What is the purpose in life?

Stephen Hawking to name one. If you really want to know why don't you go google it?
Stephen Hawking is a scientist. That's what he was regarded being famous for. So are you saying Science is what we should value more than anything else? Should we place our trust and faith in Science? Also, if we study science for the sole purpose of curiosity, and science is merely our interpretations of the universe, and we put our faith and trust in Science alone, doesn't that just come around to ourselves being gods? That our goals in life are to please our desires - our curiosity? Sure, many "scientists" emphasize the insignificance of our species and the universe as a whole. But when God or any other form of higher intelligence is completely rejected as even being remotely true, it is only an attempt at glorifying ourselves and our superior knowledge of this little corner of the universe that we inhabit.

Also, I want examples, because I hear about a lot of famous "geniuses" who people say were atheists who, in fact, were not.

Also, basing one's faith and trust on the "famous" and "elite" people of the world does not lead to one truth; it leads to a pandora's box of different opinions and changing views from imperfect people. So how can we put our faith and trust in man if man is flawed?
 
First, how can there be order in chaos? We can't simply be lucky enough to live in an orderly world. As I said before, if there is ANY order in the universe whatsoever, SOME form of order was required in order to create it. Chaos does not create order. However, order can turn into chaos (just a side note).

Secondly, how can you be sure they are human constructs - purpose, order, truth, meaning, and law? They are terms in our English language of course, yes. And they are given human definitions as well. But the basic concepts of these terms - can you say with absolutely certainty they are simply man made? Let's look at one of them, shall we? How about law? Alright, man has laws and a judicial system. Men are told to abide by these laws to benefit society. However, what about our conscience? A conscience is something no other animal has. We feel good and bad when we do different things. But why? I can see an answer you might reply with: that this "conscience" of morals evolved so that all of society would benefit - things like don't kill or steal. It seems logical. But that doesn't explain at all why we feel bad about things that don't directly harm others. Or how about our moral code? Why does ALL of mankind have the same moral values? Why aren't there flukes? Why aren't there people who have complete disregard for human life? There has never been a single exception to this rule because those who do kill people or steal things are only suppressing their conscience. For example, if someone stole a piece of candy, it was most likely because they wanted it. In their minds that person thought,"well, the ends justifies the means". It was worth it to steal that candy because they could taste its sweet flavor. Yet many times with similar moral values, that feelings turns bittersweet and deep down we know it's wrong. But why?

Also, yes, this is my worldview. It's how I interpret what I see. Two men can look at painting and see completely different abstract ideals hidden in it. It's their interpretation of what they see. I'm trying to look at this from a logical perspective - to put meaning to a seemingly meaningless world. I am not the only one holding to my beliefs here - you are as well. I propose that the world has an ultimate purpose outside of ourselves and you respectfully disagree. But we all have our worldviews. The main question I'm asking here is: is their an ultimate purpose that is outside of mankind's opinions? I am not using purpose as a tool to reduce anxiety; for if it was merely that I would be both delusional and be chasing something that is not real. And if that were the case, there sure has been billions of people with the same disorder as me. Is this just a coincidence or are we all a major mistake?

Thirdly, so are you saying abstract thought about things outside of our physical universe is simply a bad side effect? Can you be sure? Or is this explanation actually a way to cope with anxiety, so man does not have to deal with morals, because morals are what we make it right? We don't want others to judge us - we want to feel like good people. So isn't it only natural that we all at least at some point in our lives reject the notion of there being a higher form of intelligence - that is perfect in all aspects of morals - that we must be accountable to?

Hmm, I think you're right on the first paragraph. Assuming the universe did start with the big bang from a state of its absolute lowest entropy, then yes the universe did start from order, and is heading towards some steady state of disorder (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as GreenEarth stated). However, there is no mention of such an event giving meaning to life, even though life as we know it spawned from the aftermath of the big bang. On the other hand, if I were to interpret this from your belief, our meaning of life might be connected to the thing that set the universe in motion. After all the popular scientific theories we have on the universe starting, religion still best explains its origin. Again, I, for lack of faith, still have a hard time believing such "bedtime stories."

You are right on the second paragraph as well. I cannot be certain that purpose, order, truth, meaning, and law on the universal scale are purely human constructs. Conversely, we can't be certain that they aren't, either. It makes sense to me that they are because we as humans want to put meaning on our existences, and hence we invent things that suit us. We do this because we can; we have the mental capabilities to do so. As you stated, you base your argument on the belief of an existence of a higher order, and I base mine on the belief that they never existed in the first place. You say there is a higher purpose outside the domain of mankind, and I say there isn't.

Morality is another story. Conceptions of good and bad, and right and wrong are definitely human constructs. Morality is based on a difference between actions and thoughts that are socially acceptable, and those that are not socially acceptable. In other words, morality is not something that comes from within or from a higher power, it is determined by other people. There is nothing stopping you from killing the person next to you except for your social capital and, as you said, your "conscience." But let's explore these two concepts.

Social capital: a person's network of social connection with other people derived from a shared norms and values on behavior that enable mutually advantageous social cooperation. One man on his (or her) own cannot survive in this world. This has been demonstrated by many people who failed to live out in the wild on their own for extended periods of time. We need each other to survive; we are social creatures. If someone performs a socially unacceptable action, it only hurts his social capital. Other people will think less favorably of him and would be more likely to leave him for dead against nature. Of course, any sensible human would not want that, so he limits his freedom of behavior with other people so that he can better survive.

Conscience: the inner sense of moral principle that compels people to do right. I had just finished explaining that morality is defined subjectively outside the person in question. There is a contradiction; this definition is no good. What is it that really drives a person's conscience? Well, let's explore an action where one's conscience really screams out, such as attempted murder. Upon launching himself on the victim, the murderer sees the look of fear of the victim's face. Already, this stirs up feelings within the murderer. It may cause him to question himself. What am I doing? Why am I depriving this person of his life? I actually like living, why am I not giving this person that same chance? Perhaps he will be an important person some day? Here I am about to take it all away from. I wouldn't want that to happen to me. Do you see what's going on. The murderer is empathizing with his victim. That is the key difference between those who follow through with socially unacceptable actions and those that don't: The strength of their feelings for empathy. One thinks of how soldiers in war can live with the blood they have spilled. Sure, some may have regrets, but other less fortunate survivors have had their feelings for empathy broken down through propaganda, military training, or getting used to the act of repetitive killing the enemy.

All in all, empathy is the true identity of conscience. And between that and the preservation of social capital, people make up rules to limit their behavior and they call them "morals."

And sure, it may be that you and billions of other people may be chasing something delusional, but that doesn't make you a mistake nor is it coincidence. It is what defines us as humans. Whether or not there is a higher power determining the purpose of our lives does not change the fact that we are here today having this wonderful discussion.

I can see that you are a newer member here on T9k. Are the other members driving you crazy with their boastful one-liners? You probably understand that this is the norm. It's a gaming community, not an academic forum after all. Everyone here wants to mess with each other and have fun. Of course, they can be serious when it comes down to it, but the ones who are more consistently so include GreenEarth, Pl4t0, and Wooty. There are others, but they aren't obvious to me. Are you in college by the way?
 
Hmm, I think you're right on the first paragraph. Assuming the universe did start with the big bang from a state of its absolute lowest entropy, then yes the universe did start from order, and is heading towards some steady state of disorder (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as GreenEarth stated). However, there is no mention of such an event giving meaning to life, even though life as we know it spawned from the aftermath of the big bang. On the other hand, if I were to interpret this from your belief, our meaning of life might be connected to the thing that set the universe in motion. After all the popular scientific theories we have on the universe starting, religion still best explains its origin. Again, I, for lack of faith, still have a hard time believing such "bedtime stories."

You are right on the second paragraph as well. I cannot be certain that purpose, order, truth, meaning, and law on the universal scale are purely human constructs. Conversely, we can't be certain that they aren't, either. It makes sense to me that they are because we as humans want to put meaning on our existences, and hence we invent things that suit us. We do this because we can; we have the mental capabilities to do so. As you stated, you base your argument on the belief of an existence of a higher order, and I base mine on the belief that they never existed in the first place. You say there is a higher purpose outside the domain of mankind, and I say there isn't.

Morality is another story. Conceptions of good and bad, and right and wrong are definitely human constructs. Morality is based on a difference between actions and thoughts that are socially acceptable, and those that are not socially acceptable. In other words, morality is not something that comes from within or from a higher power, it is determined by other people. There is nothing stopping you from killing the person next to you except for your social capital and, as you said, your "conscience." But let's explore these two concepts.

Social capital: a person's network of social connection with other people derived from a shared norms and values on behavior that enable mutually advantageous social cooperation. One man on his (or her) own cannot survive in this world. This has been demonstrated by many people who failed to live out in the wild on their own for extended periods of time. We need each other to survive; we are social creatures. If someone performs a socially unacceptable action, it only hurts his social capital. Other people will think less favorably of him and would be more likely to leave him for dead against nature. Of course, any sensible human would not want that, so he limits his freedom of behavior with other people so that he can better survive.

Conscience: the inner sense of moral principle that compels people to do right. I had just finished explaining that morality is defined subjectively outside the person in question. There is a contradiction; this definition is no good. What is it that really drives a person's conscience? Well, let's explore an action where one's conscience really screams out, such as attempted murder. Upon launching himself on the victim, the murderer sees the look of fear of the victim's face. Already, this stirs up feelings within the murderer. It may cause him to question himself. What am I doing? Why am I depriving this person of his life? I actually like living, why am I not giving this person that same chance? Perhaps he will be an important person some day? Here I am about to take it all away from. I wouldn't want that to happen to me. Do you see what's going on. The murderer is empathizing with his victim. That is the key difference between those who follow through with socially unacceptable actions and those that don't: The strength of their feelings for empathy. One thinks of how soldiers in war can live with the blood they have spilled. Sure, some may have regrets, but other less fortunate survivors have had their feelings for empathy broken down through propaganda, military training, or getting used to the act of repetitive killing the enemy.

All in all, empathy is the true identity of conscience. And between that and the preservation of social capital, people make up rules to limit their behavior and they call them "morals."

And sure, it may be that you and billions of other people may be chasing something delusional, but that doesn't make you a mistake nor is it coincidence. It is what defines us as humans. Whether or not there is a higher power determining the purpose of our lives does not change the fact that we are here today having this wonderful discussion.

I can see that you are a newer member here on T9k. Are the other members driving you crazy with their boastful one-liners? You probably understand that this is the norm. It's a gaming community, not an academic forum after all. Everyone here wants to mess with each other and have fun. Of course, they can be serious when it comes down to it, but the ones who are more consistently so include GreenEarth, Pl4t0, and Wooty. There are others, but they aren't obvious to me. Are you in college by the way?
very long post is very long....
 
Hmm, I think you're right on the first paragraph. Assuming the universe did start with the big bang from a state of its absolute lowest entropy, then yes the universe did start from order, and is heading towards some steady state of disorder (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as GreenEarth stated). However, there is no mention of such an event giving meaning to life, even though life as we know it spawned from the aftermath of the big bang. On the other hand, if I were to interpret this from your belief, our meaning of life might be connected to the thing that set the universe in motion. After all the popular scientific theories we have on the universe starting, religion still best explains its origin. Again, I, for lack of faith, still have a hard time believing such "bedtime stories."

You are right on the second paragraph as well. I cannot be certain that purpose, order, truth, meaning, and law on the universal scale are purely human constructs. Conversely, we can't be certain that they aren't, either. It makes sense to me that they are because we as humans want to put meaning on our existences, and hence we invent things that suit us. We do this because we can; we have the mental capabilities to do so. As you stated, you base your argument on the belief of an existence of a higher order, and I base mine on the belief that they never existed in the first place. You say there is a higher purpose outside the domain of mankind, and I say there isn't.

Morality is another story. Conceptions of good and bad, and right and wrong are definitely human constructs. Morality is based on a difference between actions and thoughts that are socially acceptable, and those that are not socially acceptable. In other words, morality is not something that comes from within or from a higher power, it is determined by other people. There is nothing stopping you from killing the person next to you except for your social capital and, as you said, your "conscience." But let's explore these two concepts.

Social capital: a person's network of social connection with other people derived from a shared norms and values on behavior that enable mutually advantageous social cooperation. One man on his (or her) own cannot survive in this world. This has been demonstrated by many people who failed to live out in the wild on their own for extended periods of time. We need each other to survive; we are social creatures. If someone performs a socially unacceptable action, it only hurts his social capital. Other people will think less favorably of him and would be more likely to leave him for dead against nature. Of course, any sensible human would not want that, so he limits his freedom of behavior with other people so that he can better survive.

Conscience: the inner sense of moral principle that compels people to do right. I had just finished explaining that morality is defined subjectively outside the person in question. There is a contradiction; this definition is no good. What is it that really drives a person's conscience? Well, let's explore an action where one's conscience really screams out, such as attempted murder. Upon launching himself on the victim, the murderer sees the look of fear of the victim's face. Already, this stirs up feelings within the murderer. It may cause him to question himself. What am I doing? Why am I depriving this person of his life? I actually like living, why am I not giving this person that same chance? Perhaps he will be an important person some day? Here I am about to take it all away from. I wouldn't want that to happen to me. Do you see what's going on. The murderer is empathizing with his victim. That is the key difference between those who follow through with socially unacceptable actions and those that don't: The strength of their feelings for empathy. One thinks of how soldiers in war can live with the blood they have spilled. Sure, some may have regrets, but other less fortunate survivors have had their feelings for empathy broken down through propaganda, military training, or getting used to the act of repetitive killing the enemy.

All in all, empathy is the true identity of conscience. And between that and the preservation of social capital, people make up rules to limit their behavior and they call them "morals."

And sure, it may be that you and billions of other people may be chasing something delusional, but that doesn't make you a mistake nor is it coincidence. It is what defines us as humans. Whether or not there is a higher power determining the purpose of our lives does not change the fact that we are here today having this wonderful discussion.

I can see that you are a newer member here on T9k. Are the other members driving you crazy with their boastful one-liners? You probably understand that this is the norm. It's a gaming community, not an academic forum after all. Everyone here wants to mess with each other and have fun. Of course, they can be serious when it comes down to it, but the ones who are more consistently so include GreenEarth, Pl4t0, and Wooty. There are others, but they aren't obvious to me. Are you in college by the way?
I liked that because of how long it was...
 
On your first point regarding the beginning of the universe, you explained that the big bang was a form of order (in the universe's state of absolute lowest entropy). Is it? Let's think about that for a second. What does an explosion do? It incinerates, it destroys, it creates chaos. So how does this supposed massive explosion at the dawn of the universe create order if it's core element is chaos?

Also, where did this big bang come from? What caused the explosion? As far as I have studied, the big bang does not and cannot provide any explanation for the initial explosion or "expansion" of the universe (as the big bang supposedly came from an extremely hot and dense state of the universe), rather it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point. The big bang, even if it were as simple as an explosion (which is still relatively complicated), has to come from somewhere. The matter that is our universe had to be made by something. Something cannot come from nothing, just as an atom cannot create itself out of nothing. The only possible explanation something could come from nothing is if that something existed out of our physical realm of time and space. And the only thing that fits that description is a being of higher intelligence - a deity - a being that would have the capability to start the universe in motion. Just like when a pendulum swings, some force must first put that pendulum in motion. So it is the same with our universe.

On your second point concerning meaning and existence, fair enough. The first premises to both of our arguments must be true in order to reach a proper conclusion. We have different views and I respect you are willing to discuss with me.

As for your third point on the subject of morality, let's discuss this concept of morals. You said they are human constructs - made on the basis that to follow morals is an attempt to keep our social capital in good standing, and that our conscience exists merely as a tool to survive in society through the method of empathy. Let's explore this view. So man wishes to keep his social capital good, and in order to do that, he must follow morals.

You said these morals are defined in society by nature, but let's look at that more closely - let's talk about the young humans - those who do not yet have a concept in their minds of either social capital or the needs of the society for the purpose of survival as a whole. Why do they commit wrong? Or why do they do good? They have no basis in society yet, so society cannot be their reason for accomplishing such actions. These morals must be given to them by nature - that the moment they come into existence, they have the knowledge of these morals, and that when they come to a certain mental capacity later in their lives, they better understand this knowledge. Right and wrong cannot be human constructs because young children do not yet have the capability of understanding their purpose in society. This sense of right and wrong - this conscience - had to be something given to them, not evolved or constructed.

There's also the point that every culture in our known history has had these same core values - these same morals - that still exist today. Is that a coincidence as well? Or is it a logical conclusion because all humans, by nature, were given this knowledge through other means rather than the own reasoning and rationalizing of their own minds without the existence of outside forces at work?

Empathy cannot work either, because to understand empathy, you must have a certain mental capacity - you must be able to understand the consequences of your actions before you can feel sorry for them. You must be able to be sensitive to your surroundings in order to understand them. A young child or any human who does not yet have that mental capacity is neither bound by social capital or empathy, because they don't understand either fully yet.

You said these "morals" is basically what makes us human - it's what separates us from the other creatures of the earth. So tell me, how can an external concept - one that cannot be understood by those without the mental capacity, and one that is knowledge alone - be constructed by man if it is within his very nature?

Yes, I am quite a new member here at T9k. One-liners - while simple in their demeanor - still reveal the basic beliefs of an individual. And from that, I can discuss to them (if they are willing) the core concepts of those beliefs in order to better understand them and come to the realization if they are truth or not. Which brings me to one last question: do you believe there is an ultimate truth to the beginning of our universe and the purpose of our existence and can it be knowable by us humans?

Also, I just started dual-enrolling in college this semester. I'll be 17 soon. :)
 
On your first point regarding the beginning of the universe, you explained that the big bang was a form of order (in the universe's state of absolute lowest entropy). Is it? Let's think about that for a second. What does an explosion do? It incinerates, it destroys, it creates chaos. So how does this supposed massive explosion at the dawn of the universe create order if it's core element is chaos?

Also, where did this big bang come from? What caused the explosion? As far as I have studied, the big bang does not and cannot provide any explanation for the initial explosion or "expansion" of the universe (as the big bang supposedly came from an extremely hot and dense state of the universe), rather it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point. The big bang, even if it were as simple as an explosion (which is still relatively complicated), has to come from somewhere. The matter that is our universe had to be made by something. Something cannot come from nothing, just as an atom cannot create itself out of nothing. The only possible explanation something could come from nothing is if that something existed out of our physical realm of time and space. And the only thing that fits that description is a being of higher intelligence - a deity - a being that would have the capability to start the universe in motion. Just like when a pendulum swings, some force must first put that pendulum in motion. So it is the same with our universe.

On your second point concerning meaning and existence, fair enough. The first premises to both of our arguments must be true in order to reach a proper conclusion. We have different views and I respect you are willing to discuss with me.

As for your third point on the subject of morality, let's discuss this concept or morals. You said they are human constructs - made on the basis that to follow morals is an attempt to keep our social capital in good standing, and that our conscience exists merely as a tool to survive in society through the method of empathy. Let's explore this view. So man wishes to keep his social capital good, and in order to do that, he must follow morals.

You said these morals are defined in society by nature, but let's look at that more closely - let's talk about the young humans - those who do not yet have a concept in their minds of either social capital or the needs of the society for the purpose of survival as a whole. Why do they commit wrong? Or why do they do good? They have no basis in society yet, so society cannot be their reason for accomplishing such actions. These morals must be given to them by nature - that the moment they come into existence, they have the knowledge of these morals, and that when they come to a certain mental capacity later in their lives, they better understand this knowledge. Right and wrong cannot be human constructs because young children do not yet have the capability of understanding their purpose in society. This sense of right and wrong - this conscience - had to be something given to them, not evolved or constructed.

There's also the point that every culture in our known history has had these same core values - these same morals - that still exist today. Is that a coincidence as well? Or is it a logical conclusion because all humans, by nature, were given this knowledge through other means rather than the own reasoning and rationalizing of their own minds without the existence of outside forces at work?

Empathy cannot work either, because to understand empathy, you must have a certain mental capacity - you must be able to understand the consequences of your actions before you can feel sorry for them. You must be able to be sensitive to your surroundings in order to understand them. A young child or any human who does not yet have that mental capacity is neither bound by social capital or empathy, because they don't understand either fully yet.

You said these "morals" is basically what makes us human - it's what separates us from the other creatures of the earth. So tell me, how can an external concept - one that cannot be understood by those without the mental capacity, and one that is knowledge alone - be constructed by man if it is within his very nature?

Yes, I am quite a new member here at T9k. One-liners - while simple in their demeanor - still reveal the basic beliefs of an individual. And from that, I can discuss to them (if they are willing) the core concepts of those beliefs in order to better understand them and come to the realization if they are truth or not. Which brings me to one last question: do you believe there is an ultimate truth to the beginning of our universe and the purpose of our existence and can it be knowable by us humans?

Also, I just started dual-enrolling in college this semester. I'll be 17 soon. :)
HOLY FUCK!!!

O_O'
You could compete with Pl4to writing wise. O_O
 
On your first point regarding the beginning of the universe, you explained that the big bang was a form of order (in the universe's state of absolute lowest entropy). Is it? Let's think about that for a second. What does an explosion do? It incinerates, it destroys, it creates chaos. So how does this supposed massive explosion at the dawn of the universe create order if it's core element is chaos?

You need to read up on entropy. Lowest state of entropy corresponds with highest state of order. The universe at its birth (assuming it was ever "born") was in this state. After the universe went "bang," entropy (and hence disorder) steadily increased to its present state today, and will continue to increase until the presumed heat-death of the universe.

Your view of the accepted big bang theory is also skewed. "Big bang" is a misnomer; nothing exploded in the beginning. The theory refers to the sudden expansion of the universe very shortly after its birth.

Also, where did this big bang come from? What caused the explosion? As far as I have studied, the big bang does not and cannot provide any explanation for the initial explosion or "expansion" of the universe (as the big bang supposedly came from an extremely hot and dense state of the universe), rather it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point. The big bang, even if it were as simple as an explosion (which is still relatively complicated), has to come from somewhere. The matter that is our universe had to be made by something. Something cannot come from nothing, just as an atom cannot create itself out of nothing. The only possible explanation something could come from nothing is if that something existed out of our physical realm of time and space. And the only thing that fits that description is a being of higher intelligence - a deity - a being that would have the capability to start the universe in motion. Just like when a pendulum swings, some force must first put that pendulum in motion. So it is the same with our universe.

Correct, we don't know what, how, or why the universe was put here. Please refer to my third, fourth, and fifth statements in the first paragraph in post #44.

You said these morals are defined in society by nature, but let's look at that more closely - let's talk about the young humans - those who do not yet have a concept in their minds of either social capital or the needs of the society for the purpose of survival as a whole. Why do they commit wrong? Or why do they do good? They have no basis in society yet, so society cannot be their reason for accomplishing such actions. These morals must be given to them by nature - that the moment they come into existence, they have the knowledge of these morals, and that when they come to a certain mental capacity later in their lives, they better understand this knowledge. Right and wrong cannot be human constructs because young children do not yet have the capability of understanding their purpose in society. This sense of right and wrong - this conscience - had to be something given to them, not evolved or constructed.

Correct. Young children are pure; they have no firm understanding of their society's beliefs and values nor of right and wrong. They are taught moral principles by the adults of their society. "Don't bully other children." "Don't draw on the walls." "Be nice to your brothers and sisters." "Don't take the cookie from the cookie jar." Children are capable of stealing, and when you catch them they give you a blank stare. They didn't know that stealing was "wrong" because they haven't been taught that. You are right, children develop their conscience from learning from other people. Again, as I stated, morals are derived from socially acceptable and unacceptable actions. They are determined by the society. Hence, human constructs.

There's also the point that every culture in our known history has had these same core values - these same morals - that still exist today. Is that a coincidence as well? Or is it a logical conclusion because all humans, by nature, were given this knowledge through other means rather than the own reasoning and rationalizing of their own minds without the existence of outside forces at work?

Yes, this is obvious. Every culture has these same core values because nobody in their right mind wants to be stolen from, treated unfairly, or killed.

Empathy cannot work either, because to understand empathy, you must have a certain mental capacity - you must be able to understand the consequences of your actions before you can feel sorry for them. You must be able to be sensitive to your surroundings in order to understand them. A young child or any human who does not yet have that mental capacity is neither bound by social capital or empathy, because they don't understand either fully yet.

This confirms my points on humans and abstract thought. Refer to my previous posts on how I develop it in this discussion.

You said these "morals" is basically what makes us human - it's what separates us from the other creatures of the earth. So tell me, how can an external concept - one that cannot be understood by those without the mental capacity, and one that is knowledge alone - be constructed by man if it is within his very nature?

I should have clarified it more. I was not saying that "morals" are what make us human, but our tendency to chase after delusions is.
Also, it's empathy that's inherent in man. Morals are constructed from empathy. Again, our capacity for empathy derives from our capabilities of abstract thought.

Do you believe there is an ultimate truth to the beginning of our universe and the purpose of our existence and can it be knowable by us humans?

I honestly don't have an answer for this. Certainly it would put everything in perspective for us as humans, so then it becomes a question of whether we are better off knowing it or not. Personally, I would rather remain in the dark about this, because that's what makes life interesting. IDK :D

Also, I just started dual-enrolling in college this semester. I'll be 17 soon. :)

Wow, congrats!
 
Ok I know the whole Christians think a wizard created it, but the big bang theory is just fucking retarded. Seriously, "We believe that a rnadom explosion happened and formed a planet fit for humans that hasn't existed in the universe in trillions of years" Really?
Well, it's as good an explanation as anything.

I mean, we could get all philosophical about the whole thing, but it doesn't effect the final result.

We are here. Fuck, we don't need to read into it.

...I've got a million and one things to say on this topic, but at the moment I feel remarkably sick, and I'm not up to writing a one-page-essay on my beliefs. I respect you guys (Serenity, Lacar) for having the brevity and patience to talk this out. It's good to see some threads stay on-topic.

When I'm feeling better, I'll put up my views. Now, excuse me whilst I dry-retch. (I'm not joking.)

HOLY FUCK!!!

O_O'
You could compete with Pl4to writing wise. O_O
Bitch, please.
 
To address the discussion about order from disorder. The assertion that order cannot arise from disorder is incorrect. Please read this article as it explains very clearly why this is incorrect. A lot of the questions being discussed here are either vague or can be answered with some research.

Read: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm


The basics of humanity is our freewill to make decisions that animals don't have the capability to.

What? Animals have free will. Their choices however are based on their will to survive. Humans have made survival easy, thus they have more choices.

Why does ALL of mankind have the same moral values?

What? We don't. For example, the shitty way some group of people treat women and think that it is okay, while others treat women as equals. Our values are so different we don't get along.

The big bang theory is just fucking retarded. Seriously, "We believe that a random explosion happened and formed a planet fit for humans that hasn't existed in the universe in trillions of years" Really?

You skipped the part where new particles are formed, new elements are formed, galaxies, stars, solar systems are formed. That would be like saying "so people go harvest some wheat and then delicious cake happens? That is retarded."

And by the way, the planet wasn't created for humans (this is arrogant), life evolved or was created to be adapted to the planet and its various environments.
 
To address the discussion about order from disorder. The assertion that order cannot arise from disorder is incorrect. Please read this article as it explains very clearly why this is incorrect. A lot of the questions being discussed here are either vague or can be answered with some research.

Read: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm




What? Animals have free will. Their choices however are based on their will to survive. Humans have made survival easy, thus they have more choices.



What? We don't. For example, the shitty way some group of people treat women and think that it is okay, while others treat women as equals. Our values are so different we don't get along.



You skipped the part where new particles are formed, new elements are formed, galaxies, stars, solar systems are formed. That would be like saying "so people go harvest some wheat and then delicious cake happens? That is retarded."

And by the way, the planet wasn't created for humans (this is arrogant), life evolved or was created to be adapted to the planet and its various environments.
Ah ha, a avid believer in evolution.
I believe in the halo manner of creation.

Explain to me why evolution is the reason for us. Also, I agree with you on the earth was not made for humans.
 
I was going to dump a philosophical load on this thread, and bring out my true intellectual prowess, but I have been writing a term paper all day and don't feel like it.

We human beings, have the right to decide what we want for ourselves. The purpose in life if what we want it to be, not what people want us to believe it to be. Some people look for a laid back form of life, where they will try to have as little worries as they can. Others try to delve deep into life, trying to find out the innermost parts of a persons life, pick it apart, and adapt it to what they want their lives to be like. My, personally, I am a Christian. I am not a Christian because I am forced, or because I believe in some magic voodoo man in the sky that makes everything all good. I believe what I believe because I want something more than simplicity. I yearn for a deeper love, a deeper knowledge, and a deeper connection. That is what I want. I will never force my on beliefs on anyone else. I will never atone to what come so called "christians" do to make people believe in what they do. I will keep my beliefs to myself, as I expect other people to do. I hate it when people try to force what they want to be true on me. I will just ignore them, and keep living my life the way I want it. I take that into account, that that is how others feel about it as well. I try to keep my beliefs out of everything I do. However, they are a part of my being. Do you ever hear me use profanities or any other such conduct? No. That is because I like it like that. I do not mind it, and do not care when other people use them, that is their decision.

For me, life is worth living. Life gives me purpose in itself. I find purpose in the little things I do every day. Lastly, I find purpose in my beliefs.
I am always open to new ideas, I am always up for sharing mine. I will sit down, buy you lunch, and talk to you for hours if you are willing to listen.
I care for all of you, and wish you all the best.

Oh, and have a very, merry, Christmas!
 
To Lacar1601:

One: OK, I did more research and I believe I understand the correct definition of entropy. Now, let me refer back to the expansion of the universe: what caused the universe to be so dense and why did it suddenly expand from the singularity? What caused this phenomena? Again, back to the pendulum example. A pendulum must first be put in motion to continue its motion. The universe must be set in motion from an outside force to propel it in motion as well. I am aware the Big Bang theory does not explain this, but it is a huge flaw in its reasoning. This singularity that expanded had to come from somewhere. Something cannot be made from nothing. Sorry if I tend to repeat myself.

Two: I guess you're right. If the Big Bang was true (and a higher intelligence did not exist), there would be no meaning to life, because it would be what we flawed creatures make it. Life would only amount to glorifying and pleasing self because self is all that would exist.

Three: Young children are "pure", you say? What defines them being pure? What defines right and wrong? Yes, society does eventually teach them how they want them to act, but that still neglects the fact that they knew how to steal and whatnot beforehand. Doing "sin" was in their nature; parents tell their children how to do good but you never see a parent teach a child how to be bad because the child already knows how.

Four: But why? What makes those things wrong? Does society alone dictate what's right and what's wrong? Why aren't there societies who don't have these same core values? Wouldn't it be logical that at least some humans would of developed their morals and conscience differently?

Five: Please explain. I'm getting a little confused (I always tend to when there is a lot to think about). How is "the ability to understand the feelings of another" the identity of conscience? You have the example of killing, but that's directly harming someone else. What about the moral "wrongs" that don't directly harm anyone? Where is empathy involved there if the "wrong" act doesn't involve anyone else?

Six: Why isn't it morals that make us human, if we are the only creatures in the world that abide by them? A creature doesn't feel it's doing right or wrong. Why man? Why are we the only creatures who even have the capability of abstract though in the first place (as in thinking about the non-physical realm)?

Seven: Would it not be better to know the truth? Aren't you curious to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything (sadly, I don't think it's 42 :p)? Just out of my own curiosity, if God did exist, and we did have a higher purpose, and morals were not constructed by man but were "written on their hearts" by God ("They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." - Romans 2:15), tell me: would you want Him to exist? Would you rather want a universe where God was not the creator and the one who sustains it all? Would you wish to remain in the dark where there could be another light shining?

Eight: Thanks. :) Next semester, it gets more crazy, but I'm glad I'm taking these classes early. :)
 
Ah ha, a avid believer in evolution.
I believe in the halo manner of creation.

This is an incorrect correlation and a mistake committed by many, avoid in the future.

The Theory of Evolution does not discuss or speculate on the origins of life. It discusses the change that populations go through. Also the word "theory" is not to be taken lightly, I hear people say "well its a theory so we don't know". Yes we know, the mechanisms described in the theory have been endlessly and meticulously tested, and have checked out.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

If you want the origins of life go here, the theories in this field are a lot less supported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenisis

As for humans, refer to this Phylogenetic tree. I always hear a lot of comparisons being made between chimps and humans and statements like "we come from apes". This is not entirely true and is oversimplified.
gg050351.f1.gif


See where a branch a divides into two species like bonobos and chimps? In that intersection there is a "common ancestor", this means a populations of this species must have been separated somehow or for some reason evolved into two new species. So chimps and bonobos are more closely related than humans and chimps for example. Go down a step and you see another intersection. There was another common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos. They divided to evolve into humans and the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. I hope this sort of gives you an idea of how there isn't a single line of evolution, that populations are sometimes separated and evolve over time into new species, or don't. And for the record humans are more closely related to bonobos then they are to chimps.

Now take that concept and apply it to this.
TreeOfLife.jpg
 
I'm actually more on the bandwagon of not caring, I do have a love for knowing what is what but knowing the unknowable and thus people try to invent the unknowable simply does not interest me. :cool:
 
Back
Top