What is the purpose/meaning of life?

[Blackmarch]

Why is there life on earth and human consciousness? Is there an answer and if not does it matter? What if there is no purpose? We are all still here and nothing changes.

I bring this up because I am currently embroiled in such a debate on another forum and thought it would be interesting here as well. The variety of responses should at least be more here than there if nothing else.

2 parts one, to gain a physical body, which for some reason is needed to be able to experience full joy, 2) to be tested, to see how well or willing we are to be obedient to God.

 

[Azna]

Why is there life on earth and human consciousness? Is there an answer and if not does it matter? What if there is no purpose? We are all still here and nothing changes.

Life is intended as a school for the soul where each of us plans out the lessons we need in order to become a better person. In addition, the world is a place for God to experience all knowledge firsthand. Each person makes a contract with God to experience certain facets of life, as though we are the reporters and God, the Editor. This way a person gains perfection for their soul, and God gains the direct experience of that knowledge.

You may wonder, 'If life is for learning, why is it so hard at times?' Simply put, through adversity we can test the strength of our soul. The pain of life allows us to really know what it means to be a good and spiritual person.

 

[Spinrad]

Why is there life on earth and human consciousness? Is there an answer and if not does it matter? What if there is no purpose? We are all still here and nothing changes.

I bring this up because I am currently embroiled in such a debate on another forum and thought it would be interesting here as well. The variety of responses should at least be more here than there if nothing else.

I would say there is no purpose as such. We live for the same reason grasshoppers live. We just to think about it more.

 

[elman]

I would say there is no purpose as such. We live for the same reason grasshoppers live. We just to think about it more.

I think that is the obvious conclusion of an athiest. It seems to me to be very sad that one has no more reason to be alive than a grasshopper or insect.

 

[Spinrad]

I think that is the obvious conclusion of an athiest. It seems to me to be very sad that one has no more reason to be alive than a grasshopper or insect.

Have you ever been an insect? Me either, but they seem to spend a great deal of time trying not to die. Life, although entirely meaningless to them, certainly seems worth living. The fact that we can ask ourselves what value our lives have and come up with a neutral answer intellectually doesn't mean we want to die any more than an insect. Meaning is not al that important to me. I leave meaning behind instead of grope for it. But whether it's sad or not has no bearing on the accuracy of my views.

 

[elman]

Have you ever been an insect? Me either, but they seem to spend a great deal of time trying not to die. Life, although entirely meaningless to them, certainly seems worth living. The fact that we can ask ourselves what value our lives have and come up with a neutral answer intellectually doesn't mean we want to die any more than an insect. Meaning is not al that important to me. I leave meaning behind instead of grope for it. But whether it's sad or not has no bearing on the accuracy of my views.

While it is true the sadness of lack of meaning has no bearing on the accuracy of your views, it is also true that neither of us knows which of our views are the more accurate. It is also sad, if true, that if one has purpose, but did not find it, because one believed there was no purpose and thus did not look for a purpose; that this saddness of lack of purpose was unnecessary.

 

[Spinrad]

While it is true the sadness of lack of meaning has no bearing on the accuracy of your views, it is also true that neither of us knows which of our views are the more accurate. It is also sad, if true, that if one has purpose, but did not find it, because one believed there was no purpose and thus did not look for a purpose; that this saddness of lack of purpose was unnecessary.

But that sadness pales compared to the sadness that, if there IS meaning out there it is so well hidden that a bright fellow like me couldn't find it. That implies the sadness that whoever created that meaning didn't want it to be found by some people, and THAT is not simply sad, it's scary.

You kind of pick and choose your sadness, I think.

 

[elman]

But that sadness pales compared to the sadness that, if there IS meaning out there it is so well hidden that a bright fellow like me couldn't find it. That implies the sadness that whoever created that meaning didn't want it to be found by some people, and THAT is not simply sad, it's scary.

You kind of pick and choose your sadness, I think.

Who said you could not find it if you look for it? Not me. It is only if you assume you are too intelligent to look for it because you alreay know there is no purpose that you cannot find it. I agree we pick and chose what makes us happy and what makes us sad, and most of the time it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Spinrad]

Too intelligent to look for it. OK.

I guess we are done.

 

[elman]

Too intelligent to look for it. OK.

I guess we are done.

None of us are very intelligent. Thinking we are is not being intelligent.

 

[Randall McNally]

None of us are very intelligent. Thinking we are is not being intelligent.

So as soon as we realize we're not intelligent, we become intelligent?

Something isn't right there.

 

[elman]

So as soon as we realize we're not intelligent, we become intelligent?

Something isn't right there.

I did not say that. What I did say was that thinking we are intelligent is not intelligent. I guess it is sort of like Socates said that he was indeed smarter than the rest, because he knew he was not smart but they did not know they were not smart or something along that line.

 

[lawtonfogle]

what you are saying about inteligence, needs some set standard. There must be at least on intelligent person out there for there to be any non-inteligent people. Vice versa also. Since each must relly on the other, they can both be removed without no adverse adfect. So does inteligence and uninteligence actually exist, or is it made up when needed.

All i ask is for you to show me someone uninteligent without showing me some who is inteligent.

 

[Randall McNally]

I did not say that. What I did say was that thinking we are intelligent is not intelligent. I guess it is sort of like Socates said that he was indeed smarter than the rest, because he knew he was not smart but they did not know they were not smart or something along that line.

That's fair. I read your post wrong.

So what are we not-intelligent in comparison to? A metaphysical standard?

 

[Aceman1992]

sorry...i have to say it! i have to say it!
42.

Great! Now what was the question?

ok: more seriously.

I dont think there is a meaning. I think we simply look for meaning as we would go insane just thinking about it. I think the universe "just is".

This doesnt depress me - i just wanna live a happy life (have kids and all) .

Most people do. That's where we get into discussions about good vs. evil. Avoiding evil leads to a happy life. To avoid evil means to know what is good. The best source for knowing what is good is the Bible. My proof of this statement is - if an atheist followed how to be "good" as described in the Bible (removing any aspects that required believing in God), I would guarantee they would be happy (it's proven every day). I know of no other book or person that can guarantee happiness. So, if the Bible is the best source for how to be happy, then the author has found the "key" and must be more knowledgeable than anyone else. Since the author is God...

 

[Randall McNally]

Most people do. That's where we get into discussions about good vs. evil. Avoiding evil leads to a happy life. To avoid evil means to know what is good. The best source for knowing what is good is the Bible. My proof of this statement is - if an atheist followed how to be "good" as described in the Bible (removing any aspects that required believing in God), I would guarantee they would be happy (it's proven every day). I know of no other book or person that can guarantee happiness. So, if the Bible is the best source for how to be happy, then the author has found the "key" and must be more knowledgeable than anyone else. Since the author is God...

Well that is just circular as all heck. If someone is not happy, it's because he's not following the Bible. But the only way to know if one is following the Bible is to be happy.

 

[Azna]

Well that is just circular as all heck. If someone is not happy, it's because he's not following the Bible. But the only way to know if one is following the Bible is to be happy.

That doesn't seem to be what they meant. But...whatever.

Being happy is not the purpose or meaning of life, nor is it that of the Bible. Happiness is just an emotion. No more important or meaningful than any other emotion that every human being is born with.

The meaning and purpose of life is personal. It's different for everyone. There is no pat, one size fits all answer to this threads question.

 

[Azna]

42.

My sister is 42. Ergo...the meaning of life is my sister? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Illuminatus]

what you are saying about inteligence, needs some set standard. There must be at least on intelligent person out there for there to be any non-inteligent people. Vice versa also.

Not necessarily. It depends on your definition of intelligent. We could define intelligent as having an IQ of 200. If there is no one with an IQ of 200, there are no intelligent people.

 

[roseglass6370]

I think that perhaps God created us because He wanted to share. I think He wanted to share His love and see us happy. I think we are here to please God, to worship God, and to live fulfilling and happy lives. He created us and He loves us.