Tuesday, February 19, 2013


At some point, you may ask "Why do I exist? Why does this universe exist? Why does ANYTHING exist?"

No religion answers this basic question in a logical fashion, or even states that the starting point for a discussion of the meaning of life should be based on observable phenomenon - facts. If we assume that we live in a rational, purposeful universe (and there is no evidence against this), then a rational being must ask what the purpose of the universe is. The only answer that I choose to accept is one that is in harmony with our current knowledge of science and the principles of the universe.

It seems to me that the answer to life's purpose is quite simple. It is my interpretation of the facts I am aware of that the universe was created for a specific purpose - to sustain intelligence - specifically, consciousness and self-awareness. I cannot imagine any reason for the universe to exist solely for the existence of non-living things - stars or rocks or minerals, or for non-sentient life - plants or fungus or clams. If someone created the universe, it took a remarkable amount of energy and intentional design. The only reasonable purpose I can suggest for creating a universe and, for that matter, for establishing space and time is to create a place for something to happen - for intelligent, conscious beings to evolve. Not that the universe was created specifically for humans, but that it was created as an environment for some sort of self-aware, conscious beings to develop. It just happened to be us, through the open-ended process of evolution. It could have been a difference species.

If true, then what is the purpose of having a universe that contains conscious beings? Many religions address this, but they rely on supernatural or irrational reasoning -- that we (humans) exist to receive God's love, or because of reincarnation, heaven, hell, spiritual preparation for a next level, etc. While I can't disprove any of these beliefs, I see no evidence to support any of them. Based on what we know - facts - I can only say that this universe appears to support conscious beings who must do something within the laws of space and time that we know now, other than just exist or blindly follow a set of rules for some future reward or punishment. It seems to me that the human race is learning - slowly, painfully, over time - right and wrong, and, eventually, wisdom. We learn this collective knowledge as a species the same way we learn as an individual - through reflection on, and avoidance of, pain and death, and appreciation of pleasure and beauty. Trial and error.
If the trend of human knowledge and evolution continues, then men will (eventually) evolve into wiser beings who will someday be able to approach - even control - the next step in their evolution.

I believe that we will soon start to alter our genetic machinery and create man-machine hybrids that we enable us to live much longer lives and learn much more in each lifetime. We will also be increasingly connected, plugged in to each other. Eventually, this will lead at some unknown future point into a state where we fuse - like the early cells that became multi- cellular organisms - into a singular, god-like consciousness. To some extent, we have already started a crude super-organism now, with the Internet and mass media, where we connect and experience the world through rapid connections. Each technological step speeds up the process of evolution, bringing us closer to the ultimate end.

If this fusion is the ultimate destination of human existence, it is not unreasonable to think that this was the design of the universe - to create a breeding ground for the development of super-conscious beings over billions of years. For some unknown reason, it seems that this type of consciousness must be learned "the hard way" - through the experiences of free will and suffering - war, pain, famine, genocide. It is only through the essentially pointless suffering of billions of beings that our species will eventually "get it" and focus its attention on progress, rather than wasting time acquiring riches and power (usually at the expense of others) or just pursuing mindless pleasures. Or so I hope.
But apparently time and human suffering are of little relevance to the "creators," whomever they may be, except that they teach us what is bad, what is to be rejected. To what purpose our distant descendants will serve - thousands of years from now - is something we cannot know, until we approach that frontier.

This, then, is the purpose of life. The sooner we dedicate our energies to developing this future, the sooner we will arrive at this destination. Science, technology, genetics, life extension - all of these provide progress to the future world. In your daily life, you may already be supporting the human races' progress, through educating, policing, protecting, researching, healing. However, you may also be hindering human progress. All of our wasteful activities - wars, religion, materialism, mindless pleasures - only slow down human evolution and postpone the inevitable future.

It seems desirable to speed up the process of progress. Just imagine if radios or computers had been invented 100 years earlier, or vaccines, or the internal combustion engine...unfortunately, throughout history there have been forces that have tried to slow human progress. In European history, many of the people trying to move knowledge forward were destroyed - burned as "witches" or "heretics" because they sought the truth. But ultimately, the truth has won out.

Anyway, these are my view of things. I have started this "blog" about my views, which I called "Evolutionary Deism." I call it this because I believe in "god" (or some sort of creator or creators) and I believe that evolution is proof of this force, which has produced you and me over a 10 billion year process. I don't want to "convert" anyone or convince anyone to see things my way; I am only interested in discussing these ideas with people who share an openness to this point of view. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is true and supported by what I know about biology, physics, psychology, etc. If you agree, then let me know...

(c) 2007-13 The Meaning of Life Blog


Anonymous said...

wow, I am dumbfounded by the imense stupidity i just read. So, you are arrogant enough to belive the entire universe was created solely for {you} huh? If people are retarded enough to believe this garbage then why is it so damn difficult to believe that life doesn't actually have a purpose, that we are here out of pure happenstance, that time only exist because we, conciouse beings, perceive it. No one can ever know with any certanty why we're here, but know this, there is no direction for evolution, it can not be predicted, it is dictated by enviroment and random chance. THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS NOT HERE FOR YOU, MORON

anything with a brain is a conciouse being, that includes the monkeys and tigers and squids, idiot. oh and without those meaningless plants, YOU wouldn't be here, ass.

Anonymous said...

one more thing, i know your not going to post my comment but i would really like to understand why your such a fucking idiot. please e-mail me at jonstonr@hotmail.com. and we can continue this debate.

Source of Information said...

First of all, no need to be rude. This is my theory. Currently, there are no facts with which to make an absolute judgment. It seems worthwhile to invest the limited efforts we as a human race have toward finding the answer. You may in fact be right and there is no purpose; but I believe it is at least possible to prove this one way or another, and this is worth knowing, even though I believe you are wrong.

Yes, I believe that the universe WAS created for people like me - though not for me specifically. You seem to have missed my point, which is that, if life has a purpose, it seems plausible that the purpose is to provide an environment for something.

I also don't agree with your statement that time only exists because we perceive it. Time goes on even when we don't perceive it, and it can be measured by instruments that are not influenced by our perception of them. Time existing before I was born and will continue after I die.

I also do not agree with your statement about evolution. There is clearly a direction to the evolution of life on this planet, toward increasing complexity and increased self-awareness. This process has produced human beings, who are aware that they exist, that they age, and that they die. We are building an increasing base of knowledge, to the point that we are aware of our own neurochemicals, our genetic material, our evolutionary past, and our place in the universe. Our civilizations are relatively new, but there are clear signs that through the same process of evolution, we are adapting in the social field as we once did in the biological/genetic field. Plus, we are approaching an era where we will be able to control our own genetics, through genetic manipulation. The consequence of this and other developments, including the Internet that brought you and I into this conversation, is that human intellect and consciousness will increase at an accelerating pace, and we will evolve into the next stages with increasing speed. So, again I do not agree with your statement - we can predict evolution because we can control it.

So, I believe that these point to the fact that the universe is, in fact, for me, because I get it and want to support its direction.

Source of Information said...

Another point that occurs to me is that I have defined a theory that I believes provides an answer to something that is missing but very important: the reason for our existence. You may disagree with my theory, but there is nothing in your response to it that offers facts that disprove it - only your opinions. In other words, you are saying I am wrong because "I said so." This is not a convincing argument

Rain (formerly anonymous) said...

I apologize for my rudeness, you are right, we can have a civilized discussion. Its just that arrogance pisses me off and in my opinion believing that the entire universe exists only for us (humans) is by far one of the most arrogant statements ever uttered.
That aside, you ARE wrong about evolution, it does not have a predestined path, there is now higher life form than another, there is no HIGHER mouse, HIGHER ape, higher anything, life is diverse.
Lets assume your right, the only beings with purpose are us; then why are there tens of thousands of species on this planet (includeing SEVERAL species of humans; we just happened to be the ones that survived for whatever reason), species with attributes that defy imagination, species that have been around for millions of years before us and will continue to be around for millions of years after we are extinct (and yes, we WILL go extinct; just like 90% of all the species that have ever existed no longer do) despite our ability for genetic manipulation, which by the way wont make any progress as long as all these dellusional god freaks continue to impede medical progress with their missguided and antiquated beliefs. I would suggest going out on a dark night and just stare ate the stars, and REALLY try to comprehend the truly imense size of the universe and maybe then you'll get an idea of how small and insignificant you (and all of us) really are.

Mrs. said...

When I was a child I believed in God. Believed with childlike faith....not because I was ever told of Him, or explained the rudimentary forces behind religion...it was just that I believed, I knew. Something primordial existed in my subconscious that was just there.

As I grew into my 20's this knowledge waned, withered and faded from sight. I was educated! All the hard hitting questions like, "Why was I here" NEEDED to have an answer...One with a suitable tailored fit. And in my 30's I pontificated all my knowledge and felt better proclaiming in my erudite elocution that I was right.

Now I am much older and as the light gets dark in my eyes I can again see the face of God, that through my own foolish wisdom had been dimmed.

Time is just a special event for us here on this plane. Make the most of it.

pruitt said...

You and I think alike a little. Want proof to show these people a thing or two?

The Singularity is Near - Ray Kurzweil(sp?)

The Lucifer Principle - (can't remember author)

Both of these books confirm or some way agree with your, and lately my own, beliefs about the universe, intelligence, conciousness, and other fun mind bending topics.

Please, look in to these books!


Anonymous said...

You are close to the truth, however, like other philosiphers before you and I am sure after you, you have succumbed to the biases associated with this existence. The bias being that everything revolves around "us". The universe was built for "us". From this perspective you will only derive truth based on your biases. The truth of our origins, our purpose to life is more simple that you might suspect. Also it is not as enlightening as many believe. There is a light at the end of the concious tunnel, however it is not the answers you expect. This light is more disturbing than calming. This light will bring you face to face with what it means to be "Human", the definition of the term God and what truly is this thing called existence.

Eliaz Z. Winthorp PhD, Theorectical Mathematics

P.S. Hints

There is no such time as calculable time for humans. Theorectical Time started before this existence so cannot be calculated or measure in an absolute manner. In the most pure sense we cannot measure time.

Also your reasoning for our existence is incomplete , so I will not say that it is wrong. So I will ask, why is thios evolutional upgrade happening, to what result. What is the end game and what does anyone benefit from it.

Anonymous said...

Great Discussion...

Don't understand one thing though. Why was the creator, so interested in creating the beings with such less consciousness, and then having set up this whole universe with all this time to help them evolve to super consciousness? Look at the pains and sufferings we all go through at times, the slow pace of our so called evolution. Is the creator cynic? Doesn't HE have enough capacity to get us through quickly? What would we have done to our subjects, after seeing them suffering and struggling, if we were the creators instead?

Somehow, our concept of a creator different from us is the actual problem. We think of an energy BEYOND us who has set up the entire universe. This gives a lot of space for the creator to be imperfect…

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Will keep posting.

gary said...

I'm with you on two things:
1) wars, religion, are wasteful activities; science, technology are more rewarding/progressive investments
2) we are advancing as a species

However, I do not believe there is either a purpose/meaning of life, or a God.

To me it's comforting to know this. I am here, I am alive, I invest in myself and help others and overall my life is satisfying.

Sometimes I worry about the delusions of the religious, but then I realize that most people believe in God because they want to. They want to think there is a purpose. They want to think that they will be protected and rewarded because of their strong faith. It's an amazingly appealing concept.

That is, to use God to control what's out of your control...or answer the unanswered. In this case our unanswered question is: What is the purpose/meaning of our existence? And in this case we're saying: We were created by God or a "creator" so we can evolve to be closer to that God.

So, an obvious follow up question is then: Why does God exist?
And this leads to a more intriguing question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

In this question, the existence of God is irrelevant.

Ultimately, it's exciting to think about things like this, but my personal "conclusion", the one that satisfies me and gives me peace, is that we are lucky to be here and to live, so enjoy it. That's it (I know it's boring, oh well).

Source of Information said...

Thanks to pruit - I will check out The Singularity is Near - Ray Kurzweil and the The Lucifer Principle - by Harold Bloom. They seem to share some of my thoughts on things.

Thanks to everyone for some good comments and some sincere discussion. Apparently, I'm not the only person thinking about these things.

Source of Information said...

I took a look at "The Lucifer Principle" by Harold Bloom...first two chapters are on-line. He seems to ramble a bit, but worth taking a look at.

Marie said...

"anonymous" is obviously an example of our backwards behaviour which is what frightens me into thinking mankind will never evolve above his inherent base nature of fearfulness, greed, selfishness,ignorance and herding tendencies. And above all his inability to truly comprehend a supreme entity whatever it's nature.

You may be on the right track but your theory leads to the idea that we humans are somewhat an experiment left on our own to evolve or not. You left out the possible conciousness of animals and plants. And what about the energy that exists in 'non-intelligent' matter such as the air you breathe? WE do not really know if something is not alive, just because it doesn't respond in a way we recognize.

We are all one. The 'good' that struggles to live intellingently, peacefully with our neighbor/s including all matter and the 'bad' that cannot co-exist with itself.

I too, cannot accept the concept of most religious ideas of God. But can reasonably accept a kind of creation masterminded by a creator. However, if we are meant to evolve, is technology, specifically the kind that destroys, really the only answer?

I think the answer lies in discovering ourselves which could lead to mental evolution. We could be taught to do this after learning to speak. Instead of just the A-B C's, why not learn to trust and develop our intuitiveness, our instinctual desire to be loved and reach out. Would this breed a more perfect harmonious society in which we could turn all our attention to evolving?

Could the harmfulness of stupidity be bred out of mankind? But who would judge? Governments? Popes?

Thanks for a chance to express myself.

FunksWay said...

You hit it in the head when you realized that conscious beings must be here to do something.
That something is just to experience the universe! Be here now!
Live in the moment, we are here to experience the creation of all things to validate that there is a here, and it is not nothingness. Yin and Yang!
If God (a loose term for the Creation/Universe/Love) is everything then we are all a part of God since we are part of the creation. Our part here is to feedback to creation. We experience
the Universe so the creator/Creation can experience itself.
Our souls are that part of God. Our bodies only vehicles for this dimension. Your biggest mistake is assuming that material form is the end all. Think about this...
The soul does not love it is LOVE itself!
The soul does not exist it is EXISTENCE itself.
The soul does not know it is KNOWLEDGE itself.

The Universe is vast..and there are countless planes of existence, countless souls inhabit this universe.. it is truly endless and limitless as is life, love and time


Andrew said...

im the kinda person thats open to any ideas on this because I honestly think anything is possible. but I don't think we will ever find out why were here, because if our creator/creators would have left some clues.

oh and to the person who said war was a useless activity I have to disagree. the human population is constantly rising and we need something slow that down or the world will be simply overcrowded. war though very painful is one of the best ways to help with that. and maybe thats why humans were created to be so violent

Peikko said...

Boy nothing sparks a lively discussion better than religion or politics. Both are long on conjecture and short on facts. I believe it was Gary who said that war and religion are wasteful activities. I could scarcely disagree more.

I see religion as a natural step in human evolution. It is a mechanism to develop societal structure and communal purpose. It serves as way for individuals to understand the importance of considering the welfare of the group ahead of one's own, This structure obviously served our species better than anarchy because it prevails.

Andrew stated warfare exists only to keep human population in check. Though this may be a side effect (some argue benefit) I think it has a more basic function in evolution. The entire evolutionary process is a ongoing competition for resources while providing for the continuation of the species. An individual's position on the bell curve of family characteristics determines it's probability of surviving a given environment in order to reproduce. Thus altering that curve ever so slightly. Though it's all about odds there's nothing accidental about evolution. Warfare is nothing more than a form of competition. Those that happen to be born with the abilities that increase the probability of surviving it will foster more offspring.

Physical ability helps here, but intellectual ability prevails in the long run. Make a better club or build a bigger bomb increases your odds of raising a batch of kids. The primary utility of science and technology has always been to gain the advantage in warfare. Remember the space race? Any social benefit is simply a windfall profit. Would we have the Hubble telescope if not for Hitler's V2 rockets?

Today we find a significant portion of the human race embroiled in a conflict (armed and otherwise) centered on competing religious beliefs and the societal structures they define. Nothing new there. It's been going on since the first two shamen duked it out in front of the cave. When we try to define the purpose of our existence we blindly enter into that conflict.

There is no purpose. It's just how the evolution of life forms works.


Source of Information said...

My response to "louis" - I don't think that matter is trying to comprehend itself. There is no evidence for it, no purpose for it, and it doesn't provide a useful hypothesis to me.

Joel David Smith said...

Eloquently spoken, sir. I agree and am thankful to you for helping to spread the good word. Hopefully we can CHANGE SOME MINDS for the better. Like you say, unfortunately it may take some time, but I believe we'll get there. Much love to you and everyone. And to everybody out there, remember the Golden Rule and everything will be alright.

Joel David Smith said...

I'd like to ammend my previous post after reading through "Why?" again. I agree with the sentiment of the text, but disagree with the "idea" of a "creator" or "creators". I personally believe in evolution in the complete sense of the word and that the universe is truly infinite with no begining or end and that the "big bang" was one of many. I'm forced to wonder, "who created the creator?". Anyway, keep fighting the good fight, we need all the help we can get. And again, big love to you all.

Source of Information said...

First of all, I wanted to thank everyone who posted a comment. It's nice that many people are thinking about these issues without relying on easy answers.

To "Dr. Winthrop," I have said that the evolutionary path leads to a fairly predictable end. I've also said that we will only know more about the consequences of this end as we approach it. It is possible that the purpose is something we will not like or accept, in which case all of human effort and suffering will be for nothing. Hopefully it will be for something worthwhile, and if the purpose of creating a universe is for the development of increasing intelligence, then presumably the consequences of that greatly increased intelligence will have been anticipated. The opposite seems unlikely - that some super intelligence has created the universe in which we deliberately become increasingly intelligent without this being or beings thinking that we would respond positively to the end result.

To Anonymous (May 11) - I paraphrase your question as, "Why would a creator not speed things up, in terms of our evolution?" In other words, why does it take so long? My response to this is that it only takes a long time to US, because we are living it; time must not have much meaning to beings who live outside of it. The other thing is my opinion that somehow we, as a race of conscious beings, must find the truths about life by ourselves, without any help or interference, for this process to work. This is just my opinion, but it fits with the facts as I know them. All I can deduce from my impression of the facts is that we are given a puzzle that we must solve, rather than given the answers. Perhaps only the terror, pain, and madness of life can teach us to truly appreciate the beauty, pleasure, and joy of truth.

Anyway, keep the great comments coming. It is a great pleasure for me to find others who are at least curious about their own existence.

Curious Joe said...

Beyond Harold Bloom and Kurzweil books, I recommend a book about this blog’s topic by Peter Russell entitled “The Global Brain” -- first published in 1983.

In a nutshell, the essence of the book is: Imagine each neuron in your brain is just one human being. In other words, imagine you are just “One Cell”. Individually, no one human being can achieve or make progress towards “higher purpose in life”, no more than a single neuron in a person’s brain is capable of sensing, controlling the body or thinking . Russell maintains that we need to interconnect almost all human beings’ brains together so that we can achieve goals well beyond any individual or a group of people’s capability, or even the capability of a country such as the USA, China, etc. . He proposes a plan (based on neurocybernetics) that would connect human brains across the globe – thus the title of his book. Back in 1982, he saw the ARPANET (father of today’s Internet) as the first step towards a long journey of human evolution towards global consciousness. Basically, he is saying that the purpose of our existence is to create an entity bigger, and way beyond any one individual’s brain capacity/capability. Russel’s Global Brain is an entity in which every human being participates as a Single Cell, and each cell coordinates with all other cells in an optimum manner that propels the entity towards achieving the “higher purpose in life”

So, the question becomes what is this “higher purpose in life”? The answer is really simple: The survival of the human species into “infinite future”. But what is “infinite future?”. Well, let’s start with planet earth. Obviously, the earth cannot survive without the existence of a star called Sun. And we know that one day – in far distant a future – the Sun will die like all stars do. Let’s say that distant future is 5 billion years from now. Well, obviously we would need a survival plan at least 4 billion years before the Sun completely dies out In fact, let’s back up from year 4 billion to year 2008. What is our action plan for year 2008 as a first step towards the year 4 billion? Is that something that only one or few Cells can do or implement?

Of course, that was a ridiculous example. Let’s think of a few near term, more realistic scenarios. How about action plans, starting in 2008, for a possible catastrophic climate change that could destroy all life forms on planet earth by year 3,000. What is our survival plan/strategy as a species?

What if a huge Comet from a distant universe is on a collision course with planet earth in year 5,008, destroying all life forms, including the cockroaches that can supposedly survive nuclear explosions instigated by a single Sick Cell. What is our survival plan for the next 3000 years, starting tomorrow? Shouldn’t the entire planet earth coordinate today to find and implement a solution – such as diverting/destroying the huge comet, or creating means of transporting the species to another livable planet in the universe? Can we really achieve that "higher purpose" without some kind of global brain/consciousness?

Source of Information said...

It's just my opinion but I don't agree that the purpose of life is to just experience it. Experience is fine but without the benefit of consciousness and understanding, merely experiencing a sunset, a strawberry, or a lover's kiss does not provide any answers, any progress, in ourselves as a species. Pleasure is just a clue left behind by whoever created this universe, a bread crumb to follow out of the thicket of mere bovine existence. I don't believe human progress is achieved without the hard work of moving evolution forward. This cannot be accomplished by watching a candle. For one thing, it does not solve the most pressing problem facing all of us - we are all dying from a genetic disease called aging. Wej need to admit the horror of this disease and make the genetic changes necessary to stop and reverse it. Longevity, instant learning, lack of coersion - these are all steps required by the universe for us to move up the ladder to assume our place at the table with the Big Boys (whomever they may be).

Yes, in my view, our universe was created to spawn something higher, which we will understand once we leave this dark age of primitive science and learn some more facts about the universe and our own existence. Until then, we have a lot of work to do, the first step being stopping all the wasted energy that should be put to human progress.

Anonymous said...

What you've expressed in this blog can so effortlessly be picked apart. Why? Well first off, you're not at the point to see past your own mind-set, and secondly... You rarely understand the content of what you're reading from these people. I've provided a road map... An outline of Existence. But within these words, lie the answers to your questions. Self-awareness is stimulated by fear, and fear keeps you grasping at straws. Endless possibility allows for Eternal Life. Your life is nothing more than a series of choices, and the mere essence of learning from our Destiny. Evolution is guided by past experience... And in turn, enhanced by this knowledge. The connection to all things becomes essential when putting the pieces together.

Perhaps giving you an example might help. How about the creation of massive processing power by the usage of thousands upon thousands of computers networked together. Realize this is already being done with astounding results in medical research and DNA sequencing. Now focus on creation in general... How powerful of a force could we be, if self-awareness extended well beyond the individual mind? You of all people should realize the potential is limitless. As cliché as it might sound all I can say to you is... Set your spirit free. The answers we seek are simple, if only we allow them to be.

Source of Information said...

Thanks - I looked at Peter Russell's web site...maybe I need to read the book. Seemed like a lot of items for sale. Some interesting links, but lots of stuff I don't find interesting. I think the truth is very simple, and fits on a few pages, as I have done. Well, there goes my book deal, lecture circuit, and tapes/CD/DVDs.

I sent Mr. Russell an e-mail inviting him to visit my web site, and he sent me a nice note saying that I agreed with some of his stuff. I just don't find any truth in something because it was said by someone else. For a theory of reality to work for me, it has to be logical, science-based, and free of mumbo jumbo. I like my theory because it is very simple to grasp - time and space were created to provide a universe where intelligent life could develop, evolve, and eventually do something, such as forming a higher organism. Hence, we should focus on supporting human evolution. So, I don't find much of interest in esoteric philosphies, religions, creeds, cults, etc. If I have to suspend my intelligence to understand something, then it does not work for me.

Stephen Schaefer said...

Conversation is not a way to an end . It only reflects what we know and how we can describe our feelings. I have read your blog and read the interpretations that others perceive to be the truth or a pragmatic views of what comes from their minds. There have been many ideas that have come from humans describing the total ignorance or the capacity to look further into what it means to be alive and why.
Your ideas are justified and have a creedence unto themselves. Just as the others here that represent their thoughts. It is good that we can discuss "What the Meaning of Life Is".
I suppose to believe in God or have a Secular belief is ones own justification of the universe. We have only touched upon what the universe really is and to believe that a deity is responsible for the building of what we now conceive as our place in it for me can only be perceived as one of many roads that we as humans can travel. Perhaps we will only be a blinding light as is a Supernova and then regroup in a few millennum to become something other than Man. Isolation plays an important role in shaping how evolution has shaped Earth and the species that live here. Other catastrophes have shown that life is not steadfast and can be changed drastically.
If we are going to go beyond this plane it is a necessary cause that all people of this planet begin to coalesce and think in terms of being part of the whole and not overly individualistic which notably appears to be the way the world has been since the begining of written history since this is all we have to go by from our ancestors. Possessions, power, wars, hatred, murderous individuals, to name a few of the dark sides of humans is the unconscience not the conscience.
We have a long way to go before we are ready for Group Conscienceness, a long way to go before we should even think about the future of mankind. The animals and plants have had many more eons to get it right, perhaps they are truely the conscience ones and we are merely the plague that is the scourge upon this rock. I am an optimist and believe we can change but I think that many more of our kind must perish before an understanding that humans are fragile and can disappear just as many other species have disappeared before us. People are passionate about their ideas and formulations of what again they perceive to be a truth, so don't, as did one commentator here called another stupid and idiot, for you may be wrong in what you realize as Truth. What's next pull out a gun a shoot the guy.....that's what is happening with society today. Discussion is for free thought it should not be chastized. Act responsible, be responsible and hold the dark emotions in check.

Ryan said...

honestly, you've probably read far too many science fiction novels. I can't say your ideas wouldn't make a terrific story, but to consider it the meaning of life is not dissimilar to cultish claims, and falls moreso into 'belief' than reality, or even possibility. 'what are you on' is the first common phrase that enters one's mind.

Mrs, the apparently older man made a pretty annoying point. It's not unlikely he was a vicious young fault finder in his earlier years, and, having decided to relax, suddenly finds himself happier - this being the case I can't take his message seriously. There were plenty of older *wiser* men who died happily without much thought of this 'god'. Goethe, for instance. Th older+experience case works only for individuals, and can't be taken as any wide-reaching lesson, but to congenial personalities. This is the general conclusion, however, of a stilted, one-sided mind, often of a uninterestingly scientific mien; the same kind that espouses a very menial form of atheism. (that is, a form of atheism, not atheism by itself)

Source of Information said...

My point is that what I am proposing is a theory. To say that one understands the meaning of life - as all religions do - is illogical, because it draws conclusions without facts. When the facts do not support their dogma, then it is due to "miracles." The fact that many, many people fervently believe in these religions is not proof of anything.

Let's first admit that we have no idea why we were born, why the earth exists, or why anything exists. Why isn't there just nothing? Then, let's develop theories that can explain the facts as we know them. Sadly, our society (in America) seems to be moving in the opposite direction; we have to refight old battles about evolution and the validity of science. People are clinging to illogical belief systems.

Anonymous said...

There is a very definate meaning to our lives, not all of it understandanle, but the main one is to serve one another. Religion is not a thing created by man, but go'ds revelation to us of his existance and love for us.
Our meaning is from Him and for Him. We serve Him by serving one another. The truth is not a something, but a somebody. His name is Jesus Christ.
you aren't an ass, just miguided like most of the world right now. We are bombarded with images and ideas that take away our human dignity.
I urge you to read, just as an experiment, C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' - if ,of course, you have the courage to step outside of your belief system.

frish said...

There is no purpose. It's just how the evolution of life forms works.


That sums up truth.

See my recent post on a similar topic:


What you fail to realize, in your unabashed "specieism" (humans are somehow "evolved" or "advanced") is that we are minerals!

Mobile Minerals

Sure, we have "consciousness" whatever that is. It evoloved, along with personality and other mental attributes, alongside our more commonly acknowledged features such as bipedalism or having opposable digits!

We also have all the elements that will lead NATURE to dispatch us, since we cannot control our behaviors, either individually or politically or corporately.

The only MORAL solution is:


Anonymous said...

This might hurt a bit, sort of like surgery hurts at first but the patient is healed in the long run...
In Psalm 14:1 we read, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" That's a pretty blunt accusation - that a person who says there is no God, is a fool.
However, he is a fool because he has forsaken the source of true wisdom in God in order to rely on his own (allegedly), self-sufficient, intellectual powers. He is unteachable (Prov. 10:8) and despises instruction (Prov. 15:5); whereas the wise man heeds council given to him, 'The way of a fool is right in his own eyes' (Prov. 12:15). The fool has utter self-confidence and imagines himself to be intellectually autonomous. 'He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool' (Prov. 28:26). A fool cannot think of himself as mistaken (Prov. 17:10). He judges matters according to his own pre-established standards of truth and right, and thus his own thoughts always turn out in the long run to be correct. The fool is sure that he can rely on his own rational authority and intellectual scrutiny. 'The fool beareth himself insolently and is confident' (Prov. 14:16), and therefore he utters his own mind (Prov. 29:11). In actuality, this autonomous man is dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid. He professes himself to be wise, but from the opening of his mouth it is clear that he is (in the biblical sense) 'a fool' - his only wisdom would consist in keeping silent (Prov. 17:28). 'The heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness' (Prov. 12:23), and the fool flaunts his folly (Prov. 13:16). He eats up folly unreflectingly (Prov. 15:14), pours it out (Prov. 15:2), and returns to it like a dog to his vomit (Prov. 26:11). He is so in love with his folly and so dedicated to its preservation that 'It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool is his folly' (Prov. 17:12). The fool does not want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations. There is only one absolute truth. The Creator has left us a history book of the universe and true explains the true meaning of life. Before we pre-judge it, we should read what it says first.

Source of Information said...

It is not a question of "courage" that does not allow me to agree with those who quote religious documents or dogma. These simply are not convincing as evidence. They are just words in a book that someone supposedly said at some time. There are no facts.

My position is that a theory for the meaning of life should be fact based. That is my opinion but I have not heard anything that provides a logical reason for abandoning this common sense approach. We use the same approach when designing an airplane, treating a patient, or building a home. To ask me to suspend the most basic use of human intelligence to fit into your dogma is not a convincing argument. I would suggest that you leave the comfort of your books and step out onto the path of reality and truth. Truth is something we can debate, based on our limited faculties and data, but you have asked me to agree with your interpretation of reality without a shred of evidence to support it. That is not a rational argument and it leaves me unconvinced.

As for the post about not believing in God, I suggest you go back and read the short text I have posted. I did not say that - only that no religion I know of is based on facts and deductions based on those facts. The closest I've seen in the Ba'hai religion, which admits that our knowledge is limited and that science and religion should be in perfect harmony with each other. This is a logical statement, since both are based on the same truth.

I am not a Ba'hai but they at least do not insult my intelligence by saying that I should abandon logic to follow their dogma with all sorts of stories. People who do this I believe are doing a great disservice to humanity, since it is only through expanding intelligence will the human race advance beyond our current barbarism and move forward into an amazing and happy future.

Source of Information said...

To the poster who said that I am a fool, I can only add that I am getting tired of all these arrogant religious people who think they know anything. For you to base the most important issue of your life - the reason for your existence - on a collection of ancient writings is a tragic waste of brain power. But for you to claim that YOU have all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a FOOL is arrogant.

The 12 said...

You believe that there is some higher power. so then you must belive that if a higher power sent /put us here, we will never be able ,until the day he/she feels,be able to figure out(with what you would call evidence)a purpose for us being here. We would then be gods ourselves.I think the higher power, since our creator, has the ability to keep us as ignorant as possible until the day deserving for us to be knowledgeable of the things he/she knows.

Regarding this world, there are truths about it. I think that in your thinking you have spoken truth about this world,but apply the fact that the relevant truth will never be in your grasp,and what have you accomplished?Nothing.
You have just proven what satis fies this world/your flesh.You haven't bagan to tap into what is relevant concerning God(I'll just give the creator that name, since you wont give him one.

Source of Information said...

The point about war is that it advances technology at a great moral cost. My personal belief is that our future as a species depends on our evolving a moral sense as well as intelligence and technology. It is unethical to advance based on the suffer of others. Wars do focus civilizations on improving technology, but the effort often ends after the war. Your argument in support of war, like any enterprise that involves human suffering, seems unethical, like human experiments. The advances in human civilization that matter have provided health, wealth, and freedom to the largest number of people possible. Human invention will continue without war, because there is much that needs to be learned to help each of us survive the tragedy of aging, accident, and other forms of death.

Source of Information said...

Well, I agree that I don't know what God is; no one "knows". Billions of people have expressed their beliefs, and we build millions of buildings celebrating these beliefs, but no one has any hard evidence about God, other than the fact that we exist (something that I don't waste time disputing). As for your point about not knowing until we get there, I agree. It is a mystery. Our entire human race faces the challenge of solving that mystery. The first step of solving any problem is admiting that there is a problem, defining it, and rejecting flawed hypotheses. The people who quote the Bible to me are offering an unsupportable hypothesis. I respect their right to their beliefs (although they often to not extend to me or others the same respect) but that doesn't take away from my lack of respect for their logic.

Source of Information said...

Here's another thought. Once we achieved our full potential as a species, then we would have enormous, god-like power. My guess is that we would have to achieve some degree of ethical perfection before we would be trusted with this type of power.

And, by the way, if the entire human race put its collective energy into building the future instead of preserving the past or scrambling for power and riches in the present, we would achieve a god-like status very quickly. While the prospects of this happening are very slim, that does not take away from the beauty of the dream. So, in the meantime, we continue to live in this brutal, backwards world, where everyone you know will die, some horribly.

Gene Whitcher said...

You wrote: "If the trend of human knowledge and evolution continues, then men will (eventually) evolve into wiser beings who will someday be able to approach - even control - the next step in their evolution".I agree. And I see it as the goal of the Gospel....God's plan to bring forth the 'greater beings'.GeneEagle Adult Christian Forum Delphi Forums

Anonymous said...

What I've noticed in reading just a few of your comments that a lot of people seem to get pissed off at you for basically having a theory that is different than theirs. Personally I can follow your train of thought, and although I may approach life differently, I certainly do not think you are being arrogant at all. I relate to the urge to want and figure the universe out, and in the process I may come up with provocative thoughts myself. I think that religions that endorse hatred of other religions are far more arrogant than what you are doing, and it needs to be pointed out that I didn't notice anything in your blog asking me to hate anyone else, or stone children to death etc.


I applaud your efforts. Good Job.

Source of Information said...

To Mindflare9: Thank you for your response. Yes, lots of people attack my point of view, but that is not uncommon on the Internet, where good manners are the exception. As for the deeper question, why people become enraged when their world view is questioned, I can only say that this is a common theme in human history, from ancient times to today. Freud described religion as based on deep, primitive, unconscious emotions; such emotions are resistant to rationale discourse. We can only hope that at some point in the future our race will have sufficient understanding of their own minds that they will be able to reject the unconscious forces that lead them into irrational belief systems and the carnage visited on human kind associated with them - religious wars, murder of "heretics" and "apostates," burning at the stake, torture, forced conversions, etc.

Source of Information said...

Gene Wicher: Thank you for the quoting my words back to me - I am flattered. As for your statement that the future evolution of mankind is expressed in the gospel - by which I assume you mean the Gospel of Jesus Christ (the "New Testament,") it is possible but it seems to me that the current interpretation of the teachings of Jesus contradict my thesis. Feel free to explain your statement in more detail.

UNWORTHY said...

This is what I have been taught:
God has always existed. God is a Spirit. God is love. Love must be shared. It is such a wonderful, joyous, deep emotional feeling, it cannot be contained. God created us so He could love and be loved in return. God is holy. Definition of holy: pure, clean, righteous... Most of the human race is the exact opposite of holy. We have always been so wicked, evil, prideful, hurtful, self-centered... that God(Love)could not hardly stand to be around us! Putting God in the mist of the human race is like putting a beautiful, pristine, fragrant, white flower in a mud puddle then taking a dump on it. That action would result in the flower becoming ugly, filthy, odorous... God just simply could not tolerate us because of His divine nature. Crimes (sin) cannot simply go unpunished forever without creating a hellish existence for everyone. Rather than sending us to Hell (which is what we deserve) He took it upon Himself to save us. What an AWESOME LOVE!! That's why Jesus Christ came to the earth in human form. He paid the penalty. He took the punishment that should have been ours. Now God can stand us again -- if we accept and acknowledge the fact that He sent His son as a sacrifice for our sins. If we cannot accept or acknowledge that fact -- it is like spitting in God's face... AND HE WILL NOT, CANNOT, TOLORATE IT!

So, why are we here? To love and be loved.

Source of Information said...

To UNWORTHY: What you have been taught has no basis in facts. You have missed my basic point, which is that a system for understanding the universe and our place in it should be based on some sort of data. There is no proof that a supreme being created a person called Jesus. Perhaps a man named Jesus existed; and perhaps he was killed. Who knows? The rest is unsubstantiated.

I do not agree with your point of view. The whole basis of it is irrational. It lacks facts or even common sense. I think you are the one who is at odds with the universe, which is moving forward, while you are clinging to irrational beliefs that lack any proof or ties with reality. Irrational beliefs like yours are slowing down humanity's progress, which will result in more centuries of wars, suffering, torture, and pointless death. At the very least, your mindless acceptance of these unsubstantiated beliefs diverts energies from being put into scientific progress. So, instead of pretending there is a paradise, we could be creating one.

UNWORTHY said...

My opinion is based on "some sort of data" -- the Bible. The history of the Bible starts with a phenomenal account of history. It's an ancient collection of writings, comprised of 66 separate books, written over approximately 1600 years, by at least 40 distinct authors. There are no contradictions in it. It is a miracle in itself.

When you were studying history in school, did you throw out all the text books because there was no proof. What you were being taught by those books was written by humans who were relying on data written by other humans, as they perceived it, many years ago. Why can you believe the data in a history book, but not the data in the Bible? The apostles experienced and wrote about what they saw and they testified to it with their own pain, suffering, and blood. I dare say one of the authors of our history books would have gone that far to make us believe what they were writing.

I think you are the one being closed minded. I believe that "irrational beliefs like yours are slowing down humanity's progress, which will result in more centuries of wars, suffering, torture, and pointless death." Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever tried to understand God or His intentions for mankind? Can you imagine a world where everyone always obeyed the ten commandments? Can you imagine a world where everyone thought their whole reason for existence was to love and be loved, and actually acted like it? That's the only way we can create paradise.

Source of Information said...

To UNWORTHY - I respect your beliefs but I simply don't accept them. While the bible is an impressive book, it does not provide a logical answer to life's mysteries.

As for proof, yes, the human race has been slowly throwing out all of the non-truths that were once considered truth, as each non-truth has fallen to increasingly sophisticated observation. Often, religion has stood in the way of this progress. Because of these truthes, we can cure horrible diseases, prevent pain, and enjoy a reasonable lifespan. We can visit the moon and planets, and observe the beauty of new galaxies. We can plumb the mysteries of our ancestors and visit the deepest reaches of the ocean. We can even communicate remotely through this evolving system, the Internet. These are facts that we see confirmed everyday, as the laws of physics - constant and predictable - are demonstrated in every airplane flight and ball toss. And the truthes of science are constantly being challenged and changed as our tools become sharper and our knowledge broader. As for history books, I don't believe many of them, for they are filled with biases and manipulative half truths.

As for the apostles, they were men, so I have no reason to assume the fantastic stories they tell are truth, any more than the fantastic stories told by other religions. In fact, I am disclined to believe them because they are profoundly illogical and outside of the known laws of physics and biology.

We can see the hand of God in the beauty and symetry of the universe, from the smallest subatomic particle to the large supernova. To say that a divine being capable of creating a universe like our would develop such a feeble world view as represented by world religions is grotesque and insulting, both to human intelligence but more to God's. Religions clearly are the handiwork of human beings, who must constantly contort their own minds to accept them.

As for calling me closed minded, there is no need to be insulting. My position is that I am as careful what I put into my mind as what I put into my body (hopefully, more so).

As for whether I have read the bible, I have read large parts of it. I read the entire "New Testament" and much of the "Old Testament." After reading the bible I was, frankly, disappointed. There are some nice passages but the New Testament especially struck me as surprising thin in content.

Yes, I have tried to understand God and his intentions for mankind. That is the point of this blog, which I suggest you read.

As for a world based on biblical principles, I suggest you re-read the bible, especially the parts about stoning people for this and that, such as working on the sabbath or not being a virgin when married (women only). Check out the part where Jesus calls people "vipers" who do not agree with him - not a very loving term. Read about how a woman should give birth in pain, because some woman called Eve supposedly committed a sin and was cast out of a garden.

If this book makes sense to you and prevents you from doing crazy stuff, then good for you. But keep it to yourself and clear the road for those of us who are trying to build a better future.

UNWORTHY said...

The men that Jesus called vipers were the Pharisees, the religious leaders of His time. You remind me a little of them. They were so caught up in their strict laws that they had no room for compassion. You want to base the whole reason for human existence on the laws of physics, strict laws that have no room for compassion.

Read Matthew 12:1-8. The Pharisees had established 39 categories of actions forbidden on the Sabbath, based on interpretations of God's law and on Jewish custom. Harvesting was one of those forbidden actions. By picking wheat and rubbing it in their hands, the disciples were technically harvesting, according to the religious leaders. Jesus and the disciples were picking grain because they were hungry, not because they wanted to harvest the grain for a profit. They were not working on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, however, could not (and did not want to) see beyond their law's technicalities. They had no room for compassion, and they were determined to accuse Jesus of wrongdoing.

Quit looking for the meaning of life in laws and formulas. Close your eyes and look for God in your heart. Then explain Him to others so we can "clear the road for those of us who are trying to build a better future."

Source of Information said...

UNWORTHY: Please note that this is not a blog for people interested in Christianity. It is a blog to discuss a science-based approach to understanding reality and the purpose of life, not a bible-based approach.

Your comments are not contributing to this debate. You are starting to personally insult me by saying that I remind you of men your prophet said are vipers - snakes. I am not a snake, or snake like. As for being a Pharisee, that is also not supportable. I am not bound by religious dogma, as they were. I agree with the man named Jesus - if he ever existed - who thought of them as corrupt and dogmatic. I oppose corruption and dogmatism.

I wasn't aware that the Pharisees agreed with me that the meaning of life should be derived from the laws of science, but then I am not a biblical scholar. However, your statement approaches incoherence.

No, I do not have time to read Matthew 12 or any other Matthew. I don't doubt your statements. Religions are always based on dogma; Christianity simply substituted a different dogma.

As for closing my eyes, you are wasting you electronic breath. I suggest you learn something about physics, and biology, and anthropology, and psychology. You will see that the universe is what it is. We can discuss the implications of the facts, especially as science expands and new facts are discovered. However, asking me to abandon fact (as observed through human knowlege) because they lack "compassion" is not acceptable to me. You can call it arrogance, but there it is.

In my mind, religions generally waste resources and have been holding back humanity for century after century. How many times have there been great truths that are opposed by religion? Galileo, for example. And read up on the history of anesthesia - after it was discovered, it was opposed by the Church, because it clearly states in the bible that a woman must "give birth in pain" because of the sins of Eve. Absurb, but true!

The number of murders, massacres, and genocides committed in the name of religion are beyond number. Put down your bible for a second and read history. Read about the wars between Catholics and Protestants; the destruction of entire families, villages, peoples; read about the Christian slaughter of the people of what is now Mexico; read about the Inquisition, and the thousands of men, women, children, and even animals who were grotesquely tortured in the name of your God; read about the slaughters of Crusaders and Conquistidors - not to mention the brutality of Mongols, Turks, and others fighting for other gods. What a waste of human blood and potential.

Quite frankly, the people of the world are tired to all this. The Founding Fathers wanted to escape this religous clap-trap - read about how many of them were Deists, like me; read Tom Paine's "Age of Reason," then get back to me. Otherwise, I think you will do best at a bible web site with people who agree with you.

Unworthy said...

OK. I'll leave you alone. I'm sorry I insulted you, that was not my intention.

You are correct in your statement, "The number of murders, massacres, and genocides committed in the name of religion are beyond number." Please remember that the people who commit these acts have exactly that -- religion. They have no idea of who God is, much less a relationship with Him.

I hope you find what you are looking for. Thank you for letting me state my point of view.

sprww said...

You claimed that your theory is based on facts. I have to remind you that this does not justify you to say that your theory is true. The most you can say is that your theory does not contradict present facts. In fact, numerous theories can be formulated based on present facts, and your theory is only one of them. If your theory contradicts further discoveries, it will have to be rejected or at least modified.That is how science works. Until then, your theory is just a belief-a belief based on facts, however,still a belief not truth, just as all the scientific theories.

hermitonthehillcarolinewong said...

I really like what you have written. this essay clearly sums up the mystery of life, evolution the creation of various species, the dissolution from one god and the evolution to higher understand compassion and the re-merging, re-unification into one source, for all is one and one is all. the divine dichotomy. perhaps it was all an educational process indeed, to divide all into various species and the stages of evolution, reeducation and reunification.i also agree that religions are fear-based, more like superstitious people who merely believe in rituals rather than real practice, a thorough waste of time. although religion has forced me on the brink of atheism, i cannot be an atheist because when i look into the eye of a human or animal, you get a glimpse of the soul of that being and you know there is something beyond that and also the beauty of nature in this world, there has to be something responsible for all this although def. not the tyrannical insecure god of most religions. one thing i cannot fathom though is the predatorial nature which this world runs. must the evolution run at the expense of a billion bloody deaths and so much violence, and bloodshed.......and if so why

Anonymous said...

1. "When a civilization has evolved to the point where it can cover the vast distances between galaxies, it will presumably have developed an understanding of the reasons for _not_ contacting other beings." -- nice point!

2. The whole remains me of "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke.

3. Here is my take, just an idea: "intelligence is a by-product of the universe".

Moscow, Russia

qraal said...

Another possibility is that the purpose of the whole only becomes apparent as the Universe gets older - we're too close to the beginning and Life, collectively, has yet to re-engineer the galaxies and have a cosmological influence. As the billennia unfold Life will have to spread to the cosmic horizon and take control of the Whole in order to survive - either shepherding black holes for energy in an Open Universe, or ordering a Mix-Master recollapse in a Closed Universe to provide a heat-sink to extra useful energy from gravitational shear.

If Life can adjust its clock speed it can either slow arbitarily close to zero thus thinking an infinite number of thoughts in infinite proper time, or speeding up its thinking to think an infinite number of thoughts in a finite time in a closed Universe. Either way the potential subjective life-time for Life is infinite - and in an infinite time everyone of us might be "rethought" into being, effectively resurrected.

Now some versions of relativity and quantum theory allow for the Future to influence the evolution of the Past - perhaps that's why we have such abundant examples of apparent Intelligent Design in the present. The Future has influenced its Past to produce itself - the ultimate Strange Loop.

Ron said...

Great Blog.

Anonymous said...

Hello Source. I stumbled into this blog by way of a Space.com article, at the end of which were some interesting sounding "ads," this link included.

So may I first say that this particular "ad" had the most interesting title, and the most promising text on its site. I have been at this/your Quest for over 7 decades, now, and it has only been during the last one that the crazy patchwork of a partially completed and spotty jigsaw puzzle has come into a complete enough form to provide the Big Picture. "Meaning of LIfe" is one way to put the Quest and its Answer, and a very good one, indeed. Other apt summary labels are good too, but tend more to mislead the average mind than to inform or provoke it to the Quest. This is owing to the small, undeveloped minds that interpret them than to their suitability to the topic---as illustrated in some of the initial comments here. (A Big Shame; should be on your list of no-nos.)

My first comment on your text, then, is that I fully agree with almost everything you said, and certainly with the spirit of what you said. But my view is far more detailed, and far less anthropocentric.

Although you do separate yourself somewhat from typical anthropocentrists by saying, "Not that the universe was created specifically for humans, but that it was created as an environment for some sort of self-aware, conscious beings to develop," you also say, "It was not created for stars or rocks or minerals, or even for plants or fungus or squid. " This seems to carve out the only believable option, that only HUMANS, or the equivalent, are what this universe is all about. Another anthropocentric hint is to be found in " If someone created the universe, it took a lot of energy and intentional design." Someone? Like a Who? A person?

An alternative tack can be taken which leads to essentially the same point you seem to be making: Have you ever considered the possibility that the universe is quintessentially Mind? A What rather than a Who?

Oh, "mind" is a terrible word, to be sure. For one thing, its etymology harks back to memory, which relies on matter. Most people today don't know this fact, but they do tend to equate mind with human mind----and with intellect, verbiage (especially written), with "consciousness" of the human sort. People today are so tied up in knots of cultural rope that they don't really know what mind is at all, and take the lazy route of equating mind with brain. After all, brain is matter, and matter is what the universe is all about, no?

No. I don't get the impression you are saying this at all. But "mind" is the only word we have to use, to start with, at least. How about "Kowingness"? This is closer to what I have in my mind about the universe, at least, and it would explain a great many things which science---that is, the human INSTITUTION we call "science"---prefers to shove under the rug, that main rug being "random chance." Knowingness not in the thinking sense, like humans and other organisms; nor in the intellectual sense, nor even in the "consciousness" sense. Most people today would be stupified at how to grasp this (except for true Buddhists, perhaps), but Kowingness as just knowingness, thought-less (in the human sense), nonconscious (in the human sense), nonUNconscious, just knowingness Period. Like matter as just matter, for a parallel; not matter as this object or that one, not matter as mass-energy, but just matter as matter.

If this is true, and let us assume for the moment that it is, then every living organism---including the plant, fungus, and squid, and the bacterium and virus, too---would be constituted as much of knowingness as it is made of matter. It would be the anima in animate matter, leaving inanimate matter to just matter, not the sort of thing you and I are interested in. (Yet matter does have its role to play.)

If I might refer to the Bible for a moment---not the Bible as the "Word of God," nor even as a religious document, but as an anthology of remnant thoughts (put to the aleph-beth form of notation) of our own ancestors, cultural ancesters who lived in a different time and a different place from us moderns in the US, and who had EXPERIENCES with life as we ourselves have, and who asked themselves the same sorts of questions you raise in your blog---we read from their words that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Now think of that for a bit. Does it say that mosquitoes are NOT made in the image and likeness of God? That the squid is not?

This is a problem of nonlogic, taking a true statement as the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth when, truth be known, it is a true statement only in a narrow context. Widen the context and you need other words, such as "only" or "also." The Biblical statement does not say ONLY man is made in the image and likeness of God, but only that man [among other organisms] is made such. We can compare this statement with "the apple is made in the image and likeness of fruit." This is a true statement, but it does not state, or imply, that peaches, grapefruit, cherries, etc, are NOT made in the image and likeness of fruit.

In logic (and not just the pitifully pipsqueak "logic" of philosophy and mathematical classes), a part has the properties of the whole, but the whole CANNOT have properties of the part. Thus, while an apple is fruitlike, fruit is not applelike.

And such would logically apply in the case of the Biblical statement on which your argument so heavily, if unwittingly, rests. This, among other reasons, is why I am NOT an anthropocentist. I perceive everywhere that it is LOGIC which underpins the cosmoterrestrial realm EVERYWHERE. And logic is not material---not a quark's worth of mass-energy to logic---so it would be inherent in Knowingness, not in matter, albeit matter can be, and is cosmically, arranged logically. Remove the logic from a material universe, and you have chaos---for which "random chance" seems to be the solution. All lliving organims are, or aspire to be, logical in their own realm of experience. Not logical as Russell or Whithead would have it, not logical as our computers run on, but surely the same principle blown way up and vast. And, I opine, organisms get this fundamental logical cognitive "structure" from their knowingness.

The key is in evolution, the PROCESS (not the theory, and not the theoretical model, each of which is different from the other and both from the process) by which life on earth came about. Notice that phylogeny is a "logic tree." It doesn't *look* like a logic tree, which we humans draw with pencil and paper, but the concept it inspires is surely a logic tree---like fruit and family "trees" for two other insignificant examples. We can draw logic trees because of the inherent logic in our own innate knowingness. Has nothing to do with intellectuality, or with "concsciousness."

Ironically, if Knowingness is the quintessential attribute of the universe, then Intelligent Design comes about *from* evolution, and not from Creationism!

But that is a detailed group of facts, detail of the sort I mentioned above. Not suitable for this greetings letter.

If you should care to correspond more on the vast topic of your blog, I would be more than happy to this winter; if not, let me iterate that I think your blog piece is on the track, and "right down the middle" of it, as they say. Thank you for it.


Anonymous said...

I have now read more carefully some of these comments. There are so MANY that I cannot respond to all, but Anonymous's first post is typical of a nonthinking, culturally conditioned youngster (i.e, not mentally developed to true adulthood).

Note that the very first reaction of the individual is to insult down to the core. The "reasoning" behind the insults is secondary. Obviously, Source IS an adult, and is not personally reduced by the insults, but he is so right; there is NO need to be rude. Everyone is entitled to his view, even if it is not really his own, thought-out view, but just a hash of what he has absorbed (surely not learned) from the cultural status quo.

I commend Source for doing his own thinking as far as he has gotten to date. And I, too, believe (nonideologically) that it is potentially possible to prove, logically and empirically, that the gist of what he says is closer to cosmoterrestrial reality than anything the INSTITUTION we call "science" has yet come up with.


Ag. Sukandar said...

"Why do I exist?"
Ooooh...I just left such a question behind! A posteriori, I exist because I have been loved. Contextually, thank God that I exist with all my dignity in this enormous universe. Then I could see where I am to do what I could do, and to love what I could love. I am a man in the universe. I could make this and build this to be a better place to live in together with others.

The question "Why do I exist?" is in present-tense, isn't it? Whatever it is, the answer has everything to do at present - now-here - for the whole universe, from the point of where we are.

Natural Wisdom
My WordPress

Anonymous said...

Mrs. said...

"When I was a child I believed in God. Believed with childlike faith....not because I was ever told of Him, or explained the rudimentary forces behind religion...it was just that I believed, I knew. Something primordial existed in my subconscious that was just there."

This is true of all young children. A few studies have been shown that all young children have a "metaphysical" (not supernatural, just nonphysical) view of their existence. They don't all call the Source of this existence "God," or the place of origin "heaven," but the substance is fundamentally the same. I would suggest that there is something in our genetic makeup, going back to the beginning of life on earth, that "explains" this. We need a great many different, but all objective and nonbiased, studies of this phenomenon. I think that if such studies were done and accrued, it would be a big shock to both the religionists and the scientists. Both, IMO, are on the wrong track.

"As I grew into my 20's this knowledge waned, withered and faded from sight. I was educated! All the hard hitting questions like, "Why was I here" NEEDED to have an answer...One with a suitable tailored fit."

And here we meet full face that cultural conditioning. The particular conditioning we accrue is, indeed, a "tailored fit." We do NOT learn to think for ourselves as we---all organisms---were designed to do, but to accord our minds to some version of the multifarious status quo. We are systematically trained out of our natural inclination to think for ourselves by that very status quo.

"And in my 30's I pontificated all my knowledge and felt better proclaiming in my erudite elocution that I was right."

Standard sophomorism. By nature, we go through several phases of this: First in the "Terrible Twos," next around 5 or so, then about 12 years of age, then 15 and 18 (which is why those grades of school are or used to be call Sophomore), and the next major stage is in the 30s. After that, we surely should know better. Adult culture should be steering us through these developmental phases, not locking us into them.

"Now I am much older and as the light gets dark in my eyes I can again see the face of God, that through my own foolish wisdom had been dimmed."

So poetic! Yes, the "face of God." But this is a metaphor; God is not an anthropomorph, but a personification, and has no literal face. I too in my latter yesrs "see the face of God," and it is what I meant by a semblance of a picture of what the Big Jigsaw Puzzle is all about. A different metaphor, to be sure, but it is impossible to express the vast abstract in literal terms.

"Time is just a special event for us here on this plane. Make the most of it."

And making the most of it is to figure out what is really true and what is not---from our own independent THINKING. Hint: If the bulk or any major bulk of culture accepts it as the truth, chances are it is FALSE.

Anonymous said...

Did it ever occur to Anonymous that he comes off as far more arrogant than Source? He said,

"That aside, you ARE wrong about evolution, it does not have a predestined path, there is now higher life form than another, . . ."

It is the height of arrogance to state emphatically as true what has not been proven empirically.

Moreover, he said, ". . there is no HIGHER mouse, HIGHER ape, higher anything, life is diverse." Apparently Anonymous is deficient in his knowledge and understanding of evolution. Mice don't evolve into higher forms of mice, or apes into higher forms of apes. Each evolves into higher forms of ANIMALS, making them distinct from their ancestors. When their evolution has made them distinct enough, man calls them by different names because their anatomies and physiologies are observably different from those of their contemporaries from the form that existed previously, and from fossils of the form from which they evolved.

The INTELLIGENCE of the DESIGN behind all this, however, may come from the organisms themselves. Any organism strives to maintain its own and its species existence; to do this, it must conquer the exigencies of the environment which threaten. Unlike modern man, it must do this by CHANGING ITSELF. We call it "adaptation."

The changes to self by any individual organism which successfully meet a threatening exigency are minute and temporal, to be sure. But if that organism using that self-change continues to prosper because of it, the change is recorded in its "long term memory," some of which somatic molecular configurations ("genes") go into some of its germ cells, and some of these germ cell result in new versions of the parent. Those offspring which survive more effectively because of the change they inherited are that much more likely to transmit the somatic molecular configuration into a larger proportion of their germ cells, resulting in more offspring with the trait, and so on.

Meanwhile, other members of the species to which our first organism belongs find the same or similar way to successfully conquer the threatening exigency, and pass a few of the molecular somatic changes into their germ cells, and so on. Down the line, some of the transmuted descendents meet up and mate with others with the same adaptation. This virtually doubles the chance that their offspring will carry the trait.

Why do only a FEW germ cells inherit the trait at first? Because it would seem that all organisms know implicitly the wisdom expressed in the human axiom, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." What worked for the first self-changer might not work for others, including that organism's own offspring. And the exigency which prompted the self-change might not even be a permanent part of that species' environment. The change might even b harmful to its progeny.

So for a very long time, over many, many generations, the mutation is not noticeable (to man). But gradually, if the mutation is a bonafide improvement to survival and life-enhancement, it becomes integral to existence for organisms in that line of descent, and all with the mutation become a distinct species in its own right.

This is what happened before our very noses, so to speak, with drug-resistant bacteria. Within only a couple of decades, the species, or "strains," of prokaryotes against which an antibiotic was successful altered themselves in such a way that they were invulnerable to that antibiotic. Now consider that the average life span (from mitosis to next mitosis) of a prokaryote is 20 minutes, and yet it took more than a full 20 YEARS before the change was noticeable to man.

Among multicellular organisms with longer life spans, the long-range evolutional effect would take considerably longer.

In any case, modern views of "natural selection" which are predicated SOLELY on random chance and reproductive success are probably wrong. The mutating organisms themselves may be the real reason or "mechanism" behind natural selection. If so, this would make intelligence the key behind the design of evolution.

This would certainly support Source's anthropic MOL view.

GTR said...

Only the arrogant and selfish mind of man would dare ask, "Why are we here?". Yes, we are on the top of the food chain, but it happened by chance, not by design. If certain species had not gone extinct (not just the dinosaurs), our mammal ancesters may never have had the chance to evolve into modern humans. Also, climate change is believed to be the biggest force behind evolution, something you fail to mention in all your wisdom! I do agree w/you on some counts; religon, war and the slow acceptance of change does indeed hinder our "progess". But to say we are to become 'gods' is absurd. I wish you would elaberate more, what is your definition of a 'god'? Would we have the power to create new universes', and watch them evolve? 'Anonymous' said, "anything with a brain is a concience being", which is simply not true. We are the only species that can see and accept death as a part of life. We see our reflections and reconize ourselvels, as we are, where we are and most importantly, who we are. I fear we will never evolve into your so-called 'gods' though, it seems we are destined to destroy ourselves and our fragile enviroment.

Ron said...

The original post is thought-provoking, as are several others. I agree with some who indicate that the view expressed - to summarize - that the universe exists for intelligent beings who are self-aware - is very self-centric.

While a worthwhile question to ponder from time to time, I do not belive the question is the most relevant of our time. A far better question may be, "Why am I here? What is MY purpose in life." One accepts that it is very unlikely that we will understand the nature and purpose of the universe. Instead, we focus on what roles we should play in that universe.

For me those roles are several. First, the search for knowledge and wisdom - i.e., "illumination." Scientific exploration is a very large part of this aspect of the quest. Second, the desire to utilize those talents, skills, and knowledge provided to me to better others - some incredibly small part of the universe (whether the positive effect achieved is on just one person - a friend or a neighbor, or on many others - such as advocacy or work which benefits my community, or even all U.S. citizens, or even all humanity.

"Mrs." was correct in observing that we all have an incredibly short time in this universe (absent reincarnation, transcendance to another plane, etc.). The search for the purpose of the universe is an interesting one, and hypotheses (whether based in science, or philosphy, or religion) are interesting to express and examine. While time should be devoted to the search for this answer, for me much greater time should be spent undertaking actions which benefit, or might benefit, other persons, or many other people, or our society, or all of humanity.

To the original poster, thank you for an illuminating discussion, even if it has been, at times, less than cordial.

Msgt Edward R Boothe said...

Like religion, what you say cannot be disproven, but in order for it to come to fruition, civilivation would have to continue to progress. I believe that the progress of civilization is about to come to an end, and in fact regress into the dark ages. The nuclear genie is now out of the bottle, and it's just a matter of time until the right people get their hands these weapons, and starts a nuclear war. What, if any, humans survive this war will inherit a planet that is not fit for human habitation. It's very close to happening right now in Pakistan. If Musharraf is overthrown, we will have nuclear weapons in the hands of radical muslems, who believe it is their duty to rid the world of all infidels. It is going to happen in the near future, if not in Pakistan, then elswhere, but it is going to happen, and anyone who does not believe it, has his head buried in the sand. God help the children, who had no hand in this, and are going to suffer just as we adults who let it happen.

Anonymous said...

To assume life is the purpose of the universe, I think is a little niave, but nice. However, your goals and aims for humanity seem preferable to that of usual religion. Just to let you know where I stand, I am devout athiest. Your suggestion that the universe was created by some higher is not possible to disprove. I suppose you could argue that if, in say a million years, computers got so good we could simulate a small solar system then arguably we are God to any life forms that evolve in that simulation. Not a religious God but a creator, and I suppose if we were to create such a simulation we(poetic licence as in a million years not likely to be much like us) would probably want to see self-organizing systems etc and life. I like what your suggesting as an alternative to religion, but as a rationalist since we can neither prove nor disprove this I must reject the God hypothesis.
On a lighter note, I once had the daydream that if the universe had thousands of inteligent beings and some of those evolved to be able to simulate small universes, which then gave birth to life, then it would be more likely than not that we would be in a simulation than at the top level. (I don't actually believe this day dream just a bit of fun!!!) ;-)

Anonymous said...

I think the purpose of life is very simple: To Become

Now, considering all evidence to date, the universe is in an Endless Expansion state - eventually all suns blink-out and we end in a very cold, dark universe. So, to Become, some beings must gain a mastery over the universe, and control it's fate. That fate being, to invoke a Big Crunch and (I guess) rebirth of the universe for another round. It's a process of Becoming...life death cycle. So, it's the stuff in the middle that counts.

alx91882 said...

Amazing to see such insecure morons throw insults. This is a place to exchange ideas and opinions. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth and for someone to be absolutely sure about any unproven thing, including there isn't a Creator, is simply relying on faith that there isn't. Expressing our different ideas about this matter at the very least lets other people ponder different possibilities.

Chris said...

Your thinking is encouraging. You have explored possibilities that help you expand your knowing of things, yet to be contemplated by the masses.

Keep exploring. The deeper you ponder, the deeper you go, the more you discover and learn.

Keep your eye out for the publication of 'The Argentriol'. It will provide you with answers to many of the questions you have, maybe even all. At the very least it will challenge everything you think you know.
Humanity will be in for a real treat and an unexpected shock when they finally uncover the reality of their own genesis, and purpose.

You are an enlightened person, because you are exploring on the path where the knowledge lay.

I enjoyed your perspective.

Anonymous said...

i little bit agree with you, especially the evolution of human being.i want you to research more on that.All the best future research

Anonymous said...

later i saw others comments , just ignore those idiots. i think they didn't read your last para. ok anyway try and research for the strong proof.all the best

Anonymous said...

Rubbish maaan...

Explain how the Universe is not Supporting (is it a Punishment?) the individual who does not do the 'SOMETHING'.

Explain WHY one should DO 'SOMETHING' to sustain consciousness.

Can you define 'right' ,'wrong' and 'wisdom' scientifically as you claim?

Why one should dedicate his/her energy to speed up the process of progress? (to make it happen few Billion years sooner...)

yet you call this trash a theory!!!


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dd said...

some comments on comments:

"God is holy. Definition of holy: pure, clean, righteous... "

Definition of holy: Has a lot of holes.

"I am devout athiest". lol. first time i saw devotion and athiesm used in the same sentence.

diracophile said...

I like the term "intentional design" much better than "intelligent design." The fundamental principle of religion is that everything has a reason.

The fundamental principle of science (according to some knuckleheads) is that all existence is governed by chance, absolute randomness, and complete accident. This presumption rests on the notion that a probability existed of ANYTHING being other than what it has turned out to be.

There is a strong argument to make from the basis of general relativity that spacetime is a frozen milieu. Only our little window of consciousness moves along, but all that we observe is frozen and immutable. From the physics of quantum mechanics we arrive at much the same conclusion. When David Bohm noticed that a particle is completely equivalent to its anti-particle traveling backwards in time, he gave us a big clue that time itself is an illusion generated by our consciousness.

Likewise, without time, the idea of randomness falls apart, or free will, or anything being other than completely pre-determined. Our little brain looks at a particular coin flip and we say, "Oh, it came up heads but it COULD have come up tails." Posh! If it was destined to come up tails, it would have. If you were destined to still be living in a cave and chipping your most important hunting weapon out of flint, there you would be squatting away and trying not to think how short and brutal your life was.

Valley Forge said...

Hopefully you will see why include the following in an answer to 'The Meaning of Life, Why?'
I have seen your remarks on news stories and you make the usual false claim that our Founders were 'deists.'
Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, purposely citing mankind's highest appeal and source of freedom to be the Creator. Jefferson also committed serious time and effort to translating and writing a New Testament of the Holy Bible. Jefferson stated: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.”
Benjamin Franklin addressed the Continental Congress, noting that if a sparrow can not rise without God's notice, it is not likely that a nation can rise without His aid. He concluded that prayers to God would help the Founders out of their deadlock and aid them in constructing a Constitution better than the 'ancients'. He was right, and at Ben Franklin's suggestion, Congress always opens with prayer to that deity reconized by the Founders when they prefaced documents with "In The Year Of Our Lord." Only the very foolish or devious would argue as to Whom that Lord is.
George Washington is known to have honored the Lord Jesus Christ specifically and to have referenced the value of Christian faith in his addresses: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Farewell Address, Philadelphia, PA, 1796-09-17

Whether one has a Christian ethic or a Humanist-indoctrinated one (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html), the documented words of the Founders can not be erased. They spoke those words for a reason.
Their words give a great hint at the meaning of life.
In my opinion, the meaning of life is rooted in the reality that we have a Creator, as testified to by Thomas Jefferson, that He creates mankind in His image to have dignity and freedom, and that He expects mankind to live within a framework - designated by Him - that will produce human happiness and give glory to the Creator.
This is reasonable and logical, if we accept Jefferson's premise that there IS a Creator.
I accept that premise, and I utterly reject the man-is-his-own-god-and-savior premise thrusted on society by Humanism.

Blue Lion said...


Some interesting thoughts there. I believe you and I have some beliefs in common. What I think is missing is that if there is a Creator, they are outside of time. Since time is the thing that separates one moment from the next, a being outside of time would be all things at once, with no way to experience it. The need to create a universe (or multiple universe) in which everything could be experienced could be the reason for the creation of the universe. Sentient beings of all levels would be fulfilling this purpose. Think about it. The only thing we really have as our own in this life is our experiences. It's the only thing we might take with us if there is some sort of afterlife. I've been discussing this on my blog as well. Stop on over if you get the chance. www.bluelionslair.com Thanks.

Jack said...

I agree with you. I believe you're on the right track with the idea that science will lead us to godhood. I've always believed that the search for a meaning of life is a personal one, and that no two people are likely to find the same meaning. With that said, the overarching meaning for all of us should be to make life better for those who come after us.

Star of David said...

I believe this universe and our world were not created with us, or any other creature, in mind. If something or someone with the knowledge and power to create us would not have created us with so many flaws.
Who says we should not be perfect and able to avoid the needless suffering and killing in this world.
If one is to believe in evolution, of which there is ample proof of, then to believe in a creator is to believe in a thing or being that started something (i.e our creation)and then buggared off and left us to evolve. Why would something do this and leave things unfinished, unless you believe in some mumbo jumbo religious argument that we were created imperfect but with free will. Nothing free about free will. If we had free will we would be free to choose only the best results for our presence or future. Instead we have numerous choices available, but definitely don't have free will. There diminishes the validity of the creator theory.
What a half-arsed being we turned out to be - if magically waved into existence.
We have the ability to change the future - ours and the environments, by being smart or being stupid. Were we "created" stupid in order to slowly destroy what has taken billions of years to evolve and manifest?
Fortunately we are the only being able to rationalise. This gives us the ability to change our future based on our past. As far as I know there is no other species capable of looking back and then looking forward, making changes based on the past.

We are smart, but only because there have been a few humans who have kept us on the path of evolving into something better and brighter than we were. Evolution is a slow process and does not always follow a straight line. Occasionally some tyrant (Hitler and Ahmadinejad) comes along and tries to stem the tide of evolution.

Fortunately we have made progress, and for every step backwards we have taken two steps forward. Not all of us have, but those who have are leaders and not sheep that follow religious doctrines and beliefs.

Religion has stemmed our advancement in many ways by asking or demanding obedience to unknown and unprovable doctrines and gods. Take religion out of the evolutionary process and maybe we would be years ahead in our advancement. Instead, we still believe in the boogy-man, ghosts and fairies in the garden, while simultaneously flying through space and landing on foreign planets. It seems we are unable to unshackle ourselves from our past for fear of the future and uncertainty. Uncertainty is something we should learn to live with. Whatever will be will be...que sera sera....
La Vita Bella friends.

Source of Information said...

Star of David: You raise some legitimate points - but I have thoughta about these and answered them in my blog. I suggest reading it again.

It makes sense if you consider that time and suffeing mean nothing to the creator(s); so try to see it from his/their perspective. It starts to make sense (to me) when you do this, based on the facts as we know them.

Also, I can't agree with you that we do not have free will. We are not robots who simply receive instructions. We can think, worry, plan, suffer, and be stupid.

Ken said...

i actually tend to agree with you. have read the latest time magazine about computers possibly exceeding human intelligence within 20 years? it's all food for thought!

Anonymous said...

Part 1 of 2

Dear all,

Yesterday night I was unable to sleep. Probably because I had too much coffee or because I slept the whole day so my sleep deficiency was over compensated. Adding to the insomnia, as I lay limp on the bed the question about “purpose and meaning of life” started to puzzle my mind.

If I could answer the question that “What GOD expects from us?” it seemed that probably the same shall be answer to my original question regarding “purpose and meaning of life”. (Please read on even if you call GOD by any other name or even if you don’t believe in GOD)

Being an engineering student I needed a model with which I could work. So firstly I needed to define God. (I am in no way implying that it is possible to define GOD. We just need to model that can help us in our enquiry). The most suitable answer that appeared to my mind was: He is combined consciousness of all living and non-living beings. Read the last sentence again if you couldn’t appreciate it the first time.

Assuming that you can appreciate the above model, we have to firstly find something/somebody that is combined consciousness of a lot of living being and secondly find out what he/she expects from those living being that are its constituent. For the answer to first question we don’t have to look too far. From our basic knowledge of Biology we know that we consist of billions of cell and thus you and I are combined consciousness of these cells. In fact any multicellular living being is combined consciousness of its cells.
Now the second question is quite tricky. Because it says “What do you Expects from your cells” or let me rephrase it “What does any multicellular organism expect from EVERY SINGLE ONE of its cells?”. I think you may agree with me on below expectations if you consider that we are discussing about individual cells not the organ they form. So I came to following purposes:
1) Every cell must do its work/duty.
2) The cell should help other in the organ to do their work and so that organ as a whole can do its work better in the system, so that multicellular organism can survive.
3) It should evolve and help multicellular organism evolve

I think we can’t ask anything more from the poor cell. Please try to appreciate that other expectations like faster recovery from injury, improving multicellular organisms’ chances of reproduction and even supernatural powers are covered in above.

Hence, above three shall be GOD’s expectations from us and thus by implication our purpose.

Anonymous said...

Part 2 of 2

Now, let’s look at the first Requirement ie “Every cell (Person) must do its work/duty”. At this point my friend Gogia might say that whatever is his duty or work is, IS his purpose and finding that out is the main question. Firstly and most importantly, at this point I would like you to appreciate that the first requirement is not the ONLY requirement and also according to me the requirement that requires least focus and energy. I would like to take an example of my kidney cell. I don’t have to tell it time and again that he needs to purify my blood neither It has to discover it. It’s something that comes to it naturally and dose automatically. So what is your work/duty? If answering that is difficult try to answer “What you do automatically” it might not be something that is considered most praiseworthy by the society or might be something that “Protectors” of our society may say to be the only thing a man should do. And moreover if you can’t find the answer right away don’t even bother because whatever you are doing in your life IS your work/duty. In a moment I will tell why? For now just remember that work of my college genitor is his work, whatever a mother of newly born child do is her work, similarly for the butcher, the thief and even Einstein and of course how can I forget my friend Gogia. Also, GOD have preprogrammed your default (read initial default) work into you.

Your next requirement is to help those in the same organ to do their work/duty so that the “multicellular organism” can survive. By organ, it can mean those in the same commercial organization, same field or living in same locality or even country. By help I don’t mean you do their work but creating the situation where others can do their work/duty. This might take form of showing somebody in your office how to do certain work, by giving materialistic support to a person who is in need of it (at the same time ensuring that he becomes self-sufficient) etc. At this point I would like you to highlight that DON’T spend all your energy at this expectation also because there is a way to go.
Gogia may again that a thief may have negative effect on the society and thus the multicellular organism. I may say “Please don’t judge Leon when it kills”; thieves’ work/duty is to do whatever they do, but societies work/task is to punish them (as it comes naturally to society). Who is to say what is right and what is wrong.
And finally we come to the last and ,according to me, the most important requirement: the evolution. By evolution I mean improvement of cell and thus the organ and thus the multicellular organism. Improvement can be learning better way to do the work, FINDING new and better way to do the work and CHANGING your task to suit newly acquired understanding/skills. Now as you can see that this is the task that requires most energy (you know learning isn’t easy) and demands most creativity from our side. And thus your Requirement 1 and 2 get upgraded again. I would like you to appreciate that: Any GREAT man becomes great when he has evolve but in most of the cases he stops becoming Greater when he doesn’t take care of this (most important requirement). And you will also appreciate that as “you can always change your work” you need not worry about the initial choice you make. Just make a choice and always fulfill the three requirement. And most importantly keep evolving and enjoy the change.

Lastly, the most important question according to Einstein was “Why did GOD created the universe?” . Probably for the same three reasons.

Note: Your comments are most appreciated and if above has hurt you religious sentiments in any way please let me know I shall be pleased to edit the article or even completely dispose it.



Ethan Womack said...

Interesting blog. We have similar interests I see. Good post.

Anonymous said...

Interesting article. For more perspective consider this one: "Our Lives: Both absolutely insignificant and wonderfully precious". It can be found at: http://notunscathed.blogspot.com/2012/05/both-absolutely-insignificant-and.html

Michael Riddell said...

We live our lives trying to answer that question, mate. I think the purpose for each of us is different, so the journey to answer the question will be varied.

Anonymous said...

You can't ever be sure the purpose we are here... Evolution? God born? Maybe even an alien test? No one can ever be sure but know this....

The meaning of life is meaning. Without meaning it isn't life at all, just existence

Ann Joseph said...

It is a core question of human existence. "Who am I?" May be the oldest unsolved question of humanity. Our ancestors clearly pondered on such magnificent thoughts expressed in several meaningful proverbs like "To hear it told is not equal to experience." from www.cuteproverbs.com

I totally agree that our coming generations also will ponder on this ever elusive questions and older generations passed their gathered wisdom about meaning of life and pass as proverbs about life to us. Don't you think?

Luciano Pacini said...

I suppose that everybody brings to their lives a sort of meaning; but if you start thinking bigger comes to you a lots of questions. I really like to think about and try to give an answer on my blog. What do you think about? It is always an inner growth.