• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What do you the purpose of human existance is?

There is no empirical evidence for many things, lacking empirical evidence may be a necessary but not sufficient reason to deem something an unjustified belief.

So, before attempting to shift the burden of evidence, how do you justify that belief?

Sorry... but the burden of proof always rests upon those who put forth a postulate and not upon those who choose to believe in that which has evidence as proof. I'll never be able to prove there isn't a god. But until there is real evidence of god, I will not believe in it simply because others do. There may be benefits in having faith in that which does not exist. But I believe in science, the understanding of things based on observation and rational, logical, testable explanations.
 
nothing exists because it just can, or happens to in the physical sense of nature. it happens because it became that way.
something that exists with no cause, is the saddest loneliest thing.!
i definitely dont think we know much,,, still theorizing the premises of ways to discover new fundamentals. we became for a reason, as a whole and individually.

If something is possible, then it will happen if given enough time. Therefore, things exist because they can.
 
Sorry... but the burden of proof always rests upon those who put forth a postulate and not upon those who choose to believe in that which has evidence as proof. I'll never be able to prove there isn't a god. But until there is real evidence of god, I will not believe in it simply because others do. There may be benefits in having faith in that which does not exist. But I believe in science, the understanding of things based on observation and rational, logical, testable explanations.


Sorry, you might be getting a little confused. I did not put forth any postulate. I was responding to IamMe90 who stated

there is no inherent purpose to human existence.

You stated that the truth value of this statement was proven by the fact that there was no empirical evidence supporting the opposite.


I replied that lacking empirical evidence is not a necessary AND sufficient reason to believe something is not true, given there are many things we hold to be true, in absence of empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this discussion with the well worn debate about the existence of God (something you inserted into the argument).

So again, what is your argument that demonstrates that
there is no inherent purpose to human existence.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you might be getting a little confused. I did not put forth any postulate. I was responding to IamMe90 who stated

No, I'm not confused. I didn't say YOU put forth a postulate. I merely said my belief that the lack of empirical evidence of a human purpose was justified and that whoever says there is a purpose has the burden of proof to support that claim.

You stated that the truth value of this statement was proven by the fact that there was no empirical evidence supporting the opposite.

I did not say that. I said that no proof is required to disbelieve that there is a purpose to human existence.

I replied that lacking empirical evidence is not a necessary AND sufficient reason to believe something is not true, given there are many things we hold to be true, in absence of empirical evidence.

I believe that lack of empirical evidence IS sufficient to believe that something is not true.

Do not confuse this discussion with the well worn debate about the existence of God (something you inserted into the argument).

I'm not confused. It's not the SAME argument. But they have similarities. And that argument can be used to illustrate the difference between faith and truth.

So again, what is your argument that demonstrates that

So again, I see no evidence or proof to support that there is a purpose to human existence. Therefore, I do not believe it has a purpose. It just is. And I don't see any reason to seek proof of something that isn't.
 
But for those who want to believe we are here for a reason, this is as good a purpose as any!

Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'

Robert Lanza, M.D.
Scientist; Theoretician; Author, 'Biocentrism'
Posted: February 10, 2011 08:48 AM

You've laughed and cried. And you may even fall in love and grow old with someone, only to be ripped apart in the end by death and disease. The universe leaves you dead or grieving with a hole in you as big as infinity.

Are we part of a depraved cosmic joke, the product of a vast and ruthless universe?

Through the eyes of science, you're a speck of junk spinning around the core of the Milky Way galaxy, which itself is whirling through the unfathomable blackness of space. It's all in the equations, you know. Nothing to get philosophical about. Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg summed it up best:

The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little bit above the level of a farce and gives it some of the grace of a tragedy.

Can life really be reduced to the laws of physics? Or are we -- as all the great spiritual leaders of the world have intuited -- part of something higher, which is more noble and triumphant?

The latter is hard for us to rationally comprehend, since we've had more years of scientific indoctrination than monks get in monasteries. In Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," Jubal said we're prisoners of our early indoctrinations, "for it is hard, very nearly impossible, to shake off one's earliest training." We've been taught since grade school that life is an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics, and that the Universe is a dreary play of billiard balls.

True, science has brought us countless insights that have transformed our lives. It's amazingly good at figuring out how the parts work. The clock has been taken apart, and we can accurately count the number of teeth in each wheel and gear. We know Mars rotates in 24 hours, 37 minutes and 23 seconds. What eludes us is the big picture, which unfortunately encompasses all the bottom-line issues: What is the nature of this thing we call reality?

Any honest summary of the current state of explaining the universe as a whole: a swamp. And in this Everglade, the alligators of common sense must be evaded at every turn.

Some scientists insist a Theory of Everything is just around the corner. But it hasn't happened and won't happen until we understand a critical component of the cosmos -- a component that has been shunted out of the way because science doesn't know what to do with it. "Consciousness" isn't a small item; it's an utter mystery, which we think has somehow arisen from molecules and goo.

In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe and what's really going on requires an understanding of how the observer -- our presence -- plays a role. Our entire education and language revolves around a mindset that assumes a separate universe "out there." It's further assumed we accurately perceive this external reality and play little or no role in its appearance.

However, starting in the '20s, experiments have shown the opposite: The observer critically influences the outcome. The experiments have been performed so many times, with so many variations, it's conclusively proven that a particle's behavior depends upon the very act of observation. The results of these experiments have befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists have described them as impossible to intuit.

Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality, it all becomes simple to understand, and you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time -- and even the properties of matter itself -- depend on the observer. Remember: You can't see through the bone surrounding your brain. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting everything together.

According to current scientific myth, all your struggles and tears are ultimately in vain. After you die and the human race is long gone, it'll be as if nothing in your life ever existed.

Not so, says biocentrism: Reality isn't a thing, it's a process that involves our consciousness. Life is a melody so vast and eternal that human ears can't appreciate the tonal range of the symphony. Time is the mind's tool that animates the notes, the individual frames of the spatial world. "There's no way to remove the observer -- us -- from our perceptions of the world," said Stephen Hawking. "The past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities." You, the observer, collapse these possibilities, the cascade of events we call the universe.

Our consciousness animates the universe like an old phonograph. Listening to it doesn't alter the record, and depending on where the needle is placed, you hear a certain piece of music. This is what we call "now." The songs before and after are the past and future. In like manner, you, your loved ones and friends (and sadly, the villains too) endure always. The record doesn't go away. All nows exist simultaneously, although we can only listen to the songs one by one. Time is On Demand.

"The most important thing I learned," said Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Slaughterhouse Five," "was that when a person dies, he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist."

link
 
@Draigan

If you want to be so reductionist about the word 'inherent', or of subjective concepts then one might say that the categories of space, time, self-identity are all man-made concepts, as are language, morality and syllogistic logic - are you saying that we cannot determine truth values for these concepts?
 
Last edited:
Afterglow

I believe that lack of empirical evidence IS sufficient to believe that something is not true

Then, as I stated in the above response, you are slipping into Scientism.

Things for which there is no empirical evidence, yet we might deem to be true.

The scientific method
Logic
Mathematics
Self-identity
Ethics and morality
The existence of noumena
Apperception
Etcetera etcetera.
Memories
abstract concepts
Theoretical particle physics

All lack empirical evidence yet are we to reject them as having no truth values?
 
I did say in one of my earlier posts that if there is a purpose to human existence, it is the purpose that we create for ourselves. If our purpose is nothing more than a concept that we create, then it can only be the purpose that we determine it to be.
 
Afterglow

All lack empirical evidence yet are we to reject them as having no truth values?

There is science to support all of those things. And they all have truth values for the scientific essence of what they are. I don't deny that there is art. But the beauty that I see in a piece of art may not be the same beauty that you see in it. That doesn't mean we can't agree that art exists. We just don't share the same emotional appreciation on every piece of art.
 
science only - no inherent ''purpose'' to life . it simply just 'is'. one can stare at their navel for a lifetime coming up with windy postulations re; the meaning of it all - but shit is all in their head.
 
I did say in one of my earlier posts that if there is a purpose to human existence, it is the purpose that we create for ourselves. If our purpose is nothing more than a concept that we create, then it can only be the purpose that we determine it to be.

^ In order to subjectively create purpose, we must already new beforehand what 'purpose' is, else we wouldn't know what to create. When one claims "purpose" comes aposterio, one must be able to make the distinction between things of purpose and without purpose, hence there must already be some sense of inherent standard at work.

I'm not saying the cosmos has some kind of teleology or purpose is provided from "above" but excluding any sense of value seems too extreme. Also note, that such a statement is thoroughly historically determined by modernity when Newtonian (modern) science sets itself in opposition to the Aristotelian science (where everything is oriented towards its fulfilment). The very neutralization of the world is itself no neutral project but the product of a will to purpose, the particular purpose of making being as (mathematically) precise as possible. The project of science itself must have "epistemic value" in order to even undertake such a project. But of course, scientists are wiser than thousand years of human experience and tradition, after all, the cover of Nature has awesome pictures of elementary particles and fascinating black holes.

Also, you quoted Steven Weinberg. He wrote a book "Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature." Don't you see the irony of such a title? Physicists claim to give a reductive mathematical description of deterministic bits of matter, hence excluding any kind of teleology or intrinsic value, yet they speak in terms of "final theory" (bringing back in teleology as a basis human experience).
 
Last edited:
There is science to support all of those things. And they all have truth values for the scientific essence of what they are. I don't deny that there is art. But the beauty that I see in a piece of art may not be the same beauty that you see in it. That doesn't mean we can't agree that art exists. We just don't share the same emotional appreciation on every piece of art.



We weren't talking about science, but empirical evidence, and I challenge you to provide me empirical evidence for any of the epistemological categories I listed.

Even if you wish to bait and switch with science, you are stating that science shows the truth of the scientific method? Morality? Memories?

Science is a wonderful, and powerful category of knowledge, but it would be obtuse to believe it is the only one.
 
Afterglow



Then, as I stated in the above response, you are slipping into Scientism.

Things for which there is no empirical evidence, yet we might deem to be true.

The scientific method
Logic
Mathematics
Self-identity
Ethics and morality
The existence of noumena
Apperception
Etcetera etcetera.
Memories
abstract concepts
Theoretical particle physics

All lack empirical evidence yet are we to reject them as having no truth values?

all of these things are only useful to us.
none of these things coming from our species are useful to this earth.
math and physics helped to organize and construct everything,
but thats not our doing; just observations we've made.

i dont believe we do not hit a harmony in nature somewhere, and do believe we have, or had our part to play.
maybe we lost it in the translation of our over-active imaginations, over-thinking and over-looking. or by forcing others to believe what we do, shunning and shutting out progressive thought with repressive constructed beliefs.
 
We weren't talking about science, but empirical evidence, and I challenge you to provide me empirical evidence for any of the epistemological categories I listed.

Even if you wish to bait and switch with science, you are stating that science shows the truth of the scientific method? Morality? Memories?

Science is a wonderful, and powerful category of knowledge, but it would be obtuse to believe it is the only one.

Maybe my understanding of empirical evidence is different than yours. It can be proven with a controlled experiment that I have a memory of an event if I were present and witnessed it and then was asked to recall it and tell you about it and you had a way to validate it did indeed take place as I described it to you from memory and I could not have learned about it another way between the time I witnessed it and the time I recalled it for you. That is empirical evidence that there is a such thing as human memory. We can test it with an experiment, analyze the results and come to a rational conclusion.
 
plants die, decompose, and fertilize the ground to grow again, they help purify the air and in affect our rain water and the air animals breath - which provides energy they use to eat the plants or each other, and fertilize the earth further - sustaining their population in a balanced manner - fulfilling the purpose each of their species does uniquely in their terior - which effects the neighboring teriors.

we dont fit in any schematic of this sort i can imagine, and try to type out.
we are chaos.
"we'll make great pets."
 
@Panic in Paradise
none of these things coming from our species are useful to this earth.

You are making unsubstatiated claims about the telos of the earth.
 
Maybe my understanding of empirical evidence is different than yours. It can be proven with a controlled experiment that I have a memory of an event if I were present and witnessed it and then was asked to recall it and tell you about it and you had a way to validate it did indeed take place as I described it to you from memory and I could not have learned about it another way between the time I witnessed it and the time I recalled it for you. That is empirical evidence that there is a such thing as human memory. We can test it with an experiment, analyze the results and come to a rational conclusion.



Granted, that was my weakest point, however when I say memory I mean your, or my apperception of memory. You cannot empirically prove to me the qualatative nature of your memories. You can tell me you had a memory of 'x' but I cannot look into your mind to confirm that you are telling the truth, or that you might be mistaken.

If you disagree with the above, fine, but what about the other categories I listed?
 
Not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think I catch the drift. I would say that time is a man made thing for instance. There obviously is some sort of motion and transition but the act of measuring is all our own thing. It doesn't actually happen out there.

Its like if there is a line. We may say the line is 12cm long, but nothing els in this universe is saying that line is 12cm long.

The idea of a human purpose will always be a subjective thing. Thats what I am saying. Unless, ofcourse, an alien ship lands and tells us that we are meant to be batteries for their super weapons.

I agree that most teleological claims are subjective, but this may only be because making objective truth statements is so difficult (see the thread on this board re - 'Are there any objective truths'
 
alright, that certainly doesnt hold value as a fact.
hastily written.
one last shot..!

i cant myself see how these attributes, would justify the worth our existence so far; our foot-print is massive and detrimental.
i also believe that we dont just exist for no reason at all other then to exist. i love this question haha, and like to think about what our purpose is... as far as how the rest of the life on earth does seem to play in harmony. we maybe are meant for more then we understand yet, it seems we are here for each other mostly to me.
 
Granted, that was my weakest point, however when I say memory I mean your, or my apperception of memory. You cannot empirically prove to me the qualatative nature of your memories. You can tell me you had a memory of 'x' but I cannot look into your mind to confirm that you are telling the truth, or that you might be mistaken.

If you disagree with the above, fine, but what about the other categories I listed?

We don't have a way to measure the qualitative qualities of memory. I agree. But we have evidence that it exists. The same is true of all the other items on your list.

We have no evidence that there is a purpose for human existence. We only have evidence that humans exist.
 
Top