h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Methos
Sorry that typo didn't help!

I mean the 80 years that we think we have of life.

Ah, Now I get it! And so now I can answer you.

So, yes I'm still pretty young. I guess. 25. And I hope I will get *at least* 80 years since - you know not believing in an after life here - I don't want it to be over too soon. Or at all for that matter but it seems I don't have a say in that.

Methos

I know, its like, are we supposed to live banking things for an afterlife, on plain faith? 80 years ain't much in the grand scheme of things, is it?

Question to meaning of life: Why?
Answer: Why not?

Have I miscalculated? I only get 41.5555 (recuring)
Did I forget to carry the 4 again?

Hmm, know what you mean. That's like telling someone who is poor and suffering from it that he will all the richer in afterlife. Hah!

For me personally there never was a question if I believe in an afterlife since said afterlife is connected to believing in God or some sort of higher *thing* or wehatever and I'm absolutely incapable of believing in some higher entity.

Methos

Well you don't have to believe in God or a being , you can believe in science too.
80 years is a blip, it's not enough.
what can anyone get done in 80 small years?

Lets see now... Invent a way to fly, desing countless war machines, publish a book on the assent of man, get linched by a mob 3 times a week and still have spare time to paint a chapel and get several portets done and die at the age of 60 somthing form memonry... all this and more was done by Leonardo Da Vinchi.

I agree - 80 years is not enough! And it's not about not having the time to do something, invent something, but about not having enough time to live. period. At least that's the way it is for me.

Methos

perhaps the question isnt what is the meaning but rather what is the point or even purpose of life.. anf our lives inparticular rather than life in general... after all meaning - point- purpose aren't necessarily interchangable terms... I go back to my original proposition that we don't even actually understand the question let alone being able to surmise and answer. This idea of clear articulation isn't as pedantic or trivial as you might suppose. I reccfomend reading Buckminster Fuller's work

Darakat
How many of those examples have you actually done so far?
I's say that Da vinchi was the exception rather than the rule of the 'average' man.
I'd also point out that he was inspired by his belief in a God.
Most amazing things done in a life time are more likely to be God inspired (Pyramids, Stonehenge etc etc) than the belief that we just shuffle through life with no vision.
Perhaps it's that a belief in something bigger and better than ourselves helps mankind to achieve things that are bigger and better than self
Just a thought.

Okay, but what about traveling through space? You know, space shuttles, the MIR... I'd say that was a pretty big achievement of mankind - even if the landing on the moon was faked.

And please don't tell me those scientists were searching for God

Methos

Again I'm talking on a personal level here, not a mankind level.
Mankind obviously has a sum total of more than 80 years to get 'things' done
So when did you fly through space?
And I'd have to say that it took longer than a single life time to get to the moon
You chose whether it was acheived or not
I believe it was.
but it proves that the only valid experience is the personal experience. You really cannot count on anyone elses!
The things you DO yourself are the only ones you can truely believe in after all.
I'd say that scientists are looking for God, what else? Most of the scientists I know still have a profound belief in a
'Cause,' when you'd imagine they'd be the least likely candidates.
Da Vinchi . Scientist?

Erh, sorry, but you were the one who mentioned the pyramids as great achievements by mankind in their search for God.

And with scientists I meant the people who build the space shuttles or the MIR not Da Vinchi - although yes, I'd say he was one, just not in the modern sense where you have to study...

Also: Of course, all scientists search for the cause of things. That's the basic idea of science after all. The question is if that cause has to be God. Considering myself as scientist, I have to say for me it isn't.

Methos

Yes I mentioned the pyramids and all great things as being god inspired, not as the acheivement of a single person.
Because Da vinci joined us and I suggested he was an exception rather than the rule of singular creativity.
The question was what can a singular person acheive in 80 short years.
The shuttles are equally inspired and the result of vision, but not singular , they also took longer than 80 years to come to fruition.

So if all scientists search for the Cause of things, it seems quid proco that they would be searching for the CAUSE of All things.
This just happens to have the name God, which gives the Cause a personal attribute, which It may not have.
So at current search levels you could say God was a big bang.
Do you see, Everything has a cause and we can call that cause God, but IT isn't a man on a cloud with a long white beard who follows humans about trying to trip them up unless It is !

PS
I don't believe that I said that the pyramids were built as a 'search' for God.
I said 'inspired' by a belief in a God which they already had , which is a different thing I think.
I'll try to be careful not to change the meaning of your words id you likewise

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. I'll try to be more careful.

But...

>>So if all scientists search for the Cause of things, it seems quid proco that they would be searching for the CAUSE of All things.
This just happens to have the name God, which gives the Cause a personal attribute, which It may not have.<<

I absolutely have to disagree here because for me at the very least the cause of all things does not have the name God.

Of course, in earlier times that was absolutely the case but then essentially everybody believed in God back then. Nowadays though many people not only no longer believe in God but they believe in no God like entity at all.

I'm one of those, an atheist and I would therefore never call God the cause of anything.

Methos who sincerely hopes she got your meaning right this time?

Yes absolutly, 42. I agree.

Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. -Mahatma Gandhi

Its like billiard balls. Heres all these atoms in one place, smaller than a pinpoint. Some kind of chemical reaction must have happened. But, as everyone knows, most explosive chemical reactions, as it is believed the big bang was, have an activation energy. Something gave it that energy.Like the cue hitting the white ball to pot a billiard ball. Once they'd hit the cue ball, they had no idea what would follow, they just took the first step.

There has to be a first causation, be it another chemical, a higher being, or an energy force. I think thats what you were discussing! Ok, try a new point, kirp!

The real question, apart from who caused those billiard balls, sorry, atoms, to react, is who put them there. All these philosophers talk about the causation, like the argument from design, where theres so much working all together, there has to be something in charge, and its all attributed to God. But thats causation. Who put it there so it could be put together in the right order? The watch maker theory, whereby the watch works so well that there must be a watchmaker, is all very well, but not many watchmakers I know make their own pieces to go in it. Maybe the watchmaker and the watchpiece maker are 2 seperate entities, seperate but together.

Sorry, I think my point was (and I'm not too clear, I did start this mail rather a long time ago...) is the cause the same thing as the piece-person.

If anyone understood that, please let me know what I am rambling on about!

Nice quote, hassel!

Read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and you will get the 42 referance. Does there have to be a meaning? A meaning implies some sort of plan. I think it's more likely someone up there said "Let's see what happens if we do this." We make the individual meaning of our own lives because no one meaning could fit everyone.

Alternatly, it could be chocolatechip cookies