The Meaning of Life

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

I do have an answer to the question “What is the meaning of life the Universe and everything?”, but it is a bit of a long read even in a simplified form such as this. I have failed to come up with an argument against it after many years of thought. So I'm putting it “out there” to see if there's anything that I've overlooked.

I use the term “god” for clarification purposes, but as you will come to see (hopefully), a God would not be a god.

God is a frame of reference term:

“My daddy's bigger than your daddy!”
“My king is mightier than your king!”
“My God is greater than your god!”

It is completely understandable how and why, in its infancy, a species of intelligent life would arrive at such a conclusion, given its frame of reference. However; a god is not a good thing, it's the apex of a hierarchical system, and all beneath it are subject to its will. Troop alpha, tribe chieftain, king, president, boss... Frame of reference.

Now for the difficult bit, explaining “the meaning” to people who don't already understand it, and have preconceptions as to its nature.

Firstly, allow me to point out that even if you don't believe or understand it, you'll be fine, but hopefully it's so obvious that you'll think “Why didn't I see that, it's so simple?”. So what is it?

A Universe created by the truly just. - (The term “truly just” may or may not have been used in philosophical works before, but I'm not referencing a prior definition.)

To be worthy of being called a god a being must be truly just, and the truly just have no desire to be looked upon as gods.

Hopefully that's the whole god thing cleared up, but I doubt it, it's very deeply ingrained in some people.

So how does a Universe created by the truly just differ from one created by a god?
And what if the Universe is a completely natural phenomenon?

They are very different questions, but they have the same answer. The truly just do not meddle in the lives of others, that would be unjust. There is some question as to the definition of “meddling” when it comes to a being or beings creating a universe for a purpose, but essentially it means that you have freewill. A system of punishment and reward negates freewill and is therefore unjust. In a just system the wishes of the creator(s) are an irrelevance to the creation. Only the wishes of the creation itself matter. Therefore; created or not, you are free to live as you will, but there is still a massive reward to be had, true happiness. The beauty of it is, that you can choose to find true happiness or not, and that you can only do so for yourself. There is no promise of a greater reward, no carrot, no threat, just a choice.

Unfortunately, happiness is relative. Which may be why such a simple solution to the ultimate question has been overlooked for so long. Most people think that they are perfectly happy. Sure they have good days and bad, but on balance they're happy. If you point out to them that they aren't they will tell you that you're wrong and they're absolutely right. They are happy, but only because they have never experienced true happiness. A bee sting is agony to a small child, and yet to an adult it's just a nuisance, because their exposure to pain has increased.

True happiness is freedom from hate, fear, doubt, anger, jealousy, judgmentalism etc.
True happiness is understanding the nature of life, why things are the way that they are, why bad things happen etc.
True happiness is the meaning of life, the apex of life, everything.

How do you find true happiness?

By becoming truly just.

The circle of life.



How do you become truly just?

Hmm...Would that count as meddling?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Skip »

Rhodnar wrote: It is completely understandable how and why, in its infancy, a species of intelligent life would arrive at such a conclusion, given its frame of reference.
How do you picture the infancy of the species - What historical period would constitute the infancy and of which hominid species?
How do you imagine its frame of reference? Of what factors is it made up and from what world-view does it draw its belief-structure?
On what factual data do you base this conjecture? Why do you think this is a 'given', rather than a mere opinion? What are your sources for pre-human and early human experience and life-style?
A Universe created by the truly just.
I don't believe you get to say who ought to create a universe.
I also don't believe you can replace the one that already exists.
I mean - where do you stash a whole discarded universe?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote:A Universe created by the truly just.
To Me the Universe is in continual creation - always has been always will be - NOW.

Look into the suffering children have to endure in this era. I do not see that being truly just for them, so this Universe (or world) is not being created by the truly just. But this is not to say that if and when adult human beings want to change, for the better, and do change for the better as One, and they are ALL treating each other truly right and truly just, then in that period of NOW the Universe will be being created by the truly just.
Rhodnar wrote:To be worthy of being called a god a being must be truly just, and the truly just have no desire to be looked upon as gods.
Very True.
Rhodnar wrote:So how does a Universe created by the truly just differ from one created by a god?
To Me there is NO difference. God and/or the Truly Just create the exact same natural way. It is just a shame work oppositely to this creation.
Rhodnar wrote:And what if the Universe is a completely natural phenomenon?
What do you mean IF the Universe is a completely natural phenomenon? How could It be anything different?
Rhodnar wrote:True happiness is the meaning of life, the apex of life, everything.
True happiness may be the meaning of life, to you, but does a tree not live? Can a tree be happy or sad? Can a tree, in fact, want to be happy? To some living things happiness has NO meaning whatsoever.

You seemed to have looked at and answered this question from a human being perspective only, which surely a truly just creator would not agree with is the best thing nor right and just thing to do?

To Me true happiness is NOT the meaning of life. 'Life', means living; being alive, so to Me the meaning of life is living; being alive.

But I am a very simple being, and this might just be too simple for some people to understand.
Rhodnar wrote:How do you find true happiness?
How DID I already find true happiness was when I understood how to answer ALL the meaningful and/or metaphysical questions, and I came to the right, true, and correct answer for ALL of them, which when put together formed a perfect puzzle of Life. When I understood WHO exactly people are, who exactly human beings are, and who exactly I am, and I understood WHY every human being does absolutely every thing they do, then I understood EVERY emotion, seemingly good or bad, is just a very natural phenomena and just a signpost of what is going around me, with each one being just as important as each other, and that I have absolute control over EVERY emotion and EVERY thought, then I could be truly happy always.

Rhodnar wrote:How do you become truly just?
You become truly just by just being Honest about your wrong doing, by just being Open, and by just seriously Wanting to change, for the better, for the sake of others and not just yourself. By doing this you become aware of HOW you abuse all others around you, WHY you do this and more importantly WHY you want to stop it completely. When you understand all of this and more, then you not just can become truly just you far more importantly WANT TO BE truly just. Then when you are NOT abusing any thing, then you are Truly Just or God (like).

Doing what is right or God-like or truly just is not some thing to be proud of, nor some thing to be done with the desire to be looked upon as a God, doing what is right is just some thing that every human being should BE - Truly Just - doing anyway.
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

Skip

Define “infancy”?
I'm not quite sure why this is a bone of contention to you. Unless you feel that as a species humanity has all the answers to everything including the origin of Universe, and the nature of reality. So I suppose that I would define infancy and frame of reference as a species not being in possession of all the answers and thus having to use conjecture in an attempt to understand the unknown.

I'm very glad that you pointed this out to me because in the interest of brevity I chose to omit it. I'm not choosing who created the Universe, merely pointing out the only acceptable option for a creation. By that I mean:

a) If the Universe was created by a god it is our superior and we are compelled to bend to its will.
b) If the Universe was created as an experiment, we are just lab rats and thus free to do as we choose.
c) If the Universe was created as an amusement, we are merely the playthings of the gods.
d) If the Universe is simply a natural phenomenon we are free to do as we choose.
e) But if the Universe was created by the truly just we are free to do as we choose, but there is a purpose to it all, “a meaning of life”.

Ken

You are so close in so many ways, but you're not there yet.

How do I know?

You overlooked that it does pertain to all life, and that your perception of what is just or unjust is limited by scale.

A universe created by the truly just can have a purpose, but if that purpose involves the lives of other beings then it must be allowed to progress in a just manner.

a) If we assume that life was an unexpected result of the creation of the Universe then the truly just would have to allow their experiment to play itself out naturally.
b) If we assume that life was the intended result, then the truly just would have to allow their experiment to play itself out naturally.

Thus, evolution being a natural process, is a race of sorts. A tree didn't become sentient, but it does sustain the sentient. At no point was it not permitted to win the race.

I am going to be using the first person here, because given where you are already, it is an important next step for you to take.

For me to see a child about to be eaten by a lion and not save the child when I could, would be unjust. For me to see another person suffering and not aid them when I could, would be unjust. However; at a different scale, one at which I am vastly more powerful than you, and not a part of your natural order, to do so would be unjust.

Who should I help and why?
If I help one person, why not all people?
Why not all the time?
Why not make them all want for nothing?
Never suffer, never die?
Save them all from all their own mistakes?

Hmm...But how would they ever become truly just themselves, with absolutely no reason to do so?

You can only become truly just for yourself. You cannot do it to please someone else, because then you're not being who you really are. You're just trying to please.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Skip »

Rhodnar wrote:Skip

Define “infancy”?
No. I asked How do you picture the infancy of the human race? A very different question.
I'm not quite sure why this is a bone of contention to you.
Because you made this statement
It is completely understandable how and why, in its infancy, a species of intelligent life would arrive at such a conclusion, given its frame of reference.
and predicated upon it a good deal of assumption regarding what people believe and why. Before you can credibly refute something, you need to make clear what it is that you reject and propose to replace.
.... I suppose that I would define infancy and frame of reference as a species not being in possession of all the answers and thus having to use conjecture in an attempt to understand the unknown.
That puts all species in a perpetual state of infancy.
... I'm not choosing who created the Universe, merely pointing out the only acceptable option for a creation.
Should the universe as we find it prove unacceptable, what are our options?
a) If the Universe was created by a god it is our superior and we are compelled to bend to its will.
The god's or the universe's? Makes no difference: we clearly are.
b) If the Universe was created as an experiment, we are just lab rats and thus free to do as we choose.
Met a lot of lab-rats, have you? Odds are against it: they tend to have short, unpleasant lives with very little choice of anything.
c) If the Universe was created as an amusement, we are merely the playthings of the gods.
See a) and b)
d) If the Universe is simply a natural phenomenon we are free to do as we choose.
within closely-determined physical and psychological parameters, temporal and spatial bounds
e) But if the Universe was created by the truly just we are free to do as we choose, but there is a purpose to it all, “a meaning of life”.
And this is what you wish.
Wishing is certainly within the above-mentioned parameters.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dalek Prime »

Skip wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:Skip

Define “infancy”?
No. I asked How do you picture the infancy of the human race? A very different question.
I'm not quite sure why this is a bone of contention to you.
Because you made this statement
It is completely understandable how and why, in its infancy, a species of intelligent life would arrive at such a conclusion, given its frame of reference.
and predicated upon it a good deal of assumption regarding what people believe and why. Before you can credibly refute something, you need to make clear what it is that you reject and propose to replace.
.... I suppose that I would define infancy and frame of reference as a species not being in possession of all the answers and thus having to use conjecture in an attempt to understand the unknown.
That puts all species in a perpetual state of infancy.
... I'm not choosing who created the Universe, merely pointing out the only acceptable option for a creation.
Should the universe as we find it prove unacceptable, what are our options?
Give it the finger, and stop participating in further creation. I did. Just saying there is an option.
a) If the Universe was created by a god it is our superior and we are compelled to bend to its will.
The god's or the universe's? Makes no difference: we clearly are.
b) If the Universe was created as an experiment, we are just lab rats and thus free to do as we choose.
Met a lot of lab-rats, have you? Odds are against it: they tend to have short, unpleasant lives with very little choice of anything.
c) If the Universe was created as an amusement, we are merely the playthings of the gods.
See a) and b)
d) If the Universe is simply a natural phenomenon we are free to do as we choose.
within closely-determined physical and psychological parameters, temporal and spatial bounds
e) But if the Universe was created by the truly just we are free to do as we choose, but there is a purpose to it all, “a meaning of life”.
And this is what you wish.
Wishing is certainly within the above-mentioned parameters.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

Rhodnar wrote: Ken

You are so close in so many ways, but you're not there yet.
Not where yet?
Rhodnar wrote:How do I know?
You overlooked that it does pertain to all life, and that your perception of what is just or unjust is limited by scale.

What is the "it"?

What do you mean "my" perception of what is just or unjust is limited by scale? What scale?

By the way HOW do you know what my perception of just or unjust is yet?

To Me, what is just is just and what is unjust is unjust. There is no scale, so there is no limitation. So I am not sure what you are referring to when you use the word 'you'.
Rhodnar wrote:A universe created by the truly just can have a purpose, but if that purpose involves the lives of other beings then it must be allowed to progress in a just manner.
Does the Universe being created by the truly just have purpose or not?

What do you mean "if" that purpose involves the lives of other beings? Do you really believe the Universe that is being created by the truly just only has purpose for some beings, and not for other beings? If so, then that is a rather selfish view to have do you not think?
Rhodnar wrote:a) If we assume that life was an unexpected result of the creation of the Universe then the truly just would have to allow their experiment to play itself out naturally.
b) If we assume that life was the intended result, then the truly just would have to allow their experiment to play itself out naturally.
Why would you assume either of those things, or anything for that matter?

Why not just look at what IS, instead of assuming anything?

You can assume anything you like, but I do NOT.
Rhodnar wrote:Thus, evolution being a natural process, is a race of sorts.
A race to what exactly, do you propose? I do not see a race to anywhere, except within human beings and their attempt to obtain as much as they can before they die. Without much regard, by the way, to what happens to the one and only home that human beings live on and NEED if they want to keep on living.
Rhodnar wrote: A tree didn't become sentient, but it does sustain the sentient. At no point was it not permitted to win the race.
Again, what supposed race?
Rhodnar wrote:I am going to be using the first person here, because given where you are already, it is an important next step for you to take.
Where do you think I am compared to you?
Rhodnar wrote:For me to see a child about to be eaten by a lion and not save the child when I could, would be unjust.
It would be unjust to who?

If you propose to the child, then why do you think just and unjust are terms in regards to human beings, before others?

If you save the child, then that would be unjust, to the lion, that is if lions could see in terms of just and unjust.
Rhodnar wrote: For me to see another person suffering and not aid them when I could, would be unjust. However; at a different scale, one at which I am vastly more powerful than you, and not a part of your natural order, to do so would be unjust.
You just said it would be unjust to not aid a suffering person when you could, and then you go on to say that you are more powerful than I am, and that you are not a part My natural order, and that if you did help that suffering person then now that is unjust.

How do you propose you are more powerful than I am?

How exactly are you not a part of My natural order?

And, how can you help some one who is suffering and that be both just and unjust?

Are 'you' two different things?

I think I know exactly what you are trying to say, but honestly you are not doing a very good job. But do not feel disheartened by this, because I am doing a much worse job then you are.
Rhodnar wrote:Who should I help and why?
I do not know. That is your choice alone.
Rhodnar wrote:If I help one person, why not all people?
Well I see it rather selfish of you if you only help one person and not ALL people equally.

I certainly do not like helping any one or any select few. I only want to help ALL equally. By the way ALL does not just include human beings.
Rhodnar wrote:Why not all the time?
How I view things, I see that it would be a far better place to live if ALL people helped ALL people all the time, equally.
Rhodnar wrote:Why not make them all want for nothing?
Because you can not make any person want for any thing. People, themselves, choose what they want, and when they want it. You can only help people to choose what you think is right and/or important.
Rhodnar wrote:Never suffer, never die?
Who suffers and who dies. I certainly do not. But if that does not make any or much sense to you, then that is because 'you' are probably still far from actually understanding and knowing who 'I' really am, yet.

You appear to believe that some, including you, are more powerful than others and that some, including you, live in some unnatural order of things. I, however, think ALL are equal and live among the one and only Universe, naturally.

But you are free to believe you are more powerful than others if that is what you want to choose to believe.
Rhodnar wrote:Save them all from all their own mistakes?
You can NOT save people. People can only "save" themselves, again only when they want to.
Rhodnar wrote:Hmm...But how would they ever become truly just themselves, with absolutely no reason to do so?
Well considering it is impossible for you to save people, then there will always be a reason for people to become truly just. They just have to choose to do this themselves.
Rhodnar wrote:You can only become truly just for yourself.
You can want to change for others, and in doing so become truly just for others, as I did, BUT, one of the best things I learned while doing this is I am the one who actually benefits the most. So, you can ONLY want to change, and then become truly just properly, BY yourself. But, no matter what reason you choose change for the better, you eventually end up doing it FOR thee Self.

You just need to KNOW who the Self is to fully understand and comprehend this.

By the way wanting to change for the better, which in turn leads you to becoming truly just, with help from others, makes the process much quicker, easier, and simpler. In my case there is living proof of this fact.
Rhodnar wrote: You cannot do it to please someone else, because then you're not being who you really are.
Who exactly do you think 'you' really are?

I did do it because I wanted it for others, not for me.
Rhodnar wrote:You're just trying to please.
If this "to please someone else" and "just trying to please" is in relation to what I wrote, then you completely misinterpreted what I meant. What I meant was if you WANT to change, for the better, for the SAKE of others, and not just yourself, then you are seeking this change in a totally responsible way. In regards to me I wanted to change so that I could be a much better father for my children. I certainly NEVER sought to change to please anyone whatsoever. I certainly did not do it for any other reason then for my children. I sought to change for the sake of my children. I wanted to make life better for my children.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by surreptitious57 »

Rhodnar wrote:
How do you find true happiness
I do not think true happiness can be found but rather true contentment. And this
comes from accepting everything as it is rather than how you would wish it to be
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dalek Prime »

surreptitious57 wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:
How do you find true happiness
I do not think true happiness can be found but rather true contentment. And this
comes from accepting everything as it is rather than how you would wish it to be
I'm not content as a male. Should I stop my transition and accept it? Would I be content then? Or is it best that everyone else is content with the status quo, save myself?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
Rhodnar wrote:
How do you find true happiness
I do not think true happiness can be found but rather true contentment. And this
comes from accepting everything as it is rather than how you would wish it to be
To take this a step further, would not true happiness logically follow on from true contentment?

For Me, I can and do accept everything as it is. Hitherto, everything is exactly where it is, is meant to be, or should be. Therefore, I am content with the situation of NOW. However, if i know others are suffering around me, which they are, then i have not found true contentment. I know there is something more that could be done, so i do not feel truly satisfied nor truly contented with this situation.

To Me, knowing that I am equal with ALL, and that ALL wish not to be abused, then I could only find true contentment when I know I have done all I could to alleviate ALL abuse. Every one is a part of Me, so if any part of Me is being abused, then I would obviously not be truly happy nor truly content while any abuse is continuing.

Now, when every one is accepting everything as it is, and finding true contentment with the situation we ALL find ourselves in, then that is when every thing is how every one wishes it to be, then only then I am truly satisfied with what is going on, I have found true contentment, and thus I would also be truly happy as a consequence, anyway
.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by surreptitious57 »

Contentment is an individual thing rather than a collective one so will vary from person to person
Now I myself am very content as I accept everything as it is. I do not expect reality to conform to
my expectations of it because that is beyond my control. Hence why I choose to accept it instead
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by surreptitious57 »

I do not think true happiness is a natural consequence of true contentment. Because true contentment entails accepting reality as
it is. But that does not imply one can be happy with it. One merely has to acknowledge it. However happiness is not what reality is
about. If it was then every one would be happy but this obviously is not true. So contentment is therefore the most practical option
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dalek Prime »

surreptitious57 wrote:Contentment is an individual thing rather than a collective one so will vary from person to person
Now I myself am very content as I accept everything as it is. I do not expect reality to conform to
my expectations of it because that is beyond my control. Hence why I choose to accept it instead
Lol. I am stymied by a considerate and considered answer (if it was indeed directed to me). Thank you, nonetheless. It is acceptable.
Rhodnar
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Rhodnar »

Ken

Your head wasn't in the right place when you read that. I was using the socratic method. I wasn't saying that I am more than you, just asking you to imagine that I/you were a truly just creator, as it were. As such you are not a part of this planet and vastly more powerful than anything upon it. Given that circumstance would it be just for you to interfere in the lives of those upon it? If you could do anything, what would you do, and would it be just?

I knew that you were going to say that taking away the lion's lunch wasn't just to the lion, but there are plenty of other things to eat. Surely you wouldn't consider it just to allow the child to be eaten. All life is equal in a way, but the loss of a child would be more devastating to its parents than the loss of a fawn would be to its parents. Its a grey area admittedly, but in such a situation your own values would govern your actions, and mine, mine.

The “it” in that sentence is in reply to you telling me that my theory doesn't apply to all life, and I was telling you that “it” does.

Most of the rest of what you say regarding contentment and true happiness is very good indeed. It is clear that you have done a good deal of work on yourself in the right direction. True happiness alludes you still because you haven't considered the nature of justness as it pertains to all possible life. You have clearly considered justness as it pertains to lower lifeforms, but how about higher ones?
If you could do anything, what would it be, and would it be just?

Higher lifeforms may not even exist, but you can still take an imaginary walk down that path.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dalek Prime »

Rhodnar, for some reason, many do not do well with the Socratic method, though I personally feel it of great use and value. But it usually ends up a waste of time, as many don't participate, for whatever reason, in the Q&A. Just my experience that I wanted to pass along. Cheers.
Post Reply