che46
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5509 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 04:19 AM |
| If it can't answer a simple question of a child like 'why am I here' or 'what is the purpose of my life' how is it going to explain the origins of the universe.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
ymlol
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Aug 2012 |
| Total Posts: 5688 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 04:27 AM |
there is no purpose of life
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 04:28 AM |
| we're here because the earth crashed into the moon and there is no purpose of life. everything came together simply because of events in time. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
che46
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5509 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 04:36 AM |
'we're here because the earth crashed into the moon and there is no purpose of life. everything came together simply because of events in time.'
how do you know?
ok I'll answer it for you
you dont |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 04:36 AM |
The purpose of life from a biological standpoint is to reproduce to ensure the survival of your species.
The purpose of life from a philosophical standpoint is to understand life's great questions and to learn from observation of the universe.
The purpose of life from a religious standpoint is to live one's life in a way that pleases a deity.
Those are really the big 3. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Exonical
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Feb 2010 |
| Total Posts: 16490 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 07:19 AM |
"What is the purpose of my life?"
Why does the 'purpose' of life have to be some sort of collective thing? Why can't it be dependent on the individual? Life's purpose is what you, as an individual, make it out to be.
"Why am I here"
Because your parents didn't use protection.
Any other questions?
♜ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Exonical
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Feb 2010 |
| Total Posts: 16490 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 07:29 AM |
-but no, science doesn't have the answer to everything. Nor does anyone claim that it does.
But just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that we'll never know- or that we should just make assumptions instead.
♜ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tappier
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Apr 2013 |
| Total Posts: 14077 |
|
| |
|
bobos22
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4063 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 07:53 AM |
42 is Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Its obvious |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 09:26 AM |
| The purpose of life is to give it purpose. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 09:33 AM |
| Also, science can answer most questions (Most, because we don't and never will know everything.). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 10:07 AM |
| If Majora's Mask has tought me anything, it's that the moon hitting Earth would be bad... also that the moon has a giant scary face on it... also that masks can transform you... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 11:03 AM |
We'll never know anything, we don't even know if the universe is infinite, but...
*deep breath*
Science gives us a set law which will provide the outcome for situations, such as, if I jump high, I will not stay afloat because of the laws of gravity, thus, this is proven correct. But when it was first thought up, of course, people would argue, there needs to be a set mathematical/logical division which can reinforce the said theory/law. But how about when we're in the Moon? The universe is so big (Or ironically, so small) that our science can not prove to be correct in different divisions of a universe, thus, it can be disproved if we were to be confronted by a being from another planet, thus, we can NEVER be correct unless we have indefinitely explored all the contents of the universe, which, presumably, is impossible. In fact, at the time of writing my second paragraph, I have just come from a intriguing post in YAHOO! Answers:
''Yes Newton's Law for gravity was proved wrong by Einstein's General Relativity
Newton assumed that gravity acted instantly everywhere, but Einstein proved that at any distance no information can travel faster than the speed of light, not even gravity.
Also from a quick search ...
* Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth. * Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds. * Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends. * The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today. * Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo. * Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.) * Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.''
Now, how about a theory? People often argue that a theory, in the least of words, is, a guess. However, in science, this theory can be reinforced with enough facts to make it seem convincing, however, more often the never, this was not the case. As our universe is - which I cannot help but emphasize on - so big, it can be disproved, just look at the first paragraph, thus, especially in laws, we can never be correct, and theories are NOT solid evidence, and can never be SOLID evidence until enough intellectual facts behind it can be proven. Ironically, these facts, are not facts, as I have just said.
I completely ridicule myself in my ridiculous spelling. -Riddler- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Takistan
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1319 |
|
| |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 12:37 PM |
| questions that begin with "why" are often not worth answering because they usually arent possible to answer. science answers the "how" questions. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
che46
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5509 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 12:37 PM |
| that's not the point of this thread |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:15 PM |
"questions that begin with "why" are often not worth answering because they usually arent possible to answer. science answers the "how" questions."
"Why" is just as important, maybe even more important than "how". Explaining "how" something occurs is achieved through simple observation, but explaining "why" something occurs requires more research, yet makes us understand more. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:16 PM |
"why am I here"
your parents banged
"what is the purpose of my life"
there is no objective purpose of anyone's life, so you get to choose it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:19 PM |
"'Why' is just as important, maybe even more important than 'how'. Explaining 'how' something occurs is achieved through simple observation, but explaining 'why' something occurs requires more research, yet makes us understand more."
dont get me wrong, the "why" questions are important. its just that they arent useful and often are unimportant. they are also disputed since there is no right or wrong answer to them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:23 PM |
| I mean like the answers to say "why is mass related to strength of gravity" or something of the such. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:28 PM |
"I mean like the answers to say 'why is mass related to strength of gravity' or something of the such."
ok, i see. but those questions could yield different answers. if someone asks why mountains exist, i could give them a geological process that leads to the formation of mountains, but perhaps they wanted some sort of reason why mountains exist, not how they came to be. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:30 PM |
Then you wouldn't know the answer, would you, because you did say, ''HOW they came to be,'', therefore, what you stated wasn't the right answer, amirite?
I completely ridicule myself in my ridiculous spelling. -Riddler- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:33 PM |
Really, how and why end up being the same thing.
I don't really know how we got off on this tangent, but yeah. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:33 PM |
| it is an answer to why mountains exist, though, is it not? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Jul 2014 01:33 PM |
| *previous comment directed at ridicule* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|