Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?

[freealways]

Aphie said : "Does everything have a purpose or is it all just random bullshit?"

That is a rather dumb question if you meant to ask it from anyone of us as it just isn't something which one can answer from the top off one's head. No-one really knows the answer.
In any event, how would you know that whomever answers it has the real answer.

However ..................................., it is a really smart question to ask off oneself as that may just possibly shake one awake, away from and out of the continuous dreamstate we are in.

Jack

 

[blackswan]

Quote from darkhorse:


Stu, I do scrutinize and examine my faith and beliefs. I have done so intensely and continue to do so, in the sense that understanding what life is all about is a passion for me. I am walking this road every day, thinking about this stuff constantly. Not because I am unsure of anything or feel the need to shore up anything, but because the big picture is fascinating and the depths of thought in regards to it are endless.

I'm not really sure exactly how you reconcile those two sentences. On the one hand, you scrutinize your faith and beliefs, but on the other hand, there's nothing you aren't sure of?
How does that work?
I can understand that you find the 'big picture' fascinating and you spend a good deal of time ruminating over it, but I think you wrote that paragraph to defend your views as being openly rational -- open to falsifiability. Your sense of absolute certainty, however, suggests that perhaps they are not.

It would be naive on my part to think I could convince you to change your position on such a large scale subject with a few posts on a message board. quote]

But why? Why would it be so naive? Why are "a few posts on a message board" such an inferior method of imparting knowledge? What is it that you could do in a face-to-face conversation that would make your position so much clearer that you can't do on a message board -- where you can speak (write) uninterrupted for page after page?

As such, I think it is mildly naive for you to assume you have seen even the tip of the iceberg in regards to my position.

You're a Christian. It's not an iceberg, we're all aware of what beliefs Christianity entails.

In regards to the necessity of proving or disproving an argument, what would do the job? What would do it either way?

Here's what would do the job, for me at least: presenting a rational argument that tips the balance of probability in favor of Christianity being true.
To give you a hand, I'll even grant you the existence of God. Now, show me exactly why the Christian position is so rationally compelling.

I remain puzzled as to why it seems necessary for atheists to refuse the idea that a logical case for theism is possible. It's as if "you have faith and I don't" is not enough. It must be extended to "you are blind and illogical." I find this perplexing.

If it helps, I remain probably as equally puzzled as to why Christians always seem to think they hold the 'moral upper-hand' against atheists.
As an 'atheist' (I hesitate to use such a loaded term), I'll grant that a logical case for theism is possible. Afterall, I subscribe to the atheistic viewpoint simply because I find it to be more likely, not because my entire sense of identity rests on there being no God. Certainly I could be persuaded to change that viewpoint.

I'm curious, Stu, have you read any books by Francis Schaeffer or C.S. Lewis?

You've recommended Lewis on a couple of occasions. Whilst I haven't read his entire works, I have had numerous articles handed to me by Christian interlocutors and would say I'm familiar with his reasoning. I didn't find anything terribly exciting there. In fact, from the work that I've seen, I find his arguments quite straightforward to refute. There are far more able Christian apologists out there.

In regards to "doing it right" and the cliff analogy, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean or how it applies to this debate? Are you trying to imply guilt by association, that because a lot of religious leaders are illogical or hypocritical that I am too?

I won't make that association, for now. But I will ask you to present your case (or at least make a start), because what other way would you describe someone that claims he has some great truth yet refuses to describe how he attained it, how other may attain it and why we should believe he even has it but "illogical and/or hypocritical".

 

[blackswan]

Does everything have a purpose or is it all just random bullshit?"

To answer aphie's original question.

It really makes very little difference whether there is some 'ultimate grand purpose' to our lives or not.
Even if it does exist, we are obviously unware of it, and the prospects for discovering it appear bleak. Therefore, what difference does it make if it exists? We'd still lead our lives the same way as we are.

However, we can take 'purpose' from a human point of view, and determine what purpose we'd like our own lives to serve, and collectively decide on what 'purpose' human life itself should serve. Then there would certainly be 'purpose'.

But it wouldn't really matter, in terms of intrisically mattering. That might be a shock to some -- and I'll agree that it requires a good deal of emotional maturity to come to grips with -- but nothing really matters at all.
Before someone brings it up, no, the Holocaust doesn't really, intrinsically matter, it only matters to humans -- and then not even to all humans. The only 'meaning' something has is the 'meaning' we give it.

Having said that, things actually DO matter -- to me. It matters a great deal to me, for example, if I'm making or losing money trading. A great deal. The health of my loved ones matters to me. A great deal. That, however, is a far cry from saying that things intrinsically matter (the point theists usually seize upon to introduce the existence of God as the only way to make things matter. lol)

 

[darkhorse]

interesting, blackswan (new stu?)... will respond when i can find a chunk of freetime a little later this week...

 

[They]

Wouldn't a self described atheist's explanation of intrinsic "absolute" purpose and human "relative" purpose and the subsequent discounting of an absolute purpose have to be discounted?
:eek:

I was wondering if someone could present a case(or at least make a start) for what mustard tastes like. (references to mustard or any subjective reference for that matter will not be accepted as truth/fact/logic/real/science and will be discounted as blind religious faith)

I wonder if a 100 million "humans" presented their case on what mustard tasted like their presentations would be similar? If all of their presentations were different would that mean that none of them had really ever tasted mustard or that perhaps mustard does not even exist?

Here is a nice quote that hopefully will open some minds;

" I believe religion and science have similar bases. They are both based on instincts, on revelation and on experience. They are both based on what we see around us and what happens. In the physical sciences, we can do experiments, repeat them and anybody else can repeat them and we will usually end up with similar results. In the behavioral sciences this is a much harder task. Religion is certainly based on our observations of life, observation of our friends, observations of our parents, observations of past history. We evaluate these observations. They are our experiments. They are clearly much more difficult to evaluate than experiments in physics. Yet, in the long run that is our task. We must try hard to understand putting aside confining prejudices. We must be open minded. Science and religion will continue to converge as I believe they are converging today. That seems to be the nature of our universe; their realms do overlap."

Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate

 

[stu]

Quote from They:

Wouldn't a self described atheist's explanation of intrinsic "absolute" purpose and human "relative" purpose and the subsequent discounting of an absolute purpose have to be discounted?
:eek:

You'll require the atheist's explanation of intrinsic "absolute" purpose first. It may be the view that human "relative" purpose is the intrinsic "absolute" purpose.
However , if it were the closed assumption that the intrinsic "absolute" purpose is God , then that assumption itself could be said to be an explanation of human "relative" purpose and by the same token should be discounted

Quote from They:
...... Science and religion will continue to converge as I believe they are converging today. That seems to be the nature of our universe; their realms do overlap."

Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate [/B]

I agree. Religion is forced to move inexorably towards a convergence with Science. It always has, it undergoes metamorphosis from century to century, generation to generation in an ever decreasing circle, attempting to remain relevant.

 

[DT-waw]

Quote from aphexcoil:

Does everything have a purpose or is it all just random bullshit?

If there's no purpose, it doesn't mean that all is just a "random bullshit".

Let's assume, there's a purpose. At some point, it is reached. What's next?
There's no one, general purpose. Why it should be?

Quote from "The Creation Myth" by Alan Watts:
(( http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/belgium/1029/creation.html ))

"In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn't, for if the world when on and on without rest for ever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and goes. Now you see it; now you don't. So because it doesn't get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It's like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It's also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it's always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn't always hide in the same place.

God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.

Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it-just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disquise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self-the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever"

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:

You'll require the atheist's explanation of intrinsic "absolute" purpose first. It may be the view that human "relative" purpose is the intrinsic "absolute" purpose.
However , if it were the closed assumption that the intrinsic "absolute" purpose is God , then that assumption itself could be said to be an explanation of human "relative" purpose and by the same token should be discountedI agree. Religion is forced to move inexorably towards a convergence with Science. It always has, it undergoes metamorphosis from century to century, generation to generation in an ever decreasing circle, attempting to remain relevant.

Religion attempting to remain relevant?

How funny.

Look at the polls of Americans and find out how many see religion as relevant to their lives, many leading scientists among them.

No matter how deep science can go in explaining the nature of creation of the universe, it will always be the question of who created the forces that were activated in its creating, and sustaining the universe.

Science does not provide all the answers. Since man will always be involved in the process of science from a subjective observation level, science will forever remain imcomplete and wanting.

Must just bug the crap out of you that you cannot provide with science to mankind what religion can.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Religion attempting to remain relevant?

How funny.

Look at the polls of Americans and find out how many see religion as relevant to their lives, many leading scientists among them.

I particularly mentioned religion attempting to be relevant - period. Whether Americans see religion as relevant to their lives is a different matter. Religion as in having a bearing on or connection with it's own subject issue (relevant) is ever changing. It's subject issue is ever changing to fit in with new knowledge and understanding. If it didn't it would appear even less relevant than it does.
When listening to scientist espouse many and varied varieties of religious belief, I notice the first thing they do is drop the very scrutiny with which they demand is present in their scientific work.

No matter how deep science can go in explaining the nature of creation of the universe, it will always be the question of who created the forces that were activated in its creating, and sustaining the universe.

Science does not provide all the answers. Since man will always be involved in the process of science from a subjective observation level, science will forever remain imcomplete and wanting.

That is a rather luddite viewpoint. To make up your mind that there must always be a creator question, limits profoundly the interesting probability that there may not.
I would surely prefer to remain wanting from the position of science where at least questions are addressed, than from the standpoint of religion, where the options are fixed and limited to its own dogma. I certainly don't take the view that science must be characterized as subjective observation. Now that is funny.

Must just bug the crap out of you that you cannot provide with science to mankind what religion can.

What hostility you have there. I am glad science cannot provide to mankind what religion does. At best I only see religion ever put forward unsupportable, undefined, metaphysical assumption. If it is not, then enlighten us all, define the very subject issue of religion, as science is obliged to do with its concepts.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from stu:

I particularly mentioned religion attempting to be relevant - period. Whether Americans see religion as relevant to their lives is a different matter. Religion as in having a bearing on or connection with it's own subject issue (relevant) is ever changing. It's subject issue is ever changing to fit in with new knowledge and understanding. If it didn't it would appear even less relevant than it does.
When listening to scientist espouse many and varied varieties of religious belief, I notice the first thing they do is drop the very scrutiny with which they demand is present in their scientific work.
That is a rather luddite viewpoint. To make up your mind that there must always be a creator question, limits profoundly the interesting probability that there may not.
I would surely prefer to remain wanting from the position of science where at least questions are addressed, than from the standpoint of religion, where the options are fixed and limited to its own dogma. I certainly don't take the view that science must be characterized as subjective observation. Now that is funny.
What hostility you have there. I am glad science cannot provide to mankind what religion does. At best I only see religion ever put forward unsupportable, undefined, metaphysical assumption. If it is not, then enlighten us all, define the very subject issue of religion, as science is obliged to do with its concepts.

Let's keep this simple.

I don't accpet your definition of relevant as relevant to human experience.

You love sophistry, don't you?