Why are we here?

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

to have enough money to buy what I want

The verb is different - to earn (enough money), for just having them just so is called inflation. ... and what are you going to do if you have so much money that you will not be able to waste them for life - what are you going to do with it - save the planet or destroy the planet, or what?

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Does life have meaning?>> Only what it means to me

Yes, but if you haven't notice you are not into the center of the Universe ... for now.

Rickoshay75 wrote:

I'm at my computer answering your dumb questions, what about you?

How did you come to know that it is the questions that are 'dumb' ... and not their misinterpretation, for example?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Your question presupposes that:
a) we are here
b) you can identify here
c) there must be a reason why

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

Your question presupposes that: a) we are here

Here, in the sense 'existing in this world'

Chumly wrote:

c) there must be a reason why

It may not be a reason - it may be purpose. Yes, the question is: what is the reason and what is the purpose of our existence in this world?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Or perhaps how God defines himself. The Hebrew Tetragrammaton http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/neologist/Tetragrammaton.jpg means "He who causes to become" So what he sets in motion will be certain in fulfillment.

Interesting.

Would you be so kind to explain how the Hebrew Tetragrammatons' means that much as "he who causes to become"?

What is the structural of such meaning in that name?

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

A man was discovered in the closet of his neighbor's wife. When confronted with the OP question "why are you in there?" He answered "I've got to be somewhere!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

to have enough money to buy what I want>>

The verb is different - to earn (enough money), for just having them just so is called inflation. ... and what are you going to do if you have so much money that you will not be able to waste them for life - ? >>

My income is from ss and pensions

Does life have meaning?>> Only what it means to me

Yes, but if you haven't notice you are not into the center of the Universe>>

I'm the center of my universe.

0 Replies

Quote:

Teleological Fallacy
A teleological argument is one in which the principal cause of something is its purpose or reason (from the Greek telos 'end' or 'purpose'). ...
But teleological arguments are rarely encountered today, being virtually confined to creationist or intelligent-design groups that deny evolutionary
theory .5

http://www.gsbe.co.uk/appendix-iv-fallacies.html#app iv: teleological

Quote:

Science without Purpose: Suppressing the Teleological Instinct
Max86's picture
Submitted by Max86 on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 8:51am Biology 202 Web Paper 1

There is a striking tendency among scientists to call attention to their humility. That is, they acknowledge their endeavor as fundamentally humble: the scope of their research is focused, their prose wholly transparent. Confronted with such statements, one might ask: Why is humility integral to science? The answer is that science recognizes the imperative of every Why? as the supreme human conceit, and much abashed, it is always paradoxically seeking to limit the very indulgence it imperatively hinges upon. In other words, science is embarrassed by the insolence of all imperatives, for it duly comprehends the artificiality of must and should in every observation of nature.

The scientist is embarrassed (not disdainful) because he recognizes the insolence of imperative queries as the inescapable human propensity for the teleological, which is the instinctual ascription of purpose to all things. He sees that every Why? betrays itself as a leading question, a collusion between an interrogative and the imperative modal of which that interrogative ought to be ignorant. These two grammatical agents seek to pass themselves off as components in the following operation:

(Why? + Insight = Must!) Law of Natural Imperatives

However, the scientist apprehends a different scheme:

(Why? + Must! = Why Must!? = Purpose) Teleological Fallacy

The scientist recognizes the desperation evinced in the violent convergence of punctuation -(!?)- seen above, and he is ashamed for his human complicity in it. Therefore, he still asks Why?, but only in so far as he must. The Why? of Science is therefore a continually suppressed impetus for the disciplined observations and humble claims the scientist makes. As in all human ventures, Why? drives science. However the scientific Why? operates not as a present component, but as an experienced absence; the scientist experiences Why? but will not attempt to manifest it.

It takes great fortitude to suppress the teleological tendency, and in their humility, scientists may forget the extent to which other humans indulge. After all, scientists are currently the world's great ascetics; they practice a conceptual-discipline of immense proportions. They are, figuratively speaking, the best adapted to solitude, for they are not making friends (or enemies) of nature. In other words, by resisting the ascription of purpose, they resist the concomitant attribution of agency to things incapable of it. Why? is the loneliest question.
...

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/3916

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

A teleological argument is one in which the principal cause of something is its purpose or reason (from the Greek telos 'end' or 'purpose'

Why don't you stop citing and start writing (even quoted, but) some processed things. The cause and the purpose nowadays are very different assumptions. But if you are looking for some causes - O.K.: why should the brainless Big Bang preserve the PNA bio-code by 'changing the operation system' (with DNA in humans) in order to keep the cyanobacteria untouched as bio-code until the times when we start recognizing that we will desperately need that some day? What is the idea for us to be the only ILF in a given space (our Universe), without any outer competition/help, faced to your own immanent extinction based on greed and stupidity and inability (due mainly to lies and misrepresentation) to make calculations and to manage the things at macro level - which BTW has been predicted at least 6500 years ago by some psychotronic communication to people, who have been by that time at such a low level of understanding the world that there is no way to have known what it is all about.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2005
Previous Claim: CB000 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CB010.1
Claim CB010:

The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
Response:

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Links:

Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
References:

Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/30/fp2s2-csm.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

0 Replies

And here we are at the top down argument which in turn propels us to the notion of completeness. In a complete system the cause of something is its purpose because the system is final. There is no evolution to it. This is also an argument against infinite regress of causes. Completeness encapsulates the cause of something in its functioning process within the justifying system as a whole. The X is there so to operate rather then saying that X helps the system to operate one says the system justifies X beingness at operating.

Since thinking at it gives the impression this is a matter of taste on how to look at things I would like to point out the advantage of the holistic take is that the system is stable and perfect, self justified without depending on infinity infinite regresses and precarious equilibriums.

This is true even when a perfect self enclosed system (which as a whole is dead by the way, not dynamic) tries to mimic a precarious equilibrium reality. An unfolding evolving reality within spacetime. The precarious equilibrium ever evolving mimicked reality within a perfect system has the advantage of producing thinking beings who ask question try to solve problems and basically feel alive and in control of their unfolding process with free will. A dead system mimicking the production of a system which is open and "alive" while ever unfolding. In reality you have a very complex pattern an unfolding self enclosed mega algorithm a Fibonacci sequence a fractal that spins on itself but produces nothing new. It can't grow out of itself, out of its own everythingness onto a non existing exterior nothingness which would be less then vacuum or empty space and time, which would be the negation of itself...once there's nothing to nothingness completeness is all that there is left. Spinning on a loop is the sober poor man version of infinity. ...real infinity is an abstract projection of the human mind an expression of believing in being alive aware and in control. It expresses the hope volition is true...

Now...after so much and so far fetched "philosophising" down the rabbit hole bring in the shot guns lads !... Wink

0 Replies

If I knew why I probably would get pissed off for knowing it...

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

What is the purpose of life?
Does life have meaning?
What is better: to be a person with purpose or a person without purpose ... in life?
Where are we going, where are our perspectives, where are our dreams ... where are we?
Can one believe both in Money and in God?

We are not here because our own will. This is an indisputable fact.

Then, our existence has been caused to a certain purpose.

Religious people have their own conclusion based on a god's purpose to be done thru a certain plan.

Now well, there is another explanation for the "purpose of our existence" based on a scientific method.

But, in order to set the steps for this scientific explanation and be presented to the rest, first the current good for nothing theories of science -which are the most famous but the less scientific- must be thrown to the trash.

Sorry.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Quote:
What is the purpose of life?
Does life have meaning?

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." is my Raison d'être (reason for life)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

What is the purpose of life?
Does life have meaning?
What is better: to be a person with purpose or a person without purpose ... in life?
Where are we going, where are our perspectives, where are our dreams ... where are we?
Can one believe both in Money and in God?

To me asking why we are here is just as silly as asking, why are some people never born.

But that line of reasoning never seems to be good enough for most people. So let me take another attack at it.

If there is a purpose then I wan't nothing of it. But why? Am I just a rebel who hates to be dictated to? No. There simply is no freedom in someone suggesting a purpose for me. It is much more beautiful to think that can set our own purpose, even if that purpose is for evil. I don't suggest nor promote that idea, all I am saying is with freedom comes the need for reason. You have the ability to do and excel at anything you want or at least die trying. The freedom to set your own purpose is the purpose in my opinion.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Herald wrote:

What is the purpose of life?
Does life have meaning?
What is better: to be a person with purpose or a person without purpose ... in life?
Where are we going, where are our perspectives, where are our dreams ... where are we?
Can one believe both in Money and in God?

To me asking why we are here is just as silly as asking, why are some people never born.

But that line of reasoning never seems to be good enough for most people. So let me take another attack at it.

If there is a purpose then I wan't nothing of it. But why? Am I just a rebel who hates to be dictated to? No. There simply is no freedom in someone suggesting a purpose for me. It is much more beautiful to think that can set our own purpose, even if that purpose is for evil. I don't suggest nor promote that idea, all I am saying is with freedom comes the need for reason. You have the ability to do and excel at anything you want or at least die trying. The freedom to set your own purpose is the purpose in my opinion.

True, but what makes things important to us in the first place? our own discoveries, luck, happenstance, or being brainwashed?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

To me asking why we are here is just as silly as asking, why are some people never born.

Everything depends on the interpretation of the question: How did it happen that we are the only ILF (Intelligent Life Form) in that part of the Universe, separated from the other Hyperspace that obviously exists, evident from the Dark Matter and Dark Energy observations in astrophysics. If we think that we are lost in the huge Universe without any purpose - yes it may be stupid. But if our purpose is to preserve the Life in the Universe and to find the next planet that could be supplied with biosphere - it sounds not that stupid.

Krumple wrote:

If there is a purpose then I wan't nothing of it.

You cannot reject anything without get knowing what it is, in the first place. How can you say: I don't accept presents no matter what they might be. The negation of undefined variable makes no sense.

Krumple wrote:

There simply is no freedom in someone suggesting a purpose for me.

If you are curious to get knowing, with or without God, with or without the Big Bang 'theory', with or without your cross-cultural misunderstanding of the world, you are living on a finite planet, with finite resources, with population faced to overgrowth and increasing problems of any kind - these are all physical constraints that are objective and no matter how much free you may think you are - you are subject to those constraints. So far you have not mastered the teleportation - you can't be free. Living on a planet that runs out of energy capacity, runs out of life support capacity and that has nothing like it within a radius of several light years around ... and being free is mission impossible. Just accept it and start living with it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Each person should answer for himself or herself. I think that there are no good or right answers. And most of people don't think of it at all)

1 Reply

@Herald,

https://logfall.wordpress.com/teleological-fallacy/

Quote:

Teleological fallacy:

Conceptual Fallacy
Definition Example
the claim that some object or idea has a purpose or necessary end point in the absence of evidence for that end point. Why would God have given us noses if he hadn’t planned that we should wear glasses?

Notes

Only after the existence of an end point has been evidentially established can it serve as a foundation for other dependent concepts.

Case Study One

According to Bertrand Russell, it was once claimed that rabbits were created with white tails so they would be easy for hunters to shoot.

Case Study Two

Evolution is often misunderstood as teleological as evidenced by suggestions that there is some end-goal of evolution such as homo sapiens. Evolution might be better understood as the genetic movement of a species to better align its genetic composition to the environmental context, rather than striving towards some genetic goal independent of a environmental context.

Case Study Three

One creationist infamously created a video purporting that the hand-shaped banana was evidence of a designer. Modern bananas have been bred by agriculturists to have the shape they do.

Keep in mind that a fallacious argument does not entail an erroneous position.

(It just means that the premises fail to establish the conclusion, so this argument is null and void.)

0 Replies

@Andrea-Kate,

Andrea-Kate wrote:

Each person should answer for himself or herself.

Admittedly, but you may have a better explanation of the things and I may be missing something. That is why the communications are for.
You see, we (the humans) are not the best fliers (without some auxiliary engine), we are not the best swimmers (the shark is much faster), we are not the best runners (the leopard may run at a speed over 180 km/h), we are not the best survivors (the Donos have managed to survive here on this very same planet for over 160 Mys, and we havn't made 200 000 yet), we are not the best centenarians (the duration of our life is not even closer to the that of the turtle and of the eagle), we are not even the oldest species living at present on the earth (the crocodiles are from 70 Mys here, and Veran de Komodo has been contemporary of the Donos), but yet we are on top of the food chain, and the only reason for that is our ability to communicate and to exchange information.

2 Replies

Why are we here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know