Dear Yuyutsu,

Now you are telling me I shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations. You have been spouting your nonsense about God which has no justification whatsoever but is just a matter of unsubstantiated belief. Look to yourself. I see no reason that I or any thinking person should accept your nonsense.

Dear David F.,

«Now you are telling me I shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations»

In regard to this very particular issue of where people find joy:

«There is a joy in [1]finding out about these processes. There is a joy in [2]observing nature, [3]making a living, [4]learning, [5]contributing to and enjoying the arts»

There are plenty of people who find no joy in all these 5 categories: some find joy in only some of these while there are others who do not find joy in even one of the above list. In my particular case, I find joy in just two of the above (#4 and #5).

Were you suggesting that everyone ought to enjoy the same things as you enjoy?
That was the "sweeping generalisations" I referred to, nothing beyond that.



«your nonsense about God which has no justification whatsoever but is just a matter of unsubstantiated belief.»

I made a very logical point:

Had God been a human invention, then God would be mortal.

Neither theists nor atheists believe that God is mortal.
Neither theists nor atheists believe that a mortal is worthy of being worshiped or referred to as 'God'.

Theists believe that God, whom they worship, is immortal.
Atheists believe that God does not exist (neither as a mortal nor as an immortal), end of story, hence that the theists actually worship nothing.

But your claim that "God is an idea" is odd and is shared neither with theists, nor with atheists, nor with agnostics.
- Are you next going to claim, for example, that both heavens and earth (humans included) were created by an idea of the [yet uncreated] human mind? or that a mere idea rewards and punishes people for their good/bad acts?

That which you refer to as "nonsense" is merely a Reductio ad absurdum which I used to refute your earlier statement - a standard logical procedure.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … there is only one absolute Truth … »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu, and there are as many absolute truths as there are observers.

However, each observer may express his own absolute truth more or less correctly, more or less clearly, and more or less completely. Despite its imperfections, the truth of each observer remains absolute provided they are not intentional.

As I see it, Yuyutsu, truth is simply the intention of the observer not to mislead anyone. It has no existence beyond the observer. If there is no observer, there is no truth – just reality and unrelated facts. Nor can there be truth if there is an observer but no expression of what he observed.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You merely spout more nonsense. You stated, "Had God been a human invention, then God would be mortal."

All fictional characters are human inventions. No fictional character is mortal.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

By definition, if one observer expresses one truth and another observer expresses another, then these truths are not absolute but relative to the particular observer who utters them.

Beyond that is the absolute Truth, which does not depend on anything: neither on an observer nor on time, etc.
While I call it "Truth", you preferred to call it "reality" - and well, what's in a name? I have no objections to that: if you rather call God 'Reality' then so be it.

---

Dear David F.,

«No fictional character is mortal.»

Well of course they are: fictional characters were once born, when some author invented them, now they exist (as a human invention in the minds of people, mainly children) but eventually they will be forgotten and no longer exist, eventually each fictional character will die, will cease to exist - it could take a decade, a century, some millennia perhaps, or at the longest until humans are extinct and no humans is left to remember it.

Here is yet another simple proof why God cannot be a human invention:

A. Human inventions exist (as inventions, as mental objects, but still).
B. God does not exist.

How possibly could something that exists be equated with something that does not?

Banjo Paterson, David F- I might provide some more information later on why Nietzsche had a problem with prioritizing truth over meaning.

One of the complaints was seemingly that science was descriptive (logos) but without value and meaning (telos). To science to steal is the same as not to steal- just different possibilities in state space- but in many ethical frameworks including traditionalist ones- stealing is usually bad.