Codrus

Please dont see this as a personal attack towards you by any means, I'm only using our encounter and what I ended up saying to speak out about supposition now. I'm worried ultimately about the extent the idea may be potentially hindering knowledge and the consideration of foreign influences, and it's difficult for me to think of anything worse.

I stated in the comment that I'm linking what Socrates had to say and the story of Jonah, and what Jesus really meant when he referenced it.

It's looking at religion from a philosophical point of view.

There's a bad habit on this platform of disagreeing and down voting, without stating specifically as to why. Wouldn't it make more sense to share why I'm wrong? Because I'm not necessarily claiming I'm absolutely right, but I'm also not saying I'm wrong either—despite being absolutely okay with being wrong, because then I've only have found what's right.

Please tell me why I'm wrong so I can delete the post and we can all move on too what is right.

Hey just wanted to make sure I explain myself a little more clearly, especially considering it sounds like you may have been a man of a God or creator of some kind at one time or another.

The story of Jonah teaches that the knowledge of the value of virtue, selflessness and goodness needs to be taught; it's a knowledge that needs to gained. Because like the story of Jonah teaches at the very end of the story: some people don't even have the ability to tell from their left or right hand. Or in other words: ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, nobody can know until they know. The now pejorative word is neither an insult, nor is it insulting; it's nothing more than an adjective to explain my or someones lack of knowledge to anything in particular.

All hate and evil can be catorgorized as this inevitable lack of knowledge—thus warranting any degree of it infinite forgiveness, because again: you don't know until you know, this would of course include the lack of knowledge that leads to hate, evil, and iniquity.

Jesus would always refer to God as "Father" because that's how he was taught about what this God consists of, as having a parents kind of love for you—rememebe the very beginning of The Gospels, where he becomes lost and is found at a temple? And is taught of God as being his "Father;" if you had a child and they committed suicide, would you want them to burn eternally in a lake of fire for it? Of course not. And Jesus didn't know who his real father was correct? Interesting right? Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that everything we know of God now has came from a collection of blind men, telling other blind men that what they have to say should be held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a God and an afterlife (of a "heaven"). Everything ever since Jesus—Paul's letters, The Nicene Creed, The Book of Revelation, the idea that a God of love unconditionally would bother with conditions like having to believe Jesus was divine or any of the seemingly infinite amount of external conditions that need to be met to call yourself a "true Christian." Despite Jesus calling the Pharisees as hypocritical every chance he could get and when his disciples told him of some external thing that they needed (bread in the circumstance linked) he would dismiss it as completely unnecessary: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:5-20&version=NIV

Jesus calling out Pharisees: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2023&version=NIV 8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

I'd like to end with my one of my favorite things Jesus said, on the the Sermon On the Mount (debately, the most publicized point of his teaching, thus, the most accurate) that lead to the connection between what Socrates had to say and Jesus: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=ESV

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g]

Anything more then yes or no regarding the influences that come from the idea of a heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (people and what their presently sharing in), only comes from a worry; a need; a fear for oneself: a selfishness. This is what I meant when I said it doesn't matter what the meaning of existence is exactly, because questions like that only come from our sense of selfishness, and only lead to division, i.e., religion or more theoretical sciences and philosophy; they pale in comparison to the truth that is our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially collectively.

There being an isn't is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation. And to say there isn't an is would be supposition based off your standards. Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief, this would make both there being an is and an isn't a supposition; this wouldn't/shouldn't make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because both there being an is and an isn't suppositions based off metaphysical assumptions.

So you're saying scientific theory is not worth the time and energy to even consider? Scientific theory being based off metaphysical assumptions. If so, you're saying The Big Bang wasn't worth not only the time and effort to think up in the first place, but not worthy of anyone's consideration?

From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.

From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.

Why bother with philosophy at all then, if not to ask why?

I remember when I held the same perspective. I like how Gandhi put it: I've made it through the "Sahara of atheism."

It's not about me.

How does one deliver their opinions in a detailed way without falling into the label of pontificating? Why would it matter if it is pontificating? Does that make whatever is being pontificated hold any more or less value? And if so, why?

I wish you'd at least consider it.