The origins of life, WHY ARE WE HERE?

College Majors
21

<p>My hypothetical is central to the point I’m trying to argue. Read it again, and answer it truthfully. </p>

<p>Just because you can’t prove somethign doesn’t mean you can’t know it to be true. The United States Government can acknowledge the existence of God, yet can they prove he exists? </p>

<p>Theres something called better judgment, drawing logical conclusions, and just common sense. The big bang theory suggests there was a point in time when the universe was created, and theres lots of supporting evidence, and I think as do most people that the big bang theory is true, can it ever be proven? No, but its probably true.</p>

<p>If I slap someone in the face we can estimate the pain they suffered by their reaction. We can draw logical conclusions based on facts. If someone screams in pain after being hit I’m going to say its a fact they are suffering. If you beleive Napoleon’s spirit were behind me, there has to be a reason why, some reasonable facts that can be used to defend your argument. There are none that are great enough to support such an argument. </p>

<p>However with the big bang the fact that the universe is expanding proves the universe at one time was smaller. And because of this there was probably a beggining. There is enough evidence to support this argument, then there is evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>Thats the difference. Theres facts to support what I’m saying that specifically preclude other possibilites. Stating that Napoleons spirit is behind myself as a fact when you know its not true is wrong. My facts to support that there is more pain in life then pleasure are greater and far outweigh your opinion that I am speaking like Napoleon. (to beleive that Napoleon’s spirit is in my body would be going beyond just one “subject” its something that just cannot be supported. </p>

<p>I think that when people experience both the good and the bad, they become less biased and open their eyes more. They become more objective at least in my case. </p>

<p>Also when a person has a baby they may be doing it so they can experience the “pleasure” of having a child, and because the parents are not the ones that will feel the pain when the child suffers, they won’t take the pain into consideration as much. People are more concerned how things affect them, thats how our economy works, thats how people work, how they politicians rule the world. Everyone looks at for their own interests. A person would care more if their child got a paper cut as then if a stranger’s child fell off a bike. This is because people are selfish, they care about their needs more then others. People only help others so the people doing the helping experience making others happy. They don’t actually want to make them happy.</p>

22

<p>Ok, I know better than this but as an example… How does anyone know that the life or all of human life isnt the bes of all possible outcomes?</p>

<p>For example what we call suffering might be minor to some alternative paradigm?</p>

23

<p>We don’t know, its a matter of judgment and probability. What we do know is that there is no scientific evidence for an after-life. We also know that as far as we know once a person dies, their suffering ends as well. Thats why theres euthenasia.</p>

24

<p>Also better to die now on your feet, then live a hundred years on your knees.</p>

25

<p>BCarvings: With all due respect, I have stopped replying to your postings because what you are posting is not philosophy; it is opinion. If that is your opinion, that is fine, but your argument is not sound, and it not supported by anything but more opinion. For example, you keep using the word “fact” in Post 21, but then support it with probabilities. If it is a probability, and not absolute, then it is not a “fact,” it is “probable.” If you are truly interested in the field, and would like to continue this line of conversation in a soundly argumentative way, PM me and I’d be happy to. In the future, know that form matters as much as content, so when constructing your argument, don’t be afraid to take a little time and construct it carefully. </p>

<p>Best of luck in your endeavors.</p>

<p>PS KillinEm: That’s pretty harsh. Lets not insult philosophers :)</p>

26

<p>But the problem is, bcarvings, you haven’t given any evidence that there’s more pain than pleasure in the world. Sure, I am aware that we make inductive conclusions. But those conclusions are based on very strong evidence. And here you are trying to make an inductive conclusion based on zero evidence (or really weak and impertinent evidence like the probability of getting dissected alive and your personal experiences in the world). I made my Napoleon example to tell you just how insubstantial your case is. What if I told you I grew up believing in ghosts just as you grew up experiencing much pain? By your logic, my opinion of ghosts and spirits becomes a fact?</p>

<p>The Big Bang theory, though refutable, has permeated a lot of modern astronomy. A lot of money and decisions have been devoted to it. That’s acceptable, considering that the theory has strong backing. But you, with your weak evidences, are trying to conclude that we should all kill ourselves. That’s *not * acceptable. Try working for the government and saying, “Hey I don’t have much data but I have this really good sense of intuition, so I think you should trust me and pass my legislations for this and this and that.” Since your mass suicide conclusion is an incredibly heavy one, it must be arrived at with even stronger evidence than the Big Bang theory requires. So before you become any of those things which you want to become (as stated in your first post), why not prove that there’s more pain than pleasure in the world first?</p>

<p>Here, try this exercise: I think there’s more pleasure than pain in the world. Refute me. </p>

<p>Because you started this argument and because you are trying to validate your conclusion, the burden of proof lies on you, not on me.</p>

27

<p>If God exists, then life has meaning. I believe God is the creator of everything. I believe that in the beginning He created it all perfect, and mankind was meant to worship and glorify God. Then man sinned and brought suffering. </p>

<p>Whether you can provide a long logical argument over the existance of God is missing the point. Look at the stars. Look at the amazing complexity of the universe. It couldn’t just assemble itself by itself when it wanted. That is like saying if you put a bunch of gases and elements in a container over millions of years they’d be smart enough to create a whale.</p>

<p>Or maybe it could have, and the big bang is another word for God, just less fancy.</p>

28

<p>what the %#$ is wrong you? </p>

<p>You must be Aryan?</p>

29

<p>Don’t patronize me Gil. </p>

<p>Let me give an extreme hypothetical. If a person is in a plane at 10,000 feet and they are completely crippled and are burning alive slowly and will definatley die withn minutes, is it ok for the person to commit suicide if they have a gun in hand? </p>

<p>Now heres another. Suppose the earth’s atmosphere “breaks up”, everyone on earth is going to die in hours, however the governments propose rather then having everyone suffocate to death, the people can be killed with some less painful means. Is this a smart choice for the government?</p>

<p>Now suppose about 3% of all people on earth will definatly die from painful starvation, and another 5% from other excruciatingly painful deaths. What if we could end their pain by killing all people? I think that the pain of the few is greater then the happiness of the many. Why the hell should I get to live in semi-happiness (decent family, intelligent, in good college, wealthy) when theres some children starving to death? If ten people like myself could die to KILL one of them to end their suffering, I think that would be successful (considering all of us die in no pain and very quickly). The people experiencing this pain cannot express this idea, they are powerless. Yet the strong healthy individuals don’t give a damn, they would rather live their lives the best they can and give little thought to these suffering people.</p>

<p>We have one of the highest suicide rates of all-time. Most people are unhappy. For example half of all people that get married end up getting a divorce. Also even though more and more money is being spent on health care services and more is know of mental diseases, the number of people with depression has increased drastically. (not just because its understood better, but because more people are depressed, this can be seen by the high suicide rate because suicide and depression and mental illness tend to go hand-in-hand.</p>

<p>Also if something is more probable then something else, that is a fact, and can be used to interpret and make conclusions about the probability. Logical ones.</p>

<p>Now I’m not a philosopher nnor do I have a desire to be one. If I though people would listen to me I would do it. But as long as people are selfish and care more about themselves then others this will never happen. People beleive what they want to beleive even if an argument is logically sound and clearly the best answer to our solutions. Some like George Bush would rather destroy the environment with little regard for others even though evidence clearly shows carbons fuels contribute to Global warming. I could go on and on but I’m tired, this argument is futile as those of you who are happy, would not understand.</p>

<p>All I wanted to do since I was little was help people, I’ve always been disturbed by others in pain. But I can see that the majority of people care only for themselves, and use their inner hate to block out the pain of others.</p>

<p>-The Philosopher
Does it seem like I intended to have the majority of people accept my claims? Most of the thigns I said, you say are my opinion, but thats just because some things CANNOT be proven. If my “opinion” could be proven then it would be a fact, but in my scenerio my “opinion” is logical and would be a fact, if my assumptions are true. (Utotalatarianism)</p>

<p>There has been war after war, unbeleiveable pain in unbeleiveable numbers. There has always been war, it will never end, its human nature.</p>

<p>Lastly
Do I seem like a philosopher? Or just a kid struggling with some philosophical issues?</p>

30

<p>neither… you just have issues.</p>

31

<p>So, your “facts” are that happy people are selfish because they don’t kill themselves because other people in the world suffer? More fortunate people should kill themselves because this will benefit the less fortunate? I don’t even want to touch your arguments because they’re so full of logical fallacies, but seriously you should read what you type. It makes no sense and you’re all over the place. Jumping from the formation of life to suffering to human nature to global warming? Its poorly thought out, in the future you should at least make sure your expressing yourself clearly. The content is a whole other story, but a good starting point would be to work on your ability to write any kind of argument.</p>

<p>Secondly, you’re not ready for any kind of study at college, let alone a scientific major. Do you understand the scientific method? The definition of “fact” and “theory”? I mean, I have a tough time in science but I do have a firm grasp of those basics. Your attitude is not the attitude of a scientist. A scientist is inquisitive and sure, they have ideas. But a true scientist does not go around proclaiming their opinions as facts. A fact is proven and constant. A theory, although not certain and permanent, is supported by substantial evidence. Your hypothesis is “life is suffering”. That’s not a theory, that’s not a fact, that is your hypothesis. You’re free to use the scientific method to support it, but simply saying “trust me, I know” is completely unscientific. Science isn’t founded on trust, it’s backed up by a ton of hard evidence.</p>

<p>Additionally, you might want to look into Buddhism. It has a similar philosophy that life is suffering. However, unlike you, it’s a rather optimistic religion advocating compassion towards others and an acceptance that pleasure is fleeting. It might benefit you and humble you some to look into Buddhism and its teachings. Encouraging mass suicide? Not compassion. Looking into a way to reduce the suffering of people? An admirable and compassionate cause.</p>

32

<p>"Don’t patronize me Gil. "</p>

<p>I’m sorry if I am.</p>

<p>Firstly, your death scenarios. Anything can happen in the future, your scenarios included. They’re really, really horrifying, but does this mean we should all put guns to our heads this instant? Even if someone knows he’ll burn in a plane many years later, he would still want to spend the rest of his life achieving his dreams, helping others who need help, making the world a better place. 50 years of more potential pleasantness than potential pain for the sake of 5 minutes of combustion - that seems like a good trade off. Would someone shoot himself if he were in that plane, burning, knowing that he would die soon? Yes. But look at what a trade-off this is: Instant neutralization to prevent a few minutes of excruciating pain. All of us know that we will die someday, and all of us are aware that perhaps our deaths will be painful. It doesn’t have to be burning in a plane, or suffocating, or starving - I think natural illnesses themselves can be painful. Yet most of us fight through.</p>

<p>And how certain are you that the thought of an impending mass-suicide plan will not cast a blanket of such great horror and depression over the world that your so-called pleasant plan will only cause more pain in the world (in humanity’s last few weeks/days/minutes)? How certain are you that the pain and mental torment inflicted by your plan isn’t greater than the mass suffocation caused by that hole in the atmosphere? If you say something like, “Let’s do it discreetly and let’s make the death instant,” I have nothing further to say but concede that you’re a mad scientist.</p>

<p>Secondly, I knew you would give all those reports about depression and suicide and global warming. You seem to think that newspapers are completely unbiased and try their best to report both pain and pleasure, and that the overwhelming number of depressing news is proof that there’s more pain than pleasure in the world. Well, news-reporting is sadistic. How can you be certain that for each painful experience that you read in the news there are not two or three pleasant experiences happening elsewhere? And you seem to think that people are born fated to live an all-painful or an all-pleasant life. You seem to think that depressed humans go about feeling depressed all their lives, that they have never experienced joy, do not experience joy, and will never experience joy. This goes back to the death scenarios too: just because someone might die a painful death does not erase all the pleasures that he has had throughout his life. And you seem to think that just because suicide rates are high, there are more suicidal humans than there are non-suicidal humans. If life is as depressing as you say, and if suicide is an indicator of a person’s depression like you make it out to be, why isn’t the suicide rate higher than the non-suicide rate?</p>

<p>“I think that the pain of the few is greater then the happiness of the many.”</p>

<p>I thought you didn’t have a pain-o-meter?</p>

<p>If your plan is to increase pleasure among mankind, why not have a suicide plan just for those who are suffering extreme pain? If you think that’s unfair, wouldn’t you say that your mass suicide plan is unfair to those who are experiencing more pleasure? I think both plans are silly; we should strive to help, not take the easy way out. Sure, some of us are selfish and don’t help, but remind me: are we trying to decide if your plan is logical or are we trying to pass a moral judgment about selfishness?</p>

<p>You don’t need to be a philosopher to think well about issues like this. Things don’t always work binomially; you don’t have to choose to be or not to be something. Just learn to think about philosophical questions and learn how philosophers think. It can only benefit you.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don’t think I wish to discuss this issue further. It’s becoming very opinionated and further away from the philosophical debate that I expected. Even my arguments are straying further away, as a result of replying to your arguments too many times. Let’s end it here. You can have the final word if you want.</p>

33

<p>Yes I agree this debate is going no where. I just want one last response the the “fairy”. My plan must kill all humans because it would be more efficient and would ensure all people die. The happy people dieing would be a necessary evil. That part would be bad.</p>

<p>Ok, but I won’t visit this post anymore, I just am upset. Not about this post, ggod bye</p>

34

<p>bcarvings… [YouTube</a> - Good Will Hunting Scene](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws66aAdthE0]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws66aAdthE0)</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>My apologies, it wasn’t an attack on philosophers so much as an attack on bcarvings. When I read posts like those I just think, “Seriously?” </p>

<p>And it’s not very philosph of you to judge someone based on I.Q. now is it?</p>

36

<p>This thread is very interesting. I think you (OP) are mislead in your idea that we’ll be better off if we were all dead. </p>

<p>“as far as we know once a person dies, their suffering ends as well”</p>

<p>This assumes that we exist after we die, that we can sense or feel that we are better off after the event of death. You should also say that happiness ends as well. Our conscious selves, the notion that I have a free-thinking, independent self, everything as we know it ceases to be. That is why the only objective thing you can say about the world is that everything just exists. You can’t propose a solution when there is no problem. Pain does not persist after death. Neither does happiness. There is no better way to die, because in the end there’s nothing to be felt, no persistence of consciousness. Of course we all would rather feel happiness than pain, and choose do so if given the choice (though let’s say I want to suffer myself for a certain cause, then I am still being selfish in that I know something to be true and will glorify myself for that something). You aren’t proposing anything that in the end will do anything for anybody, because we all will eventually fade into the obscurity of existence with nothing t(no brain) to maintain what we once knew as ourselves (just mere illusions).</p>

<p>This is rather a different piece of criticism than anyone else by the way, but this is just how I see it. Also, please keep in mind that no one person has the answers, and that to think you see everything the right way is naive. You will tend to lose ground when you talk of yourself being liberated from subjectivity and biased outlook because you then attack everyone else as still being in the dark. I’ve definitely been in the same boat, so I know how you feel.</p>

<p>“I think that when people experience both the good and the bad, they become less biased and open their eyes more. They become more objective at least in my case.”</p>

<p>By seeing good and bad, recognizing that they exist, you are actually being more subjective than objective. There is no good or bad inherent in the universe. A lion killing a gazelle is not bad, nor is it good. A terrorist killing innocent civilians (in the scheme of the universe) is not bad, nor is it good. The way we perceive good and bad is totally inherent to us, because we created it.</p>

<p>No matter how we think we see the world, we are still limited to things which we do not have the ability to perceive. I can’t tell you what they are, because any notion of them is a conception of my brain; therefore it does not truely lie outside of me.</p>

<p>All I can say is that our lives must go as they go. Not necessarily as they were meant to or designed to go, but just as they go. If in the future your ideas come into practice, then life just took on a dynamic that we just never realized it had the potential to take. We don’t control things; the workings of our being do. They give us the illusion that we can control, create, steer things in a different direction, when in fact it must be very natural for us to do certain things because we had the ability to do them.</p>

<p>Also, when proposing something new, define your terms. The word “life” is very ambiguous. I could say that life is the presence of atoms, in this case it could just be called existence, with nothing attached. You seem to define life in the only way we as humans can understand ourselves; that is, life is something we feel and see, the progression from small to mature, growth. But if I chop a tree down, it doesn’t die at the base level of existence. All the atoms are still accounted for. In this sense, I could say that we never really live or die. Again, for you, suffering is a bad part of life, but life as you know it is macroscopic, general, subjective. Thefore, suffering is not inherent in the universe, only to us. So if you told me that to get rid of suffering (which I understand you also mean to thus reach a state of non-suffering, again what I understand you to mean as the opposite of suffering, which you say is happiness) you must kill humanity, I would say that without humanity creating the illusion of both suffering and happiness, there is nothing but pure objective existence. Therefore, there is no utility in your proposal because the end result (happiness) is not achieved. We would not be better off with mass suicide. In the end, too, there is no utility in anything we think we do, but that’s something else to discuss. </p>

<p>Ultimately, ideals can be a pain to deal with. If you like ideals, make sure you present them well and don’t get too defensive by soon becoming quick to then speak your mind about George Bush and unrelated topics that can easily lose an audience. Please take this with a kind heart, because I do not mean any hostility.</p>

37

<p>anyone want to say something or are we all just not interested at this point anymore?</p>

38

<p>You are here because . . . </p>

<p><answer will=“” be=“” posted=“” later=“” tonight=“”></answer></p>

<p>Kei</p>

39

<p>Maybe you should study archaeology and be apart of NASA?</p>

40

<p>I don’t know why you keep insisting that your argument is perfectly logical and objective… it isn’t in its current state. Put it into axiom —> conclusion form and it will be (somewhat) more rigorous as well as more understandable.</p>

<p>Don’t underestimate the value of being humble in your assertions.</p>