What is the point to life?

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
What is the point of life? I did not know it needed a point. In our short lives we scream that everything needs a point. Life is all inclusive; lions, tigers, and bears oh my! Does a lion think about the point of life? I think it is simply growth. I was born, I have grown and now I continue to seek growth or face stagnation. But that is me and I am alive. I “suggest” the original question be rephrased to: “What is the point of a human’s life?

Does not the fact that we are constantly seeking a point to life, an indication of something? I have thought that the common Freudian/Nietzschean dismissals of this universal religious drive to be too pat and dismissive.

[Renegade 13]

Here's a question for you all:

What is the point to life, without death?? What meaning would life have, if we have an eternity to live it?? Maybe this is just a wacky way to look at it, but perhaps death is a gift, a gift which forces us to treasure what time we have. You can't afford to waste 50 years if that is half of your life. Whereas, if everyone lived forever, 50 years would be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Renegade

[Renegade]

Isn't this debate about pointless? Look at the issue this way, who the hell cares?

"These are the best of times, these are the worst of times."

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.

Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought.

[President_Elect_Shang]

General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.

I am not going to go into what constitutes 'evidence' or the appropriate use of 'probably'. But you are again misusing the word 'logic'. Logic is very strict, and the simplest explanation is, logically, only the simplest explanation, nothing more.

I recommend you use a different word for now. Later take a course in Philosophy or Debate or some such, if you wish to wield 'logic' to favor your opinions.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree with you. But logic means certain things, and I do not want to see it abused the way 'ironic' is these days.

[edit: 'Reasonably' fits pretty well.]

---

Actually, I am not misusing the word 'logic' at all. I understand perfectly the definition of the word, and the way in which I choose to use it here is correct to both its proper and common meanings.

I would recommend that you do not patronise others with misguided assumptions about their knowledge, or their educations. As an example, I have studied philosophy at a tertiary level and am quite well versed in the use of terms associated with the discipline.

I don't feel it was nessesary to play the word Nazi (since my meaning was easily fathomable, and it didn't add anything to the discussion to nitpick it)*. However, if you feel a compulsion to do so, perhaps it might be useful to provide an actual definition, rather than just your opinionated judgment on the matter.

Here is a definition (according to the Maquarie Dictionary)

Logic n 1. the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference 2. reasoning or argumentation, or any instance of it 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study 4. reasons or sound sense, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing force: the irresistable logic of facts

(there are two more definitions, but they refer to electronics)

I believe that you are refering to definition 1. above in your post, and therefore (mistakenly) making the assumption that this is the only correct usage of the word 'logic'.

Even if you were correct in this assumption, you would still be incorrect in making the further assumption that I have misused the word. In this I refer you to the principle of:

Occam's razor n the principle that entities must not be unnecesarily multiplied, which as the principle of economy of hypothesis, is applicable to scientific research [from William of OCCAM]

[again from the Macquarie Dictionary]

I do not mean to be harsh, or start a fight. I can understand your frustration at 'word abuse'. However I would ask that if you are going to direct this frustration at me, could you please be accurate and defined when you do so. I do not enjoy being made out to be ignorant when I have chosen to use my words quite specifically and accurately.

And now, on with the discussion...

*Please note that I use both the words 'Nazi' and 'Nitpick' in their colloquial, rather than proper, senses here.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Lord Chane:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.

Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought.

---

Yes, you are entirely correct. That something probably isn't correct certainly doesn't mean that it isn't.

However, your example is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. This is because we now know Pluto does exist. However for an ancient person to say that Pluto did exist without any evidence, that would (from their perspective) simply be wild speculation. How often is wild speculation true? Sometimes, but not very often.

The more complex the speculation, the more variables there are to be incorrect, hence less likley it is to be true. So the most simple explanation is more likley the correct one.

To put this in context. I could say to you now that there are ten exactly planets orbiting Alpha Centuri, three of which contain sentient life, but there is no evidence of this. How likley do you think this is to be true?

The truth is that it is unlikley but not impossible. We have no evidence to disprove it, yet it is still probably not true. This is simply because it would involve lots of complex variables to interact in a certain way to be true, which (probablility wise) is unlikley to conform to an arbitary guess of mine.

If we went to Alpha Centuri and found that I was actually right - this still does not change the fact that I was unlikely to be right when I made the guess.

It is the same as rolling a die. You can say you are going to roll a '6' before you do so, but you only have a one in six chance of being right. So you are probably wrong. If you do roll a six, it doesn't change the fact that, before you rolled the die, you were probably going to be wrong in your guess.

If you roll two dice, you add to the complexity, and your chance of being right about rolling a six goes down in direct proportion. Hence the more complex an unfounded speculation, the less likley it is to be true.

In my opinion the simpler explanation is that when we die, we are dead. It is more complex and unfounded (IMHO) to say that there is an afterlife. Hence the latter requires faith, whilst the former does not.

I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:

Have you ever met a farmer or a rancher??

Until I saw this part, I thought you might be one of those rich people!!

1)

You obviously mean an AMERICAN farmer or rancher. No I haven't met an AMERICAN farmer or rancher but I have met African and Chinese (as in mainland China) farmers.

And sorry, but to me, this falls under "no sympathy for people who believes that society owes it to them to maintain the lifestyle and neighborhood they've always known."

Small-scale farming in rich countries is simply uneconomic unless supported by trade-distorting subsidies.

2)

I am relatively well off by Malaysian standards, but I wasn't born that way. Whenever I go back to my old neighborhood to visit, I find that the people who haven't grown out of it are those who are too unambitious, too stupid or too stubborn to make a serious go at changing their lives for the better.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?

Ouch! Relax, I was just asking a question.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Loser:
Whatever my thoughts on the afterlife might be, that isn't actually logic. Absence of any evidence means nothing, logically.

To believe something you do not have any evidence to support is not reason, it is faith. That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

Not quite. While that's true in principle, in practice whenever there's an absence of evidence concerning the existence of something, people, quite reasonably I believe, go about life assuming that it doesn't exist.

Imagine, I could say claim that a pink, invisible, intangible unicorn is looking over your shoulder right now as you read this. I think that trying to be "agnostic" about it would be kind of difficult.