Why are we here?

[Birdjaguar]

Finding the truth makes us more intelligent. Intelligence helps us to survive. But please, this is NOT an evolution/creation thread. There are enough of those. This is about "why we/everything exists."

I'm not trying to debate creation/evolution at all. I am wondering why we ask the question "Why are we here?" To the best of my knowledge, no other creature asks such things. A theist would say simply that god planted it in us (or something like that). An atheist would say it evolved with us. It seems relevant to me. I think much of the answer to "Why are we here?" is wrapped up in why humans ask themselves unanswerable? questions.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

We ask it, because it involves seeking the truth, and seeking the truth makes people more intelligent over time. Intelligence tends to help survival. That is my evolutionary answer.

However, I hope we don't move to dangerously into this subject, as it does not even involve the question of why we are here, but rather just the question of why we as that question, which is not the underlying question that we are studying.

 

[Sims2789]

No one knows why the Universe was here. Just because of the fact that I have no idea as to how it came to be does not mean that you can claim that your idea, which has no scientific evidence to it, is correct (I hope people understand where I'm getting at.).

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

So basically you are saying you have no guess why, nor do you have an opinion on the implications of there not being a why...

 

[Knowze Gungk]

I can only answer your question with a question FL. Why not?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

If why, and why not, are equally unanswerable, then it suggests there is no reason, which explains the emptiness of the logical conclusions.

 

[Perfection]

Exactly it's applying the ideas of an intelligent purpose when there is none.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If why, and why not, are equally unanswerable, then it suggests there is no reason, which explains the emptiness of the logical conclusions.

Then look beyond logic. Take the path of mystery and wonder.

 

[Stapel]

Supposedly, any of them who read the Bible.

Stapel,
If a reletive moral code is worthless, then why have ethics and laws? To perpetuate a meaningless existence? Why bother? If it can't be defended logically without resorting to subjective posits, then anarchism, hedonism, and nihilism are the only objectively valid philosophies. Clearly, none of them are anything but self-serving, and if self-serving is the only logical course of action, then all of civilization is a mistake.

Somehow, I don't think that rings true...

First of all: It is not worthless. I never said that.

Our subjective purposes are created by education, experience, environment and such. From what we see around, we can logically conclude what serves us well, and what not. This is not easy. History has some nasty examples of people having a vast & firm believe in the goodness of something terribly evil. Furthermore, selfishness has a rather big influence too.

But self-serving is absolutely not the only logical course. It is a simple absolute fact that people/communities do better when there are some basic rules. I think these basic rules throughout history are very easy and universal: Do not kill, do not steal, do not leave your family that needs your support. These are rules that need no objective purpose. They are simply needed to make a society run well. It's the only option.

 

[Perfection]

Then look beyond logic. Take the path of mystery and wonder.

I'm not so sure, for me the beauty of logic is one of life's greatest wonders.

 

[Stapel]

The problem for me is that I am atheistic, and at most agnostic. This means I cannot honestly accept a moral code in this state, but rather just play things by feel, and try not to step on others.

Sometimes it would seem like becoming a theist would be so much easier, as it would solve these problems, but since I can't believe in it, it would be hollow and dishonest.

To me it seems so endless obvious that any religion was created by man, after a first set of norms, values, morals, rules or whatever we call them, was created. In the post above you can read that I think some basic rules are universal. They simply make sense, in order to make societies work.
First we make rules/morals. Than we wonder why we have them and how to impose them, then we create some sort of absolute / objective purpose around it.

If it is the other way around: First an objective and absolute purpose for our existance, and then rules/morals derived from this absolute objective idea, we have a new problem.

Why is the objective purpose a good one? If you really think (or believe) in it, why do you believe in a good one, why not in an evil one? Assuming the objective purpose is a good purpose is subjective in itself!

 

[The True Sultan]

I like to think that since i dont know why i am here now, as soon as i am not here (ie i die) i will find out. i seems logical to me that life has a sense of irony.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Why is the objective purpose a good one? If you really think (or believe) in it, why do you believe in a good one, why not in an evil one? Assuming the objective purpose is a good purpose is subjective in itself!

That's similar to my idea when I said that an externally imposed purpose, if there is one, is yours to accept or reject. Although, again, I think the word "personal" is more appropriate than "subjective". A lot of objective (small "o" objective) reasoning is called for in deciding which purposes are worthwhile.

If morality is written in human nature, rather than in stone, I can't see how that decreases its credibility or importance one iota.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

To me it seems so endless obvious that any religion was created by man, after a first set of norms, values, morals, rules or whatever we call them, was created. In the post above you can read that I think some basic rules are universal. They simply make sense, in order to make societies work.

Surely there are rules that do tend to make "society" "work", but until you have a why for societies existence, the perpetuation of society itself is a moral relative.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Then look beyond logic. Take the path of mystery and wonder.

The path of mystery and wonder, essentially means the abandonment of the path of truth, which is the point of one's search. The path of mystery and wonder does not mean someone has achieved any sort of enlightenment, but rather that they have given up on achieving "enlightenment", "wisdom", "truth", or whatever you wish to call it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

That's similar to my idea when I said that an externally imposed purpose, if there is one, is yours to accept or reject. Although, again, I think the word "personal" is more appropriate than "subjective". A lot of objective (small "o" objective) reasoning is called for in deciding which purposes are worthwhile.

If morality is written in human nature, rather than in stone, .

A morality that is apparantly written in human nature would have to have an absolute morality above anything humans can attain, which essentially means an omnipotent God. Without the absolute existence/morality, whatever "code" written into us is relative, and in fact is likely nothing more than a survival technique.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not so sure, for me the beauty of logic is one of life's greatest wonders.

...then it suggests there is no reason, which explains the emptiness of the logical conclusions.

I'm not trying to diminish the beauty and elegance of logic, only point out that if it fails to satisfactorily answer such a fundamental question, then it might be worthwhile to seek another path of knowledge for that question.

Logic and reason are cruel and unforgiving taskmasters of explanation. You might imagine them as a dominatrix of unequaled beauty whom you adore. She will not willingly turn you loose or give you the freedom to go beyond her lash. Her sweet sweet lash...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why is the objective purpose a good one? If you really think (or believe) in it, why do you believe in a good one, why not in an evil one? Assuming the objective purpose is a good purpose is subjective in itself!

Maybe the purpose is neither good nor bad, just neutral (the way it is) and the good and bad values we attach stem from our lack of understanding.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The path of mystery and wonder, essentially means the abandonment of the path of truth, which is the point of one's search. The path of mystery and wonder does not mean someone has achieved any sort of enlightenment, but rather that they have given up on achieving "enlightenment", "wisdom", "truth", or whatever you wish to call it.

A bold statement. Are you saying that there is only one path to Truth? And it involves research? I guess you won't be needing the other half of your brain. Any surgeons out there?

The path of "mystery and wonder" is just that, a path. Or multiple paths. But on them you might see things you cannot see through research or they might take you places which might be forbidden to those who are locked inside a cage of reason.

"enlightenment" & "wisdom" mean different things to different folks, so I will not address those here.

 

[Colonel]

You Are All Here To Serve Me!!! I Created You!!!!!