NationStates Jolt Archive

I cannot bring myself to acknowledge that life has no purpose or meaning. I don't see how we can ever prove it, but i don't see any way of disproving that life has meaning either.

What then is the meaning?

I don't believe that we create our own meaning and purpose for our lives, but, since i believe in God, believe that he, and only he, is the source of all meaning. If God created us, then he must have had a purpose for our lives, this purpose being to enter into a reciprocal relationship with him.

Even if you don't believe in God, that still doesn't mean that life doesn't have a meaning.

Any thoughts on what we're doing here??

wonder how quickly someone will say 42...

I cannot bring myself to acknowledge that life has no purpose or meaning. I don't see how we can ever prove it, but i don't see any way of disproving that life has meaning either.

What then is the meaning?

I don't believe that we create our own meaning and purpose for our lives, but, since i believe in God, believe that he, and only he, is the source of all meaning. If God created us, then he must have had a purpose for our lives, this purpose being to enter into a reciprocal relationship with him.

Even if you don't believe in God, that still doesn't mean that life doesn't have a meaning.

Any thoughts on what we're doing here??
As I've pointed out before:

Humanity as a whole, and each of us individually, is an inseparable part of all that lives.

Human beings can positively influence changes in other living things through prayer and meditation, and are, so far as we know, the only living things which can do so.

Having this ability imposes upon us responsibility toward other living things.

Therefore one of the primary purposes of human beings, and of each human life, is to protect and nurture life in all its forms.

Supposing that a god exists in the jewish/christian/islamic sense, God has put us on this earth as a sort of experiment, rather playfully, to see what happens.

He then tried to help us along, or had a bit of fun with us back around the time of the old testament, much like a child setting ants alight with a magnafiying glass, and now finds us rather boring and has moved on, checking back only momentarily.

Our purpose was to live up to his expectations(ten commandments?), and we have, for the most part, failed miserably.


But that's just me.

Anyone ever seen that "Far Side" comic about good in his kitchen?

It was rather funny.

A white bearded man wearing a chef's hat (God) is in a kitchen wich has on it's shelfs ingredients in salt shaker like jars labeled with things like "Light skinned people, Medium Skinned people, Dark skinned people"

God has the globe in a large frying pan, only about the sieze of a basketball, not even, and he has in his hands one of the large jars.

He is saying "And just to make it interesting....." and he pours the contents of the jar on liberally.

The Jar is labeled "Jerks"

wonder how quickly someone will say 42...
42 - looks like it took five replies!

As I've pointed out before:

Humanity as a whole, and each of us individually, is an inseparable part of all that lives.

Human beings can positively influence changes in other living things through prayer and meditation, and are, so far as we know, the only living things which can do so.

Having this ability imposes upon us responsibility toward other living things.

Therefore one of the primary purposes of human beings, and of each human life, is to protect and nurture life in all its forms.

Having the ability to do something does not entail responsibility to do it - we have the unique ability to commit genocide or more generally to commit moral evils, but of course this doesn't mean that we should.

Surely the concept of responsibility must come from something which transcends our existence. Otherwise we are simply creating responsibilities for ourselves, which cannot thus be said to be the true purpose of humanity.

Supposing that a god exists in the jewish/christian/islamic sense, God has put us on this earth as a sort of experiment, rather playfully, to see what happens.

He then tried to help us along, or had a bit of fun with us back around the time of the old testament, much like a child setting ants alight with a magnafiying glass, and now finds us rather boring and has moved on, checking back only momentarily.

Our purpose was to live up to his expectations(ten commandments?), and we have, for the most part, failed miserably.


But that's just me.

So basically no purpose at all then? How can our purpose be to live up to God's expectations, whatever they may be (they cannot be the 10 commandments) if God created us as an experiment to mess around with? This doesn't seem to follow

Physically speaking, when you get down to it, we are all just changes in the organisations of molecules. Life, ultimately, is just that. In that sense, in the whole scheme of things, life means absolutely nothing. Biologically speaking, the purpose of life is to survive long enough to pass on the genes in your body. Attract a mate, copulate, have children, raise the children, and then your genes' continuity is pretty much guaranteed.

But, personally, I believe that with our bulbous brains, we can choose whatever purpose we like. I myself believe that, since nothing matters at all in the long run, that the purpose of life is to enjoy it as much as you can while it lasts, and do your best to do so with others, and then you die.

i was feeling down because of this very question the other day. you know what i learned? not to think about it :D

Physically speaking, when you get down to it, we are all just changes in the organisations of molecules. Life, ultimately, is just that. In that sense, in the whole scheme of things, life means absolutely nothing. Biologically speaking, the purpose of life is to survive long enough to pass on the genes in your body. Attract a mate, copulate, have children, raise the children, and then your genes' continuity is pretty much guaranteed.

But, personally, I believe that with our bulbous brains, we can choose whatever purpose we like. I myself believe that, since nothing matters at all in the long run, that the purpose of life is to enjoy it as much as you can while it lasts, and do your best to do so with others, and then you die.

No innate or intrinsic purpose then? Given the very fact that we exist, don't you think that there must be some reason as to why we are here? Don't you think that what we do DOES matter in the long run?

1st thought:We are here as custodians of the planet (we suck at that)
2nd thought: The purpose is whatever you yourself perceive it to be (sounds kind of Matrixlike )
3rd thought: We are here to learn, once we learn whatever it is we were sent here for we can die happy ( now if only we got sent with cheat sheets )
:D ;)

Life is the mechanism in which carbon-based molecules (they could be silicone based) or sets thereof reproduce their likeness.
Anarchists of the world unite!

Physically speaking, when you get down to it, we are all just changes in the organisations of molecules. Life, ultimately, is just that. In that sense, in the whole scheme of things, life means absolutely nothing. Biologically speaking, the purpose of life is to survive long enough to pass on the genes in your body. Attract a mate, copulate, have children, raise the children, and then your genes' continuity is pretty much guaranteed.

But, personally, I believe that with our bulbous brains, we can choose whatever purpose we like. I myself believe that, since nothing matters at all in the long run, that the purpose of life is to enjoy it as much as you can while it lasts, and do your best to do so with others, and then you die.

Depending however on what you belive, life may have an actual purpose but still, let's not go there because it'll wind down to another long arguement that probably won't get us anywhere.

Anyone ever seen that "Far Side" comic about good in his kitchen?

It was rather funny.

A white bearded man wearing a chef's hat (God) is in a kitchen wich has on it's shelfs ingredients in salt shaker like jars labeled with things like "Light skinned people, Medium Skinned people, Dark skinned people"

God has the globe in a large frying pan, only about the sieze of a basketball, not even, and he has in his hands one of the large jars.

He is saying "And just to make it interesting....." and he pours the contents of the jar on liberally.

The Jar is labeled "Jerks"


hahaha, yes, I think that I've seen that one....
Have you seen the Monty Python Meaning of Life?

I think that the meaning of life is to use what you have been given to really get to know yourself, and to help other people to do the same. After all, if the meaning of life was to help others, there wouldn't really be any reason to mix in the jerks to make it interesting. Think about it - when someone insults you, a lot of the time you are likely to sit mope about it and think to yourself, "is that really true?" Wheather you pick yes or no, you've come to know yourself a little bit better by taking out the time to look at yourself and decide, and possibly try to fix yourself - thanks to the jerk with the big mouth who said anything about you in the first place.

1st thought:We are here as custodians of the planet (we suck at that)
2nd thought: The purpose is whatever you yourself perceive it to be (sounds kind of Matrixlike )
3rd thought: We are here to learn, once we learn whatever it is we were sent here for we can die happy ( now if only we got sent with cheat sheets )
:D ;)

If you think that the purpose is whatever you youself perceive it to be, then thoughts 1 and 3 surely aren't our purpose, just what you perceive our purpose to be. My perception of purpose may be very different, such as some horrible racist purpose. How then can you stop me from believing in my purpose, and tell me its wrong?

If purpose is relative to the individual, then everything becomes relative, morality included. This in my opinion is unnacceptable.

1st thought:We are here as custodians of the planet (we suck at that)
2nd thought: The purpose is whatever you yourself perceive it to be (sounds kind of Matrixlike )
3rd thought: We are here to learn, once we learn whatever it is we were sent here for we can die happy ( now if only we got sent with cheat sheets )
:D ;)

Quite honestly, your opinion and many others sound to me as though lots of people belive that "humans" are in total control (or at least greatly in control) of what happens. Otherwise I agree with your second and third point (especially about the part about us sucking at keeping the planet clean).

hahaha, yes, I think that I've seen that one....
Have you seen the Monty Python Meaning of Life?

I think that the meaning of life is to use what you have been given to really get to know yourself, and to help other people to do the same. After all, if the meaning of life was to help others, there wouldn't really be any reason to mix in the jerks to make it interesting. Think about it - when someone insults you, a lot of the time you are likely to sit mope about it and think to yourself, "is that really true?" Wheather you pick yes or no, you've come to know yourself a little bit better by taking out the time to look at yourself and decide, and possibly try to fix yourself - thanks to the jerk with the big mouth who said anything about you in the first place.

lol. So what your saying is that jerks make the world have reason? Never thought of it that way. True.

Quite honestly, your opinion and many others sound to me as though lots of people belive that "humans" are in total control (or at least greatly in control) of what happens. Otherwise I agree with your second and third point (especially about the part about us sucking at keeping the planet clean).

Do you think we're in control of what happens? If we give ourselves purpose, then i guess we are in control of our destiny. But that's not what i think

Look, as you read this, doubt your own existance.
Doing it? Good. ;)
Ok, now there are two possibilities for that doubt. It can be right, or it can be wrong.
:mad: If the doubt is right: You are a doubter, therefore you are.
:) If the doubt is wrong: You are. By definition.
Either way, we exist.
Next, perceive that everything has a cause. However, that is impossible, because something would have had to have been the origianal cause. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.

Ok, now you must realize that is impossible for you to do anything without a reason. Try it. Go on! See, it can't be done. If you did somehow get close, it was only because you just read this.

Now realize that all the reasons lead back to either "good" or a misperceived impression of "good" i.e. Hitler. Worst bloke in a while. Hitler did the Holocaust out of the good of a lack of the sins and problems of the Jews. We rape because sex is reproduction, fun, and an expression of intimacy. All these evils are really for an imperfect good purpose.

So there is a creator who made us, and he made us with reason, a guiding principle. He made us with reason, so he must be reasonable. Why? Because he created us, nessicarily, out of only what he was, because He is the uncaused cause, and there would not have been anything else out of which to make us.

So He made us with a purpose.

This is obviously a short, incomplete proof, but if you want more, read Rene Descartes.

So basically no purpose at all then? How can our purpose be to live up to God's expectations, whatever they may be (they cannot be the 10 commandments) if God created us as an experiment to mess around with? This doesn't seem to follow


Why can they not be the ten commandments?

Fine, if not his expectations, then what he wants (again, assuming his existence)

But if the ten commandments are virtually meaningless, why did he bother?

Why can they not be the ten commandments?

Fine, if not his expectations, then what he wants (again, assuming his existence)

But if the ten commandments are virtually meaningless, why did he bother?

Remember the 10 commandments are in the new testament, which, as showed by Jesus Christ, must be viewed in light of later revelation. Moreover, the 10 commandments give us a list of 10 things not to do. They are not meant to be a summary of the purpose of human existence.

This is obviously a short, incomplete proof, but if you want more, read Rene Descartes.

Never!

Who is that?

Remember the 10 commandments are in the new testament, which, as showed by Jesus Christ, must be viewed in light of later revelation. Moreover, the 10 commandments give us a list of 10 things not to do. They are not meant to be a summary of the purpose of human existence.


By that logic

Meaning in Life=Do not do a bunch of things

The meaning of life is to die.

No innate or intrinsic purpose then? Given the very fact that we exist, don't you think that there must be some reason as to why we are here? Don't you think that what we do DOES matter in the long run?
Nope. Not at all.

1st thought:We are here as custodians of the planet (we suck at that)
2nd thought: The purpose is whatever you yourself perceive it to be (sounds kind of Matrixlike )
3rd thought: We are here to learn, once we learn whatever it is we were sent here for we can die happy ( now if only we got sent with cheat sheets )
:D ;)
I think we are all here to learn. And I don't mean academically. Everyone learns in their own way. It's about the experiences in this life, good and bad. Some people learn by charishing all life. Other's learn by taking it away. Some learn through acheivement, and others learn from deprivation. And then there are those that learn by theorizing about human nature and the meaning of life. :p Lots of people say life is about fufilling something, but I don't think that's true. What you get out of life is up to you, but the purpose of it is to learn.

Why does life have to have a meaning? Can't it all be a big coincidence?

Maybe we're just spheres in that-game-with-the-slanty-board-with-all-the-pins-in-it-where-the-balls-bounce-around, bouncing along until we come to rest in whatever location fate chooses.

120 points! Win! :D

[QUOTE=Robert E Lee II]Look, as you read this, doubt your own existance.
Doing it? Good. ;)
Ok, now there are two possibilities for that doubt. It can be right, or it can be wrong.
:mad: If the doubt is right: You are a doubter, therefore you are.
:) If the doubt is wrong: You are. By definition.
Either way, we exist.

Ok, we exist. But this doesn't tell us anything about ourselves, it simply shows that when we entertain the proposition or conception in our mind that we are doubting, then the statement "we exist" is incapable of being falsified. But existence, unlike Mr Descartes seems to assume is not logically a predicate that something can either have or lack. to say that "i exist" is not to give me the attribute of existence but is to say that there is an x in the world, such that the statement "i am x" is true.

Next, perceive that everything has a cause. However, that is impossible, because something would have had to have been the origianal cause. For lack of a better word, let's call that God.

Is it impossible? Logically, i think that it is conceivable that there is an infinite regress of causes. Also our knowledge of the relation of cause and effect is based not on demonstrative reasoning, but reasoning based on experience. Any argument based on experience presupposes that the future will resemble the past. That the course of nature may change implies no contradiction, so there are no demonstrative arguments that show that the future will resemble the past.. So any argument that the future will resemble the past must be based on experience. But all such arguments presuppose that the future will resemble the past: they are thus circular. It is impossible, therefore, that my arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Since any argument is either demonstrative or based on experience, there are therefore no (non-circular) arguments that show that the future will resemble the past. (read Hume)

Ok, now you must realize that is impossible for you to do anything without a reason. Try it. Go on! See, it can't be done. If you did somehow get close, it was only because you just read this.

Logically it is conceivable that we can do things without a reason.

Now realize that all the reasons lead back to either "good" or a misperceived impression of "good" i.e. Hitler. Worst bloke in a while. Hitler did the Holocaust out of the good of a lack of the sins and problems of the Jews. We rape because sex is reproduction, fun, and an expression of intimacy. All these evils are really for an imperfect good purpose.

Evil is a misperceived impression of "good?" i don't think those who are suffering at the moment would agree with you here. I think that evil is a reality.

So there is a creator who made us, and he made us with reason, a guiding principle. He made us with reason, so he must be reasonable. Why? Because he created us, nessicarily, out of only what he was, because He is the uncaused cause, and there would not have been anything else out of which to make us.

If God made us with the faculty of reason, then it doesn't follow that he is reasonable, but that he is rational. God didn't create us out of himself, but out of nothing. If he created us from him, then we are partly divine. Are you a pantheist?

So He made us with a purpose.

If God created us, then he made us with a purpose, i agree with this.

By that logic

Meaning in Life=Do not do a bunch of things

That's not a meaning or a purpose. You are confusing what the 10 commandments are meant to be. Look at Genesis if you want to discover what it means to be human - we are created in the "image" and "likeness" of God. To be human is to relate to God according to the Bible.

Well obviously our purpose in life is to assure the sucess and dominance of our personal gene line and that of our species.

But given that that is an unconcious motive i think you really are goin to have to think up your own purpose in life.

Why does life have to have a meaning? Can't it all be a big coincidence?



It doesn't have to have a meaning, but are you really happy if you think this?

It doesn't have to have a meaning, but are you really happy if you think this?
Yes. Am i missing something? What's so bad about my life having no meaning? No pressure!

EDIT: No, seriously, someone explain coz i'm worried now that i haven't considered a major downside or something.

It doesn't have to have a meaning, but are you really happy if you think this?
I am. Only those who are too insecure and swelled with a sense of self-importance to believe that they must have a purpose could rationally think that they actually mean anything.

Yes. Am i missing something? What's so bad about my life having no meaning? No pressure!

EDIT: No, seriously, someone explain coz i'm worried now that i haven't considered a major downside or something.

Well it depends on what you mean by happiness. I don't believe that if our life has no meaning or purpose, then true happiness will never be achieved, and in fact, will not exist. Of course, we will experience good times, but it will all be temporal and transient.

And any kind of teleological perspective on morality is lost too. Morality has no purpose, but becomes a set of human rules, designed to be overridden when we feel like it.

Then major downside which you speak of is that you will never be satisfied in a complete sense as a human if you have no purpose. For you cannot be.

Why does life have to have a meaning? Can't it all be a big coincidence?

Maybe we're just spheres in that-game-with-the-slanty-board-with-all-the-pins-in-it-where-the-balls-bounce-around, bouncing along until we come to rest in whatever location fate chooses.

120 points! Win! :D
So, I take it you beleive in fate. Let me ask you this...What is fate without purpose?

I am. Only those who are too insecure and swelled with a sense of self-importance to believe that they must have a purpose could rationally think that they actually mean anything.

I completely disagree with your rather bold assertion. Explain please your contention that to think we have a purpose is not rational. What do you mean by rational? And surely insecurity and a swelling feel of self-importance are two opposites.

I completely disagree with your rather bold assertion. Explain please your contention that to think we have a purpose is not rational. What do you mean by rational? And surely insecurity and a swelling feel of self-importance are two opposites.
First of all, you seem to not realise that most egotists are insecure, and that is why they think that way. You know how they say that bullies are actually insecure and that's why they are bullies? Same concept. And my argument is that believing that you are significant enough to matter is just not rational. You are nothing more than a collection of molecules with a truly astounding level of complexity. But thinking you're anything other than a certain organisation of inconceivably small particles is just not rational. It's emotionally appealing to many people, but not intellectualy reasonable.

First of all, you seem to not realise that most egotists are insecure, and that is why they think that way. You know how they say that bullies are actually insecure and that's why they are bullies? Same concept. And my argument is that believing that you are significant enough to matter is just not rational. You are nothing more than a collection of molecules with a truly astounding level of complexity. But thinking you're anything other than a certain organisation of inconceivably small particles is just not rational. It's emotionally appealing to many people, but not intellectualy reasonable.

I agree with your thoughts on bullies and egotists. But that is not evidence that they are irrational in believing that life has a purpose. At the moment, you are making assertions without backing them up. You call it an argument, i believe it is mere assertion. If you could provide some evidence of this obvious irrational behavior of all those who contend we have a purpose, please do. Otherwise, i am not convinced.

Fish. A metric phuckton of fish.

:|

But that is not evidence that they are irrational in believing that life has a purpose. At the moment, you are making assertions without backing them up. You call it an argument, i believe it is mere assertion. If you could provide some evidence of this obvious irrational behavior of all those who contend we have a purpose, please do. Otherwise, i am not convinced.
Well, yes, I have not provided any actual evidence. I do not believe in a god, but I have no proof against it. This is an argument and an assertion, but there is little evidence. It is my belief that there is nothing other than the physical aspect to humans. I have no proof, but that is what I believe, and if this is true, we're nothing more than atoms.

First of all, you seem to not realise that most egotists are insecure, and that is why they think that way. You know how they say that bullies are actually insecure and that's why they are bullies? Same concept.

But are bullies swelling with self-importance. Surely if the egotist is insecure, then he is not really swelling with self-importance.

And my argument is that believing that you are significant enough to matter is just not rational.

At the moment it's not an argument.

You are nothing more than a collection of molecules with a truly astounding level of complexity.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine.

But thinking you're anything other than a certain organisation of inconceivably small particles is just not rational. It's emotionally appealing to many people, but not intellectualy reasonable.

I would like to think of myself as intellectually reasonable. Moreover, how about if i assert that NOT thinking you're anything other than a certain organistation of inconceivably small particles is just not rational.

It is certainly not the case that all people assert that life has a meaning solely for emotional appeal and some sort of security blanket.

I maintain that the meaning of life is table.

First off, why is the question always "What is the meaning of life?" Life is a noun, it is a thing, like a table. Do you ever ask "What is the meaning of table?" No. A table is just there, something we created and something we can change at will. We can break it, we can fix it, we can make it better, we can make it ugly, we can make it beautiful, we can polish it, and we can totally destroy it.

It's the same with life. We can do whatever we want with it, it's just a matter of choosing what we want to do. Making choices and living like you want to. That's the meaning of life.

It is certainly not the case that all people assert that life has a meaning solely for emotional appeal and some sort of security blanket.
Tell me, what other purpose does thinking you have meaning other than to make yourself feel better and more important? I believe that all purposes are self-assigned, and though nothing is effected in the long run, that life should be savoured while it lasts. And then you die. And your molecular structure is once again reorganised. I do not hold the delusion that I mean anything at all to the universe. Of course, I may be the delusional one here. Skepticism is the most important of all traits for anyone who wants to know anything, in my opinion.

I maintain that the meaning of life is table.

First off, why is the question always "What is the meaning of life?" Life is a noun, it is a thing, like a table. Do you ever ask "What is the meaning of table?" No. A table is just there, something we created and something we can change at will. We can break it, we can fix it, we can make it better, we can make it ugly, we can make it beautiful, we can polish it, and we can totally destroy it.

It's the same with life. We can do whatever we want with it, it's just a matter of choosing what we want to do. Making choices and living like you want to. That's the meaning of life.

How about changing the analogy to life being like a table that was given you for your birthday as a gift. But the table is not perfect, and out of gratitude to the one who gave it to you, it becomes your duty to care for your gift and to make it better. Although the table belongs to you, its ultimate owner is the person who gave it to you, to whom you owe thanks and a duty of obedience.

I like that one better myself.

Tell me, what other purpose does thinking you have meaning other than to make yourself feel better and more important? I believe that all purposes are self-assigned, and though nothing is effected in the long run, that life should be savoured while it lasts. And then you die. And your molecular structure is once again reorganised. I do not hold the delusion that I mean anything at all to the universe. Of course, I may be the delusional one here. Skepticism is the most important of all traits for anyone who wants to know anything, in my opinion.

Well, for me, human purpose finds its origins in genesis, when we are said to be created in the image of God - now this is not just to make me feel better and more important, but is to give important insight into what it means to be a human: in my opinion, being created in the image of God refers to the fact that God constitutes a particular being among all the other created beings to subsist in a particular and unique kind of relation with him. Primarily, perhaps, it shows that God, the creator, puts himself in a particular relationship to human beings, and that our nature is a result of our relationship to God. The doctrine of the imago Dei thus stresses the personal involvement of God within creation as well as the purpose of creation. Of course, this has important implications for the nature of human beings. Firstly, it affirms our freedom, since only in freedom can there be a real relationship of mutual love. Of course we are determined to a great extent by factors such as our psychological and genetic makeup, and our environment, but we have the power to direct and shape our lives. Freedom is the capacity and responsibility for us to determine what will become of us. Since we have been created for a relationship with God, God wants us to make a free response. Jesus showed, as the true image of God, that to be fully human is to live in faithful obedience to God, even when obedience to that will involves suffering and death. What God wants from human beings is not a mere echo or a mechanical reflex but a free and glad response…. To be human is to respond in free obedience to God’s glorious address. Indeed, human freedom is the ability to choose God. Thus Augustine suggested that our hearts long for God, who is the fulfilment of humankind. We are unfulfilled until we relate to God. “If we are really capable of being one with God, then nothing else but loving union with God will make us whole and entire. Only God can be the “object” of a complete, unconditional, final, and finally fulfilling desire.

Furthermore, this doctrine stresses the communal nature of human beings. We are not individualistic, but find our true identity in co-existence with each other and with all other creatures. This interrelatedness is stressed by the sexual differentiation mentioned in Genesis. As created by God, we are essentially relational, social beings, and this essential sociality and co-humanity is signified by our coexistence as men and women.

The fact that humans are created man and woman not only underlines the intrinsic equality and dignity of both men and women, but also reminds us that there is another mode of human existence, which, although still just as human, is radically different and thus mysterious. Indeed, this mystery expresses something of the mystery of God. Moreover, it reminds us that we are not complete without relationships with others.

A final implication is that human beings are restless for a fulfilment of a life not yet realised. Creation is directed towards a goal. Creation’s purpose is to establish a relationship with God. Humanity’s destiny is to relate to God, and until that is fulfilled, humanity is to be dissatisfied and frustrated.

Now tell me that i believe all this just to make myself feel better...

Skepticism is the most important of all traits for anyone who wants to know anything, in my opinion.

Hmm... you following socrates in that you know that you know nothing. Well, in my opinion, scepticism should be combatted if you don't want to end up knowing nothing.

Well, in my opinion, scepticism should be combatted if you don't want to end up knowing nothing.
I don't think I have to worry too much about that. Skepticism goes hand-in-hand with curiosity for me. I have an insaitable and bottomless need to know, as well as the constant doubt of what it is I do know. It is with this mentality that the most is learned, in my opinion. Even if it turns out that everything I think I know is actually patently untrue.

How about changing the analogy to life being like a table that was given you for your birthday as a gift. But the table is not perfect, and out of gratitude to the one who gave it to you, it becomes your duty to care for your gift and to make it better. Although the table belongs to you, its ultimate owner is the person who gave it to you, to whom you owe thanks and a duty of obedience.

I like that one better myself.

Everyone I've ever known has told me "It's a gift, it's yours, do with it what you will, I don't care!" so that means nothing to me. If you mean God, I don't believe in him/her/it, so that means nothing to me as well.

If you mean my parents, there you might have me. I would say that respect is necessary more so than obedience. However, I feel that continuance of life is more thanks than anything else. What better compliment could you give than to continue on using the table and giving it to your children? Essentially it's saying that you appreciate the genes your parents gave you so much that you will pass them on to your children.

Ah, late to the party again. There is meaning "to" life. You will find it in friendship. Celebrate that. Gods exist, but can't, or won't, stop evil. There should be no more fear of death than you had fear of birth. It is nothing. Live well, and follow the golden rule. Enjoy what is offered to you in moderation. Share. Endure suffering, it will not last long. We are all part of something greater. We cannot be destroyed, only changed. This is the heaven that Jesus spoke of, right here and now. It's up to the individual to realize this and make the best of it. In this form, right now, it is just this that we get to experience. Our lives live beyond us in our children, and in the memories we have given others. Our souls transform... ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

So, I take it you beleive in fate. Let me ask you this...What is fate without purpose?
Thanks for your email, but i'd gone to sleep. I was aware of your question, had time to consider it, and the best reply i could think of was...

Huh? Ya wha?

Let's consult google...

Define: fate

destiny: an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future

...so fate without purpose? Unless i've greatly misunderstood your meaning, i'm afraid it's still just fate.
(You're still a farily new user, as i am, and a friendly word of advice; i'm no professional debateur myself but i've found you won't get far on this board if you don't back up your statements with reasoning. Have fun! :) )

As to me believing in fate, i believe that there are some things that will happen to you in life that you won't be able to change, no matter how hard you try. You can work hard your whole life, keep healthy to avoid dying from a heart-attack, but in the end if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time your life can be ended in a second by a car crash. And that's what i call fate.

I'm probably in the wrong, but that's what i call it.


And i still don't see why my life needs to have a meaning. :confused:

As to me believing in fate, i believe that there are some things that will happen to you in life that you won't be able to change, no matter how hard you try. You can work hard your whole life, keep healthy to avoid dying from a heart-attack, but in the end if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time your life can be ended in a second by a car crash. And that's what i call fate.



I think you're wrong here - feel free to disagree. But if it was fate that you'd die from a car crash, then that means that there was infact nothing that you could do to avoid this. But this simply isn't the case. Imagine you're about to walk out into the middle of the road. You have the real option either to walk out or refrain from walking out. You choose to do so and get hit by a car. This isn't predetermined, since you had a genuine choice whether or not you should cross the road. Therefore no fate. I think that we have the real ability to direct the courses of our life, no matter how many determining causes act upon us, such as genetic/physical/pyschological makeup.

The whole idea that life has a meaning is difficult to figure out. So many things seem to happen randomly that the idea we have a purpose seems null, but I believe there is a purpose to life. Explanation of something like this is difficult for me, so I apologize if the following seems unclear.

People are born with self-awareness and a will (I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is free or not, so I'll just call it will). We have the ability to shape what we do and leave behind by making decisions about what to learn, how to implement that learning, etc. But all that can be seemingly nullified by a random accident or disease, or maybe even a lightning bolt. So, it seems that we have no direction than that which we set ourselves and follow until death.

But, one thing that people can never fully understand are the consequences of their actions, of the words they speak, or of the work they do. For example, I worked at a fast food place over summer, and I made the sandwichs. If I put an ingredient into a sandwhich that caused an allergic reaction, that reaction could weaken a person after they left the store, building up cumalitively with other negative effects like smoke inhalation, drugs, pre-existing conditions, etc., until they died. Thus, one consequence of my working at that place for the summer could be hastening the death of someone I'll never know, and I'll never see that consequence.

Those kind of blind interactions have a cumulative effect on humanity as a whole, though they are very difficult to see. Eventually, all of your actions in life have a profound effect on someone else, whether you mean it to or not. My personal belief is that all of this goes towards a goal that is so far beyond my comprehension or lifetime that I can't see or understand it. Whether a God or God's direct this process is open for debate, but I'm personally unsure of that.

I realize it seems convoluted and rather shaky, but it's the best I can explain it. Just my two cents for the day. :cool:

I cannot bring myself to acknowledge that life has no purpose or meaning. I don't see how we can ever prove it, but i don't see any way of disproving that life has meaning either.

What then is the meaning?

I don't believe that we create our own meaning and purpose for our lives, but, since i believe in God, believe that he, and only he, is the source of all meaning. If God created us, then he must have had a purpose for our lives, this purpose being to enter into a reciprocal relationship with him.

Even if you don't believe in God, that still doesn't mean that life doesn't have a meaning.

Any thoughts on what we're doing here??

we, as is all life, are a collection of chemical prossecess that replicate themselves. they got randomly assembled about 3.8 billion years ago on earth(or possibly earlier and got put on earth by an asteroid) and slowly changed chemically, that change being called evolution. anything that doesn't attempt to reproduce will stop the chain of life they are on, and so it is natural instinct to want to survive and reproduce. therefore the goal of all life is to reproduce, and there is no purpose or meaning, it's just a bunch of chemical reactions.

There is no meaning. That's no reason to be a dick, though.

we, as is all life, are a collection of chemical prossecess that replicate themselves. they got randomly assembled about 3.8 billion years ago on earth(or possibly earlier and got put on earth by an asteroid) and slowly changed chemically, that change being called evolution. anything that doesn't attempt to reproduce will stop the chain of life they are on, and so it is natural instinct to want to survive and reproduce. therefore the goal of all life is to reproduce, and there is no purpose or meaning, it's just a bunch of chemical reactions.

If that were true, then why are there so many cultural and societal pressures against having a child out of marriage, or against getting someone else's spouse pregnant? For that matter, why are there any societal restrictions on sex, since that gets in the way of reproduction?

Having the ability to do something does not entail responsibility to do it - we have the unique ability to commit genocide or more generally to commit moral evils, but of course this doesn't mean that we should.

Surely the concept of responsibility must come from something which transcends our existence. Otherwise we are simply creating responsibilities for ourselves, which cannot thus be said to be the true purpose of humanity.
It's an imposed responsibility ... imposed upon us as sentient beings by the rest of the web of life ( which definitely "transcends" our individual or even collective existence ), of which we are an inseperable part.

One of my personal beliefs is that human sentience represents the only example of which we are now aware of the universe in the process of becoming self-aware.

If that were true, then why are there so many cultural and societal pressures against having a child out of marriage, or against getting someone else's spouse pregnant? For that matter, why are there any societal restrictions on sex, since that gets in the way of reproduction?

cause someone wrote a fictional story and an idiot came allong and thought it was true and founded the christian faith.

Keep your race from going extinct.

cause someone wrote a fictional story and an idiot came allong and thought it was true and founded the christian faith.

Please don't try to claim that Christianity is solely responsible for the idea of sexual restriction and morality. Islamic society is even more restrictive than Christianity when it comes to sex. Besides, my question was about cultural and societal restrictions, not religious restrictions.

Again, why is it, if our only purpose is to reproduce, then why are there so many cultural and societal restrictions on sex?

Again, why is it, if our only purpose is to reproduce, then why are there so many cultural and societal restrictions on sex?

The dominant male(s) doesn't want any competition?

\Gross oversimplification

The whole idea that life has a meaning is difficult to figure out. So many things seem to happen randomly that the idea we have a purpose seems null, but I believe there is a purpose to life. Explanation of something like this is difficult for me, so I apologize if the following seems unclear.

People are born with self-awareness and a will (I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is free or not, so I'll just call it will). We have the ability to shape what we do and leave behind by making decisions about what to learn, how to implement that learning, etc. But all that can be seemingly nullified by a random accident or disease, or maybe even a lightning bolt. So, it seems that we have no direction than that which we set ourselves and follow until death.

But, one thing that people can never fully understand are the consequences of their actions, of the words they speak, or of the work they do. For example, I worked at a fast food place over summer, and I made the sandwichs. If I put an ingredient into a sandwhich that caused an allergic reaction, that reaction could weaken a person after they left the store, building up cumalitively with other negative effects like smoke inhalation, drugs, pre-existing conditions, etc., until they died. Thus, one consequence of my working at that place for the summer could be hastening the death of someone I'll never know, and I'll never see that consequence.

Those kind of blind interactions have a cumulative effect on humanity as a whole, though they are very difficult to see. Eventually, all of your actions in life have a profound effect on someone else, whether you mean it to or not. My personal belief is that all of this goes towards a goal that is so far beyond my comprehension or lifetime that I can't see or understand it. Whether a God or God's direct this process is open for debate, but I'm personally unsure of that.

I realize it seems convoluted and rather shaky, but it's the best I can explain it. Just my two cents for the day. :cool:

Our actions are modelled on chaos theory then? But surely chaotic systems don't have a "purpose" as such, unless there is reference to some force which transcends the system, perhaps guiding it towards a goal or purpose. Ultimately, unless there is a God, I don't see how we can have a purpose.

Our actions are modelled on chaos theory then? But surely chaotic systems don't have a "purpose" as such, unless there is reference to some force which transcends the system, perhaps guiding it towards a goal or purpose. Ultimately, unless there is a God, I don't see how we can have a purpose.
Complex systems ( such as the web of life ) generate their own purposes.

If that were true, then why are there so many cultural and societal pressures against having a child out of marriage, or against getting someone else's spouse pregnant? For that matter, why are there any societal restrictions on sex, since that gets in the way of reproduction?Please don't try to claim that Christianity is solely responsible for the idea of sexual restriction and morality. Islamic society is even more restrictive than Christianity when it comes to sex. Besides, my question was about cultural and societal restrictions, not religious restrictions.

Again, why is it, if our only purpose is to reproduce, then why are there so many cultural and societal restrictions on sex?
You are certainly right that Christianity is not the reason for societal restrictions on sex. The reason there are restrictions on copulation is socio-biological. To put it simply, humans have been, throughout history, a primarily monogamous species. Since the Pleistocene Epoch, humans have been mostly monogamous. There have been occasional instances of polygamy (one Chinese emperor had ten thousand concubines, as an interesting tidbit), but those are strongly in the minority and not present in pre-agricultural societies. What is omnipresent in all human societies known is adultery. What happens is that men try to monopolise their woman (wife) so that she does not bear anyone else's children, as this is him raising someone else's child, without his genes. Women try to monopolise their man to help them raise their children as best they can (which don't necessarily have to belong to their husband, mind you). This gets really detailed, and I highly suggest The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley to anyone who's interested, as he goes into it in a section of the book.

The dominant male(s) doesn't want any competition?

\Gross oversimplification
Not really, it is mainly the non-dominant males who have to worry, since the dominant males are the ones who don't have to worry about the competition. That is why they're dominant, and social status is certainly a sexiness factor for females. Now, before I'm flamed, I would like to point out that the more powerful the male, the better able he is to raise a woman's children. Also the more likely it is that his genes are desirable, since there are typically reasons that a male is dominant.

But surely chaotic systems don't have a "purpose" as such, unless there is reference to some force which transcends the system, perhaps guiding it towards a goal or purpose.
Just like evolution. That is why it is that I just can not accept intelligent designists. They seem to believe that evolution has a purpose, while there is actually no end in sight.

Complex systems ( such as the web of life ) generate their own purposes.

But a generated purpose is not an intrinsic purpose, which is what the question of life's meaning is all about.

Just like evolution. That is why it is that I just can not accept intelligent designists. They seem to believe that evolution has a purpose, while there is actually no end in sight.

Surely the fact that evolution has given rise to a growing complexity means that some reference is necessary to purpose within the world process. evolution only states that the random variations will be naturally selected if they confer an advantage on those members which have them in the struggle in and between species to survive. It doesn't say anything about growing complexity.

cause someone wrote a fictional story and an idiot came allong and thought it was true and founded the christian faith.

Nice eh? You think the Bible is fiction? Any evidence for your obviously well-considered viewpoint?

I'm sure someone has already said this but...
42
It really is to some extent... at least in my mind.
Good vs evil.
# for good 7
# for evil 6 (hence the trinity of evil being 666)
according to the book of revalations
good vs evil = 6 x 7 = 42
:D

I'm sure someone has already said this but...
42
It really is to some extent... at least in my mind.
Good vs evil.
# for good 7
# for evil 6 (hence the trinity of evil being 666)
according to the book of revalations
good vs evil = 6 x 7 = 42
:D

I don't understand this calculation. Why is the meaning of life taken up in the conflict between good and evil? And why does the conflict give rise to a multiplication? Why the number 7 for good? Why not 12? Or 4? Or anything else? What's so good about 7?

Surely the fact that evolution has given rise to a growing complexity means that some reference is necessary to purpose within the world process. evolution only states that the random variations will be naturally selected if they confer an advantage on those members which have them in the struggle in and between species to survive. It doesn't say anything about growing complexity.
What? I have no idea what it is you're trying to say. There is nothing intrinsic about evolution that makes life more complex, it just so happens that growing complexity is typically advatageous. Life has gone from primitive unicellular organisms to things like humans and ants.

Now, what is it that your point is, restated?

Nice eh? You think the Bible is fiction? Any evidence for your obviously well-considered viewpoint?
Eh, some of the Bible is fiction. It all depends on the literalism with which it's read. Genesis is pretty inaccurate, I have to say.

And for those of you who say that Genesis is figurative, please explain then why it's so chronologically incorrect? The order is all wrong in a significant number of places.

But a generated purpose is not an intrinsic purpose, which is what the question of life's meaning is all about.
The difference is illusory. When the system is sufficiently complex generated purposes are indistinguishable from intrinsic purposes.

Surely the fact that evolution has given rise to a growing complexity means that some reference is necessary to purpose within the world process. evolution only states that the random variations will be naturally selected if they confer an advantage on those members which have them in the struggle in and between species to survive. It doesn't say anything about growing complexity.
Complex organic systems always evolve counter-entropically.

What? I have no idea what it is you're trying to say. There is nothing intrinsic about evolution that makes life more complex, it just so happens that growing complexity is typically advatageous. Life has gone from primitive unicellular organisms to things like humans and ants.

Precisely that, except there is nothing to suggest that growing complexity is typically advantageous. Surely we would be more likely to survive without morals or conscience or a personality. If we had no moral feelings at all, then we would do whatever it took to survive. Moreover, what does our conception of beauty and art add to the struggle to survive. My point is that a continuing causal activity of God seems the best explanation of the progress towards greater consciousness and intentionality that one sees in the actual course of the evolution of life on earth.




Eh, some of the Bible is fiction. It all depends on the literalism with which it's read. Genesis is pretty inaccurate, I have to say.

And for those of you who say that Genesis is figurative, please explain then why it's so chronologically incorrect? The order is all wrong in a significant number of places.

Metaphorical or symbolic yes (some of it). Fiction no! Fiction implies that there is no truth in what is being said - Yupaenu seems to think that only an idiot would believe it. Even if some parts of the Bible are not meant to be interpreted literally, that does not mean that it is fiction. For the Bible expresses eternal truths about God and the world.

Explain what you mean about Genesis being in the wrong order, and i may be able to help you out.

The difference is illusory. When the system is sufficiently complex generated purposes are indistinguishable from intrinsic purposes.

Indistinguishable from our viewpoint perhaps, but surely not from that of God's say.

Poeple on here are correct that purpose makes no sense without God. A random, chaotic universe has no destination, and hence no purpose by definition. This is (one of the reasons) why I reject the atheistic viewpoint. While it is logically possible to have no purpose, it does not fit with our everyday experience. People kill themselves because they feel that their lives are pointless.

I can already hear people complaining that they can come up with their own purpose. But with what basis? I think that we can agree that we need something of value to base our purpose on. So we need values. I value good food, an occational movie, and some good reading material. But that is just taste. It doesn't really matter in the end. If we eliminate God from the picture, taste is all that we're left with. I may value human rights, but the rest of the universe really doesn't care. As far as it's concerned, we're just a blip in the evolutionary process, no more important than the dinosaurs. Human rights becomes a taste rather than a value. When people are devalued, so are human actions. Even procreating is not a purpose, as that assists in furthering evolution, which is a purposeless, chaotic system.

In short, purpose is a joke without God. But with a Christian God, purpose is not only possible, it's a given. It then becomes a matter of figuring out what that purpose is. I have my purpose. I am firmly convinved that God wants to use me in the areas of philosophy and politics. That is why I am a philosophy major in school. I switched after doing five semesters of work towards a computer science degree because I felt that God wanted me to switch.

I believe that everyone has a God-given purpose. What is yours?

Indistinguishable from our viewpoint perhaps, but surely not from that of God's say.
Obviously not, if only by definition. However, whether God exists is a matter of considerable debate. Scientific Universalism does not address the issue of God's existence; there is no need to do so.

Complex organic systems always evolve counter-entropically.
If anyone starts talking about the second law of thermodynamics, I am so going to kick their asses.

The meaning of life is to die.

I think that's more like the final result - wether you think of it as a reward or a punishment (no, i'm not crazy ;p )

die = verb - it's something you do, not a destination, death wouldn't work in that sentance - but it is a noun.....

simply living to stay alive until the universe decides to stop your exeistance - like living day to day without any long term, or short term goals - is a meaningless life. life must have some meaning, and it is not a simple thing - in both a scientific and religious sence. And it cannot be veiwed in only one of those ways. Even Atheists do more than eat sleep, dispose of bodily waste and die.

If anyone starts talking about the second law of thermodynamics, I am so going to kick their asses.
The laws of thermodynamics are a macro/classical construct and are not necessary from a quantum standpoint. ( Um ... I think! ) :D

I believe that everyone has a God-given purpose. What is yours?

Yup yup... i believe moreover that when it comes down to it, everyone's purpose is the same... to enter into a relationship with God.

Fiction implies that there is no truth in what is being said
Not necessarily. Fiction can encompass a large range of verity.

Explain what you mean about Genesis being in the wrong order, and i may be able to help you out.
No, I don't think you can. If you could post the beginning of Genesis, where God says all that stuff about let there be plants and animals and such, I can show how it's just flat out wrong in its order, and chooses to completely ignore bacteria, protists, and fungi.

The laws of thermodynamics are a macro/classical construct and are not necessary from a quantum standpoint. ( Um ... I think! ) :D

Thanks for that

Not necessarily. Fiction can encompass a large range of verity.

Not how it was meant earlier.

No, I don't think you can. If you could post the beginning of Genesis, where God says all that stuff about let there be plants and animals and such, I can show how it's just flat out wrong in its order, and chooses to completely ignore bacteria, protists, and fungi.

But you're taking it literally, which i've already said you shouldn't. Once you realise that the writer was not trying to give a scientific account of how the world was created, then the details don't matter - what matters is the message behind them.

Thanks for that
You are welcome, grasshopper. There are limits to even my wisdom, something I am wroth to confess! :D

You put your right foot in,
You put your right foot out,
You put your right foot in
and you shake it all about
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about!

I believe that everyone has a God-given purpose. What is yours?
To descend upon Nation States General Forum and there to offer wisdom and elightenment to the befuddled masses! :D

You put your right foot in,
You put your right foot out,
You put your right foot in
and you shake it all about
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around,
That's what it's all about!

I never thought of the hokey pokey as offering valuable insight into life before.

i believe that we have no purpose because the universe does not require us to have a purpose, nor have a purpose of its own. we just... happened, and the universe happens around us. whether we destroy the planet has no consequence, because the universe isn't heading towards any specific point or goal, and we shouldn't assume that it is. as for the big bang theory, i don't think that we need an explanation for the universe as we know it, as explanations are (imo) a human invention designed to make us feel more comfortable surviving in this plane of existence.

Ok, you've heard "nature abhors a void" - Well, that's cause "nothingness" is an impossibility. There has to be something!

So we live in the simplest possible creation, an organism which experiences itself. This seems at first impossible, as there should be a subject-object dichotomy. But the dichotomy lies only in the roles played by this organism - let's call it "God" for simplicity sake.

God is both the subject and the object, viewer and the viewed, the knower and the known. God plays both roles! In fact, God plays the "known" role so well, that it appears to fracture itself into seperate forms. But quantum physics (or logical induction) will tell you that there's only one body, involuting into these multivarious and temporary forms that are our bodies, minds, electrical current - and all that which vibrates on frequencies unknown - which will soon dissolve and take new form, when these present forms fall away.

But God, as an involuting whole, is and always will be. All you see is real, yet incredibly transient. We are but the two second lifespan of a bacterium to God, even less than that. So don't attach to these forms! See the forms as one body, and attach only to the whole of God. Or see God in the role of the knower, rather than the known, and attach to an infinite and untouchable pool of observation, of awareness. Or best yet, know God in all ways, like the blind men studying the elephant.

These are the essential truths of the rishis, of the prophets and the messiahs, of all mystics across time and space... Science is still playing catch-up!

The meaning of life, well, what else could there be?

The whole idea that life has a meaning is difficult to figure out. So many things seem to happen randomly that the idea we have a purpose seems null, but I believe there is a purpose to life. Explanation of something like this is difficult for me, so I apologize if the following seems unclear.

People are born with self-awareness and a will (I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is free or not, so I'll just call it will). We have the ability to shape what we do and leave behind by making decisions about what to learn, how to implement that learning, etc. But all that can be seemingly nullified by a random accident or disease, or maybe even a lightning bolt. So, it seems that we have no direction than that which we set ourselves and follow until death.

But, one thing that people can never fully understand are the consequences of their actions, of the words they speak, or of the work they do. For example, I worked at a fast food place over summer, and I made the sandwichs. If I put an ingredient into a sandwhich that caused an allergic reaction, that reaction could weaken a person after they left the store, building up cumalitively with other negative effects like smoke inhalation, drugs, pre-existing conditions, etc., until they died. Thus, one consequence of my working at that place for the summer could be hastening the death of someone I'll never know, and I'll never see that consequence.

Those kind of blind interactions have a cumulative effect on humanity as a whole, though they are very difficult to see. Eventually, all of your actions in life have a profound effect on someone else, whether you mean it to or not. My personal belief is that all of this goes towards a goal that is so far beyond my comprehension or lifetime that I can't see or understand it. Whether a God or God's direct this process is open for debate, but I'm personally unsure of that.

I realize it seems convoluted and rather shaky, but it's the best I can explain it. Just my two cents for the day. :cool:


That sounds like Chaos Theory, where every little action, like the place you step on the ground, or when you breath in or out, will affect everything else in a small way, and all the small effects build up into something much. much larger.

(not that I got to see the movie, but my english teacher told my class all about it) the Butterfly Effect, where every time the guy went back in time, he messed up one little detail and changed everything entirely.

cause someone wrote a fictional story and an idiot came allong and thought it was true and founded the christian faith.


hehe, blunt, but it makes sence. Although, the Christian Faith does give a lot, more than a lot, of people meaning to their lives - so isn't that okay then?

lots of nuns never have kids, but they still pass on a legacy, like Mother Teresa, so I think that there is more to life than preserving your spin on the stand of DNA. Still, I have to agree, as much good as it is capable of, the Christian religion can be a bit of a leech - just look at the president it turned out

That sounds like Chaos Theory, where every little action, like the place you step on the ground, or when you breath in or out, will affect everything else in a small way, and all the small effects build up into something much. much larger.

(not that I got to see the movie, but my english teacher told my class all about it) the Butterfly Effect, where every time the guy went back in time, he messed up one little detail and changed everything entirely.

I didn't realize how much that resembled chaos theory, but I guess it is pretty close.

But while it does appear chaotic to us, that is because we have limited perspective and understanding of our existence. As an analogy, consider whether the threads of a tapestry, if they were intelligent, could tell if their seemingly random placements added up to form a large and comprehensive picture.

And yes, that sort of organization does rely on a weaver that manipulates the threads, but I still don't want to say that there is a higher authority that manipulates us just yet. I'm just saying that, even though life appears chaotic, we are actually working, albeit unknowingly, towards a purpose we simply can't understand.

life is decided on the person's decisions. The moral, "good" thing to do is succed in school, get a good job, get married, produce offspring, and live life wonderfully untill death.

I don't agree with this moral though. If the person does not like school, like Yu-Jyo mentioned with the Chaos theory, then maybe they won't get as good job, which could lead to no wife, basically throwing off the moral version of life. Yet, that doesn't always happen, however. As we look at many musicions, a good percentage of them either dropped out, failed out, or barely passed High School or College. Yet, they were smart enough to use there talents to go for a job that did not require much intellegiance. Now, they are getting richer and richer, instead of the moral belief that one falls the rest falls.

I would like to name it the Moral Life Theory, were you must take a certain path to succead or else your life is pointless. It is a thought many parents and teachers tell kids about were hobos are the way the are because they didn't do they're homework. The thing is, George Bush didn't do his homework, but he's 10x's richer then you.

So my point is, the meaning of life is not about morals, it's about taking advantage of your talents to succead anyway you can.

So my point is, the meaning of life is not about morals, it's about taking advantage of your talents to succead anyway you can.

That doesn't work. Using your talents is how to get a lot of money (power, etc), not what it all means in the end. If we just die and disappear, then all that money is pointless. In the grand scheme of things, you are just a blip, worthless, etc. The meaning of life is to get a bunch of stuff which doesn't matter? Meaning or no meaning, I would reather live comfortably than not, but that doesn't mean that the comfort is the meaning.

But you're taking it literally, which i've already said you shouldn't. Once you realise that the writer was not trying to give a scientific account of how the world was created, then the details don't matter - what matters is the message behind them.
But he could have at least used the correct order. If he knew what the correct order was, I'm sure he wouldn't put them in the wrong order.

I looked up Genesis, and this is the order.

First there was space and darkness. Then there was the atmosphere. Then there was light, then day and night, then the sky, then ocean and land, then plants, then the sun and moon, then stars, then aquatic and airborne animals, then terrestrial animals, then humans.

Is it just me, or is it kind of odd that plants arose before our sun, and that our sun apparently preceded the stars... And, since physics is not my strong suit, Genesis's version of evolutionary biology is a little flawed. The sun us requisite for photosynthesis in plants, even though life could indeed exist without photons from chemosynthesis, though not solar heat. However, life origninated in water. So I don't see why it came later. Also that organisms went from water, to land, to air*. Genesis just is too fallacious to even accept literally from a biological standpoint for me.

*Insects, by the by, are predicted to have been the first flying life-form.

But he could have at least used the correct order. If he knew what the correct order was, I'm sure he wouldn't put them in the wrong order.

I looked up Genesis, and this is the order.

First there was space and darkness. Then there was the atmosphere. Then there was light, then day and night, then the sky, then ocean and land, then plants, then the sun and moon, then stars, then aquatic and airborne animals, then terrestrial animals, then humans.

Is it just me, or is it kind of odd that plants arose before our sun, and that our sun apparently preceded the stars... And, since physics is not my strong suit, Genesis's version of evolutionary biology is a little flawed. The sun us requisite for photosynthesis in plants, even though life could indeed exist without photons from chemosynthesis, though not solar heat. However, life origninated in water. So I don't see why it came later. Also that organisms went from water, to land, to air*. Genesis just is too fallacious to even accept literally from a biological standpoint for me.

*Insects, by the by, are predicted to have been the first flying life-form.

You're assuming that the evolutionary timescale is correct. Genesis does not line up with that, nor does it attempt to. The Genesis version of creation is not compatible with the evolutionary one.

Also, I really doubt that another creation/evolution debate will help a whole lot in determining the meaning of life.

Also, I really doubt that another creation/evolution debate will help a whole lot in determining the meaning of life.
Touché, sir/madam. Touché. Cease the hijacking!

Touché, sir/madam. Touché. Cease the hijacking!

It's sir, but I'm too young for that anyway.

I'm also wondering here, just for clarification, are we talking about the meaning of life in general, or my purpose in life specifically? I'm not sure if we're going for the individual or group stuff.

It's sir, but I'm too young for that anyway.
Eh, it's not necessarily age-related.

I'm also wondering here, just for clarification, are we talking about the meaning of life in general, or my purpose in life specifically? I'm not sure if we're going for the individual or group stuff.
From what I can tell, either or both, depends on what you want to address.

From what I can tell, either or both, depends on what you want to address.

In that case, it's both.

The whole meaning of life is three-fold: to love God, enjoy life, and make it better for the rest of the population. To quote the Westminster Catachism, "The chief end of man is to love God and enjoy Him forever."

As for the individual purpose, it relates to that last part of the meaning. We are to make life better for everyone else, and we each have a part to play in all that. Where your part is is between you and God.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is all pretty much pointless if there is no God. We are to help each other because human life is the most important thing on this planet. This is so because we are made in God's image. If God did not make us, then the whole idea collapses.

We are to help each other because human life is the most important thing on this planet. This is so because we are made in God's image. If God did not make us, then the whole idea collapses.
I hate to be so rude and condescending, but if the basis of your philosophy is that humans are the most important thing on the planet, then you're either misguided or a dumbass. I'm more partial tot he former myself. As I say time and time again, we are Homo sapiens, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, phylum Chordata, kingdom Animalia, domain Eukaryota. We are nothing more than the dominant mammal on the planet, with particularly bulbous brains. If an objective answer were to be given, ants might be considered the dominant life-form on the planet, as their social structure is far more advanced and they are the most populous animal on the planet. Leafcutter ants invented agriculture before primates had evolved. Some species of the genus Atta are capable of defoliating an entire tree in just one day. Slave-maker ants are certainly the first to engage in their namesake. Driver ants are probably the most directly deadly biota on the planet, which cause entire villages to evacuate whenever a column of driver ants is seen approaching.

But, meh, I'm not going to convince you of the fallacy of your anthropocentrism, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me of the benefits of it. I just had to get that out, because the belief that humans are more important than anything else is just abhorrent to me.

I hate to be so rude and condescending, but if the basis of your philosophy is that humans are the most important thing on the planet, then you're either misguided or a dumbass. I'm more partial tot he former myself. As I say time and time again, we are Homo sapiens, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, phylum Chordata, kingdom Animalia, domain Eukaryota. We are nothing more than the dominant mammal on the planet, with particularly bulbous brains. If an objective answer were to be given, ants might be considered the dominant life-form on the planet, as their social structure is far more advanced and they are the most populous animal on the planet. Leafcutter ants invented agriculture before primates had evolved. Some species of the genus Atta are capable of defoliating an entire tree in just one day. Slave-maker ants are certainly the first to engage in their namesake. Driver ants are probably the most directly deadly biota on the planet, which cause entire villages to evacuate whenever a column of driver ants is seen approaching.

But, meh, I'm not going to convince you of the fallacy of your anthropocentrism, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me of the benefits of it. I just had to get that out, because the belief that humans are more important than anything else is just abhorrent to me.

So killing a human is no more ethically abhorrant than killing an ant, and maybe even less so? That sounds like where your argument is leading. As I said earlier, if humans are just another species on this planet, there is no point in being solicitous to them. We might as well shoot the deformed ones, as they are holding up the evolutionary process.

Your argument makes good logical sense, but it doens't match up very well with our usual experience and intuitions. Something is wrong with it.

But he could have at least used the correct order. If he knew what the correct order was, I'm sure he wouldn't put them in the wrong order.

I looked up Genesis, and this is the order.

First there was space and darkness. Then there was the atmosphere. Then there was light, then day and night, then the sky, then ocean and land, then plants, then the sun and moon, then stars, then aquatic and airborne animals, then terrestrial animals, then humans.

[QUOTE]Is it just me, or is it kind of odd that plants arose before our sun, and that our sun apparently preceded the stars... And, since physics is not my strong suit, Genesis's version of evolutionary biology is a little flawed. The sun us requisite for photosynthesis in plants, even though life could indeed exist without photons from chemosynthesis, though not solar heat. However, life origninated in water. So I don't see why it came later. Also that organisms went from water, to land, to air*.

But i think it's obvious that the writer of Genesis (who was a priest by the way) didn't know and didn't have any interest in knowing the science behind creation. It doesn't matter about the order, what he is saying is that God created the world - that is the most important thing about it.

Genesis just is too fallacious to even accept literally from a biological standpoint for me.

Which is what i just said!

Maybe we're just not meant to know the meaning of life.

Think about it, maybe life's a game where no one knows the rules, or how to win. We just keep playing til we die, and then someone appears and says "Hey, these are the rules, this is what you should've been doing all along, but let's see how you did..." *flashback (+ running commentary)* "...not bad, 68 points, you beat Gandhi!"

Personally i think the hokey cokey being the meaning of life is the best idea i've read so far. :D