>>1593>The meaning of life is to find one ourselves.
I've come to this conclusion as well>>1633
With so many things happening, it would be an incredible coincidence if there weren't any coincidences.
Also, randomness often evens out with time. So if you persist in something sooner or later you might be lucky to get an unlikely chance that might seem like "fate" or god's help.
It's like murphy's law: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong", except applied in the opposite way: if there's a chance of a good thing happening, eventually it just might. Rowling had to go through 12 time being rejected by publishing companies before somebody finally accepted harry potter. That's not fate. That's not god. That's purely Rowling's merit.
And this applies to any unlikely event happening. It just has to, sooner or later, happen to someone. You don't believe god exists because a friend of yours got a super-rare yugioh card, do you?
I believe in randomness + cause and effect (action and results/consequence).
I feel about god in a similar way as worded here: >>1638
I can't prove there isn't one, but,
I simply fail to see any reason to believe there is one
I haven't seen god, or seen any consequence of his actions, or seen any reasonable proof of there being anyone who has. Accepting the bible as truth would require me to accept many other religious texts by other religions, because why would I randomly pick one and declare all the others fake?
You might say reality is god's action. But what is the reason to believe that?
Actually I find it incredibly absurd when people say "how can reality exist without a creator?" and then easily accept the fact that god just always existed. how can god exist without a creator? If god can, why can't reality just always have existed? Where did god get inspiration to create reality from? How even is god, and how does it work?
Some people have a weird perception of god, as in equating him to reality. I fail to see anything more than them naming their feelings for reality as "god". "beauty" is a human interpretation of reality, and if you think about it it has no meaning to it. Beauty is an illusion, useful for survival most likely. What's the fucking difference between 2/3 and the golden ratio, in meaning? None. But to us one is more pleasant to look at. You see the meaninglessness of our feelings when attempting to actually understand reality? Reality wasn't built around our feelings, the opposite is true, our feelings were built to work well with reality. So of course reality is fucking beautiful to us.
There's no reason for basic human logic to be true, but it applies to reality, so we learnt it to better survive, as a result we constantly get surprised by how logical our universe is. See the point?
Regarding the human body and spirit,
I believe that our mind is somewhat like a computer: the brain is the hardware, on top there is an operative system (subconscious and other stuff) running the program "consciousness". As such there is no "soul" separate from the body, when the computer breaks the program stops running.
The difference from computers is that a lot of the programming is done on the hardware level. Our brain is not a general purpose pc, rather specifically designed to run Consciousness (Tm)
I also believe that ego is an illusion. Does a program feel itself like a separate, individual being? Does it have a "feeling of self", self-perception not just as itself existing in a position and occupying space, but as being an individual?
No. It's something which emerged because it's useful for survival. But there's no "self", the way you feel it. You're just a bionic robot running a program (built for reproduction).
If we were simple, there would be no need for it. I'm pretty sure an ant doesn't feel itself as having importance.
But humans are too complex to operate on bare instincts. The only way to use human intelligence well to achieve stuff is by having priorities.
Pain, pleasure, sadness, happiness and all other emotions are just a play to push you into making the right actions that will lead you to reproduce and spread your genes. And you see it all falling apart when you see the loopholes (like masturbation) and how our system fails to adapt successfully to such a sophisticated environment as today's
But why do we need a concept of "self" for this system? Because there are a lot of things that we do for ourselves (which we wouldn't if we didn't feel like we). I guess it's a layer of abstraction over the basic pain/pleasure drives.
Also interpersonal relations are very important and they couldn't exist if there was no self.
"I love you" has "I" and "you", two words describing different "selves" out of three.
Love towards nothing in particular or for any female body (as a piece of meat) would be much less useful in transmitting genes than love for *someone* specific.
reality does exist independently of consciousness, but reality to us is our perception of it.