Purpose of Life

The carpenter is just not too concerned that his measurement is less precise than the nanotechnologist, but it is still accurate, since his measurement tools were calibrated according to the standard. That is why we have the Bureau of Standards, now called the National Institute of Science and Technology.

Do I have to explain the difference between accuracy and precision? Geez, go back to high school.

I understand the difference between accuracy and precision. I am not talking about either. I am talking about language.
 
The carpenter is just not too concerned that his measurement is less precise than the nanotechnologist, but it is still accurate, since his measurement tools were calibrated according to the standard. That is why we have the Bureau of Standards, now called the National Institute of Science and Technology.

Do I have to explain the difference between accuracy and precision? Geez, go back to high school.
You claimed that measurement is standardized.

I was illustrating how it is standardized in differenet circumstances to meet realtive criteria, namely the criteria of the person doing the measuring
 
OK, so? Are you trying to tell me that because I round off the measurement of say, the distance from Earth to Pluto to the nearest millimeter, instead of with an precision of plus or minus .00000001mm, that every judgement or prediction related to this measurement should be ignored? I think you are millimental.

The precision isn't standardized for all circumstances, but the unit is.
 
OK, so? Are you trying to tell me that because I round off the measurement of say, the distance from Earth to Pluto to the nearest millimeter, instead of with an precision of plus or minus .00000001mm, that every judgement or prediction related to this measurement should be ignored? I think you are millimental.

The precision isn't standardized for all circumstances, but the unit is.

If the unit cannot be presented in any standardized form of precision, it is an abstract
 
Measurement is a description of a relationship, it is inherently abstract. Absolute precision isn't necessary to describe relationships (truths), at most scales.
 
Measurement is a description of a relationship, it is inherently abstract. Absolute precision isn't necessary to describe relationships (truths), at most scales.

so to get back to your statement ....


The perception of humans is suspect, that is why science eliminates this variable in favor of measurement.


.... the relationship is ultimately human (ie it doesn't escape the weaknesses inherant to sense perception)
 
firstly [deleted] lightgigantic, his question was to islamsmylife, and you are not qualified to answer, especially with another question.
and my arse and excreta, can percieve the evidence or lack there of to religion.

you have been told and told again, yet you always come back with the same inane and infantile arguements, could you give it a rest now, some people, would like to converse intelligently.

you spam on ever thread, [deleted]. please troll some where else, because of you, this site should be renamed to Moronforums, the intellect is leaving, but you would not know what that is would you.

some very good posters used to post here they dont now, just because of your trolling.

Total agreement. I enjoy most threads on this site until people like lightgigantic come into them. They never seem to add to a discussion, but rather prefer to end them by being annoying.

Great posts by Spidergoat in this thread. Quite the read. Unfortunately, the great posters like Spidergoat are soon dismayed and leave the forum because of people like lightgigantic.

This forum would be tops if there was more diligent moderation, not just for ad hominems, but for derailers and trolls.
 
Total agreement. I enjoy most threads on this site until people like lightgigantic come into them. They never seem to add to a discussion, but rather prefer to end them by being annoying.

Great posts by Spidergoat in this thread. Quite the read. Unfortunately, the great posters like Spidergoat are soon dismayed and leave the forum because of people like lightgigantic.

This forum would be tops if there was more diligent moderation, not just for ad hominems, but for derailers and trolls.

Maybe you should just converse through PM's if you don't want to run the risk of having different views that could unsettle or challenge your values, interests and concerns - especially if you are an atheist of fragile sensibilities that insists on hanging out on a religion debate forum thread

;)
 
Perhaps some of us moved him to apostacy and his hard drive was confiscated by the religious police in some theocracy like Saudi Arabia and he was beheaded.

Also, the religion subforum (of a science forum) isn't strictly a "religion debate forum." It's also a place for the science-minded to share information about religion, discuss religious matters -particularly as they relate to science, share information and discuss how science is affected by religious belief, and even discuss religion in a scientific way (something that the religious often claim cannot be done). It need not always be about debate.
 
Perhaps some of us moved him to apostacy and his hard drive was confiscated by the religious police in some theocracy like Saudi Arabia and he was beheaded.

Also, the religion subforum (of a science forum) isn't strictly a "religion debate forum." It's also a place for the science-minded to share information about religion, discuss religious matters -particularly as they relate to science, share information and discuss how science is affected by religious belief, and even discuss religion in a scientific way (something that the religious often claim cannot be done). It need not always be about debate.

If you insist on replying to posts as indicated in your opening paragraph (condescending misrepresentation of precepts) it will be increasingly difficult to nurture the atmosphere you idealize in your closing paragraph (a level playing field for the examination of precepts)
 
Last edited:
This may be a religious question or Philosophical question depending on which way you view it. But simply what is the puropose of life? And how do you know that, that is the real purpose?
The purpose of life is to live. However the individual chooses to live, whatever they set as thier goal, that is thier purpose. We create our own destinies.
In the biological sense the function of life is to survive and propagate itself in order to continue the existence of the species.
 
The purpose of life is to live. However the individual chooses to live, whatever they set as thier goal, that is thier purpose. We create our own destinies.
In the biological sense the function of life is to survive and propagate itself in order to continue the existence of the species.

How many people consciously begin their activities or reflect over them with the view "I certainly have helped continued the existence of our species"

It becomes difficult to see the activities of a person working for the benefit of animals in such a context
 
How many people consciously begin their activities or reflect over them with the view "I certainly have helped continued the existence of our species"
what a totally inane response to hapsburgs post, where in his post did he suggest or imply, the above, you replied just to cause arguement, not debate.
you are a troll, I agree with pavlos.
you post on all threads it seems, to take it of topic and argue instead of debate.
Boring.
every debate that you frequent, and thats every debate, ends up about the same thing, your slant on religion.
 
So basically after we die were just a forgotten memory in time and we only live on through genes taken on by others who will eventually forget us as well. Hmm Seems like a pretty pointless life.
Let me guess, you reject the idea that life is pointless because you find the idea unappealing?
 
The purpose of life is to have sex. No sex, no life. According to Chinese and African mysticism
 
Am I the only one that would find no planned purpose to life more interesting, mysterious and even more appealing than some sort of brain fart in gods head? Certainly I find no idea of god put forward by believers more appealing than reality.
 
The purpose of life is to simply animate most organic and to some extent inorganic molecules, assuming life is a natural phenomena occuring all over the universe. Once life is established it appears to become more complex if given enough time. Life's goal at this moment seems to be creating a creature intelligent enough to ask, what is the purpose of life? Where life is heading from here is anybody's guess.
 
Please provide proof of any purpose of life.

Then please show me where I have signed up to it. :)

There is no evidence for any "purpose" to life.

Even those who argue that the purpose of life is merely propagation, increasing the gene pool or any other non-theistic "purpose" is doing nothing but putting forward their own personal "purpose" for existence.

As far as the evidence goes, there is NO purpose to life - life just is.

If you think that propagation of genes is the purpose of life - do those that decide not to have children FAIL in the very purpose of life?

Of course not.

If life has a purpose it is to obey the laws of the Universe unswervingly.
And so far life is doing a very good job of fulfilling its purpose.

Purpose of life... :D Good one.
:rolleyes:
 
Am I the only one that would find no planned purpose to life more interesting, mysterious and even more appealing than some sort of brain fart in gods head? Certainly I find no idea of god put forward by believers more appealing than reality.

"I like what I know and I know what I like" is hardly the best platform for initiating debate or discussion
 
Back
Top