The four great philosophical questions...

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]well to no.1) people keep seeming to call me Greg, and I'm pretty sure I'm neither cat, dog, cricket, pigeon and so on...in fact from what I have been able to ascertain...it would appear that human fits best

So you are intinsically valuable because your name is Greg?

no 2) People seem to call this planet we live on Earth...so I refer to it ...[text shortened]... or now whilst I go to work 🙁

So you think you have the same destiny as a pig?[/b]

Well, he's not going to end up in bacon buttie.

Originally posted by googlefudge
according to what criterium?

Reality.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
You can believe in it without deriving it.

So truth is relative?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So truth is relative?

Can't you read? You can believe in ABSOLUTE TRUTH without deriving it?

See what I mean about not asking a straight question?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Can't you read? You can believe in ABSOLUTE TRUTH without deriving it?

See what I mean about not asking a straight question?

My apologies. But if everyone believes in ABSOLUTE truth without deriving it from an absolute point of reference, how can it be ABSOLUTE? Everybody’s ABSOLUTE truth would be different, and thus truth would be relative.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Reality.

Reality isn't a criterium, it is the thing you are trying to discover truthes about. It is the thing we are arguing about. for every set of rules you create, truthes you discover, It is possible to construct another set which do everything yours do, but are completly different, thus unparralelled by any other is meaningless without criteria, by what are you measuring these rules?

Originally posted by dj2becker
My apologies. But if everyone believes in ABSOLUTE truth without deriving it from an absolute point of reference, how can it be ABSOLUTE? Everybody’s ABSOLUTE truth would be different, and thus truth would be relative.

Truth does not have to be linked to a particular frame of reference to be absolute, in relativity one thing may appear to happen before another in one reference frame and the other way round from a different reference frame but someone who knows relativity theory can work out which way it actually happened, the 'absolute' truth as it were. I am not nesercerily saying there is absolute truth by the way,just that your argument against it is flawed.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Reality isn't a criterium, it is the thing you are trying to discover truthes about. It is the thing we are arguing about. for every set of rules you create, truthes you discover, It is possible to construct another set which do everything yours do, but are completly different, thus unparralelled by any other is meaningless without criteria, by what are you measuring these rules?

Human experience?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Truth does not have to be linked to a particular frame of reference to be absolute, in relativity one thing may appear to happen before another in one reference frame and the other way round from a different reference frame but someone who knows relativity theory can work out which way it actually happened, the 'absolute' truth as it were. I am not neser ...[text shortened]... erily saying there is absolute truth by the way,just that your argument against it is flawed.

I am not nesercerily saying there is absolute truth by the way,just that your argument against it is flawed.

So if you are not necessarily saying that there is absolute truth, then it is not necessarily true that my argument against it is flawed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Who am I?
Where do I come from?
What is the meaning of life?
Where do I go when I die?

I believe my faith has the best answers for these questions...

you seem to be happy picking holes in other peoples answers. please answer your own questions so the rest of us can go off on a tangent at your thoughts.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]This question is meaningless. It's answered by a tautology; I am me.

Do you have any intrinsic value?

Electrical and chemical activity in the brain.

I was refering to the origin of life.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life

So the meaning of your life is mere existence?

I cease to exist.

So that is your destiny?[/b]

Do you have any intrinsic value?

No. Value is subjective. Someone has to value me for me to have value. If no one values me, I lack value. If I had intrinsic value this would be impossible. Therefore I do not.

I was refering to the origin of life.

In that context, I "come from" an evolutionary process acting on self replicating molecules - probably nucleic acid polymers of some sort.

So the meaning of your life is mere existence?

"Your life" is not "life". How did you jump from your question and my answer to this question? It seems totally irrelevant.

The phrase "the meaning of life" as you clearly intend it is itself meaningless; it's one of those phrases that sounds profound but lacks substance. I don't use the phrase myself. I see your question as lacking meaning - that is, lacking a definition, or in other words, referring to nothing. It's simply an attempt to sound profound.

So that is your destiny?

I don't use the word 'destiny' either, but according to the first two definitions of the word on dictionary.com, yes, that is my destiny, and yours as well.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Reality isn't a criterium, it is the thing you are trying to discover truthes about. It is the thing we are arguing about. for every set of rules you create, truthes you discover, It is possible to construct another set which do everything yours do, but are completly different, thus unparralelled by any other is meaningless without criteria, by what are you measuring these rules?

In terms of the laws of logic, you can basically look at it from three points of view:

-logical consistency
-empirical adequacy
-experiential relevance

When you look at a worldview, you bring these 3 tests to it.

Originally posted by Prvt Harris
you seem to be happy picking holes in other peoples answers. please answer your own questions so the rest of us can go off on a tangent at your thoughts.

On the basis of my study of who Christ claimed to be, and what he said when he answers these four questions of life, of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny, the logical consitency of his answers, the empirical adequacy by which you measure those answers, and the experiential relevance of his answers have convinced me that he is the way, the truth and the life.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Do you have any intrinsic value?

No. Value is subjective. Someone has to value me for me to have value. If no one values me, I lack value. If I had intrinsic value this would be impossible. Therefore I do not.

I was refering to the origin of life.

In that context, I "come from" an evolutionary process acting on self replicating ...[text shortened]... nitions of the word on dictionary.com, yes, that is my destiny, and yours as well.[/b]

No. Value is subjective. Someone has to value me for me to have value. If no one values me, I lack value. If I had intrinsic value this would be impossible. Therefore I do not.

So why should someone value you if you have no intrinsic value?

In that context, I "come from" an evolutionary process acting on self replicating molecules - probably nucleic acid polymers of some sort.

Do you have any idea where the nucleic acid polymers came from?

"Your life" is not "life". How did you jump from your question and my answer to this question? It seems totally irrelevant.

I assumed that you had a life. Was I wrong in this assumption?

The phrase "the meaning of life" as you clearly intend it is itself meaningless; it's one of those phrases that sounds profound but lacks substance. I don't use the phrase myself. I see your question as lacking meaning - that is, lacking a definition, or in other words, referring to nothing. It's simply an attempt to sound profound.

So meaning is derived from a definition? Does "God" then have meaning, because the word has a definition?

I don't use the word 'destiny' either, but according to the first two definitions of the word on dictionary.com, yes, that is my destiny, and yours as well.

So it's true because the dictionary says so? Does the dictionary not define God as well?

Originally posted by dj2becker
No. Value is subjective. Someone has to value me for me to have value. If no one values me, I lack value. If I had intrinsic value this would be impossible. Therefore I do not.

So why should someone value you if you have no intrinsic value?

In that context, I "come from" an evolutionary process acting on self replicating molecules - probab ue because the dictionary says so? Does the dictionary not define God as well?

So why should someone value you if you have no intrinsic value

I didn't say they should.

Do you have any idea where the nucleic acid polymers came from?

Yep. However I am not interested in a constant stream of questions which ask "well where did that come from"? I answered the question you posed.

I assumed that you had a life. Was I wrong in this assumption?

I am alive. Is that what you mean by "I had a life"? It still seems irrelevant. Are you looking for the definition of "my life"? It's the state of being alive which applies to me.