Unsubstantiated assertions, and no understanding of the magnitude of the question.Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:11 amIpso facto.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:00 pmWalker wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:15 pm
Rather than reply with a “huh?” this question has been studied for possible meanings. Since your refusal to answer IC’s rather simple, direct, and honest questions have established a sliming precedence with approval, I too shall forego the answering of questions but without impotent bleating.
You misquoted, which means you’re either careless with your thoughts or devious, however a natural attraction to intellectually frustrated thread saboteurs would indicate the former is required for the latter.
Life is the purpose of existence, as originally stated, then subsequently misquoted.
The proof that the purpose of existence is life is the existence of life, which can only be proven to life by life. Death is the proof that death exists, however what dies? Life cannot die, that’s an oxymoron. The body dies, which raises the existential question answered by Sri Ramana Maharshi, are you exclusively this body that eventually dies?
Implication? Rocks and stars and such which are not alive, but also as much a part of the universe as humankind, have existence, have no life, and therefore have no inherent purpose although a human has the capacity to infer causation that feeds the inherent compulsion to make everything fit.
This is why an existing foetus certainly has an inherent purpose, the inherency made more obvious since the lil’ fetus person can’t yet delusionally report the news. That inherent purpose is to fulfill its stage of human development (life), which requires no thought, and naturally leads to the next stage of human development, and so on.
Where is your proof that life has a purpose what what is it?
You've not even begun to ask yourself whether or not the question has any basis.