Purpose of the universe and our existence..

[quantum_wave]

the Universe has no fundamental purpose , persay , it just is

our , Human existence , life existence , on this planet , just can be

because of the enviroment the planet , Earth , gives life

nothing more and nothing less

There are two parts to this statement and to the second part, Human existence based on the environment of the planet seems like a good philosophy. It accounts for life being generated when the right chemistry and environment exists, it accounts for evolution, adaptation, diversification of life forms, etc. All that is consistent with observations as far as I can tell.

Now about the first part, "the Universe has no fundamental purpose, it just is." That I would say is a widely accepted philosophy in an area where there is a wide scope of opinion. Personally I agree with that view but I respect different views of the origin and the purpose of the universe. My view is based on my belief in the possibility that the universe has always existed. If it has not, then either it came from nothing or it was created. Both of those possibilities have supporters and I respect their views as I expect them to respect mine. But respect ends when someone insists that any particular view is right or wrong unless they can produce evidence to support a particular view. I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence of either the existence of a Creator, of the generation of something from nothing (I mean nothing, no universe, no space, no energy, etc.) or that the universe has always existed. It is a personal view and our personal views are often the result of a personal decision.

 

[Mandana]

In biological terms, our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring so that they too survive long enough to reproduce.

If so,we shouldn't encounter a phenomenon called menopause.

 

[-ND-]

This is for the record. This includes everyone that answered, "No."
1. It is strictly your opinion and your opinion only.
2. You have no evidence, and will never obtain evidence for such unless That Day comes.
3. If That Day comes, you are all fucked and you won't be able to reason with what you are being accused of.
4. If that Day does not come, you are all wrong because the only way to really find out what happens is if it happaned in your lifetime or when you die.

So you see, atheists lose, no matter what.

 

[dirgo]

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

Perhaps but maybe not to us ...

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is for the record. This includes everyone that answered, "No."
1. It is strictly your opinion and your opinion only.
2. You have no evidence, and will never obtain evidence for such unless That Day comes.
3. If That Day comes, you are all fucked and you won't be able to reason with what you are being accused of.
4. If that Day does not come, you are all wrong because the only way to really find out what happens is if it happaned in your lifetime or when you die.
So you see, atheists lose, no matter what.

Strangely enough that entire argument also works for you:
It's your opinion, you have no evidence and won't have unless etc etc...

 

[-ND-]

Strangely enough that entire argument also works for you:
It's your opinion, you have no evidence and won't have unless etc etc...

Everything I posted .is true and a fact. Tell me which part is my opinion

 

[Dywyddyr]

Everything I posted .is true and a fact. Tell me which part is my opinion

Ah I see, deliberate misunderstanding or lack of comprehension on your part?
I said the ARGUMENT works for you: everything you believe is your opinion and not a fact. And you won't find out (if ever) until the "the day", IF it's true.
In other words the comments apply also to those who answered "yes".

 

[-ND-]

Ah I see, deliberate misunderstanding or lack of comprehension on your part?
I said the ARGUMENT works for you: everything you believe is your opinion and not a fact. And you won't find out (if ever) until the "the day", IF it's true.
In other words the comments apply also to those who answered "yes".

I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?

Nope, since "good" and "evil" are human terms also.
So they can apply equally to either "side".

 

[-ND-]

Nope, since "good" and "evil" are human terms also.
So they can apply equally to either "side".

That's what I said. The only real difference is what side you choose. So you see in the end it matters what you choose, if you only realized it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Though there are generally accepted definitions of good and evil, ultimately they are defined by the individual. If an individual defines those terms for themselves, then they can choose between good and evil. If a second person has diametrically opposed views of what is good and evil, then they could both decide to choose good, and be completely at odds with each other.

If you follow that reasoning far enough, ND is completely wrong about this conclusion unless you agree with him.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That's what I said.

No it isn't: you defined the sides by giving them names.
The "sides" (as you like to think of them) aren't "good and evil".

The only real difference is what side you choose. So you see in the end it matters what you choose, if you only realized it.

Belief and reality?
Evidence and belief?
"Good and evil" is simply wrong...

Why does it matter?

 

[-ND-]

Though there are generally accepted definitions of good and evil, ultimately they are defined by the individual. If an individual defines those terms for themselves, then they can choose between good and evil. If a second person has diametrically opposed views of what is good and evil, then they could both decide to choose good, and be completely at odds with each other.

If you follow that reasoning far enough, ND is completely wrong about this conclusion unless you agree with him.

So im wrong by the laws of the universe, but I'm not wrong by opinion?

 

[-ND-]

No it isn't: you defined the sides by giving them names.
The "sides" (as you like to think of them) aren't "good and evil".


Belief and reality?
Evidence and belief?
"Good and evil" is simply wrong...

Why does it matter?

Well, I thought that you and I agreed that those 4 things I posted apply to both parties. (yes's and no's) That leaves off heaven and hell and only this life and earth. So the only difference in a person's life would be if he does good things or bad things.

I mean I don't understand what you don't understand. That killing is wrong? Helping is good? Perhaps you see it this way. Killing is good and helping is bad?

What are you going to tell me? That there is no such thing as good and evil?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well, I thought that you and I agreed that those 4 things I posted apply to both parties.

So you agree it applies to both believers and atheists?

So the only difference in a person's life would be if he does good things or bad things.

Nope.
Or are you saying atheists can't do good things and believers never do bad things?

I mean I don't understand what you don't understand. That killing is wrong? Helping is good? Perhaps you see it this way. Killing is good and helping is bad?

The failure of understanding is entirely yours. Where have I said or implied that?

What are you going to tell me? That there is no such thing as good and evil?

Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

 

[glaucon]

Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

Thanks for seeing that Dywyddyr. The confusion was starting to get me confused.


I am still confused however, as to how this has become an Ethical issue [or in fact, how an Ethical element at all is significant].


-ND- reintroduced it here:

I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?

quite unwarrantedly.

 

[-ND-]

So you agree it applies to both believers and atheists?


Nope.
Or are you saying atheists can't do good things and believers never do bad things?


The failure of understanding is entirely yours. Where have I said or implied that?


Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

Yes, I thought I just said that.

Nope. What I am saying is that ultimately the choices we obtain or receive are based on the branches of good and evil. A person is a person. Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. are still people faced with good and evil. They are all capable of delivering the same outcome. The only real difference between all human beings is, if you decide to be good or bad. That is really your only and ultimate choice. There is no in between.

I was just making sure you still have morals. I thought you were going to say there is no evidence for morals.

Stereotypes aside. You agree that good and evil are defined accordingly?

 

[-ND-]

Thanks for seeing that Dywyddyr. The confusion was starting to get me confused.


I am still confused however, as to how this has become an Ethical issue [or in fact, how an Ethical element at all is significant].


-ND- reintroduced it here:




quite unwarrantedly.

Relax, SS. We are trying to get rid of the confusion. I believe the op is about purpose and existence. This includes sub-branches as what we are trying to untangle. I appreciate you trying to control the situation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, I thought I just said that.

Yep, in that post, not prior to it.

The only real difference between all human beings is, if you decide to be good or bad.

So you think someone who is seen by others as evil took the decision to be evil?

There is no in between.

Of course there is since very few people behave exactly the same way for their entire their life or to everyone alike. For example even Hitler did a lot of good (admittedly early in his career). Even serial killers (probably) care for their relatives.

Stereotypes aside. You agree that good and evil are defined accordingly?

Roughly. They aren't absolute and they aren't constant.

 

[glaucon]

Relax, SS. We are trying to get rid of the confusion. I believe the op is about purpose and existence. This includes sub-branches as what we are trying to untangle. I appreciate you trying to control the situation.

So you're asserting that ethics is a relevant sub-branch somehow related to purposive existence? If so, feel free to elaborate.


"SS" ??