Meaning of life = ?

[JoshB]

We live for a purpose. Whether the universe is created by God or scientific phenomenon, whether Jesus is real or not, whether evolution is fact or not, we live for a purpose.

Think about this idea. There is nothing that we do by our own conscious that has no purpose. There is nothing that happens to us that has no purpose. No intent. No meaning.

The only way to stop purpose is to quit, and to cease all participation in life and existence, in the ultimate sense, quit. So what are we when we "quit"? We are non-existent.

From that we arrive at this statement: If we had no purpose, we would not exist.

Therefore, if we have purpose (a reason to exist), we exist. Think about it. Its true.

So heres my philosophy on the meaning of life: We cannot live without a purpose. Thus, the meaning of life has to be to have purpose. Something to continue existing for.

Now, I can see what points will bring arguments. But I want you lions to tear my philosophy to pieces until we come to an answer.

[LiamOS]

We live for a purpose.

I doubt that. If the universe is simply created by natural phenomenon, it would be foolhardy to assume that.
Look at the Hubble Deep-Field image, and you'll see why I'd assume the exact opposite.

Think about this idea. There is nothing that we do by our own conscious that has no purpose. There is nothing that happens to us that has no purpose. No intent. No meaning.

What is consciousness? Does it have purpose? If so, how do you know?
Again, if consciousness came about naturally, there is no reason to assume purpose.

The only way to stop purpose is to quit, and to cease all participation in life and existence, in the ultimate sense, quit. So what are we when we "quit"? We are non-existent.

I'm still going to assert my position and say that purpose is still an assumption at best.

From that we arrive at this statement: If we had no purpose, we would not exist.

Therefore every Quark has as much 'purpose' as your life; I'd say that such a purpose isn't really purpose.

Therefore, if we have purpose (a reason to exist), we exist. Think about it. Its true.

I'm thinking about it, but true, I don't know.

We cannot live without a purpose.

This statement is untrue; it's easily imaginable that the universe has no purpose.

Thus, the meaning of life has to be to have purpose.

What makes you so sure that there's a meaning in the first place?

Now, I can see what points will bring arguments. But I want you lions to tear my philosophy to pieces until we come to an answer.

I'd love an answer too, but I don't think we'll get one.
From my analysis of the universe to date, I have serious trouble believing that there is meaning or purpose behind anything.

Edit: Upon seeing that you're a member of the "Wants Evidence" usergroup, I don't feel too bad in asking you to back up your assertions in the opening post.

[JoshB]

We live for a purpose.

I doubt that. If the universe is simply created by natural phenomenon, it would be foolhardy to assume that.
Look at the Hubble Deep-Field image, and you'll see why I'd assume the exact opposite.

I don't mean that we are created for a purpose, or were given a purpose. We continue living for a purpose. Whether that be for a loved one or to get to the next day. Simply existing can be a purpose.

Think about this idea. There is nothing that we do by our own conscious that has no purpose. There is nothing that happens to us that has no purpose. No intent. No meaning.

What is consciousness? Does it have purpose? If so, how do you know?
Again, if consciousness came about naturally, there is no reason to assume purpose.

Let me rephrase: there is nothing that we do intentionally that doesn't have a purpose.
And if your saying we weren't created for a purpose, I agree. We were created from a series of scientific coincidences. But when the first lifeform was created, it made itself a purpose: to continue living. To grow. To prosper. It invented itself a purpose through its consciousness. The thing that separates the inanimate from the animate.

From that we arrive at this statement: If we had no purpose, we would not exist.

Therefore every Quark has as much 'purpose' as your life; I'd say that such a purpose isn't really purpose.

I would think that only animate things can have purpose, since I theorize purpose to be an invention of consciousness. If you would like to say quarks are animate, then sure, they have just as much purpose.

Therefore, if we have purpose (a reason to exist), we exist. Think about it. Its true.

I'm thinking about it, but true, I don't know.

Purpose is created by consciousness. Consciousness must be existent to create purpose. Therefore if something has purpose (thus consciousness), it exists.

We cannot live without a purpose.

This statement is untrue; it's easily imaginable that the universe has no purpose.

Easily imaginable, yes. In fact, since purpose is only an invention of consciousness, anything that has no consciousness has no purpose. So your right on that.

Thus, the meaning of life has to be to have purpose.

What makes you so sure that there's a meaning in the first place?

To reiterate, we have consciousness, thus we have purpose.

Now, I can see what points will bring arguments. But I want you lions to tear my philosophy to pieces until we come to an answer.

I'd love an answer too, but I don't think we'll get one.
From my analysis of the universe to date, I have serious trouble believing that there is meaning or purpose behind anything.

Edit: Upon seeing that you're a member of the "Wants Evidence" usergroup, I don't feel too bad in asking you to back up your assertions in the opening post.

I can see how it appears funny how I am a part of that group and yet posted that original post as it was. I was short on time. Heres my "evidence"

Think of everything considered living. All those living things try to survive in its environment. It does this with intent of surviving. Thus, it has a purpose in its actions (to survive). So its logical to say that any living thing will have a purpose, since any living thing does all of its conscious actions with intent.

[LiamOS]

I don't mean that we are created for a purpose, or were given a purpose. We continue living for a purpose. Whether that be for a loved one or to get to the next day. Simply existing can be a purpose.

In a philosophical discussion, purpose and personal purpose are different things.

Let me rephrase: there is nothing that we do intentionally that doesn't have a purpose.

I still don't know, with purpose and a deterministic universe, you can simply regress a chain of purpose to a first cause, which, if lacking purpose, could be used to argue that nothing had purpose.
I agree that most conscious acts in a normal sense would be said to be 'purposeful', though.

And if your saying we weren't created for a purpose, I agree. We were created from a series of scientific coincidences. But when the first lifeform was created, it made itself a purpose: to continue living. To grow. To prosper. It invented itself a purpose through its consciousness. The thing that separates the inanimate from the animate.

It strived to reproduce and such, but I don't know if 'purpose' is quite the right word... It seems to imply some sort of meaning.

I would think that only animate things can have purpose, since I theorize purpose to be an invention of consciousness. If you would like to say quarks are animate, then sure, they have just as much purpose.

Well, although quarks may well be conscious, I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence to suggest it, so I'll go right ahead and say no, they're not.
And yes, purpose requires consciousness in almost every sense. If not to have a purpose, to recognise it.

Purpose is created by consciousness. Consciousness must be existent to create purpose. Therefore if something has purpose (thus consciousness), it exists.

And therefore the universe has no purpose!
Again, although I agree with the idea of what you're saying, I'm not sure if purpose is the most apt word.

Think of everything considered living. All those living things try to survive in its environment. It does this with intent of surviving. Thus, it has a purpose in its actions (to survive). So its logical to say that any living thing will have a purpose, since any living thing does all of its conscious actions with intent

Yes, purpose is definitely the wrong word.
A jellyfish does not purposefully float around, it just does it. It just so happens that jellyfish evolved in such a manner that they propagate very easily by floating mindlessly around.

In the same manner, one could say that U236's purpose is to decay, because it does so almost immediately. I hope this shows how purpose is not the word I'd have used.

From Wikipedia:
"Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken"
Intention is an important word here. Do bacteria intentionally reproduce?

[JoshB]

In a philosophical discussion, purpose and personal purpose are different things.

Really? I see personal purpose as the only kind of purpose...

I still don't know, with purpose and a deterministic universe, you can simply regress a chain of purpose to a first cause, which, if lacking purpose, could be used to argue that nothing had purpose.

But you cannot draw a conclusion of no purpose in animate things because we started with inanimate scientific phenomenon. You would have to start with the first animate/conscious being, since there is a big difference in animate and inanimate objects.

I agree that most conscious acts in a normal sense would be said to be 'purposeful', though.

Most? Which ones would you consider not to have purpose?

It strived to reproduce and such, but I don't know if 'purpose' is quite the right word... It seems to imply some sort of meaning.

I would still argue it to be the right word. With each action of an organism is a purpose. Even passive actions would count. This would answer your bacteria argument a bit further down.

Well, although quarks may well be conscious, I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence to suggest it, so I'll go right ahead and say no, they're not.
And yes, purpose requires consciousness in almost every sense. If not to have a purpose, to recognise it.

Yes! We found something we agree to!

And therefore the universe has no purpose!

Indeed!

Again, although I agree with the idea of what you're saying, I'm not sure if purpose is the most apt word.

I have a bad feeling that this conversation is going to turn into a semantical argument. The existentialists will love this.

Yes, purpose is definitely the wrong word.
A jellyfish does not purposefully float around, it just does it. It just so happens that jellyfish evolved in such a manner that they propagate very easily by floating mindlessly around.

Passive action of the conscious organism or not, it does have a purpose. Movement's purpose is obvious. As is propagation's.

In the same manner, one could say that U236's purpose is to decay, because it does so almost immediately. I hope this shows how purpose is not the word I'd have used.

I didn't know U236 was animate/conscious....but anyways, that specific example does not show that its the wrong word. But Im sure you can find another one

From Wikipedia:
"Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken"
Intention is an important word here. Do bacteria intentionally reproduce?

Though it is natural in the organism, it is passively performed purposefully to progress the bacteria. (Did you like the alliteration? )

[LiamOS]

Really? I see personal purpose as the only kind of purpose...

If some sort of God designed the universe with something in mind, there'd be a less subjective purpose.

But you cannot draw a conclusion of no purpose in animate things because we started with inanimate scientific phenomenon. You would have to start with the first animate/conscious being, since there is a big difference in animate and inanimate objects.

Where's the line then?

Most? Which ones would you consider not to have purpose?

I don't know, but given that I've only dabbled in psychology or sociology, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying all.

Also, there is no 'scientific' phenomenon. I believe the word you're looking for is natural.
Sorry, but I'm a little pedantic as you might have noticed.

I would still argue it to be the right word. With each action of an organism is a purpose. Even passive actions would count. This would answer your bacteria argument a bit further down.

Well, if passive actions count, at what point do you differentiate between a passive action from a biological and non-biological source?

I have a bad feeling that this conversation is going to turn into a semantical argument. The existentialists will love this.

Although I really do dislike such arguments, they're necessary to establish a base from which you discuss or argue.

Passive action of the conscious organism or not, it does have a purpose. Movement's purpose is obvious. As is propagation's.

Would you say that a Silver atom moving through space has purpose? If not, why would a bunch of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen atoms with no more consciousness have a purpose while moving together?

I didn't know U236 was animate/conscious....but anyways, that specific example does not show that its the wrong word. But Im sure you can find another one

Hopefully I just did.

Though it is natural in the organism, it is passively performed purposefully to progress the bacteria.

How are you defining purpose?

And yes, the alliteration made my day.

[JoshB]

If some sort of God designed the universe with something in mind, there'd be a less subjective purpose.

Indeed. If the future were already pre-destined by "God". But I want to keep this post secular if you don't mind.

But you cannot draw a conclusion of no purpose in animate things because we started with inanimate scientific phenomenon. You would have to start with the first animate/conscious being, since there is a big difference in animate and inanimate objects.

Where's the line then?

What line are you referring to? Between animate and inanimate? Hopefully thats obvious...consciousness I would strongly suppose.

I don't know, but given that I've only dabbled in psychology or sociology, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying all.

Explain why you feel uncomfortable and we can come to an answer.

Also, there is no 'scientific' phenomenon. I believe the word you're looking for is natural.

Well excUUUUUse me good sir (just kidding ) Ill be sure to correct myself in the future.

Sorry, but I'm a little pedantic as you might have noticed.

Again we agree

Well, if passive actions count, at what point do you differentiate between a passive action from a biological and non-biological source?

You don't need to. They're already separated by the line between biological and non-biological since a biological passive action still requires a consciousness (though it may be sub consciousness).

Would you say that a Silver atom moving through space has purpose? If not, why would a bunch of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen atoms with no more consciousness have a purpose while moving together?

Do Silver atoms count as conscious? Do any of those elements count?

How are you defining purpose?

A reason to exist.

And yes, the alliteration made my day.

Im glad!

[LiamOS]

Indeed. If the future were already pre-destined by "God". But I want to keep this post secular if you don't mind.

So you came to Debating Christianity!
I'll gladly honour your request, though.

What line are you referring to? Between animate and inanimate? Hopefully thats obvious...consciousness I would strongly suppose.

And at what point do you determine what is conscious? What criteria must be fulfilled?

Explain why you feel uncomfortable and we can come to an answer.

Because although I cannot think of an example, I am not certain that such an example does not exist.

You don't need to. They're already separated by the line between biological and non-biological since a biological passive action still requires a consciousness (though it may be sub consciousness).

Do viruses perform actions consciously? Bacteria?

Do Silver atoms count as conscious? Do any of those elements count?

This depends on how one would care to define consciousness.

[JoshB]

So you came to Debating Christianity!
I'll gladly honour your request, though.

I see your point......Thank you though.

And at what point do you determine what is conscious? What criteria must be fulfilled?

The only criteria that must be filled (in my understanding) is being biological.

Because although I cannot think of an example, I am not certain that such an example does not exist.

Well then we'll come back to this when we think of an example. Its irrelevant until that time.

Do viruses perform actions consciously? Bacteria?

I would think so. Its biological. Thus it has a need to survive. So whether it is conscious or sub-conscious, the virus/bacteria will multiply, fester, destroy what it needs to in order to fufill its purpose: surviving.

The thing about that is its such a basic purpose. It gives very little meaning to life. Now the virus/bacteria may be fine with that, but for some reason or another humans find a need to be more than surviving people. They feel a need to be greater than our natural purpose. But thats a different subject for a different thread that I might create depending on whether or not I want to...

This depends on how one would care to define consciousness.

Im short on time. Ill answer this after you reply again.

And thanks for putting my name in color

[LiamOS]

And at what point do you determine what is conscious? What criteria must be fulfilled?

The only criteria that must be filled (in my understanding) is being biological.

I'd have thought that consciousness and life we two pretty separate things.

I would think so. Its biological. Thus it has a need to survive. So whether it is conscious or sub-conscious, the virus/bacteria will multiply, fester, destroy what it needs to in order to fufill its purpose: surviving.

The thing about that is its such a basic purpose. It gives very little meaning to life. Now the virus/bacteria may be fine with that, but for some reason or another humans find a need to be more than surviving people. They feel a need to be greater than our natural purpose. But thats a different subject for a different thread that I might create depending on whether or not I want to...

I'd have thought that they just do them without any consciousness at all.

And thanks for putting my name in color

Although I'm certain that you're not the first to notice it, you're the first to comment on it.
It adds a nice dash of colour to the posts.