God chose a universe such that human 1 chooses option B at time psi.

That has to hold because he knew everything that was going to happen before he even created the universe. He knew all the possible histories in infinite detail and then he picked one to be real. The only way out (and as I said to Klaus i think it's only a temporary reprieve) is to jettison omniscience and accept a God that doesn't have complete future knowledge.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Because he doesn't care whether people suffer?


You must have taken your thinking hat off to put your hypothetical hat on. Keep trying.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
If he didn't want people to suffer he would have chosen a universe where people choose to be nice to one another instead of choosing a universe where lots of people choose to be awful to one another. (He'd also have chosen a universe without alzheimers and cholera and HIV and Earth quakes and droughts, etc. etc.).

An indifferent omniscient omnipotent designer would at least not be contradicted by the actual universe.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Mar 31 2009, 12:45 PM

If there is a beginning to the universe, since that beginning also marks a beginning of time, there is no notion of "before" that beginning that is logically valid, there is no notion of a "cause" to that beginning that is logically valid, there is no notion of a process of "creation" that is logically valid. There is no notion of a creator that is logically valid.

I have no idea of what you think "creation" means. I can only assume it is something other than what theologically it expresses. I also note that your whole construct is based on time, not timelessness, and you seem to include God in the universe. All you have done is asserted that it is logically invalid, but I suspect your predicates are not accurate.

Try framing your argument in a series of simple syllogisms with clearly defined terms to see if they hold together.
Quote:
 

Saying "God is outside of time" doesn't help you - not unless you're going to stick your neck out and say that it means time really doesn't begin with space and matter. That physicists are wrong about that. I.e . unless you claim that your theistic hypothesis makes actual predictions (which might turn out to be falsifiable).
No one is claiming that time doesn't begin with space and matter. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by actual predictions that could be falsifiable in regards to a "theistic hypothesis".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Mar 31 2009, 01:23 PM
If he didn't want people to suffer he would have chosen a universe where people choose to be nice to one another instead of choosing a universe where lots of people choose to be awful to one another. (He'd also have chosen a universe without alzheimers and cholera and HIV and Earth quakes and droughts, etc. etc.).

An indifferent omniscient omnipotent designer would at least not be contradicted by the actual universe.
But of course, that does not address the question of why an IOOD would create anything at all.

And you seem to gloss over the point that "a universe where people choose to be nice to one another" does not mean anything unless they can choose to be otherwise. Choice implies options, and you have framed it such that there really are no options other than to be nice.

So perhaps there is something greater than not suffering?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
IT is correct in his comment to you about choosing a universe in which people must choose to be nice to each other. To do so is just another way of saying that people would have no choice at all. But you are missing a significant aspect of this issue by choosing (sorry) to view the intent or goal of God's creation as people being nice to one another. Go back and think about what I asked you to consider.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Riley
Mar 31 2009, 11:09 AM
What are the standards required to be admitted (or not) into heaven? What about an atheist who lives a relatively normal live? A christian who steals money? A regular person who murders in a moment of weakness or anger?

How strict are the requirements for admission to heaven?
The answer to this is very simple, young Padawan.

Nobody knows.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Mar 31 2009, 01:23 PM
If he didn't want people to suffer he would have chosen a universe where people choose to be nice to one another instead of choosing a universe where lots of people choose to be awful to one another. (He'd also have chosen a universe without alzheimers and cholera and HIV and Earth quakes and droughts, etc. etc.).

An indifferent omniscient omnipotent designer would at least not be contradicted by the actual universe.
Moonbat,

There is this trivial solution that you haven't include: An omnipotent creator who did not want "people" to suffer could have chosen not to create any "people" to begin with.

To the extent that an omnipotent being created "people" and "people suffer," the only sensible conclusion is that that omnipotent being wants "people" to "suffer." That much is obvious.

The Judeo/Christian tradition makes no bone about Yahweh wanting people to "suffer" from time to time, i.e., making people suffer is part of Yahwehs grand design. They just also like to believe that such a design is indeed the best of all possible designs (and the Christian tradition take it a step further and claim that "making people suffer" is a manifestation of Yahweh's "love" of man).

I once wrote, I believe in response to CrashTest, that out of the three {"omnipotence", "suffering ('**** happens')", "love"}, you can have at most two out of three within the bounds of logic. Trying to claim to have all three requires one to bastardize the meaning of at least one of those three. So it's just a matter if identifying which one(s) get(s) bastardized in any version of such a claim (that, or recognize that "logic" has itself been perverted transcended). :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 31 2009, 03:57 PM
Riley
Mar 31 2009, 11:09 AM
What are the standards required to be admitted (or not) into heaven? What about an atheist who lives a relatively normal live? A christian who steals money? A regular person who murders in a moment of weakness or anger?

How strict are the requirements for admission to heaven?
The answer to this is very simple, young Padawan.

Nobody knows.
Go ahead and try to tell that to the followers of that Paul guy and Mohammed character.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Mar 31 2009, 03:23 PM
IT is correct in his comment to you about choosing a universe in which people must choose to be nice to each other. To do so is just another way of saying that people would have no choice at all. But you are missing a significant aspect of this issue by choosing (sorry) to view the intent or goal of God's creation as people being nice to one another. Go back and think about what I asked you to consider.
Dewey,

You probably want Moonbat to consider the question: "What is God's intention."

You're probably thinking in terms that separate "designs" from "intentions."

In Moonbat's writing, when he spoke of "universes," "intention" is already captured in "universe." A different "intention" would simply be encapsulated in a different "universe." So what you asked Moonbat to consider has been taken into consideration and addressed right from the start.

The above could be wrong, but I figure I'd call that out since it looks like you two are talking pass each other. :wave:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And, for Wacki,

Dude, you got it all wrong.

The fact is that there is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife.

:cheers:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ax,

Moonbat decided, for the sake of conversation, to look at a hypothetical regarding the Christian understanding of creation. If he is to stay within that framework, he may not necessarily rely on his own understanding of certain definitions or relationships.

The Christian understanding of origins and intent begin by making claims that "X." The claims themselves are not, and never have been, attempts to prove "X," only to state that X is the interpretation. There may indeed be subsequent attempts to offer evidences for the correctness of the claims, but arguments in that realm are useless until and unless one is actually clear about what "X" is.

Further, my understanding does not necessarily distinguish between "design" and "intention," but I do make a distinction between "design" (i.e., "God's design") and "result" - largely because I believe that a major component of God's "design" is the design of humans who have, and may use, human will - that for them to use this will in several ways, including fulfilling God's intended role for them of co-creators. Our exercise of this will can, and often does, cause "results" that are contrary to God's wishes. But it is the actual manner in which the will has been used, not that it has been used per se, that is contrary to God's "design." I do not see in Moonbat's thinking such a distinction - in fact, he is proposing the exact opposite opinion.

In any case, Moonbat is getting ahead of himself. He is expending great amounts of time to dispute something that he's shown to have a significant lack of comprehension of (based on your recent posts, you have a similar misunderstanding, but you're not the one on the soapbox at the moment). Moonbat needs to first learn what "X" is. Otherwise, his arguments will not only be doomed to the trap of circularity, but all too often, he'll spin his wheels by disputing something that isn't even an actual claim of the faith. If you're going to argue against something, you'd better first understand what it is you want to argue against.

And once again, I invite Moonbat to go back and consider what I asked him to, and to offer his thoughts regarding a possible answer.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 31 2009, 05:55 PM
Moonbat
Mar 31 2009, 01:23 PM
If he didn't want people to suffer he would have chosen a universe where people choose to be nice to one another instead of choosing a universe where lots of people choose to be awful to one another. (He'd also have chosen a universe without alzheimers and cholera and HIV and Earth quakes and droughts, etc. etc.).

An indifferent omniscient omnipotent designer would at least not be contradicted by the actual universe.
Moonbat,

There is this trivial solution that you haven't include: An omnipotent creator who did not want "people" to suffer could have chosen not to create any "people" to begin with.

To the extent that an omnipotent being created "people" and "people suffer," the only sensible conclusion is that that omnipotent being wants "people" to "suffer." That much is obvious.

The Judeo/Christian tradition makes no bone about Yahweh wanting people to "suffer" from time to time, i.e., making people suffer is part of Yahwehs grand design. They just also like to believe that such a design is indeed the best of all possible designs (and the Christian tradition take it a step further and claim that "making people suffer" is a manifestation of Yahweh's "love" of man).

I once wrote, I believe in response to CrashTest, that out of the three {"omnipotence", "suffering ('**** happens')", "love"}, you can have at most two out of three within the bounds of logic. Trying to claim to have all three requires one to bastardize the meaning of at least one of those three. So it's just a matter if identifying which one(s) get(s) bastardized in any version of such a claim (that, or recognize that "logic" has itself been perverted transcended). :D
So by your logic: you and your wife choose to bring a couple of babies into this world.

You and your wife KNOW (from experience) that all people suffer and die, but brought them into the world regardless.

Therefore we have to conclude that you and your wife want your babies to suffer and die,

So do you consider yourself benevolent and good or malicious and evil?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 31 2009, 03:57 PM
Riley
Mar 31 2009, 11:09 AM
What are the standards required to be admitted (or not) into heaven? What about an atheist who lives a relatively normal live? A christian who steals money? A regular person who murders in a moment of weakness or anger?

How strict are the requirements for admission to heaven?
The answer to this is very simple, young Padawan.

Nobody knows.
I have heard that Americans need letters of recommendation to be accepted :whistle:
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Mar 31 2009, 01:23 PM
If he didn't want people to suffer he would have chosen a universe where people choose to be nice to one another instead of choosing a universe where lots of people choose to be awful to one another. (He'd also have chosen a universe without alzheimers and cholera and HIV and Earth quakes and droughts, etc. etc.).

An indifferent omniscient omnipotent designer would at least not be contradicted by the actual universe.
Well, I would argue that, completely independent of theology, there can be no hapiness without suffering.

First, if there were no suffering, you wouldn't know what happiness is.

Second, I believe that all progress we make (be it scientific, technological, whatever) is only due to the desire
to reduce suffering.

Third, since death is a form of suffering, nobody would ever die in a world w/o suffering.

Hence, without suffering, we'd live in a static world, where nothing ever changes. Can this be happiness? I don't think so.

Hence, in the big picture, suffering is a prerequisite for happiness. :rimshot:
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

No one is claiming that time doesn't begin with space and matter. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by actual predictions that could be falsifiable in regards to a "theistic hypothesis".


If one considers an event that marks the beginning of time then by definition it is meaningless to refer to anything "before" that event, hence it is meaningless to talk about any kind of independent "cause" of that event. Such an event would mark an ultimate beginning. One that it was meaningless to explain in terms of anything else - whether they be intelligent Gods or a physical process.

If space and matter are inseparable from time then the beginning of space and matter is precisely such an event.

If you want to talk about something creating (whether it be intelligent and mystical or a physical theory) space/matter then you'll have to reject this picture. You want to have God doing something then matter and space springing into existence but to do that you have to sever the link between matter/space on the one side and time on the other. Then you're ok but that's a non-trivial statement it means you have to make some actual claims about the world.

Quote:
 

But of course, that does not address the question of why an IOOD would create anything at all.

And you seem to gloss over the point that "a universe where people choose to be nice to one another" does not mean anything unless they can choose to be otherwise. Choice implies options, and you have framed it such that there really are no options other than to be nice.

So perhaps there is something greater than not suffering?


Well they are "able" to choose in the sense that they can chop and change their minds lots of times. Just as we end up with an answer they too end up with an answer. In this universe we happen to end up with a set of answers that include being awful to one another, in other universes we would happen to end up with a different set of answers.

God picked out an entire history of the universe. He could have chosen one where people chose to be nice to one another. Instead he picked a universe where lots of people choose to torture and kill one another. There is no sense in which this universe has more "choice" than the nice universe (nor more choice than an even nastier universe). Both involve weighing stuff up changing ones mind, and eventually taking some particular action. Our history and future is just as much "constrained" to adhere to what God knew would happen all along as a different universe that did not include the horrors of ours would be.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Well, I would argue that, completely independent of theology, there can be no hapiness without suffering.

First, if there were no suffering, you wouldn't know what happiness is.

Second, I believe that all progress we make (be it scientific, technological, whatever) is only due to the desire
to reduce suffering.

Third, since death is a form of suffering, nobody would ever die in a world w/o suffering.

Hence, without suffering, we'd live in a static world, where nothing ever changes. Can this be happiness? I don't think so.

Hence, in the big picture, suffering is a prerequisite for happiness. :rimshot:



1) Happiness is a statement about what you feel. If there is no suffering then you would not use that word to define your state of mind and you would not be able to imagine being unhappy but that confers no conclusions about how you would actually feel.

Suppose we try and take your argument seriously. You think that the one is necessary for the the other so suppose then you have a set of people who are in a state of constant torture and who have never known anything else. Every moment they can remember has been screaming agony as is the moment they are experiencing in the present. The other set of people are the opposite every moment they can remember has been bliss, relaxed wonderful bliss, as is the moment they are experiencing in the present. I think just asking you to consider that is enough to show your statement doesn't hold together.

2) I agree with you that the drive to reduce suffering exists - we have compassion for one another, but a whole bunch of other drives are there. Curiosity for one and the whole infinite wants thing that economists talk about. I don't see why people being horribly hurt is a prerequisite for change.

3) Death isn't a form of suffering any more than it's a form of joy. Death is just the end.

Quote:
 

Hence, without suffering, we'd live in a static world, where nothing ever changes. Can this be happiness? I don't think so.


One can imagine a static world where things like culture and technology doesn't change that is full of perfectly happy creatures one can also imagine a static world full of totally miserable creatures. And one can imagine a shifting world that is full of happy creatures and a shifting world that is full of miserable creatures.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

oonbat,

There is this trivial solution that you haven't include: An omnipotent creator who did not want "people" to suffer could have chosen not to create any "people" to begin with.

To the extent that an omnipotent being created "people" and "people suffer," the only sensible conclusion is that that omnipotent being wants "people" to "suffer." That much is obvious.

The Judeo/Christian tradition makes no bone about Yahweh wanting people to "suffer" from time to time, i.e., making people suffer is part of Yahwehs grand design. They just also like to believe that such a design is indeed the best of all possible designs (and the Christian tradition take it a step further and claim that "making people suffer" is a manifestation of Yahweh's "love" of man).

I once wrote, I believe in response to CrashTest, that out of the three {"omnipotence", "suffering ('**** happens')", "love"}, you can have at most two out of three within the bounds of logic. Trying to claim to have all three requires one to bastardize the meaning of at least one of those three. So it's just a matter if identifying which one(s) get(s) bastardized in any version of such a claim (that, or recognize that "logic" has itself been perverted transcended). :D


Nothing i disagree with here. :)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 1 2009, 03:23 AM
3) Death isn't a form of suffering any more than it's a form of joy. Death is just the end.
The process of dying can certainly involve suffereing, and the death itself usually means suffering for relatives.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

And once again, I invite Moonbat to go back and consider what I asked him to, and to offer his thoughts regarding a possible answer.


So we assume that there is an uber uber mind who created everything, and then we ask why did this uber uber mind create everything?

Well one can come up with as many hypothetical motives as there are atoms in the universe. Maybe he was having a laugh, maybe it was an accident, maybe he really likes black holes swallowing stuff up, maybe he loved the music of Bob Dylan so he created a universe where Bob Dylan occured, maybe he created every possible universe and we're just one, maybe he liked the beginning bit with all the massively exploding space and matter and then the rest is just boring and he doesn't really care about it, maybe the whole thing is designed to calculate pi to a insane degree of accuracy, and we're all just part of the computation.

All one can do is rule out descriptions that don't fit, the thing is that the mainstream religions include descriptions that don't fit. They call God all caring/loving etc. but they also call him omniscient and omnipotent and as Ax points out you can't have all three (if one assumes the usual meaning of the words) and have the universe we find ourself in. You have to give something up.

Edit: Your distinction between "will" and "results" doesn't work - reread my original argument and my response to Ivory. Whether people make choices and can change their mind is independent of the fact that God necessarily chose the entire history of the universe.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

The process of dying can certainly involve suffereing, and the death itself usually means suffering for relatives.


The process of dying does not necessarily have to include suffering. People do suffer when their loved ones die, but i'm not sure whether that is logically inevitable.

Suppose I accept that one cannot reduce suffering beyond a certain threshold without either completely changing the nature of the universe (the latter of course is no problem for a God) or blunting a lot of happiness. Do you really think that we are at that threshold - that this universe as it is today has the maximal ratio of suffering:good? Do you not think it could be better?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 1 2009, 03:50 AM
Suppose I accept that one cannot reduce suffering beyond a certain threshold without either completely changing the nature of the universe (the latter of course is no problem for a God) or blunting a lot of happiness. Do you really think that we are at that threshold - that this universe as it is today has the maximal ratio of suffering:good? Do you not think it could be better?
I believe that happiness is not so much dependend on the current state of the world, but more on how it has changed over time.
It's like the first derivative: What counts for our happiness is the rate of improvement of your circumstances. There is probably
another factor, namely how well you do in comparison to others.

Just look at all the suicides of people who have been millionaires or billionaires - absolutes are relatively irrelevant for our happiness.

One could probably even go one step further and argue that not even the current rate of improvement is decisive, but the perspective that it is going to change for better - or, mathematically, the second derivation of the function :smokin:
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
If you are in hideous pain and it's gradually gradually improving you are not happy.

If you feel great about your life and your world and that isn't changing then you are happy.

So i don't see how the derivative idea can really work.

Edit: not that one's perspective on the future is completely irrelevant, far from it. It's just that it can't be everything.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply