its been a long time guys, i've missed you
alright so i know a lot of you guys have finals, but i had a few minutes of free time due to my designer's block (similar to a writer's block) and i am just taking a mini break and hopefully isa i get into it again after this.
so as i recall correctly i was talking about the validity of life having a purpose.
One of my points is that for life to be fair, it needs to have a system of retribution after life is over. This is necessary because a lot of injustice happens and if there isnt a system then life isnt fair.
Also for that or any system to exist (especially one with this immense level of complexity) there needs to be a purpose. Then for this life to be fair according to said purposeful system the rules need to be told to the creation to do their purpose they were created for towards the creator.
Also the reason for a creator needing to exist in the first place is because our laws, rules, and theories do not adequately explain how we arrived in the here and now (and I am ready to discuss in great depths, in depth or in public every one).
Before I get into what I believe in, and why, lets talk about this quick example.
If someone knocks at the door of your appartment, and there are many people with you inside. Everyone would probably start to argue and debate who is outside, and what do they want.
The first logical thing to do is to observe and or ask who it is depending on what is available. They would tell you who they are and what they want, then you would ask them more questions to varify logically if they are telling the truth based on what you know.
Equate this to a book, or a person that claims to tell you the answer to who is knocking. You would not tell the person knocking on the door that you know more about them than they do, you would say I don't believe you because what you are telling me is inconsistent with things I know are universal facts/valid logic.
So If someone were to argue with you about the purpose of life, you would defend it according to the validity of their arguments and not your own knowledge. As is the case with the person at the door, you know nothing about them, you can not see, hear, nor feel evidence of your purpose or how you came to exist.
Next are more points to consider before going forward with more
alright so i know a lot of you guys have finals, but i had a few minutes of free time due to my designer's block (similar to a writer's block) and i am just taking a mini break and hopefully isa i get into it again after this.
so as i recall correctly i was talking about the validity of life having a purpose.
One of my points is that for life to be fair, it needs to have a system of retribution after life is over. This is necessary because a lot of injustice happens and if there isnt a system then life isnt fair.
Also for that or any system to exist (especially one with this immense level of complexity) there needs to be a purpose. Then for this life to be fair according to said purposeful system the rules need to be told to the creation to do their purpose they were created for towards the creator.
Also the reason for a creator needing to exist in the first place is because our laws, rules, and theories do not adequately explain how we arrived in the here and now (and I am ready to discuss in great depths, in depth or in public every one).
Before I get into what I believe in, and why, lets talk about this quick example.
If someone knocks at the door of your appartment, and there are many people with you inside. Everyone would probably start to argue and debate who is outside, and what do they want.
The first logical thing to do is to observe and or ask who it is depending on what is available. They would tell you who they are and what they want, then you would ask them more questions to varify logically if they are telling the truth based on what you know.
Equate this to a book, or a person that claims to tell you the answer to who is knocking. You would not tell the person knocking on the door that you know more about them than they do, you would say I don't believe you because what you are telling me is inconsistent with things I know are universal facts/valid logic.
So If someone were to argue with you about the purpose of life, you would defend it according to the validity of their arguments and not your own knowledge. As is the case with the person at the door, you know nothing about them, you can not see, hear, nor feel evidence of your purpose or how you came to exist.
Next are more points to consider before going forward with more
No comments:
Post a Comment