What is the point to life?

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Kamog:
I don't think there's life after death. People have tried to tell me otherwise, but I am not convinced since there is no evidence, and their arguments are based only on faith.

Technically, so is yours.

Some people seem to choose to believe in life after death because they hope that it exists, but I can't bring myself to believe something just because it would be nice if it were true. So I'll just assume that death is the end, and if I happen to be wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

One problem with this is that several religions, Christianity included, teach that sometimes life after death is not that pleasant for some. And after the fact is a poor time to find out...

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kamog:
I don't think there's life after death. People have tried to tell me otherwise, but I am not convinced since there is no evidence, and their arguments are based only on faith.

Technically, so is yours.

---

That does not follow. Refusing to accept an assertion without some sort of valid evidence for it does not require faith.

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

Some people seem to choose to believe in life after death because they hope that it exists, but I can't bring myself to believe something just because it would be nice if it were true. So I'll just assume that death is the end, and if I happen to be wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

One problem with this is that several religions, Christianity included, teach that sometimes life after death is not that pleasant for some. And after the fact is a poor time to find out...

However, according to the dogma, believing in Christianity simply as an 'each way bet' will not save you. Hypocrites go to hell.

Hence this is not a good argument to follow Christianity, at least.

[ October 07, 2003, 12:46: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Loser]

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.

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.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:

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.

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.

---

I disagree. It is true that with no evidence either way it cannot be said that something is either true or not true. Hence the word 'probably'.

However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.

This is why I can validly say that George W Bush is probably not J Edgar Hoover, risen from the dead, in a really good disguise.

I currently have no evidence to support that he isn't. However given the fact that I have no evidence to indicate that he is J Edgar Hoover in disguise, logically, he is probably not.

The only difference in likleyhood between these two positions (without any physical evidence) is that one requires a more complex explanation. It is therefore less likley to be true.

It would be difficult to function in a world where this rule was not true.

By the same logic - when we die, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, we are probably dead.

In fact, the argument goes further than that, because when we die, we leave behind physical evidence (a dead body) that contradicts everything we know produces life in sentient creatures (ie, a functioning body). Hence, based on our knowledge of physical reality, it can be fairly said that there is no life after death.

Whether, the Bible, the resurrection, the existence of faith itself etc., constitute evidence of an afterlife is a different matter.

[ October 07, 2003, 13:33: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Loser]

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.]

[ October 07, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: Loser ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Irony and logic abused? No, say it isn’t so! Not that I am defending anyone but my opinion is that tolerance should be used when reading anyone’s comments. A person with a PhD will see a comment different than a high school graduate. Who is better than whom? Does it matter? In a hundred years both the above people will be dead anyway.

Point being this is a “Public” forum, and “recommending” someone using a different word because it does not suit your taste is, in a nutshell just not right. I have seen many comments and words that where in my view inappropriate, but I try to ask for clarification or “suggest” the use of another word.

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?”

Now I will prepare for the usual bashing.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Hotfoot:
You don't lose at life, it just ends, like any video game ends.

Yes, everything comes to an end eventually, and while it might seem meaningless, it's only got the meaning you give it. If you feel it's meaningless, it will be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why are we here? To live, to exist, to continue. Those are our basic instincts, it's how we managed to survive evolution. Beyond that, it's our decision. That's the burden of sentience. So you have to decide if you want to make your life worth something or not.

I look at it like this. We have survived, as a civilization, for thousands of years. We strive ever forward, attempting to make our lives better, to improve things, and to learn. If I can leave behind a legacy for future generations, if I can do even the smallest something to help further that goal along, my life is worth something. If I were to die tomorrow, I'd know that I've had some impact on the world, however small it may have been.

You live for yourself, to enjoy life as much as you can. Life's too short to endlessly wallow in the bad things that happen or in despair. Contribute your skills and talents to make the world a better place, and learn. Never stop learning, and never stop teaching.

Yes and thank you. I have meet so few who see what I see.
Gratuitous bump!