Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Violet]

Ah, but Ecolox... how do we exist? We cannot know if this is the original 'reality', or if we are a simple computer program We exist, but we do not have any evidence for how this is so, therefore having absolute certainty without any evidence would be unreasonable

What caused existence? None of us knows... but the original universe is both natural and cyclic.

Do you always need a motivator to help someone?

[Rhizomorph13]

Ecolox,

You are the only entity in this reality and I am just a figment of your imagination. I would go on but Sae beat me to the punch. Oh, she isn't real either, she told me that herself.

Rhizo

[ecolox]

Ah, but Ecolox... how do we exist?

By something else. Not long ago my mother bore me, and before that she was bore by her mother...and on back for a very long time.

We cannot know if this is the original 'reality', or if we are a simple computer program

You aren't sure if the universe has existed for eternity or if it was created. If you believe the universe is eternal, then you must believe that you will happen again?

We exist, but we do not have any evidence for how this is so, therefore having absolute certainty without any evidence would be unreasonable

Most just claim to have faith.

What caused existence? None of us knows... but the original universe is both natural and cyclic.

None know, some live according to their best guess. If the "original universe" is eternally cyclic, then I suppose you will keep occurring forever. So why should you worry about living according to any sort of standard?

Do you always need a motivator to help someone?

Yes. Why help someone who doesn't need help?

---

Ecolox,

You are the only entity in this reality and I am just a figment of your imagination. I would go on but Sae beat me to the punch. Oh, she isn't real either, she told me that herself.

Rhizo

I have considered that, but I think you're real and very much out of my control.

[Minimalist]

but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important top

Seems that they (and I) are not willing to accept ancient superstition in lieu of evidence, either. Perhaps even the notion that life has to have a "purpose" is merely a reflection of humanity's overinflated view of itself?

[Violet]

---

The problem with your attempts at explaining life... is that you attach a purpose to that life, a greater meaning to existence. But no matter what purpose or lack of one: life does not disbecome itself.

Attaching a purpose to life is not a problem, it's only rational to believe that this universe exists for a reason. Atheists, generally, do not attempt to explain this existence (Dawkins said we should disregard the question) - that is a problem, it's irrational.

Example:
You made a fire... you made it to cook food. If you had made it to get warm... is it any less a fire? If the fire was made by complete accident... is it any less a fire? No and no.

One's purpose does not describe their existence... it describes what they do (or are supposed to do) with their existence... but it matters to existence not at all.

Fire always has a purpose - it burns stuff. It doesn't matter if you attach a purpose to the fire or not - the fire will always do its thing while it exists. Your assumption is that things can exist without reason, but that doesn't make any sense.

---

That is what a fire does... but it is not the fire's purpose. I am me, and I breath... but is breathing my purpose? A purpose is the reason something was made. In example, I might have painted a sign with 'Beware the Dragon' written on it. The sign is nothing beyond itself, but i designed it for a reason (in this case for people to do a double take at the sign, though i might have designed it specifically to warn about the dragon). Does the sign exist even if it was painted by a spilled can of paint? Of course. Something needs no purpose to exist. A reason for something's existence is not a mandatory prerequisite for existence

And you are right: stating that life must have a purpose is ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than demanding that anything else need a purpose to exist

[ecolox]

but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important top

Seems that they (and I) are not willing to accept ancient superstition in lieu of evidence, either. Perhaps even the notion that life has to have a "purpose" is merely a reflection of humanity's overinflated view of itself?

How is it egotistical to think things happen for a reason? Do you reject science as egotistical too?

---

That is what a fire does... but it is not the fire's purpose. ... Something needs no purpose to exist. A reason for something's existence is not a mandatory prerequisite for existence.

Let me know if I get off track:
If you don't believe that we exist for a reason, then you must believe we weren't created. If the universe wasn't created, then do you think it has existed forever - and will cyclically exist forever? You must then think you will exist in the future, over and over forever. Why/How would you consider this life special then? Why would you believe in living according to standards (morals)?

[Violet]

---

Ah, but Ecolox... how do we exist?

By something else. Not long ago my mother bore me, and before that she was bore by her mother...and on back for a very long time.

We cannot know if this is the original 'reality', or if we are a simple computer program

You aren't sure if the universe has existed for eternity or if it was created. If you believe the universe is eternal, then you must believe that you will happen again?

We exist, but we do not have any evidence for how this is so, therefore having absolute certainty without any evidence would be unreasonable

Most just claim to have faith.

What caused existence? None of us knows... but the original universe is both natural and cyclic.

None know, some live according to their best guess. If the "original universe" is eternally cyclic, then I suppose you will keep occurring forever. So why should you worry about living according to any sort of standard?

Do you always need a motivator to help someone?

Yes. Why help someone who doesn't need help?

---

Ecolox,

You are the only entity in this reality and I am just a figment of your imagination. I would go on but Sae beat me to the punch. Oh, she isn't real either, she told me that herself.

Rhizo

I have considered that, but I think you're real and very much out of my control.

---

Oh, must something have come from another to exist? Then everything must be cyclic

THIS universe might have been created by strange space monkeys... but the original universe is in a constant cycle. Without energy transferring in form: the universe would be linear, and would cease to exist at some point (or more likely: it would exist like an image captured with a camera)

More just claim to have faith? To assume absolute correctness? That is what faith is. Those who have faith (like your 'good' Christian self) are arrogant in that they will not accept logic. Logic dictates that faith is illogical, and you (theistical proponent of irrational faith) think that the non-theistical claim to have irrational faith? You don't mind if such a statement gets turned upon you, do you?

Well, under quantum theory: anything that can happen, will happen an infinite amount of times. Why live according to a standard of fairness? Because to not do so would be illogical. Why? Because to consider 1 ≠ 1 would be illogical. Why? Because that is the root of all logic. Why? Because existence itself is impossible if this is false. Why? Because the universe would disintegrate to nothingness (therefore righting the inequality, 0 = 0), or the universe would expand till it created a singularity (which then rights itself by becoming a universe where 1 = 1). This is the basis of existence, and everything that describes existence must be built atop existence itself.

Why help someone who doesn't need it? Well, that person who just dropped their books can clearly pick them up... but why shouldn't I help them do so? If all of us were so selfish as to not lend a helping hand just because someone doesn't need it... then ours would be a very drab, unfriendly, and terrible world indeed. Luckily, not all of us need to see a reward behind helping someone, and not all of us require the person to need help before we give it

---

---

but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important top

Seems that they (and I) are not willing to accept ancient superstition in lieu of evidence, either. Perhaps even the notion that life has to have a "purpose" is merely a reflection of humanity's overinflated view of itself?

How is it egotistical to think things happen for a reason? Do you reject science as egotistical too?

---

That is what a fire does... but it is not the fire's purpose. ... Something needs no purpose to exist. A reason for something's existence is not a mandatory prerequisite for existence.

Let me know if I get off track:
If you don't believe that we exist for a reason, then you must believe we weren't created. If the universe wasn't created, then do you think it has existed forever - and will cyclically exist forever? You must then think you will exist in the future, over and over forever. Why/How would you consider this life special then? Why would you believe in living according to standards (morals)?

---

I do not believe we were created, though even if we were: the reason behind our creation would not matter at all in our existence

My life is special, because I will never experience life again. The other 'me's that would occur in either past, or in future universes: are not me. They may be just like me... but they are not me. Do not perfect clones have an individual existence?

I live only according to what I think is right... and it makes me a tad eccentric when compared to those who do only what others think is right

[ecolox]

Oh, must something have come from another to exist? Then everything must be cyclic

You'll need to revise, so that I can follow your logic.

THIS universe might have been created by strange space monkeys... but the original universe is in a constant cycle. Without energy transferring in form: the universe would be linear, and would cease to exist at some point (or more likely: it would exist like an image captured with a camera)

For example: What evidence do you have for the "original universe", where did it come from, etc? Do you expect people to take that idea more seriously than you take the idea of God?

More just claim to have faith? To assume absolute correctness? That is what faith is. Those who have faith (like your 'good' Christian self) are arrogant in that they will not accept logic. Logic dictates that faith is illogical, and you (theistical proponent of irrational faith) think that the non-theistical claim to have irrational faith? You don't mind if such a statement gets turned upon you, do you?

True, faith is to assume correctness - enough to die for ideally. Faithful people accept logic (I can use math, language, etc)...logic/rationality does not dictate that faith is illogical (e.g. is it illogical to faithfully believe my mother birthed me?).

Well, under quantum theory: anything that can happen, will happen an infinite amount of times. Why live according to a standard of fairness? Because to not do so would be illogical. Why? Because to consider 1 ≠ 1 would be illogical. Why? Because that is the root of all logic. Why? Because existence itself is impossible if this is false. Why? Because the universe would disintegrate to nothingness (therefore righting the inequality, 0 = 0), or the universe would expand till it created a singularity (which then rights itself by becoming a universe where 1 = 1). This is the basis of existence, and everything that describes existence must be built atop existence itself.

This is a non-sequitur. Are you now claiming that our purpose in life is to be logical?

Why help someone who doesn't need it? Well, that person who just dropped their books can clearly pick them up... but why shouldn't I help them do so? If all of us were so selfish as to not lend a helping hand just because someone doesn't need it... then ours would be a very drab, unfriendly, and terrible world indeed. Luckily, not all of us need to see a reward behind helping someone, and not all of us require the person to need help before we give it.

Here's a strawman. People need love in my view. In fact, because I have faith in Jesus, I should be able to die for other people, like he did.

I do not believe we were created, though even if we were: the reason behind our creation would not matter at all in our existence.

Why do you think that?

My life is special, because I will never experience life again. The other 'me's that would occur in either past, or in future universes: are not me. They may be just like me... but they are not me. Do not perfect clones have an individual existence?

I guess you will think that every time you exist. Perfect clones have different circumstances from each other, if they exist.

I live only according to what I think is right... and it makes me a tad eccentric when compared to those who do only what others think is right

I'm a "people-pleaser" (which explains why I disagree with you and your conception of right), or was I not included in your comment?

[Minimalist]

How is it egotistical to think things happen for a reason?

Because it is superstitious nonsense which has not a scintilla of evidence to back it up. When we ask "what is your 'reason' all we ever get is "god" said so.

Do you reject science as egotistical too?

Science is a process. It is not egotistical. Or vain. Or jealous. Or Angry. Or pissed off. Scientists OTOH need to be watched for such traits. The thing is when they are questioned they are expected to reply with "evidence" as opposed to religious twits who respond with jargon from an old book of rubbish.
Scientists are human....just like the people who created your god and all other gods.

[amw79]

Seems that they (and I) are not willing to accept ancient superstition in lieu of evidence, either. Perhaps even the notion that life has to have a "purpose" is merely a reflection of humanity's overinflated view of itself?

How is it egotistical to think things happen for a reason? Do you reject science as egotistical too?

You're confusing things happening for a reason (as in cause and effect) with purpose, which implies intention.

The reason its egotistical is that it implies life is an intentional outcome of a predetermined purpose. This idea puts life and therefore us, as the centre, or the goal of the suggested 'intender'.

An alternative view that life began by chance, and then evolved by natural selection, puts us in the position of lucky benefactors of evolution, and we can then state the reason for our existence, but a grand purpose is not necessary. This, I would suggest, is a much less self-centred view of humanity's place in the world.