I always have since I knew what we were living in, and always will believe this The only reason we care about anything is because we were created to care about it in the first place. The best thing for all humanity would have been for the Earth never to have been created. On a step further, there is no logical reason or need for the universe to even exist. Why do we need all these laws of physics? Why are they here? Why is there gravity? Is there anyone who does not wish the universe had never been created in a way that "life" was an entity in it? I can't understand why anyone would say this is not the best situation to be in.
That's a rather Nihilistic view. I quite like life being here. If you really feel that way I'd have to ask if you're feeling depressed. All in all I'd say it's better than nothing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What is the point of starting a discussion if you are not open to changing your mind? Since you state "always will believe this" I can't but conclude you are taking a fundamentalist approach here and discussions with fundamentalists are generally impossible. Furthermore you seem to know what we are living in. Since I don't have such knowledge I really would like to understand what you mean by claiming you know what we are living in. Caring is quite a complex phenomenon and complex phenomena usually don't have singular reasons, so I take this statement of yours as non valid. "The best thing for all humanity would have been for the Earth never to have been created. " Since humanity would not have existed if the earth had never been there (I don't particularly like the word creation), you can't make such a statement. There are no valid statements possible for a non-existant entity. The statement "nuclear war is bad for unicorns" is equal to the statement "nuclear war is good for unicorns", both are nonsensicle. Not existing is not better for the subject of the statement. Since the subject itself does not exist you can't make any such statements. Likewise wishing the universe had never been there is only possible if the universe is there.
I agree, of course it would have been better. Mystech, your "good times" are hardly worth the pain that goes on around the world all day everyday. I have my fair share of "good times", but then I see what else is going on around the world.(no i'm not talking about war which is a trivial everyday thing in comparison) I'm talking about the way the world works. It revolves around pain. Organisms striving to survive, only because they have been given the feeling of "pain" which they desperately want to avoid. They strive and they strive but death is inevitable. People can say "the key to life is to enjoy it" but thats because they are humans and the way of the world is so easy to ignore when you have this major distraction aka "society" in your face all day long. When you see nature in its rawest form(ie animal interactions) and you think about it, you can't escape the fact that this world is a pretty screwed up place. There are insects which paralyse their victims, laying eggs in them, the eggs hatch and eat the fully conscious victim alive. Who the hell is thinking up this stuff? I say all this and yet I love planet earth, reason being it is planet earth who gave me the ability to love so if I want to love anything I have to love it. We owe everything to the planet, which also means we can blame everything ON the planet. But I will never say I hate it because its the only reason I can type these words or say anything. I can't shake the feeling that if I said I hate it it would laugh at me and rightfully so. But I agree, if there is no plan for the earths inhabitants(no I'm not talking about us, well I am but primarily I'm talking about the REAL battlers, the animals) then why the hell do they have to be made? To suffer? because thats all they are doing. Its a damn strange universe we live in, and in a way you're right, it would have been better for it to never had existed, but at the same time without it you never would have came up with that thought in the first place so I'm conflicted.
Me too! Couldn't have put it better myself. Mikee_bee I think your outlook is slightly short sighted. There are bad things in the world but there is so much to learn that outweigh the bad things. Even negative experiences have their advantages. They give you insights. Allow you to see things that other people cannot see and then you have your own world. Some people fail to even see this though and this brings me to the Matrix dilemma. The Red Pill or the Blue Pill? Negative experiences show a certain 'truth' which one cannot go back from. Once you know the truth, some people, usually the miserable ones, wish they had not been shown the truth and would have been happy living their life in a dream i.e. not knowing the truth and not wanting to know. personally i'd rather know the truth than live a lie, even if the truth is hard. If 'the truth' really is the truth then It would just take some getting used to, like when we were babies getting used to the world, which incidently I would say had been created for us by loving parents. That wasn't the 'real world' however. The real world is far more fun. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
on the contrary, surely my view is the opposite, seeing as though I am taking the idea of life as a whole and devaluing it logically, ie, give me one reason why having life and ultimately the universe has any significance whatsoever.
Shouldn't this be the universe and then ultimately life?! Who says life has to be significant?? For the length of time that it looks like the universe has been around I don't think humanity is so significant. If this planet was destroyed tomorrow possible beings on other planets may still be around and may have been around for longer then us.
It has significance to me, because I am alive Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If being alive has no significance for you.... why are you still here? Why haven't you killed yourself, or even just sat and done nothing until you died from dehydration? Of course the only significance is that which we attribute to it.... significance is an entirely human created concept. But I feel the significance, every second that I pay attention to the fact I am alive. Adam
-Mikee_bee How dare you assume that?! Your logic isn't based on objective fact. You couldn't possible know for sure that there is nothing worth living for until you have discovered everything. -Dr Lou Natic Organisms strive to survive because its the only relevant thing to do. And that includes humans; there's no point not doing it because then we would never find out whether or not it is truly relevant. -Dr Lou Natic I've been holding the view for a while that concepts such as 'God' and 'enjoying life' are common assumptions that we pass on to our offspring like genes. Soceity isn't just a distraction; it's a social machine that consumes every human life on this planet. It's almost impossible to escape its influence. -Dr Lou Natic Animals are the 'real battlers'? They're existance is extremely simple and narrowly concentrated towards basic survival. The fact that humans have passed that doesn't mean we are the pampered ones. I don't know if you meant to do it but I noticed you used the word 'made'. Are you a creationist? If you are, there's not much I can say, because creationists assume that there was some force that conciously decided for us to exist. There may be a relevance to our existance but what it is shouldn't be assumed, but rather should be pursued. -Mikee_bee It is terribly illogical to assume there is no significance to life; because then you completely erradicate any chance of a significance being found. The best thing to do is to assume there is significance, and pursue the answer. -Charles Fleming What?? We know of no other case of intelligent life (or any life, for that matter, beyond Earth), how could you conclude that we are insignificant when for all you know, we could be the only intelligent life in the universe. We dont know what the norm is. -slimshady2357 Dude, don't tempt the man ! -slimshady2357 Maybe so, but that's because we have the time (now that we aren't struggling for basic survival) and capabilities (Big Human Brain) to think about it.
Originally posted by xeu -Mikee_bee How dare you assume that?! Your logic isn't based on objective fact. You couldn't possible know for sure that there is nothing worth living for until you have discovered everything. I wholeheartedly agree with that. No human in history could claim to know for sure if there is a "point" to the universe or not. -Dr Lou Natic Organisms strive to survive because its the only relevant thing to do. And that includes humans; there's no point not doing it because then we would never find out whether or not it is truly relevant. Well yeah, but when I watch creatures being born my human brain can't think of it as anything but a cruel joke. If there is death and then nothing, it seems like the bad times out weigh the good for most organisms and they would therefore have been better off if they were never born. But I realise that is my human brain, we like to think of our individual selves as important in some way and it makes us care for other individuals because we can relate to them in a sense, human or otherwise. Why is it ingrained into us as the only relevant thing to do? All logical indications do seem to point to individuals being there to drive a larger force, a species. Many individuals are made because some will undoubtedly die and the species must continue. I tend to assume there is a "point" to the universe, what? I don't know, but I do know on this planet alone each species has a task they do with great efficiency, laws seem to stay constant throughout our planet so I can only assume they stay the same throughout the universe, like earthworms fertilise the soil I'm guessing earth plays a role in the universe. Human science can't distinguish that role but that doesn't mean its not there, lions aren't aware of the state of the stock market but we all know there is one. Like humans are a "successful" species I think earth is a successful planet, I assume there are many other "successful" planets out there. This is what I mean by "laws stay constant throughout the universe". -Dr Lou Natic I've been holding the view for a while that concepts such as 'God' and 'enjoying life' are common assumptions that we pass on to our offspring like genes. Soceity isn't just a distraction; it's a social machine that consumes every human life on this planet. It's almost impossible to escape its influence. Yes its almost impossible to escape its influence, thats my point, as I just said it has no real meaning, if you believe humans are animals(and I see you belittle creationism so you must) you have to take everything that comes with being an animal, that includes finding the task humans are performing on the planet earth, I refuse to believe that task has anything to do with working as a banker and having a family in the suburbs. Like I said individuals are merely a tiny piece of the larger beast that is a species and an individual's life is of little consequence, so lets look at what the human species as a whole is doing for the planet shall we? Well, if we are to look at it objectively it appears all humans are doing is disrupting the balance that has been in place for millions of years, this makes it hard to see how humans are in any way beneficial, but my theory is the planet "decided" its time for a change. She has done this before, although I have to admit, "humans" are alot more creative than the ice age was, It seems to me the planet is taking gambles all the time and humans was the biggest yet, we have the capability to kill her completely. This is my theory, you don't have to agree with it exactly but at the same time you can't ignore the facts. I have a more optimistic theory for when I'm in a good mood, perhaps earth wanted something that could appreciate her beauty, she grew tired of mindless creatures using her without realising how amazing she is, she made cetaceans but then the she wanted to show off her land and she made us, while she was at us she gave us the ability to "renovate" her eco-sytem because , again, she felt like a change. I don't mean for it to sound like I think earth is a person, the human vocabulary is too limited to explain earth in any other way, in reality I think earth is a far superior being than us. -Dr Lou Natic Animals are the 'real battlers'? They're existance is extremely simple and narrowly concentrated towards basic survival. The fact that humans have passed that doesn't mean we are the pampered ones. If you know anything about the different species you know their existence's vary greatly in complexity, few animals existence is solely dedicated to survival, some more than others, you could argue that humans is the least dedicated to survival but someone has to be at the top, it happens to be us, don't take it for granted. I disagree, we are very much the pampered ones, in the animal kingdom intelligence is like money, the more you have the more comfortable you are, if you learn about the lifestyles of different animals you have to feel sorry for some of them, at least I do, compared to humans their life is a nightmare, constantly in fear for their safety, even predators have it tough, hunting is rarely 100% and if you don't catch something you don't eat, and this lowers your energy levels which makes the next hunt even harder. I wish people would give different animals the respect they deserve. Comparitively we have everything served to us on a silver platter. If you ask me it doesn't make us "better" by any means, luckier? Definately. Just like your average american is lucky compared to a poverty strickened african, the american isn't "better". I don't know if you meant to do it but I noticed you used the word 'made'. Are you a creationist? If you are, there's not much I can say, because creationists assume that there was some force that conciously decided for us to exist. There may be a relevance to our existance but what it is shouldn't be assumed, but rather should be pursued. As you might have gathered my beliefs aren't as black and white as creationism vs evolution, well actually its flagrantly evolution for me but it doesn't end there, I believe evolution is the planets tool to "make" things as opposed to the average atheists view that these events just happened to have passed. I realise that if the conditions are right, life evolving is more likely to happen than not but I think that planets are in more control than what is outwardly obvious.
-Dr Lou Natic This get's into some tricky philosophy but I think it was said pretty well in the third post of this thread. -Dr Lou Natic We may very well have had the concept of 'life over death' programmed into us from the start, but maybe it is this that indicates that there is something relevant that we can find out by living that we couldn't find out by dying. -Dr Lou Natic I wouldn't go as far as saying we were meant to perform a certain task, because that delves a little too closely to the idea of divine influence. But I completely agree that these random occupations may very well have no relevance to our 'task'. I really like this idea so I'm going to try to elaborate on it. It's not just a coincidence that some jobs seem pointless and others seem important, and that's because it's easy to tell whether one is relevant to the task or not. We pursue pointless jobs and live in our own confined worlds because it's the way we were taught to be successful, and success is like an elaborated form of the survival instinct I mentioned before ("life/strength over death/decay"). Another example is the concept of individuality (expressing and emphasizing your diverse goals, wants, views, etc); it doesn't really help us accomplish our task, but actually hinders it because instead of collaborating under the single task we are randomly pursuing individual goals. It also hinders it because differing wants/views can come into conflict with each other (ala war, famine, etc). So if you were really committed to accomplishing the task as well as you possibly could, it would require complete reworking of our social structure. -Dr Lou Natic It may be true that one life 'is of little consequence', but what about 10? or 50? What about 100? I can keep going higher and eventually you will stop and say "that's too many lives lost", which is my point. You can't pick an arbitrary number as the boundry, you have to consider each life as a tool that will bring you closer to accomplishing the task. -Dr Lou Natic Why should we care about anything that doesn't effect humans? Certainly the well-being of our planet is worth paying attention to, since it effects us. But anything that doesn't effect us has no relevance to our task. -Dr Lou Natic I'm going to be honest with you; I've never heard a crazier theory in my life Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We have evidence that our existence was brought about by complete randomness, and I have two examples to prove it. It has been evident to scientists for a while that our moon is an oddball. In proportion to the planet it orbits, it is larger than the moons of the other planets in our solar system. This size was just right to stabalize the wobble effect in the earth's rotation; without it, the Earth would experience an effect of over 40 degrees in change, which means very little chance of life ever surviving. The other random occurance is called the Aquatic Ape theory, which states that there is evidence that our ancestors evolved in a semi-aquatic environment, which has caused us to gain particular physical attributes which allowed us to develop intelligence. The randomness of this is that our habitat just so happened to be flooded for the right time to allow us to develop, for example, voluntary breath control (so that we can speak). BTW I wrote more about this in another message board, here. -Dr Lou Natic The one thing we do know is that, even if there are some species that are intelligent like us, none have the capabilities to manipulate the environment to learn and evolve. Since they can't evolve intellectually, their state of mind is forever directed towards the simple strive for everyday survival. -Dr Lou Natic I find it particularly disturbing that you would put us down for being able to progress to the point where we no longer need to fear for survival. It was necessary for us to be able to spend time evolving our society. It is utterly pointless to 'give the animals the respect they deserve'; the only thing that deserves my heed is that which is relevant to the task, remember? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -Dr Lou Natic The comparison is wrong. There's no point in sympathizing with an animal because they never have and never will be able to reach the our capabilities. On the other hand, a poverty-stricken african very well could have reached the intellectual capabilities of a wealthy american, they simply never received the chance. Yes, we have the intellectual money. And like the intellectually poor animals, financially poor humans have no time or capabilities to think beyond basic survival. But unlike the poor animals, I can simpathize with the humans because they aren't reaching their full potential.
Well, at birth a given individual only receives two choices: 1)Kill yourself, thus becoming no more 2)Survive, live, then die, thus becoming no more The results are identical, so why even stick around? Why not end it now? Either way, one's life will have born no permanent fruits, no immutable and unforgettable deeds. Either way, life, or survival, is irrelevant because it offers no reward, relief, or solace. Does that not make suicide seem optimal, favorable? Why not? Avert those inevitable miseries, that trepidation, that mortification, that insurmountable, implacable, interminable, incessant PAIN! Or rather, maybe you can find some succor, some pleasure! The pleasure may never outweigh the sorrow of your hopelessness, your ultimate demise, but atleast FINISH WITH FLAIR! Indeed, Why be so impetuous and quick about it? Why hasten it, if you can still revel in your vivacity while its still available? Why not stick to it? I mean, why not get your kicks while you're still kickin'? I would think that either option is satisfactory. A natural balance? Humans are the predominant species of this planet. Humans are now determining the natural balance. Simply because they don't make a pretty job of it isn't a sufficient reason for complaint. Actually, humans are "better" in that they are more intelligent, and, subsequently, capable of innovation and shrewd application. If you want to attribute this advantage to luck, okay then. Additionally, the average American is "better" than the average "African." While the former is a healthy, well-educated, and morally-upstanding citizen of a prevalent nation, the latter is a malnurished, ignorant creature prone to barbarous warfare and liable to drop dead from a some tropical malady. If the former isn't "better" than the latter, what is it? You may say it's luckier, but I say it's more willing to contribute to its society and its race has been prosperous due to a superior aptitude for economy and government, whereas the negroe and its race are aggressive and backwards. Don't tell me that the American was lucky to be born an American, becuase, as I see it, "luck" cannot be credited with the placement of humans on earth, seeing that this earthy arrangement of parties is the only one we know to have ever been possible in the first place. I.E. this is the only way the world can be, so how can luck be involved? ALSO, the African people can blame no one but themselves for their squalid, disease ridden, conflict abundant lives (this "no one" includes bad fortune). I believe exactly this, comrade. I mean exactly!
Seeing that everyone reading these posts has not yet committed suicide, I can rightly assert that all persons present have "lived." I can safely deduce from my own temporal ordeals that all persons present have also discovered that the world is a stark, austere environment devoid of profound or exquisite meaning. I.E. I believe everyone has "lived" to some extent and noticed that there is no palpable purpose to life. No one has divulged the point of the universe. So, we who have lived know that live is irrelevant, insipid, EMPTY. (wid' out no meanin'!) Tell me, since we will all die eventually, and die bereft of divine intervention, of an explicit sign of "MEANING TO LIFE," . . . were the suicides not right? Have we not lived longer than they and seen no meaning? Have our predecessors not lived before us, and died before us, and seen no meaning before us? Humanity has never been blessed with a sign. As all rational men know, there is no relevance to life. None. Tell me, were the suicides not right? I watched a TV program on this theory. It was fascinating and I gobbled it up eagerly like the credulous dupe I am.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree; I insist that we earned our supremacy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please put the name of the person you are quoting after you quote a message. It can confuse readers; in your first post you quoted me first and the rest from Dr Lou Natic. :thumbsup: -Redoubtable I'm going to reply to both quotes at the same time, they show the very same thinking. 'No permanent fruits'? 'No exquisite meaning'? I'm going to make the wild guess that you've been alive for somewhere between 0 and 120 years, since most humans don't go beyond that. Who warrented you to judge by your limited life-span whether there is or isn't some 'fruit' we can strive for? What knowledge warrents you to come up with this? How human of you! You see no reward, no advantage anywhere in the near future, and automatically decide there is none! Nay, there is relevance to life, and to say there isn't is pointless because you'll never be right. If anyone tells you that they have 'noticed' that there is no palpable purpose to life, they have quite possibly the most dangerous form of ignorance conceivable. -Redoubtable To be honest, that is not only illogical but also typical. If you want to waste your life chilling out, you'll have made no sincere effort at all in finding something relevant. Your life will be no different than the mindless animals we live amongst, because you will change nothing. -Redoubtable I'll say the same thing to you that I said to him. There's no point in sympathizing with an animal because they never have and never will be able to reach the our capabilities. On the other hand, a poverty-stricken african very well could have reached the intellectual capabilities of a wealthy american, they simply never received the chance. Yes, we have the intellectual money. And like the intellectually poor animals, financially poor humans have no time or capabilities to think beyond basic survival. But unlike the poor animals, I can simpathize with the humans because they aren't reaching their full potential. -Redoubtable 'Aptitude'?? I hate to break it to you, but no race or group of people will ever have an inherent ability in economy and government. Ask any geneticist you want, every single one will tell you that there is no politics gene. The success of a particular society relies heavily on the environment in which they evolve. While one society may enjoy rich soil and little war throughout their development, others may experience constant conflict and search of food. A heavily ignorant fellow may conclude that the more successful society must be inherently superior. -Redoubtable By that logic, I guess the next time you are robbed, beaten, raped, or anything else unfavorable must be your own fault, not bad fortune. Take any member of any society, I guarantee you they will be equally susceptable to manipulation, chaos, violence, anything. Some societies, in their given circumstances, may be more successful in creating police forces and constitutions to control the chaos. But the fact is, every society is equally aimless in that each member pursues their own wants and goals. We constantly fight and compete with each other over these insignificant things, no society is different in this aspect.
R created or created ourselves ..but i agree here 100% no it would not have been best , it would have be just as good . The use(i mean if thats what u define bad/good by) of non-existing is just as big as in existing . No there isnt , logics depends on an assumable premis , the very first thing that is needed to be acknowledge , is completely useless . we dont need any of them , but as long as we r here , why not try to figure out how it worx . I mean , if not because of the possibilities of today , we wouldnt even come to such a nihilistic conclusion of useless existing , we would be fighting for our lives chasing animals for food . The same arguments u use for the uselessness of existence , i use in the uselessness of non-existing , so i disagree with u . And if it IS 'created" whitch is highly unlikely , indeed u would be right . If i was God , i wouldnt do anything , if action and non-action is equally useless , i prefer doing nothing since its less troubling . But it wasnt created , it created itself , if it all exists to begin with . Such statements opnly prove the nihilistic view , and much more , my own theories on WHY u r saying such athing to begin with . U c , u simply could never accept the fact ur life is completely useless and there is absolutely no reason for u to exist . Thats because of the way the human psyche designed itself(evolved) , and thats because if you WOULD accept it , it wouldnt promote SURVIVAL , mans ONLY meaning of life , whitch is....USELESS . my conclusion would differ a bit . In this sense , i would say ..... if the state ur n now(alive/existing) is useless , but the state u go into(non-existing) is useless as well , why change , now THAT would be truly useless . LMAO , idlove to meet him nobody , but if it isnt ,WHY live it ? i know my reasons but whats urs ? yup , i thought such a thing would be the case There is only one thing more useless than EXISTING and NON-EXISTING , and thats the transition u make between the 2 , whithc is called CHANGE . what u feel are little logical/unlogical reactions from ur body to ur mind into ur understanding . Emotions are ridiciouless (im not saying u should ignore em, i just give their ontological state of being) Nobody's logic is based on any objective facts , since objective facts cant be proven by subjects to exist , to start with . ITs simply ASSUMABLE life is useless . QUOTE]Organisms strive to survive because its the only relevant thing to do. And that includes humans; there's no point not doing it because then we would never find out whether or not it is truly relevant. [/QUOTE] well...thats true ..that would make smething usefull , tyhe potential of discovery.....but , there is absolutely NOBODY on this planet that i know of , that actually has discovered this essense . Now then i would say , damn that useless ......trying to discover all ur life and then u die , without knowing ANYTHING . so what if we are ? I have only one question to ask , and this question will appear after every anwer u might give me WHY ? There will be a point where u could only justify(answer the why?) it by going into circle-reasoning .
OK again I'll say this...Please put the name of the person you are quoting after you quote a message. You quoted several people in a single post so it is necessary. -Allahs_Mathematics No, I wouldn't accept death because it offers no chance of ever finding meaning. You say "survival is man's only meaning of life" but that is an unnecessary assumption, you don't know that there isn't anything else to pursue so don't come to conclusions based on your limited knowledge. -Allahs_Mathematics I agree completely, and that's why he isn't warrented to say that life has no significance; there's no point in canceling the chance unless you are absolutely sure (which would require objective facts). -Allahs_Mathematics So what if you haven't found anybody who has 'discovered the essence'?! Does that mean it doesn't exist? -Allahs_Mathematics In other words, "I'm a typical, impatient human being that will damn it all if I don't get to see the essence with my own eyes". Thanks a lot.
dont u learn after billions and billions of life , and nobody ever founding this meaning , that its probably not there ? But u r correct when u refer to me as assuming , because that is completely true . But then again , everything is an assumptions since we cant know anything for sure . So no indeed i dont know , its simply 99,9% likely , thats all . oh comon , a gamble cant be that bad on such ods man . but understand your view of wanting to know for sure . My view is that switching between uselessnes a and uselesness b is the most useless of them all . SO if ur dead , better stay dead , if ur alive, better stay alive . so nothing . I never said that simply means ther ISNT any , its simply not probable . impatience , how do u conclude that from waiting all your life ? And why should there be patience ? And why is this typical , typical is rather not to wonder about such subjects . And do u just believe stuff u dont know of , ofcourse i want to see it whit my own eyes , who i suppose to trust about it , God......? please...... And about sayiong who quote's what . well.......we could debate over that even im sure we dont agree , but do not worry , all whats quoted this time was in your name .
-Allahs_Mathematics No, 1,000,000,000 years is no different to me than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. I will still pursue it with all I have. -Allahs_Mathematics 1) you couldn't possibly know the statistics, and 2) even if it's 99.9% likely that the universe is meaningless, there's no point in deciding that .1% is a meaningless pursuit -- might as well pursue it since that's your only chance of finding relevance. -Allahs_Mathematics Because your single life is not enough to produce the objective evidence to prove life has no meaning. We shouldn't pursue the 'essence' with the mindset that our individual minds will one day find it, but rather we should pursue it with the mindset that somebody will one day find it. The want to see it with ones own eyes is selfish, lacking any care for the big picture.
xeu , i understand your point of view , although i find it really stibborn , but to each whatever he-she finds acceptable . I already accepted life to be meaningless , if you do not thats great for you . Indeed i dont know the exact statistics , is me being perfectly correct relevant ? we both know what way the ods are going , arguing about not even 1 percent seems irrelevant to me . And indeed 99,9 doesnt imply not to search , it merely implies u'll probably end up emptyhanded . I say search all you , i already accepted that you'll find nothing , since its probably not there. as far as i am concerned i have one life , therefor this conclusion concludes meaninglessnes . I honestly could care less if somebody else finds it while i have no beneficious position in having the same knowledge. I am a very selfish person , and i could care less for others' big picture i would never be able to see . Cant u c that there is no big picture when there isnt you who is seeing it ?
-Allahs_Mathematics No, we don't know what way the odds are going. This isn't a dice game; purpose either exists or it doesn't exist, there's no point in guessing beforehand just to save yourself the time, we have absolutely no indcation that there isn't purpose. -Allahs_Mathematics -Allahs_Mathematics -Allahs_Mathematics The Eqyptians were lucky they're workers were not like you; nobody would ever care to build the Great Pyramids because they'd be stuck in their own individual world, pursuing only what provides an immediate advantage for the immediate few. By your logic, nobody should ever pursue the Purpose because it is impossible to attain within a single life span. Don't you see the danger of this morbidly individualistic mentality? Nothing would ever get done unless it was possible to finish within a single lifespan. If we ever magically found that an alien species has already discovered the Purpose of Life, is there any point to us trying to find it again? How about if you found that every other human already found the Purpose of Life besides you, is there a point in you trying to find it too? -Allahs_Mathematics This is supposed to be a logical debate, so start using your logic. I will only ever do what is relevant, and since my single entity is not *essential* to the final discovery, I don't consider it absolutely necessary that I am there. I do, however, think that it would be beneficial that I was, because an extra mind never hurts. To be honest, I do this because nothing else is relevant, it's that simple. It's pointless to sit around weeping just because your sorry self has concluded that you won't ever get to see the final product.
