Our Purpose...what is it?

[Azarel]

I was thinking to myself the other day about the purpose of life for human beings, and wondered with all the different beliefs in this forum, what people think the purpose of Humans is.

When forming an answer consider the following:

- The purpose(s) that many if not all animals seem to have and fulfill
- What is the reason that Humans are the only beings on earth with the ability to speak (not mimic sounds like parrots) and converse.
- Is speech a clue to our ultimate purpose?

Also be careful not to mistake certains ambitions as a universal purpose for all Humans. I am asking your opinion on the purpose of ALL humanity.

[Boothby]

"Purpose" implies a plan...

Since there is no overall "plan" for us, our purpose is what we make it out to be.

I'll go with a utilitarian purpose: The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Of course, how you GET there, and what that all MEANS are subject to debate.


I've heard that the theological purpose for human existence is to "Praise God for all eternity." To me, that makes even less sense than my stated response. "All eternity"??? You'd think that any sentient being would get pretty darn tired of his pets praising him for, oh, let's say, anything over a thousand years or so. Then what? (And it doesn't even answer the question of "Why would an allegedly perfect being require such unending praise?" Try this one out--find someone who DOESN'T require your unending praise, and praise him or her for at least 2 or three weeks--at least until they post the restraining order against you!)

[Taalcon]

"Purpose" implies a plan...

Since there is no overall "plan" for us, our purpose is what we make it out to be.

I'll go with a utilitarian purpose: The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Of course, how you GET there, and what that all MEANS are subject to debate.


I've heard that the theological purpose for human existence is to "Praise God for all eternity." To me, that makes even less sense than my stated response. "All eternity"??? You'd think that any sentient being would get pretty darn tired of his pets praising him for, oh, let's say, anything over a thousand years or so. Then what? (And it doesn't even answer the question of "Why would an allegedly perfect being require such unending praise?" Try this one out--find someone who DOESN'T require your unending praise, and praise him or her for at least 2 or three weeks--at least until they post the restraining order against you!)

That may be one theological purpose, but it's not the one my faith holds. In our scriptures, God himself has said that it is his work, and his glory to bring mankind (His children) to where He is in joy and freedom.

And once we're there, we'll help out in that work. For those who chose it, it's an eternity of loving and serving others who need our assistance to experience the Joy and Freedoms we will have. It's a cycle.

Our purpose on earth is to have Joy, and to prepare to return to God in a way that will allow Him to help us become us as He is.

So in short, the goal is the same that Steve said: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number. " - except on an Eternal scale.

[elfprince13]

In our scriptures, God himself has said that it is his work, and his glory to bring mankind (His children) to where He is in joy and freedom.

And once we're there, we'll help out in that work. For those who chose it, it's an eternity of loving and serving others who need our assistance to experience the Joy and Freedoms we will have. It's a cycle.

Our purpose on earth is to have Joy, and to prepare to return to God in a way that will allow Him to help us become us as He is.

So in short, the goal is the same that Steve said: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number. " - except on an Eternal scale.

QFT.

[Azarel]

"Purpose" implies a plan...
Since there is no overall "plan" for us, our purpose is what we make it out to be. I'll go with a utilitarian purpose: The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Questions:
1. Why is there no overall plan?

2. If our purpose if what we make of it, what do we need morals for?

3. Again, why can we speak? I don't need speech to eat, sleep or drink, so why do we have it?

[Boothby]

Questions:
1. Why is there no overall plan?

2. If our purpose if what we make of it, what do we need morals for?

3. Again, why can we speak? I don't need speech to eat, sleep or drink, so why do we have it?

1. You imply that the default condition is that there should be a plan? I think you may WANT for there to be a plan, but that really doesn't matter, now, does it?

To say there is a plan is (to me) to say that there is (there exists) a giant, invisible, telepathic, telekinetic, intentionally vague being that is more complicated than anything known or imagined, that is NECESSARY to exist in order to create the complexity of the universe as we know and understand it, yet (somehow, strangely) needs no creating entity itself. And, after having brought to life a universe that is roughly 30 billion light-years across (9.3x10^26 feet), this being is overly interested in the ONE PLACE in the universe--a ball of dirt 4.2x10^7 feet across, and (in particular--no pun intended) the mid-sized living creatures on it, nominally 6 feet in overall length.


2. Morals evolved, just like everything else. Creatures with our intelligence and no morals would--I imagine--have eaten themselves (each other, really) into extinction long ago. As it stands, we are constantly standing on that precipice, still!

And the world's not really going downhill for any lack of morals, is it? The Bible justifies war (enjoys it to no end, actually). And I have yet to see the Christian Majority yet decry the runaway greed that is hobbling our economy (greed that is actually best explained by Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"--Ayn Rand being an outspoken, highly immoral, and now long-dead atheist, by the way) in any meaningful manner.

Morals are just a way to make life a little more civilized


3. We have "speech," I'll assume, because our ancestors who could speak were better able to coordinate a hunt, and were therfore able to eat more often and were abkle to survive, where their mute competitors were not. No great overall plan. A localized adaptation that led to a higher survival rate. I hope this isn't a problem for you. Here's an experiment--try living, on your own (or in a group) while NOT using any communication skills. Try it for a week. Tell me how much weight you lose.

[Azarel]

Thank you for your responses Boothby, you seem very sure about these things.

I keep coming back to the speech thing because with pack animals, most of whom need to be very quiet when hunting, seem to eat and coordinate a hunt easily enough without talking or growling very much. So I have to ask the question to someone that:

If animals can hunt and survive without speaking, I presume vocal chords - to an extent and complexity of humans - have not been 'evolved' because they are not needed. Considering we or animals at least have apparently been around for millions of years, it surprises me, that not even some of them have improved their communication skills to our level, when you consider that they were here first. Surely apes or chimpanzees should be talking by now given all this time. It would really help some animals if they could call out to each other a more specific 'danger' message like "Look out, there are three poachers a mile down river!" But if it's not needed for them, why is speech needed for us?

[elfprince13]

this being is overly interested in the ONE PLACE in the universe--a ball of dirt 4.2x10^7 feet across, and (in particular--no pun intended) the mid-sized living creatures on it, nominally 6 feet in overall length.

What makes you think such a being is ONLY interested in us? The Bible certainly doesn't teach that. An omnipotent, omniscient being is more than capable of multitasking.

...I imagine...

^_^

The Bible justifies war (enjoys it to no end, actually).

Do tell. As far as I can see from reading it the Bible teaches that God is the only one with authority over human life. Flawed humans may exploit Biblical teachings as an excuse to say "they aren't like US, we don't have to respect them as divine image bearers," but there's no justification for that behavior in the actual instructions that the Bible has for the human race.

And I have yet to see the Christian Majority yet decry the runaway greed that is hobbling our economy

That's because the "Christian" majority are for the most part not Christians, but subscribers (in some form or another) to the fairly heretical teachings of the prosperity gospel.

[Boothby]

Thank you for your responses Boothby, you seem very sure about these things.

I keep coming back to the speech thing because with pack animals, most of whom need to be very quiet when hunting, seem to eat and coordinate a hunt easily enough without talking or growling very much. So I have to ask the question to someone that:

If animals can hunt and survive without speaking, I presume vocal chords - to an extent and complexity of humans - have not been 'evolved' because they are not needed. Considering we or animals at least have apparently been around for millions of years, it surprises me, that not even some of them have improved their communication skills to our level, when you consider that they were here first. Surely apes or chimpanzees should be talking by now given all this time. It would really help some animals if they could call out to each other a more specific 'danger' message like "Look out, there are three poachers a mile down river!" But if it's not needed for them, why is speech needed for us?

Maybe the apes never needed speech. Or, more likely, maybe that branch of evolution never HAD the mutation that led to any further development of their physical or mental speech centers. They do have rudimentary vocalizations they they use to alert each other in the wild (as do many other animals, such as birds and wolves). And, as evolution goes, if protohumans started being able to speak (for whatever reason), and there was a survival benefit to it, then more and more protohumans in that group would pass on that gene. So maybe there was never a "need" after all.

Actually, now that I think of it, evolution doesn't really give a hoot about "needs". If your mutation has a benefit, then you benefit. Just because you feel you NEED to fly, or speak, or have telepathy, or see through walls doesn't mean you ever get that gene! And looking back through time, it's easy to fall into the trap of saying "they NEEDED that particular thing or other..." NO. They didn't necessarily NEED it, but they (as a species) did benefit from it!

Just like I don't NEED to get prostate cancer...or NEED to have a weak lower spine.

And re. wolves--given the appropriate situation, they DO vocalize. Just because humans can talk and plan a hunt doesn't mean they have to be jabbering away when they sneak up on something!

[Boothby]

this being is overly interested in the ONE PLACE in the universe--a ball of dirt 4.2x10^7 feet across, and (in particular--no pun intended) the mid-sized living creatures on it, nominally 6 feet in overall length.

What makes you think such a being is ONLY interested in us? The Bible certainly doesn't teach that. An omnipotent, omniscient being is more than capable of multitasking.

...I imagine...

^_^

The Bible justifies war (enjoys it to no end, actually).

Do tell. As far as I can see from reading it the Bible teaches that God is the only one with authority over human life. Flawed humans may exploit Biblical teachings as an excuse to say "they aren't like US, we don't have to respect them as divine image bearers," but there's no justification for that behavior in the actual instructions that the Bible has for the human race.

And I have yet to see the Christian Majority yet decry the runaway greed that is hobbling our economy

That's because the "Christian" majority are for the most part not Christians, but subscribers (in some form or another) to the fairly heretical teachings of the prosperity gospel.

Well, I do find an awful LOT of religious people who are totally SURE that humankind is the PINNACLE of existence (underGod, of course). But since the stars were dots of light in the cloth of the firmament, that pretty much excludes extraterrestrial life.

Re. the Bible justifying war--ever read the Old Testament? You know, the same book that the Christians do so enjoy using to justify their underlying hatred of homosexuals? Either you're with the OT, or you're against it. And the OT LOVES its wars! They make Hertzogovena look like a walk in the park.

"Prosperity Gospel"--true dat!

[Azarel]

Surely Boothby you understand that prostate cancer is a mutation, as all diseases being detrimental in nature. In fact, who ever heard of a beneficial mutation!?
In the same way, weak lower spines are the result of either lack of exercise, mutations/malfunctions in life or during pregnancy.
Maybe speech is the result of being too lazy to think, so the need arose to ask someone else, who knows?
I would think that should God exist, then as there is no life on the other planets, where should his interest being focused?

[Boothby]

Well, we've SEEN beneficial adaptations in the labaroatory, as well as in the field, in living colonies. We've also seen detrimental "adaptations".

Remember, though, that we've been paying attention to all this for no more than 200 years, out of a roughly 4 BILLION year old earth. That's 5E-6% of the time. If you're going to state "who ever heard of a beneficial mutation!?" you're going to have to realize that your window of observation is really, really short.

Oh, and here's one: Sickle Cell anemia. Both beneficial (in the right environment) and harmful.

Viruses (virii) and bacteria mutate all the time--to their own benefit (not ours!)

And here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06 ... rotei.html

[elfprince13]

Well, I do find an awful LOT of religious people who are totally SURE that humankind is the PINNACLE of existence (under God, of course).

We are told that we were created in His image, but I have a hard time thinking that refers to a literal physical image, and we're totally lacking in information as to whether or not He created other beings in His spiritual image, or even any way of finding out if He did or not.

But since the stars were dots of light in the cloth of the firmament, that pretty much excludes extraterrestrial life.

Are you intentionally trolling for Young Earth Creationists, or are you just assuming that all Christians are? The director of the Vatican Observatory is a supporter of Big Bang theory. The head of the Human Genome Project is openly Christian and writes on faith and science (and became a Christian AFTER being an atheist through grad school). And the argument against a literal 7-day creation dates back to St. Augustine and the 4th Century AD.

the Bible justifying war--ever read the Old Testament? You know, the same book that the Christians do so enjoy using to justify their underlying hatred of homosexuals?

Actually, that's usually Romans. But identifying homosexuality as a sin is distinct from hating the those who practice it. We're all in the same boat as far as sinfulness is concerned anyway, so this isn't much in the way of Biblical justification for hatred of anyone. Actual Christians will warn against the harmful effects of homosexuality out of love for fellow members of the human race, but hate is certainly not a Biblically justifiable doctrine, nor is it found anywhere in the teachings of Christ. Despite the media reputation of Westboro Baptist, that is NOT the majority view of Christians.

Either you're with the OT, or you're against it.

The OT is our source of information about the history and origins of the Christian faith, but the laws of ancient Israel have been superseded by the new covenant we have through Christ.

And the OT LOVES its wars!

No, but it describes them factually. This strikes me as similar to saying the Abraham Lincoln loved his wars on the grounds that he was the leader of our country when they happened. And like I said, God is the only one with the authority over human life, and if He judges a people to be unrepentant and evil, and that it is necessary for them to die (for example, on the grounds that they burn their children to death in the worship of idols), I have faith that He was judging fairly. We have no way of knowing how many prophets were sent to people of Canaan telling them to repent before they were killed off by the Israelites, but we do know that He had mercy on cities that repented, and that He agreed to spare other cities if even 10 could be found among their number who were righteous.

In the words of Gandalf: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
God, on the other hand, can.

It seems to me like the chip on your shoulder is preventing you from taking the time to actually understand what Christianity is about.

[Boothby]

Didn't mean to be wearing the chip...but, actually, I'm at work and shouldn't even BE here, so I'm typing in shorthand, and (yes, it's true) making overly generalized assumptions.

I'm more than willing to concede on the whole issue of "other life out there". I think it's distracting from any real conversation we might have.

I'm NOT willing to concede on the violence inherent in the OT. It's a nasty, brutish book. God justifies the slaughter of entire societies by the Jews. He gives them permission to kill the men and rape the women and female children. Either you believe that the OT talks about God truthfully, or you have to concede that it was a book, written by MEN, to justify their heinous acts. I know it is the latter.

And it's not a legitimate analogy to Abraham Lincoln. Unless, of course, Lincoln had written to slaughter the Southern enemy and rape their women and children.


BTW, if the laws of the Old Testament have been superseded by the new covenant with Christ, then--since there is no mention of homosexuality ANYWHERE in the NT--how can you say it is still a sin? Seems like cherry picking to me.

And, yes, at best, "Homosexuality" is considered a sin by the devout. Do remember though, that the OT would have you put homosexuals to death (IIRC). And unless you are being intentionally disingenuous (I'll assume you're not), you know as well as I do that a great number of people who consider themselves Christian (even though you might not consider them Christian) use the OT as an excuse for not only hate, but hate crimes against homosexuals.

[elfprince13]

And it's not a legitimate analogy to Abraham Lincoln. Unless, of course, Lincoln had written to slaughter the Southern enemy and rape their women and children.

Can you show me verses that are at all permissive of rape?

since there is no mention of homosexuality ANYWHERE in the NT--how can you say it is still a sin?

There is. Not in the Gospels, but in the NT certainly.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

And, yes, at best, "Homosexuality" is considered a sin by the devout. Do remember though, that the OT would have you put homosexuals to death (IIRC).

Along with people who practice adultery, incest, bestiality and basically any other lust-related sin. That penalty is STILL death, but we have had the penalty paid for us.

And unless you are being intentionally disingenuous (I'll assume you're not), you know as well as I do that a great number of people who consider themselves Christian (even though you might not consider them Christian) use the OT as an excuse for not only hate, but hate crimes against homosexuals.

I won't go so far as to say that they aren't Christians, because I have no way of knowing the status of their relationship with God. I will say that they are practicing un-Christian behavior (like all sinners), and that hate of any form is not a Biblically justifiable practice. Given that Jesus dedicated a significant portion of his ministry to prostitutes, adulterers, while also making it very clear that even visually lusting after someone (for example, through pornagraphy) is equivalent to having adulterous relations with her, I don't understand the thought process that makes them think that God would look well on hating homosexuals or how any of them convince themselves that they have a higher moral platform to be operating from. I also seem to remember something about "Judge not, lest ye be judged" being a central tenet of Christianity

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

[Azarel]

What I find quite funny nowadays is that Christians are ridiculed when they say God created the world. This is because God requires no cause and that makes no sense to people who are rooted in naturalistic and finite thinking.
This is why evolution needs the earth to be billions of years old even though things like the grand canyon would take relatively no time at all to form held next to billions of years.

The big bang theory is stuck for a cause for the big bang, essentially just swapping one causeless God for another.

I was genuinely interested in seeing the results of this thread and specifically did not mention theological words or ideas in my question. Yet the very first answer was an mickey-taking poke at Christians the world over by someone so rooted in Evolution you could call him fanatical, fundamentalist and(or) aggressive.

Your accusations and twisted context recitals of the Bible are violence against the literature let alone the real meaning of the Book. Your beliefs would have me live as an animal, laying creation at the hands and feet of accidents, happy or otherwise, you attack me, my beliefs and then expect to sound credible in doing so.

Not so.

---

With regard to homosexuality, or indeed ANYTHING called a sin in the Old Testament, you need to understand that if something is written down in a book that has survived for centuries, you don't need to continue confirming rules or facts to enforce them. There is no need for repetition like "Oh by the way.." He said to them as he ascended, "...Men shagging men, still a no-no! Remember, I'm watching yoooooo000ooou!"*

You know what I mean? Certain states in America say you can't have sex with a living fish but people probably don't realise because they don't reprint it on restaurant menus or at the fish mongers and such to remind people it's not allowed. But if you get caught, then, I dunno, maybe they'll say it's okay, who knows?

The truth is the Bible also says not to have sexual relations with ANY animal, so the American 'live fish' law is a second rate man-made law and so bizarre it's funny.


---
*I am not taking the mick out of Jesus here, just making my point.

[Satya]

I was thinking to myself the other day about the purpose of life for human beings

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14)

(I love me some Ecclesiastes.)

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8)

"...what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?" (Deuteronomy 10:12-13)

[jotabe]

"...what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?" (Deuteronomy 10:12-13)

Quite pushy and needy... and then you complain about the communists.

[Boothby]

The big bang theory is stuck for a cause for the big bang, essentially just swapping one causeless God for another.

Hate to tell you, but WRONG.

What other meaningless and untestable artributes do you assign to YOUR god? He is conscious. He has will. He loves us. He can read our minds, he can manipulate matter with his will. He created the Universe, transcends time, knows what will happen and yet can manipulate it not only to suit HIS ends, but will also change the universe for us as individuals and groups if we only know how to ask Him (except, in reality, He never actually does).

But the Big Bang? Dispassionate. Uncaring. Unknowing. Not a conscious entity. No additional "positive" attributes.

YOU claim that the universe is far too complicated to have come about on its own, so you propose a creature far more powerful than the universe, with far more complexity, and have IT come about on its own.

And then you claim that yours is a far better choice.

Not.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

YOU claim that the universe is far too complicated to have come about on its own, so you propose a creature far more powerful than the universe, with far more complexity, and have IT come about on its own.

And then you claim that yours is a far better choice.

Not.

God did not "come about on his own" as you so irreverently put it. God is eternal. He exisits outside of time; he has no beginning and will have no end. Your Big Bang theory is just as improbable. You claim that matter/energy are eternal instead of God. The BBT is just another way to avoid having to believe in God.

Incedentally, the universe ingeneral, and life specifically, IS too complicated to come about on its own (see thread on evolution v. creation)

[Boothby]

God did not "come about on his own" as you so irreverently put it. God is eternal. He exisits outside of time; he has no beginning and will have no end. Your Big Bang theory is just as improbable. You claim that matter/energy are eternal instead of God. The BBT is just another way to avoid having to believe in God.

Eternal?

I thought that nothing was (or is) eternal? You say the Universe cannot be eternal, but your (and only your) God can? Sounds ridiculous on its face.

Believing in God is just another way to deny the independent purely-material and non-spiritual existence of the universe and everything in it. It's just another way to avoid (or, perhaps, cave in to) the fear of death. It's giving into egotistical fear; "I am special. I am important. I am SO special that I deserve to exist forever"

I am one of over 6 billion people on this relatively tiny planet, orbiting an obscure and not-entirely-stable sun, tucked away in a meaningless corner of the galaxy, one of a billion such galaxies in this immense universe. When I die, I will cease to exist, and I will decompose. I have no spirit or soul to outlive my physical body. I am special only so far as I work to make myself special--to friends, to family, to loved ones, to co-workers, to people whose lives I have a minor little impact on from the words I present, the ideas I develop, and the projects I design.

NOTHING MORE.

There is no God to love me, or to think I'm oh-so-special that he takes a special interest in me, or to threaten me with torture if I do not love him back in "just the right way" and because I've found a way to say "just the right thing" to him. (The God of the Old and New Testaments--two different Gods, actually, are both--at their cores--abusive "parents." They are large-scale extensions of an abusive parental relationship. "Love me or be punished". They are not noble in any way,and should not be honored or worshipped. But that's obvious, since, like Zeus and Odin before them, they don't actually exist outside of fantasy. They were created--like Zeuss and Odin before them--to allow a ruling class to exert control over the less intelligent and weaker willed)

There is no larger-than life-itself alien being, capable of outliving the universe, capable of moving objects with his mind, or reading our minds, or who's so intelligent that he doesn't even know how many legs a bird has.

You're living in a wish-fulfilment fanatasy--one that's so carefully sculpted and that has you so manipulated that you're willing to accept the offer of "rewards" that do not even exist. These "rewards" only come to you ONCE YOU'RE DEAD (which means--not at all), yet you twist your life around these empty promises, and attempt to sway others to your belief in the vain hope that if enough people believe, you won't feel so foolish for believing in it yourself.

[Boothby]

You know what I mean? Certain states in America say you can't have sex with a living fish but people probably don't realise because they don't reprint it on restaurant menus or at the fish mongers and such to remind people it's not allowed. But if you get caught, then, I dunno, maybe they'll say it's okay, who knows?

The truth is the Bible also says not to have sexual relations with ANY animal, so the American 'live fish' law is a second rate man-made law and so bizarre it's funny.

There are medications for that, now. They hardly make you sleepy at all.

[Boothby]

Incidentally, the universe ingeneral, and life specifically, IS too complicated to come about on its own

Incidentally, God is too complicated to come about on its own (since it is more complicated than the Universe, by definition)

Or, do we each get a token which states "User is allowed to claim 'It Always Existed' or 'I Really don't know how it started' once during the course of discussion" or is it only you?

[jotabe]

Your Big Bang theory is just as improbable. You claim that matter/energy are eternal instead of God. The BBT is just another way to avoid having to believe in God.

Incedentally, the universe ingeneral, and life specifically, IS too complicated to come about on its own (see thread on evolution v. creation)

Incidentally, BBT gives you the exact point where energy and time start, they are not eternal.

[Satya]

I have a side question then... How did the BB erupt? How does this, whatever it is, quantum singularity or whatnot explode? If energy and time don't exist pre-BB, how did it "change", since change would have been necessary for it to explode, right? No energy = no time = no entropy = no change = no explosion. If everything in our physical universe was the pre-BB point, what could have possibly acted on it to cause it to Bang, since it seems logically impossible for it to have occurred of its own processes and some other stimuli would have been necessary. It would have been sitting around in its pre-BB state for, for all intents and purposes, eternity (especially considering that, you know, it existed outside of our conceptualization of time.)

[jotabe]

We don't know.

Of course, that doesn't mean we will never know. But there are people working on a conceptual frame where we can explain it. I have seen pretty good ideas with mathemathics that will rock your socks. But probably are completly untrue, still, it's interesting. Others work in the hypothesis of how the Universe could be completely self-generated and self-contained. I wouldn't use common logics for the physics required to explain the Big Bang, universe could be stranger than we thought... something could actually come from nothing (after all, from "where" does it come the extra energy required for tunneling, for example?).

That's what science is about: learning what you didn't know before.
Science makes the god of the gaps unhappy, because it gets oh-so-ever-tighter.

[Satya]

The universe is pretty empty as it is, right? I mean, the universe is huge - and most of it is empty space, with galaxies scattered throughout. And the galaxies themselves are tons of empty space with stars and planets, and the solar systems are lots of empty space... and then the objects themselves (stars, planets, comets, etc) are made of atoms, which are also mostly empty space. It's interesting. Seems the deeper we look, the less and less "real" there is.

[Eaquae Legit]

Now I'm having a vertiginous flashback to that Powers of Ten movie, Satya. Thanks. :P

[Satya]

I've been getting that lately in my meditations... Like I'm falling, but forward, into infinite empty black space, a void (an important concept in the martial arts, void.)

[Eaquae Legit]

The enemy's gate is down?

Have you ever heard of the fencing master Fiore de' Liberi da Premariacco? I saw a demonstration/workshop once by a man who is translating and teaches Fiore's manual. It was fascinating, and the whole system was based on the idea of Aristotelian "times". If there was a way to train in that style, I would (there are no schools near me).

As to the main topic, clearly the point of life is arguing on internet message boards...

[Satya]

[Locke_]

I think it's normal that when an individual first wonders about purpose, it's only natural to wonder about the purpose of People and not just of Person. Folks look for a reasonable explanation that might link everyone together--it seems at first rational to say that since everyone tackles the same mystery, so then the solution must be universal. It took me a while to come to the conclusion that it can't be so. That some people love music, some people love cooking, some people love breeding ferrets. There's too much variety to have that single purpose to unite us all. The fact that we're all looking becomes enough.

Many stories that masses of readers/listeners/etc find inspirational are based on one person who built her credibility by living her life a certain way and it's obvious that Yes, this is what you were meant to do (one might cite Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Tom Hanks, Orson Scott Card). Even if their path had nothing to do with our own we can still find the inspiration from their following their dream and thus find motivation to follow our own.

When it boils down to it I think it's a matter of listening to one's gut, and when it comes to that no one can hear it out but the individual.

As for God, it's unreasonable to only view Him as this uber-divine being that only burns within or through us, or as this separate being that's either letting us try to hold our own in a forsaken world or holding strings over us like marionettes. He's like a good friend, straight up. There are moments of closeness, moments of distance, but even when two good friends are separate for a while the fact that they care for each other remains. Friends give advice, so does He, and he encourages us to take his.

It's a matter of choice, really. For the past four years up until the past few months I have spent my time trying to earn my independence and my freedom, and when it was finally earned I found myself saying okay okay I want some kind of crazy cinematic experience where an old codger comes up and tells me what to do. {EDIT for semantics} I can say that long before I had given my life to God before, told him my will was in his hands; this was over four years ago and likely through the past four years. I'd forgotten about the statement, but also hadn't realized how strong a statement it could be. So my fight for independence was basically me going against what I'd said. It was me saying No No NO when finally I just needed to say Yes, okay.

Movies and books about a person following purpose teach people to believe that the ending is what's desired. ("final cause" as OSC puts it in Speaker). I think the purpose is the path, one phase leading to the next, without knowing the ending. If we knew it all what life could be taken from the living. Or as Paulo Coehlo put it with regard to suffering, Why should we know about the suffering that lies ahead on our path ahead of time if it will only mean anticipation of suffering?

[jotabe]

The universe is pretty empty as it is, right? I mean, the universe is huge - and most of it is empty space, with galaxies scattered throughout. And the galaxies themselves are tons of empty space with stars and planets, and the solar systems are lots of empty space... and then the objects themselves (stars, planets, comets, etc) are made of atoms, which are also mostly empty space. It's interesting. Seems the deeper we look, the less and less "real" there is.

Except that empty space is not empty. For one, we have the background radiation, which is our pedal point. Then it's full of the small particle gurgling at the plank scale.
And if you want to take a seat back, or in: you will see that the empty space only looks empty if you decide only to look for particles. But particles communicate all the time, through their interactions. Emiting their gravitons, their photons, which fill the universe at large scale, each playing their own frequency note of the cosmic symphony... and if you go to the very small, you get to the electronic crust of the atoms, which is mostly empty space, unless you notice the tight, thick, briliant ropes of the quantum stationary states, the high-pitched violins. And even deeper, the gluons of the nucleus, which can produce beautiful flourishes in the shape of all possible nucleons, if you know how to play it.

The universe only looks empty to the untrained eyes. If you bother to look further, the universe is so full of music, of beauty that there is no reason to be afraid.*

*Yeah, Ricky Fitts was right.

My mind just can't stomach that a God that created such a beautiful, and powerful universe would make us so our true happiness lies in contemplating and worshipping him. It just doesn't make sense how such a powerful being, a lover of beauty, would be at the same time so mean spirited to program us to be his mind slaves.

[Rei]

My mind just can't stomach that a God that created such a beautiful, and powerful universe would make us so our true happiness lies in contemplating and worshipping him. It just doesn't make sense how such a powerful being, a lover of beauty, would be at the same time so mean spirited to program us to be his mind slaves.

For myself, such things are a reflection of God, and by meditating on such things, I am meditating on an aspect of God. A book I quite like describes the creating and ordering of the universe by such figures as the mind of God and Nature, and while it may be physically mistaken (12th century understandings of the universe may differ slightly from current science), it is poetically beautiful and reflects the spirit you have described. The universe is the macrocosmos and the human being is the microcosmos: we are both made to the pattern of the image of God; we reflect each other and we both reflect God.

[Locke_]

My mind just can't stomach that a God that created such a beautiful, and powerful universe would make us so our true happiness lies in contemplating and worshipping him. It just doesn't make sense how such a powerful being, a lover of beauty, would be at the same time so mean spirited to program us to be his mind slaves.

For myself, such things are a reflection of God, and by meditating on such things, I am meditating on an aspect of God. A book I quite like describes the creating and ordering of the universe by such figures as the mind of God and Nature, and while it may be physically mistaken (12th century understandings of the universe may differ slightly from current science), it is poetically beautiful and reflects the spirit you have described. The universe is the macrocosmos and the human being is the microcosmos: we are both made to the pattern of the image of God; we reflect each other and we both reflect God.

To tack onto this, I suppose:

When we look at art, we admire the artwork along with the artist: Starry Night and thus Van Gogh; Walden and thus Thoreau; Hey Jude and thus The Beatles. It's a natural part of human nature to honor the creator when the created compels us so. One could choose to simply watch a movie without looking at the creative aspects, or do the same with any form of art, but we choose--based on what most compels us--which artist we want to examine a little more. The same goes for God and the beauty of nature, of creation (not in the fundamentalist sense, but in the ongoing sense--that the world is still and constantly experiencing creation). I'm not saying every believer does this, nor every nonbeliever should abide; I'm saying that some people choose to worship God, even when just admiring the world and admitting it was somehow shaped by Him. "Slave"--in this case "mind slave"--isn't the right term. To a degree, yes, we lock ourselves into a worshipful attitude, but it's a choice believers make.