What's the meaning of life?

[Curious kuku]

Curious kuku wrote:

Believers insist the meaning of life is to serve God but if God is all powerful God has no needs including a need for creation. So clearly the problem requires a different approach that both blind believers and blind deniers must ignore as threatening to their beliefs. Is it possible to rise above both blind belief and blind denial so as to do justice to the question of the meaning of life?"

Didn't God relinquish some of his power when he granted humans 'free will'? Isn't God wanting humans to return to him of their own free will?

Whether or not one believes on the old story of the Fall, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and Salvation we humans are free from God's determinism and must recognise the responsibility we have to choose our paths through our lives without benefit of deterministic God. God the Good can and should remain for us as a beacon of hope but it is not true to God to expect God to intervene with occasional miracles large and small.

Some confusion here Belindi, the quote isn't mine it's part of Nick A's response to me.
I am curious though. Where did you come by the idea of a power transference from god to man?

[Belindi]

Sorry Kuku. I'm afraid I keep doing this despite trying to find my way through the devilish quoting formats.

I would have thought that the Genesis story about how Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden was about how they either had to have their freedom, or not . Even chose freedom. It's binary, either man can find his own way to goodness, truth and beauty, or he accepts the static situation in the Garden of Eden.

I suppose some others don't interpret the story of The Expulsion in this way, and I don't know what is official Christian, Jewish, or Muslim doctrine.

Additionally, within Christianity, I thought that the Father's reason for the Incarnation of Himself in Jesus Christ was because in His mercy and pity He saw that we were unable to manage without guidance and wanted to show us the way.

-- Updated February 23rd, 2017, 5:29 am to add the following --

Typo! I meant Eve chose freedom.

[Desertwisdom]

It appears that religion frequently asserts itself into purely philosophical discussions. I guess this is just force of habit, seeing that all of us has some type of religious background. Even an atheist or an agnostic needs a religious milieu in order to make any sense of his/her atheism or agnosticism. Hope I am not being too critical here.

[Curious kuku]

[quote="Belindi"]Sorry Kuku. I'm afraid I keep doing this despite trying to find my way through the devilish quoting formats.

(Snip)

With you all the way on that one. My pref would be something like the tree display that Fortes Agent used to show when I used to frequent Usenet.

In your reply you write: "I would have thought that the Genesis story about how Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden was about how they either had to have their freedom, or not."
OK I see where you're coming from. God being supposedly all powerful, the only way the A&E could choose otherwise was if god granted them or gave them the power to do so. As you wrote in your original "Didn't God relinquish some of his power when he granted humans 'free will'?" I think your interpretation is fair enough. For A to grant, cede, relinquish, bestow, gift e.c.t 'X' to B, a transference has taken place. Thanks for replying, I thought there was something explicit in the Bible that I'd not come across before.
Regards, Curious Kuku

[Belindi]

It appears that religion frequently asserts itself into purely philosophical discussions. I guess this is just force of habit, seeing that all of us has some type of religious background. Even an atheist or an agnostic needs a religious milieu in order to make any sense of his/her atheism or agnosticism. Hope I am not being too critical here.

I think you are very right, Desert Wisdom. I wish that everybody here would acknowledge their debt to history.

-- Updated February 24th, 2017, 7:33 am to add the following --

Curious Kuku wrote:

For A to grant, cede, relinquish, bestow, gift e.c.t 'X' to B, a transference has taken place. Thanks for replying, I thought there was something explicit in the Bible that I'd not come across before.

Yes, however it's a valid objection that God defined as infinite implies that His definitive attributes, presumably including freedom-power , are infinite. (We are accustomed to God as infinite love for instance.) In the case of infinite God his power also is infinite: cannot be diminished however much He concedes to nature or to mankind.

As I said, I don't know the official doctrines. However I guess that 'transcendent' in the case of God refers to His infinite nature of love and power. The question then boils down to whether or not attributes can be definitive or infinite. I mean 'infinite' is opposed to 'definitive' . I believe that this opposition is mathematical as well as ontological and epistemic.

If, on the other hand, God is more than than the sum of His attributes, He is well beyond human reason and is therefore a matter for bare faith.
Nature is not more than the sum its attributes. Mathematics is not more than the sum of its attributes. Even mystical experiences are not more than the sum of their attributes. Plato's eternal Forms are speculation and let's remember that Plato was an aristocrat.

[Rr6]

There is no returning to God, because none have ever left God/Universe.

We cannot get out of our finite, occupied space Universe, except via our ability to access metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts that are not of space, occupied or not.

Concepts of space is not same as space, occupied or not. Many cannot grasp this relatively simple concept.

Humans access metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and assign purposes to "U"niverse, Universe/God, biological life etc.....

That is purpose of humans beyond other animals purpose.

objectively harvest information,

sort the information

discover laws, patterns and principles,

subjectively apply what has been learned to the ecological environement that sustains us all or die trying. Seems simple enough to me.

r6

[Ranvier]

Life, in general, exists to evolve. By "evolve", I mean to go beyond its boundaries, in every aspect imaginable....

An excellent point Atreyu.

I believe, actually I'm quite certain that all of us had been given intellectual capacity to search within to find the answer that applies to the concept of life in general, especially conscious life and humanity. Discussing the meaning of life requires a great finesse, because pushing other minds in certain direction often causes people to withdraw (Atheists) or become complacent (Theists). Science and Religion are both required at the same time as active processes that must evolve with understanding. But to truly understand one must arrive to conclusions alone without the existential noise of physical reality. One can offer very detailed directions to a military veteran of what needs to be done to relearn how to walk, yet it won't be of much use to him, alone he must learn how to walk again. Some people after using the restroom will wash their hands, while others will not upon leaving, even when there is a clear sign explaining why hands should be washed. People often tell me that they are too busy or not adept to address such profound questions and that they will not bother to try to find answers. After all, everything will be revealed upon death. What can one say to that other than that a rock will not wander aimlessly alone in it's mind for eternity but consciousness may regret such a choice. Change must come from within, otherwise our existence might be worse than meaningless.

[Eaglerising]

Removing God and religion from this discourse eliminates two major distractions. It also allows us to examine the question freshly and objectively.

Let’s see what happens when we approach “What is the meaning of life?” from a scientific, philosophical, and common sense perspective. Seeing we are discussing life, let’s begin by examining “life,” the perfect perpetual motion machine. It is autonomous in that it is self-sufficient, self-sustained, and self-governing. It is always changing, evolving and stimulating itself. And, it is omnipotent, omnipresent, and indestructible.

Can we mutually agree upon what has been stated about life?

[Pelegrin_1]

Hmmm, personally I have my doubts about a few of your declarations about "life", and I also think there's a necessary distinction that absolutely needs to be made with respect to what "life" we're talking about.

First off, I have serious doubts that any of your second 3 descriptors are definitely true about life. Life certainly is destructible, given the right (wrong, if we consider life to be something positive) circumstances. That said, "new life" has almost infinite potential of existing or coming into existence, given the right conditions. As regards to omnipotence, I also think that life is limited, at least to some extent, by the surrounding conditions; whether we're talking nearby or in vast expanses, those conditions generally need to be conducive for life to exist. And with respect to omnipresence, this seems to me to be obviously untrue.

However, as with respect to most topics discussed by humans, generally the intent of a question is focused on what meaning the question has for humans themselves, and therefore, wasn't the question specifically intended to refer to 'What's the meaning of life, human life?' Perhaps I'm totally wrong about that. But IF we are discussing the meaning of life, in the human context, then I think that could bring into question all 6 of your descriptors. Just for example, certainly not all human lives are or have ever been "self-governed", not by a long shot.

Anyway, that's my first response to whether I personally have agreement with your starting points.

[Eaglerising]

When I speak of "life," I am talking about the underlying principle or force of everything in the cosmos. The original life force of everything, which has no limitations. Life is difficult to define because any word, label, symbol, or image to identify it limits the limitless.
Science has proven that energy can change, but cannot be destroyed.

The history of humans observing life allows us to see life is omnipotent and omnipresent. It’s always changing, evolving and stimulating itself.

We are examining “life” because the meaning of life is part of life, not separate of it. Finally, if we are examining life freshly it will be foreign and unknown to us.

[Pelegrin_1]

Fine, I won't dispute that. But I do think that we must always remember that there are various levels to a topic, and it doesn't always serve a meaningful purpose to discuss a topic at its most extreme level, because in doing so one removes the context from any real meaning that the topic has for people on an ordinary level. Sure, it shows ones sophistication about the topic, but really, what then does any of it mean for people at an everyday level. If someone is living through a time in their life in which they feel lost and are wondering what meaning there is in life, will your explanation above have any real significance for them in their personal quest for answer?

So, do we really want and need to give the most broadly ranging scientific definition to a question such as this when it's a question that's frequently posed at a very everyday level.

I think this is a problem that philosophy often has in that its elaboration isn't always useful at a common everyday level, and thus it loses a large audience.

-- Updated Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:00 pm to add the following --

However, I think I will still take exception to your defining life as you have because I think that such a definition has the great potential of depreciating the value of life. "Life has not limitations", "life cannot be destroyed", "life is omnipotent"... such statements give the direct impression of negating the preciousness of life; the fact that it can be destroyed; that it can be terminated by carelessness, by cruelty, by any number of different acts; that it can exist today and suddenly be gone tomorrow or in an instant. Life isn't appreciated enough as it is, without yet having a definition for it as that which you have given. You call it a scientific meaning, but it almost fits perfectly into a religious definition, though without a soul. Of course, in religion the soul seems to matter more than the life itself, and that too is one of my beefs against religion. Life should be treasured, and I don't think your definition lends to advancing that.

[Belindi]

Pelegrin_1 wrote:

Of course, in religion the soul seems to matter more than the life itself, and that too is one of my beefs against religion. Life should be treasured, and I don't think your definition lends to advancing that.

I agree that philosophers should be aware of the needs of their fellow men. Let's remember though that people often want to be intellectually challenged not treated as in need of therapy. Practically speaking every communication should be as simple and concise as possible. Philosophy like other academic disciplines and like most skills and professions has specialist jargon which have specific meanings and thus reduce misunderstandings.

Despite all this "What's the meaning of life?" is pretty obviously not a question aimed at academic philosophy. So this time agree with Pelegrin.

All persons should have the right to live their lives according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.No human being should be deprived of personhood by officialdom or in everyday encounters . Each responsible adult should have the right to end their life when they so desire for instance in the case of terminal illness. These three oughts together make up the ethic that each responsible adult makes their own life's meaning as well as they are able . Child education ideally leads the child to responsible adulthood.

[Eaglerising]

Pelegrin_1 stated: "We must always remember that there are various levels to a topic, and it doesn't always serve a meaningful purpose to discuss a topic at its most extreme level, because in doing so one removes the context from any real meaning that the topic has for people on an ordinary level."

I am well aware of it and understand what you are saying. As I pointed out in the beginning, we are taking an alternative approach to examining the meaning of life. One which is fresh and free of the known. Therefore, we cannot anticipate what's next or how it will turn out. We are also viewing everything as a possibility, as opposed to a foregone conclusion or opinion.

On a personal level, I came into this world in 1942, at a time when little was known about dyslexia, ADHD, and bipolar disorder. I was wrongly diagnosed and treated as being crazy by society and my family. For a long time I didn't know what was wrong with me and cursed the fact that I was different because of how I was treated. Almost every day my parents said I wasn't what they wanted in a son, but were stuck with me.

Today, I am thankful that I had these learning disabilities because they motivated me to learn how to effectively deal with them. Everything I experienced and examined about this allowed me to see how judging what we are examining and anticipating what the result will be prevented me from seeing what needed to be seen.

Most people are unwilling to view something freshly and as a possibility. Likewise, few are willing to venture into the unknown and allow themselves err. Experience has allowed me to see that it is impossible to comprehend, what alone understand, the meaning of life by approaching it from the known.

Finally, we are either in harmony with life or unknowingly fighting it, which is extremely painful and depressing. This is why it so important to examine and understand life so that we can be harmony with it.

[Rr6]

People often tell me that they are too busy or not adept to address such profound questions and that they will not bother to try to find answers. After all, everything will be revealed upon death. What can one say to that other than that a rock will not wander aimlessly alone in it's mind for eternity but consciousness may regret such a choice.

Why some would think something is revealed after death is illogical, irrational and lacks common sense. imho

What next, the dead are communicating to others to reveal what happens after death.

Access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts is the critical aspect that makes humans distinctly different than other animals.

Biological life is 75 - 85% water ergo water is closer to source of life than any other substance.

Water has 8 electrons. Water has tetrahedral relationships. The largest tetrahedron we know of exists on Mars and it is one mile high.

Mars may have been covered with water in past.

Humans objectively discover patterns, shapes, cosmic laws and principles and then apply what the have learned to support of biological life and indirectly pollution of planet Earth.

Humans sort information and winnow out cosmic hierarchies that apply to Universe and all of its parts.

There is no secret after death to be reveal. All mysteries reside with the living, not death. imho

r6

[Belindi]

Almost every day my parents said I wasn't what they wanted in a son, but were stuck with me.

I despise parents who would do this to a helpless child who needs parents for his life to continue.