Is it not illogical to continue to live & to create new life?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@GontlemangSegolodi ;  It is not illogical for the one who knows our Creator, Jesus Christ, and His eschatological purposes relevant to Time and Eternity to desire to exist and do His will and honor Him by faith and obedience. Those who serve the World will perish in futility and nihilism, but those who serve our Creator through obedience to His will for our life, they find purpose and meaning knowing that this World is NOT our home...unfathomable joy and peace are on the horizon for those who love Elohim and honor Him by faith.

Barnardot

@GontlemangSegolodi ;For more information, check out my Amazon published book "Promortalism" that explores the topic in greater detail.

And for more information on what mortality is how about you go jump off a roof?

MayCaesar

GontlemangSegolodi said:

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & both serve the same purpose, which is obedience of the laws of physics. However, the non living things can do this job by themselves, meaning that the existence of living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world. Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, “problems” here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn’t matter. It could be anything, no matter how big (wanting to run for president) or small (wanting to go to the toilet). This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total genocide, to avoid the need for food production.

1) Your first argument seems to imply that simplicity is preferable to complexity. Why? I would also point out that the argument can be reversed: since the living things can do this job by themselves, the existence of non-living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world, therefore it is more logical to make the world simpler by converting the already existing non-living things into living.

2) If morality is a fictitious concept, then there seems to be no moral obligation to both continuing to live / creating new life, and not continuing to live / not creating new life. If anything, it suggests that everything is permissible, does it not?

3) But desires have two sides to them: when they are not satisfied, the conscious being experiences pain - but when they are satisfied, he experiences pleasure. Desires add both highs and lows to otherwise neutral existence. By taking the desires away, you take both the highs and the lows away.
In my case, for instance, I believe that the badness of the lows is far offset by the goodness of the highs: I am okay with working hard towards something and making serious sacrifices in the process, given how sweet achieving that something is. Why would you take that away from someone by taking all desires away from them?

I think that you have spent a lot of time pondering these issues and your position is very deep and nuanced (more nuanced than you could demonstrate in a small post on an online board), but it seems that you ran into one of the "philosophical traps" that take one's thinking away from constructive directions. It just does not seem to me that the search in the direction in which you are making it right now will lead to betterment of your life, and if so, is it not logical to change it?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;I think that you have spent a lot of time pondering these issues and your position is very deep and nuanced

Ive just got to say that this guy is a total screw head and that was a spam topic any way. He will never reply because all he did was bot the same crap to all the debate sites.

Just saying.