> No. I don't want to know what is really the purpose of life again. You suppose that I think we can find an answer by arguing. That is not the case. I, myself, have my answer which makes me comfortable. It is very unlikely that you can change my answer, because I am set in my ways. So asking you for the answer when I will not take your answer would not be helpful to me(unless I like hurting you and proving you wrong, which I don't). But I am interested to know how my opinion and yours differ, so I can see what other kind of viewpoints there are, and thus not be stagnant and unchanging. Again, I know what the religious viewpoint is for the most point, or I have had enough people tell me that point to have a general understanding of its various forms. And I am thinking more and more I shouldn't have said religious at all, but should have simply said, "Don't post that this is not worth arguing about because there is one answer and then not explain". Because religion is not the only thing I don't want people to talk about. That also kind of shows my disregard for religion(saying that people will say "God is the purpose. Wow. That was easy, let's go get some ice cream now", and then tell everyone else that their opinion is obviously wrong, because God is ultimate, so therefore there is no other question but "What is God?"). Of course, I also included the bit about a side thread in case there are people who do believe that they have a new, fresh perspective on how God gives life purpose, and who don't want to just end the debate.

What I find interesting about this is that the philosophers you mention assumed that there was a purpose for human life and that that purpose was knowable.

You really put religious people in a tight spot, here. If you really want to know, just to know, what other people believe the purpose of life is, then you need to be willing to accept that there are people who believe that their idea of the purpose of human life is true, and all mutually exclusive purposes are false, by necessity.

Stephen hit this point on the head. The world of humans, in terms of thinking about purpose, divides into three distinct groups, based on what they believe about the statement "The purpose of human life is x."

For Stephen, and Brunnen-G, the answer is "there is no such x". And, though I disagree, it is a consistent and legitimate position to hold. The other two groups fall immediately on the other side, and hold that there is some x that fits the statement. This group is further divided into those who believe x is knowable, and those who believe x is unknowable (usually inherently).

I would really love to answer your question for you, but as a Christian, I cannot give you any kind of meaningful answer that fits the strictures you have set. I don't really know why you think that religious people, of any persuasion, would give an answer that was not accompanied by at least some reason. I have only rarely seen serious posts on this forum that have "arguments" of the form "This is right, you're wrong", and that's all.

But beyond this, you cannot expect that people present their views in such a way that they do not believe them to be true to the exclusion of mutually exclusive views. Whenever someone argues that they believe that "x is the purpose of human life", they inherently reject those purposes that are in disagreement. To say that "I believe x is the purpose of human life, but x is not necessarily the purpose of human life" is, at worst, a simple contradiction.

At best, it is simply the position that there is no objective purpose inherent to human life; all assertions of a purpose for human life are equally valid, or perhaps, more accurately, equally invalid.

I admire your interest in the question. But if you really want to understand and debate other ideas about human purpose, you need to be willing to accept that people will disagree with you, and debate accordingly. The whole concept of debate requires that there is something to debate about; if you reject the idea that human life is purposeless, then there must be some purpose, or purposes, whether they are knowable by us or not.

> Melanie

frum