True, but this wasn't a case of "famine", starvation, or survivalism as one might see in hunter-gatherer societies, or impoverished areas of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa..

It was about egotistic conquest; much as how a person buying a Ferrari with a top speed of 200 MPH (which they can only legally drive at up to 60 MPH) isn't simply about "needing a ride to the local Walmart".

This suggests that animals are corrupt. Are they? (Wars happen when humans become corrupt and wars happen when the animal nature of humans reigns supreme.) — god must be atheist

I am not implying that animals are corrupt by nature. They simply don't have the means to be corrupt. Their desires and behaviour are strictly based for survival. However, when the superficial desires of humans (superficial in regards to survival) combines with his/her primal nature, the product is death and destruction but not for the sake for survival or because it was necessary, but to fulfill the superficial desires.

Animals will engage in fights strictly when it is necessary or aids in survival. Humans will engage in violence when it is necessary (justifiable) or simply in pursuit of their wants (corrupt nature)

Ofcourse, it is not an easy task to discern a neccesary fight from a unnecessary one, but it is common sense that such a distinction exists.

Indeed, I know many people who simply choose to not believe in god because they think it makes them more rational and even smarter than others who do.


That probably stems from many scientists choosing to not believe in god. Since scientists are 'smart people' , many just follow to derive this sense of self worth you speak of — StarsFromMemory

Good point. Actually I find the opposite true. Considering the study of, say, both theoretical physics and cognitive science, the overwhelming evidence suggests a purpose behind conscious existence.

It's the extreme polarization, from both sides, that's dangerous. The extremist views have clouded the mind's of many smart people.

Good point. Actually I find the opposite true. Considering the study of, say, both theoretical physics and cognitive science, the overwhelming evidence suggests a purpose behind conscious existence. — 3017amen

That is where I disagree. I believe there cannot be any universal purpose (one that applies to all humans) kinda like an existential nihilist.

It's the extreme polarization, from both sides, that's dangerous. The extremist views have clouded the mind's of many smart people. — 3017amen

Indeed. People don't think for themselves and often reject the conclusions they deduce themselves if it does not match with the 'Smart People Worldview'.

I believe there cannot be any universal purpose (one that applies to all humans) kinda like an existential nihilist. — StarsFromMemory

You would have to support that view from a cosmological basis. Meaning, conscious existence and self-awareness. Cosmic consciousness is a topic covered extensively by many including one of my favorite's, William James.

James would argue that all religions, no matter how seemingly different, have a common core; both believe that it is possible to identify this core by stripping away institutional accretions of dogma and ritual and focusing on individual experience; and both identify mystical illumination as the foundation of all religious experience.

To parse that further, perhaps, one might want to ask about the differences between an objective truth and a subjective truth. And what kind of meaning each of those have to humans... .

Until proof is provided, all ideas are beliefs (that is the nature of belief). Once you know, belief is replaced by Knowledge. The gap/time inbetween requires Faith. To believe their is a God or isn't a God is a belief. If there is no God, then you have to question what animates the world (your world). Things like, the Golden Ratio, mathematical Pi and geometry, the celestial layouts and orders would then have to be "things that just happened by themselves". To one who believes in God, Atheism is as ridiculous as believeing in a God if you are an atheist. One is black, the other is white. The world is a dichotomy, look around you and see. Can hot exist without cold? Can darkness exist without light? Welcome to relativity - the measuring of one thing by comparing it against another (it's opposite).

Good point! Similarly, a lot of truth can be conceived through paradox and contradiction. How can we integrate these dichotomies?

It might be worth considering to first start with parsing the differences between "belief and knowledge" as you alluded.

For instance, a subjective truth ( as apposed to an objective truth from say mathematics) is a truth that one experiences personally. How then, does one convert that into knowledge(?). Should one make inferences based upon a particular happenstance or subjective experience? Do inferences suggest a kind of knowledge of some sort? And finally, could one combine the two truth's and somehow translate that into a synthetic a priori judgement about one's experience(s)?

True, I like the paradox, "This statement is a lie". If I am a liar, it's true. If I am truthful, it is a lie. The paradox exists because of Order. If we make the assumption that everything by default is false, and only when we have understanding, we create truth. Therefore, truth is always born from the false. Put another way, Chaos comes first. From Chaos, Order is created. As the objective is to create truth, it will always contain the former because truth is supported and upheld by the false. That is its opposite. There is no further integration required because by their very nature they are already integrated.

The same applies to maths and numbers. For a long time, zero was not acknowledged but it was always implied. Zero is infinite (chaos), from this One is formed. A division of the infinite making it now divided. It can be seen as a boundary from infinity, putting infinitiy on the outside of the one (or as we would write it 01).

Knowledge could be likened to a jigsaw puzzle. When all the corners fit, you accept it as "new" knowledge and the piece is placed within the picture. Beliefs are the pile of puzzle pieces you group together because they are "similar" to the picture or they relate to each other. Some people like to put all the straight edges together is a pile, or match them by colour. It doesn't matter how it's done, what matters is that it takes place. People have different ways of making the piles, as people have different beliefs. When you have enough puzzle pieces together, you can start putting them in place (converting them to knowledge).

So, belief is a precursor to knowledge but not necessarily. Some peoples beliefs are simply wrong. If pointed out, the wise ones will change their beliefs. All of this is performed using the power of discernment.

If you have a belief, it's because you don't have the knowledge, or you have only part of it. You cannot believe something you know, and you cannot know something you believe. They are exclusive. .

Are there any truths that exist that you don't know? Of course not. Because your knowledge to you is truth, unless by the power of discernment, you realise the belief was wrong, in which case it is dropped and subtitude. Science does precisely the same thing and has been doing so for years. Today X is scientific fact, but tomorrow when it's proved wrong, Y will be scientific fact and X will be dropped and forgotten.

We haven't been able to prove what "thought" is. We haven't be able to prove for "consciousness" is. We haven't been able to prove what "sub-consciousness" is. And yet these are the tools we use to answer the question of universal purpose. Assumptions are no different to beliefs. If you believe there is no purpose, then you wont look for one. This is sometimes called a "life spectator", refusing to start the race for fear of there being no point. However, the belief means there definitely wont be any point because you didn't look for it. Fortunately, rebirth gives us another opportunity to try again... and again... and again!

Are there any truths that exist that you don't know? — Antidote

Yes, there are many. The Neo-Kantian in me must repeat the infamous synthetic a priori judgement: all events must have a cause. Do we know that, in part, it is true?

If you have a belief, it's because you don't have the knowledge, or you have only part of it. You cannot believe something you know, and you cannot know something you believe. They are exclusive. . — Antidote

That of course, would not be accurate. The said synthetic a priori statements is a combination of both knowledge and belief.

In a practical sense, when someone say's they've had a religious experience (ineffable), they believe their experience was real, hence real knowledge to them. Or when a scientist discovers a novel idea and/or formula, they believe that was real knowledge. Or when a musician writes a new piece of music, that becomes his own truth, belief and/or knowledge.

So really, when one talks phenomenology and/or consciousness, things are not quite so distinct.

That's certainly a fair comment. My point really was that belief is a placeholder for knowledge, but you're right because not all knowledge is aquired that way. Flashes of inspiration and definitely religious experience can produce knowledge that comes neither from belief nor progressively by belief or reason.

There is a school of thought that suggests the sub conscious mind already knows the patterns of existence and our conscious mind is simply a torch lighting up this knowledge as we go along.

There is a school of thought that suggests the sub conscious mind already knows the patterns of existence and our conscious mind is simply a torch lighting up this knowledge as we go along. — Antidote

Sure. Generally speaking, the nature of consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates certain rules of formal logic/p and-p.

Yet just another mystery in life that is something beyond logical possibility.

I couldnt put it better, very true.

If you believe there is no purpose, then you wont look for one. This is sometimes called a "life spectator", refusing to start the race for fear of there being no point. However, the belief means there definitely wont be any point because you didn't look for it. Fortunately, rebirth gives us another opportunity to try again... and again... and again! — Antidote

I mentioned I don't believe in a universal purpose. We just don't have to look towards God for purpose while justifying his existence based on phenomena that seem strange and mysterious. Everyone I know of, myself included, has sudden bouts of extreme devotion towards god and a sense of amazement towards 'his' creations. This is by no means any evidence of anything at all.

However, what I didn't say was that we should not be looking for any sorta purpose whatsoever. I think we should be finding our own individual purposes, something that is perhaps unique and satisfying to us and acceptable to others. This is only to cope with the dread of a universally meaningless existence.
Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves.

I mentioned I don't believe in a universal purpose. — StarsFromMemory

The OP topic truly does not interest me very much...but what you wrote here does. if I may...

...did you actually mean "I don't believe in a universal purpose"...or did you mean "I believe there is no universal purpose?"

Those are two different things...and the "I don't believe X..." structure often is used when "I believe not-X is intended.

Okay I see how you interpreted it.

I didn't say 'I don't believe in THE universal purpose'. I said 'I don't believe in a universal purpose' which should translates to 'I don't believe in the existence of universal purpose'.

Regardless, I apologise for any confusion I would have caused. BIt of a newbie to philosophy so still haven't gotten used to the jargon and sentence structuring yet.

I think we should be finding our own individual purposes — StarsFromMemory

I don't fully agree, as it appears to be a re-creation of purpose, but one you have made up for yourself within the parameters of what you find acceptable. There is a difference between "finding purpose" and "creating a purpose".

This is only to cope with the dread of a universally meaningless existence. — StarsFromMemory

Universal meaningless is where we are at already until we find our purpose so perhaps its not as dreaded as the potential for both death and judgement, and upon an unfavourable judgement, a return to try again - or wasted time.

Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves. — StarsFromMemory

If we accept that nothing happens without a cause, then your birth most certainly did contain a purpose - it happened for a reason. The fact we cannot remember the purpose right now does not mean there was no purpose. If you were born without a purpose, then there was no cause for your birth, in which case, you shouldn't be here.

One could say, because it is difficult find our purpose, it seems reasonable that making up another one to suit our own desires/needs appears to make sense. But, if there was an original purpose, then your new purpose is simply a distraction - simply spinning your wheels.

For example, the religious community has its own marriage and divorce laws. We will not consider whatsoever to ever adopt someone else's views on these matters. — alcontali

While there are a few edge cases where religious beliefs can be factored into a decision, here in the US secular law has precedence over religious law.

Okay, initially I didn't intend to use this thread to discuss purpose.

First - you are advocating for the presence of a universal purpose for all humanity. May I ask on what grounds are you making that claim? Also, do you know anything about the nature of this purpose? Is it only meant for humans? or is it for all life on this planet?

Second - How can you possibly justify presence of a universal purpose knowing how insignificant a place humans occupy in this universe?

If we accept that nothing happens without a cause, then your birth most certainly did contain a purpose - it happened for a reason. — Antidote

What do you mean by 'cause'? All births occure due to the fertlisation of two gametes followed by developement of an embryo . Where does purpose come into all this?

If you were born without a purpose, then there was no cause for your birth, in which case, you shouldn't be here. — Antidote

What do you mean 'shouldn't be here' ? There is no choice nor does the fact that 'I am here' entail a purpose for my existence. Bacterias are here too, do they also have some universal purpose? Rocks are here too. What is your point?

One could say, because it is difficult find our purpose — Antidote

'Our' refers to humans? or to all living creatures? or to everything in existence ? On what grounds do you assume that only humans have a universal purpose, if you are making such an assumption that is?

Do you think bacterias and viruses and bats have a universal purpose? Or are we the lucky ones?

In short, there is simply no reason to believe in the existence of a universal purpose and if there is no reason to believe in it, there is no reason to look for it. Might as well look for unicorns.

Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves. — StarsFromMemory

Of course, existentialism is alive and well there. I would rephrase 'inherent purpose' to say self-aware, conscious existence, or simply, self-awareness. But I would also keep in mind searching for a purpose is, in itself, not mutually exclusive from an intrinsic type of objective or universal purpose. In that sense, there are those in the cognitive science world that posit life is both a discovery and uncovery, of Being.

As such, the existential element you suggest I believe, is very accurate here. But, to not take it a step further, would be ignoring our truth in that way of Being. Meaning, we both, at the same time go out in the world and discover purpose, and we also look from within to uncover our own uniqueness (talents, strengths, weaknesses, our will/to find purpose to begin with, and all the other why's of conscious existence) through various means of introspection, etc. (We uncover those things from consciousness.)

That in itself suggests or leads to conscious thought and self-awareness being something beyond Darwinian purpose/causation/logic. And that in turn usually leads to the questions concerning the metaphysical nature of our existence viz consciousness/self-awareness.

In short, we have self-awareness for some reason. The metaphysical features of consciousness should intrigue anyone who is willing to explore what is hidden behind their experiences in living this life; our will to wonder about same.

We all have to find our own purpose. I liken our predicament to Platos - Allegory of the Cave. To me, this makes perfect sense. That said, I do think Plato was highly skilled in logic and therefore was able to be highly persuasive. He defeated the then theocracy and replaced it with a souless Republic which we still enjoy today.