The main idea of this post is a debate about the meaning and the reason of life. The only important thing in our lives is not whether god exists or what origins mankind really has but what should we, the humans do?

To start i would like to point that [even if i know that a lot of you might not agree with me] if god exists and there is no objective reason for us to live, then we are useless.

We can't trust religion by word because it brings no proof whether god exists or not. Science says that god can't exist but it's not sure because the universe as we know it might be just a particular case of a larger one.

We also can't trust our common sense because we have an built-in instict that keeps us alive even if we think that it's agains logic. And by the way: we can't trust or vision about the world because it's subjective: it depends on our genetic code, our education, our interaction with the outside.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN TRUST IS AN OBJECTIVE VALUES SYSTEM. This kind of values system can't be built unless we have the ultimate knoledge: know everything "from the beggining of time to its end", but this is impossible because btw, time and space are infinite.

Anyway, we can only relly on logic. PLEASE MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND LOGIC! Logic works around only with ideas and says whether something is absolutely true or false. Science might be wrong, and there wore cases in history in which science was wrong and was eventualy corrected.

So, let's talk about the main idea here: is there an objective reason for us to live and continue or life from this point in time?

A lot of people are putting god, if it exists, in the center of the universe, the supreme beeing. They say his power is infinite and we are actualy a part of him.

ACTUALY OUR EXISTANCE MIGHT HAVE LOGIC FOR GOD OR SOMEONE ELSE THAT MAYBE CREATED THE HUMANS (IF IT REALLY HAPPENED THIS WAY), FOR US THE HUMANS IT DOESN'T HAVE A PURPOSE. WE WANT TO LIVE BECAUSE WE ARE PROGRAMED TO DO SO. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REASON TO LIFE AT ALL OR DO ANYTHING. WHAT IS THE LOGIC TO DO SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER ENTITY WANTS SO?

You might believe that i'm wrong saying that this extreme logic should be trusted but what is the reason (objective) to do something if it's useless? If something has no objective, no final point, no reason, why should you do it? (here, i mean reason - objective reason).

For the ones that haven't understood what i meant by "objective reason" i'll explain now. WELL, AN "OBJECTIVE REASON" WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HAS LOGIC TO DO NOMATTER WHAT, THIS KIND OF REASON OF MOTIVE WOULD BE ABOVE ALL, ABOVE GOD, ABOVE HUMANS, ABOVE THE LAWS OF PHISYCS.

To detrmine whether there is an objective reason common with the will of a random picked entity we will use an algorithm called "mathematic induction". It's actualy based on logic actualy, it can be used to prove a lot of things, things that might not even have anything to do maths or science.

--------------------------

I'll give you an example in case you don't really understand what i'm talking about. If we want to test a statement we use this algorithm with two stages. Stage 1: test its easyest and the most basic form. Stage 2: consider the afirmation true for n elements and see whether it implicated the afirmation to be true for n+1 elements.

Example: 1+2+3+4+...+n=n*(n+1)/2. We will use this algorithm to test it and in the same way we'll examine the reason of life.

Stage 1: the most basic form is for n=1 >> 1 = 1*(1+1)/2 [TRUE]

*Note: if we could consider the most basic form for n=3 or 4 or... any constant value, but we would proove it for the values after that.

Stage 2: we check if the relation is good for n+1 if we consider it true for 1, 2, 3, ..., n.

we ask if 1+2+3+4+...+n+(n+1)=(n+1)*(n+2)/2

we see that 1+2+3+4+...+n=n*(n+1)/2 because we consider it true

then it results: n*(n+1)/2+(n+1)=(n+1)*(n+2)/2

if we calculate further we get: (n+1)*(n/2+1)=(n+1)*(n+2)/2

but the left side of the relation is equal to (n+1)*(n+2)/2 -- more than obvious

yes, but it was equal to 1+2+3+4+...+n+1! this means the expresion is true for any n, natural number.

I hope this example was good enough for anyone to understand the mechanism of this algorithm.

--------------------------

Our afirmation is for any entity (including humans or god) E[n] the reason for us humans to exist is subjective, not objective.

Stage 1: n=1 (for us) => E[1] is true because our will for living is based on an instinct which is not objective, i guess it's obvious.

Stage 2: we presume E[1], E[2], E[3], E[4], ..., E[n] to be all true and we check whether E[n+1] is true of false.

The difference between E[1] and E[2] and E[3] and so on until E[n] is that the entitiyes might have another forms of existance, but they are all subjective because no matter what they relly on they are still "built", even in a very abstract way, in the same way: they think with what they get from the outside medium (medium in a very abstract sense! attention!) and they interpret it in their own way. this results onyl subjective conclusions. But the entity n+1 is the same thing only in another plane, in another way (we are talking about abstract ideas here, not about something to touch or feel) but it would actualy have the "thinking material" also from it's outside so this results in having also a subjective process of thinking.

[conclusion proven] E[1], E[2], E[3], ... E[n] => E[n+1] (true)

it means there is no objective reason for us to do anything at all, not even suicide, not even take a single action. the only objective thing that we could do it's stop and black out forever, because THERE IS NO LOGIC TO DO SOMETHING THAT HAS NO LOGIC TO BE DONE! and if that thing is our own life, then the only logic thing he could do is stop.

--------------------------

And now, for the religious people i would like to give you some logical arguments against god being allmigthy and allpowerfull but in the same time being kind and good. I do this because some may say that god "in his supreme judgement" might allow us to reach this conclusion.

Well if god is allpowerfull then it means that we, the humans, the universe is god's will, it means all this is the result of his will. but in the same time we say god it's good and kind. but humans harm other people that results in doing bag things. it means that the will of god that is good is doing bag things. Contradiction!

It means that god might be allpowerfull but it's not good or god it's not allpowerfull but it's good. attention! the two concepts are incomaptile, and one of the them excludes the other (presuming that god really exists)

Another reason for god existance could be the folowing one: god by definition is allmighty, allpowerfull, he knows absolutely everthing to the infinite in space and time and potentialy other dimensions and it has the supreme inteligence. Well, if you know everything there is no reason to do anything at all if you already know what would it happen. If you know everything [in an absolute and abstract way] there is no reason to manifest yourself, you would be sufficient to yourself. It means that god does not exist or there is some version of god that it's superior to humans but the not the ultimate beeing! This means that god, as 95% of the world's population believe that exists actualy doesn't because it's not possible!

But statisticly, some version of "god" has 50% chances to exist, because there is an infinite number of posibilities with god and without god (both posibilities are infinite). But the chance that one religion is the real one is 0: it's a basic limit 1/x, when x->infinite.

------------------------------------------------------

i gave the last to arguments because i wanted to emphasize that religion is not the real issue here. the real issue is whether is was right or wrong in the way i applyed the mathematic induction algorithm. for the ones that want to blindly believe in religion and not to trust that algorithm they should think that logic is what they relly on and that logic says (and it's true) that the concepts of god, the ultimate beeing, are contradicting with each other.

Please reply, i'm curious what would you say.

BTW, please try to be objective. Don't give answers like "we have to believe in something, otherwise we would not exist" or stuff based on religion (which is subjective).

Cya

I didn't read it yet, but Beany made a thread with the same title... In fact it's still right here on page 1.

The meaning of life is to escape suffering and attain nirvana! Ooooooooooooommmmmmmmm.

[This message has been edited by Fuck (edited 09-02-2004).]

the argument "to live and reach nirvana" is 100% subjective. what did i tell you??? i said "GIVE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS"..., and reaching nirvana is a subjective argument, which is non-logical by definition because it doesn't have a motivation

i read the post "meaning of life" from the same page and the discusion is 100% away from the subject. noone gave any logical argument in that post, that's why i wanted to point this out: STOP FOOLING AROUND AND GIVE ARGUMENTS (valid ones, of course)

Ah, shaddap.

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

So, let's talk about the main idea here: is there an objective reason for us to live and continue or life from this point in time?



Consider the alternative, which would be to not exist. There is a VERY good possibility that I am missing your point, if you had one to begin with - but that is my short answer to how you worded your "main idea".

actualy the main idea was this: is there or not a reason, a meaning for our existance? i said "objective reason" and i meant objective, valid and logical arguments, not subjective ones.

that was all, the rest is just a "small" logical argumentation

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

the argument "to live and reach nirvana" is 100% subjective. what did i tell you??? i said "GIVE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS"..., and reaching nirvana is a subjective argument, which is non-logical by definition because it doesn't have a motivation

i read the post "meaning of life" from the same page and the discusion is 100% away from the subject. noone gave any logical argument in that post, that's why i wanted to point this out: STOP FOOLING AROUND AND GIVE ARGUMENTS (valid ones, of course)

The meaning of life for you is to quit talking shit.

*waves the "Beany" flag*

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

the argument "to live and reach nirvana" is 100% subjective. what did i tell you??? i said "GIVE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS"..., and reaching nirvana is a subjective argument, which is non-logical by definition because it doesn't have a motivation

i read the post "meaning of life" from the same page and the discusion is 100% away from the subject. noone gave any logical argument in that post, that's why i wanted to point this out: STOP FOOLING AROUND AND GIVE ARGUMENTS (valid ones, of course)

the problem is that you are using the word 'logic' in two distinct and conflicting ways. on the one hand, you employ the technical definition of logic, stating that

"we can only relly on logic... Logic works around only with ideas and says whether something is absolutely true or false"

but then you inadvertantly implore us to apply 'logic' to the abstract, perrennial mystery of our very own subjective existence. a dilemma for which you had just stated that no conclusive solution can be achieved:

"THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN TRUST IS AN OBJECTIVE VALUES SYSTEM. This kind of values system can't be built unless we have the ultimate knoledge: know everything "from the beggining of time to its end", but this is impossible because btw, time and space are infinite."

logic in the strict sense is a deductive means of arriving at a conclusion by examining the relationship of specific premises. for example:

premises:

1. all redheads are horny.

2. jen is a redhead.

conclusion:

jen's a nympho.

logic in the intuitive sense is the exercise of common sense, or what is commonly accepted by society as reasonable. e.g.:

all redheads are horny.

jen is a redhead...

i gotta make a phone call.

so set up the premises of your 'meaning of life' problem and see what conclusion you arrive at...

my interpretation of your premises:

1. life and our purpose is a mystery.

2. in order to solve the mystery and create an all-encompassing objective values system, the set of all knowledge and information must be accessible.

3. knowledge and information is infinite.

what i would conclude:

the purpose of life can never be known... so i might as well imagine a purpose for myself if i feel like it, or ignore the problem if i feel like that... and the rest of the time just listen to what others have to say before i laugh at their foolish righteousness or admire the breadth of their minds.

NOW, whether or not those premises are true is another matter altogether.

Your search for objective logic is flawed in that it is subjective, to your own understanding of what does and does not contradict.

The creator gave us free will, freedom is the only thing that we want, the only thing we live for. We want to make ourselves free. Isn't it obvious? We do not know freedom, yet we keep experiencing it day in and day out. We pretend we're not free buy subjugating ourselves to our culture, and become doomed to lives of quiet desparation where only resentment can build. We disregard what we truly want to do, what we resonate with; in order to fullfil our duty, what we "have" to do. We are primative as much as you think we are advanced. People don't come together because they genuinely care for each other, or because they want to express their truth to another. We come together for convenience, when we say: "I love you very much" what we really mean is: "I trade you very much." You give me emotional support, company etc, and you give me a reliable supply of poon, money, emotional support etc. It's conditional, and therefore not free. It is limited, in that the bargain must be carried out; the expectation must be fullfilled, otherwise we build resentment. We make insane choices and call ourselves civilized....HAH! what a joke.

I tell you now and till the day my body no longer serves it purpose. All we want is freedom. Don't you see, we create all this psychological baggage, that we are effectively haulting our own evolution. We do this unwittingly, simply because this is what we know. This is what was handed down; we accept we are a product of our enviroment and nothing more. I don't believe that, I believe we're free, and we are also free from all the mental constructs that we have placed in order to "insure" our security. Such as government, money, marrige, ownership. In truth these things are illusions, no one owns anything. You don't own your computer any more than I own the air.

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:



The creator gave us free will, freedom is the only thing that we want, the only thing we live for. We want to make ourselves free. Isn't it obvious? We do not know freedom, yet we keep experiencing it day in and day out. We pretend we're not free buy subjugating ourselves to our culture, and become doomed to lives of quiet desparation where only resentment can build. We disregard what we truly want to do, what we resonate with; in order to fullfil our duty, what we "have" to do. We are primative as much as you think we are advanced. People don't come together because they genuinely care for each other, or because they want to express their truth to another. We come together for convenience, when we say: "I love you very much" what we really mean is: "I trade you very much." You give me emotional support, company etc, and you give me a reliable supply of poon, money, emotional support etc. It's conditional, and therefore not free. It is limited, in that the bargain must be carried out; the expectation must be fullfilled, otherwise we build resentment.

usually i agree with the meat of your posts, but, no offense, this one's a load of shit. you're confusing ignorance of consequences with freedom... freedom is found in a more complete understanding of consequences.

are you depressed about something?

He is speaking the truth for most relatiosnhips, but this is by no means a rule, nor is it the Absolute in any sense.

But fellas, lets keep this simple. God has already spoken on this issue:

"The answer to life's mystery is simple and direct- Sex and Death!"

-Lemmy

I don't get depressed really.

I never said to agree with me, the whole point of the forum is to express individual ideas. Take what I say with a grain of salt, I don't say it because i'm angry or depressed. I say it because no one else will.

yeah, good point... i can see that.

Any healthy person has their ups and downs.

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

i read the post "meaning of life" from the same page and the discusion is 100% away from the subject. noone gave any logical argument in that post, that's why i wanted to point this out: STOP FOOLING AROUND AND GIVE ARGUMENTS (valid ones, of course)

well i don't see what mathematical proof by induction has to do with the meaning of life

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

...and you give me a reliable supply of poon...



I sure could use a reliable supply of poon...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

as i previously said: answers like "ahh, shaddap" or "quit talking shit" are useless. i don't see the point in giving such kind of answers, it's a waste of time to say something unless it has at least a real message

anyway, let's go back to the topic...

Eil made e terrible mistake because he almost said that logic is subjective! wrong! by logic i mean matemathical logic, not some mambo-jumbo. i even made a matemathical demonstratic using the matemathical induction algoritm, but whatever, some people say it's wrong by default.

Eil you're wrong because an objective values system can't be built unless you have the ultimate knowledge, but you can find out whether this type of values system can exist or not because there are 2 type of prooving that something can't exist (if it really doesn't): (1) analize the whole problem if you have all the data or (2) find a contradiction; and the second case is the only one that we might encounter.

There's another mistake in Eil's arguments: the purpose of life can be found out by some means, but it's not sure. But before you find it (if there is one) you must check whether there is a meaning of life at all.

ilbastardoh: how can my search for logic and objective arguments be subjective? i only gave logical arguments. please read my original post carefuly and tell me if you find any mistake, any wrong argument.

ilbastardoh: there's another problem, i don't understand why are you saying stuff that's obviously wrong or subjective. and the motive is that noone else sais that, i mean what's the logic in it?

cheapandugly: the matemathical induction algorithm has everything to do. the conclusion was that all entities (from humans to god, if it exists) can't be objective, but subjective. and to counteract any argument like "god is omnipresent, and allpowerfull" i gave some arguments against god's existance (some obvious contradictions)

everyone: please don't start a discution to proove that god exists or that a certain religion is the true one because i allready gave you enough logical arguments against it.

anyway, i'm still waiting for your answers... hopefully they will make sense

I barely read a post in this thread, especially the posters.

All I can say is, if you are arguing that life is pointless. Kill yourself. You say that is pointless too, but it will spare the rest of us.

I didn't read the math, and I won't even pretend to understand it, I just assumed I wouldn't thus skipped it.

But you can hardly discuss transecendental issues with math. The theory behind God or a supreme being is that he is above aforementioned mathematics. What you create mathematically means nothing to it.

[This message has been edited by aTribeCalledSean (edited 09-04-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

I barely read a post in this thread, especially the posters.



you're not missing much... except for the genius of my posts of course.

evildeathmaster666, maybe you'd get more enthusiasm from other posters if you started off with just a couple of points.

You know, like you could start a conversation and then we can all continue it, rather than you having a conversation and us left thinking "What the fuck just happened?"

aTribeCalledSean: that's not quite true, math and logic can be used to analize everything, including very abstract stuff like the concept of god. math itself is a very abstract part of science. at least read the original post and try to understand and if you don't ask and we shall answer back to you. [please don't dismiss some theory just because of your common sense]

Beany: i prefere answering back to all of you 'cause if i let you all argue with each other you'll surely miss the whole point of this post and that would be unfortunate

PLEASE ARGUE --- this is why forums exist! (but on this topic)

This threads gonna get messy I know it.



Anyway evildeathmaster. You didn't really explain your conclusion but I'd like to address this point:

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

To start i would like to point that if god exists and there is no objective reason for us to live, then we are useless.



How about the theory that the purpous of humans is so that god can experience the beauty of himself from a new perspective.

IE: We are all peices of god-consciousness, being made to forget who we are, so that we can experience the wonders of learning about the beauty of ourselves.

Or, better yet, how about your idea of God is entirely limited to the modern conception of the christian one, which is largely flawed, worthless, and contrary to many other concepts of divinity.

quote:Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

Or, better yet, how about your idea of God is entirely limited to the modern conception of the christian one, which is largely flawed, worthless, and contrary to many other concepts of divinity.

Whose mine? I didn't put forward my idea of god, I put forward an idea as to why us as humans are here.

How does it relate to the xian god?

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

as i previously said: answers like "ahh, shaddap" or "quit talking shit" are useless. i don't see the point in giving such kind of answers, it's a waste of time to say something unless it has at least a real message

Look man, your mind will be thirsty for some sort of knowledge, some sort of answer that will sound right and fit but you fail to study the nature of your own mind. It will keep thinking and analyzing, but when that's stilled you can study life as it is and learn a LOT more, and a lot faster.

Life's a mystery and there have been seekers that have said the same things as you, looking for the same answers. I think we all do. Then some of them stumbled across meditation and thought "dogma... never again will I let it cloud my mind", lucky to even learn that true wisdom doesn't come from answers, words, bookish knowledge. Truly feeling a connection to the people the world and the universe around you is a lot more "real" and is better than any bible, or dogma you can find. Your direct experience is more important.

I told you to shutup because if you could learn the beauty of inner silence then maybe you'd understand life, spirit, God and all of that a little better. You're looking with words for things that are beyond words, why?

What happens when you're in a state of mind where every single person you stare at, talk to, every word uttered reflects your thoughts at that exact moment, and it always had but you weren't aware of it. Then what is the meaning of life? It doesn't matter because you just feel connected to all life, so why search for meaning? Words lose meaning at that point, there is no word to describe it, there is just experiencing it, being, as you are in this one moment.

[This message has been edited by Fuck (edited 09-04-2004).]

quote:ilbastardoh: how can my search for logic and objective arguments be subjective? i only gave logical arguments. please read my original post carefuly and tell me if you find any mistake, any wrong argument.

ilbastardoh: there's another problem, i don't understand why are you saying stuff that's obviously wrong or subjective. and the motive is that noone else sais that, i mean what's the logic in it?

According to YOUR understanding, what you say is logical, and true there may be some consensus towards your conclusions. Yet they are still limited and henceforth subjective, due to YOUR, and OUR limited understanding.

Another thing, your concept of right and wrong is also subjective, and therefore flawed as well. Besides our logical arguments constantly get proved wrong, it's only a matter of time, that they be made subjective.

Can you honestly believe/have faith, that you see objectivity; When the only thing that you have to go on is subjective measuring devices(i.e. our sensory input)? Our senses are constantly fooled wether it be drugs or optical illusions. So how can you possibly be objective while occupying a body?

I guess you're too logical to have a sense of humor. Enjoy.

quote:Originally posted by Fuck:

Look man, your mind will be thirsty for some sort of knowledge, some sort of answer that will sound right and fit but you fail to study the nature of your own mind. It will keep thinking and analyzing, but when that's stilled you can study life as it is and learn a LOT more, and a lot faster.

Life's a mystery and there have been seekers that have said the same things as you, looking for the same answers. I think we all do. Then some of them stumbled across meditation and thought "dogma... never again will I let it cloud my mind", lucky to even learn that true wisdom doesn't come from answers, words, bookish knowledge. Truly feeling a connection to the people the world and the universe around you is a lot more "real" and is better than any bible, or dogma you can find. Your direct experience is more important.

I told you to shutup because if you could learn the beauty of inner silence then maybe you'd understand life, spirit, God and all of that a little better. You're looking with words for things that are beyond words, why?

What happens when you're in a state of mind where every single person you stare at, talk to, every word uttered reflects your thoughts at that exact moment, and it always had but you weren't aware of it. Then what is the meaning of life? It doesn't matter because you just feel connected to all life, so why search for meaning? Words lose meaning at that point, there is no word to describe it, there is just experiencing it, being, as you are in this one moment.



I'm so glad you exist.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

you're not missing much... except for the genius of my posts of course.

And this post only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can tell Eil he is wrong as much as you'd like, but even if he is, he will never admit to it.

He is far too self-important to really comprehend what anyone else is saying. (he just doesn't want to)

And though this post seem like a pointed jab (no pun intended) at him personally, I assure you all that it is not. This is how he has portrayed himself...I am merely stating the obvious more blatantly.

Go ahead and prove him wrong...it won't matter to him in the slightest. He will always be right, to himself.

(I am sure this specific post of his was an attempt at dry humor, however it is a perfect illustration of his actual mindset.)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-05-2004).]

Once and for all, the meaning of life seems to be: FIND THE MEANING OF LIFE.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

you can tell me your wrong till you're blue in the face... prove it. where was i wrong.

let's see, evildeathmaster said i was wrong because i almost said logic was subjective... i didn't respond to that 'rebuttal.' maybe that's what you're focused on... well, fine, here...

i never said logic was subjective. i was pointing out that evildeathmaster's first post was full of contradictions. he was using the word logic in two ways initially - one, the technical definition of deductive reasoning, and two, the colloquial understanding of 'common sense.'

he had already stated that logic could not create an objective values system to outline the purpose of our lives, and then he implores us to try the impossible. why? for his own amusement?

i've said my share of really stupid things on totse... but you know, as far as i can remember, you have never admitted any fallibility whatsoever, under the pretense that your beautiful faith is flawless because it is correct where all others are not.

and btw, that wasn't dry humor.

In this instance I am not saying whether you are, or not. I am pointing out the fact that he is wasting his time telling you that you ARE, because it won't matter to you either way, even if he can PROVE it.

So, you just wasted your time explaining yourself to me, because you are focusing on the subject I was referring to, and not my actual opinion of you, based on how you have behaved on Totse.

Obviously, you haven't been around much lately, because I have been wrong on several occasions. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) I don't claim to know everything about the Bible or creation, so how could I always have the answers, or even be 100% correct ?

To say I know all would make me a fool.

I have been known to say, "You're right." here on Totse. I guess you missed it. How convenient.

I have a tendency to find the answers, if I don't know them. I wish this was practiced by more people here...if that makes me a "know-it-all", then so be it. I'm not going to give opinions without substance.

But thanks for proving my point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And this post only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can tell Eil he is wrong as much as you'd like, but even if he is, he will never admit to it.

He is far too self-important to really comprehend what anyone else is saying. (he just doesn't want to)

And though this post seem like a pointed jab (no pun intended) at him personally, I assure you all that it is not. This is how he has portrayed himself...I am merely stating the obvious more blatantly.

Go ahead and prove him wrong...it won't matter to him in the slightest. He will always be right, to himself.

(I am sure this specific post of his was an attempt at dry humor, however it is a perfect illustration of his actual mindset.)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-05-2004).]

you can tell me your wrong till you're blue in the face... prove it. where was i wrong.

let's see, evildeathmaster said i was wrong because i almost said logic was subjective... i didn't respond to that 'rebuttal.' maybe that's what you're focused on... well, fine, here...

i never said logic was subjective. i was pointing out that evildeathmaster's first post was full of contradictions. he was using the word logic in two ways initially - one, the technical definition of deductive reasoning, and two, the colloquial understanding of 'common sense.'

he had already stated that logic could not create an objective values system to outline the purpose of our lives, and then he implores us to try the impossible. why? for his own amusement?

i've said my share of really stupid things on totse... but you know, as far as i can remember, you have never admitted any fallibility whatsoever, under the pretense that your beautiful faith is flawless because it is correct where all others are not. shit, you're so brainwashed with ridiculous dogma that you can't even own your own anger. you claim that wasn't a personal attack, yet it very obviously and blatantly was. if something is 'blatant and obvious', there's no need to be redundant. or wait, hold on... is that how brainwashing works?

and btw, that wasn't dry humor.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 09-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

In this instance I am not saying whether you are, or not. I am pointing out the fact that he is wasting his time telling you that you ARE, because it won't matter to you either way, even if he can PROVE it.

So, you just wasted your time explaining yourself to me, because you are focusing on the subject I was referring to, and not my actual opinion of you, based on how you have behaved on Totse.

But thanks for proving my point.

did he prove me wrong? no. did you come up with any examples of me being wrong? no. did you come up with any examples of me refusing to acknowledge my wrongs? no. therefore, your opinion is unfounded in my eyes, and i couldn't care less to address it.

You didn't read my post very carefully.

I wasn't saying you were wrong in this case.

I was saying that whether you are wrong or not, and whether it is proved or not, matters not.

From your persepctive, you are never wrong.

And admitting to saying stupid things NOW does not erase your complete arrogance (and lack of humility) in all your other posts prior to this one.

It was just an observation...

(damnit, I said I was going to bed !!! Ack..quit it ! *lol*)

you weren't saying that i was wrong? <deep breath> AND I QUOTE:

And this post only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can tell Eil he is wrong as much as you'd like, but even if he is, he will never admit to it. - digital savior

well what the hell does that mean then???? if you are not saying that i am wrong, then your post is pure nonsense.

as far as not expressing humility 'in all prior posts', that's such a bullshit blanket statement. it's well known in psychology that passive aggressives will use absolutes like 'always' and 'never' when engaged in argument. i admit i did that too, but at least i framed it from my perspective. listen carefully - it's simply not true. i have admitted when i'm wrong... perhaps not often, but why on earth should i feign humility whenever some shithead accuses me of being wrong and provides no adequate refutation? have you not noticed how many people on totse are incapable of expressing their ideas clearly? just because i call it how i see it does not mean i'm a close-minded asshole, it means i own my words. and yes, i am arrogant, but it's not out of check.

and not completely unwarranted. are you willing to admit arrogance?

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 09-05-2004).]

Take it outside fellas.

Beany: "How about the theory that the purpous of humans is so that god can experience the beauty of himself from a new perspective." >> well it's a theory but nothing more, or it's what you believe, but it doesn't mean is true or false as you have no argument to support it or against it.

Fuck: that was quite interesting, to shut up and experience my inner silence... but the other thing that there's no point in searching the meaning of life but to experience it it's just a subjective idea and a personal belief

ilbastardoh: i'm not saying that something is logical because i like that idea or just because my mind likes it... that's not true. MY ARGUMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER THAT THE WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE!!! I agree that science and everything has been developed by observation (at least at its beggining) but that's not the case anymore. Originaly mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology started as an observation method, people saw some phenomenon over and over and then considered it a law of nature. But nowodays it's the case anymore: all the descoveryes in modern science are made through mathematics and theories that are based on arguments, but those arguments are not the old observations of the ancients because the "basic laws of nature" are explained with theoretical and mathematical arguments. I hope i was clear enough and that noone will say that i'm subjective because what i consider logical is logical only in my mind. I'm not saying that i'm never wrong because i am wrong many many times but i correct my mistakes, as science does.

Digital_Savior: "He is far too self-important to really comprehend what anyone else is saying. (he just doesn't want to)" >> as i replyed to ilbastardoh, i don't reject some of your arguments just because i want to. I reject them because they are subjective and they contradict logic. Of course, if i'm wrong then i will reconsider the entire theory, but until some strong arguments against it are brought to light i see no reason to do it. || "Go ahead and prove him wrong...it won't matter to him in the slightest. He will always be right, to himself." >> prove me wrong, but give me logical arguments, as i said.

Digital_Savior: the meaning of life as aparently might seem to find out the true meaning of lie, that's a contradiction, because there's no reason to search something that you already know. Anyway, seeking the meaning of life is the only LOGICAL step that we could do. I agree that we might never find it, but first we should find out whether there really is a meaning of life and then try to seek it.

Eil: "he had already stated that logic could not create an objective values system to outline the purpose of our lives, and then he implores us to try the impossible. why? for his own amusement?" >> i guess you took it all wrong. i mean there are two posibilities: i worded my ideas not quite well or you just understood something else. of course logic can't create a values system because logic only analizes ideas and tells whether they are true or false based only on true arguments. i never said it's impossible to build an objective values system, or at least i never meant to. but first i said something completely different: before trying to build it, no matter how, find out if it can exist (you can't just define a function f(x)=ln(-|x|)... until you check whether it can exist or not because in this case f(x) can't exist in R because -|x|<0 for any x => the argument of the logarithm will always be negative or 0 but then it goes to minus infinite >> don't take this argument in a wrong way, it was just an extrapolation of our problem. it was an indirect argument for my statement that you must first find out whether something can or can not exist before seeking it).

Digital_Savior & Eil: maybe it doesn't matter if you're wrong or not, but it certainly matters for me if i find out (by myself or not) that i'm wrong. i don't know what you would do, but i would reconsider everything >> i only said that it's unlikely to be wrong because i used ONLY logical arguments, but i can still be wrong.

Beany is right fellows, don't attack each other... attack me, please! that's why i posted this topic on the totse forum after all... ATTACK ME!!! (and my arguments)

* if there's anyone that did not understood my original arguments untill now please tell me and will explain them all over again. I ADMIT THAT MY ORIGINAL POST WAS A LITTLE STRANGE, AND NOT TOO EASY TO COMPREHEND, BUT I'LL EXPLAIN EVERY POINT FROM IT AGAIN IF YOU WANT TO (i guess this is what i'm gonna do next because the discution deviated a little and it's all about beeing subjective or objective, not about the meaning of life)

[This message has been edited by evildeathmaster666 (edited 09-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

Beany: "How about the theory that the purpous of humans is so that god can experience the beauty of himself from a new perspective." >> well it's a theory but nothing more, or it's what you believe, but it doesn't mean is true or false as you have no argument to support it or against it.



You're right, but until you prove this plausable theory wrong, then this claim: "To start i would like to point that if god exists and there is no objective reason for us to live, then we are useless.", is also a theory and nothing more, therefore you can't really use it to backup anything else you say.

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

Beany is right fellows, don't attack each other... attack me, please! that's why i posted this topic on the totse forum after all... ATTACK ME!!! (and my arguments)



Somehow I feel that debating with you wouldn't produce anything productive at all.

Beany: you commented my original statement "To start i would like to point that if god exists and there is no objective reason for us to live, then we are useless.".

i think you did not understood what i really wanted to say... well here it goes: the idea was that the meaning of life has nothing to do with god. Why? Well, that's very simple: presuming that god exists i gave logical arguments, at the end of the original post, that god as most people believe can't exist, this mean that a potential "god" which is not the universe itself could have a use for us the humans, but that doesn't mean that we should do whatever he wants because there is no logic to do it! It's extreme logic, i know but it's supported by logical arguments.

I hope you'll find the anti-god arguments in my original post, if you can't or you find them not convincing then i'll give you some more. But on the other hand, i would really like you to give me some pro-god logical arguments (if there really are some) --- attention! the cause-effect principle is not good... wanna be sure? read quantum physics, general relativity and super-string theoryes... they all link togheter and are self sustained mathematical arguments against the cause-efect principle, which is a principle, an axiome, not a proven theory!

debating me could be potentialy productive, just jump with the arguments

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

debating me could be potentialy productive, just jump with the arguments

Okay, I'll give your first post a good read but not just yet (I'm about to meditate). I have a pro-god argument that you might like.

I just hope you're not here to rejuvinate your feelings of being a superior intelligence or anything like that. Coz you get many of them in here, and a tell tale sign is the use of overcomplicated wording.

As Alanis Morrisette once said in a song: Intelligence does not equate wisdom. In other words you can be fantastic when it comes to arguing and throwing around big words or complicated equations, but it doesn't mean what you're saying is of any value.

however, syntax is usually a pretty good indicator of both, and that's my main problem with your posts, evildeathmaster... while you advance some interesting ideas, they may not be as original as you assume, and it's happened twice in this single thread that i could not grasp the meaning until you clarified a second time. wisdom is nothing if not the efficiency of thought selection and expression.

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

Fuck: that was quite interesting, to shut up and experience my inner silence... but the other thing that there's no point in searching the meaning of life but to experience it it's just a subjective idea and a personal belief

Eh whatever you say man. You want to debate, I don't waste much time with that. Life's too pretty to play with words all day.

[This message has been edited by Fuck (edited 09-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

however, syntax is usually a pretty good indicator of both, and that's my main problem with your posts, evildeathmaster... while you advance some interesting ideas, they may not be as original as you assume, and it's happened twice in this single thread that i could not grasp the meaning until you clarified a second time. wisdom is nothing if not the efficiency of thought selection and expression.

Nice

Beany: i'm waiting the pro-god argument..., this discussion became quite interesting after all! Don't worry i'm not posting on this forum just to prove myself that i'm a smartass..., if i wanted that i could have done something else like looking in the mirror and saying "you're smart!"..., that's really not the case!

Beany & Eil: i know that the way i worded my ideas was not quite briliant, but i'm doing my best, as english is not my native language and expresing very abstract ideas can be a difficult task even when you do it in your native language.

IMO debates PWN all other social interactions. As for where I stand on this,

*backs away slowly in the hopes of not being seen*

i just hope this topic will not die too soon... let's keep it alive

Ach, I need the enthusiasm to post my arguments. But to be honest, it's not really a conclusive argument.

There us no real way to prove or disprove gods existence to anyone. You can only find out the answers first hand, by searching inside yourself. The thing about life is that you can never prove that anything really exists. Anything can be an illusion, and it's said that everything is (Material anyway). The only thing that you can know for sure truly exists is your own consciousness, and this is why it's the perfect place to search for answers. By meditating on yourself, stripping away the foolish beliefs you have about yourself until what you have left is a pure untarnished consciousness. And with this state of mind, whose purity is unaffected by any influences, you can see for yourself what is true and what is not.

If you've taken drugs before you'll know how your conscious states can be altered. Well the effects of drugs are only glimpses of what can be acheived naturally through meditative means.

I don't know for sure if God exists or not, but what I do know is that there are states of consciousness that can be acheived that can only be described as "Heaven", and likewise states that can be described as "hell".

Beany: yeah, you're perfectly right... we don't know exactly whether we are going to heaven or to hell after we die, we dont' know if god exist or if there's a meaning to all this. the whole point would be to start looking if there really is a meaning of life. i actually don't agree with you, i don't see how meditation and going deep in our councionsness would give us the answer we want... if there really is a meaning of life. i guess the only way to conclude that there is or not a meaning of life is using logic and mathematics because those are the only things that we can be sure that are 100% objective

* i think this thread is allmost dead... i really consider closing it if people are not interested anymore

this universe is a fractal image. you can zoom in or out to any level and only find infinitely more complexity. the meaning of life is like this, also infinite, and therefore, subjective. individual animals and human beings are physical manifestations of the variety of different meanings life can take.

there is no objective reality without recognizing subjective reality, as there is no subjective reality without the perception of external events. the inside and the outside are inseparable, and therefore, one and the same. contemplating this to its extent leads to the one true, initial, perrennial, and ultimate realization of the mind -- that it is all nothing... an ephemeral, fleeting paradox.

"Our bodies are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where there is nothing is the meaning of the phrase, 'Form is emptiness.' That all things are provided for by nothingness is the meaning of the phrase, 'Emptiness is form.' One should not think that these are two separate things."

- from the 2nd chapter of the Hagakure

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:

i actually don't agree with you, i don't see how meditation and going deep in our councionsness would give us the answer we want...

Heh, why not give it a try and find out?

the meaning of life is to survive, its pretty obvious it was the purpose of our distant ancestors, the single-celled organisms and the like.

their goal is to make their species survive, by eating and reproducing.

not much different from us but yeh

jamez: the will to survive it's actualy in instinct that has nothing to do with the "meaning of life" (if there is one). it's not obvious at all! if there is a meaning of life and it is surviving then it's just a lucky guess but actualy the instict of self-preserving is written in our genetic code and our entire contiosness is built with this in its "core".

Fuck: many people said, including myself, that our senses are very subjective... this means that we feel is not good at all, especialy at finding our inner self and the meaning of life!!!!!!

Eil: the universe is not fractal image! it seems to be that but actualy it's not. if you "zoom" far beyond the quantum level what do you find??? NOTHING! btw, you can't use the complexity of something to prove that there is a meaning of that thing!!!! let me give you an example: let's say you have a glass on the table and you touch it by mistake and you move it 2 inches. does this action actualy have a meaning just because it's very complex? NO! the action is very complex indeed, because in order to touch it (even by mistake) a lot of stuff is happening in your body (starting the the nervous impluses and ending up with muscles contraction). this example proves that complex things don't prove that they have a meaning, so... you were wrong!

Eil: "Our bodies are given life from the midst of nothingness" >> i don't know who said that but he is obviously wrong! our bodies are not "given life from the midst of nothingness", because this would mean to appear from nothing (create matter or energy from nothing) and this violates the second law of termodinamics!

Eil: you're right! there is no subjective reality without the perception of external events. and you're also right when you sid that "the inside and the outside are inseparable", but the conclusion is not valid. the subjective reality depends on the outside world but this doesn't mean that it's equivalent to the objective reality

Eil: "ultimate realization of the mind -- that it is all nothing" >> this could be true, everything could be useless and nothingness but only if there is no objective meaning of life

quote:Originally posted by evildeathmaster666:



Eil: the universe is not fractal image! it seems to be that but actualy it's not. if you "zoom" far beyond the quantum level what do you find??? NOTHING!

there was a fly flapping against my kitchen window today. i think it was trying to get out...

then again, maybe it was just moving in the direction of sunlight. i suppose i'll never know.

well, unless i get my neural transmogrifier to work, of course. then i could actually see from inside the mind of flies banging against windows.

is there nothing else to add to this topic???

The meaning of life is...

Yes?...

is...

Yes!?...

...42.



I know this doesn't add to the topic but I couldn't resist.

the meaning of life is to live life to its fullest. for many this means religious beliefs. for some it may mean drugs. for others it may mean helping to save the whales. but whatever your path you have to remember to live your life how you want and die with no regrets.