Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[MG 2.0]

Reality is big, we’re small, so nothing specific really needs to be answered.

I hope that's not what you think I was saying, in its entirety, in my rather long post.

"Nothing" is a bit extreme and somewhat closed minded, don't you think?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Reality is big, we’re small, so nothing specific really needs to be answered.

I hope that's not what you think I was saying, in its entirety, in my rather long post.

"Nothing" is a bit extreme and somewhat closed minded, don't you think?

Regards,
MG

Honestly my thought at the end of your lengthy post was “okay. and therefore…what?” But there is no “therefore,” there is only “it is what it is.” And “It is what it is” reads like “this is how someone decides not to solve problems.” It’s more like coping for preservation.

Also prairie dogs.

[MG 2.0]

I hope that's not what you think I was saying, in its entirety, in my rather long post.

"Nothing" is a bit extreme and somewhat closed minded, don't you think?

Regards,
MG

Honestly my thought at the end of your lengthy post was “okay. and therefore…what?” But there is no “therefore,” there is only “it is what it is.” And “It is what it is” reads like “this is how someone decides not to solve problems.” It’s more like coping for preservation.

Also prairie dogs.

And ants.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Honestly my thought at the end of your lengthy post was “okay. and therefore…what?” But there is no “therefore,” there is only “it is what it is.” And “It is what it is” reads like “this is how someone decides not to solve problems.” It’s more like coping for preservation.

Also prairie dogs.

And ants.

Regards,
MG

Right. Really deep thoughts.

[malkie]

And ants.

Regards,
MG

Right. Really deep thoughts.

Also, if there is no creator god, which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

[Limnor]

Right. Really deep thoughts.

Also, if there is no creator god, which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

I don’t disagree about default skepticism, and think you’re right that “it is what it is” feels more like an excuse than a method that helps decide how truth claims or authority should be considered—regardless of whether a creator God exists.

[malkie]

Also, if there is no creator god, which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

I don’t disagree about default skepticism, and think you’re right that “it is what it is” feels more like an excuse than a method that helps decide how truth claims or authority should be considered—regardless of whether a creator God exists.

Right! My intention was simply to show that the hypothetical "if there is a creator god" has no weight in this case, since its negation leads to the same conclusion.

[Gadianton]

What matters, or what would matter, is what part we do or don't play in the "it". The question is whether or not the "it" includes continuing as a sentient being after we die.

When I was on my mission I had dinner with a couple who were Calvinists. The guy was pretty high-brow, but I worked up the courage to ask him what he thought of a baby being born who didn't happen to be elect dying, and going straight to hell for eternity? He thought for a moment and said, "tough", and we continued to eat.

What if there is a creator God who elects some to live with him and not others? If there is such a God, then "it is what it is".

The part I somewhat agree with you on is that we must accept reality when it's counterintuitive if the evidence becomes overwhelming. I must accept quantum mechanics not because it makes any sense to me, but because of the evidence for it. Suppose we die and stand before God and God makes it known to both of us that Calvinists were right, that we aren't elect, and that we now inherit our reward of hellfire for eternity. Now suppose we find ourselves swept away by angels and dropped into the lake of fire, and we scream with pain and it's worse than any earthly pain we ever experienced and this is but the first few seconds of a pain that shall last for eternity. At this point, I for one will admit that it "is what it is", and that I don't think it's fair, and that a giant lake of fire makes no sense to me is superfluous to the fact that this is exactly where I am. Would you also agree that in such a situation that any misgivings about the fairness of predestination and endless torture are superfluous to the fact that here you are, it's really happening, and hell is really real?

[MG 2.0]

Right. Really deep thoughts.

Also, if there is no creator god, which, absent verifiable evidence of such should, I believe, be the default assumption, it still is what it is.

Exactly! Either way, what we see is what we see. So by that token it is not unreasonable to believe in God. If He exists, it would still be what it is.

Draw?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What matters, or what would matter, is what part we do or don't play in the "it". The question is whether or not the "it" includes continuing as a sentient being after we die.

When I was on my mission I had dinner with a couple who were Calvinists. The guy was pretty high-brow, but I worked up the courage to ask him what he thought of a baby being born who didn't happen to be elect dying, and going straight to hell for eternity? He thought for a moment and said, "tough", and we continued to eat.

What if there is a creator God who elects some to live with him and not others? If there is such a God, then "it is what it is".

The part I somewhat agree with you on is that we must accept reality when it's counterintuitive if the evidence becomes overwhelming.

I know you think I’m misapplying it…but here we go again, Sorites Paradox/principle. Who decides if the evidence is overwhelming if smart folks on both sides of the ‘God divide’ are at least equally sure the other side is not looking at all the evidence?

There are always “What if’s? On both sides of the divide.

Folks that look at Fine Tuning would think that it is counterintuitive for those that brush it off to do so.

When all is said and done it is not unreasonable to believe in a creator God. In the view of others it is not unreasonable to not believe in God.

It is what it is.

Regards,
MG