The Purpose Behind our Existence

[zoro]

So if the purpose of life is too continue life, then you are basically telling me that there is no hope, no future for anything better than what i can achieve in this world.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t say “no hope”! I hope, for example, that you will hope to help humanity, by your achievements (e.g., defeat the next killer virus, stop an asteroid from hitting the earth, or less dramatically, how about a song or a poem that people will appreciate).

Why would i throw away the belief in a higher power and in heaven and paradise...just to sustain life on earth.

Well I would put it differently: what evidence supports such a “belief”? Do you “believe” it’s so because your parent and your society told you that you’d be “good” if you did and “bad” if you didn’t believe such nonsense? Do you “believe” it because you want to believe it, i.e., did you succumb to the “proof-by-pleasure fallacy”? Or do you “believe” it because you’ve tested the idea using the scientific method?

This argument makes no sense to me. Mankind will NEVER NEVER be able to quantify life. It is impossible. Scientists till this day do not know the special chemicals, biologies, or matter that differentiates a dead person from a living.

I agree: your argument also makes no sense to me. I have no difficulty in distinguishing life from death. Do you?

My source of knowledge is the Qu'ran. That is where my knowledge is derived from.

And your definition of “knowledge” is what? Does such "knowledge" lead to testable predictions about reality? Have the tests been validated?

I use that knowledge to live my life as best as i can while i am on earth.

Well, no: I’d suggest that you “try” to live your life as best you can; I would also suggest that you could do even better if you sought knowledge via the scientific method.

In the Qu'ran is plenty of scientific truths that man has ONLY found true by using science.

Well, sorry to be “a stickler”, but in reality, in science we recognize nothing as “the truth”, since “truth” is applicable to what are called “closed systems” (such a games, pure mathematics, and religions). In science, which deals with what are called “open systems” (e.g., reality), we call results “principles”, not “truths”, if they have not yet been demonstrated to be wrong.

Where else do i need to derive my knowledge base from?

From the scientific method.

How does this quote [dealing with relying on authority] explain the Golden age of Islam, where people where very religious and worshiped a higher authority, and still continued to advance greatly in the fields of medicine, science, math, and astronomy. Your argument is completely void regarding this subject.

No, not so. Just as occurred subsequently during Europe’s Dark Ages, a few brave people (such as Ibn al-Hitham and subsequently, in Europe, Roger Bacon, Galileo, etc.) refused to accept the authority of the clerics, and knowledge advanced – in spite of their imprisonment by the clerics and in spite of the superstitions of the vast majority of the people. Thus, as is unfortunately so common, just a few people deserve essentially all the credit for dragging humanity forward, out of the clutches of the ignorant clerics.

Religion is the ultimate insurance for your life.

Well, I think that more descriptive would be to call it “the ultimate con game”.

When i die, i have chosen the insurance plan which makes the most sense for me. When you die my agnostic friend, it seems that you have no insurance to carry with you, IN THE EVENT that there are angels and jinn, and a higher authority which we were all derived from.

Well, I don’t know about that: I had a chat with your god the other day, and he said that it was really boring in eternity and he wanted to find a few good people who could bring something new to the table. So, he sent all the confusing messages down in all the “holy books” to see who, in their greed for getting something that they don’t deserve, would be conned into “believing” nonsense about “eternal life” just for saying that they “believe” in it. He said that it was an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff – which I mention, solely to illustrate that it’s much easier to generate a con game then it is to generate knowledge.

If i were to gain knowledge and use it, don't you think the most important thing i would want to know and learn about would be what happens after i die, since it is an inevitability and everyone must?

Well, if you would use the scientific method to gain knowledge, then you’d find that all evidence points to the obvious conclusion that when you die, you’re dead. Yet, if you can contribute something useful while you’re alive (as did Alhacen, Bacon, Galileo,…), then your ideas and the memory of you can live on. On the other hand, if you’re just another “parrot on a dead branch of knowledge, endlessly squawking the same old lines”, then expect that your memory, too, will disappear soon after you lose your life.

 

[alidagreat]

Well I would put it differently: what evidence supports such a “belief”? Do you “believe” it’s so because your parent and your society told you that you’d be “good” if you did and “bad” if you didn’t believe such nonsense? Do you “believe” it because you want to believe it, i.e., did you succumb to the “proof-by-pleasure fallacy”? Or do you “believe” it because you’ve tested the idea using the scientific method?

I believe this because it is the word of God. Why do i believe it? Why not believe it? What am i losing? Why did Jesus, Adam, Moses, and all the other prophets come down and preach a message about a higher power. Were they all crazy in the head? Why do people believe in love, and hate? Can you prove love and hate by the scientific method? Can you test love and hate using the scientific method? I don't think so. People still believe in it. So your entire argument is built upon fallacy.

I agree: your argument also makes no sense to me. I have no difficulty in distinguishing life from death. Do you?

Can you quantify the human soul? Do you believe in the human soul? Can you quantify life as breathing and using the bathroom? I mean seriously you are being naive and ignorant. Tell me in the scientific method the difference between life and death. I wait your scientific response.


And your definition of “knowledge” is what? Does such "knowledge" lead to testable predictions about reality? Have the tests been validated?

The Qu'ran has been validated. The embryonic stages of human developed are revealed in the Qu'ran and were recently proven USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Also...the meteor that is said to have destroyed the dinosaurs, and the deepest place on Earth is revealed in the Qu'ran and has been proven and shown to be truth as we know to this day from the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Well, I think that more descriptive would be to call it “the ultimate con game”.

Hey man, believe what you want. No one is forcing you to believe in God or to be a Christian or a Muslim. I don't care if you insult my belief. I only care about what Allah thinks. Not you, or your infatuation with the scientific method.


Well, if you would use the scientific method to gain knowledge, then you’d find that all evidence points to the obvious conclusion that when you die, you’re dead. Yet, if you can contribute something useful while you’re alive (as did Alhacen, Bacon, Galileo,…), then your ideas and the memory of you can live on. On the other hand, if you’re just another “parrot on a dead branch of knowledge, endlessly squawking the same old lines”, then expect that your memory, too, will disappear soon after you lose your life.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha this is so horrible. I feel bad that you only believe in science. I wish that you could have more to live for in life. I am sorry that your life ends when you die. I really do. I hope I am right in what i believe, and I hope that you are wrong in what you believe.

I don't have anything against, I don't even dislike you. I just pity and feel bad that you only believe in things that you can touch or see.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Religion is the ultimate insurance for your life. When i die, i have chosen the insurance plan which makes the most sense for me. When you die my agnostic friend, it seems that you have no insurance to carry with you, IN THE EVENT that there are angels and jinn, and a higher authority which we were all derived from.

Good old Pascal's wager. Will the falacy ever die? Consider that you may be worshiping the wrong God and consider that the real God may be more displeased with you worshiping a false God than worshiping none at all. Also consider whether it truly makes any sense to believe in something because of a punishment/reward dynamic and wether that belief will be seen as genuine.

 

[aamirsaab]

.......Also consider whether it truly makes any sense to believe in something because of a punishment/reward dynamic and wether that belief will be seen as genuine.

With all due respect, that is how humans at all levels operate.

my views on the topic: I think that each of us have our own role to play in this world - some may have 100 things to do, some may only have 1 thing to do. The importance, however, lies in living and achieving your own goals, whatever it may be. So in essence, we each have an individual purpose to our existence in addition to wider purposes.

 

[Umm Yoosuf]

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatulaahi wa Barakatuh Br Ali

I understand where you're coming from Akhi. Indeed Knowledge proceeds before action. One cannot pray if he hasn't sought knowledge, one can not perform Hajj if hasn't studied how to etc nevertheless our purpose of Life IS to worship Allah, alone. This worship is done with knowledge indeed! But what is 'ibadah (worship)? It is not merely sitting in the masjid 24/7 praying, it is seclusion of oneself, and not interacting with anyone whatsoever!

Worship is a comprehensive word for all that Allah loves and is pleases with from words and deeds, open and hidden. And it is being free from that which negates or contradicts this. (Sheikh Al-Taymeeyyah ).

The first thing that is obligatory upon the slave is the recognition of the purpose for which Allah created them, too a covenant from them, sent His Prophets and Messengers to them, and revealed His Books to them. Because of it, the worldly life and the hereafter were created. Because of it the “Inevitable” will come true and the “Event” will come to pass. Because of it, the scale will be set up and the scrolls of deeds will be scattered about. In it (this first obligation to be known) is either sadness or happiness, and according to it the lights will be divided. “And whomsoever Allah does not give light to, there will be no light for him.” (The signposts of the Propagated Sunnah- Sheikh Haafidh ibn Ahmed 'Alee al-Hakamee)

So the affair for which Allah created the creation is as said in the Quran:

"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or lying on their sides, and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, saying, "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly, exalted are You, protect us from the punishment of the Fire." [Aal 'Imran 3:190-191]

"And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that which is between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire." [Saa'd 38:27]

"And We did not create the heavens and the earth and that which is between them in play." [Ad-Dukhan 44:38]


"And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me." [Adh-Dhariyat 51:56]

 

[zoro]

Response to “alidagreat” (#22):

I believe this because it is the word of God.

And what evidence is available to support your contention that “it is the word of God” – or evidence, even, that any god exists?

Why do i believe it? Why not believe it?

For the same reason that you don’t believe (I expect) that all invisible flying elephants are pink, namely, no evidence supports such an idea.

What am i losing?

Oh, a huge amount: basically, control over your own life; you’ve yielded it to those who have gained control of your imagination.

Why did Jesus, Adam, Moses, and all the other prophets come down and preach a message about a higher power. Were they all crazy in the head?

Well, evidence suggests that the three of them are mostly just fictitious characters. Jesus is mostly a fictitious character concocted to depict the start of the astrological age of Pisces (the fish); Adam is certainly a fictitious character, concocted by the Ancient Egyptians, and Moses seems to be mostly a story about the constellation Orion the Hunter, concocted by Ezra and co-authors of the Old Testaments who were trying to convert the Hebrews to the Persian religion of Zoroaster. As for why they were concocted: basically, it’s because, long ago, people were so unknowledgeable that they thought that gods exist.

Why do people believe in love, and hate?

That’s strange wording. Do you mean why do people love and (or) hate? Surely you don’t need an explanation. Just ask yourself why you love some things (or people) and hate others.

Can you prove love and hate by the scientific method? Can you test love and hate using the scientific method? I don't think so. People still believe in it. *So your entire argument is built upon fallacy.*

Good heavens, what silliness. You stated “I don’t think so.” I’m not sure the word “so” belongs.

Can you quantify the human soul?

No – and therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that “soul” (in the religious sense of the word) is meaningless.

Do you believe in the human soul?

My “belief” (or opinion or strength of my conviction) about any idea depends on the evidence available to support it, and since (as far as I’m aware) there’s zero evidence to support the idea of “soul” (in the religious sense), therefore my opinion about the idea of “soul” is that it’s left over from prehistoric ideas trying to explain people’s shadows, reflections (e.g., in pools of water), and dreams, and now used as another part of the clerics’ con games, designed to make sure that they won’t need to do any work for a living (so they can just live off the producers of the world, like parasites).

Can you quantify life as breathing and using the bathroom? I mean seriously you are being naive and ignorant. Tell me in the scientific method the difference between life and death. I wait your scientific response.

Well, as Feynman said, the scientific method is just a way to try to make sure that you’re not fooling yourself. Applied in the case you mention, the way we used the scientific method when we were kids was use a (long) stick, e.g., to determine if a snake were dead or alive or if there were any hornets in a nest: if, upon using the stick, the snake moved or the hornets swarmed, then we adopted the hypothesis that life was present. Similar seems to work with people. Thus, I conclude that you’re alive, for as the second American President (John Adams) said: “…touch a solemn truth in collision with the dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”

The Qu'ran has been validated. The embryonic stages of human developed are revealed in the Qu'ran and were recently proven USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Also...the meteor that is said to have destroyed the dinosaurs, and the deepest place on Earth is revealed in the Qu'ran and has been proven and shown to be truth as we know to this day from the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Good heavens! I conclude that you don’t have a clue about what either “validated” or “the scientific method” means. Let me put it this way, if I state that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then to apply the scientific method to test the validity of my statement, you’ll need to do more than demonstrate that elephants exist, that they can be painted pink, and flown away in a Boeing 747 until they’re no longer visible.

Hey man, believe what you want. No one is forcing you to believe in God or to be a Christian or a Muslim.

Agreed. Thus, fortunately in Western countries, humans have managed to make some progress, constraining the clerics: no longer are they permitted to kill people who refuse to buy into their con games. But apparently in many Muslim countries, it’s still “death to the infidels”.

I don't care if you insult my belief.

I’m glad -- although it's not so much your "belief" that I'm criticizing as your method of "believing" things supported by zero evidence.

I only care about what Allah thinks.

You mean: what you think that he thinks.

Not you, or your infatuation with the scientific method.

Well, it’s a pity that we don’t all care more about fellow humans than we do about imaginary gods. And as for my “infatuation with the scientific method”: Hey, it works! Witness the internet and the computer you’re working on. On the other hand, if the scientific method stops working, then I’ll junk it.

Hahaha this is so horrible.

Hmmm. It seems strange that you’d laugh at something that you describe as “horrible”.

I feel bad that you only believe in science.

As I already mentioned, I try to align the strength of my convictions in proportion to relevant evidence. Substantial evidence suggests that the scientific method is a way to try to make sure you’re not fooling yourself. Perhaps you’d like to give it a try.

I wish that you could have more to live for in life.

Thank you for the kind thought, but there’s no need to worry on my behalf: I love the life that I have!

I am sorry that your life ends when you die. I really do. I hope I am right in what i believe, and I hope that you are wrong in what you believe.

Again, thank you for the kind thoughts, but don’t worry about my death on my behalf (and I’d encourage you to similarly not worry about your own death), since no one can be aware of a lack of awareness. We die and disappear to make room for the next generation – who, I hope, will be more intelligent than the current occupants of this wonderful world.

 

[alidagreat]

I just have one question for you. I urge you to come up with an intelligent answer using your scientific method, and all the information and knowledge you have gathered from your existence on earth.

If there is a GOD, and an afterlife, and a heaven and a hell. What will you do when you are resurrected? What will you say about no life after death, and your thoughts about their not being a higher power or authority?

Just answer the question as IF what I am saying is true. Just want to hear what you have to say.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If I'm resurected after death I'll be quite amazed. And If there are Gods I'll be doubly amazed and I'll look forward to chatting with them should they grant me an audience.

 

[zoro]

Response to “alidagreat”:

I just have one question for you. I urge you to come up with an intelligent answer using your scientific method, and all the information and knowledge you have gathered from your existence on earth.

If there is a GOD, and an afterlife, and a heaven and a hell. What will you do when you are resurrected? What will you say about no life after death, and your thoughts about their not being a higher power or authority?

Okay. As you requested, I’ll assume that what you describe is accurate. Then, upon being resurrected, I expect that, first, I’d respond with words that my grandchildren like to use: “Wow! Neato!” I’d then probably add something similar to: “Well I’ll be! Goes to show that people make errors. But then, no data were available. I did my best with what the data I had.”

Then, after I got my bearings, caught the general drift of the place, I’d try to find the resurrected forms of some of my heroes, the great atheists, agnostics, humanists, and scientists of the past, including Sin-leqe-unnini, Homer, Aesop, Lao-tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Pindar, Anaxagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Diogenes, Epicurus, Hypatia, Archimedes, Marcus Aurelius, Ibn al-Hitham, Omar Khayyam,… and so many more (!), of course including Spinoza, Locke, Goethe, Paine, Jefferson, Lincoln, Susan Anthony, Ingersoll, Emmy Noether, Einstein, Anne Rand, Dirac, Eric Hoffer, Alan Watts, Feynman,… and so many others (including, if they got there before me!), Paul Kurtz, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Ed Wilson, and so many more!

Just think about being in the company of such people! Think about being able to learn more! Think about talking with Sin-leqe-unnini (“the world’s first author”, author of the most familiar form of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains the myth about Noah, which more than 1,000 years later was copied into the Bible). Approximately 3,600 years ago, he wrote

…we frail humans die as you yourself must someday do. What is best for us to do is now to sing and dance; relish warm food and cool drinks; cherish children to whom your love gives life; bathe easily in sweet, refreshing waters; [and] play joyfully with your chosen wife. It is the will of the gods for you to smile on simple pleasures in the leisure time of your short days… Choose to live and choose to love; choose to rise above and give back what you yourself were given. Be moderate as you flee for survival in a boat that has no place for riches.

Remember, too, what Socrates said at his trial (on the trumped-up charges against him by the ****able Greek clerics, leading to his execution):

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night.

But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again! I, too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.

Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a truth – that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance.

Well, I could go on and on – as obviously I did, in my huge (but free!) online book at www.zenofzero.net – but maybe I’ve shown you enough for you to “catch my drift”. Yet, I can’t quit without recalling what “Ingersoll the Magnificent” (the magnificent atheist) wrote – and I’d seek him out, where ever he was (probably sitting on a throne, somewhere, having a beer, looking after the place while God was on sabbatical in another universe!):

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths – there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world – not even in infinite space.

I was free: free to think, to express my thoughts – free to live to my own ideal – free to live for myself and those I loved – free to use all my faculties, all my senses – free to spread imagination’s wings – free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope – free to judge and determine for myself – free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past – free from popes and priests – free from all the “called” and “set apart” – free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies – free from the fear of eternal pain – free from the winged monsters of night – free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of my thought – no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings – no chains for my limbs – no lashes for my back – no fires for my flesh – no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps – no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.

I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought – to those who fell on the fierce fields of war – to those who died in dungeons bound with chains – to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs – to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn – to those by fire consumed – to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

 

[Skavau]

The meaning of life is to live it fully. I do not recognise ritualism that any religious system provides. I do not see any necessity to worship Allah, should that being exist or not - I see my position, as human to live as a human - working from where I am to assist humanity.

The problem is that a lot of Muslims on here only recognise the purpose of life from their viewpoint. I see that an article posted on Page 1 here, by NoName55 focuses on the assumption that everyone values accumulation of money (which I don't) and assumes that everyone will achieve everything they wish to (I honestly doubt such).

I mean, look at this swooping generalisation:

For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position. Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them. But all of this will not avail them anything good in the grave, on the Day of Judgment or in the Next Life. Eventually he will be faced with the question:

I only value wealth in that if I wish to purchase something, I can afford it. I would never wish a ludicrious amount of money. I don't want power, too much responsibility. I don't drink, take drugs or gamble. In fact - most people do not take drugs or gamble and this article assumes that for all disbelievers, these are "high priorities". That's a load of nonsense.

Look how Islam solves the mystery of the puzzle of life. It provides the answers to the questions and concerns of the human beings on all levels and in every aspect. It is really quite simple.

None of the above in that article solved the puzzle of life. I see the purpose of humanity as being beyond the worship of a diety, or the adherence of a particular belief system.

NoName5, that article makes unproven statements about disbelievers and assumes that without belief in Islam, everyone's purpose in life is to become insanely rich. It uses religious language in order to justify why an individual should be Islamic which means nothing to me, and I doubt - to any other nonbelievers.

 

[zoro]

Well, paarsurrey, as I argued earlier in this thread, one’s purpose depends on one’s premisses. For example, if you assume that some god exists, then for your purpose (or purposes), something similar to what you quote follows (with details differing, depending on whether you were exposed to Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or some other culture). In contrast, if you conclude that there’s insufficient evidence to support the idea that any god exists, then you’ll choose a different purpose (or purposes).

If you think about it more, I expect that you’ll agree that there’s an even more fundamental premiss (than “belief” in god) that you MUST make. In my opinion, it’s even more fundamental than whether any gods exist, and I could argue that it’s even more fundamental than the premisses that you and your thoughts exist. Further, that you “must” make the decision is an example of the “existential dilemma”: even if you choose not to make the decision, that’s still your decision. This fundamental decision is the answer to the epistemological question: how is knowledge to be obtained (e.g., knowledge about whether you and your ideas or any gods exist)?

From your quote, it seems clear that you’ve decided that you’ll gain knowledge via some “authority” (be it your parents, teachers, clerics, “holy book”, or whatever). Beneath that, however, your choice might be based on doing what your parents and/or your society desire, your desire for eternal life in paradise, your fear of eternal punishment, or similar. Only you can know the reasons behind your decision.

Meanwhile, I hope you realize that there are a huge number of us (roughly two billion people) who don’t accept, will never accept, and to be intellectually honest, can never accept any higher “authority” than our own interpretations of our own experiences plus results obtained in a consistent manner by others (i.e., through similar, honest interpretations of reliable and reproducible data). In short, we’re committed to gaining knowledge via the scientific method, which in essence is just: “guess, test, and reassess”.

With the fundamental premiss that knowledge is gained via the scientific method, then our purposes follow. If such purposes are swept together under a very large rug, they can usually be described as “trying to help humanity” or “trying to help intelligence evolve” – with a general meaning for ‘intelligence’, including being kind to others (with keenness), loving others (within limits), pormoting the happiness of others, seeking peace and justice, protecting the environment, and so on.

Furthermore, we find it to be extremely grievous error for others not to make a similar choice for how to gain knowledge, because other choices have led (and continues to lead) to a huge amount of totally unnecessary strife in the world, out to and including wars. Yet, many if not most of us are optimistic that if a “war to end all wars” doesn’t occur, then eventually, all humans will adopt the premiss that the only way to gain knowledge is via the scientific method (which, as Feynman said, is simply a way to try to make sure you’re not fooling yourself). Consistently, we’re convinced that, eventually, all idea about all gods will die, just as did all previous “immortal” gods (such as Anu, Bal, Osiris, Thor, Zeus, and so on).

 

[alidagreat]

Zoro, you sound like a computer.

You only input data, assess it, and then re-assess it? Sounds like a horrible life. Sounds like all you do is process data. You don't open your mind, or your imagination. I guess we should throw away the imagination and emotional parts of our brains and process data all day like main frame computers.

Uh oh system shut down, i can't process anymore...get a life.

I guess everyone since the beginning of time is wrong because you believe that only the major advances in science, medicine and technology in the past 200 years is the only way to process life.

Sorry to break it to you, but belief is the driving force of human nature. Not science. Are the millions of people that came before us who survived in such raw conditions on earth, secretly genius's who came up with the story of God and his angels and devils? How do you assess the fact that before mankind had enough technology and free time to write out elaborate poetry and stories, the story of God and a higher power has existed. Did the Neanderthals who could barely find food to sustain life come up with these magnificent ideas and stories?

A belief in no higher power is the worst argument anyone can make. The theory of evolution does not even touch on how the mind has acquired its ability to think in such capacities. Do you think that plants coincidentally made oxygen, which we need to survive on earth? Do you think that rain, coincidentally comes from the sky to create growth and sustain life on earth? Do you really think that the sun coincidentally sets everyday, and the moon coincidentally rises every night. Is it a coincidence that we have 2 eyes instead of one? Coincidence that I cry when I'm hurt, and laugh when I'm happy? Is it a coincidence that I have 1 exit for urine and 1 exit for feces? Did evolution, the theory of evolution that is, take into account that there was no scientific method in the beginning.

 

[zoro]

Well, alidagreat, I'd agree that your computer analogy does a fairly good job of describing much of how humans behave, but on the other hand, as you can see in Chapter Ia of my book at www.zenofzero.net (specifically at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IaAwarenessofIdeas.pdf ), my own attempt to describe myself (in an admittedly rather poor poem) is as follows.

What am I?

If you removed my limbs, I would persist;
Or if you numbed my senses pleasureless,
Yet still I would maintain that ‘I’ exist –
This ‘I’, this spark of Nature’s consciousness.

This ‘I’: this stardust burning solar fuels,
This thinking part of all the universe,
This temporary host for spiral molecules –
This ‘I’, alone, when thoughts become a curse.

For, no, I’m not a scroll on which I scribe,
Alone. At best, the scroll contains the prides
Of thoughts: the best from all this human tribe.
And yes, of course, the worst, as well, resides.

Nor am I ego scared and all enclosed:
I am the sum of all that I’ve been told;
Of all, to which this mind has been exposed;
Unique – uniquely sensing what is old.

But maybe I can sum it differently!
If so, then maybe I can see still more;
If so, then ‘I’, the thought, continues ‘me’,
Just as this ‘I’ thinks thoughts that went before.

So what am I? Just one more tiny link
In Nature’s chains of thought. I am, no less,
A wave of thought, uniquely blown to think
Upon this common sea of consciousness.

And if one wave should break out from the norm,
Perhaps with ripples running out in rhyme,
To help some ‘I’ make waves of better form,
Then ‘we’ might know a little more, next time.

 

[NoName55]

......................Did the Neanderthals who could barely find food to sustain life come up with these magnificent ideas and stories?

:thumbs_up

Dear Brothers,

Worshiping Allah is NOT the sole purpose of mankind. It is the MOST IMPORTANT but it is not the sole purpose. If this was the case and worshiping him was the sole purpose of mankind, then every Muslim would be poor, not educate themselves, sit in a Mosque all day, and try to come up with ways to kill people who are not Muslims.

Is it not true that learning is ibadah?is going to work to earn halal rizq not ibadah?is not every permissable thing we do, ibadah? no?

 

[alidagreat]

That was the worst poem i have ever heard in my life. Sorry.

I believe that worship and prayer are different THAN learning and doing nuclear physics. I believe that Allah counts them as the same thing. But i personally differentiate it, because it is much more difficult to do nuclear physics and stem cell biology, than to pray, or do Dua. It is more difficult to clean toilets and dishes all day then to pray 5 times a day, or read the Qu'ran. Allah has blessed us with his acceptance of allowing our great advances and our hard work to count for worship and I am very thankful for that.

But i really find the need to differentiate it so that the Muslims get out of the belief that they are just put on earth to pray and do Salat. That is NOT what Allah wanted us to do. We need to use our knowledge, learn about the religion, make the world a better place, pray and worship our Lord, and ultimately do our best to make it eternal paradise and heaven.

If Allah really wanted JUST worshipers he has animals, angels, and jinn to do that. I agree that we are here to worship and that is the MAIN REASON, but I DO NOT agree that is the ONLY reason.

 

[zoro]

alidagreat:

Well, it was you who asked for poetry; I was just tying to oblige. That the result doesn't meet your standards, my response is: at least I tried.

Now, in reciprocation, maybe you'd oblige me. I agree with your emphasis on the need for "knowledge", but you have failed to respond to my suggestions. Therefore, I'll now transform them into a direct request to you: please try to provide some indication of how, in your opinion, knowledge of the reality external to your mind is to be gained.

For example, you have apparently come to the conclusion that various "supernatural" things exist. How do you "know" that? Is it because some "authority" told you so? Is that the fundamental way that you recommend that humans gain knowledge?

 

[alidagreat]

Zoro,

This entire world is supernatural. The earth, the sun, the moon, gravity, space, stars. I mean how did this stuff appear? How have all these things been around for so long, and how did these things coincidentally come together in the universe and compliment each other.

The only feasible explanation is that there is a GOD. HE has sent down prophets to continually re-iterate the message. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and all the other prophets have told us as mankind that there is a GOD.

There is no way that all these stories about the prophets preaching the same message about ONE GOD, is wrong. Did they all have some medical condition? Why didn't they just call themselves GOD?

That is what makes sense to me, and that is how I KNOW that there is a GOD. I am smart enough to see the clear signs of life and the world around me, and realize that there is an underlying thought process that underwent their creation.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The only feasible explanation is that there is a GOD.

Hello God of the Gaps. Nice to meet you again. I see you pop up in conversations and the thoughts of theists every now and then but it has been a while.

 

[NoName55]

Awaiting deletion

 

[zoro]

alidagreat:

This entire world is supernatural.

Come on, now, be more careful with words. I agree that “this entire world is super…”, but the questions are: A) Is it “supernatural” (which my dictionary defines as “1. relating or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws, 2. relating or attributed to a deity, or 3. relating or attributed to magic or the occult”) and B) How do YOU gain knowledge of the reality external to your mind?

The earth, the sun, the moon, gravity, space, stars. I mean how did this stuff appear? How have all these things been around for so long, and how did these things coincidentally come together in the universe and compliment each other… the only feasible explanation is that there is a GOD.

Again, come on. First, what you wrote just ain’t so: there are other, far more reasonable explanations for what you describe and that are supported by data (as I’ll outline in response to “NoName55”, below). Second, you’re not responding to the question, which, again (but stated differently) is: What’s the process by which you’ve decided you’ll acquire “knowledge”?

Is the scheme you use the same as you’ve apparently used here, namely, to eliminate all other possibilities (and thus your statement “the only feasible explanation”)? If so, that’s been found to be generally a valuable method (as all fans of Sherlock Holmes appreciate), but then there’s the obvious question: What’s “feasible”?

For example, how do you KNOW that it’s “feasible” for some god to snap his fingers (or whatever) to create a universe? Do you just assume that? It’s quite an assumption! Wouldn’t it be more “reasonable” to assume that the process that created the universe was something closer to what humans have experienced?

HE has sent down prophets to continually re-iterate the message. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and all the other prophets have told us as mankind that there is a GOD. There is no way that all these stories about the prophets preaching the same message about ONE GOD, is wrong. Did they all have some medical condition? Why didn't they just call themselves GOD? That is what makes sense to me, and that is how I KNOW that there is a GOD.

And therefore, is your answer to the question “How do you KNOW?” something similar to the following? “I know because special people said it’s so.” But is that wise? Those special people also said and did some very stupid stuff: Moses had his followers kill people who didn’t believe in his god; Jesus said “I have come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “I have come to cast conflicts upon the world”; and I assume I don’t need to quote similar messages from the Qur’an. If such “special people” said and did such stuff (with which I assume you agree was wrong), then why do you accept what they said about how the universe was created? They knew less about how the world was created than a modern kid in elementary school. How do you KNOW what they said was correct?

I am smart enough to see the clear signs of life and the world around me, and realize that there is an underlying thought process that underwent their creation.

How do you KNOW there’s “an underlying thought process”. I assume you agree that rocks, for example, don’t “think”, but how do you KNOW that’s “there is an underlying thought process” behind, for example, gravity? If I suggested to you that space (or “the vacuum”) was “chalk full” of “negative energy” and repels all “positive energy” (such as “light” and all the positive energy “congealed” in mass) and that such repulsion by space of mass (and light) is what we call “gravity”, then would you respond that all of that just goes to show that “there is an underlying thought process”? Would you similarly say that “there is an underlying thought process” behind the repulsion of electrical charges of the same sign?

Of course I agree that various processes exist in nature. Certainly it’s challenging to try to understand them. But how do you KNOW that there’s some “thought” behind them – other than our own stumbling thoughts to try to understand, i.e., to gain knowledge?