mazaje:


Destination is of NO relevance to a journey. . .

It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey.

Good grief. Come one. How far will you go to prop up your worldview ? ? ?

Maybe you forgot that this thread is about PURPOSE.

And as far as that goes the incontestible PURPOSE of a finite journey is to reach a given destination.

When you jump aboard a plane to go to Finland, your PURPOSE is not simply to enjoy the ride.

YOUR INDISPUTABLE PURPOSE IS TO GET TO HELSINKI AND THAT'S A FACT.

Nobody undertakes ANY JOURNEY PURPOSELESSLY.

UNTIL YOU REBUTT THIS EQUATION -

0 + 1 - 1 = 0

You must perforce accede that the sum of your worldview amounts to zero; and thus ineluctible nothingness.

That is iron cast.

^^^

My purpose in this life is NOT a journey. . .my purpose is to live a life that has meaning. My life is NOT a journey to any where.

Sir: You seem to be running from shadows, and riddling yourself with incurable contradictions.

You stated that a destination is not relevant to a journey. . . in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

Having been shown how that does not add up you now perform a somersault and state that there is no journey altogether. . .

This is another faux pas, because so long as your life posesses a progressive tangent, which it does (birth, growth. . . . . death) and is recognised within TIME, then it is a progression and accordingly is definitely analogous to a journey.

We can therefore surmise and agree that you are on a progression that ends in nothingness.

So what will you state now?

I repeat: a sum that ends in zero is exactly equal to nothingness. . .

And in your determination to avoid the obvious you have chosen a worldview which equates to zero and thus absolute nothingness. . .

Deep Sight:

I DEMAND of you that you explain what meaning life may have: if all life ends with the zero factor: to wit: nothingness.

What I am getting from your position is that you are having trouble understanding how life can have maning if it has to end at some point. That, in my opinion, suggests a lack of imagination if nothing else. Life is meaningful while it is being lived. The effects an individual has not only on her or his fellow humans but also on their environment is of great significance, even if it isn't noticed or fully realised. More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life. That in itself is a meaning to life - the individual's and by extension society's.

For I positively assert that 0 + 1 - 1 = 0 and that this conclusively proves that a life with nothingness at both ends is conclusively purposeless, empty and meaningless, given that it refers summarily to NOTHING.

You may assert that, but it doesn't even come close to proving your assertion. Let's use your line of argument - even though, in my opinion, it's a really poor one - and use numbers and mathematically notations.

Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread, but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more:

{Copulation between two individuals = new life} Society of any given number.

Upon the death of the new life, even assuming the individual didn't reproduce and the parents have also died, it would then be:

{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society.

Not exactly nothing, is it?

your post just re-affirmed the incontestable truth that 'Atheists are confused folks' this is responsible for their belief in Atheism. NL atheists arent solvent from this delusion

Deep Sight:

Sir: You seem to be running from shadows, and riddling yourself with incurable contradictions.

You stated that a destination is not relevant to a journey. . . in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

Having been shown how that does not add up you now perform a somersault and state that there is no journey altogether. . .

This is another faux pas, because so long as your life posesses a progressive tangent, which it does (birth, growth. . . . . death) and is recognised within TIME, then it is a progression and accordingly is definitely analogous to a journey.

We can therefore surmise and agree that you are on a progression that ends in nothingness.

So what will you state now?

I repeat: a sum that ends in zero is exactly equal to nothingness. . .

And in your determination to avoid the obvious you have chosen a worldview which equates to zero and thus absolute nothingness. . .

Deep Sight:

It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey.

Good grief. Come one. How far will you go to prop up your worldview ? ? ?

There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

KAG:

What I am getting from your position is that you are having trouble understanding how life can have maning if it has to end at some point. That, in my opinion, suggests a lack of imagination if nothing else.

I would have thought that it suggests a recognition of more abstract, harmonious purposes that approximate to a something as opposed to a nothing.

Life is meaningful while it is being lived. The effects an individual has not only on her or his fellow humans but also on their environment is of great significance, even if it isn't noticed or fully realised.

I verily suspect that you have not been reading my posts. Perhaps they are not worth reading?

When I started this thread I spoke first on the macro level before reducing the question to the micro level of the life of a single individual.

Thus when you talk about “fellow humans” and “society” you have not grasped what I earlier spoke about – to wit – the inevitable finite nature of matter as a whole – which implies that life, the world, humanity, matter, indeed the whole universe as we know it – must perforce – within the finite worldview that you espouse – must perforce terminate – in the same way as the individual has a life-span that comes to an end.

Thus the argument operates first at the macro-level – to with what can be said to be the purpose of ALL EXISTENCE – the earth, the world, humanity, the universe – if it all ends in nothingness

I absolutely assert to you that both mathematically and affirmatively this = 0.

Which accordingly renders the RESULT of all that existed to be ZERO, and thus nothingness.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the context of the word “purpose.”

In simple existential terms, a purpose in context refers to a result – namely that which something is heading towards. If the universe is heading towards a party, that party is its objective, its destination, and thus its macro-purpose – even if we remain unaware of the fact.

In similar terms, if the universe is heading towards nothingness, then that nothingness is unavoidably the result – the outcome - of all that exists and thus again inescapably, the macro-purpose would equate with NOTHINGNESS.

On a final note for this point let me ask you why you assume that “society” and “fellow men” are so important? In the unspeakable vastness of the known universe alone, you are aware that the earth amounts to less than a speck of dust. If it were to explode and cease to exist tomorrow, the universe would not notice even a slight blip. Given this why do you suppose that the lives being lived here are of any relevance, meaning, or purpose to anything.

If those lives end in nothingness, then certainly everything that they supposedly meant, = 0.

That is iron cast.

More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life.

And what would the point of such focus be, given that it all = 0?

Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread,

When it is convenient for the scientific materialist, mathematics suddenly becomes a “poor indicator?” Please.

I suppose you have no apprehension of the vast and deep beauty of mathematics and how it is in fact a deep and self-existent rhythm reflective of the totality of finite and infinite existence.

but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more:

I hope you see already that once we talk at the macro-level, your allusion to sets collapses entirely.

Indeed you are pursuing a helplessly circular argument. For when the futility of an individual life that ends in zero is pointed out to you, you run to seek refuge in sets and groups. Now it has been shown to you that sets and groups are also finite and thus in your worldview will all end in the zero factor, where are you going to run to now?

Back to the individual? Come on.

{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society.

Let me complete the equation for you, for your equation is incomplete. It presumes an eternal society, which is not your worldview.

Your equation should properly read –

Zero -{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society - eventual extinction = Zero. . .

Given that all things finite have a terminal point.

Thus it still ends in zero however long you may stretch it.

And this conclusively summarizes the sum of your “purposes” as ZERO.

When you are tired of going round the same circle, throw the ball back at me and ask what view I have that evades the Zero factor. I would give it to you.

jesus.:

your post just re-affirmed the incontestable truth that 'Atheists are confused folks' this is responsible for their belief in Atheism. NL atheists arent solvent from this delusion

Really? You got that from his post? I would argue that people don't believe in Atheism, but that they become or are labelled atheists because they don't believe in the existence of gods. A tad pedantic, but it alleviates confusion.

KAG:

There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

Listen, there is no doubt that the moment can be enjoyed. But this again is a circular argument for the runner and the fun seekers both derive benefits, physical fitness, a memory, an after-glow - all of which last beyond the moment and contribute to a greater sense of being that continues in existence.

Nobody would undertake any such thing if all its effects, and the memory of it became lost and forgotten once done.

Indeed life would suddenly approximate to a vicious cycle of zero if that was the case.

Deep Sight:

I would have thought that it suggests a recognition of more abstract, harmonious purposes that approximate to a something as opposed to a nothing.

Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive.

I verily suspect that you have not been reading my posts. Perhaps they are not worth reading?

When I started this thread I spoke first on the macro level before reducing the question to the micro level of the life of a single individual.

Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual.

Thus when you talk about “fellow humans” and “society” you have not grasped what I earlier spoke about – to wit – the inevitable finite nature of matter as a whole – which implies that life, the world, humanity, matter, indeed the whole universe as we know it – must perforce – within the finite worldview that you espouse – must perforce terminate – in the same way as the individual has a life-span that comes to an end.

Then you must, as a matter of neccesity, create separate arguments for why those in themselves are also meaningless because - or if - they come to an end. However, irrespective of the likelihood of the end of the earth, the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual -  to their demise.

Thus the argument operates first at the macro-level – to with what can be said to be the purpose of ALL EXISTENCE – the earth, the world, humanity, the universe – if it all ends in nothingness

Would you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life.

I absolutely assert to you that both mathematically and affirmatively this = 0.

Which accordingly renders the RESULT of all that existed to be ZERO, and thus nothingness.

Absolutism based on faulty syllogisms and terrible mathematical representations?

Not while it exists. After death, all wishful thinking is nonsense.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding the context of the word “purpose.”

In simple existential terms, a purpose in context refers to a result – namely that which something is heading towards. If the universe is heading towards a party, that party is its objective, its destination, and thus its macro-purpose – even if we remain unaware of the fact.

In similar terms, if the universe is heading towards nothingness, then that nothingness is unavoidably the result – the outcome - of all that exists and thus again inescapably, the macro-purpose would equate with NOTHINGNESS.

If that's what is meant by purpose in this context, then no, I wasn't having trouble understanding the context of the word.

First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings.

Second, there is no certainty on the fate of the universe, so don't get ahead of the edge of the universe.

Finally, the fate of the universe will ultimately play a part in whether the hubris of anthropocentrism has been worthy of the egos that propped it; but in the purpose of a human capable of thought and imgination, life's purpose is experienced while the human is alive and when dead by ripples caused. That nothing may some day be the fate of all does not change the imposition of purpose.

On a final note for this point let me ask you why you assume that “society” and “fellow men” are so important? In the unspeakable vastness of the known universe alone, you are aware that the earth amounts to less than a speck of dust. If it were to explode and cease to exist tomorrow, the universe would not notice even a slight blip. Given this why do you suppose that the lives being lived here are of any relevance, meaning, or purpose to anything.

You mean other than the fact human beings are such social animals that society and fellow humans are important aspects of their heavens?

Yes, I am aware of the earth's status in the universe. The earth is here yet; there is no saying that the "universe" won't notice the ceasation of the earth as a planet. However, why are lives relevant then? Because they exist yet. That one will die, etc. is more reason to enjoy being alive now. That it may end shouldn't cause one to become nihilistic, it should instead engender existentialism - living matters now that you're alive, not for what someone thinks matters in a million years from now or an eternity after death.

If those lives end in nothingness, then certainly everything that they supposedly meant, = 0.

That is iron cast.

I want to address this specifically. To whom does everything they supposedly meant mean nothing if they have ended in nothing? The perspective of an observer is affording meaning to what you are advocating is nothing. Thus, to reiterate my previous argument, the point of those lives continue to be meaningful unless a meaningless hypothetical is brought into play. What I mean is, your argument here is meaningless because it requires a perspective - or to be more accurate, perspectives -  on those lives and the assurance of a lack of effect on anything after demise; however, the paradox  begins to become apparent, because the lives cannot then said to have ended in nothingness.

More, like alluded earlier, knowing that one doesn't have an eternity to experience living is a useful way of focusing ones energies on life.

And what would the point of such focus be, given that it all = 0?

The point would be that the life of the individual wouldn't have ended if they are capable of thinking in such nihilistic terms. Experience living, then.

Of course simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread,

When it is convenient for the scientific materialist, mathematics suddenly becomes a “poor indicator?” Please.

I suppose you have no apprehension of the vast and deep beauty of mathematics and how it is in fact a deep and self-existent rhythm reflective of the totality of finite and infinite existence.

Your strawman doesn't change what is immediately apparent: "simple mathematics is a poor indication of such philosophical concepts that appear in this thread".

No, mathematics didn't suddenly become a poor indicator because it was a convenient thing to state. It's nothing more than that simple mathematics (you know, the one where the coming into existence of a human being is represented by the number "0" and "1" represents life) is a remarkably poor indication of the concepts argued for in this thread.

but if we were to use mathematics to represent life, then the individual will be a number within a set. That is, rather than the perhaps silly notion that you've indicated (0 + 1), it's more:

I hope you see already that once we talk at the macro-level, your allusion to sets collapses entirely.

Indeed you are pursuing a helplessly circular argument. For when the futility of an individual life that ends in zero is pointed out to you, you run to seek refuge in sets and groups. Now it has been shown to you that sets and groups are also finite and thus in your worldview will all end in the zero factor, where are you going to run to now?

Back to the individual? Come on.

Except it doesn't collapse. No, my argument isn't circular. The point there being that further meaning to an individual's life is to be found external to the life lived. Like I mentioned previously, the indivdual doesn't emerge from a vacuum. That there be no purpose to the universe doesn't preclude purpose in the life of an individual and their respective societ(y)(ies). I think that's one of the major mistakes you're making.

Sure, back to the individual, just don't forget that the individual neither live nor dies in a vacuum. Nor, in fact, is the human enterprise as a whole to be found in a vacuum.

{Copulation between two individuals = new life} Society of any given number.

Upon the death of the new life, even assuming the individual didn't reproduce and the parents have also died, it would then be:

{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society.

Let me complete the equation for you, for your equation is incomplete. It presumes an eternal society, which is not your worldview.

Your equation should properly read –

Zero  -{New life}Society - new life = Society + effect "new life" had on society  - eventual extinction = Zero. . .

Given that all things finite have a terminal point.

Thus it still ends in zero however long you may stretch it.

And this conclusively summarizes the sum of your “purposes” as ZERO.

Actually, you have the wrong notations again. While the sum of all sets may end without life (your zero), the lives keep imposing meaning on themselves. So the numbers and representations within the sets ae still functional. The ability to do that only matters in life. The importance of purpose is found in living - hence the inclusion of society as a set. You're mistaking a lack of eternal life with not having purpose while alive. Key word being: alive.

There really is no circularity to be found here.

When you are tired of going round the same circle, throw the ball back at me and ask what view I have that evades the Zero factor. I would give it to you.

Again, the circularity seemingly only exists in your mind. To be honest, and not to be rude, I don't think I care either way. If you want to state it, feel free, but I'll call it and declare it will amount to wishful thinking to alleviate the discmfort caused by suffering and death.

Deep Sight:

Listen, there is no doubt that the moment can be enjoyed. But this again is a circular argument for the runner and the fun seekers both derive benefits, physical fitness, a memory, an after-glow - all of which last beyond the moment and contribute to a greater sense of being that continues in existence.

Nobody would undertake any such thing if all its effects, and the memory of it became lost and forgotten once done.

Indeed life would suddenly approximate to a vicious cycle of zero if that was the case.

"That continues in existence." Yes. It makes sense, yes? So you recant this: "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey."

Oh, I should add that although the memory - more the joy, effects, etc. - of the activities may not become lost immediately, but in many cases that does happen eventually (and not because of physical death, I might add). That doesn't mean the experience was invalid while it was experienced.


By the way, I don't think you know what the term "circular argument" means. I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that you seem to be using it to justify handwaving.

KAG:

"That continues in existence." Yes. It makes sense, yes? So you recant this: "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey."

I cannot comprehend this.

It should be apparent in everything that I have said that whilst you appear to advocate the idea of nothingness post death, I have carefully set out arguments that make it clear that i believe in continued existence post-death. That is not nothingness.

A destination does not imply an end. It is simply what it is - a destination - a place that one is going to. Of course one may continue to other destinations from a destination. This is our everyday experience.

Accordingly "continuing in existence" does not in anyway suggest the absence of a destination, unless it is your peculiar experience that people collapse and die once they have completed any journey.

By the way, I don't think you know what the term "circular argument" means. I don't mean that in a nasty way, just that you seem to be using it to justify handwaving.

What are these if not circular arguments –

Your argument A –

1. Individual lives have meaning (Question: why?)

2. Because there is the context of society and fellow men (Question: What about extinction?)

3. Doesn’t matter because individual lives have meaning.

That, m’lady, is a perfectly round and circular argument that reaches to itself for validation.

Your argument B –

1. A person running or on a joy ride at a fair has no destination (Question: Aren’t there purposes for that?)

2. The purpose is that he is enjoying himself (Question: Does such enjoyment not have effects that outlast the moment?)

3. It does not matter because he is enjoying himself.

There again. The circle is clearly your favourite shape.

KAG:

Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive.

I am certain that if you review this thread you will not anywhere see an allusion to fear in any of my posts.

What I have done is simply to seek out PURPOSE for this existence as it stands – to determine its relevance, rationale and result.

That is and remains the philosophers task in all ages.

While you are on about a lack of imagination might I very calmly suggest to you an image that reflects the concept and extent of imagination.

Person 1 – “This life is all that there is.”

Person 2 –  “There is more out there.”

Which person is more imaginative?

Aha.

Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual.

The individual did not emerge from a vacuum you state, cavalierly, might I add.

Because I am surprised that you do not see that this pulls the rug off the foundations of any atheistic worldview.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Fact is, there was a time when there were NO individuals. No organisms. Hell, no Earth.

So I urge you yet again to view the discourse from a macro stand-point.

Did it all emerge from a vacuum?

Further on you state that the individual leaves changes when he dies. Might I ask you if those changes change the ultimate result that your worldview espouses – namely – that upon final extinction, there would be nothing left but one big, fat, squat ZERO.

Nothingness.

Thus the supposed changes which you have talked about all = 0.

We are back to nothingness. Its inescapable.

In this kindly remember that the discourse is purpose.

A life resulting in nothingness is irretrievably purposeless and that is iron cast logic.

the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual -  to their demise.

This again presumes an eternal society.

Which is NOT the case.

What does everything approximate to upon final extinction?

NOTHING.

Would you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life.

There is no need for me to say anything further save my stubbornness – for with this statement you have ENTIRELY CEDED THE DISCOURSE – GIVEN THAT YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEANING IS “IMPOSED” BY BEINGS ON REALITY.

Existence is one thing. Meaning and Purpose are quite another.

You specifically state that celestial bodies exist –and that their existence does not require “the imposition of purpose by an aware being.”

This is a wholesale admission that in your view, reality itself has no meaning, and that meaning is only a contrivance of the mind of beings.

Perhaps this thread should now be renamed – “KAG – State the purpose of your life!”

Well, too late for that. You have just stated that there is none, and that you merely “impose” one onto your reality.

This point is FIRMLY HAMMERED HOME BY THE FOLLOWING GAFFE -

First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings.

1. You state that the universe is most likely purposeless

2. You insist that beings living within the universe have purpose and meaning!

This is an irretrievable contradiction the like of which I have never come across in my life before

I think that it is pretty clear now that you have quite some thinking to do regarding the question of purpose. You have set forth a purposeless universe which contains purposeful beings, Lol! How interesting!

Deep Sight:

KAG: There is a truism that has almost become cliche that applies here: "It is not everyone that is wandering that is lost". There's a sport I enjoy that involves simply running round an athletics track. You're not really going anywhere, just round and round, but for many experiencing the run is joy enough to justify what your position denies.

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

I cannot comprehend this.
It should be apparent in everything that I have said that whilst you appear to advocate the idea of nothingness post death, I have carefully set out arguments that make it clear that i believe in continued existence post-death. That is not nothingness.

A destination does not imply an end. It is simply what it is - a destination - a place that one is going to. Of course one may continue to other destinations from a destination. This is our everyday experience.

Accordingly "continuing in existence" does not in anyway suggest the absence of a destination, unless it is your peculiar experience that people collapse and die once they have completed any journey.

It's easy to understand, really. First, you claimed that "It is laughable that you can assert that a destination is of NO relevance to a journey." That, however, has shown itself to be anything but the case. You've followed up by building up strawmen of my arguments and I will address those consequently.

Second, no where did I claim or imply that you think or believe in the cessation of existence in a human. No, instead, what I was showing was that you were - inadvertently or otherwise - acceding that journeys needn't have a specific destination. In fact, based on what you wrote it became clear that you must realise that in the examples I gave, the meanings and purposes of those activities (running round a track, going on a carousel) are not necessarily determined before they are begun, and it is the experience that counts post the activity. Further, the purposes of embarking on those activities aren't invalidated even when their effects and memories of them are forgotten or gone. While the experiences and even the memories and effects remain in existence they can be contributive, but they needn't be considered negated because they have expired.

Finally, on a tangential and probably apocryphal note, simply collapsing and dying after completing a journey or one's believed purpose has alledgedly happened on occassion.

What are these if not circular arguments –

Your argument A –

1. Individual lives have meaning (Question: why?)

2. Because there is the context of society and fellow men (Question: What about extinction?)

3. Doesn’t matter because individual lives have meaning.

That, m’lady, is a perfectly round and circular argument that reaches to itself for validation.

Woah, easy there, you're missing the subtlety of what I'm arguing. I'm glad you decided to clarify.

No, my argument, crudely summarised, has run thus:

1. Individual lives have meaning because meaning is interposed by the being in question.

2. Further, the individual life, primarily because the life didn't come from and into a vacuum, causes an effect on a society of fellow humans and the containing environment which means the death of the individual doesn't result in nothing, as the valuation of purpose depends on awareness and perspectives.

3. Extinction may occur, but it's unimportant to an individual's appreciation of a purpose, which is a subjective, abstract concept created (hence imposed) by beings. If all beings have become extinct then a question of purpose is moot as there are no perspectives to consider anything of the sort.

4. The purpose of something or a life isn't necessarily invalidated because they may become lost in time.

Your argument B –

1. A person running or on a joy ride at a fair has no destination (Question: Aren’t there purposes for that?)

2. The purpose is that he is enjoying himself (Question: Does such enjoyment not have effects that outlast the moment?)

3. It does not matter because he is enjoying himself.

There again. The circle is clearly your favourite shape.

Um, no, that is a gross strawman of what I have written. The argument in this instance:

1. It is claimed that all journeys must have a destination. However, I argue that isn't the case as may be seen from two examples and a truism that I provided.

2. One can impose or find a purpose for undertaking those activities, prior or post hoc, but that is not a necessity to the undertaking of the activities. Do not forget that the point here happens to be that destinations aren't a requirement.

3. Effects after those activities do exist - not that they are necessairly why the individual may undertake them. However, like human life, the effects will expire, often in the life time of the human that undertook the activities.

4. That the effects or the memory of the activities may have expired doesn't invalidate the occurence or the potential of the experience while it occurred.

5. Experiencing something, thus, counts even in the face of its extinction.


Like I stated earlier, the circularity seems to be in your mind.

Deep Sight:

Except it doesn't suggest that. What, exactly, is the harmonious purpose that your argument suggests? What is this something of which you speak? In any case, yes it is all abstract - further making a mockery of your argument by simple numbers and mathematical notations - but it once again suggests a lack of imagination if one cannot understand living is meaningful while it lasts. An intelligent dinosaur needn't fear extinction while still alive.

I am certain that if you review this thread you will not anywhere see an allusion to fear in any of my posts.

What I have done is simply to seek out PURPOSE for this existence as it stands – to determine its relevance, rationale and result.

That is and remains the philosophers task in all ages.

While you are on about a lack of imagination might I very calmly suggest to you an image that reflects the concept and extent of imagination.

Person 1 – “This life is all that there is.”

Person 2 –  “There is more out there.”

Which person is more imaginative?

Aha.

Oh I'm not saying there's an allusion to fear in your posts: it's more of an inferrence on my part. In any case, you avoided the core of this part of my post.

WHich of the two lacks imagination? The two of them do, if that's the breadth of their thought process on the matter. Is this where I, too, go,"aha"?

Verily, I did. I understand that, but if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual.

The individual did not emerge from a vacuum you state, cavalierly, might I add.

Because I am surprised that you do not see that this pulls the rug off the foundations of any atheistic worldview.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Fact is, there was a time when there were NO individuals. No organisms. Hell, no Earth.

So I urge you yet again to view the discourse from a macro stand-point.

Did it all emerge from a vacuum?

Um, except it doesn't do anything to an argument based on atheistic premises. Of great import is this: "if you're going to represent the individual by a number in a mathematical equation, then you can't ignore salient facts like: the individual did not emerge from a vacuum and there are changes left after the death of the individual".

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did. That was the context of the discussion at the instance I responded. So yes there was a time there were no individuals nor an earth, but like a hole in the ground in which a puddle finds a clean fit, the earth is now here and home to many different organisms.

No, it didn't all emerge from a vacuum, although the universe may have.

Further on you state that the individual leaves changes when he dies. Might I ask you if those changes change the ultimate result that your worldview espouses – namely – that upon final extinction, there would be nothing left but one big, fat, squat ZERO.

Nothingness.

Thus the supposed changes which you have talked about all = 0.

We are back to nothingness. Its inescapable.

In this kindly remember that the discourse is purpose.

Perhaps you should have carried on reading to see what I wrote after the point in my post quoted a little bit above. The fundamental flaw you appear to be making is that you can't help conflating expiration with non-existence. That something may cease to exist at some point doesn't invalidate the essence during subsistence. That one and everyone one knows may die doesn't mean one isn't alive at the present.

A life resulting in nothingness is irretrievably purposeless and that is iron cast logic.

Logic: you're using the word wrong. What you've presented isn't logic, let alone an iron cast one. I'll refrain from rehashing my previous arguments and rebuttals.

the fact still remains that in addition to the significance imposed on the life of an individual while living, some is also attached - because of what remains after the death of the individual - to their demise.

This again presumes an eternal society.

Which is NOT the case.

What does everything approximate to upon final extinction?

NOTHING.

No, no, nothing of the sort. It doesn't presume an eternal society: it acknowledges a society and habitat in which the individual is situated. Again, you're mistaking non-existent with expiration. The former implies no substance and no present, the latter indicates a presence that has come to an end. Not the same thing, really, when you think about it.

Would you want to argue that societies, the Earth, and the Universe are all meaningless because they too will end? Because it isn't so for an individual. They exist. Their existence doesn't need the imposition of purpose by an aware being. While the space individual beings need to survive remains, though, then the being can carry on imposing meaning into their life.

There is no need for me to say anything further save my stubbornness – for with this statement you have ENTIRELY CEDED THE DISCOURSE – GIVEN THAT YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEANING IS “IMPOSED” BY BEINGS ON REALITY.

Existence is one thing. Meaning and Purpose are quite another.

You specifically state that celestial bodies exist –and that their existence does not require “the imposition of purpose by an aware being.”

This is a wholesale admission that in your view, reality itself has no meaning, and that meaning is only a contrivance of the mind of beings.

Ceded? Where? Is that your way of saying you've run into some trouble with the procedings here? Yes, meaning is imposed by beings, there should be no difficulty understanding the point. Look, yes this part of your post is essentially something of a summary of what I've stated.

Perhaps this thread should now be renamed – “KAG – State the purpose of your life!”

Well, too late for that. You have just stated that there is none, and that you merely “impose” one onto your reality.

Not necessarily. I don't exist in a vacuum either and part of the purpose of my existence is also dictated by other beings. The point being that, to use an analogy, gold in the earth has a purpose only in the imposition of such by humans. That is not to say that a human isn't more complex than gold, but to simply use an example to make a point.

First, the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings.

Second, there is no certainty on the fate of the universe, so don't get ahead of the edge of the universe.

Finally, the fate of the universe will ultimately play a part in whether the hubris of anthropocentrism has been worthy of the egos that propped it; but in the purpose of a human capable of thought and imgination, life's purpose is experienced while the human is alive and when dead by ripples caused. That nothing may some day be the fate of all does not change the imposition of purpose.

This point is FIRMLY HAMMERED HOME BY THE FOLLOWING GAFFE -


1. You state that the universe is most likely purposeless

2. You insist that beings living within the universe have purpose and meaning!

This is an irretrievable contradiction the like of which I have never come across in my life before

I think that it is pretty clear now that you have quite some thinking to do regarding the question of purpose. You have set forth a purposeless universe which contains purposeful beings, Lol! How interesting!

You aren't reading closely or you're being mentally lazy. The two aspects of my argument don't contradict each other. The universe exists without inherent meaning, but humans - beings with awareness - have arisen in the space of the universe. Those human beings can - as they are beings - create meaning from existence because of awareness. It's possible for creatures to live in something that isn't capable of consciousness. The former can cause purpose, the latter can't. It's surprisingly strange that you got to the part where I argue that beings impose meaning but somehow contrived to see a contradiction in me pointing out "the universe is most likely purposeless, except when one is imposed upon it by beings".

Hi KAG –

I am going to be entirely fair. I imagine I always have been. But sometimes I suppose it doesn’t come across. I am going to try hard to let it come across.

Thanks first for your detailed responses.

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did.

That is not true KAG. From the outset I spoke about the entirety of existence and weighed this against a cessation of all existence. Right from Post #17 on this thread I gave Mazaje two premises, the first of which was –

-   If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

Thus you cannot in any terms assert that my argument was based only on the Individual. I had already stated this before you appeared on the thread, and I would have thought that you would have taken note of such a salient aspect of the discourse.

No, it didn't all emerge from a vacuum, although the universe may have.

This is another severely contradictory statement. I am at odds that you can state that –


1. It didn’t all emerge from a vacuum

2. The universe may have emerged from a vacuum.

Madam, how do you reconcile these statements?

I hope you are able to see the unfortunate and regrettable repetition of irreconcilable arguments that you continuously advance in this discourse. In what intelligible terms can any person apprehend the two statements of yours above – to wit – that “it didn’t all emerge from a vacuum, but the universe may have emerged from a vacuum” ? ? ?

Now this is at the core of the atheistic dilemma: a persuasion to find a meaning and a purpose within a universe already stated to be purposeless.

Looks strange? Your words, not mine.

It grieves me that you do not assimilate this point. I already tried to explain it in detail when I gave Mazaje two initial premises, the second of which was this –


-   If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objective will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Another way of saying the foregoing is simply this –

  – That whereat the ultimate purpose is zero or nothingness, all smaller purposes within it perforce amount to zero and nothingness

This withstands the rigors of both mathematics and commonsense.

In terms of mathematics – it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero. Now please note this very very carefully because the entire discourse hinges on it and I will elucidate. For emphasis I first repeat: it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

Now stop. Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

Before I go further let me carefully note that this existential series also applies in our discourse to the life of a society or an individual human being. It is all the same.

Now let me say a few pertinent things at this point –

1. What is an equation. It is a sum that expresses a balance of equality between a sum and a result. Thus 1 + 1 = 2. This simply means that the figure “2” is the SAME figure as the sum “1 + 1!”

2. What this inescapably shows, is that the non-existent factor “zero” IS THE SAME FIGURE AS THE SUM – “0 + 1 – 1.”

3. Thus the existential series which I describes above IS THE SAME AS THE FIGURE ZERO AND THUS AMOUNTS TO NOTHINGNESS.

To make this sit well with you, let me address some queasy points.

1. You make heavy weather of present existence – and you insist that so long as we are presently living and experiencing things, then there is not nothingness. Let me ask you: do you countenance the possibility that it is all a mirage? A dream, sort of? A void. A hallucinated reality?

2. I place this to you because of the uniqueness of experience. I am sure you are aware of the philosophical riddle which posits that so long as each man’s experience of reality remains unique to himself, he can never affirm externally the reality or non-reality of his existence.

But the foregoing is slightly tangential: for the real point that I must bring to you is this – namely the central theme that I had stated before to wit –

it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

In the context of that which I have set out above, I hope that you see that –

1. The existential series “0 + 1 – 1.” – is exactly the same thing as a ZERO (remember what an equation is).

2. And since it is in itself a zero, then it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST WITHIN IT.

3. ACCORDINGLY, THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE TO PRESENTLY EXIST, GOING BY YOUR FINITE VIEWS – CANNOT EXIST AT ALL. NOTHING CAN EXIST IN A ZERO, BECAUSE A ZERO IS NOTHINGNESS.

Now I need to note very carefully that I have spent the foregoing in analysing the possibility of existence at all – on a metaphysical level – if both ends of the series commence and end with a zero. I have very carefully stated that this would mean that everything is in fact zero and that in reality, nothing therefore exists. Evidentially, this is not correct – and this is my basis for asserting that the finite worldview of the atheist which presupposes that things can end in nothingness – (that a man can “cease” to exist by dying, or that all that exists can cease to exist – or emerged from a vacuum -) is eminently and evidentially wrong, mis-footed and misconceived.

I rather state to you, that - Only a worldview with continuing existence can have any meaningfulness whatsoever.

Finally, I must return briefly to your conundrum of purpose.

Remember that this thread after all is not just about the fact of existence (which is what you have argued) but rather about the purpose of existence.

Summarily, I submit as l already said, as follows –

1. If a central or bigger purpose is actually purposeless, then the smaller purposes within it are actually purposeless as well. This is only logical.

2. You have already stated that the universe is most likely purposeless.

3. This logically removes any iota of purpose that may exist within the universe.

4. We exist within the universe.

5. We therefore cannot have a purpose if the universe is purposeless.

You aren't reading closely or you're being mentally lazy. The two aspects of my argument don't contradict each other. The universe exists without inherent meaning, but humans - beings with awareness - have arisen in the space of the universe. Those human beings can - as they are beings - create meaning from existence because of awareness

We exist within the universe – indeed, we are a product of the universe – that is, in your materialist view. If we have, can develop, or impose meaningfulness, then the universe CANNOT be purposeless, as we are ourselves a product or result of the existence of the universe.

KAG:

If you have the time someday, take a trip to a fair. Stop, if you will, at one of those wonderful carousel rides. See if you can find the destination of the wonderfully happy riders.

What a beautiful analogy. Bravo!!!

@DeepSight. Your problem is that you are trying to base your argument on mathematics when you do not know what the factors are. You cannot state that 0+1-1=0 when you cannot state with clarity what you are attributing those numbers to.
It's fuzzy mathematics.
Sure, the equation adds up as an equation but when taken into context with what 0 or 1 actually represents (wild conjecture), it falls down spectacularly.

As for your earlier comment regarding Buddhism and nothingness. You seem not to know a lot about Nirvana. In essence, it is unexplainable in the human language - but in layman's terms, "nothingness" or "beyond nothingness" is about the closest that we can come to explaining it. In Nirvana, the human faculties do not exist. The mind does not exist. The Universe does not exist. Nothing exists. Yet those things don't just not exist. Nothing doesn't exist itself. It is the "nothing of nothing". Now, whichever way you look at it and however much proponents of Buddhism may refute it, that is in effect - nothingness.

By the way, you shoot yourself in the foot with this argument:

Nothingness by its very definition does NOT EXIST AT ALL.

It makes the final 0 in your equation incorrect. You have to attribute a positive number to it unless you acknowledge Nirvana as I have described it. And if you attribute a positive number to it, then you have to ascribe a positive number to the end of the equation you use to describe Mazaje's purpose. After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero?

Bastage:


@DeepSight. Your problem is that you are trying to base your argument on mathematics when you do not know what the factors are. You cannot state that 0+1-1=0 when you cannot state with clarity what you are attributing those numbers to.
It's fuzzy mathematics.

It seems to me my last post was too long for you to bother to read. For I very clearly stated what I attribute those numbers to. Here it is again -

Now stop. Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

So you might want to address and specifically rebut that point by point, instead to stating without proof, and without any deduction whatsoever that “the equation falls down spectacularly."

As for your earlier comment regarding Buddhism and nothingness. You seem not to know a lot about Nirvana. In essence, it is unexplainable in the human language - but in layman's terms, "nothingness" or "beyond nothingness" is about the closest that we can come to explaining it. In Nirvana, the human faculties do not exist. The mind does not exist. The Universe does not exist. Nothing exists. Yet those things don't just not exist. Nothing doesn't exist itself. It is the "nothing of nothing". Now, whichever way you look at it and however much proponents of Buddhism may refute it, that is in effect - nothingness.

Ths is the second time I will say this: but you seem not to be hearing me: I state it again - THE ABSENCE OF "SELF" OR "PERSONAL IDENTITY" IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NOTHINGNESS.[/B]

You seem to imagine that if YOU do not exist, then nothing exists. That is a misconception.

EXISTENCE IS.

Let me make this clear for you. Imagine yourself in an unconscious state. You are conscious of nothing: not even of your own existence. You have no sense of self.

[b]Does being absolutely unconscious equate with nothingness? No.

Otherwise a sleeping man or a unconscious man would be said to be non-existent.

I hope you see the point now:

Nirvana IS NOT NOTHINGNESS.

I quote Wikipedia again –

Nirvana (Sanskrit: निर्वाण; Pali: निब्बान; Prakrit: णिव्वाण) is the state of being free from suffering (or dukkha) in sramanic thought. In Pāli, "Nibbāna" means "blowing out" — that is, blowing out the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.[1] The word refers to central concepts in both Buddhism and Jainism.The Buddha described Nirvāṇa as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas). It is also the "end of the world"; there is no identity left, and no boundaries for the mind. The subject is at peace with the world, has compassion for all and gives up obsessions and fixations. This peace is achieved when the existing volitional formations are pacified, and the conditions for the production of new ones are eradicated. In Nirvāṇa the root causes of craving and aversion have been extinguished, so that one is no longer subject to human suffering (Pali: dukkha) or further rebirth in Samsara.

Tell me, how does the foregoing approximate to nothingness? It talks about a perfect peace of mind. Is a mind “nothingness?” It talks about the subject being at peace with the world. Thereby showing that there is a subject, a person. Is a person “nothingness?”

Note most importantly that it starts by describing Nirvana as “a state of being. . .” and then describes the state. That already supposes a “being” in one state or another. That again cannot be nothingness.

By the way, you shoot yourself in the foot with this argument:

It makes the final 0 in your equation incorrect. You have to attribute a positive number to it unless you acknowledge Nirvana as I have described it. And if you attribute a positive number to it, then you have to ascribe a positive number to the end of the equation you use to describe Mazaje's purpose. After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero?

This is both funny-ha-ha and funny-bizarre.

I repeat: there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist.

The equation is based on the atheist’s presumption that life can end in nothingness: to wit – cease to exist. That is NOT my presumption. I believe that there eternally has been and eternally can only be somethingness.

The equation is set up to show that the atheist’s worldview is summarily empty.

I state it again: there is nothing like nothingness. It does not exist. By its very definition it refers to nothing.

I don’t know how you make the gargantuan leap from that into imagining that I must attribute a positive number to zero. That is a contradiction.

Zero is NOTHING: Thus no positive number may be attributed to it

It is thus eminently strange that you state: ”After all, if there is no nothingness, how can there be any zero? –

This is an odd statement -

Because nothingness is zero and zero is nothingness. Your statement presumes zero to be a “something.” That is wrong. It is mathematically, affirmatively and commonsensically NOTHING.

That’s an elementary fact.

Don’t try to confuse readers with such void postulations.

Deep Sight:

It seems to me my last post was too long for you to bother to read.

Actually I did. I haven't fully read your last one though as you still don't seem to understand and the first paragraph or so were enough to show this.
What is "existence"? What is "life"? What is "meaning"? How do they tie into the physical universe?

Unless you can comprehensively explain exactly what they are, your equation is totally and utterly meaningless.

Here's an equation for you.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Matrix"? Let's base it on that but change a couple of factors.

In the movie, Human Beings are used as batteries to support a robotic world. They are kept in stasis and are totally unaware of their surroundings.
Let's change a few things.

But instead of Human Beings, let's say the robots merely created a "thinking battery" - another robot. A human being is basically a machine lying in stasis programmed to believe that it thinks. As with all robots, it started from bits of metal and finishes it's life as just bits of metal.

In this scenario, although the robot itself has been created and starts from base metals (+1), the human element is merely a by-product of it's structure. It is not created as it doesn't exist. It is an illusion. Just because the human element believes that it exists, it doesn't mean that it actually does. It is merely a piece of robotic programming.

That gives us the first 0.



Then you have your Universe. The robot that thinks it's a human is lying in stasis, but the Universe that it is lying in is very real.

That gives us the +1


Then you have the "death" of the robot. As it's just a load of metal, it effectively ceases to exist once it has served it's function.

That gives us a -1


Guess what? 0+1-1=0


But hang on. The human/robot does have a purpose. It is a battery supplying life to it's robotic creators. So how can the end result be 0?
That's about as logical as your own equation.

Bastage:

Here's an equation for you

But hang on. The human/robot does have a purpose. It is a battery supplying life to it's robotic creators. So how can the end result be 0?
That's about as logical as your own equation.

True that.

The infinitely knowledgeable Gods would not have wasted time creating man for his own purposes only (Food for the Gods)

Deep Sight:

Why limit the discourse to the origin of the individual? Because you did.

Hi KAG –

I am going to be entirely fair. I imagine I always have been. But sometimes I suppose it doesn’t come across. I am going to try hard to let it come across.

Thanks first for your detailed responses.

That is not true KAG. From the outset I spoke about the entirety of existence and weighed this against a cessation of all existence. Right from Post #17 on this thread I gave Mazaje two premises, the first of which was –

-   If everything that exists ends in nothingness (ceases to exist) – then all existence has collapsed into empty nothingness and accordingly the purpose of all that existed comes to nothingness.

Thus you cannot in any terms assert that my argument was based only on the Individual. I had already stated this before you appeared on the thread, and I would have thought that you would have taken note of such a salient aspect of the discourse.

Fair enough, although I was under the impression that especially with invitations like: "Back to the individual? Come on", there was a desire to focus mostly on the individual.

This is another severely contradictory statement. I am at odds that you can state that –


1. It didn’t all emerge from a vacuum

2. The universe may have emerged from a vacuum.

Madam, how do you reconcile these statements?

It's easy really: the universe may have emerged from a vacuum, but processes that have occurred after the onset of the universe have resulted in things within the universe. Things like the earth didn't emerge from a vacuum, but were caused as a result of physical processes in the universe.

I hope you are able to see the unfortunate and regrettable repetition of irreconcilable arguments that you continuously advance in this discourse. In what intelligible terms can any person apprehend the two statements of yours above – to wit – that “it didn’t all emerge from a vacuum, but the universe may have emerged from a vacuum” ? ? ?

It's simply a case of you not being able to distinguish between causes and effects because your argument is ultimately dependent on gross conflation. To repeat the points I made above, most of the things in the universe weren't caused by a vacuum.

Now this is at the core of the atheistic dilemma: a persuasion to find a meaning and a purpose within a universe already stated to be purposeless.

Looks strange? Your words, not mine.

It isn't simply the persuasion of the atheist: it's the persuasion of practically all aware humans. No, it doesn't look strange, nor is it much of a dilemma.

It grieves me that you do not assimilate this point. I already tried to explain it in detail when I gave Mazaje two initial premises, the second of which was this –


-   If there is a central objective to an endeavour, which is dependent on the realization of smaller objectives – the collapse of the central objective will also render the smaller objectives moot and purposeless.

Another way of saying the foregoing is simply this –

  – That whereat the ultimate purpose is zero or nothingness, all smaller purposes within it perforce amount to zero and nothingness

This withstands the rigors of both mathematics and commonsense.

First, your initial premise is wrong as the smaller objectives needn't be moot nor purposeless simply because the ultimate objective has collapsed. This is true for many human endeavours. In any case, you're making the same mistake you've been making constantly in your arguments - and one I'll keep reiterating in different ways: you're mistaking non-occurrence with the demise of an occurrence.

Second, purpose as the construct of beings is only meaningful from their perspectives.  The second premise still contains the same mistake of assuming non-existent is the same thing as once existed. Yes, a tree has still fallen and produced waves even if there is no one there to witness it.

Finally, yes so far I'd say what you've written does withstand the rigors of mathematics and commonsense. In fat, it's successfully, generally, lacking both so far.

Withstand:
1 a : to stand up against :  oppose with firm determination; especially :  to resist successfully

b : to be proof against :  resist the effect of

In terms of mathematics – it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero. Now please note this very very carefully because the entire discourse hinges on it and I will elucidate. For emphasis I first repeat: it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

Now stop.

I've cut the argument here so I can address it separately from the part where you misunderstand and misuse representational mathematics. Contrary to what you think it is a possibility that quantum fluctuations can happen in vacuums. Quantity appearing within what you've denoted a zero. So much for that.

Take a deep breath. Assimilate:

You stated that the Universe may have emerged from a vacuum. A vaccum. This is nothingness and thus zero. This is what advised the first part of the equation I set up – to wit -

0 (zero).

Now you further stated that the universe emerged.

This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist. Now the universe is a factor or quantity as opposed to a non-factor or non-quantity. We may thus represent it as 1. This is a representative figure as the figure could be anything quantifiable. This advised the development of my equation into –

0 + 1.

Actually, not quite. First, you claim that "it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero." [emphasis yours], then now you accept that "in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist" [emphasis mine]? You should make up your mind.

Further, it's laughable to represent the universe with the number "1" when it's a super set in itself. In any case, even if one were to use the number "1", the emergence of the universe still wouldn't be mathematically represented by

"0 + 1",

but:

0 = 1 as the universe possibly emerged from a vacuum and isn't the sum of the vacuum and the universe.

It should already become apparent by that point that you're doing representational mathematics wrong.

This is the point at which the universe exists. It is something, a factor.

Now the point of demise represents a cessation of existence of that factor. Thus in the equation, you remove the factor itself, leading to –

0 + 1 – 1.

The sum of this equation is ineluctably zero.

Before I go further let me carefully note that this existential series also applies in our discourse to the life of a society or an individual human being. It is all the same.

Except, the universe may not end. If it does it may not end as a vacuum. I won't repeat the points about your maths and your logic here.

I should also add that, as I have pointed out previously, the same faulty logic doesn't apply to the life of a society or human being as neither of the two emerge froma vacuum, etc.

Now let me say a few pertinent things at this point –

1. What is an equation. It is a sum that expresses a balance of equality between a sum and a result. Thus 1 + 1 = 2. This simply means that the figure “2” is the SAME figure as the sum “1 + 1!”

2. What this inescapably shows, is that the non-existent factor “zero” IS THE SAME FIGURE AS THE SUM – “0 + 1 – 1.”

3. Thus the existential series which I describes above IS THE SAME AS THE FIGURE ZERO AND THUS AMOUNTS TO NOTHINGNESS.

Again no. I have mentioned how you're doing representational mathematics laughably wrong. Further, I have argued that you're are mistaking the non-existent with expiration, no doubt aided by the poor mathematics you've been using so far. Yes, the figure 2 = 1+1, as 1 = 0.33 repeating times 3, but they are of varying degrees of equality and the former especially shouldn't be mistaken for abstract philosophical concepts

To make this sit well with you, let me address some queasy points.

1. You make heavy weather of present existence – and you insist that so long as we are presently living and experiencing things, then there is not nothingness. Let me ask you: do you countenance the possibility that it is all a mirage? A dream, sort of? A void. A hallucinated reality?

2. I place this to you because of the uniqueness of experience. I am sure you are aware of the philosophical riddle which posits that so long as each man’s experience of reality remains unique to himself, he can never affirm externally the reality or non-reality of his existence.

Even if it was a dream, etc. "I" am in existence and awareness, experiencing. The positing of different viewpoints is irrelevant in light of what is being argued here, that a perspective or series of perspectives mean(s) something.

But the foregoing is slightly tangential: for the real point that I must bring to you is this – namely the central theme that I had stated before to wit –

it is not possible for any quantifiable factor to exist within a zero.

In the context of that which I have set out above, I hope that you see that –

1. The existential series “0 + 1 – 1.” – is exactly the same thing as a ZERO (remember what an equation is).

2. And since it is in itself a zero, then it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST WITHIN IT.

3. ACCORDINGLY, THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE TO PRESENTLY EXIST, GOING BY YOUR FINITE VIEWS – CANNOT EXIST AT ALL. NOTHING CAN EXIST IN A ZERO, BECAUSE A ZERO IS NOTHINGNESS.

Now I need to note very carefully that I have spent the foregoing in analysing the possibility of existence at all – on a metaphysical level – if both ends of the series commence and end with a zero. I have very carefully stated that this would mean that everything is in fact zero and that in reality, nothing therefore exists. Evidentially, this is not correct – and this is my basis for asserting that the finite worldview of the atheist which presupposes that things can end in nothingness – (that a man can “cease” to exist by dying, or that all that exists can cease to exist – or emerged from a vacuum -) is eminently and evidentially wrong, mis-footed and misconceived.

"0 + 1 - 1" isn't an existential series.

You wrote this: "This means that in addition to or within the vacuum (for want of words) the universe has come to exist."

I've addressed most of this previously. Life does end. The brain and the body expire, hence nothing is left of the original animal. Trying to represent these concepts with simple maths is bordering on silly.

I rather state to you, that - Only a worldview with continuing existence can have any meaningfulness whatsoever.

I state to you that you're wrong.

Finally, I must return briefly to your conundrum of purpose.

Remember that this thread after all is not just about the fact of existence (which is what you have argued) but rather about the purpose of existence.

Then you haven't been reading what I wrote properly. Things exist, beings impose purpose onto those things in existence. Gold, for example, just was. Human beings dug it up and have imposed a purpose unto its existence. Without humans it will just continue to be, lacking purpose.

Summarily, I submit as l already said, as follows –

1. If a central or bigger purpose is actually purposeless, then the smaller purposes within it are actually purposeless as well. This is only logical.

2. You have already stated that the universe is most likely purposeless.

3. This logically removes any iota of purpose that may exist within the universe.

4. We exist within the universe.

5. We therefore cannot have a purpose if the universe is purposeless.

We exist within the universe – indeed, we are a product of the universe – that is, in your materialist view. If we have, can develop, or impose meaningfulness, then the universe CANNOT be purposeless, as we are ourselves a product or result of the existence of the universe.

n

Nonsense. See the example of gold I gave above. Subtle uses of the metal have given it certain purposes in the interim. It has none inherently. The same applies to the universe. We can have a purpose within an inherently purposeless universe because we are beings: we are aware; a condition that inclines us towards delineating meaning. This creation of meaning is a successful enterprise, and, like the puddle in the hole, we've defined our lives in something that just was. To extend a metaphor: we are of the universe, but we aren't the universe.

@Deep Sight, KAG, Bastage and Mazaje with no disrespect. Kindly supply NL with your sources or references to protray your points. I think this will give your arguments a strong ground in area of nothingness, nature vs. nurture etc. I hope you get my point.

Or perhaps, the journey through life is the purpose itself, no matter what form the journey might take. Every experience in every moment is the purpose. If that is the case, then everyone is on course, including mazaye himself and all his atheist posse.

I have no problems with the idea of experiencing the moment. What I have tried to show, which peeps are just not getting: is that it is inconceivable, and illogical, that a purposeful life should end in nothingness. That is nothing short of nihilistic purposelessness - and I believe that this is not the case in this life that we live.

Energy is immortal. We know that neither energy nor matter can be destroyed: rather they only change state - I would think that this should be sufficient basis for the understanding that the "being" is also not destroyed: it merely changes state. This accords with the principle that nothingness does not exist; there is always something.

What Mazaje has rather said is that his life is a journey. At some point he comically tried to rescind that statement. But I argued that so long as his life is a progression that has a trajectory in time, then it is definitely analoguous to a journey. He further stated that that journey will end in nothingness. I therefore concluded that he believes his life to be a progressive trajectory towards nothingness. I wonder why that seems unpalatable to him as it is the irrevocable summary of his own stated worldview.

^^^ I think that mazaye, just like all the other atheists like him, are merely kicking against the "judgement day" scenario as presented by christianity/islam as being the end of the journey, as well as being the purpose. I can understand that. Christianity/islam teachings have totally misunderstood and belittled the purpose of life existence and i would kick against their interpretations of what that purpose is, myself.

Pleasing some sky daddy via ego soothing and getting judged because one did not do that, to me, is a pretty mundane purpose and i would rather choose to have no purpose at all over the kind of purpose professed by these two desert dogmas. Remember from whence most atheists come from. From these two dogmas. It is only a shame that these two dogmas still influence their worldview. Atheists have not totally freed themselves of these two dogmas as they like to think or believe.

Another really enjoyable one.

I would like to invite thehomer to state the purpose of his life.

[size=3pt]I hope that will not in reality amount to re-inviting mazaje. . .[/size]

^^^ but it will, ultimately

Deep Sight:

Another really enjoyable one.

I would like to invite thehomer to state the purpose of his life.

[size=3pt]I hope that will not in reality amount to re-inviting mazaje. . .[/size]

I evaluate (and re-evaluate) my life's purpose as I go on living.

What is the purpose of your own life?

My purpose is to evolve back to my original state of pure I.

Hmmmm, this is why I dislike the religion section these days. All I did was just scroll and scroll down who has time to read all those long arguments you guys are giving? If the purpose of life is that hard then over 99% of people living in this world do not know their purpose. Mazaje even has time for all this plenty talk, at the end of the day no matter what it is the importance the being attaches to whatever he or she is getting out of life that is the most important factor.

Chrisbenogor:

Hmmmm, this is why I dislike the religion section these days. All I did was just scroll and scroll down who has time to read all those long arguments you guys are giving? If the purpose of life is that hard then over 99% of people living in this world do not know their purpose. Mazaje even has time for all this plenty talk, at the end of the day no matter what it is the importance the being attaches to whatever he or she is getting out of life that is the most important factor.

A ah! Chris, are you not acquainted with DeepSight?

Chris Deepsight, Deepsight Chris.