What's your biggest fear?

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Well I guess all of that falls upon what grants true satisfaction, hedonism in the classical sense of material/sensual wealth/pleasure is an ephemeral joy, and not particularly satisfying in the long run. If you gain satisfaction through self-actualisation/meeting your potential/eudaimonia/helping people or any other more admirable desires, why does it matter if you do it for the pleasure, or for the output? Is intent really that important?

Not really, but it creates a situation that encourages things like the wealth disparity gap and economic imperialism.

"I'm gonna get mine."

Also transcendence is potentially possible without need for an afterlife. I can understand what you mean about living in eternity, and growing to understand each other and put aside hate, it's a beautiful thing to potentially have, yet transhumanism and posthumanism are intellectual movements which are striving for that end as well. We can still achieve a higher form of existence without need of an afterlife. Indeed we need not even fear death if transhumanism can meet the goals it desires.

And if that ever happens in my lifetime then it is likely I would agree to that. But it's not something guaranteed.

But you're not an atheist are you? Or perhaps agnostic, hoping for the existence of a higher power?

I was, once, but scientific arguments convinced me there must be some form of higher power.

I just lack the faith element.

Perhaps, I haven't studied Buddhism particularly much, and whilst I was a fan of Nietzche in my teens, I never read about his theory of eternal return. I thought I came up with the idea one day, but then I watched a video of Bill Hicks and he made similar statements and it just fuelled my belief further.

Eternal return (also known as "eternal recurrence") is a concept which posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a self-similar form an infinite number of times across infinite time and/or infinite space.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Not really, but it creates a situation that encourages things like the wealth disparity gap and economic imperialism.

"I'm gonna get mine."

That is certainly true, although even when the majority of the world was religious, money for the sake of money was still a common goal. Religious thought has clearly failed at pushing equality.

And if that ever happens in my lifetime then it is likely I would agree to that. But it's not something guaranteed.

Fair enough.

I was, once, but scientific arguments convinced me there must be some form of higher power.

I just lack the faith element.

Care to elaborate? The idea that scientific arguments would lead you away from atheism is pretty interesting.


As for the eternal return theory, I have no opinion, I don't know if the universe is immortal and I don't particularly care either. I highly doubt this is the only universe.

Hillary Clinton

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

That is certainly true, although even when the majority of the world was religious, money for the sake of money was still a common goal. Religious thought has clearly failed at pushing equality.

True.

But religious thought pushes the idea of equality.

Without it there is less incentive/motive to do so.

Care to elaborate? The idea that scientific arguments would lead you away from atheism is pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by Matt Slick

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe.

As for the eternal return theory, I have no opinion, I don't know if the universe is immortal and I don't particularly care either. I highly doubt this is the only universe.

Multiverse theorist?

Dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by Great White North

True.

But religious thought pushes the idea of equality.

Without it there is less incentive/motive to do so.

Perhaps you're correct. I'll need more time to think on that.

Originally Posted by Matt Slick

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe.

This is view is intellectually bankrupt though, it's not falsifiable and hardly logical. It posits that a god need no creator or birthtime, but why does a universe need a creator?

At the end of the day, if an unobservable (also unscientific) god does not need a creator, why would the universe? The universe does not need to bring its self into existence, it may have just happened for no reason, or at least a reason we do not yet understand. That quote seems to act like we know everything there is to know, and what is a mystery is unexplainable, as opposed to merely unknown.


Sure we don't know know how the process happened, but why does such mystery need to be answered with an intellectual dead end. Sure Atheism may not have any answers as to how we got here, but that doesn't mean Science cannot. That wasn't really scientific at all.

Multiverse theorist?

Not particularly, I don't care to have a strong stance either way, I don't know in the end, but I think it's close minded to say that there can only be one universe when we're so ignorant about the nature of the universe in the first place.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

This is view is intellectually bankrupt though, it's not falsifiable and hardly logical. It posits that a god need no creator or birthtime, but why does a universe need a creator?

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

Theoretically speaking, the universe is bound by its own laws. Such as the law of causality. It cannot "cause itself", further, as he says. it can't have always existed.

Anything outside this universe would not be bound by the laws of this universe. Like the law of causality.

At the end of the day, if an unobservable (also unscientific) god does not need a creator, why would the universe? The universe does not need to bring its self into existence, it may have just happened for no reason, or at least a reason we do not yet understand. That quote seems to act like we know everything there is to know, and what is a mystery is unexplainable, as opposed to merely unknown.

I tend to consider it the logical conclusion given current data.

Sure we don't know know how the process happened, but why does such mystery need to be answered with an intellectual dead end. Sure Atheism may not have any answers as to how we got here, but that doesn't mean Science cannot. That wasn't really scientific at all.

Second Law of Thermodynamics and that thing about infinite time seems physic-ky to me.

Not particularly, I don't care to have a strong stance either way, I don't know in the end, but I think it's close minded to say that there can only be one universe when we're so ignorant about the nature of the universe in the first place.

Agreed. That's why I believe in extraterrestrial life.

Originally Posted by John Keats

When I have fears that I may cease to be
Before my pen has glean'd my teeming brain,
Before high pil`d books, in charact'ry,
Hold like rich garners the full-ripen'd grain;
When I behold, upon the night's starr'd face,
Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,
And feel that I may never live to trace
Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;
And when I feel, fair creature of an hour!
That I shall never look upon thee more,
Never have relish in the faery power
Of unreflecting love;—then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think,
Till Love and Fame to nothingness do sink.

I'm scared of death because I still have things I want to do.

God willing, death is kind. If death is kind, I may just cease to exist and not have the opportunity to float around ethereally regretting all the things I never did.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Theoretically speaking, the universe is bound by its own laws. Such as the law of causality. It cannot "cause itself", further, as he says. it can't have always existed.

Anything outside this universe would not be bound by the laws of this universe. Like the law of causality.

Perhaps we do not understand the laws of causality as well as we should. I find the idea that we merely do not yet know/understand the nature of the universe well enough, a more likely truth, than there is a high power who has no creator that created the universe. I guess in the end neither of us know and there is no real answer yet.

I tend to consider it the logical conclusion given current data.

I'm not so sure, personally.

Second Law of Thermodynamics and that thing about infinite time seems physic-ky to me.

It certainly is a more enlightened view than a purely creationist view of the universe certainly, but it still makes an unfounded leap of faith at the very end. Sure science doesn't have the answers atm either, but his one is an unobservable and thus unscientific point of view. Logical perhaps, but not sound.

Agreed. That's why I believe in extraterrestrial life.

+1

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Perhaps we do not understand the laws of causality as well as we should. I find the idea that we merely do not yet know/understand the nature of the universe well enough, a more likely truth, than there is a high power who has no creator that created the universe. I guess in the end neither of us know and there is no real answer yet.

Agree to disagree.

Part of it is logical conclusion, part is desperate faith.

It certainly is a more enlightened view than a purely creationist view of the universe certainly, but it still makes an unfounded leap of faith at the very end. Sure science doesn't have the answers atm either, but his one is an unobservable and thus unscientific point of view. Logical perhaps, but not sound.

Pure creationism was debunked by fossils really.

He seems to do more of a "God of the Gaps" thing at the end. "None of these work, so God is the default."

+1

One day we will meet them.

That Matt Slicks guy presents an interesting binary when he mentions that the universe has to either come about personally or impersonally.

Why is this? Where does this claim come from? That's kind of self-centered isn't it? To assume that there are only "people" and "everything else." Sounds like some self-interest to me. What about the whole spectrum of matter and objects and concepts and things?

I'm afraid of dying alone and pushing away the people I love most.
Thoseeeeeee are the main things.

Also i was adopted when I was a baby and met my family when I was 13 for the first time and again when 15. And I've always kept my adopted family seperate from my life but my brother added me on facebook and tries to talk to me and when he does i literally can't talk to him or anything.

I just get really terrified about that life merging with the one I have now.
I've been trying to keep these things seperate for so long and now it's like they're trying to merge together and I don't want that. It just seems really scary to me.

Starfish.



Sends chills down my spine just thinking about it.

Originally Posted by RustyZora

Being completely and utterly alone. Not another human being on earth. But it's funny, how another one of my great fears is people. I hate people. I hate being around large groups of them. I'm uncomfortable even around a small crowd. I only like being around friends family, and maybe a forum like this.

Exactly THIS!

I am afraid of not understanding my own feelings.

Dont ask why, but i fear balloons more than anything in life. I have had a taruntulla crawl around my torse and have had scorpions rest on my hands. But--dear lord--I cant stand balloons. I freak out

I have quite a few things I'm scared of. Death, zombies(which are unrealistic yet could they be? lol), tornadoes, apparently now earthquakes/tsunamis, clowns, plagues. From my list apparently it seems that I'm scared of anything that can kill...

I fear losing my intelligence and turning into an idiot.

I fear so many things. So many...

But I fear losing the people I love the most.
Oh, and living a life alone scares me too much. 0_0

The only thing I'm deeply afraid of is being locked up. I suppose to put it simply - the loss of freedom.

Other than that I don't have a lot of fear. Although I do hate it when someone leaves, and you realize you might never see them again. They could walk out the door and get hit by that one in one million meteor and die. They could get hit by a semi as soon as they get on the road. So many possibilities.