Do you believe in God?

[Patrik]

Muslims is in fact a huge problem in the big cities of Sweden, but the government don't want to realize it.

Just look at this video. American Fox News were in Malmö of southern Sweden and made this report.



I'm glad I live way further north and in a smaller town..

 

[Zrow]

Muslims is in fact a huge problem in the big cities of Sweden, but the government don't want to realize it.

Just look at this video. American Fox News were in Malmö of southern Sweden and made this report.



I'm glad I live way further north and in a smaller town..

Pfft. This "report" is aimed at exploiting people's xenophobic tendencies. It talked more about how the Swedish 'national identity' was being lost more than anything else. 👎

 

[Skynyrd1977]

My life certainly isn't meaningless, even without God. It's certainly meaningful to me, my friends and family.

Actually, not.

If mindwise is correct, the life we have is the only one we have - and thus what we do now is all that has meaning. If he isn't then this life is merely a precursor to a better one and what we do only has meaning if it is according to a set of rules shouted at us by men in dresses from a book they never read the original version of written by people centuries ago.


Many, many horrors have been committed by people who believed they were following those rules - and similar rules from other mendressestranslatedoldbook.

I don't follow how you get to this conclusion - As Zrow said, life has plenty of meaning with or without God...

Sorry, that's not how I meant it. I don't disagree that life has meaning to one's self. I am speaking about the overall long term grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what we do or acheive in the world if some day it all gets wiped away in an instant by a stray Jupiter sized meteor collision. If there is no God, and the world is vaporized in the next moment, then at that point in time, what did it matter if you cured cancer or murdered 6 million people?

As for the horrors, they were clearly not done by actually following Jesus teaching, were they. If those who committed these acts were true believers, they were mis-guided ones. I would suggst that most were "card carrying" christians who really were not.

Even so, the horrors done by fools in the name of Christ vastly pale in comparison to the horrors done by other groups. And then when you start to study all the great, wonderful, good things inspired and acheived through His words, this alone is compelling testimony.

I've always wondered about this:

God does not approve war and/or murder. Muslims say that "Allas does not like the agressive". Why did the crusades ever take place then? What I fail to understand is how religion disapproves of murder and war, yet religious people were fighting a war in "The Holy Land" which turned out to be a masscre...

Thoughts?

This is my understanding which I have recently read, please correct any points that are in error (like I need to suggest this ): The crusades were the result of muslim countries invading other countries over a period of hundreds of years, expanding continuously westward, to the point that they were threatening, by war, the boundaries of the European nations. The entire mideast and mediteranean areas had previously been for the most part Christian populated countries. The Christians in Europe determined that they needed to push back and went to war, succeeding in doing so.

I have also read that our modern fascination is to focus on the atrocities that definitely were commited by certain crusaders, yet we turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the muslims, over hudreds of years, which far exceed in number those of the crusaders.

 

[Famine]

Sorry, that's not how I meant it. I don't disagree that life has meaning to one's self. I am speaking about the overall long term grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what we do or acheive in the world if some day it all gets wiped away in an instant by a stray Jupiter sized meteor collision. If there is no God, and the world is vaporized in the next moment, then at that point in time, what did it matter if you cured cancer or murdered 6 million people?

Why is it important?

As for the horrors, they were clearly not done by actually following Jesus teaching, were they. If those who committed these acts were true believers, they were mis-guided ones. I would suggst that most were "card carrying" christians who really were not.

But importantly, they believed they were. For some reason, even though every religion believes in a script which is an infallible word of God, there's certainly a lot of ambiguity and misinterpretation.

Why do you think your interpretation is correct and theirs is/was not? Why do you think they thought their interpretations were/are correct?

Even so, the horrors done by fools in the name of Christ vastly pale in comparison to the horrors done by other groups. And then when you start to study all the great, wonderful, good things inspired and acheived through His words, this alone is compelling testimony.

[...]

I have also read that our modern fascination is to focus on the atrocities that definitely were commited by certain crusaders, yet we turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the muslims, over hudreds of years, which far exceed in number those of the crusaders.

No, I did quite clearly refer to all religious groupings - and I didn't single out or name Christianity...

If mindwise is correct, the life we have is the only one we have - and thus what we do now is all that has meaning. If he isn't then this life is merely a precursor to a better one and what we do only has meaning if it is according to a set of rules shouted at us by men in dresses from a book they never read the original version of written by people centuries ago.

Many, many horrors have been committed by people who believed they were following those rules - and similar rules from other mendressestranslatedoldbook.

 

[Touring Mars]

If there is no God, and the world is vaporized in the next moment, then at that point in time, what did it matter if you cured cancer or murdered 6 million people?

You are suggesting that it only makes a difference if there is a God, so that the murderer gets judged (and punished) and the good person is treated well, conveniently forgetting that to accept this, you need also accept that God is ultimately responsible for creating these people in the first place. The idea that murderers get off scot-free and that good people get no reward in the long run clearly offends our sense of fairness, and it's also a good reason to hope that there is a God, and more importantly, a just God. But the fact that such atrocious people as Hitler or Pol Pot existed at all is difficult to comprehend as the actions of a benevolent or a just God. Therefore, if you firmly believe that God exists, you should also be prepared for the possibility that God is neither wholly benevolent or wholly just... not just a Creator, but also a Destroyer...

it really doesn't matter what we do or acheive in the world if some day it all gets wiped away in an instant by a stray Jupiter sized meteor collision.

I'd argue that it really does matter what we achieve, maybe not personally, but collectively as a species. Yes, it might all turn out to be fruitless in the end - but it might not. We are the first species in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet to have stepped onto the surface of another celestial object, and almost certainly the first species in this time to understand the scale and the true nature of the Cosmos. So what of the dinosaurs then? Was their presence on Earth "pointless" because they were wiped out before they got anywhere near where we are today? Arguably not - since all life is related, human life would not exist had it not been for what came before, dinosaurs included... Similarly, what was the point in your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather? Probably hard to say, but one thing he did was to ensure that you exist today...

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd argue that it really does matter what we achieve, maybe not personally, but collectively as a species. Yes, it might all turn out to be fruitless in the end - but it might not. We are the first species in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet to have stepped onto the surface of another celestial object, and almost certainly the first species in this time to understand the scale and the true nature of the Cosmos. So what of the dinosaurs then? Was their presence on Earth "pointless" because they were wiped out before they got anywhere near where we are today? Arguably not - since all life is related, human life would not exist had it not been for what came before, dinosaurs included... Similarly, what was the point in your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather? Probably hard to say, but one thing he did was to ensure that you exist today...

I'd like to add to this very well made point that we aren't only the first species to have set foot on another celestial object, but the first in the history of our planet to have the opportunity and scope to one day colonise another celestial object, giving our species the potential for near-eternal existance - as any potential extinction event in the Earth's future, such as that which killed off the dinosaurs, for example, may not result in the extinction of the human being.

In which eventuality, our existance may have immesurably significant meaning as we will have effectively cheated death as a species. Potentially, we could survive until the ultimate destruction of the universe.

 

[mindwise]

MW MW MW, if your right every life is meaningless. But arcane rules are your opinion, what I see looking back on history is a vast majority of life improvements for the entire world population based on the "rules" layed down by Jesus, who exists and is not a fantasy figure.

Hi Skynyrd,

Arcane just means obscure or mysterious, and these are subjective terms so YES, you are correct; it is my opinion those rules are obscure.

Just like it is your 'opinion' jesus lives
(If so, he didn't die after all i guess, and then i fail to see the 'offer' he is supposed to have brought (a blood offer by the way, which is supposed to be hated by he OT god).

Listen Skynyrd, if i were to commit a crime, you would be able to do time for me (or someone else), but no one can take the responsibility of having done the actual crime off of me.
All too often believers (not implying you Skyn) claim 'atheists are not accountable/responsible', that seems such a false statement since we hold ourselves accountable to our fellow human beings, asking forgiveness from the actual ones we may have wronged, rather then asking it from a -in our opinion- fantasy figure in the sky. We consider that less responsible (since there's not much that won't be forgiven, is there?)
The whole concept is in my opinion flawed in so many ways, but i guess that is a different discussion.

Anyway, what i wanted to point out was already set forth by Famine (thank you Sir), i think it is an important detail that's always overlooked.

Could you please elaborate what helpful rules were laid out by godly Jesus that were not already brought forward by 'normal' human beings in some form? Because surely you're not referring to 'have no sorrow for tomorrow' and such, since -i n my opinion- (recurring theme ) i think that's actually pretty bad advice.
And please also explain why (if so) you think OT laws no longer apply (which would include the '10' commandments, with well, 5 actually useful commandments).

Thanks,

 

[TheCracker]

You are suggesting that it only makes a difference if there is a God, so that the murderer gets judged (and punished) and the good person is treated well, conveniently forgetting that to accept this, you need also accept that God is ultimately responsible for creating these people in the first place. The idea that murderers get off scot-free and that good people get no reward in the long run clearly offends our sense of fairness, and it's also a good reason to hope that there is a God, and more importantly, a just God. But the fact that such atrocious people as Hitler or Pol Pot existed at all is difficult to comprehend as the actions of a benevolent or a just God. Therefore, if you firmly believe that God exists, you should also be prepared for the possibility that God is neither wholly benevolent or wholly just... not just a Creator, but also a Destroyer...

👍 I thought Mark Twain put it well in this passage from his last, largely unfinished book, The Mysterious Stranger:

"And you are not you - you have no body, no blood, no bones, you are but a thought. I myself have no existence; I am but a dream - your dream, creature of your imagination. In a moment you will have realized this, then you will banish me from your visions and I shall dissolve into the nothingness out of which you made me

"I am perishing already - I am failing - I am passing away. In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever - for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!

"Strange! that you should not have suspected years ago - centuries, ages, eons, ago! - for you have existed, companionless, through all the eternities.

Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane - like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!

"You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks - in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier.

"It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"

 

[Aldo]

Nope, I never have and never will get into religion, unless I start my own...

 

[waterproof]

yes I do ,without my believe in GOD i can´t live

 

[Danoff]

yes I do ,without my believe in GOD i can´t live

That's interesting, considering so many people live without belief in God. Do you have a thought-induced pacemaker or something?

 

[Omnis]

That's interesting, considering so many people live without belief in God. Do you have a thought-induced pacemaker or something?

He didn't say "we" can't live.

 

[mindwise]

He didn't say "we" can't live.

???

Neither did Danoff ask if "we" have a "thought induced pacemaker"...

Waterproofs remark made me think of this one:

 

[homeforsummer]

I enjoy these little snippets of 'no' and 'yes' that intersperse the large discursive topics

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Why is it important?

I just personnally feel it is important to try and point out to a friend that he is heading down a road that I firmly believe is a deadly trap.

But importantly, they believed they were. For some reason, even though every religion believes in a script which is an infallible word of God, there's certainly a lot of ambiguity and misinterpretation.

But this is true in science, medicine, politics, etc, would you agree?

Why do you think your interpretation is correct and theirs is/was not? Why do you think they thought their interpretations were/are correct?

I am the first to say that I am no interpretation authority of scripture. But there are so many libraries full of studies available now that were not available then, so finding answers is easier.

Simple study of Jesus teachings make it evident that torture and murder in the name of God or the church are plainly opposite of what He told us.

No, I did quite clearly refer to all religious groupings - and I didn't single out or name Christianity...

Very true, this is not what I was implying, it was I who was in fact pointing out this matter.

But the fact that such atrocious people as Hitler or Pol Pot existed at all is difficult to comprehend as the actions of a benevolent or a just God. Therefore, if you firmly believe that God exists, you should also be prepared for the possibility that God is neither wholly benevolent or wholly just... not just a Creator, but also a Destroyer...

Yes, it may be difficult to comprehend, but doesn't mean it isn't so. Since I beleive he is wholly just, loving, holy, supreme, and all powerfull, it is possible that He CAN give a righteous explanation for all the things that we do not comprehend.

I'd argue that it really does matter what we achieve, maybe not personally, but collectively as a species. Yes, it might all turn out to be fruitless in the end - but it might not. We are the first species in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet to have stepped onto the surface of another celestial object, and almost certainly the first species in this time to understand the scale and the true nature of the Cosmos. So what of the dinosaurs then? Was their presence on Earth "pointless" because they were wiped out before they got anywhere near where we are today? Arguably not - since all life is related, human life would not exist had it not been for what came before, dinosaurs included... Similarly, what was the point in your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather? Probably hard to say, but one thing he did was to ensure that you exist today...

...so you partially agree with my premise of what would happen if there was no God?

Not to go off this thread topic, but your reference to the age of the earth and our relationship to dinaosaurs compells me to ask this: Do you "believe" these things because you have "read" or been "taught" other's testimony to them?

...Potentially, we could survive until the ultimate destruction of the universe.

At which point, again, if there is no God, all was in vain, because no life or memory of life would remain.

Hi Skynyrd,
...
Could you please elaborate what helpful rules were laid out by godly Jesus that were not already brought forward by 'normal' human beings in some form? Because surely you're not referring to 'have no sorrow for tomorrow' and such, since -in my opinion- (recurring theme ) i think that's actually pretty bad advice.
And please also explain why (if so) you think OT laws no longer apply (which would include the '10' commandments, with well, 5 actually useful commandments).

Thanks,

Sure MW, but I've about used up my time, I'll come back on this in more detail. But the thngs Jesus taught in His day were radical opposites to the centuries of traditional Jewish culture and religion.

👍 I thought Mark Twain put it well in this passage from his last, largely unfinished book, The Mysterious Stranger:

Cracker, I like to point out that Satan is refered to in scripture as the father of lies, and he is here to kill, steal, and destroy. Not one to take spiritual guidance from.

 

[homeforsummer]

it is possible that He CAN give a righteous explanation for all the things that we do not comprehend.

And yet, if He exists, then He is obviously more content to let us "guess" the explanations for things we don't comprehend - or at least, let those with a fear for actually learning things sit back and assume that God has an explanation for things they don't want to try and understand.

I like to use examples from the Cosmos to illustrate my points. Many people would rather believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that God created the universe. In my personal opinion, these people are lazy. Whether people like it or not, life is a learning experience, and that learning doesn't have to be constrained to what they teach you in school. I'm not suggesting that everyone has to be interested in Astronomy, for example, but it really doesn't take a lot at all to try and learn a little more as opposed to just blindly following a book and the vague, wishy-washy, interpretive messages contained within.

How many "believers" try and learn more about where we come from? Or do they read the same book all their lives happy with what they were told when they were kids? I've found the idea of God absurd ever since I can remember. I went to a Catholic school, and to me, all the prayers they made us do were just a needless distraction from the process of actually learning things, like human history or science.

Not to go off this thread topic, but your reference to the age of the earth and our relationship to dinaosaurs compells me to ask this: Do you "believe" these things because you have "read" or been "taught" other's testimony to them?

I believe these things because a great many people have spent a great many years of their lives researching, testing, observing, analysing and discovering these things, all the while giving very plausible explanations.

Do we get plausible explanations with God? No. How much research can you do? None, really, beyond the one book. How about tests? Again, no. Can you observe him? No. Can you analyse God? No.

You basically just have to believe, without any satisfactory reason to do so other than fear of the unknown.

At which point, again, if there is no God, all was in vain, because no life or memory of life would remain.

That's a pretty poor attitude to have. Maybe "heaven" isn't what we're all aiming for anyway. Have you ever considered that what we're doing right here, right now is important? That we've been given this thin slither of life between two vast expanses of history and future, and that that is our gift, that in the infinite nature of everything we've been given a chance to exist? Human advancement is important because it gives more people that chance to exist.

Really think about this - is actual life not good enough for you, that you must hope for something better when you die? We are given an infinitely small chance of probability to live in the first place (whether you believe that's down to God's hand or just scientific probability is up to you) - it seems mighty ungrateful to me to then hope for something better. And it seems quite megalomaniacal of God to give you that tiny chance of life just so you can worship him throughout your existance.

 

[Touring Mars]

👍

...so you partially agree with my premise of what would happen if there was no God?

Yes and no... I am also saying that this could be true even if there is a God. There is no more reason to believe that God will reward you for a "well-lived" life than there is to believe that God will do precisely nothing, or worse, and this is assuming that God exists at all. It seems bizarre to me that people live their lives on Earth in the hope that "something better" awaits them when they die - a clear implication of a belief in Heaven is that life is merely one long trial to determine who gets to live there. It also implies that there is something far superior to the human experience, but that only "good people" will get to experience it (i.e. eternal life in Heaven). Implying that the human experience is an inferior state of existence is, to put it mildly, odd. homeforsummer calls is "mighty ungrateful"... I'd add that it is simply unjustified.

Judging the value of a human life based on what may happen after it is a dangerous game... of course, if you accept the idea of an afterlife in any shape or form, then you ought to also accept the idea of a forelife too. Applying the same logic, you could easily argue that you must have done something wrong in order to be stuck in this "inferior" state (i.e. not Heaven). I find this idea pretty distasteful...

Not to go off this thread topic, but your reference to the age of the earth and our relationship to dinaosaurs compells me to ask this: Do you "believe" these things because you have "read" or been "taught" other's testimony to them?

I am more likely to accept something as fact if it is corroborated by evidence, and that it withstands (or can even be subject to) a basic level of scrutiny, e.g. logic and reasoning. I am considerably less likely to accept something as truthful merely because someone says it is so. Fortunately, throughout my education I have been exposed to people (teachers, lecturers, professors etc.) who abide by the scientific method as the principal way of learning. I guess this is more by chance than I'd like to think, and I readily accept that I might think in a very different way had I been brought up in a different country, a different era, in a different religion, or by parents and teachers with strong religious views.

As for my information sources, I have tended to rely on the assumption that the teaching materials used by my teachers, and the books/encyclopedias given to me by my parents, were from reputable sources and contained reliable/truthful information. I now read and have access to much of the scientific literature via the internet (since I am a research scientist and this is a large part of my job)... from what I now know about many topics, I am confident of (and grateful for) the fact that the information fed to me by my parents and my teachers was accurate, since much of what they taught me is consistent with the scientific literature today. In other words, I believe that my assumption is safe. Sadly, there are many people who cannot say the same, because what they are being taught is false. Students who are taught falsehoods cannot be blamed for their miseducation - however those who teach falsehoods, and those who condone it or tacitly approve it should be held to account.

It is a very interesting question - how you come to think the way you do - and there is a nice introduction to the topic of "ways of knowing" in this book chapter. (albeit as an introduction to the debate about Creationism).

 

[TheCracker]

Cracker, I like to point out that Satan is refered to in scripture as the father of lies, and he is here to kill, steal, and destroy. Not one to take spiritual guidance from.

The book is really Twain's attack on the hypocrisy of organised religion. The naming of the character in the book was perhaps a bit of a folly. He wasn't literally the Satan, but supposedly an angel nephew of Satan.

 

[GT4 genius]

Really think about this - is actual life not good enough for you, that you must hope for something better when you die? We are given an infinitely small chance of probability to live in the first place (whether you believe that's down to God's hand or just scientific probability is up to you) - it seems mighty ungrateful to me to then hope for something better. And it seems quite megalomaniacal of God to give you that tiny chance of life just so you can worship him throughout your existance.

This is what I think too, and its very well put by you. From my short experience so far the human race appears to be quite arrogant. Possibly this is a good thing as it in a way forces us to keep pushing ourselves. However this also means that we think we should never be forgotten, which is in a way an irrational fear. When we're gone whether there is a Heaven or not why care if other civilisations remember you?


Also if this is your fear we have no reason to believe it, Skynyrd1977 mentioned that when the universe ends we'll be forgotten if there is no God. Although I do believe that the universe will end (and I highly doubt we shall even make it that far) why do you not consider the possibility that there is or are several other universes side by side to our own, this is actually a highly likely probability. In which case one may have even further advanced civilisations which may have already noticed us.

I'm just saying when discussing things like this we should really stop thinking conventionally.

 

[Duke]

Yes, it may be difficult to comprehend, but doesn't mean it isn't so. Since I beleive he is wholly just, loving, holy, supreme, and all powerfull, it is possible that He CAN give a righteous explanation for all the things that we do not comprehend.

Just because you can't comprehend it is no reason to assume it is so either, however. And since the potential number of things that could be so without any evidence is infinite, how do you begin to choose one from among the endless possibilities?

That's my whole issue in a nutshell. You believe something without evidence and decide that since a just god is possible, that it supports your belief in one. It's a closed, circular argument that is 100% self-referential.

I on the other hand am not willing to just pick a belief from the infinite range of possibilities, unless it is supported by repeatable, multiply-witnessed, multiply-tested evidence. And I'm always willing to update my beliefs as the evidence improves.

 

[Sureboss]

I was watching Red Dwarf IV - The Last Day the other night, not only was it very funny it also made some excellent points. When Kryten and Lister are talking and Kryten says that Human heaven was created to stop people from going mad, yet he fully believes in "silicone heaven". Reckon the writers did it on purpose? I presume they did...

 

[Stevisiov]

At which point, again, if there is no God, all was in vain, because no life or memory of life would remain.

I can fully understand why you would bring this up, although its a much deeper question than I initially gave it credit for. The problem with posing this sort of question is that your assuming that there are specific credentials for the point of life to begin with. As far as I am aware, the meaning of life is one of the biggest philosophical questions out there.

If all life is in vain because all memory of life is lost with the annihilation of the universe, then that implies that the meaning of life can only be; ensuring an eternal record of humanity or the preservation of humanity for eternity. Everything else is just a means to an end.

Unless of course there are other qualifying factors to the meaning of life, in which case we can have a purpose without lasting for ever.

If the only point in life is to last forever, or leave a permanent record of our being, then I would agree that if atheists are correct, humanity does indeed have quite a task ahead...

Of course, I believe that eternal life isn't the ultimate goal of every human being.

 

[Sureboss]

The meaning of life is to procreate. So get busy, y'all!

 

[Danoff]

The meaning of life is to procreate. So get busy, y'all!

I know you were joking, but in all seriousness, people who cannot have children can still have meaning in their lives. In fact, mindless procreation would seem to have no purpose beyond that of a tree or bacteria.

Many people do attempt to extract meaning from procreation - and I never understand it. I mean, ok, if you teach your child well and he or she goes on to be a nobel prize winning scientist, then perhaps you can hang your hat on your child's achievements, but what about your parents? Did they raise your child? Certainly not. They raised a child with your loose standards for achievement. If your child decides that he or she can extract enough meaning simply by raising children, then you've got nothing.

In otherwords, if your sole purpose is to raise a child and you raise a child with your standards, you're contributing nothing. If you raise a child with higher standards for achievement than yours, then you're a hypocrite.

I think the greatest thing a human being can do with their lives is to try to increase human knowledge. Why do we care? Because human beings are curious animals (as evidenced by this thread), it has meaning to us. Maybe the universe and its gasses and rocks doesn't care a bit about our knowledge, but you can be sure that other human beings do, and the quality of their experiences throughout their lives depends upon it.

I personally do not have a career which directly expands human knowledge. I piggy back on others who do that, but I am a facilitator, so I feel that I do my part. My wife is also not directly invovled with research, but she helps foster research by helping preserve rights. So in a way, we each do our part to contribute to the expansion of human knowledge - and that gives us a sense of meaning.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think the greatest thing a human being can do with their lives is to try to increase human knowledge. Why do we care? Because human beings are curious animals (as evidenced by this thread), it has meaning to us. Maybe the universe and its gasses and rocks doesn't care a bit about our knowledge, but you can be sure that other human beings do, and the quality of their experiences throughout their lives depends upon it.

👍 We certainly wouldn't have got very far as a species if nobody had had any desire to learn and to share what they'd learned with others.

 

[High-Test]

I think the greatest thing a human being can do with their lives is to try to increase human knowledge. Why do we care? Because human beings are curious animals (as evidenced by this thread), it has meaning to us. Maybe the universe and its gasses and rocks doesn't care a bit about our knowledge, but you can be sure that other human beings do, and the quality of their experiences throughout their lives depends upon it.

👍👍

Were it not for some desire to create knowledge for the betterment of society, we could very well be using crude instruments to kill one another.

May I quote you on that that? Something about that struck me. (Maybe because it ignited the part of me that struggles to reason why I'm majoring in sociology other than the fact that I enjoy it?)

Anyway.

Unless of course there are other qualifying factors to the meaning of life, in which case we can have a purpose without lasting for ever.

Which of course there must be. forever is a concept unfathomable to anyone. It's like the part of Dawkins' argument against the existence of God or Aquinas' argument for it. Aquinas states that a causal series can't be infinite, otherwise there wouldn't be a second cause and a third cause to happen after the first. There is a first cause, and people call this God. We know that part. I was going somewhere with that.. It's late here, I need to finish this and get off.

Nobody knows if humanity will be able to last forever. we could nuke ourselves silly, melt the icecaps and drown, or get pummeled by solar radiation of extraterrestrial bodies. Apart from our longing to be known by future generations and the natural desire for there to be a future generation, there is another purpose to man's existence. The idea of a God and an afterlife is pretty appealing. Even if we nuke the world silly, there's still this groovy place where all is peachy (or all is the opposite thereof).

Personally, I believe in God. However, I do not believe in God as stated word for word in any theological texts. I feel that a belief in God gives an idea that there will be this afterlife for us and this leads people to not...discover the purpose of life.
This universe is an improbability. the fact that bodies formed out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium is a bigger improbability. the improbability grows as stars explode, releasing heavier elements which coalesced into revolving orbs. after a few billion years of improbable odds, there was complex life on a ball later known as earth. Life on this planet is a complete mathematical improbability. More than that, it's sacred. (Yeah, I eat meat, don't go there) time will tell if Humanity can leave the mothership and find a new home before Sol goes boom. It's completely unfathomable to ponder events that far in the future, and it's almost silly. Saying that the purpose of humankind's existence is to ensure the eternal survival of humanity degrades all other purposes in our short lifetimes. It's as if we're just a bunch of short lived drones working to accomplish a cause neither we nor our children's children's children's children will ever see. I think Danoff's point about procreating to extract meaning is on the same idea. We're basing our purpose in life on an incredibly simple step in an infinitely long process.

Whoa. I've gotten through the entire Johann Strauss album in typing this up. You can probably tell it's a little unclear and disorganized. Sorry.

 

[Blitz187]

Religion is opium for the masses.....

 

[homeforsummer]

Nice post High-Test 👍 Seems pretty organised and clear to me. That said, I would like to take issue with (well, not take issue so much as raise) one section:

This universe is an improbability. the fact that bodies formed out of hydrogen, helium, and lithium is a bigger improbability. the improbability grows as stars explode, releasing heavier elements which coalesced into revolving orbs. after a few billion years of improbable odds, there was complex life on a ball later known as earth. Life on this planet is a complete mathematical improbability.

I'd argue that these events aren't as improbable as you make out. It's true that the one great improbability was the Big Bang, as for that to occur there would have had to be something that triggered it, exactly the right combination of atoms at exactly the right moment*.

When you consider the scale of the universe (which is a very, very difficult thing to consider, when you look at how tiny galaxies look in pictures like the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, then consider that many of those galaxies are bigger than our Milky Way, and how small our apparently massive solar system is in comparison to the Milky Way), then in the billions of billions of things that are happening all the time, even nearly infinite improbabilities become so much more probable.

Think of it as spending a pound, or a dollar or whatever on a lottery ticket. The odds of you winning the jackpot with six numbers are pretty slim - probably millions to one. But what would the odds be if that one pound or dollar bought you millions of tickets? You'd probably stand a much better chance, because even though your odds for an individual ticket would be slim (like finding life on a planet), you'd have millions of other tickets which might be jackpot winning (millions of other galaxies/stars/solar systems which could potentially support life).

I hope that explains what I'm trying to show - that life isn't as improbable as it seems.

*That said, I do have another theory, which is that there was already a universe around before the big bang that created ours. If this other universe had some particularly volatile areas (not improbable in itself, given that things like stars are particularly volatile and black holes unimaginably powerful) and one of these volatile areas was enough to trigger the big bang, possibly ejecting whatever was in that universe billions of light years past the current visible horizon of our universe, with the materials created from the bang going on to form the universe as we know it. Obviously, don't hold me to any of that scientifically, but it's something I think about occasionally).

 

[Famine]

Not far off on the last part. Except you need "multiverse" instead of "other universe" and "branes" instead of "volatile areas".

Look up "Brane theory"

 

[Sureboss]

Didn't Professor Hawking contribute to String theory?

Danoff - Yes, it was a joke, your post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the meaning of life, to enjoy your life and to help others enjoy theirs, expansion of knowledge plays a key role in that.