<p>You don't have to believe them to be true to think that they aren't "extremely unlikely." Not to mention that each statement is open to various styles of interpretation, and as such, has a different answer to each one.</p>
<p>Also, I imagine if it could be proved life had a meaning from an objective standpoint, someone would be all over proving it.</p>
<p>Nevermind... look below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To say why would take at least a few hundred pages of deep analysis, citation of modern scientific research in the field of quantum physics, and etc. I'm just saying that don't take these as truths - they are very skeptical and if you care, research them on your own rather than accept them without extreme skepticism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hahahahahahaha.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not so much I don't believe, as in I can't verify.</p>
<p>Also, I can't verify that I'm the one doing my thinking since how can I know that I'm not just being fed these thoughts (be it as a false sense of consciousness through random chemical reactions or existing in the more general sense)?</p>
<p>I will agree that, like most metaphysical beliefs, it's pretty useless in day to life. I just like to acknowledge that it's an assumption I have to make in my day to day life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you aren't understanding is that you are making other assumptions in your condemnation of your existence or your link to your thoughts. A big assumption that you are making, for example, is that inductive reasoning works... ie that basing your beliefs on evidence and the lack thereof is a coherent system. Another assumption that seems to underlie your thought process is that reason and logic work at all, which also cannot be proven.</p>
<p>I find it hard to conceive of a way of avoiding ALL assumptions. The way that I deal with the issue is making what I consider to be reasonable assumptions. That reason works, that my thoughts are my own, and that my senses are generally reliable are all assumptions that I make. You may choose not to make them if you wish, but please don't employ reason—inductive or otherwise—and logic in an argument where you reject your own thoughts for lack of evidence.</p>
<p>Wouldn't invoking induction make it such that I would necessarily believe in my own thought since I can observe my own observations and since I can recognize them existing then they must exist?</p>
<p>I suppose you're right about the assumption that reason and logic in any form would work at all, since the actual way in which I'm existing may not rely upon logic.</p>
<p>The meaning of life? It all depends on the person, the individual who interprets it. If you wonder and think that there is meaning in your life, then there is meaning (at least to you). </p>
<p>But if you think that there is no meaning in life, then that means there is no meaning to your life (how sad to think this way...all the mystery and excitement is gone). </p>
<p>Everyone is happy? :)</p>
<p>khaki, that was such a credible response. I'm blown away by your almighty intelligence and must now accept that I'm a piece of crap who's going to die along with humanity, because are just a bunch of electrons bobbing around and doing random pointless things. Thanks for the enlightenment.</p>
<p>[End Sarcasm]</p>
<p>"2. There is no meaning of life [Contradiction, but whatever, it's not important]"</p>
<p>I don't agree with this. Even if there's no overall meaning to life, we can give our lives our own meaning (making life's meaning a subjective thing rather that objective). For example, I can feel that my life's meaning is to find the truth (or something like that). It's the THE meaning of life for everyone, but it could be a meaning I give my own life. </p>
<p>"4. Humanity will destroy itself through its own institutions rather than outside institutions, assuming a death of humanity is going to happen."</p>
<p>This reminds me of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that humans are inherently evil, which would probably result in them destroying themselves as in the theory above. I have an opposite opinion (in line with John Locke, I believe)-I think humans are inherently good and, unless they really get corrupted, will not be the ones destroying themselves. People have the ability to recognize corruption.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't invoking induction make it such that I would necessarily believe in my own thought since I can observe my own observations and since I can recognize them existing then they must exist?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er.. huh? I'm really having trouble understanding what you're saying here.</p>
<p>Your argument that you "cannot know" that you exist is based on the fact that there is no irrefutable evidence for your existence. My response to that argument is that there is no irrefutable proof that evidence matters in the first place, and that in an epistemology as harsh as yours there is no knowledge.</p>
<p>in a nutshell, flaming hot cheetos and pokemon blue.</p>
<p>Infinite_Truth, your messages smack of typical omgimsologicalism, except that your arguments are actually worse than what I usually see people in this phase say. Normally people learn a little bit about science and suddenly become unreasonably skeptical about everything. You, on the other hand, seem to think that god MUST exist because if not then you would "die along with humanity, because [we] are just a bunch of electrons bobbing around and doing random pointless things." Do you also think that you will get into College X because if not then you would not go to your dream school?</p>
<p>By the way, you claim not yet to have applied to college. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that anyone in high school would have a good understanding of quantum mechanics (ie understanding the theory better than what a popularization of science book tells you). Your other statements in this thread are equally nuts, such as saying that "modern science" somehow disproves the notion that life has no "purpose" and claiming that it would take you "hundreds of pages of deep analysis" to explain your reasoning. I actually laughed out loud when I read "that's just one theory, and highly unlikely in the face of [...] all religion."</p>
<p>Sorry for picking on you though... I feel kinda bad now.</p>
<p>nothing .</p>
<p>Well, I never supported any arguments, I just said that there are strong arguments against those things that make them not 100% sure to be true. I believe in God yes, but I never mentioned that in any of those posts. </p>
<p>Well obviously it would take hundreds of pages, after all, if you want to go and adequeatly understand one of those things you need to go read some scholarly books on them, which are usually hundreds of pages long. </p>
<p>Anyways, I was just putting out that those statements aren't absolute truth and are very questionable. That's my main point, and all the rest are just mild-level ramblings. Yea, whatever</p>
<p>Of course they aren't "absolute truth" and are very questionable! So are all statements! The guy you were replying to never even claimed they were absolute truth... in fact, he prefaced them with "I believe."</p>
<p>You're welcome to ramble at any level you want, but I would suggest not claiming that commonly-held beliefs are "extremely unlikely" if you can't explain why in less than a hundred pages.</p>
<p>No hard feelings :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your argument that you "cannot know" that you exist is based on the fact that there is no irrefutable evidence for your existence. My response to that argument is that there is no irrefutable proof that evidence matters in the first place, and that in an epistemology as harsh as yours there is no knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahh, I see. I hadn't realized that knowledge was a basic assumption in itself as well. I've always had problems with induction since it screws up so often, but I didn't think about how the actual basis of "knowing" something is up to question as well. We need to assume that there's not just little demons doing our thinking, but there's no little demons out there in the world making everything else to happen independent of cause and effect.</p>
<p>Guess this is what I get for being a physics grad student and not philosophy (sup now Infinite_Truth). :p</p>
<p>The meaning of life is the continuation of life. Sounds depressing, but it's actually illuminating and uplifting.</p>
<p>I'm kind of a Camus person on this, yet I pretty much abandon their principles and I feel really guilty for that. </p>
<p>Basically, I read Camus's The Stranger, which basically has this kind of idealism that I shouldn't care about the legal system and have the freedom to do as I wish because there's no point in life and no ethereal consequences. It also means that I should enjoy my time in life- go to the beach, enjoy the sun, have sex, among other worldly matters. And I do agree- as an athiest, I've pretty much abandoned that idea that life truly does have a meaning and in the end, we're all the same. However, I don't enjoy life that way AND I care about the consequences partly because I get something out of life like getting a good job. But really, it doesn't matter. You die. I die. Doesn't matter when because it's inevitable. </p>
<p>I'd like to live life over again, actually. I wonder what would happen had I been born somebody else, who wasn't so afraid of things. Stupid Type A personality.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, you have no evidence that those are commonly held beliefs. In fact, those beliefs are extremely uncommon. Atheists and Agnostics are a minority on our planet. The Moral Majority prevails. =D</p>
<p>We are here because if we weren't here, we wouldn't be here.</p>
<p>That is the short, scientific reason to life.</p>
<p>If anything else makes you feel good/happy/loved etc, by all means let that be your meaning of life.</p>
<p>so, atrophicwhisper, youd have no qualms about killing an arab guy because it was a warm day on the beach? :)</p>