: : To say that life has a purpose is in my opinion absurd, for it necessitates predestination and in many cases, demands that some form of power created and gave. : : To say that we were "created" for any specific reason is to worship wishful thinking. : : On the other hand, we as human beings feel such things as a sense of purpose, and create these for ourselves, which is just fine, as long as recognize it for what it is. Purpose is much like a driver, in computers it directs the function of the device, and our own drivers are much like these programs, but in biological organisms, much more complex, and much more freedom to control the alteration of the program even while you are operating in it. : : As far as the universe is concerned, there are vast posibillities, life is only one of them, and viewed from the perspective of eternity in not only time but space(which is really the same thing), if something has even the slightest possibility of occuring at some point, then it will occur. We are so lucky to have a conscience such as we do, and should be thankful, but to who, or to what? I am just thankful, I do not direct this thankfulness toward anything specific, but use it to promote and relate to what I do know about what I am, where I came from, where I may just be able to go, and all of this allows me to accept my self, and my purpose. Child rearing is my dominant concern and then fulfilment of the basic desires first for myself and then for my mate. The self/mate seems lowly, but nature has a way of reciprocity whick alows for the fullfilment of both our needs through many of the same actions, therby forming a cooperative setting. : : Although there are many more branches to this tree, I think I have at least shown some root and sap. : : I would like to hear some other ideas on meaningfulness and purpose, thanks.

: I noticed that you were quick to dismiss the reasoning behind life without a purpose... saying, "...purpose is in my opinion absurd..." What qualifications have : you rationalized to come to this thinking? Have you all the answers as to why naturalism is the truth?

*** I do not hold any loyalty to Naturalistic theory, for to say that there is no direction in the future occurences which are possible is to state that there exist a total chaos, and thus there would be no such things as laws. But to state these possibities as purpose is also wrong, because one possibility is as possible as some others. Once an aimed for effect has be accomplished in time, it gives our perception a sense of meaning, but when it does not work out as planned, we are left with something else, which is not relevant to our vision of what the future was to be. Another way I look at it is existance, any sense of purpose would and is only relevant to human beings, and there must first be meaningfulness before any "sense" of purpose can be constructed. To say that we matter to anything other than ourselves would be to state that there is only one possibility which must and will be acheived, and that all other possibilities are worthless, this also brings in predestination, and there is "value" in the occurance of possibilities which are different from our percieved future. In any case, purpose would involve the concept that we "matter" to anything other than our own future, within which I see our children as an extention of ourselves, and one could argue that this then is a "purpose". But what if you died before having children? Was your purpose to "influence" other purposes? What "purpose" did you serve? And What "meaning" did you you give to the future of unrealized possibilities? You were a dead end. Nothing follows you, and all those before you had input to you're "purpose" which was to end? As far as meaningfulness, the concept that we "matter" seems to indicate that the animal kingdom is reciving a benificial concequence of our purpose, by being assosiated with us, yet if they had the intelligence, I think you would be hard pressed to find a species who would not desire we never existed, much like we are results of new possibilities being opened to us as a result of the mass extingtion of the dinosuars, which was as a result of something else, possibly an asteriod, and which was as a result of something else such as a moon being torn apart be gravitational forces, or having been hit by another faster, larger asteriod... Where does it end? In my opinion, it never began and will never end. For this is not in my theory, a possibility.

: I admire your position and respect your beliefs, for I just as you, being a philosopher, wonder the cries of the heart beneath the outward expressions.

***Thank you, your position has good arguments as well, to bad there is no possibility in pure objectivity, for to have such would require to have experianced all possibilities, those of the past and future that have and will occur, which in itself will contain all possibilities eventually, in time.

: I noticed many presuppositions in your argument, as most arguments consist; however, should be validated objectively with logic and reason. This is to say however, : that reason alone is not a measure of absolute truth, but rather the absolute possibility of coming to the understanding of the truth.

***My thinking on the aspects of the assertation of purpose is one which sees that purpose presupposes destiny, which is a predetermined future in time and place. The reasoning I assume is not loyal to any scientific theory of knowlage or morality, and this is why it seems that I might be able to abstractly construct possibilities which are restricted when one allows a loyalty to anything obstruct objectivity, not that I have any licence or special skill at arriving at such, but by way of other events in my life in which I deviated from the norm, mathematics for example, in my opinion is not reflective of any universal truth other than as a comunicative construct of our own perceptions as a species in a certain environment at a certain time and place in an infinite number of moments and possibilities encompassed times and places. And at the risk of sounding mystical, I do believe that reality is relative and dependent on the key factors of time and place. Taking for granted several aspects I will discuss below.

: How is it that you deduce from logic and first principals that naturalism is ultimate reality?...'Ultimate', meaning the only rational reality? Is it not presumptuous to state : that there is no such thing as the supernatural? Are you some how naturally aware of the 'inexistent supernatural'? : I understand that from your perspective you most likely draw all your conclusions of life from your five senses. I am presupposing this is true of you, but in my study I : find this modernistic thinking common among naturalists.

***In my opinion, there are two basic truths that trancend all place and time:

1: That matter is, always was, and always will be experiancing change, (Indestructable/never motionless).

2: That there is a non-thing which is infinite in all directions that never changes (due to *its* non-existance (Space/time/nothingness)

***Certain laws and perceptions can be understood by these two basic truths, for example, our perception of time is due only to our perception of changes taking place related to matter, and that in actuallity there is no such thing becuse there is no begining or end to either the constantly moving(changing)matter or the neverchanging nothingness(Space). In relation to what we consider to be rational, the concept of pure nothingness is irrational, but then we also think irrationally by trying to enclose the universe, and also with our placement of time upon the universe itself. Another area of our irrationality is that the tern supernatural has any meaning whatsoever, for if something exists, it is natural, regarless of how long it survives as an object or how unexplainable an occurance seems to be. As far as the limits of the senses, I must state a belief in what many might say is faith, or knowing without seeing, although I do not believe it is without a explainable cause, and I propose this cause to be nothing more than the combination of our senses and experiance withing this organ we call a brain, within which these inputs are assimilated in many possible ways and give rise to what is known as thought, or the mind, which also gives us the best indication it can of the reality we are existing in. Of course this mind is fallible too, and to say it paints a real picture of what we are moving though is to ignore size, spectrums, superfast or superslow movement of matter and hosts of possibilities we cannot even percieve. So to say I rely on reason al;one is to say I knowingly put all my judgement into an imperfect machine. To go on the sense of reason alone would dis-allow my conception of an infinite, neverending, nothingness that overshadows all things we can possibly ever know. Such an explanation in my opinion is more likely than the proposition that such a non-thing could have characteristics such as our concepts of love, hate, good, bad, morallity, mercy, omni... Since we are trying to describe a non-existant, how could it possibly have anything at all?

: In your reading I came upon a paradox.... "As far as the universe is concerned, there are vast possibilities, life is only one of them, and viewed from the : perspective of eternity in not only time but space(which is really the same thing), if something has even the slightest possibility of occurring at some point, then it will : occur."

: First off, space is noteternal, but extraordinarily, blatantly finite. If you do not see this, we may as well stop talking here. How can you rationally and logically : back up your statements about time and space being eternal? Further, if your first and second statement were true, we wouldn't be here right now because there is : the slight chance that the laws of nature, specifically the 2nd law, would reverse. Your presuppositions are not harmonious with reality I'm afraid. There are too many : internal and external inconsistencies.

***Why could such not be the case, if your God can be all these things (eternal, transending time, all knowing). Is it that God created time and space? NOTHINGNESS! Can you back your's up? And even if you could present factual evidence, could not our senses mislead our reason, which is you're argument for Gods existance is it not? As far as paradox, I think you are twisting concepts, or simply misunderstood that I said "EVENTUALLY" within the concept of forever that all even slightly possible occurances will occur. The second mistake is the assumption or statement you made that the universe if "BLATANTLY FINITE", in which you seem to lack the same logic you claim I am lacking. You tell me there is an end, where is it? I see no begining either! That is another area of my scepticism born thinking, that a big bang could start the entire universe, and even that space is also from this initial moment, so nothingness came from nothing as well as something from nothing, I'm a tellin ya, ain't no way matter could have been created by anything, it has simply always been, just as nothingness has. So what's the big deal with that? Does it strip manking of moral thinking, helpful attitudes and plunge us into the depths of an evil and uncaring universe? Well, if I am right, then it has always been the way I explain it, or simular anyhow, and we are immoral even to our own judgements, which we explain away with a little phrase known as "real life". Either way, whether God exists or not, we do immoral things as a whole, warfare, allowing starvation when we have excesses of food, why? MONEY and "Real Life" We hold to have such as a thing as ideals, but corrupt them with "real life" which has the affect of never seeing if these ideals are worth following because we never truely try to realize them. We cannot comprehend such things fully simply because we are pieces of the "UNIVERSAL SUM". No part can understand fully its place in the sum of things, for there are other parts with other perceptions.

: Second, and probably the most enormous assumption is that of abiogenesis. It is my understanding that the mere presence of the correct arrangement of chemicals is : not life. If this were so, life would be possible without the natural laws that govern and perpetuate its existence. I might add that my personal conviction is : that of an omniscient, omnipresent, all loving creator, designer that has created and so magnificently crafted the laws that govern the natural laws and that of : the supernatural that overlap our physical dimensions.

***I am in agreement with the life is not simply chemical statement, for there are other parts as I said that influence lifes possibility, gravity, energy, and motion all play a part in the assimilation of factors which allow the possibility and existance of life. I think this is in agreement with the statement that all life and other possibilities are only achievable within the natural laws, which are subordinate as well to the simple law of "CHANGE" and "NOTHINGNESS".

: Back to my point...

: I really have a problem with a theory that presupposes the existence of life. Abiogenesis, in my opinion, is the hurdle that needs to be validated before any : assumptions of macro evolution are instated; unless one incurs the existence of an ultimate creator, spontaneous creation is ludicrous.

***Is not life in existance? YES! Then how could we not presuppose its existance? What hurdle is there? And as for the necessity of a "Creator" such a hurdle has been attempted for all of recorded history, and we do not even know if there is such a hurdle, bafflement prevails on this aspect of "Reality". To begin with, why is spontainiuos life ludecrus, words and nothing more, meaningless ones at that, and I hold that it has always existed somewhere at all times, at least in its possibility, any attempt to force an untimate creator into the picture of the reality of the universe is unmerited, unfounded, and just plain fantasy.

: It is obvious the natural laws we have in operation are finely tuned for the mere presence of perpetual life. Carbon based organisms don't just come to life because all : the right chemicals are present... As stated by M.R. Ghadiri:

*** Fine tuned is really closing you're eyes to reality, and if things are so fine tuned the why must we constantly refine them ourselves? Perfection would be an organism which lives forever, takes or destroys nothing of its mother universe and has no need for passing on life to offspring. But we live in an imperfect reality in which nothing is perfect, there is no example of anything absolutely perfect, even our concepts of God are imperfect. Many differing possibilities, nothing perfect, but some would say that "IF" my theory is true, then the law of change is perfect, or even that there is perfection in the "Nothingness" I hold to non-exist, well, if there is such a thing that would be it, although perfect gives to much leeway in our language, I would have to add the suffix perfectly CONSISTANT.

: "Of course, an immense problem in all of this abiogenesis research is, that we don't actually know what makes a given group of chemicals "alive..." saying, "We just : don't understand why the chemistry that is happening in a living system is alive -----If it just boiled down to mere chemicals, then the chemicals in a bacteria, which : has been indisputably dead for an hour, should be able to "jump-start" back to life -----because all the necessary chemicals are there.

***I already covered that above, but I would like to know how you arrive at the conclution that even if it was only chemicals, that the "EXACT" amounts and types of chemicals would be the same after a life span, it is not in anything, from the spark of life ther is very little material at all, but consumes or reinstates more and more as it grows, not only to enlarge, but also to maintain its growth and start even more life. So that issue is irrelevent on this basis alone.

: Do you see the problem here? Let me also expound upon other noted phenomena that contradict a purposeless existence.

: The fact and presence of natural law in our finite universe states or rather puts an enormous burden on the atheistic world view in that it begs the question of design. : The question often follows, if we have natural law now, and there was a point in creation of space/time, matter and energy, what existed before in the void that : instructed this void to construct a logical, natural law? This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence....a necessary consequence of physical laws. : Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a : logic that exists prior to space and time.

***Facts again? I already went over objections to any "proofs" that our universe is finite, and within my theorm I have explained that no such void existed apart from the universe that has always encompassed matter within its nothingness. And design was covered as well. Given these explanations I see no argument that is able to contradict such concepts, or which necessitate that it is the burden of the Athiestic "World View" to disprove such an unprovable subject of coinjecture. Furthermore, it can be at least persieved as a darkness which can identify the nothingness as well as the motion of all matter which surronds us and in fact make us which can be used to advance such a concept as this one and leaves the "Supernatural" and "God" to be based on zero facts, and no possible way to go about searching for any, for to search for something you must at least know its effect one something tangable, and no such thing exists other than in the minds, or hearts or emotions of human beings. It is actually hard for me to say these things, for I to once believed in such, and know it is painful, but overcomable.

: And finally, if I may explain to you why it is I feel so many individuals are lead down a burdensome path of modernistic rationalism.

***As you can see, modern rationalist is not me, I use something from everywhere, even religion has taught me certain aspects of life that might not be found elsewhere presently, simular to the concept of faith. The biggest problem I can see in you're assumptions is that there was once an empty void, and that today the universe is finite, my argument basically hinges on what we observe today, close up and far away, there exists matter today, and we cannot see any end to the universe, therefore why assume that there ever was a total void, that matter was created, or that there is an end or edge or boundary to this universe? of course this is opinion of a man, subject to error too, hell, we might both be correct, or both wrong, or one or the other, and will never get the proof in our lifetimes.

: The basis of pride states the following mindset: self sufficient attitude. "I am fine the way I am, I am in no need of change". "I don't sin any worse than you do--you : hypocrite!"... and finally, a conceited sense of one's superiority.

: The last is one that I would like to expound upon. In the context of ones superiority over another is what we commonly infer the ideology of pride. However, it is this : very ideology of pride that not only extends to our fellow man, but also in the expanse of the universe. We demand to know why we are here, and on our : grounds dam nit!

: It is this attitude i'm afraid that leeches in the very souls of all humanity. It is ever present... why you ask? It is our nature. We are fallen creatures out to disprove : deity, lest He reveal our nature. We are in corporate denial. It seems extreme to think this, but it is a subtle thought that is beneath our fleshly desire. The desire to : aquire. To have on 'my' grounds with no one to tell me no. Not even God.

: Let me quote for you the popular, Stephen Hawking...

: "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in : broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, : philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the : discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the : answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we : would know the mind of God."

: I will finish in following Stephen Hawking... Stephen states that the ultimate triumph of human reason is to know the mind of God. Let me suggest that if we could : know the mind of God, we would be god. We are not omniscient. To state that all of truth rests in the laws of physics to be discovered is stating that God is not : supernatural. For if God is supernatural, He transcends space and time, and therefore all that encompasses what we know as reality...

: -nåte

***I have prepared a response to the pride statement but feel we are still only aquainences, and it might be harmful to any further "open" discussion from very different perspectives, which is something I value. In fact, I see the lack of open dialog as the biggest restriction to finding the truth, if one exists, and whatever it is. If you think you would like to hear the response and conclusion about its origins, let me know, otherwise I would rather try to get into a group discussion on other topics as well as more on these. I spent to much time on this response, but I get much out of the act of formulating contradictory or alternative ideas which I usually end up subscribing to. Simplton