I think the universe is eternal. It has been here and has always been here. It never had a beginning and never came out of nowhere.
Pfff... I don't think that there is this "purpose to life." There is a purpose to my life. There is a purpose to your life. There is a purpose to CT's life. There is a purpose to Kat's life. We choose and create our own purposes. Life is the purpose of life. The purpose of life is to enjoy your life.
This general idea that there needs to be a "purpose to life" sneaks in a wrong answer. The question is asked on the premise that something has to provide a purpose for us and we have to go out looking for it. But I don't think there is something out there that we have to look for to give us a purpose.
And frankly, the idea of having a purpose for your life prescribed by either a supernatural or just higher being, in my opinion, can be depressing. If you take the Robert Nozick's thought experiment for example. Imagine if humans were just alien food. That our purpose as humans was to feed aliens. Every time the aliens come to Earth after 10,000 years or so, they feed on us, and then come back once we have populated enough.
So yeah we will have a purpose, but it's a pretty depressing purpose if you ask me. The idea of serving God and doing what he says and not being free to make your own purpose sounds very similar to alien food. That the justification of your life comes from sacrifice and subservience to something else. Not you and your own goals.
I'm talking about the rational explanation of why there is a universe to begin with. That example you provided seems poorly constructed, because it relates to an occurance within the existent of our universe, but it does not explain the reason for the universe to begin with, and it also opens the door for more questions of the same manner (if this aliens come from another universe, what is the purpose of their universe or of the network of universes, and so on and so on).
The little we know, is about our biological purpose, of replicating our species. But we know nothing of the meaning behind why our species, our planet, our universe, or anything else that may exist, yet to exist, or caesed to exist.
And don't even get me started on consequences for our actions. The idea of punishing people by sending them hell for eternity is already unjust and it's a logical fallacy by appealing to force. And the idea of having to scare people to moral, or to force them to moral instead of reasoning with them that morality is a good thing and beneficial to them is another bad thing. And to say that there are no consequences to our actions without the belief of God is absurd. Immoral people in this life do suffer the consequences. Especially in free countries where we have separated state from church and have punished them for their wrongdoings. And even if they arne't punished, peoople who are immoral from a perspective that everyone can agree on (they lie, steal, cheat, etc) they don't live good lives. They pay for it because their life adds up to nothing.
Not really, immoral people in this life are subject to social punishment, if their deeds are discovered. But those are escapable, avoidable, of easy to cover up. The idea of a supreme moral hierarchy that provides unescapable punishment does act as a deterrant for what we concieve as horrible malefic deeds.
Again, we can go to the acts of genocide and extermination that occured in the 20th century at the hands of atheists. If there is no hell, and no moral consequence, and some men are naturally superior to others (in their perspective), why not just exterminate the lesser men?
All well and good for the past. Religion was the first form of philosophy for humans. But we have progressed. There are better and more updated philosophies, and those that still continue to be religious are not updated.
And also, just because we can't answer such questions doesn't mean we turn to faith when we cannot explain. That opens the door to going against reality. To not living in accordance to the facts. Which is anti-life and destructive.
Only to humans who are mindless and unthinking. Who just want a philosophy with the answers made for them without really understanding why those answers work.
Quite the contrary, most beliefs that discard religion are exactly what goes
against life. Because it means humans beings then can decide upon what is right and what is wrong, and thus everything is subjected to the personal view of humans. This is why I use the argument of abortion as an example.
Abortionists don't believe a human fetus that is 5 months, is to be considered a person. By scientific standards, they might be right, because a fetus does not have concious and is dependant on its host. So... why not kill it? I mean if there is no moral consequence, just why not?
When you remove the idea of God, which is a natural occurance, humans beings simply replace it with other forms. In most cases this takes the form of a governing body that relates all decisions. This why for example Richar Dawkins ideal form of goverment is that of a body of scientists who makes all the decisions for everyone else, because they are better.
I'm sorry, but this updated and better philosophies, promoted by atheists, don't seem very peaceful. They seem very harmful to life and individual integrity. And even when you try to make them work, it devolves into the same old line of thinking.
A darwinian world works that way. Atheism leads you, inevitably to that. I mean, in the natural world, life isn't sacred. Thus believing this can somehow lead you to a more peaceful way of life, seems contradictory.
It's not unnatural. It's fact.
It's true that some humans are above others in character, achievement, wealth, and virtue. It's irrational to think that everyone is equal
Some humans are superior to others and they should take pride in their superiority compared to those who are inferior.
Mozart is certainly better than any average joe composer.
Michaelangelo is certainly better than any painter that watched one Bob Ross video.
Jeff Bezos is better than just about any other businessman.
Ayn Rand is a better author and philosopher than just about any other author or philosopher.
Nothing wrong with arrogance when it's a fact that you are better than everyone else.
So why not kill everyone else, let only those people reproduce so humanity becomes the best of the best? There is no moral consequence to it, because there is no God, and any sort of thinking of that manner is to be discarded.
