Yeah right, one can always construct a reality which discourages whatever you plan to do. I was completely wrong.
If even politicians are unable to differentiate extremism in thought experiments and science vs. actual action, then how bad must it be among the general population? Doesn't that consideration justify placing certain…
I'm not saying that this is the only possibility but merely that we cannot exclude it.
No, I'm only talking about the testable and the potentially testable. I mentioned hell and God just as an example of a potential reality which imposes meaning on our existence. I'm referring to a literally testable God…
If we could establish a communication channel to the creator we could perhaps negotiate a transfer of all consciousnesses on Earth to the host universe. Maybe the creator isn't even aware of us and would simply shut us…
In any sense. Why should we assume that our creator is sane? Perhaps they sell toy universes at the counter in grocery stores and we are in the hands of some cruel teenager in our host universe. Perhaps they run…
That's not what I mean. I mean that we need to actively look for intrinsic meaning of our existence, just to have the case covered that there really is a grand purpose and that we will be disadvantaged if we don't act…
How can you prove, though, that meaning is neither singular, preset and nor condensable to a single goal? What if god does exist? Then it would be rational to act in a way that pleases god and thus it should be our goal…
I mean that we are obliged to look for meaning just so that we consider the possibility that there indeed is meaning, so that we can act accordingly to avoid ending up in hell (or a similar place). And by that I don't…
Wait. To our best knowledge we don't know whether there is a meaning of life, right? And it would be irrational to act based on a conjectured purpose if there isn't solid evidence for it. So even if we will burn in hell…
Yeah right, one can always construct a reality which discourages whatever you plan to do. I was completely wrong.
If even politicians are unable to differentiate extremism in thought experiments and science vs. actual action, then how bad must it be among the general population? Doesn't that consideration justify placing certain…
I'm not saying that this is the only possibility but merely that we cannot exclude it.
No, I'm only talking about the testable and the potentially testable. I mentioned hell and God just as an example of a potential reality which imposes meaning on our existence. I'm referring to a literally testable God…
If we could establish a communication channel to the creator we could perhaps negotiate a transfer of all consciousnesses on Earth to the host universe. Maybe the creator isn't even aware of us and would simply shut us…
In any sense. Why should we assume that our creator is sane? Perhaps they sell toy universes at the counter in grocery stores and we are in the hands of some cruel teenager in our host universe. Perhaps they run…
That's not what I mean. I mean that we need to actively look for intrinsic meaning of our existence, just to have the case covered that there really is a grand purpose and that we will be disadvantaged if we don't act…
How can you prove, though, that meaning is neither singular, preset and nor condensable to a single goal? What if god does exist? Then it would be rational to act in a way that pleases god and thus it should be our goal…
I mean that we are obliged to look for meaning just so that we consider the possibility that there indeed is meaning, so that we can act accordingly to avoid ending up in hell (or a similar place). And by that I don't…
Wait. To our best knowledge we don't know whether there is a meaning of life, right? And it would be irrational to act based on a conjectured purpose if there isn't solid evidence for it. So even if we will burn in hell…