10-24-2003, 07:08 PM
>Could you provide a few details? :D About 5 billion folks are interested in your answer.
I don't think that many are truely interested in the real purpose, most just want a quick fix.
>...if they equate to, or do not consider, "why we are here?" from the perspective of a human and humanity.
No, humans are idiots. We are incapable of determining truth. I am getting into truth because while there can be many answers to "why are we here?", how many can be true? Truth is defined as conformity to to fact or actuality, a statement proven to be or accepted as true. That is a nice definition and all, but it basically says truth = majority. Of all the scientific laws we have, not a single one has been proven as actual truth. Sure, hundreds of experiments have determined that it isn't false, but they can never be proven to be true. But, this fits in quite well with our definition of truth, so it must be true, right?. Well, it is a true as a human can know I guess. Truth is also defined as reality, actuality. Despite what man can prove (by not disproving) or accept as reality, it may or may not be so. Just looking at the world, I would say that man has a limitless capacity to fool himself.
>A bit less flippantly, I really would like to hear you version of those points
Partly why I didn't get into it before is because the purpose of life is based on many other principles that need to act as assumptions, such as that there is a Supreme being. In one, simple, non-inclusive statement the point of life is to become more like our God. There are so many facets to that fact though that they can't be stated without going through all the prerequisites first. I don't think I'll do it publicly, but if you think you are interested, I can PM. I don't think it a good idea, however, because it is too much at once. Also, it will only be fact as I know it without *any* proof at all. Even though it can be "proven", it takes references to such things as the bible, etc, which still won't be able to prove anything, because you would have to believe in them. Now, proof from people this day and age usually comes from the finding of people with creditials from various universities, and fancy titles like M.D., Ph.D., etc. The works I reference have no such "merit". The titles those people carry help us to believe what they have to say, but we still have to *believe* them, right? With the same token, you have to believe in the sources I would cite, but it does take a little bit more faith.
>_If there is a purpose to our existence, that purpose is to learn how to love_
That is actually very close. In fact, it really is dead on, it is just missing a few small parts that would answer the philosophical questions that it doesn't alone, i.e. "why".
>"does there need to be a 'why' to our existence."
He he. Man can, and will, debate about that forever. No matter what they are trying to prove to themselves, it doesn't change the fact that there IS a 'why'.
From what I gather, the purpose of life existentially is the journey of life itself. The road gives itself purpose. I find this somewhat lacking. If you drive from LA to NYNY, there are many routes you can take. Once you get to NYNY, you can look back on your route, and you may define yourself from it in a way. Furthermore, without a guide, it could take a quite awhile to get to NYNY, and the journey could be filled with wrong turns, dead ends, and more than one "scenic route". The path itself can't give meaning to itself though. Think of a radio tower with a large light on the top to warn aircraft. Saying the journey gives itself purpose is like saying that the tower exists to hold up the light, and the light exists to warn aircraft about the tower.
I don't think that many are truely interested in the real purpose, most just want a quick fix.
>...if they equate to, or do not consider, "why we are here?" from the perspective of a human and humanity.
No, humans are idiots. We are incapable of determining truth. I am getting into truth because while there can be many answers to "why are we here?", how many can be true? Truth is defined as conformity to to fact or actuality, a statement proven to be or accepted as true. That is a nice definition and all, but it basically says truth = majority. Of all the scientific laws we have, not a single one has been proven as actual truth. Sure, hundreds of experiments have determined that it isn't false, but they can never be proven to be true. But, this fits in quite well with our definition of truth, so it must be true, right?. Well, it is a true as a human can know I guess. Truth is also defined as reality, actuality. Despite what man can prove (by not disproving) or accept as reality, it may or may not be so. Just looking at the world, I would say that man has a limitless capacity to fool himself.
>A bit less flippantly, I really would like to hear you version of those points
Partly why I didn't get into it before is because the purpose of life is based on many other principles that need to act as assumptions, such as that there is a Supreme being. In one, simple, non-inclusive statement the point of life is to become more like our God. There are so many facets to that fact though that they can't be stated without going through all the prerequisites first. I don't think I'll do it publicly, but if you think you are interested, I can PM. I don't think it a good idea, however, because it is too much at once. Also, it will only be fact as I know it without *any* proof at all. Even though it can be "proven", it takes references to such things as the bible, etc, which still won't be able to prove anything, because you would have to believe in them. Now, proof from people this day and age usually comes from the finding of people with creditials from various universities, and fancy titles like M.D., Ph.D., etc. The works I reference have no such "merit". The titles those people carry help us to believe what they have to say, but we still have to *believe* them, right? With the same token, you have to believe in the sources I would cite, but it does take a little bit more faith.
>_If there is a purpose to our existence, that purpose is to learn how to love_
That is actually very close. In fact, it really is dead on, it is just missing a few small parts that would answer the philosophical questions that it doesn't alone, i.e. "why".
>"does there need to be a 'why' to our existence."
He he. Man can, and will, debate about that forever. No matter what they are trying to prove to themselves, it doesn't change the fact that there IS a 'why'.
From what I gather, the purpose of life existentially is the journey of life itself. The road gives itself purpose. I find this somewhat lacking. If you drive from LA to NYNY, there are many routes you can take. Once you get to NYNY, you can look back on your route, and you may define yourself from it in a way. Furthermore, without a guide, it could take a quite awhile to get to NYNY, and the journey could be filled with wrong turns, dead ends, and more than one "scenic route". The path itself can't give meaning to itself though. Think of a radio tower with a large light on the top to warn aircraft. Saying the journey gives itself purpose is like saying that the tower exists to hold up the light, and the light exists to warn aircraft about the tower.