Higher purpose? Yes, it is grand that we are what we are.
Meaningless? Can be. Biology and physics may add up to nuthin’.
Compass? I have one, but you may think it is bullshit. Some say there is no direction in space. In my subjective reality at the very least there Is at least one direction. I can never get lost!
Bliss! Have you ever Really studied your own breathing? It is like a drug, the best drug.
Almost forgot! You will NOT appreciate how desperately you missed being dead until after you have been alive for awhile. Alive, you are an author, like it or not. The pressure is fucking hellish! You may not really realize it until after you’re dead, which will be a big relief in any case.
I think knowing why we’re here will spoil the mystery behind the question - making life REALLY meaningless. Just imagine how many people ponder this question everyday. It’s fun hearing the different hypothesis, no matter how bright or ridiculous they all may be, they keep me thinking. Thinking = my life. My life = wondering why the heck we’re here!
Nah, mine hasn’t.
You asked why we were alive; said something must have created us and given us directions to follow.
This is a well-known ‘argument’ for religion, but it simply doesn’t work.
If everything needs a Creator, who created God? 
If God can exist without a Creator, why can’t the Universe? :smack:
Please answer the above.
it seems that you already had some definite ideas when you asked these questions of us. I think that it would be nice if you dropped the pretense of “just asking questions” and put your personal theories up front in the OP next time.
Oh, I agree. Randvek seemed to imply, or I inferred from his post, that consciousness came to us from some exterior agent. I just wanted to point out that it didn’t need to come from somewhere else, that the process of evolution could easily have led to it. I didn’t include details because 1) it didn’t seem necessary, and 2) I have no idea what they are.
I agree with all that, too. When I said, “We’re conscious, therefore we’re special and must have a higher purpose”, I was getting in a dig at thepillar who seemed to be thinking along those lines.
I know what you mean by the dangers of implying a “conscious intender”. I’ve deliberately avoided using another word for the same reason.
I see what you’re saying, but I can’t shake the feeling that even in the absence of an “intender”, the result of evolution is the same as if there was one (not a perfect result, maybe, but at least an improvement over the previous version). But my brain’s getting sore thinking about it, so I’ll drop it.
Excellent point.
Irishman answered that nicely. You should really check out this video by Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing.
And following on terristephens’ post, if the purpose of life were revealed to us tonight, how would that affect your life?
I’ve seen it described as “unintelligent design”. The environment provides filters and a selection process. Ergo, forcing life through those filters means we get results that work better for those criteria. Ergo, the result appears to be designed, because it was - by the process of weeding out the shit that didn’t work as well.
I think you’re actually on the same page, it just wasn’t entirely clear at first.
Well, for one thing, I might finally understand what I’m supposed to be when I grow up.
I avoided using “design” for fear of invoking the ID crowd, but unintelligent design does seem to fit.
What, “independent free-thinker” isn’t good enough for ya? 
(Yeah, I know, there’s no money in it.)
Ahh, I see. So let me get this straight; according to your theory, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only within the universe. Before the ‘big bang’, there was no universe and hence no energy. This ‘big bang’ thus wasn’t caused by a pre-existent energy but by happenstance-“shit happened”. This energy was only created when the universe came into being after the ‘big bang’.
This “philosophical framework” lacks any sense of logic and reason, and thus is absent of any substance of truth. Scientifically speaking, an explosion cannot occur without a pre-existent trigger in the form of energy. Energy is the primary cause of an explosion. If you can demonstrate that an explosion or some ‘big bang’ can occur without a prerequisite application and existence of energy, then by all means please do so.
Your “philosophical framework” is founded on happenstance and “shit happening” all over the place. This to me is indicative of absolute absence of any trace of accuracy and is thus false.
Are you kidding me? I haven’t even started arguing; there’s nothing to argue against. A framework built on “shit happening” isn’t an argument- it’s wishful thinking. Would my proposition that energy existed before the ‘big bang’ be anymore cogent were I to justify its accuracy by stating that: well, that’s just the way shit happened?
You have to define exactly what you mean by “God”. And no, not everything needs a creator.
Beyond and encompassing the Universal Cosmic Consciousness I’m referring to (what you might have meant by God) is the Absolute; and this is where the buck stops. The Absolute is not conscious because it is Absolute Consciousness and since Absolute Consciousness is also Absolute Unconsciousness, the Absolute, embracing both Consciousness and Unconsciousness, is neither, otherwise It would not be Absolute. Nor does it exist (this is the part that the science lot will like:)) since it is also Absolute Existence, and as mentioned above, Absolute Existence is also Absolute Non-existence, thus the Absolute is neither of the two. It just Is (for lack of a better phrasing). It essentially is the root of everything, incessantly ever evolving out of its own essence everything including what we call the universe and “God”. It is the Ever-Becoming, always changing into something else. Humans today are not what they were millions of years ago and the universe today isn’t what it was billions of years ago. Scientists will confirm that the universe is still expanding, but the correct terminology should have been, still evolving. The form and nature to be assumed by the universe and humans, billions of years after this very post, will most definitely be completely different from what they are today. This is proof of the activity of the Absolute.
I agree, and this is exactly what I intend to do next time.
Obviously there would be a need to retrospectively evaluate my life to see if it’s been in line with that purpose and thereupon strive to live according to it.
Doesn’t it matter that your freedom to live your life as you see fit would be taken away? And do you think it’s possible for everyone to live with the same purpose or goal in life, given the variation in our genetic make-up and psychological tendencies?
Pretty much, yeah. You can’t apply “the law of conservation of energy” across the boundary of the universe’s existence. I hear this all the time on creationist radio features, and it simply shows that they don’t comprehend the issue.
Again, this logic doesn’t apply across the boundary of the origin of the universe. As far as anyone can tell – and this is an issue of evidence – the universe’s origin did not have any “before.” Time started at the Big Bang. There wasn’t any before.
(“Show me the face you wore before you were born.”)
Hawking, Penrose, and others have produced mathematical models that describe universes arising out of emptiness. As with other mathematical ideas, these models are, at present, untestable. They show what might be the real explanation, just as String Theory shows what might be the real explanation.
There are some times when “shit happens” is the only workable explanation. Theists don’t have anything better to say with respect to the origin of a creator God. Where did Gaia come from, to give birth to Ouranous? Sorry; the theory doesn’t say. Where did the “face of the waters” come from for God to move upon? The Bible doesn’t answer.
The best thing we have is the evidence of the expanding universe. That is based on real observation of physical evidence. We also have the cosmic microwave background, which strongly supports the Big Bang. (And lots and lots of evidence at finer details, suggesting the “expansionary phase” refinement, etc.) These ideas are supported by real evidence.
Once you get beyond that? Anyone’s guess. But evidence will get you attention in science that mere speculation won’t.
As the great (Discworld) philosopher Didactlyus said: “Things just happen. What the hell.”
Think how much worse it would be if “things” didn’t just happen!
You wanna sit down and write out your schedule of exactly when to take each breath, or have each heart-beat? Plot 'em a week in advance, or a year?
In the event that the purpose of life is finally known, life itself would have to be redefined. What we previously considered to be freedom would be universally acknowledged as the ignorance of this purpose. Any conduct not within the confines of this purpose would in turn lead to ‘unpleasant’ circumstances, either in the form of diseases, war, hate, discrimination, hunger and starvation, or premature/early deaths, which would be willfully avoided by all who are aware of the purpose of life.
This purpose, being universal and applicable to all life forms, would be as natural as eating food, going to sleep or breathing, and thus wouldn’t in any way impinge on the activities of life that are solely determined by genes and psychology.
The claim that there was no “before” is an issue of evidence, as you put it; evidence based on unverified mathematical models. This isn’t evidence for anything; it’s merely support for those models before there’re universally substantiated by scientists from all over the world.
Actually, the phrasing was chosen in response to the ID crowd. The description is part of the rebuttal.
Let me take a step back here. There are two things under discussion. One is what science has to say about the universe. The other is a philosophical framework that tries to be fully consistent with science.
What science has to say about the universe only applies within the universe. Now there are speculations with regards to how the universe came to be, what that means, what it means for the universe to be expanding, etc. What does it mean for a Big Bang? But these things are at this point mere speculations, even if mathematically modeled. Because we have no ability to obtain data or make observations of outside the universe, including the initiation of the Big Bang, etc.
One can speculate that the energy of the Big Bang, the energy of our universe itself, existed prior to the Big Bang and in some other form. We’re in a bit of a philosophical quandry using those terms, because the concept of time is embedded in the universe itself, so talking about “before the Big Bang” is … a real brain twister.
You are free to speculate that the rules we see in place within the universe itself extend beyond and outside the universe - whatever that means. But understand that your ability to convince others of those facts is no better than our ability to convince you otherwise. There are no facts on which to base the arguments, no observations, no data. It is conceptual speculation.
Granted, my explanation is just as unsupported, and just as much conceptual speculation. I just see no reason to change my chosen unsupported speculation to your unsupported speculation.
Several problems. First, the Big Bang is not really an explosion, by anything like the normal experience of an explosion. Calling it thus is an analogy that is rather misleading.
Second, our only experience of explosions are what happens within the universe itself. We cannot say with certainty what that means without the laws of the universe telling us how they work. These are embedded in the universe, so why would they apply outside the universe?
There’s no evidence of an alternative to happenstance and “shit happens”.
You’re fully free to make that argument. Without evidence to support it, it isn’t any more convincing.
This much, at least, is accurate.
No, it’s merely proof that the universe changes.
If there is a universal purpose, an inherent meaning to life, then it would only be sensible to evaluate this meaning and purpose. One would still have the conscious choice to follow or not follow, to live in congruence with or fight against this purpose, but it seems to me if there is some inherent purpose, goal, meaning, then the best, happiest, most fruitful life would be fulfilling that purpose/goal/meaning, and not constant frustration in fighting against it.
Unless that purpose/goal/meaning is something like the destruction of kittens everywhere, to enjoy in their suffering.
IMO, it’s important to consider our place in the universe when we ponder such questions. With that we’re just a petri dish of bacteria, albeit a slightly more complicated form and our children are our diversions from that sad fact.