Purpose.....

[Faith_in_Fate]

Im Greatly confused on the purpose of being on earth or of living... why do we live..? is it to serve a God... is it too die... i havent an idea this is an answer i have been looking for, for a great time... its unclear... the Bible doesnt really tell... please answer...

[QED]

therefore, i sort of cringe when we jump on the case when we think about the concept of God, as if some sort of social delusion. is not love, passion, happiness, self-expression all "social delusions" as well? yet even the most outspoken atheist will often live by such values, meaningful values INSPIRED by God, a God we may or may not have constructed - but regardless, they are living inspired by God over a thousand years ago.

so the final questions i would ask is.. does the ability to reduce everything to atoms and physical laws mean such "social mindsets" are not true? is there no such thing as a molecule because all a molecule is, is really atoms obeying certain laws? the atom itself is reducible.

this somehow leads back to whether "life" is inspired by God, or we created God to inspire ourselves. does the fact that God's existence (i.e., the manifestation of God(s) in literature, oral tradition, etc.) is reducible mean that God is not real, for the same reason that the molecule is still a reducible? what gives materialism and reason the only acceptable answer to life?

one thing is for sure though.. we still live by the God-inspired values and themes of life today, whether or not we profess belief in some sort of anthropomorphic God or supernatural higher existence. it is through those old values and themes that we live our life by that give us our "purpose." it seems to me.. that all the science in the world cannot do that for us.

Meaning comes through exposure to the outside. Meaningful things are those that make a difference. But we can think of ourselves "playing games" with those differences and games generally have rules. The idea of God, of virtue and of morals is based on what rules serve us best, or are thought to do so. This would be why morality approximates certain absolutes (as though they were given from upon high) because no person is a blank slate when born -- genetics orientates each individual in the general direction the game has been going for many, many generations.

[ollagram88]

Meaning comes through exposure to the outside. Meaningful things are those that make a difference. But we can think of ourselves "playing games" with those differences and games generally have rules. The idea of God, of virtue and of morals is based on what rules serve us best, or are thought to do so. This would be why morality approximates certain absolutes (as though they were given from upon high) because no person is a blank slate when born -- genetics orientates each individual in the general direction the game has been going for many, many generations.

haha i'm pretty sure i agree with you.,

but i'm not sure if that answers my question.

yes, i agree meaning is something not inherent, it is learned from the external. and what's meaningful makes a difference, it has some "value." i would discern between hunting for food, and hunting for passion. hunting for food is survival instinct. if we don't hunt, we die. we need to hunt to get food, to keep our body working.

now hunting for passion.. that's different. hunting for the sake and the thrill of hunting. hunting to prove your bravery, your strength, your skill. where did those ideas come from? we saw them manifested in our art.

i'm not talking about art because when the agricultural revolution came about, humans made pots to occupy themselves with their free time because their food was growing in their backyard and they didn't have to venture out into the woods.

i'm talking about EXPRESSIVE ART, passionate art, moral art, culturally reflective art.. art that both reflects and shapes the values of society and in turn gives us a meaning and a purpose.

that type of art - didn't humans do that type of art under the notion that they were inspired from the gods? these great pieces of classical literature that breathed "meaning" to "life" ?

now back to the hunting example. it's one thing to hunt for survival instinct. it's another thing to hunt for these God(s)-inspired "meaningful values" to live for some other reason other than biological survival.

what other animal lives his life to test his strength, prove his bravery, make a difference, fight for equality, live for another woman that he loves?

[QED]

it's one thing to hunt for survival instinct. it's another thing to hunt for these God(s)-inspired "meaningful values" to live for some other reason other than biological survival.

what other animal lives his life to test his strength, prove his bravery, make a difference, fight for equality, live for another woman that he loves?

The Bower Bird. Really, I think you have possibly isolated what you feel are unique human qualities when all along evolution has been forging complex social behaviour across the board. There is nothing that I know of from the point of view of Evolutionary Psychology that goes without explanation. Sure humans have highly evolved language skills and a possibly unique adaptation that allows us to hear ourselves talk in a private stream of consciousness (and hence accelerate our understanding of things) -- but a survey of up-to-date research findings in animal skills in all areas of abstract thinking, music and art reveals a spectrum of accomplishment rather than all-or-nothing.

I don't think it's in any way sad to address all this in a reductionist fashion, although it seems to bother some people. It has been quipped that all there is is atoms, everything else is sociology -- I think this is very, very true. All the mystery (if you like that term) is concentrated in the atoms alone. Scores of new scientific disciplines have sprung up around new technology (e.g fMRI scanners, DNA sequencing etc.) and are decoding living processes in unprecedented detail. Read John Barrow (The Artful Universe) if you doubt that such a reductionist approach can make successful inroads into such supposedly ineffable territory.

[ollagram88]

i recognize the power of reductionism, and in fact, i think it's quite beautiful. evolution, science's ability to explain our world.. i think it's amazing. it's ability to reduce everything to atoms.. beautiful.

but i see no reason how reducing everything to atoms actually has significant meaning! what do we accomplish by saying all that is, is actually atoms? what does that really do for us, in the big picture? science is there to discover, to describe our natural world. you can describe to me my passion for making a difference and how that ultimately came to be.. but the fact remains that that passion to make a difference in this world is still my conscious experience. it's something i live for, the fire continues to burn. science can reduce that passion into atoms, but the passion is still there! that reductionism merely explains how it came to be. but the passion remains. i experience it consciously, i am deluded into thinking it is a part of my "life."

and so i ask again.. "what other animal lives his life to test his strength, prove his bravery, make a difference, fight for equality, live for another woman that he loves?"

no matter how much we want to reduce all of this.. no matter how much we try to reduce GOD as some construction.. these are still the values we live by. these are "man-made values inspired by a man-made God." the most profound atheist still lives by meaningful values, whether or not he professes belief in God. if science wants to say God isn't real.. so be it. but this God that we humans have supposedly created.. God inspired our "meanings" in life. it was a social revolution into an era of spirituality and it's what gives us our "meaning" in life, our purpose.

did not the "mythos" and the "logos" used to coexist peacefully? that we had mythological works of inspiration for the human condition, while we had reason to understand how the universe works? once again, reason (science) can come to explain how we came to create these inspirational ideas on the meaning of life.. how all this, as you said, was simply increasingly a more complex evolution of abstractions.. but these "spiritual" abstractions is something that we live by. we no longer live JUST to eat and have sex. these meaningful abstractions are what gives us our sense of "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

i think it'd help if i asked these questions. why do you continue to post on this forum? why are you exchanging talks with me? why do you go through the daily motions of life? what are your reasons for doing all that you do each and every day?

[Nick_A]

i recognize the power of reductionism, and in fact, i think it's quite beautiful. evolution, science's ability to explain our world.. i think it's amazing. it's ability to reduce everything to atoms.. beautiful.

but i see no reason how reducing everything to atoms actually has significant meaning! what do we accomplish by saying all that is, is actually atoms? what does that really do for us, in the big picture? science is there to discover, to describe our natural world. you can describe to me my passion for making a difference and how that ultimately came to be.. but the fact remains that that passion to make a difference in this world is still my conscious experience. it's something i live for, the fire continues to burn. science can reduce that passion into atoms, but the passion is still there! that reductionism merely explains how it came to be. but the passion remains. i experience it consciously, i am deluded into thinking it is a part of my "life."

and so i ask again.. "what other animal lives his life to test his strength, prove his bravery, make a difference, fight for equality, live for another woman that he loves?"

no matter how much we want to reduce all of this.. no matter how much we try to reduce GOD as some construction.. these are still the values we live by. these are "man-made values inspired by a man-made God." the most profound atheist still lives by meaningful values, whether or not he professes belief in God. if science wants to say God isn't real.. so be it. but this God that we humans have supposedly created.. God inspired our "meanings" in life. it was a social revolution into an era of spirituality and it's what gives us our "meaning" in life, our purpose.

did not the "mythos" and the "logos" used to coexist peacefully? that we had mythological works of inspiration for the human condition, while we had reason to understand how the universe works? once again, reason (science) can come to explain how we came to create these inspirational ideas on the meaning of life.. how all this, as you said, was simply increasingly a more complex evolution of abstractions.. but these "spiritual" abstractions is something that we live by. we no longer live JUST to eat and have sex. these meaningful abstractions are what gives us our sense of "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

i think it'd help if i asked these questions. why do you continue to post on this forum? why are you exchanging talks with me? why do you go through the daily motions of life? what are your reasons for doing all that you do each and every day?

I agree with a lot of what you say and since I believe that consciousness permeates the universe, it is logical that higher consciousness is an influence that has allowed man's consciusness to expand towards acquiring a pespective that allows us to experience what "As above, so below" actually means and its connection to human purpose.

I've tried to clarify the opposing perspectives of the atheist and believer by comparing views on beauty. You may find it interesting.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7656

[Goat]

I agree with a lot of what you say and since I believe that consciousness permeates the universe, it is logical that higher consciousness is an influence that has allowed man's consciusness to expand towards acquiring a pespective that allows us to experience what "As above, so below" actually means and its connection to human purpose.

I've tried to clarify the opposing perspectives of the atheist and believer by comparing views on beauty. You may find it interesting.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7656

Is your primary assumption (that consciousness permeates the universe) logical?
If not, then your conclusion (that there is a higher consciousness) is also not
logical. Logic is only as good as it's primary assumptions.

Since this consciousness that permeates the universe is undetectable, untestable
and non-observable, I believe that a belief in this 'consciousness' is also illogical.

It isn't even a shadow on the cave wall.

[Nick_A]

I agree with a lot of what you say and since I believe that consciousness permeates the universe, it is logical that higher consciousness is an influence that has allowed man's consciusness to expand towards acquiring a pespective that allows us to experience what "As above, so below" actually means and its connection to human purpose.

I've tried to clarify the opposing perspectives of the atheist and believer by comparing views on beauty. You may find it interesting.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7656

Is your primary assumption (that consciousness permeates the universe) logical?
If not, then your conclusion (that there is a higher consciousness) is also not
logical. Logic is only as good as it's primary assumptions.

Since this consciousness that permeates the universe is undetectable, untestable
and non-observable, I believe that a belief in this 'consciousness' is also illogical.

It isn't even a shadow on the cave wall.

It is far more than a shadow and far more acceptable to science than you realize.. You've been reading too much Richard Dawkins. Time to move into the twnty first century and opening the mind to rediscovering what has ben forgotten.

[Goat]

I agree with a lot of what you say and since I believe that consciousness permeates the universe, it is logical that higher consciousness is an influence that has allowed man's consciusness to expand towards acquiring a pespective that allows us to experience what "As above, so below" actually means and its connection to human purpose.

I've tried to clarify the opposing perspectives of the atheist and believer by comparing views on beauty. You may find it interesting.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7656

Is your primary assumption (that consciousness permeates the universe) logical?
If not, then your conclusion (that there is a higher consciousness) is also not
logical. Logic is only as good as it's primary assumptions.

Since this consciousness that permeates the universe is undetectable, untestable
and non-observable, I believe that a belief in this 'consciousness' is also illogical.

It isn't even a shadow on the cave wall.

It is far more than a shadow and far more acceptable to science than you realize.. You've been reading too much Richard Dawkins. Time to move into the twnty first century and opening the mind to rediscovering what has ben forgotten.

I have not read any Richard Dawkins. However, you make assertions, and then create illusions based on assertions you can not demonstrate. As far as I can see
you have nothing but spiritual vaporware.

If it is far more than 'a shadow' and 'far more acceptable to science than I realize', then you will be able to show peer reviewed scientific articles about it.

I am pretty skeptical of people who claim divine insight, strut as if they are superior because of it, and then fail to back up their claims.

[Nick_A]

I agree with a lot of what you say and since I believe that consciousness permeates the universe, it is logical that higher consciousness is an influence that has allowed man's consciusness to expand towards acquiring a pespective that allows us to experience what "As above, so below" actually means and its connection to human purpose.

I've tried to clarify the opposing perspectives of the atheist and believer by comparing views on beauty. You may find it interesting.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7656

Is your primary assumption (that consciousness permeates the universe) logical?
If not, then your conclusion (that there is a higher consciousness) is also not
logical. Logic is only as good as it's primary assumptions.

Since this consciousness that permeates the universe is undetectable, untestable
and non-observable, I believe that a belief in this 'consciousness' is also illogical.

It isn't even a shadow on the cave wall.

It is far more than a shadow and far more acceptable to science than you realize.. You've been reading too much Richard Dawkins. Time to move into the twnty first century and opening the mind to rediscovering what has ben forgotten.

I have not read any Richard Dawkins. However, you make assertions, and then create illusions based on assertions you can not demonstrate. As far as I can see
you have nothing but spiritual vaporware.

If it is far more than 'a shadow' and 'far more acceptable to science than I realize', then you will be able to show peer reviewed scientific articles about it.

I am pretty skeptical of people who claim divine insight, strut as if they are superior because of it, and then fail to back up their claims.

Though I'm more familiar with the "cosncious Universe from sources like Jacob Needleman and Basarab Nicolescu, there are many working on these ideas. If you want to just deny then you will never open your mind to anything new. Only people who are concerned with getting to the bottom of it would be willing to plow through books like the following. I'm just glad that this minoroty of open minded people exist.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id= ... QE#PPP1,M1

[Goat]

Though I'm more familiar with the "cosncious Universe from sources like Jacob Needleman and Basarab Nicolescu, there are many working on these ideas. If you want to just deny then you will never open your mind to anything new. Only people who are concerned with getting to the bottom of it would be willing to plow through books like the following. I'm just glad that this minoroty of open minded people exist.

Speculative and philosophical books are not 'science'. Efforts to reconciliate 'science and the humanities' is not science. Popular books are not peer reviewed articles.

I asked a very specific question. You went off on a tangent where your answer has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Can you show a peer reviewed article about it? Do you have anything that is of substance that aren't pretty little words, signifying nothing?