What is the point to life?

[Atrocities]

Think about this for a second. We are born with the knowledge that we are going to die, so I ask you to consider why we are even given life in the first place. Doesn't it seem like a cruel thing to do, give something life with the knowledge that its life will ultimately mean nothing because it will die?

Why live if you know that the end result is just going to be death. Its like playing this great video game even though you KNOW your going to loose. That in the end everything meant nothing because you can't take it with you.

What good are memories of good times, and bad, if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

Think about this, do you remember the time before you were born? If not, then how do you expect to remember the you were live after you have died?

Our lives are meaningless in the end, and the journey there is made even more terrorfying because we know what will happen.

What is the purpose to life if death is the end result?

[ October 06, 2003, 04:37: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Hotfoot]

You don't lose at life, it just ends, like any video game ends.

Yes, everything comes to an end eventually, and while it might seem meaningless, it's only got the meaning you give it. If you feel it's meaningless, it will be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why are we here? To live, to exist, to continue. Those are our basic instincts, it's how we managed to survive evolution. Beyond that, it's our decision. That's the burden of sentience. So you have to decide if you want to make your life worth something or not.

I look at it like this. We have survived, as a civilization, for thousands of years. We strive ever forward, attempting to make our lives better, to improve things, and to learn. If I can leave behind a legacy for future generations, if I can do even the smallest something to help further that goal along, my life is worth something. If I were to die tomorrow, I'd know that I've had some impact on the world, however small it may have been.

You live for yourself, to enjoy life as much as you can. Life's too short to endlessly wallow in the bad things that happen or in despair. Contribute your skills and talents to make the world a better place, and learn. Never stop learning, and never stop teaching.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
...
Doesn't it seem like a cruel thing to do, give something life with the knowledge that its life will ultimately mean nothing because it will die?
...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Idea 1: Maybe for people who only care about themselves?

Idea 2: Maybe the point is to have a good time. "Live" it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Idea 3: Why would something have to exist forever in order to have any meaning?

PvK

[ October 06, 2003, 05:01: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Think about this for a second. We are born with the knowledge that we are going to die,<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you so certain of that? Do two-year-olds act like they know they are going to die? Do you remember knowing you were going to die when you were two? Or one? Or six weeks? If not, how are you certain people are born with the knoweledge, rather than aquiring it at some later date? Originally posted by Atrocities:
so I ask you to consider why we are even given life in the first place. Doesn't it seem like a cruel thing to do, give something life with the knowledge that its life will ultimately mean nothing because it will die?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Interesting; you seem to be operating under an assumption: X Eventually dies -> X is ultimately meaningless. I don't recognize that transition as valid. Do you have support for it? Originally posted by Atrocities:

Why live if you know that the end result is just going to be death. Its like playing this great video game even though you KNOW your going to loose. That in the end everything meant nothing because you can't take it with you.

What good are memories of good times, and bad, if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

Think about this, do you remember the time before you were born? If not, then how do you expect to remember the you were live after you have died?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How do you expect anything you haven't done/seen done before will come out the way you expect? You trust the accounts of others, or rely on your own reasoning. If there is an account you trust that says there is something beyond the grave, then you don't need to worry about nothingness following, and can reasonably expect to remember you were alive. If you don't have such a trusted source, well, stinks to be you. Originally posted by Atrocities:

Our lives are meaningless in the end, and the journey there is made even more terrorfying because we know what will happen.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just because something has ended does not mean that it was meaningless.

Likewise, how can you be so certain that there isn't anything after death?

Even if there isn't, why should a certainty be terrifying? There is no reason to be afraid of something that is totally certain; the fear will help you not one whit (pretty much by definition of that scenario). Fear is better saved for things you can do something about; if you can't, fearing it is quite pointless, and you efforts can be more enjoyably spent elsewhere. Originally posted by Atrocities:
What is the purpose to life if death is the end result?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Death's a transition, not an end. The condition is not met, so the consequent is immaterial.

I'm in an odd mood today....

[Ran-Taro]

"Everything that has a beggining, has an end"

Sorry to quote a movie trailer, but it's a meaningful truism for me.

Or, another way to think about it - does a raindrop only have meaning while it is falling?

Or does it return to being part of a greater meaning when absorbed back into the earth?

For a fleeting moment it seems to have the freedom of it's own form, but really it is always a part of greater whole. We too are like this.

You can accept the reality of the illusion, or you can despair and waste it.

I believe joy has meaning, even though it ends.

[Instar]

Biologically, it is to reproduce and then increase your offspring's chances of success at mating. Some species do the rabbit approach (make a zillion babies, some will survive maybe) or the human was of doing things is to have few children and spend large amounts of energy on them to increase their odds.
Spiritually, I suppose the point of life is to attune yourself to whatever religion/beliefset or whatever.
Me though, I am here to take over the world.

[Baron Grazic]

Somebody woke up in a bad mood today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As for me, I'm not going to die, and I'm going to keep saying that until the day I fall over and never get up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Wizarc]

Sex is nice. If your having lots of sex your not thinking about dying yet!

Oh, yeah! wanted to add this. Phooey on religion. Who cares.

[ October 06, 2003, 07:27: Message edited by: Wizarc ]

[StarBaseSweeper]

I may think that the drop of rain has no meaning until a sentient being look or think about it.

"Meaning" is maybe meaningfull only for sentient being.

And yes, I do not think you know you will die when born, but I think you are taught you will rather fast.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Wizarc:
Oh, yeah! wanted to add this. Phooey on religion. Who cares.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just be sure that that's absolutely true before acting on it. It'd be a pity to find out afterwards it's not...

[dogscoff]

What's life for? Why, it's for figuring out what life is for, of course.

Oh, and to ask someone else is cheating, so you didn't just read this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Mephisto]

Seems to me that the question is more about what death is in the end. A wise men once said this about death (beware, rather long):

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good; for one of two things - either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give no judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I myself, too, shall have a wonderful interest in there meeting and conversing with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and any other ancient hero who has suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall then be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in the next; and I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a m an give, O judges , to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions: assuredly not. For besides being happier than we are, they will be immortal, if what is said is true. Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty, that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that the time had arrived when it was better for me to die and be released from trouble, wherefore the oracle gave no sign. For which reason, also, I am not angry with my condemners, or with my accUsers; they have done me no harm, although they did not mean to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them. Still I have a favor to ask of them. When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing, - then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, both I and my sons will have received justice at your hands. The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.

Apology of Aristoteles, 40c to 42a

[sachmo]

I think the meaning of life is up to the individual. My meaning of life is to try and raise my kids to the best of my ability, and love them without reservation. At least this is the assumption I am operating under, and if my "meaning" is incorrect, it's going to take a lot of effort by someone to change my mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
What good are memories of good times, and bad, if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

Think about this, do you remember the time before you were born? If not, then how do you expect to remember the you were live after you have died?

Our lives are meaningless in the end, and the journey there is made even more terrorfying because we know what will happen.

What is the purpose to life if death is the end result?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The simple truth is you can't think like that, as it will rob you of all joy in life. I believe the meaning of life is to enjoy it for what it is, not to brood on what may or may not happen in the future (such as death). Sure, I believe there is no such thing as immortality, either through rebirth, or through life after death. I think death is simply nothingness, an absence of consciousness, not eternal torture in a hell, or eternal bliss in a heaven. Simple nothingness. However, the point of life is to contribute in some way to better ourselves, and to try to better all of humanity in some way, however small.
And we can attain some measure of immortality. If we have children, we never really die, and all of us are remembered by others, even long after death, so I guess it can be said that none of us ever really dies, at least in the memory of others, and because of our contribution to others.

[SpaceBadger]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

*snip*
...if you know that the end result is just going to be death

*snip*
...if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

*snip*
...if death is the end result?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, in the material I quoted above you are making some assumptions that I don't agree with. I'm a Christian, and I believe that there is more to it than what you've stated.

However, even assuming for the sake of discussion your chosen limitations, what about enjoying life while you live it? What about making the lives of others more enjoyable, or at least less miserable? What about leaving the world a little better for your descendants, or for just people in general if you have no descendants? What about not letting down those who are depending on you right now, and who are perhaps looking to you for an example of how they should live?

SpaceBadger

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Think about this, do you remember the time before you were born? If not, then how do you expect to remember the you were live after you have died?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">that's like argueing that an amniesiac didn't exist before there amnesia.

[Puke]

Someone's baiting an arguement. I'll bite, but I'm not going to hang on to the hook.

Life isn't anything. It does not "Mean" anything. You dont get anything or go anywhere when you die. You're just dead. Thats it. And you're not much more than that, right now. Your a collection of cells, which are a collection of atoms, that exist from one moment to the next, and your consiousness is only self percieved because some of those cells are altered by events as time goes by, and thus you collect "memories." but its not alot fancier than that. You're not all that different from any other animal, which isnt all that far off from a plant, which isn't all that dissimilar from any random collection of chemical reactions.

Someone on this forum has a great quote from Democritus of Abdera that sum's it up:
By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That being said, you might as well enjoy what you've got. Stop being so f-ing pompous and dont think that you have to justify everything with some sort of higher purpose. You're not chosen and theres not some mission to your life, and your not going to achieve or lose anything in death. Have a good time. Live in the here and now, because its all you've got. And only reflect on the future or past when it pleases you to do so. Live for youself, unless it pleases you to live for others. In short, do what you like. To quote Bob Marley, "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

And for some more uniquely up-beat nihlism, give Ex-Oblivione by H.P. Lovecraft a quick read:
But as the gate swung wider and the sorcery of the drug and the dream pushed me through, I knew that all sights and glories were at an end; for in that new realm was neither land nor sea, but only the white void of unpeopled and illimitable space. So, happier than I had ever dared hope to be, I dissolved again into that native infinity of crystal oblivion from which the daemon Life had called me for one brief and desolate hour.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">edit: fixed my quotes

[ October 06, 2003, 18:35: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Atrocities]

I have this theory that I think helps prove the pointlessness to life.

You live in a very nice area, say Portland Oregon for all of your life. The cost of living was afordable say around 20k. The climate is great, the recreational areas are great, the people - well normal. Then the rich folks "discover" it. The next thing you know the cost of living, poverty level, is $40,000 a year and most of the people who have lived here their entire lives can no longer aford to stay. The rich ran them off just like we did to the Indians. "Oh this is a very nice area you live in here. We are going to relocate you to this god forsaken waste land so that we can have your property."

The rich win by simply being able to aford the increased cost of living. They win because any one who makes less than 40k a year now can not afford to live around here. Now the rich can pick up houses on the foreclosure market for pennies on the dollar and get richer selling them to those who earn above the poverty level of 40k a year.

They simply raise the cost of living to the point that only the rich can aford to live.

Our lives are given meaning by simple things, the pleasure of reproduction, the taste of food, the creativeness that we all posess, etc. But in the end, we realize that all that really matters is what makes us happy while we are living.

Family, good food, friends, the places we love to live, the things we enjoy doing. When those are all taken from you, what is left?

I not saying people should go out and off themselves, god no, what I am saying is if all that we base our lives on are things that can be taken from us, plus factor in the knowledge that death will come no matter what, then life is really a cruel thing.

So if life is a cruel thing, then living is a punishement as we must endure the loss of all that life offers as a reward for living.

We are born into this world with nothing and we leave it with nothing.

[Loser]

Life is not cruel. Life is indifferent. Existence is unjust. Experience is inconsistent.

The evil, the pain, the Adamic burden, the sin is in memory. Keeping the past around, holding your action against yourself, holding another's behavior against them, this is from where suffering comes. An awareness of reality outside the present is the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It empowers us to change our world and ties us to things we cannot change, our personal epic histories.

Enlightenment, contentment, redemption, they all require an acknowledgement of the past, not an escape from it. But this acknowledgement is not made for the purpose of maintaining some perpetual accountability, it is made to free the consciousness from dwelling on painful impossibilities.

Letting go is the key to happiness.

[ October 06, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Puke]

well, yeah.. if you're on the losing side, i suppose. thats just a part of evolution, more powerfull societies have taken desireable land from less developed cultures, and it even happens internally in our own country - and other countries - where the empowered take advantage of the average or the disadvantaged.

call it cruel if you like, but its evolution in action. people are no different from animals. the pendilum can swing the other way too - the french revolution being an extreme example. dont read too much into it all. life and family and friends all remain. if the activities you enjoy are all expensive, then i cant help you there. but item and property ownership isnt really all that rewarding. at least, not to me.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by SpaceBadger:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:

*snip*
...if you know that the end result is just going to be death

*snip*
...if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

*snip*
...if death is the end result?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, in the material I quoted above you are making some assumptions that I don't agree with. I'm a Christian, and I believe that there is more to it than what you've stated.

However, even assuming for the sake of discussion your chosen limitations, what about enjoying life while you live it? What about making the lives of others more enjoyable, or at least less miserable? What about leaving the world a little better for your descendants, or for just people in general if you have no descendants? What about not letting down those who are depending on you right now, and who are perhaps looking to you for an example of how they should live?

SpaceBadger</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I do not mean to offend any one who choses to believe in an after life for the truth is no one really knows what death really brings except those who have died and they are not talking.

I am of the same mind as Puke and feel that once you gone, your gone. There is no heaven no hell, no nothing. I do believe in the essence of God, but not in religion of God. Its complicated, but basically put I am open minded and respect all people regardless of their beliefs.

If you believe in the after life, then I am very happy for you. I wish I could believe, but simply do not.

I have spent my life for others, I have sacraficed eveything to be good to others, and the deed is often its own reward, but over the Last few years I have come to the simple realization that people are people are people.

No good deed goes unpunished, nice guys do finish Last, evil is reward while kindness if punished. There are two types of poeple, criminals, and good criminals.

Good criminals are the people who run the systems that we all live by, banking, religion, government, etc. They are the ones who get wealthy off of the backs of those who do the work. Criminals, normal folks come in two sub types. Bad Criminals, and honest criminals. Bad criminals are those criminals who do horrible things like murder, rape, etc, while honest criminals are people who follow the rules, but occationally make minor mistakes such as jay walking, speeding, not waring your seat belt, etc.

The Good criminals are the people who get rich off of the backs of the rest of us. They are the guys who bankrupt a company making millions while the life savings of the companies employes is wiped out.

A good friend of mine at work brought in a philosopy book once. I read it. My life was for ever change after that. The very things that many of us complain about today, taxes, death, religion, money are very much the same thing that people have complained about since the dawn of recorded history.

Nothing changes except the stupid laws we use to govern ourselves. The laws that are written by the rich for the rich to benifit the rich. The rich do not go into the military as PFC's, no they go in as officers and often their arrogance get the PFC's killed.

The poor are nothing but a renewable resource for the wealthy to use to get wealthier. If you do not earn interest, your are paying interest. If all that my life is for is to make some other bastards life better then I choose not to play the game.

I am not a slave, I am owned by the company that I slave away at. My life is mine, why should I trade it away for just enough money to get a taste of living but not enough to live.

Depressing isn't it? Well when you boil it all down to the simple truth, as Puke said, we are all nothing but a collection of atoms. We all die rich or poor. And while I am here, living, I choose not to live to make the rich richer.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Puke:
well, yeah.. if you're on the losing side, i suppose. thats just a part of evolution, more powerfull societies have taken desireable land from less developed cultures, and it even happens internally in our own country - and other countries - where the empowered take advantage of the average or the disadvantaged.

call it cruel if you like, but its evolution in action. people are no different from animals. the pendilum can swing the other way too - the french revolution being an extreme example. dont read too much into it all. life and family and friends all remain. if the activities you enjoy are all expensive, then i cant help you there. but item and property ownership isnt really all that rewarding. at least, not to me.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Death to the Lawyers and all those who have unblemished hands!"

Evolution sucks arse! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Revolutions kick arse http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Loser, the key to being happy is in letting go. Oh how true that is. However, letting things go sometimes comes at a huge and often overwhelming expense.

[Loser]

It is more expensive to hold on. Letting go is hard, but it is the only solution.
Anything else is just makeup on a bruise.

[ October 06, 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Puke]

no, no, no.. you have to hold on loosely, and not let go. because if you cling to tight...

ah, nevermind.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

I have spent my life for others, I have sacraficed eveything to be good to others, and the deed is often its own reward, but over the Last few years I have come to the simple realization that people are people are people.

No good deed goes unpunished, nice guys do finish Last, evil is reward while kindness if punished. There are two types of poeple, criminals, and good criminals.

Good criminals are the people who run the systems that we all live by, banking, religion, government, etc. They are the ones who get wealthy off of the backs of those who do the work. Criminals, normal folks come in two sub types. Bad Criminals, and honest criminals. Bad criminals are those criminals who do horrible things like murder, rape, etc, while honest criminals are people who follow the rules, but occationally make minor mistakes such as jay walking, speeding, not waring your seat belt, etc.

The Good criminals are the people who get rich off of the backs of the rest of us. They are the guys who bankrupt a company making millions while the life savings of the companies employes is wiped out.

A good friend of mine at work brought in a philosopy book once. I read it. My life was for ever change after that. The very things that many of us complain about today, taxes, death, religion, money are very much the same thing that people have complained about since the dawn of recorded history.

Nothing changes except the stupid laws we use to govern ourselves. The laws that are written by the rich for the rich to benifit the rich. The rich do not go into the military as PFC's, no they go in as officers and often their arrogance get the PFC's killed.

The poor are nothing but a renewable resource for the wealthy to use to get wealthier. If you do not earn interest, your are paying interest. If all that my life is for is to make some other bastards life better then I choose not to play the game.

I am not a slave, I am owned by the company that I slave away at. My life is mine, why should I trade it away for just enough money to get a taste of living but not enough to live.

Depressing isn't it? Well when you boil it all down to the simple truth, as Puke said, we are all nothing but a collection of atoms. We all die rich or poor. And while I am here, living, I choose not to live to make the rich richer.[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Seems like a very liberal (infact, socialist!) point of view for a staunch republican! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (judging from comments in the 'iraq war' thread).

Cheer up! Most of the world have a hard time finding something to eat, and are a whole world away from worrying about 'gentrification'.

While you have enough to eat, family and friends, and the prospect of good times in your life, what is the point of wasting your vast potential on despair?

Look at Aaron Hall. I wouldn't call him a criminal (even by your definitions). Yet I bet he earns more than 40K! And he does it by bringing joy to all of us, so that we are happy to support him for it.

From the little I know of you, I have seen a lot of talent (as anyone who has seen your shipsets will attest). Find a use for that talent that people will be happy to pay you for, work hard and voila! All of a sudden you are the one earning good money for doing something you love, hurting no one, and sharing the bounty with those you love.

But most of all, please enjoy the good things you've got right now, because those too will come to an end. That is the meaning of life: Because it comes to an end, every moment not living it to your best potential, is a moment wasted.

Don't waste it! You have too much to offer!

[Renegade 13]

We all sacrifice for others, and those sacrifices are not always appreciated. In fact, many times they are not. But that's not the point. We can't let things like that get us down. We sacrifice for others because it is the right thing to do, and most of us are moral people at heart. We can only live the way we know we should, and whether or not other people appreciate it, does not matter.

[Atrocities]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Not a socialist, but a Depressionist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is more of a philisophical (sp) discussion than how I really look at things in life. I am actually rather optomistic by nature, I know good things will happen in time, but I can't help but take notice of all the other things that are going on.

The question about the purpose to life is as old as we our race.

Thanks for your concern Ran, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif that was very kind of you. I started this topic because I enjoy reading what people post on important issues and such.

All though life is cruel and I question the meaning of living if death is the ultimate reward, I do take great pleasure in exsisting. I mean just playing SEIV sometimes is the greatest thrill one could hope for. Life has many surprises, most good, but some not so good.

Good life surprises would be Star Wars and winning the lotto.
Bad surprises would be a flat tire or a sudden death of a loved one.

Take life as it comes, because when its over, it is really over. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Teal_Avenger]

Originally posted by Loser:

Life is not cruel. Life is indifferent. Existence is unjust. Experience is inconsistent.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very true, but experience is the lens (however scratched and out of focus) through which we each individually view the world. My view through my lens will be dramatically different than that of Bill Gates or anonymous villager in West Africa. Our lens and our interpretter (mind) are all we have to make sense of the world and most of the time there is no sense to be found. Then the mind starts to make its own "sense," impose its own overlay of order and normalcy on even the most surreal and absurd situations. It stops trying to discern the truth and creates its own "truth."

Why do people continue to live under capricious tyrants? They've convinced themselves that this is the best option available to them. Their distorted lens has overwhelmed their mind and the mind has been forced to rationalize.

Originally posted by Loser:

Letting go is the key to happiness.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Happiness is overrated. Seriously, this is giving up in a different way. By letting go, we are denying that our experience (however muddled) is valid. It is. Everyone's experience is just as valid as the next person's By putting these experiences together, we start to eliminate (see through) some the distortions of our individual experience and get closer to truth.

By letting go, by accepting our plight, we shirk any attempt at making a difference, an improvement in the world. I'm not saying that everyone has an inner Lincoln waiting to get out, but there are oppourtunities, some easy and almost passive (say, voting) all the way to the dangerous. Most are small and nearly imperceptable (a city council meeting, a mentoring program) but their cumalative effect can be dramatic.

Oops, this got a little heavy and long winded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Puke]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
We all sacrifice for others, and those sacrifices are not always appreciated. In fact, many times they are not. But that's not the point. We can't let things like that get us down. We sacrifice for others because it is the right thing to do, and most of us are moral people at heart. We can only live the way we know we should, and whether or not other people appreciate it, does not matter.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">well, you palookas dont want to get me started on morality - but Renegade is on to something here that you should pay attention to:

you are not making a sacrifice for anyone if you are expecting to be rewarded for it. its sort of like going to the gym for a workout. its supposed to be work, otherwise they'd call it a relax-and-have-a-margarita-out. if you're making a sacrifice, then you shouldn't be worried about whos going to thank you for it, or pay you back, or even notice. you should't even be worried about fate paying you back with divine karma. its called a sacrifice for a reason.

so the next time your having a margarita instead of going to the gym, raise your glass to all the unsung heros who really did make sacrifices.

and in case you forgot, moderate me down so that forum newbies dont mistakenly give credit to anything i say http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[General Woundwort]

Amazing how the same options keep coming up (stoicism/buddhism/"letting go" - hedonsim - monotheisn/Christianity), even if the labels change. Nothing new under the sun...

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Not a socialist, but a Depressionist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is more of a philisophical (sp) discussion than how I really look at things in life. I am actually rather optomistic by nature, I know good things will happen in time, but I can't help but take notice of all the other things that are going on.

The question about the purpose to life is as old as we our race.

Thanks for your concern Ran, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif that was very kind of you. I started this topic because I enjoy reading what people post on important issues and such.

All though life is cruel and I question the meaning of living if death is the ultimate reward, I do take great pleasure in exsisting. I mean just playing SEIV sometimes is the greatest thrill one could hope for. Life has many surprises, most good, but some not so good.

Good life surprises would be Star Wars and winning the lotto.
Bad surprises would be a flat tire or a sudden death of a loved one.

Take life as it comes, because when its over, it is really over. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No worries, you just seemed a bit down!

I know how hopeless life feels when everything just looks bleak, so I try to help others out of that hole when I can.

Have a better one!

It's a pity she won't live, but then again, who does?

Bladerunner

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by StarBaseSweeper:
I may think that the drop of rain has no meaning until a sentient being look or think about it.

"Meaning" is maybe meaningfull only for sentient being.

And yes, I do not think you know you will die when born, but I think you are taught you will rather fast.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">...is a drop of rain sentient?
...
are we?

...is reality itself?

who knows!?!?

[Loser]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Nothing new under the sun...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ain't that the truth.

As for happiness being overrated, there's a old saying "If you havn't got your health, what have you got?". Well, health is easy where I come from. We're actually the healthiest State in the Union, but health is pretty easy anywhere in the developed world.

So now it's "If you're haven't got happiness, what have you got?". Letting go of the past isn't running away from it, because as long as you are hiding from it you haven't released. My goal is not to live for the past, but for the future.

I used to think I'd want to be rich, or popular, or smart. F*** that noise! Being happy is where it is truely at.

Slide.

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Amazing how the same options keep coming up (stoicism/buddhism/"letting go" - hedonsim - monotheisn/Christianity), even if the labels change. Nothing new under the sun...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, what did you just say?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I have no idea what some of those words mean http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Most, yeah, but hedonism?? monotheism??

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Amazing how the same options keep coming up (stoicism/buddhism/"letting go" - hedonsim - monotheisn/Christianity), even if the labels change. Nothing new under the sun...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, what did you just say?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I have no idea what some of those words mean http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Most, yeah, but hedonism?? monotheism??</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hedonism: giving meaning to life through the pursuit of pleasure.

Monotheism: the belief in an exclusive one true god.

Stoicism: An an ancient philosophical system characterised by the casual acceptance of the worst of life's pain.

(not dictionary definitions)

[deccan]

I don't agree with the many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, especially the socialist rail against the rich and powerful.

By and large, from my own personal experience I don't find that the rich and powerful got that way undeservedly. Sure, I know of many people who are rich because of their parents, but I also see that many of them end up making a mess of their lives and disappointing their parents.

Many of the rich and powerful people that I personally know got that way because they worked long hours, made huge personal sacrifices and took big risks along the way. And whatever they want to do with their hard-earned money is pretty much their business.

I don't have any sympathy at all for people who say that they deserve a particular kind of lifestyle or neighborhood and that "society" owes it to them to provide that lifestyle and neighborhood simply because they're used to that lifestyle and neighborhood.

I don't have any sympathy either for comments about rich people f*cking over the lives of the poor. I do agree that some people get rich by cutting legal corners sometimes, but I also see that it comes back to haunt them. Not always, but enough so that I wouldn't want to take the same route myself.

I don't believe that poor people deserve sympathy simply for the 'virtue" of being poor. I do believe that the poor people who want to improve their lives and are willing to achieve by studying and working harder deserve to be helped, but I see from personal experience that there are many poor people who that way because they are just too unambitious and too lazy to try to change their lives for the better. And I've never known people who are genuinely and consistently hardworking not to succeed in life.

And keep in mind that I am someone who have worked in some of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world, including Gabon, Cameroon, Mozambique and currently the Solomon Islands.

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by deccan:
And I've never known people who are genuinely and consistently hardworking not to succeed in life.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Have you ever met a farmer or a rancher?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And keep in mind that I am someone who have worked in some of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world, including Gabon, Cameroon, Mozambique and currently the Solomon Islands.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Until I saw this part, I thought you might be one of those rich people!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Puke:
no, no, no.. you have to hold on loosely, and not let go. because if you cling to tight...

ah, nevermind.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Leave it to you to make one puke... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Kamog]

I don't think there's life after death. People have tried to tell me otherwise, but I am not convinced since there is no evidence, and their arguments are based only on faith. Some people seem to choose to believe in life after death because they hope that it exists, but I can't bring myself to believe something just because it would be nice if it were true.

So I'll just assume that death is the end, and if I happen to be wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Somebody once said, "Why worry about life after death if you're not even living this one?"

[dogscoff]

because they worked long hours, made huge personal sacrifices and took big risks along the way.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">People justifying their wealth with 'personal sacrifices' means nothing to me. See someone else's post earlier about how a sacrifice isn't a sacrifice if you plan to get something back from it. They very deliberately chose to make the 'sacrifices', so they shouldn't whinge about them.


rich people f*cking over the lives of the poor. I do agree that some people get rich by cutting legal corners
sometimes,
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the point is that many people f&ck over the poor without having to cut legal corners. There must be a zillion websites cataloguing corporate evils so I won't bother going into details here but try googling up a few sites against pharmaceutical companies or the tobacco industry. Mostly they shaft people within the law. (Although admittedly they'll often have to buy a politician first to get the laws re-written in their favour.)


but I also see that it comes back to haunt them
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's a nice thought, but I hardly ever see this. Mostly they just keep on getting away with it.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Kamog:
I don't think there's life after death. People have tried to tell me otherwise, but I am not convinced since there is no evidence, and their arguments are based only on faith.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Technically, so is yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Some people seem to choose to believe in life after death because they hope that it exists, but I can't bring myself to believe something just because it would be nice if it were true. So I'll just assume that death is the end, and if I happen to be wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">One problem with this is that several religions, Christianity included, teach that sometimes life after death is not that pleasant for some. And after the fact is a poor time to find out...

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Whatever my thoughts on the afterlife might be, that isn't actually logic. Absence of any evidence means nothing, logically.

To believe something you do not have any evidence to support is not reason, it is faith. That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. It is true that with no evidence either way it cannot be said that something is either true or not true. Hence the word 'probably'.

However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.

This is why I can validly say that George W Bush is probably not J Edgar Hoover, risen from the dead, in a really good disguise.

I currently have no evidence to support that he isn't. However given the fact that I have no evidence to indicate that he is J Edgar Hoover in disguise, logically, he is probably not.

The only difference in likleyhood between these two positions (without any physical evidence) is that one requires a more complex explanation. It is therefore less likley to be true.

It would be difficult to function in a world where this rule was not true.

By the same logic - when we die, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, we are probably dead.

In fact, the argument goes further than that, because when we die, we leave behind physical evidence (a dead body) that contradicts everything we know produces life in sentient creatures (ie, a functioning body). Hence, based on our knowledge of physical reality, it can be fairly said that there is no life after death.

Whether, the Bible, the resurrection, the existence of faith itself etc., constitute evidence of an afterlife is a different matter.

[ October 07, 2003, 13:33: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not going to go into what constitutes 'evidence' or the appropriate use of 'probably'. But you are again misusing the word 'logic'. Logic is very strict, and the simplest explanation is, logically, only the simplest explanation, nothing more.

I recommend you use a different word for now. Later take a course in Philosophy or Debate or some such, if you wish to wield 'logic' to favor your opinions.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree with you. But logic means certain things, and I do not want to see it abused the way 'ironic' is these days.

[edit: 'Reasonably' fits pretty well.]

[ October 07, 2003, 14:17: Message edited by: Loser ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Irony and logic abused? No, say it isn’t so! Not that I am defending anyone but my opinion is that tolerance should be used when reading anyone’s comments. A person with a PhD will see a comment different than a high school graduate. Who is better than whom? Does it matter? In a hundred years both the above people will be dead anyway.

Point being this is a “Public” forum, and “recommending” someone using a different word because it does not suit your taste is, in a nutshell just not right. I have seen many comments and words that where in my view inappropriate, but I try to ask for clarification or “suggest” the use of another word.

What is the point of life? I did not know it needed a point. In our short lives we scream that everything needs a point. Life is all inclusive; lions, tigers, and bears oh my! Does a lion think about the point of life? I think it is simply growth. I was born, I have grown and now I continue to seek growth or face stagnation. But that is me and I am alive. I “suggest” the original question be rephrased to: “What is the point of a human’s life?”

Now I will prepare for the usual bashing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Hotfoot:
You don't lose at life, it just ends, like any video game ends.

Yes, everything comes to an end eventually, and while it might seem meaningless, it's only got the meaning you give it. If you feel it's meaningless, it will be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why are we here? To live, to exist, to continue. Those are our basic instincts, it's how we managed to survive evolution. Beyond that, it's our decision. That's the burden of sentience. So you have to decide if you want to make your life worth something or not.

I look at it like this. We have survived, as a civilization, for thousands of years. We strive ever forward, attempting to make our lives better, to improve things, and to learn. If I can leave behind a legacy for future generations, if I can do even the smallest something to help further that goal along, my life is worth something. If I were to die tomorrow, I'd know that I've had some impact on the world, however small it may have been.

You live for yourself, to enjoy life as much as you can. Life's too short to endlessly wallow in the bad things that happen or in despair. Contribute your skills and talents to make the world a better place, and learn. Never stop learning, and never stop teaching.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes and thank you. I have meet so few who see what I see.
Gratuitous bump!

[BadAxe]

The very basic components that make up our bodies are indistinguishable from the components that make up all the other structures of the universe.

We are in fact the universe made aware of itself. Our atoms were born in the hearts of the stars, and those stars now live in us. And through us they learn about the miracles and mysteries that we are only beginning to comprehend.

I gaze into the night sky and imagine the slow passage of time, and the transformations and travel that my atoms have made, to remarkably stand on a small planet circling a small star, and know what I am.

The meaning of life? I think it is the miracle of knowing we are alive!

[minipol]

Just read this thread. Well, for me, the answer is simple. There is no point to life. You just live it. That's it. No big answer. Off to playing the Star Trek Mod.

[Puke]

someone had to do it:

Why are we here, what's life all about?
Is God really real, or is there some doubt?
Well tonight, we're going to sort it all out
For tonight it's the Meaning of Life.
What's the point of all this hoax?
Is it the chicken and the egg time,
Are we just yolks?
Or perhaps we're just one of God's little jokes.
Well ça c'est the Meaning of Life.
Is life just a game where we make up the rules,
While we're searching for something to say,
Or are we just simply spiralling coils,
Of self-replicating DNA?
In this life, what is our fate?
Is there Heaven and Hell? Do we reincarnate?
Is mankind evolving or is it too late?
Well tonight here's the Meaning of Life.
For millions this life is a sad vale of tears,
Sitting round with nothing to say,
While scientists say we're just spiralling coils,
Of self-replicating DNA.
So just why, why are we here?
And just what, what, what, what do we fear?
Well çe soir, for a change, it will all be made clear,
For this is the Meaning of Life
-c'est la sens de la vie,
This is the Meaning of Life.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">with apologies to Eric Idle, John Du Perez, and Monty Python.

[ October 07, 2003, 20:53: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Kamog:
I don't think there's life after death. People have tried to tell me otherwise, but I am not convinced since there is no evidence, and their arguments are based only on faith.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Technically, so is yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That does not follow. Refusing to accept an assertion without some sort of valid evidence for it does not require faith.

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.

Some people seem to choose to believe in life after death because they hope that it exists, but I can't bring myself to believe something just because it would be nice if it were true. So I'll just assume that death is the end, and if I happen to be wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> One problem with this is that several religions, Christianity included, teach that sometimes life after death is not that pleasant for some. And after the fact is a poor time to find out...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However, according to the dogma, believing in Christianity simply as an 'each way bet' will not save you. Hypocrites go to hell.

Hence this is not a good argument to follow Christianity, at least.

[ October 07, 2003, 12:46: Message edited by: Ran-Taro ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Whatever my thoughts on the afterlife might be, that isn't actually logic. Absence of any evidence means nothing, logically.

To believe something you do not have any evidence to support is not reason, it is faith. That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
What is the point of life? I did not know it needed a point. In our short lives we scream that everything needs a point. Life is all inclusive; lions, tigers, and bears oh my! Does a lion think about the point of life? I think it is simply growth. I was born, I have grown and now I continue to seek growth or face stagnation. But that is me and I am alive. I “suggest” the original question be rephrased to: “What is the point of a human’s life?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does not the fact that we are constantly seeking a point to life, an indication of something? I have thought that the common Freudian/Nietzschean dismissals of this universal religious drive to be too pat and dismissive.

[Renegade 13]

Here's a question for you all:

What is the point to life, without death?? What meaning would life have, if we have an eternity to live it?? Maybe this is just a wacky way to look at it, but perhaps death is a gift, a gift which forces us to treasure what time we have. You can't afford to waste 50 years if that is half of your life. Whereas, if everyone lived forever, 50 years would be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Renegade

[Renegade]

Isn't this debate about pointless? Look at the issue this way, who the hell cares?

"These are the best of times, these are the worst of times."

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[President_Elect_Shang]

General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Loser:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
However, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is, logically, the most likley to be true.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not going to go into what constitutes 'evidence' or the appropriate use of 'probably'. But you are again misusing the word 'logic'. Logic is very strict, and the simplest explanation is, logically, only the simplest explanation, nothing more.

I recommend you use a different word for now. Later take a course in Philosophy or Debate or some such, if you wish to wield 'logic' to favor your opinions.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree with you. But logic means certain things, and I do not want to see it abused the way 'ironic' is these days.

[edit: 'Reasonably' fits pretty well.]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I am not misusing the word 'logic' at all. I understand perfectly the definition of the word, and the way in which I choose to use it here is correct to both its proper and common meanings.

I would recommend that you do not patronise others with misguided assumptions about their knowledge, or their educations. As an example, I have studied philosophy at a tertiary level and am quite well versed in the use of terms associated with the discipline.

I don't feel it was nessesary to play the word Nazi (since my meaning was easily fathomable, and it didn't add anything to the discussion to nitpick it)*. However, if you feel a compulsion to do so, perhaps it might be useful to provide an actual definition, rather than just your opinionated judgment on the matter.

Here is a definition (according to the Maquarie Dictionary)

Logic n 1. the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference 2. reasoning or argumentation, or any instance of it 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study 4. reasons or sound sense, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing force: the irresistable logic of facts

(there are two more definitions, but they refer to electronics)

I believe that you are refering to definition 1. above in your post, and therefore (mistakenly) making the assumption that this is the only correct usage of the word 'logic'.

Even if you were correct in this assumption, you would still be incorrect in making the further assumption that I have misused the word. In this I refer you to the principle of:

Occam's razor n the principle that entities must not be unnecesarily multiplied, which as the principle of economy of hypothesis, is applicable to scientific research [from William of OCCAM]

[again from the Macquarie Dictionary]

I do not mean to be harsh, or start a fight. I can understand your frustration at 'word abuse'. However I would ask that if you are going to direct this frustration at me, could you please be accurate and defined when you do so. I do not enjoy being made out to be ignorant when I have chosen to use my words quite specifically and accurately.

And now, on with the discussion...

*Please note that I use both the words 'Nazi' and 'Nitpick' in their colloquial, rather than proper, senses here.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Lord Chane:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, you are entirely correct. That something probably isn't correct certainly doesn't mean that it isn't.

However, your example is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. This is because we now know Pluto does exist. However for an ancient person to say that Pluto did exist without any evidence, that would (from their perspective) simply be wild speculation. How often is wild speculation true? Sometimes, but not very often.

The more complex the speculation, the more variables there are to be incorrect, hence less likley it is to be true. So the most simple explanation is more likley the correct one.

To put this in context. I could say to you now that there are ten exactly planets orbiting Alpha Centuri, three of which contain sentient life, but there is no evidence of this. How likley do you think this is to be true?

The truth is that it is unlikley but not impossible. We have no evidence to disprove it, yet it is still probably not true. This is simply because it would involve lots of complex variables to interact in a certain way to be true, which (probablility wise) is unlikley to conform to an arbitary guess of mine.

If we went to Alpha Centuri and found that I was actually right - this still does not change the fact that I was unlikely to be right when I made the guess.

It is the same as rolling a die. You can say you are going to roll a '6' before you do so, but you only have a one in six chance of being right. So you are probably wrong. If you do roll a six, it doesn't change the fact that, before you rolled the die, you were probably going to be wrong in your guess.

If you roll two dice, you add to the complexity, and your chance of being right about rolling a six goes down in direct proportion. Hence the more complex an unfounded speculation, the less likley it is to be true.

In my opinion the simpler explanation is that when we die, we are dead. It is more complex and unfounded (IMHO) to say that there is an afterlife. Hence the latter requires faith, whilst the former does not.

I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:

Have you ever met a farmer or a rancher?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Until I saw this part, I thought you might be one of those rich people!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1)

You obviously mean an AMERICAN farmer or rancher. No I haven't met an AMERICAN farmer or rancher but I have met African and Chinese (as in mainland China) farmers.

And sorry, but to me, this falls under "no sympathy for people who believes that society owes it to them to maintain the lifestyle and neighborhood they've always known."

Small-scale farming in rich countries is simply uneconomic unless supported by trade-distorting subsidies.

2)

I am relatively well off by Malaysian standards, but I wasn't born that way. Whenever I go back to my old neighborhood to visit, I find that the people who haven't grown out of it are those who are too unambitious, too stupid or too stubborn to make a serious go at changing their lives for the better.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Ouch! Relax, I was just asking a question.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Loser:
Whatever my thoughts on the afterlife might be, that isn't actually logic. Absence of any evidence means nothing, logically.

To believe something you do not have any evidence to support is not reason, it is faith. That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite. While that's true in principle, in practice whenever there's an absence of evidence concerning the existence of something, people, quite reasonably I believe, go about life assuming that it doesn't exist.

Imagine, I could say claim that a pink, invisible, intangible unicorn is looking over your shoulder right now as you read this. I think that trying to be "agnostic" about it would be kind of difficult.

[deccan]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
People justifying their wealth with 'personal sacrifices' means nothing to me. See someone else's post earlier about how a sacrifice isn't a sacrifice if you plan to get something back from it. They very deliberately chose to make the 'sacrifices', so they shouldn't whinge about them.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure what "justifying" wealth means in this context. What I mean is that many of the people who are rich worked hard to get rich, and therefore being rich, in this manner at least, shouldn't be regarded as something shameful. The fact that they deliberately set out to BE rich is a plus point in my opinion, not a negative point.

[Aristoteles]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Think about this for a second. We are born with the knowledge that we are going to die, so I ask you to consider why we are even given life in the first place. Doesn't it seem like a cruel thing to do, give something life with the knowledge that its life will ultimately mean nothing because it will die?

Why live if you know that the end result is just going to be death. Its like playing this great video game even though you KNOW your going to loose. That in the end everything meant nothing because you can't take it with you.

What good are memories of good times, and bad, if life after death is nothingness where concience thought does not exsist?

Think about this, do you remember the time before you were born? If not, then how do you expect to remember the you were live after you have died?

Our lives are meaningless in the end, and the journey there is made even more terrorfying because we know what will happen.

What is the purpose to life if death is the end result?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Aye, I have the same ideas, like you have.
I tell you, that a few hundred years more, and propably the human race will know the secret of eternal life.
Now it is sounds insane, but trust me, it will be possible, it only needs time to reach that knowledge.
Its all about genetics.

Also I bet that humans will be able to create any lifeform via modified DNA. Time travel? Contact with alien civilizations? etc. The sci-fi movies will become a reality. When? It is hard to tell, but it will happen.

[dogscoff]

How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the deeply research religious tech until you get the “universal religious drive”, which gives similar ouput to quantum engines, but with far less research. That said, some ppl argue that quantum mechanics require just as much faith as religion. At the moment I've no idea how this impacts the tech tree, but I'll work some spreadsheets and let you know.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Ouch! Relax, I was just asking a question.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, my apologies, reading it now it is too harsh. Definitely not the spirit I intended to convey. Note to self, never write for BB’s past midnight. Did I at least somewhat get across my concept though? The difference between how we [humans] think things should be and what we make them into.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the deeply research religious tech until you get the “universal religious drive”, which gives similar ouput to quantum engines, but with far less research. That said, some ppl argue that quantum mechanics require just as much faith as religion. At the moment I've no idea how this impacts the tech tree, but I'll work some spreadsheets and let you know.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe that it allows for double movement of the ships normal speed once installed. I do recall for sure that it increases that ships maintenance and supply consumption by 25% and is prohibitive for small ships due to its size. I also think it makes the ships crew anal and they will refuse any command that orders them to harm others unless:
1. One million dollars is raised by next week or
2. 50 megatons of makeup is applied to the hull exterior before battle.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Did I at least somewhat get across my concept though? The difference between how we [humans] think things should be and what we make them into.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes you did - and that was actually what I was trying to emphasize. If this life is "all there is", and we evolved into/within it, whence came this idea of "something more"? And why should it have the power that it obviously does in people?

[Renegade 13]

Originally posted by deccan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Renegade 13:

Have you ever met a farmer or a rancher?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Until I saw this part, I thought you might be one of those rich people!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1)

You obviously mean an AMERICAN farmer or rancher. No I haven't met an AMERICAN farmer or rancher but I have met African and Chinese (as in mainland China) farmers.

And sorry, but to me, this falls under "no sympathy for people who believes that society owes it to them to maintain the lifestyle and neighborhood they've always known."

Small-scale farming in rich countries is simply uneconomic unless supported by trade-distorting subsidies.

2)

I am relatively well off by Malaysian standards, but I wasn't born that way. Whenever I go back to my old neighborhood to visit, I find that the people who haven't grown out of it are those who are too unambitious, too stupid or too stubborn to make a serious go at changing their lives for the better.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First, I was refering to Canadian farmers or ranchers, although there may be no real difference. And I concede your point that society does not owe it to people to maintain their lifestyle or neighborhood that they've always known. But as for your next point, I think that small-scale farming/ranching can be economical, even without subsidies. (By small-scale I mean in the 1000-2500 acre size range.) I also believe it is a sad day when all manufacturing, farming, and all other business is controlled by massive corporations, getting rid of the small-scale stuff.

Secondly, I agree with you. Those who have the will, ambition, and openness of mind to succeed usually will, although not always. Some disadvantages are simply too large to overcome.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Renegade 13: He is a Canadian
I am an American
Best friends but still separate countries. Just look on the map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Best friends but still separate countries. Just look on the map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not for lack of effort on our part in the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Renegade]

Life goes on long after the victory of living has gone.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Best friends but still separate countries. Just look on the map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not for lack of effort on our part in the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ouch, that was soooooooooo uncalled for. Shame. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 09, 2003, 18:15: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Lord Chane:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Ran-Taro:

In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, you are entirely correct. That something probably isn't correct certainly doesn't mean that it isn't.

However, your example is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. This is because we now know Pluto does exist. However for an ancient person to say that Pluto did exist without any evidence, that would (from their perspective) simply be wild speculation. How often is wild speculation true? Sometimes, but not very often.

The more complex the speculation, the more variables there are to be incorrect, hence less likley it is to be true. So the most simple explanation is more likley the correct one.

To put this in context. I could say to you now that there are ten exactly planets orbiting Alpha Centuri, three of which contain sentient life, but there is no evidence of this. How likley do you think this is to be true?

The truth is that it is unlikley but not impossible. We have no evidence to disprove it, yet it is still probably not true. This is simply because it would involve lots of complex variables to interact in a certain way to be true, which (probablility wise) is unlikley to conform to an arbitary guess of mine.

If we went to Alpha Centuri and found that I was actually right - this still does not change the fact that I was unlikely to be right when I made the guess.

It is the same as rolling a die. You can say you are going to roll a '6' before you do so, but you only have a one in six chance of being right. So you are probably wrong. If you do roll a six, it doesn't change the fact that, before you rolled the die, you were probably going to be wrong in your guess.

If you roll two dice, you add to the complexity, and your chance of being right about rolling a six goes down in direct proportion. Hence the more complex an unfounded speculation, the less likley it is to be true.

In my opinion the simpler explanation is that when we die, we are dead. It is more complex and unfounded (IMHO) to say that there is an afterlife. Hence the latter requires faith, whilst the former does not.

I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it makes sense. But I still don't agree with the original statement. Let's go back to that for a moment. The assertion was "In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist." I don't believe that's a logical conclusion. If we are talking probability, then the absence of evidence may mean that there's a low probability of existence, but as you already admitted it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However to even calculate the probability of a given statement being true you have to have some information and that information constitutes evidence in and of itself. Going back to your example about predicting a die roll ahead of time, you can only calculate the probability if you know how many sides the dies has. My point is that you cannot calculate a probability when there is no data to base the calculation on. I believe the assertion also violates the laws of algebra. Look at the assertion as a boolean statement. You can evaluate it as X = Y. If so, then Not X = Not Y. In other words, if the absence of evidence means that the hypothetical item doesn't exist, then the absence of evidence that the hypothetical item doesn't exist must mean that it does exist. The two cancel each other out and therefore no logical conclusion can be made because there is no data to support a conclusion either way.

Yes, my example of Pluto is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. But that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Following the assertion that was given, the statement that Pluto does not exist would have been "logical" if it had been made in the middle ages but would not be so now. I believe that shows a flaw in the assertion as demonstrated by the fact that Pluto does exist. A person making the statement in the middle ages simply did not have enough data to form a conclusion. Down through history there have been lots of statements made that were later proven to be wrong. That's because they were themselves wild speculations made in the absence of supporting evidence. Without supporting data any speculation, whether for or against, constitutes wild speculation. Is there evidence of an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. Is there evidence that there is not an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. How then can I draw a conclusion? If there's no evidence either way, then a belief in either has to consitute faith and faith is not a logical conclusion. It is an emotion, a desire for something to be as we want it. I see logic in this context as an outcome that can be consistently arrived at based on a given statement. For example, if a person is dead, then they are not alive. Since the assertion made seems likely to produce as many wrong conclusions as it does correct ones, I can't see it as logical.

I see the Alpha Centauri example as something entirely different. It's an exercise in probability. The liklihood of you guessing the correct number of planets and the number of those that contain sentient life is indeed very low. Probably about the same as me picking all the lottery numbers. At the same time the assertion would mean that there is probably no sentient life anywhere else in the universe. After all there is no evidence of it, therefore it probably doesn't exist. This despite the fact that in this instance probability is in our favor. With billions upon billions of stars, countless millions of galaxies, it is inconceivable that we are alone.

Even though I don't agree with the statement made I appreciate such discussions. I've spent all week thinking about this topic. Very enjoyable.

[Ran-Taro]

Originally posted by Lord Chane:
Yes, it makes sense. But I still don't agree with the original statement. Let's go back to that for a moment. The assertion was "In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist." I don't believe that's a logical conclusion. If we are talking probability, then the absence of evidence may mean that there's a low probability of existence, but as you already admitted it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However to even calculate the probability of a given statement being true you have to have some information and that information constitutes evidence in and of itself. Going back to your example about predicting a die roll ahead of time, you can only calculate the probability if you know how many sides the dies has. My point is that you cannot calculate a probability when there is no data to base the calculation on. I believe the assertion also violates the laws of algebra. Look at the assertion as a boolean statement. You can evaluate it as X = Y. If so, then Not X = Not Y. In other words, if the absence of evidence means that the hypothetical item doesn't exist, then the absence of evidence that the hypothetical item doesn't exist must mean that it does exist. The two cancel each other out and therefore no logical conclusion can be made because there is no data to support a conclusion either way. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The problem with this idea (as I see it) is that it gives equivalence between entirely fanciful ideas, and reality as we know it.

For example, someone mentioned that an invisible pink Unicorn might be looking over your shoulder right now. Now let’s say that every time you misplace something, it is the invisible pink Unicorn hiding it. You can never prove it though, because the unicorn only does it when it can’t be seen. Hence you can’t disprove the theory either.

Certainly that might be true. I think we can (logically) say it is probably not though. The reason we can say so is precisely because it is logical to treat un-disprovable fancies as less likely to be true than physical realities that have been established through the weight of evidence. For example, that people misplace stuff.

In terms of mathematics, we can look at it this way. How many possibilities are there in the universe? Obviously, the answer is a very large number. In comparison how many of these possibilities are actually true? From observation of how many fanciful speculations we can generate about something, and then how many of those will turn out to be true – a very small number. Hence to generate a probability of the possibility being true (without evidence), we need a formula something like

X/Y = Z

Where X = a very small number of true possibilities
Y= a very large number of total possibilities
Z = the likelihood of a given possibility being true (without any evidence).

As you can see Z ends up as a very small number, and hence there is a very small probability of any given unfounded speculation being true.

Now, I am not for a second saying that this formula is absolutely valid in mathematical terms. However I am saying that it demonstrates a valid, logical principle in a simple form.

To compare it to the dice example – we might imagine that reality is a giant die, with an almost infinite amount of sides. We don’t know how many sides there are, but we do no there are a lot of them – because we know there are a lot of possibilities in the universe. Hence if we choose one of those possibilities (in this case ‘a single side of the die’), and logically predict how likely it is to be true, we can fairly say it is probably not true.

Now, your response to this might be to say that we are only comparing two possibilities (that there is an afterlife, or there is not), and that therefore the total number of possibilities in the world should not come into it. However this is not true.

The reason for this is that we are actually comparing something that is borne out by physical evidence (that when we die, we are dead) with a an unfounded speculation which circumvents it (that there is an ‘afterlife’ so that we are not actually dead when we die, but that this afterlife takes such an intangible form that it cannot be disproved). How many fanciful speculations can we come up with? How many of them will turn out to be true? The comparison between these two values will give you an idea of the probability of such a fanciful speculation actually being true.

Yes, my example of Pluto is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. But that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Following the assertion that was given, the statement that Pluto does not exist would have been "logical" if it had been made in the middle ages but would not be so now. I believe that shows a flaw in the assertion as demonstrated by the fact that Pluto does exist. A person making the statement in the middle ages simply did not have enough data to form a conclusion. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is not true at all. The assertion only says that it is logical that a person making a wild guess about anything is generally unlikely to be right. It doesn’t say that they definitely won’t be right. If they do happen to be lucky, that doesn’t make the assertion wrong.

To think about it a different way - Imagine someone in 1200AD saying

“There is an eighth planet in our solar system, and it will be named ‘Pluto’ by someone in the future who actually discovers it. I have no idea why I am saying this at all, but I am, so there”

for no reason (ie, without any evidence). Out of all the things they could possibly think of to say for absolutely no reason! how likely would they to be to say this? I say it is not very likely.

In fact it is very unlikely that someone in 1200AD would with no evidence, and for no reason make a total guess about the nature of our solar system, and be right!. The odds against it are almost inconceivably high – perhaps worse than the odds of me guessing the number of planets around alpha century.

Hence if a person did make such a guess it is logical to say that they would probably (but not definitely) be wrong. In your example, they would have just beat the (enormous) odds.

Your example is a bit like if I said that, logically, by buying one lottery ticket you are unlikely to actually win the lottery. Then you say: but this person bought a lottery ticket and they won. It doesn’t change the fact that the odds were against them when they bought the ticket.

Hence, the fact that you can retrospectively put invent a scenario in which an incredibly unlikely event hypothetically occurred, does not mean that fanciful theories are logically (and statistically, and in terms of probability) as likely to be true as not.

Down through history there have been lots of statements made that were later proven to be wrong. That's because they were themselves wild speculations made in the absence of supporting evidence. Without supporting data any speculation, whether for or against, constitutes wild speculation. Is there evidence of an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. Is there evidence that there is not an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. How then can I draw a conclusion? If there's no evidence either way, then a belief in either has to consitute faith and faith is not a logical conclusion. It is an emotion, a desire for something to be as we want it. I see logic in this context as an outcome that can be consistently arrived at based on a given statement. For example, if a person is dead, then they are not alive. Since the assertion made seems likely to produce as many wrong conclusions as it does correct ones, I can't see it as logical.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The thing is though – the idea that when we are dead we are dead, and not alive, is not a wild speculation at all. It is the facts as we know them, backed up by all the physical evidence we have. It may not be the whole truth. However any unfounded speculation that goes beyond what we know must be weighed with the possibility that of all the many possibilities in the world, against the amount of them that actually turn out to be true, without there being any evidence for it. This is a question of probability, it is just harder to see it, and harder to quantify it. But it is quantifiable this far: As ‘unlikely’

Hence if someone asks me if there is an afterlife, I say probably not – unfounded speculations are unlikely to be true. However, if you want to know whether it is a matter of faith that when we are dead, we are really dead - go look at a corpse. Until someone provides some evidence otherwise, that is all the truth there is.

I see the Alpha Centauri example as something entirely different. It's an exercise in probability. The liklihood of you guessing the correct number of planets and the number of those that contain sentient life is indeed very low. Probably about the same as me picking all the lottery numbers. At the same time the assertion would mean that there is probably no sentient life anywhere else in the universe. After all there is no evidence of it, therefore it probably doesn't exist. This despite the fact that in this instance probability is in our favor. With billions upon billions of stars, countless millions of galaxies, it is inconceivable that we are alone.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As you can see, I see all of the examples as ones of probability, hence why I used that example.

The question of sentient life elsewhere in the universe is also one of probability. The reason you think it likely is precisely is that you do actually have some evidence. That evidence is that we know that the universe is very large, with many variables, and therefore there is definitely a possibility (in your opinion, a probability) that conditions conducive to life exist and have produced it elsewhere. If you were to start taking random guesses as to what form that life would take (without any evidence), you would probably be wrong, though.

Ironically, this is the exact reason why an unfounded speculation is unlikely to be true – the universe is so large and complex that there are too many potential truths out there fore a specifically unfounded speculation to be likely to be true.

Even though I don't agree with the statement made I appreciate such discussions. I've spent all week thinking about this topic. Very enjoyable.[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I too, enjoy such discussions, as long as they don’t get caught up in semantics, or become abusive. Thanks for providing me with some great mental exercise! I do enjoy it.

Look forward to a response, if you have one!