Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why do we exist?

  1. Dec 6, 2006 #1
    I am very confused over the fact that the existence of human beings,animals,the solar system,time and the universe as a whole has no meaning.Scientifically speaking I feel that there is no God.So why should I exist?These thoughts depress me.please help,I feel no responsibility towards the world because I dont want to be part of any religion any nation or even time.:confused:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 6, 2006 #2
    theres alot of answers, but nobody knows which is right
     
  4. Dec 6, 2006 #3

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Have you read "Man's search for meaning"?
     
  5. Dec 6, 2006 #4
    If you're looking at life from a purely scientific aspect of matter in motion, then I would contend there is no perpose in life besides your own personal enjoyment. That is one of the main reasons I'm so much in favor of religions, because if you contend that we are nothing but a giant cosmic chance, then you rob life of everything that gives it permanent value. There is no reason why you exist, it simply happens. You're and everyone else is a giant accident. With no metaphysical truth, there are no morals and purpose to life. The only conceivable purpose would be to enjoy yourself as much as possible. Unfortunatly, that type of ethic is extremely destructive: look at governments and corporations who exploit thousands of people just because it it suites their pleasure.
    Ultimatly, you need some sort of metaphysical truth to give meaning to all of life, and a genuine reason why you should exist. If you want to discount all religions and beliefs in god, then be prepared to deal with the logical consequences.
     
  6. Dec 6, 2006 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why do you think that? Be specific.

    Why do you feel a need for some 'being" to exist that has power over you? Are you incapable of thought? Are you incapable of emotion? Can you not enjoy the things around you? Can you not be a good person unless someone tells you a mythical being that you have never seen or heard will condemn you to unspeakable horrors unless you be good? You do not need a mythical creator in order to enjoy being alive.

    I don't get it. I just don't get it. What prevents people from being rational and understanding that they do not need to fear punishment from an invisible source? And that they can enjoy what is around them without being told that it is ok to do so?
     
  7. Dec 7, 2006 #6
    There is no doubt that even without a divine being you can enjoy life to its utmost. The presence or absence of a God does nothing to negate the enjoyment of physical life, so there really is no dissparity there.
    However, it is another matter entirely to live morally with no god. I think perhaps you are appraoching this matter differently than I am, Evo, because I don't think you have to have fear of punishment in order to be good. Religious theology doesn't demand a blind fear to live morally, and the reason people are good isn't because they're trembling in fear of hell.

    The problem arises because the nature of good and evil are entirely metaphysical. Honestly, how can killing somone be called scientifically wrong? It simply is a fact: I shot so and so. However, if there is a divine presence (by this I do not mean to say exclusively a god, but merely a spirtual existence that is not purely physical), that action can now be condemned as violating the spirtual laws of the universe.

    Simply put, if there is no piritual nature then we are nothing more than a lump of mass with self-conciousness. While that certainly doesn't detract from temporal physical enjoyment and emotions, it does preclude us from any sense of eternal morals. This is, I think, the reason why so many people choose to believe in a god, because they can't deal with the logical ramifications of atheism.
     
  8. Dec 7, 2006 #7

    verty

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Doesn't this imply that the possibility is all that is required? Having recognised the possibility, why not then proceed to experience 'temporal physical enjoyment and emotions'? Our lives are temporal and physical after all, whether or not there is 'spiritual meaning'.

    And having accepted the possibility, there is no more reason to believe Santa Claus the arbiter of morals than any other fantasy. It doesn't get you any closer to religion. Religion is simply wrong.

    ... which is why I like how Viktor Frankl introduces the concept of 'supermeaning', a meaning that means as much as one needs it to mean but no more. It is no religion.
     
  9. Dec 7, 2006 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It is not necessary to believe in a god to know right from wrong. A group of people can make laws and decide if it's good or bad to kill or steal or inflict injury on another person without any god or supernatural beliefs ever being invented.
     
  10. Dec 7, 2006 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The ethical man does what is right. The moral man does what he thinks his god will let him get away with. Keep your eye on the moral man or he will screw you over every time.
     
  11. Dec 7, 2006 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah, but is 'a group of people making a decision' sufficient to define right from wrong? I can come up with a long list of groups of people making decisions that are not right.

    Even if you expand the defintion to an arbitrarily large group and get a consensus, that still doesn't make it right.
     
  12. Dec 7, 2006 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a discussion I've had many a time. What is the difference between ethical and moral? I guarantee we won't have a consensus even in this forum. Some consider morals more fundamental than ethics.
     
  13. Dec 7, 2006 #12

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think your parents had something to do with this. Have you asked them yet? :biggrin:
     
  14. Dec 7, 2006 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Members of a religion are a group of people. Just because they write up their rules claiming that it's the will of some God or Gods or spirits or whatever they worship doesn't make it right. What it all boils down to is that a group of people have agreed to follow a list of rules. Some religions include human and/or animal sacrifice, is killing in the name of some god ok?

    Also, an individual can be cruel or they can be caring. But, if you live where you have to interact with other people, there is usually going to be some standard which the overall community expects everyone to adhere to.
     
  15. Dec 8, 2006 #14

    I disagree with you position that fear of civil anarchy is itself a justifcation for blind faith in a personal god. I hold that any person in community *can* act morally in a traditional sense without a believe in a personal god.
    Why?

    1) Each person in a community will act it` s best morally because he/she want others to treated him/her as such.

    2) A rational person would pursuit higher meaning such as friendship, happiness, learning, love.., over instant gratification, because a rational person would value those non-material things more than material things. ( assuming material resources is equally distributed in a community)

    From this two axiom, i don t see why society cannot act morally.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2006
  16. Dec 8, 2006 #15

    There might not be a purpose as in there is an "intention", or objective for the universe. I highly doubt that there is no *meaning*.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2006
  17. Dec 8, 2006 #16

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Indeed, morality is man's equivalent of altruistic behaviour in the animal kingdom: keeping to the rules benefits, in the long run, to the group, and hence, on average, to every individual.
    But of course, fluctuations occur which can make it individually and temporally advantageous to be "immoral", and that is why each time there is "morality" (that is, a set of rules of which it is assumed that it benefits to the group), there is also a tendency to cheat, and a tendency to oppress OTHER cheaters.
     
  18. Dec 8, 2006 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I know. What I'm saying is that, just because a community decides on a standard that they expect everyone to adhere to, that does not make it morally right.
     
  19. Dec 8, 2006 #18

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes. Chumbawumba, isn't it more wondrous that we are here to define our own meaning, than that some all-powerful dude tells us why we're here?

    It is the ultimate act of free-will. The one thing that does make our lives meaningful.
     
  20. Dec 8, 2006 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Please remember that there are even fewer reasons for why you should not exist. If the weight of reasons had decreed that, you wouldn't have been around here, would you? :smile:
     
  21. Dec 8, 2006 #20
    I do not hold with the idea that fear of anarchy is reason to believe in god, I simply said that I think many people do believe in god because they can't stand to live without morals. It certainly is not a position I agree with, and I think I should make that clear.

    Secondly, your two suppositions are not true. In the first one, a person will do in public what they want done to them. However, without any real eternal morals, there is no reason why they shouldn't do something considered "immoral" if it can be gotten away with. As for your second point, I see no reason why a rational person would value anyone's life above their own, if there are no eternal morals. Why would immaterial things be valued above material things? Your assumption is completely flawed, because there is no community where resources are equally distributed.

    Let me state my position in a simple question. Ethics and morals are not physical, and have no place in matter. Matter is simply that, stuff that is and moves. The laws of ethics and morals are irrelevant to it, because they are immaterial. Therefore, if all we are is matter in motion, i.e. no divine nature of any kind, there are no morals and ethics. If this is the case, why should I not do everything in my power to get what I want? What is wrong with murder and torture and rape and stealing? Sure it harms a community, but why the hell should I care, if I benefit from them, and stop other people from doing them to me?

    This is a very callous aproach, and I am sure one that not all atheists would agree with. However, it is the logical result of atheism, and cannot be ignored simply because atheists do act morally. I would contend that the reason they act morally is not because atheism is compatable with morals, but because atheists still have a conscience, and they simply have faith that murder, etc., is wrong, even though they cannot explain why.

    The religious belief in morals does not start with what people agree on, but with the axiom that God exists. From thence, it is philosophically deduced what comprises God, and therefore what the rules of morals are. I haven't the space to expound on it here, expecially since it comes dangerously close to discussing the banned topic of specific religions. However, for a good overview of its claims, I would recommend Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, since it deals primarily with this a priori system of deduction.

    Moreover, the reasoning that morals can be made by a group of people is a fallacy. With this idea, morals are nothing more than common opinion, and that opinion is subject change. For example, would you have say that because everyone accepted it, that slavery was morally acceptable in Roman society? To say that morals are public opinion, you have to say yes, slavery was acceptable. However, if it was acceptable then, what made it wrong during the civil war? After all, the original abolishonists were almost all Christians, and based their beliefs of Christian morals. However, if morals derive not from a god but from the public, then there is never a good reason to change morals. The only reason the understanding of morals have ever changed is because of religion.

    Quite simply, if morals are the result of public opinion, then they do not exist.

    If this is meant to suggest that religious morals are only acted on because of fear, then it is gravely wrong. Whether you consider him god or not, Jesus laid out the foundation of modern morals when he said, "If you love me you will keep my comandments". Once again, irregardless of if you are a Christian or not, this is the fundemental basic to the modern understanding of morals. They are based around the desire to please someone you love, rather than fear of someone who is more powerful than you. Religious morals are not inherently linked to fear, and to say they are is ignorant.

    If there is a spiritual essence to our existence, then there is more to live for than mere 'temporal and physical enjoyment and emotions'. If we are spiritual and live on after death, there is that eternal after-life to consider, and that is more than physical pleasure. If I choose to believe in a god, I certainly won't walk blind into death, having only lived for the here and now, not knowing what will happen next, and not even caring. Right now, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of god or a true religion: my only key statement is that without these, there are no morals or eternal meaning to life. Whether you believe religion is analogous to belief in Santa Claus is irrelevant to the discussion.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why do we exist?
  1. Why do we sleep? (Replies: 3)

  2. Why do we care (Replies: 2)

  3. Why do we stress? (Replies: 1)

Loading...