Purpose of life, purpose of death, purpose of the universe!!!
It just happened, simple as that.
Do you have evidence to show otherwise?
Purpose of Life
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
It just happened, simple as that.
Do you have evidence to show otherwise?
Why should river be expected to produce any "evidence to show otherwise"?Purpose of life, purpose of death, purpose of the universe!!!
It just happened, simple as that.
Do you have evidence to show otherwise?
According to James R, it is you, paddoboy, that should supply : " E13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions." - from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
So, paddoboy, what evidence can you supply to 'show' or 'support' you own personal 'opinion' on the : "Purpose of life, purpose of death, purpose of the universe!!!
It just happened, simple as that."?
Surely, paddoboy, you do not utilize Sciforums as your own "personal blog", nor to "promote" your own personal "unsupported opinions"?
I have produced many links supporting the generally scientific stance that the universe, and life are an accident and a result of chance.......
Obviously its river doing his best to shove his weird ID view down others throat.
But what you believe with regards to myself, and your own application of the rules, is probably one of the most well known facts of sciforum and will be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
"Appropriate supporting evidence", paddoboy.
NOT "many links supporting" conjecture. NOT "many links supporting" speculation. NOT "many links supporting" hypotheses. NOT "many links supporting" theory.
Please provide "Appropriate supporting evidence", paddoboy, that : "Purpose of life, purpose of death, purpose of the universe!!!
It just happened, simple as that."
Maybe "Obviously" to you, paddoboy...or, maybe not.
Still, according to James R's "Sciforums site rules" : "H10. Attack the argument, not the person. Avoid phrases such as ‘Only an idiot would say that’, which is equivalent to the personal insult ‘You are an idiot’. If you disagree with a position, explain why clearly and politely, and don’t forget to provide suitable evidence in support of your own position." - from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
At any rate, paddoboy, regardless of your own personal beliefs...According to James R, it is you, paddoboy, that should supply : " E13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions." - from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
So...surely, paddoboy, you do not utilize Sciforums as your own "personal blog", nor to "promote" your own personal "unsupported opinions"?
Again, paddoboy, according to James R's "Sciforums site rules" : "H10. Attack the argument, not the person. Avoid phrases such as ‘Only an idiot would say that’, which is equivalent to the personal insult ‘You are an idiot’. If you disagree with a position, explain why clearly and politely, and don’t forget to provide suitable evidence in support of your own position." - from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
Your belief with regards to myself, and your own application of the rules, is probably one of the most well known facts of sciforum and will be taken with a grain of salt.
Some more thoughts on this contentious matter................
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
What are we and why?
Where do we come from?
Where are we most likely to be headed?
Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere.
This is also why Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole:
"I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that's wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it."
more at link.............................
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
What are we and why?
Where do we come from?
Where are we most likely to be headed?
Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere.
This is also why Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole:
"I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that's wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it."
more at link.............................
Who is Edward O. Wilson, I hear someone ask?
http://bigthink.com/experts/edwardowilson
Edward Osborne Wilson is an American biologist (Myrmecology, a branch of entomology), researcher (sociobiology, biodiversity), theorist (consilience, biophilia), and naturalist (conservationism). Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular humanist ideas concerned with religious and ethical matters.
A Harvard professor for four decades, he has written twenty books, won two Pulitzer prizes, and discovered hundreds of new species. Considered to be one of the world's greatest living scientists, Dr. Wilson is often called "the father of biodiversity," (a word that he coined). He is the Pellegrino University Research Professor, Emeritus in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
http://bigthink.com/experts/edwardowilson
http://bigthink.com/experts/edwardowilson
Edward Osborne Wilson is an American biologist (Myrmecology, a branch of entomology), researcher (sociobiology, biodiversity), theorist (consilience, biophilia), and naturalist (conservationism). Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular humanist ideas concerned with religious and ethical matters.
A Harvard professor for four decades, he has written twenty books, won two Pulitzer prizes, and discovered hundreds of new species. Considered to be one of the world's greatest living scientists, Dr. Wilson is often called "the father of biodiversity," (a word that he coined). He is the Pellegrino University Research Professor, Emeritus in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
http://bigthink.com/experts/edwardowilson
Here's another........
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1--Richard Dawkins
Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were they by the human…desire to find design and purpose in the world." He concluded:
Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.
more at link.......................
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
The article goes on in part offering excuses to attempt invalidation of what they see as anti religious.
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1--Richard Dawkins
Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were they by the human…desire to find design and purpose in the world." He concluded:
Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.
more at link.......................
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
The article goes on in part offering excuses to attempt invalidation of what they see as anti religious.
Last edited:
Is the above your "application" of James R's "Sciforums site rules" : "H10. Attack the argument, not the person. Avoid phrases such as ‘Only an idiot would say that’, which is equivalent to the personal insult ‘You are an idiot’. If you disagree with a position, explain why clearly and politely, and don’t forget to provide suitable evidence in support of your own position." - from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
And...again, no "Appropriate supporting evidence", paddoboy?
Regardless, when it comes to the question : What is the purpose of life? The only possible True, Honest, Considered and Sincere Scientific answer is :
It is not known!
A minor addendum might be that it may never be known!
Indeed, it just may be that it cannot ever and will not ever be known!
Last edited:
From my above previous link....
"This is also why Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole:
"I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that's wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it."
more at link.............................
Makes a heap of sense, and was echoed similarly by Professor Krauss recently.......
My own thoughts entail how we are able to reasonably well describe the universe, evolution of the first fundamentals, atomic nuclei, first elements, stars, planets, the heavy elements, abiogenisis and of course evolution of life to what we are and observe today.
And echoed in the next article at
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
"Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations"
http://www.icr.org/article/darwinism-survival-without-purpose/
which in essence supports the generally held scientific view, that the universe, life, death all have no real purpose, as discouraging and ego bruising as that may be to some.
mean·ing
\ˈmē-niŋ\
noun
Synonyms: content, denotation, drift, import, intent, intention, purport, sense, significance, signification
Mirriam-Webster
From that choice I have selected
as being, I contend, as being the relevant sections when discussing the ' meaning of life '
None of the 3 from biologist Edward O Wilson
All of the 3 can be answered with great precision within their own areas but none provide evidence for ' meaning '
I agree philosophy will not answer the question either
I suspect the question is unanswerable
If you require a answer about meanings you go to the originator to ask about the meaning
The reason such a question about life is unanswerable is because no such originator exist
If a originator of life can be found you can ask the question and if the originator deems to answer you will know
\ˈmē-niŋ\
noun
- : the idea that is represented by a word, phrase, etc.
- : the idea that a person wants to express by using words, signs, etc.
- : the idea that is expressed in a work of writing, art, etc.
- 1 a : the thing one intends to conveyespecially by language : purport
b : the thing that is conveyedespecially by language : import - 2 : something meant or intended :aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>
- 3 : significant quality; especially :implication of a hidden or specialsignificance <a glance full of meaning>
- 4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase
b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase
- meaning adjective
- mean·ing·ly \-niŋ-lē\ adverb
- the unmistakable meaning of the skier's upraised arms as he finished his spectacular run
- the people have a right to knowwhat the president's meaning is in getting the nation involved in this war
Synonyms: content, denotation, drift, import, intent, intention, purport, sense, significance, signification
Mirriam-Webster
From that choice I have selected
as being, I contend, as being the relevant sections when discussing the ' meaning of life '
None of the 3 from biologist Edward O Wilson
- What are we and why?
- Where do we come from?
- Where are we most likely to be headed?
All of the 3 can be answered with great precision within their own areas but none provide evidence for ' meaning '
I agree philosophy will not answer the question either
I suspect the question is unanswerable
If you require a answer about meanings you go to the originator to ask about the meaning
The reason such a question about life is unanswerable is because no such originator exist
If a originator of life can be found you can ask the question and if the originator deems to answer you will know
Last edited:
Your second paragraph actually answers the question, scientifically.
Good stuff Mick......
Again, no purpose in the universe, no purpose in life, according to abiogenisis and evolution anyway.
You are an old man and have fear of death so you are trying to convince yourself , that there is nothing beside this life.
What do you mean according abiogenesis. I don't know how much you know about biochemistry , that you post so positively.
Is that your attempt at an insult? Firstly I don't see myself as old, and I am still more active then many people half my age, and am as healthy and fit as a mallee bull! ...plus of course, I'm there anyway, you have yet to get there. Now go back to your mummy and stop crying! I know enough to know that abiogenisis is really the only scientific answer, whether it be abiogenisis specifically on Earth and totally related to local conditions, or whether via Panspermia, and a more universal approach.
You seem to be all over the place...
Are you simply confusing or intentionally conflating the different queries on :
1.) - the "Purpose of Life"
2.) - the "meaning of life"
3.) - the"meaning of existence"
4.) - the "Meaning of Human Existence"
5.) - and now, a "purpose in life"
So, is there any chance, paddoboy, that you might cite anything to support you contention : "no purpose in the universe, no purpose in life, according to abiogenisis[sic] and evolution", please ?
Indeed, paddoboy, cite anything where abiogenesis or evolution even actually addresses the question of any "meaning" or " "purpose" either in or of "life" or "existence", please ?
I've sited many things in a few threads, and its quite dumb of you to deny such, considering how you read all my posts.
Again, the fact of evolution, and the fact that abiogensis is the only scientific answer we have, shows that life, like the Sun and stars, like the universe are simply accidents.
As is now often said, we are all star stuff!
Like I said my old friend, if you have any alternative scientific suggestion, then I'm all ears!
Let me add that while the scientific evidence shows that life and the universe have no real purpose, does not mean that individuals can not find real personal purpose in their lives, and their respective families and friends.
I've gladly certainly found mine....many times!
I've gladly certainly found mine....many times!
...attempt to erect a "strawman", paddoboy?I've sited many things in a few threads, and its quite dumb of you to deny such, considering how you read all my posts.
- "its quite dumb of you to deny such" - cite me "deny(ing) such" ?
...plus the usual "argumentum ad hominem".
- Cited : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem -
"Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
- from : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Indeed, paddoboy, you may have "sited[sic] many things", but you have yet to cite anything where abiogenesis or evolution even actually addresses the question of any "meaning" or "purpose" either in or of "life" or "existence".
...are these Scientific "facts", paddoboy ?
...not in any way relevant...As is now often said, we are all star stuff!
...and another attempt to erect a "strawman", paddoboy ?
- "any alternative scientific suggestion"- cite me stating : "any alternative scientific suggestion", please ? ...and what seems to be more "argumentum ad hominem", paddoboy?
I disagree with you dmoe and any and all inferences you have drawn.
I also am at this stage taking previous advice from mods re your past behaviour with regards to myself and evident many times in feedback and members forums and will cease to interact with you.
Have a good day.
Obviously this has quickly developed into a religious/soul argument again.....
http://www.humantruth.info/souls.html
"Virtually all contemporary scientists and philosophers expert on the subject agree that the mind, which comprises consciousness and rational process, is the brain at work. They have rejected the mind-brain dualism of René Descartes, who in Meditationes (1642) concluded that 'by the divine power the mind can exist without the body and the body without the mind.”
"Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge"
E. O. Wilson (1998)8
http://www.humanreligions.info/souls.html#Souls
The Scientific Truth About Souls
Many early scientists came to realize quite early that religious talk of souls could actually be based on misunderstandings (at best) of human experience, or even be based simply on wishful thinking.
“The relationship between religion and the sciences of the mind has been tense at least since the middle of the nineteenth century [...] as doctors documented how injury or illness could rob a patient of his mental or moral faculties, they struggled to assure the clergy that (somehow) their discoveries did not contradict the religious notions of the immortal soul (Ray 1863; 1871).”
"Science and Religion" by William Sims Bainbridge (2011)7
The "old Church" commanded, quite simply, that souls were off-limit to science. Gerald Heard in 1937 explains, in a slightly convoluted manner, what relationship existed between religion and science:
As I contend and have linked to in recent times, abiogenisis and subsequently evolution, can only lead to one result as far as the subject of this thread goes.....and that is that life has no purpose in itself, and is simply a chance scenario that occurred on Earth, and has probably elsewhere also.
The evolution of spacetime/universe, how basic matter arose, atomic nucleii, basic elements, stars, planets, life and evolution, are all intertwined, connected, and scientifically explained, and that explanation does not entail any ID, or soul.
Again, that probably upsets many that had visions of heaven in a mythical afterlife, but that's essentially how it is, as dictated by science and the scientific method.
Facts that I have mentioned before re any ID concept being suprfluous, is amply explained in the following video.....
So, understanding all that, can someone please explain how and why life, or the universe has any meaning.
No, I don't agree with Carl's suggestion that we conclude the universe always existed, or that we just do not know.........The essence of the video, is the superfluous aspect of any ID and deity.
http://www.humantruth.info/souls.html
"Virtually all contemporary scientists and philosophers expert on the subject agree that the mind, which comprises consciousness and rational process, is the brain at work. They have rejected the mind-brain dualism of René Descartes, who in Meditationes (1642) concluded that 'by the divine power the mind can exist without the body and the body without the mind.”
"Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge"
E. O. Wilson (1998)8
http://www.humanreligions.info/souls.html#Souls
The Scientific Truth About Souls
Many early scientists came to realize quite early that religious talk of souls could actually be based on misunderstandings (at best) of human experience, or even be based simply on wishful thinking.
“The relationship between religion and the sciences of the mind has been tense at least since the middle of the nineteenth century [...] as doctors documented how injury or illness could rob a patient of his mental or moral faculties, they struggled to assure the clergy that (somehow) their discoveries did not contradict the religious notions of the immortal soul (Ray 1863; 1871).”
"Science and Religion" by William Sims Bainbridge (2011)7
The "old Church" commanded, quite simply, that souls were off-limit to science. Gerald Heard in 1937 explains, in a slightly convoluted manner, what relationship existed between religion and science:
“The soul could never be studied. All the rest, the entire material universe, including all animals and the human body, could be studied and was mechanic. This was the division made between the old Church and the young Science. Secretly the young Science feared the Church and hated it. The wish therefore prompted the thought that perhaps after all there was nothing to study but bodies, and that souls were merely convenient figments invented by Churches and Religions the better to dupe and control mankind. [...] A conclusion which theologians did not fear when they were strong but bitterly to rue when their days of weakeness came upon them.”
"The Third Morality" by Gerald Heard (1937)9
No, in those "days of weakness" for religion, science has thoroughly examined and studied all things to do with the soul, and the evidence is clear that everything about us, from our feelings and memories, to our behaviour and morality, is biological in nature. Now we know that us Humans evolved, along with all other animals, developing a complex nervous system and brain along the way. This led slowly, over time, to conscious life and emotional awareness. There was no point in the evolution of our minds that an independent soul became a necessary addition.
I have one page talking about souls in general and their biological nature:
http://www.humanreligions.info/souls.html#Souls"The Third Morality" by Gerald Heard (1937)9
No, in those "days of weakness" for religion, science has thoroughly examined and studied all things to do with the soul, and the evidence is clear that everything about us, from our feelings and memories, to our behaviour and morality, is biological in nature. Now we know that us Humans evolved, along with all other animals, developing a complex nervous system and brain along the way. This led slowly, over time, to conscious life and emotional awareness. There was no point in the evolution of our minds that an independent soul became a necessary addition.
I have one page talking about souls in general and their biological nature:
As I contend and have linked to in recent times, abiogenisis and subsequently evolution, can only lead to one result as far as the subject of this thread goes.....and that is that life has no purpose in itself, and is simply a chance scenario that occurred on Earth, and has probably elsewhere also.
The evolution of spacetime/universe, how basic matter arose, atomic nucleii, basic elements, stars, planets, life and evolution, are all intertwined, connected, and scientifically explained, and that explanation does not entail any ID, or soul.
Again, that probably upsets many that had visions of heaven in a mythical afterlife, but that's essentially how it is, as dictated by science and the scientific method.
Facts that I have mentioned before re any ID concept being suprfluous, is amply explained in the following video.....
So, understanding all that, can someone please explain how and why life, or the universe has any meaning.
No, I don't agree with Carl's suggestion that we conclude the universe always existed, or that we just do not know.........The essence of the video, is the superfluous aspect of any ID and deity.
Last edited: