The Purpose of Life

sideshowbob said:
My defence is the same as my defence against unicorns: Show me.
Click to expand...
Again, that is arguing the invalidity of your opponent's claim.

Saying 'unicorns do not exist' is its own claim - and it's indefensible - at least objectively. It's certainly a personal conviction you can hold.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You can argue that the opponent's claim is not defended adequately, but you can't claim there is no God and be able to defend it.
Click to expand...

You can also do basic philosophy.
Here an example : Pascal's wager.
wikipedia said:
Pascal's description of the wager
The Pensées passage on Pascal's wager is as follows:

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is infinite chaos that separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to change your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[12]

Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal's assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.

We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is "equal risk of loss and gain" (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.

He points out that if a wager were between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it were three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to betting against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or miss the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
 
sideshowbob said:
Which is all I need to do.
Click to expand...
Sure.
I was just pointing out that this
sideshowbob said:
But of course there is no creator, almighty or otherwise.
Click to expand...
is an over-reach (more accurately, a conviction or belief).

There's a qualitative difference between 'I don't grant the existence of X unless I see it' and 'There is no X.'

'Does the creator exist' is not a binary true/false question. The third (and only objective) answer is: 'there is not enough evidence to support the claim that there is, and no way to make a case that there (conclusively) isn't'.


What we can make use of is the Null Hypothesis: 'There's no there there - until and unless there's a there there'. (Pretty sure that's paraphrased.)
 
Michael 345 said:
Don't think you believe that, but that is reality
Click to expand...
No, he does believe it. It is logically valid, without having to be true.

1. If there is a creator then reality (may) have a purpose.
2. If there is no creator then reality definitely does not have a purpose.

He acknowledges that both statements 1 and 2 are logically valid, however he believes that the premise (the if) of statement 2 is false, therefore statement 2's conclusion is false.
 
free will, creator, ...

- - -

basic concepts, definitions, axioms, ...
/whatever, something like this, some order, ... /

= = =

Mathematicians argue and boil down to number and space.

Philosophers argue and boil down to Language (definition (-s), ... ) and Human behaviour.

- "grammar/math" and Eric Berne -

- - -

analyse/synthesise

-

free will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

-

Hamlet Philosophy: what does 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead' say about Free Will?

Hecatonicosachoron 7 years ago
...

Bernard Brother 7 years ago
...


= = =

thing, connection
 
Last edited:
Hi,

The statement and the question were part of the debate that took place in the courtroom.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a Tennessee science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. IMDb
 
O. W. Grant said:
Hi,

The statement and the question were part of the debate that took place in the courtroom.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a Tennessee science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. IMDb
Click to expand...
And this is even vaguely related to the thread topic how exactly?
 
Hi,

I like reading posts on that tread. I needed that film so I posted it.

- - -
“Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have.”
Franz Kafka

" ... " (Kafka in another words)
Clarence Worley (Christian Slater), True Romance, written by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary (1993)
- - -


This forum helps me remember much.
 
kmguru said:
After watching the whole set of through the wormhole I have this question:

"What is the purpose of Life?"

Knowing as a spirit we live for eternity and knowing that there are 10+1 dimensions...what are we doing here? I know I need to stay close to my Family and Friends in here and in spirit...but then what is going on for the next 10 million years or more....

Family is first...but then why the Family...that is what is the Purpose over eternity?

Any good answers please provide. Then I can check that with channel people....that are connected to entities with 5 Billion years of life....

As per Buddha...

"The Buddhist sūtras and tantras do not speak about "the meaning of life" or "the purpose of life", but about the potential of human life to end suffering, for example through embracing (not suppressing or denying) cravings and conceptual attachments. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from both suffering and rebirth."

That means I have no idea....

I also saw this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

Thank you....
Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like non existence to me. To be honest, I couldn't imagine life without some struggle. As for purpose, well ... I'd suggest purpose is personal, but the eat, drink, and be happy thing does appeal to me. Payday Friday after working all week mindset - seems relevant to the ecclesiastical philosophy. I enjoy a well prepared meal and a nice tall glass of iced tea with lemon wedge. It doesn't hurt to add to that good company.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
To be honest, I couldn't imagine life without some struggle.
Click to expand...
I doubt that there are many animals that can imagine any meaning or purpose to life other than survival.

I doubt that ants in an ant-farm wonder about the meaning of their lives. They seem to do quite well when food is abundant.
It doesn't hurt to add to that good company.
Click to expand...
I think that concept holds for most species.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I doubt that there are many animals that can imagine any meaning or purpose to life other than survival.

I doubt that ants in an ant-farm wonder about the meaning of their lives. They seem to do quite well when food is abundant.
I think that concept holds for most species.
Click to expand...

Being bound to the planet, which is abundant with food, resources, and life, we are those ants in that ant farm. Granted, people like to play God and perform studies, separating people from people, among other things, I guess as a behavior science study, but then the orchestrators of these studies are no less subject to the study than those they place in them.

The programing we receive from tv, radio, news, education systems, etc are all part of the larger study. We don't like to see ourselves as guinea pigs or lab rats, but that doesn't negate the very real truth that we are, all if us and all across the globe, no matter our professions.

So purpose is personal, an individualistic endeavor that is studied as a collective, we all have a watchful eye on each other, which can be a little unerving when you pay it much mind.
 
kmguru said:
"What is the purpose of Life?"
Click to expand...

No purpose. The occurrence of life is governed by physics and the interactions physics allows between the substances

Since life came into being on its own from non life substances

Can you explain a purpose being present?

Every single religion scenario has been made up to explain to people they, the maker uppers, are wise and you should give us money

When God sees you giving his wise ones money he will take you to heaven

It is called selling indulgences. Although today you don't get a scroll it's more implied

ThazzarBaal said:
Being bound to the planet, which is abundant with food, resources, and life, we are those ants in that ant farm. Granted, people like to play God and perform studies, separating people from people, among other things, I guess as a behavior science study, but then the orchestrators of these studies are no less subject to the study than those they place in them.

The programing we receive from tv, radio, news, education systems, etc are all part of the larger study. We don't like to see ourselves as guinea pigs or lab rats, but that doesn't negate the very real truth that we are, all if us and all across the globe, no matter our professions.

So purpose is personal, an individualistic endeavor that is studied as a collective, we all have a watchful eye on each other, which can be a little unerving when you pay it much mind.
Click to expand...

Are you just doodling with your mind / circuits here? Close to moving into the matrix if you are

:)
 
Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal's assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.
Click to expand...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#ObjePascWage

That is a false argument. What choice and what reward comes from belief itself?
What "current" effect does belief or non-belief in God produce? None! The reward comes after you die, regardless if you ever believed or not, no?

If God exists, it makes no difference if you believe or not and the argument that you MUST believe in order to reap the reward of eternal life is a man-made assumption and is just another assumption on top of the man-made assumption that there "might" be a God who grants eternal life.

And for good measure there is the argument that if god exists he can grant either eternal bliss or eternal suffering after you die. None of these possible outcomes after you die are dependent on your belief today while you are alive.

Making a Pascal's wager is nothing more than a waste of time that could be spent listening to Ives "Unanswered question"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top