Why do you search for the meaning of life.

It's an impossibility. To assume a reason is to exude grave vanity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damnit, we *ascribe* reasons!
And we cannot but do that!

The only way for us to not ascribe reasons would be if we wuld somehow cease to be rational agents.
I do not know how one could do that, and still remain human.

Uh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

messed u

The link you refer to is where I got the idea that someone would try to use a seed as an example. I left out "or egg", just because I thought my point would be clear.

Boiling water, burning leaves, and refrigerators do not answer my question. Please refer back to my post and answer the questions, as reading this webpage is part of me reason for me wording the questions in a specific way so as to not waste time with redundancies.

The webpage you refer to also states “…spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time, providing sufficient energy is available. The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system; it deals only with the relationship between initial and final states of a given system (in this case, the water wheel and pump).”

This is no good. It requires information and energy be added to the system, not just energy. This creation has an intelligent designer involved. This is a terrible example. Awful.

I want an example where there is no designer.

After this your reference returns to a simple transfer of energy example – “A ball will not spontaneously leap up from the floor, but if it is dropped, it will spontaneously bounce up from the floor. Whether the ball is lifted by intelligent design or just happens to fall makes no difference.”

No. I want an example of a spontaneous change in complexity with no designer.

If you want to say there is no cause for the universe, that’s fine with me, easy enough. Let's not waste time re-hashing "why". I just want to know where the universe became “complex” enough to do what it is doing now. I brought up a few possibilities to offer possible theories of “how”. Let’s start with the assumption there is no “why”. If you want to say “by chance” that is fine with me. Just explain your theory of exactly where the change occurred from simple elements to something complex for evolution to act upon. This has not been explained with an example anywhere I have found.

By the way GODLESS, your post is obviously about “why”. Thanks for the one line of link you offer in your five hundred words not answering my question. I have already read the link, but you would not know that, at least the link is worth something.

Honestly I am not that worried about the athiest's soul, maybe the athiest and I have no soul. If we have souls I'm pretty sure that mine and yours are going to have a hard time communicating through our words. Especially over the internet. Especially with different initial assumptions. Especially, a million other reasons.

I am not here to wave a cross at anyone. If there is any motivation behind this, it is to find information, and I admit, also to hopefully have people be a little bit more co-operative in their search for understanding. I'll ask you, if you as an athiest have no motivation to ponder these things, if you have no more questions, why are you here? To preach your atheism? That is so fucked up after all the posts I have heard moaning about christians preaching everyone's ear off...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Basically cole, I'm not a physics major, nor I'm that interested in physics, but I do like philosophy, as for explaining to you. I can only lead you to similar websites.

Philosophycally however, when you mention a cause, or purpose of the universe, by claiming the second law of thermodinamics to explain a superior intelegencia, without explaining (how) that superior intelegencia came to be, or the why it's necessary because you yet don't understand the complexity of life, is just the *Igiveupgodidit* answer, and all evolution of our trying to understand nature would stagnate as did in the DARK AGES. I've seen this thermodinamic crap been discussed here before, however I don't recall the thread, if I did I would direct you towards it. Tell ya what, when I get the time I'll rehash some older threads by this muslim guy who asked similar questions here on sci.

Godless.

 

The active macroscopic nature of the second law posed a direct challenge to the "dead" mechanical world view which Boltzmann tried to meet in the latter part of the last century by reducing the second law to a law of probability following from the random collisions of mechanical particles (efficient cause (see Swenson (1990)). Following the lead of Maxwell who had modeled gas molecules as colliding billiard balls, Boltzmann argued that the second law was simply a consequence of the fact that since with each collision nonequilibrium distributions would become increasingly disordered leading to a final state of macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, he concluded, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder or moving towards it.
As a consequence, a dynamically ordered state, one with molecules moving "at the same speed and in the same direction," Boltzmann (1974/1886, p. 20) asserted, is thus "the most improbable case conceivable...an infinitely improbable configuration of energy." Because this idea works for certain near equilibrium systems such as gases in boxes, and because science until recently was dominated by near equilibrium thinking, Boltzmann's attempted reduction of the second law to a law of disorder became widely accepted as the second law rather than simply an hypothesis about the second law, and one that we now know fails. It became the apparent justification from physics for solidifying Cartesian incommensurability and establishing the view of the two incommensurable rivers-the "river" of biology, psychology, and culture, or the epistemic dimension of the world characterized by intentional dynamics and flowing up to increasingly higher states of order, versus the "river" of physics flowing down to disorder. Such a view is entirely inimical to a science of ecological relations, since, as noted above, it is precisely through the interface of these two rivers that these relations occur, and if the interface is incommensurable then the relations are effectively prohibited, or at best, incomprehensible.


http://www.entropylaw.com/entropydisorder.html
That looks interesting it may answer your question. Mind you I only read the first paragraph. I don't got the time at the moment.

G.

 

The truth is, we have no empirical way to know whether or not unseen forces or entities had a purpose in creating us. This is a matter of faith and people will vary in that. Some will choose to believe while others prefer only to believe that which can be empirically proven.

But the word "meaning" implies an entity from whom meaning is ascribed. While there may or may not be other meanings out there, the one thing we can all agree on is that we are all here and we, at the least, have the ability to ascribe meaning.

So, regardless of what other meanings may exist, I can at least design and choose a meaning for my life that is suitable to me, and take solice in that. People of faith may have additional meanings they believe in, which spring from their faith-based worldviews, but whether we are people of faith or of empiricism, we can all choose our meanings and purposes with respect to the material positions we find ourselves in here and now.

 

If everything "just is," there is no reason to enquire. "It just is" is in that way similar to saying "God made it so." Life without enquiry is not worth living. What is vanity anyways and why are you implying it's bad?

 

I think the widespread search for the Meaning of Life (as opposed to finding meaning in your personal life) is indicative of the lack of any inherent meaning, because of there was a meaning, we would all know about it.

 

No. I want an example of a spontaneous change in complexity with no designer.

-Stars produce elements of greater complexity than their original composition. And those elements are capable of more complex chemical reactions than simple hydrogen.

 

Regarding the highlighted stuff, is there any scientific explanation that actually points out "what caused the cause"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

At the moment, my position on "why we search for/ must have a purpose for life" ie the purpose of having a purpose of life. (Couldnt you have phrased it a bit better?) Is that it overall helps us live better/ longer, whether individually or in groups. Pre-humans with this ability may have reproduced better than those who didnt, though it would also depend upon the emergence of consciousness etc.

 

...and what about this. That have you considered that the very QUESTION..of "what is the meaning/purpose of life?" ...isn't it coming from people who HAVe had the meaning taken OUT of their lives by the very system they are in?

And from there then, THe purpose would be to unmask this fukin monster, and unshackle oneself aACTUALLY spiritually ANd physically?

but what i hear a lot is no mention of the oppression all round, and which is REALLy heavy--no fukin food heavy- is REALLy heavy for others in the so-called 'un-developed world'....Yet many westerners seem to only focus on a so-called 'spiritual' purpose. though of course athiests might not claim they look for a spiritual purpose......

but what i mean is that IF we didn't have these shackles would we even ask the question?

 

Certainly. Unfortunately most people cannot see that.

They are blinded because they have the illusion that their lives are great. This is how people can get very easily controlled. It seems that "we" are always kept in a state where "we" have just enough to not revolt... The mistake was, obviously, to not include ME on that list!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Huuumm... maybe not....



In any case, think about it. People in North America has WAY too much. While we are having fun with our toys, people in developing countries and other really poor countries are always working and get almost no money at all! They get only enough to not be called slaves. We pay the corportations to keep those slaves. What is the difference between our system and the feudal system from the medieval times? Not much different, eh!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Great insight Duendy, it could be television that makes us feel meaningless, isn't that the technique? ...Make you fill like you're missing something so you'll buy the product guaranteed to fullfill that need?

 

Agreed, but when does the complexity that is complex enough to reproduce itself happen? I understand humans can make more complex combinations of the elements than the basic ones produced by stars, but do we have any example of these combinations being created spontaneously? Saying human input counts as spontaneous because it was created by chance just paints everything "spontaneous". Is there any example of the "unplanned" creation of a chemical more complex than what is in the periodic table?
Or an example of those elements combining with each other in a way unplanned by man?
I don't think this question goes into the realms of quantum problems like, "if you have to observe it for it to exist, are you influencing the outcome?", or however that question is properly stated.
I just want a basic theory or two, a link would be fine, but not one that jumps over the details with assumptions. I'm just thinking somebody might have more specific empirical information here.


P.S. I think you are right that television does make us feel meaningless. It may even make us meaningless.

 

Damn I'm glad I keep the damn thing off. I think the feeling of meaningless is not only from watching a bit too much tv, but letting it sink in to the level of stupidity. Dad used to call the TV the "idiot box".

And lately that's mostly what we have, the Duhhh? MTV generation, and the reality shows that inudating the whole "crapotelevengicalprograming" New word created by Godless meaning "shity tv programs". Mostly that's the reason it stays off. I watch the morning news, I like to know the weather. And any good movies I might find rarely. Sci-fi channel is the best for this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And cole; here I think you'll find this interesting

Abiogenesis

Godless.

 

Bingo

 

When those elements produced in stars cool, and gather together in mass.

from wikipedia- origin of life

 

This is good. Maybe these complex molecules exist but we haven't found them yet. Then we get to figure out how they form a protocell, which we aren't sure about. A person may find it obvious that one of the theories presented about this second part is correct and make a judgement. I don't find it obvious, and withhold judgement. Both actions are reasonable.
I made my original post to point out that right now there seems to be validity (or non-validity) in theorizing many ways about the unknown, as the evidence is not complete. I think an atheist should delve into these scientific matters, as spidergoat has, before they assume that science leads to one undeniable conclusion. I also think a theist should delve into these matters before assuming that the universe is evidence for God's existence.

 

Ahhh... guys.... I'm not sure the original inent of the thread was quite this one....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Interesting discussion, nonetheless....