If the universe and life are merely accidents and there is no purpose to life other than survival and pro-creation (which consequently leads to death of one generation of species and the rehashing of pro-creation and survival of the next) then what is it about life we should value and be ethical so much about in order to maintain survival and pro-creation?

Why should I choose to be moral when I am going to die anyways and not remeber anything about life on earth? Those who live a moral life or wise life come to the same end as someone who is immoral and stupid. Or better put, why should I choose morality at the expense of happiness i.e selfless behaviour instead of ego indulgence if outside our biological urges life has no purpose (and if the universe is an accident anyways then whether we continue to survive and pro-create makes no difference to the universe)? Where is the incentive here for me to take responsibility for my actions and be a moral human being?

If one finds ego indulgence more rewarding than selfless acts, perhaps it would be better for that person to just end it.

I believe that people should be kind and loving towards one another. For no other reason than to be a good human being (and if you can not distinguish between good and bas**rdly, you're an idiot). I watch the greed of mankind become more evident in the way they treat their fellow humans, the animals of this world to whom they give no respect, and the earth we live upon. These people simply sicken me. Why is it that they feel the right to exercise power and pain over everyone else because they are able to?

Despite the fact that there are people with power on this earth and use it to their advantage over others, it's something I don't believe any self-respecting human worth the life they were given would do. I myself am as kind and as helpful and thoughtful towards other as I can be. And I have never thought about being any different.

Well, okay, I also once watched Monty Python's Meaning of Life and that's what they said to do. And some other stuff. If I can't trust the Pythons, who do I trust?

While this shows where you are coming from it doesnt address the thread issue. Why should a person who is egotistical be better to end it? If that person is going to die and there is no form of afterlife or continuation then why would they choose that over immediate physical or emotional gratification? If the universe and life is just an accident then why should one purposely be selfless and considerate?




Good point.

Life is usually a longer, more pleasant experience if you behave morally. Just because there is no big reward and incentive doesn't mean we can't have a nice time along the way.

A case of learning that in life you shouldn't always eat dessert first. Otherwise you'll end up with rotten teeth and vitamin deficiencies.

Exactly. If there is no God, there is no true incentive. It makes life pointless to live if you don't have God in it.

And we are suprised why men molest children, kids shoot up kids and teachers in school, and abortion is considered okay? I don't know what they were thinking when they thought it was better to keep God and religion out of humanity. Its like taking an organ out of the body and still expecting the function.

There really isn't an incentive. But, I would argue that there isn't an incentive to act morally even if we did have a purpose. The only real incentive is the threat of punishment, whether it be jail or Hell.

When I think about it, I don't have any incentive to be moral. I'm only moral because being immoral would cause me an inconvenience, and being moral can benefit me.

When I help someone who has dropped his stuff in the hall, the only reason I help him is because I would expect someone else to do it for me. When you help society, you are also helping yourself.

there is no other reason but its the right thing to do, its who you are. that is the incentive its who you are .... when you attach rewards and punishments to things you get many acting out of self interest not genuine ethics...

how do you guage right action ??? the action benefits the largest amount..

If one needs incentive to be a virtuos person than there in lies the error....

good question.
there isnt really a definitive reason to act morally if u have no belief in any consequence to it.
but i'd say in general it tends to make life easier and more pleasurable if people act kindly to each other, in general if ur nice to people, people are nice back, whereas if u purposely try to **** people over they tend to do the same back. i'm personally a hardline agnostic so my moral actions are really based on what makes my life easier, and in reality it's a lot more beneficial to me to act in a moral way toward other people and hope this is what i get in return. also if u have any sort of consience then acting in a morally reprehensible way leads to feelings of guilt and depression.
can't remember who said it but there was a quote along the lines of, the worlds problems would be solved if everyone acted even slightly kinder to each other, i think im wildly misquoting here but u get the idea.

To those who think that your time on earth may be pointless if there is no god I ask: Are you saying that the lives of Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Abraham Lincoln and so many other great people from history that have made the lives of others better lived a pointless life?

While I don't believe that people have a purpose, I also don't believe they live pointless lives. Something will always be different because you were there, you will always have an impact on those around you. For some people, like the ones stated above, they lived and worked and made the lives of billions better, and they didn't do it because they were selfish people who were only concerned about themselves, they did it because they were helping humankind.

To get to the nitty gritty.

People are part of the universe.

We are not morally meaningless (we create our own morals and meanings)

Thus the universe is not without morals and meaning ( if for no other reason than the universe encompasses us, and our morals, and our meaning)

If there was nothing else whch gave morality and meaning to the universe then humanity would do so.
But then to answer your specific questions


I think you are well aware of the many answers to this, Brave, but here are a few.

Survival and procreation are, for many species and perhaps the universe it self, in themselves, very important purposes

. While life exists ,so do many other potentialities. By ensuring the survival of life, we ensure the survival of those potentialities. This concept was summed up by more than one wise man, in the words "while there is life there is hope"
But not only that . While there is life, there is the possibility of anything and everything

. If life is nothing more than the temporary victory of energy over entropy, then that would be purpose enough for life.

So having estabilished the intrinsic value of life, we can then debate how it should be lived and the ethical /moral dimensions of life. However, inherent in this debate should be that very recognition of the intrinsic value of life






You have to choose (some form of operating system for life) because you can choose. Not choosing is not really an option to a sentient self aware organism.

It is the way, and the form you choose to choose by, which is significant. Like luke rhineharts Diceman, you could make every choice you face at random, or by the throw of a dice.

However as sentient beings we learn that certain choices have better outcomes That's a very simple morality (do whats best for us and those around us. ) Because we actually have quite a high degree of sentient self awareness, however, we can do better than that. We can use; logic, reason, and tools like philosophy, to invesigate concepts like good /evil, productive/nonproductive behaviours and formalise the most appproriate beliefs and behaviours for the most complex scenarios we are likely to face. Thus we develop ethical procedures not only for traatment of our selves but for the treatment of other species which bear no relationship to our own needs .
Once we have developed an ethical system which all our intelligences(logical spiritual emotional etc) have agreed on, we can then start to modify our behaviour to fit these standards.

Why should we do so?
For the most practical of reasons. By bringing harmony into our lives, and eliminating conflict between what we think we should do, and what we choose to do, we eliminate guilt, most fear, anger etc. We build on the positive emotions but with a logical basis for this, so that we can become, contented, happy ,fulfilled etc

None of this has any connection to death, or life after death.It is designed to give us the best possible life in this carnal existence on earth. Really sucessful religions do this also, but then also transfer this behaviour to a religious belief; ie that acting in this way will also bring you into harmony with god's will, and thus get you into heaven. Whether that's true or not, it is incidental to the importance of morals and ethics in human existence now, and on this earth.
You make an assumption that moral or ethical behaviour is at odds with having fun or happiness. In fact the most assured way to achieve the highest state of happiness, is to live by your ethical/ moral principles
( The second most assured way might be to live a life of complete ignorance and be exremely lucky, but this is not as easy to accomplish as it may appear. It is not easy to sustain either complete ignorance or good luck, for long periods)

Then we encounter the difficulties which may arise if your personal ethical standards are different to those of the society/people around you , but thats not really relevant tp your question, and will wait for another day.

Our intelligence sprang from a need to survive early on in our evolution. Ideas of morality and so forth developed when we no longer needed to concentrate on the best way to avoid predators.

The idea of morality is superfluous.

My thoughts anyway.

The OP alluded to the concept of nihilism. There are quite a few who subscribe to nihilism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

And your point is...?

Wow, you really don't have a high opinion of our species. In either christianity or nontheism, the universe is morally neutral, think about it. Morality is not built into the universe according to christianity, it was given to us by God. How is that any different than morality evolving naturally?

Are you so caught up in the idea of God that you throw out the fact that we are a social species, and without empathy and social structure we would not have evolved at all? A single human in Africa wouldn't survive that long, a band of humans would survive a lot longer and produce far more offspring. The idea that unbelief leads to nihilism is incorrect and frankly, insulting to our basic huma nature.

Yes, but nihilism has been greatly refuted. The philosophy, when tested on itself, reveals itself to be self-defeating. To say that everything is meaningless is to contradict the point in saying it in the first place. To say that everything is meaningless is to put meaning to the actual statement and philosophy. The statement had no meaning, therefore, it cannot support itself. It has to have a meaning, and therefore, everything is NOT meaningless.

How do you know it's not true regardless of logic and your opinion that everything is not meaningless is meaningless?

because it has no premise and we should not move outside of logic, lest we become self-defeating.

For example:

a ) this phrase is meaningless

b ) this phrase is meaningless

c ) this phrase is meaningless

Put to itself, it supports nothing, solves nothing, and contributes nothing. Put to other things, it supports nothing, solves nothing, and contributes nothing. It is worthless; meaningless.

I hope your not drifting in the same direction as Kaizen...."if there is no god then what's stopping me from going on a killing spree!?" Quite frankly, you can value anything you want about life, you have life it's up to you to find meaning in it and enjoy it while you can. You don't have to be ethical if you don't want to; go do what you want, but remember all actions have consequences:socially and mentally. If your sick enough of an individual to want to go on a pointless killing spree because you know god won't stop you, whatever, seek help......but I consider those people the type who should just slit they're wrist and wait it out on a hot day, they contribute nothing to the existence of the human-race. Hell, you don't even have to worry about anything beyond your own goals and desires, but being moral in the process prolongs your existence, absent some sort of accident or medical condition kills you. Humans are constructed to be moral, it involves nothing to do with anything supernatural. Unless a believer in God wants to show us morality comes from somewhere other than natural selection, be my guess.

To further explain the point....



*http://richarddawkins.net/article,1136,Scientists-Draw-Link-Between-Morality-And-Brains-Wiring,Robert-Lee-Hotz-WSJcom*

In a nutshell, there is no objective meaning in life other than the will to survive. Every living beings existence is instinctivly driven by self-survival, it is our hardwired sense of morality which conflicts with our means to attain our goals. In with this being brought up, if a supreme God is the designer of this  process, could'nt he have thought of a better method? I mean, all of our choices are based off of how we're wired, how can believers honestly say the sense of morality comes from God when it's totally based off of how the brain is structured? Evil people who do bad hings have nothing to do with them being possessed or influenced by the devil, but rather how cooky they're brain is wired and other biological factors.

Being moral can prolong your existence as well as in certain cases benefit you socially. If civilizations remained amoral throughout the centuries acting purely without the reguard for others, the human race as a whole would not be where it is today, technological or socially, we'd be worse. Morality is life's way of keeping itself in check to continue it's survival. If we didnt have some sense of morality everyone would be in total chaos, reactioning on the spur of everything thought without any forethought involved. "Play nice with others or one day they'll deside to kill your a**" If you choose not to be moral go ahead, but that will only increase the chances of your own death.


Yes, rather than if you were good or bad, your still dead.  Bitter to chew on, harder to swallow. But in reguards to an after life, until proven otherwise, you're just dead. Try to find a purpose or meaning for your life while you have it, because once you lose it, that's a rap. But you know something, even if an after did exist, without god, that still wouldn't add any more or less ethical value or meaning to your life if you simply go on to another plane of existence, the only difference would be there is no divine issuer of reward or punishment for your actions, beyond that your life still has whatever meaning you bestow upon it.

Wow, so many replies. However I have read them all and will reply to them all but I have noticed many have actually gone off topic instead of addressing the real issue of my thread.

Why bother having a pleasant experience along the way though? It is going to end completely and utterly and therefore there is no fundamental difference between a long or short life, lived morally with its pleasantries or immorally with its inconveniences (or pleasantries i.e corrupt politicians have much material wealth).

Therefore if the universe and life is an accident then the procreation and survival also an accident then where is the incentive to both keep living the best life I can and with morals? Are our morals also a mistake.

I am not trying to justify God in this debate in any way by the way.

Hinayanist Buddhists have Nirvana which is a state of enlightenment without any reference to God ,and have purpose and incentive.



Does this explain why so many unholy and unrighteous actions have been done in the name of God? Whether it be dropping bombs on Iraq or crusades slaughtering muslims to reclaim the promise land?

You so far have truly kept to the subject. We could say morals are ultimately not morals because they are used only for personal gain and therefore are not selfless. True morality is done out of love for love.

Why is it the right thing to do? Also the question is 'if the universe and life is an accident', not whether or not love (in the metaphysical sense) is who we truly are or not.

If the universe and life were a mere accident then why is it the right thing to do to be moral?

Therefore morals are only good insofar as it helps oneself not feel guilty or depressed? What if one's belief that nothing really matter because the universe is an accident helped you overcome such guilt and depression (because of scientific or philosophical knowledge)? Then how would morals be a safeguard then? Are morals truly moral if they are only employed for selfish means?

With these points now mentioned why would I want to be a 'little kinder' unless I directly or indirectly benefit from it in an immediate gratifying way? If I therefore am a 'little kinder' for these reasons then am I being kind or am just doing something for personal gain?

In a pointless universe I would say that even if they helped others they still lived a pointless life. If there is no point to life then why bother making life as good and moral as such people you have mentioned did?
If life was an accident in an accidental universe then what difference does it make whether or not Gandhi was violent or non-violent? What difference does it make whether the spieces survives or not? What is the point of survival itself in a pointless universe?



If we are all going to die anyway and life is a mistake then what difference does it make to the dead and living whether certain individuals were so moral that they impacted those around them?

My question is if the universe and life is an accident then what is the point of being moral? Not whether it is or not. And even if you did create such morals and meanings ourselves they wouldnt conflict with supposed strict scientific findings of the big bang and evolution but wouldnt objectively add morals and meaning to them.

If we said that morals are good insofar as it ensues survival of the species then in a pointless universe what is the point of perpetuating the survival of the species




You havnt established the intrinsic value of life. Point one (and all this remember is in relation to the topic of my thread), why does a universe which has the same quantity of energy regardless whether there is life or not (quantum physics says energy cannot be created or destroyed) need parts of it to be consciousness instead of unconscious when the quantity of energy remains the same? Why would it be an important purpose if the universe and life is a mere accident without purpose?

Point two, why should we in a meaningless universe care whether such potentialities exist or not? We are all gonna die anyway and forget everything at death so why should we care whether the world continues with or without high potential or not when we arnt going to be there? Why also should we care to be moral about it and care for the sake of caring when there is no purpose to the universe and therefore no purpose to our morals? And if we say that morals exist for morals sake then where do they stand or have strength in a universe that is non-plussed to them?

Third point, energy is the same quantity regardless whether there is life or not. How can 'living' energy be victory over 'unliving energy' when there is always the same amount of existing energy that is indifferent whether it is alive or not? How is living energy which is going to inevitably be dead energy be victory when the victory is only short lived? In other words life may win various battles but never wins the war.

I agree with this. It makes some of the best sense so far. Morality is superfluous and if it has evolutionary value then it isnt morality but an evolutionary function. If we employ morals to further our own lives and maintain the lives of our offspring then we arnt being moral but merely surviving. Morality when used for something for personal gain ceases to be morality. If used for the rest of the speices and not oneself because one wants something (the survival of the speices) it still isnt morality because there is an expectant reward of some kind.

There are elements however I am not alluding completely to Nilhilism. Because I believe that facts can be found out and discovered via science. Wheras average nihilism says nothing can be know.

Nice post. However it sidesteps the actual point. Why should I want to prolong my life and be socially likable when it is going to end anyway and has no meaning? Therefore why would I want to use morals to further my life? Why bother surviving when survival is merely an accicent from an accidental universe? Why bother prolonging the speices if all it has to live for is death but further offspring? In other words why should I want to accept survival as an end in itself?

Also if morality has only got evolutionary value and serves only such a function then it isnt morality is it? Morality in my view is when someone does something out of love without any thought of return, that is selflessness.

LOVE is no love which asks for a return. --Mahatma Gandhi

Such a morality as Gandhi's has no real survival value because it is indifferent to survival but lives only to strenghten morality itself.

Ah, but that is just peace with one's self, not peace with everyone. And their incentive?




Yup, you teach people the wrong things, and they do the wrong things. Just because they did it in the name of God, it doesn't mean that God commanded it or that Jesus taught it. Everyone knows that.

it could all be meaningless. just a incident that keeps happening over and over again. the universe we know is born - it ages - it dies and matter disintegrates into the Dark Era .... it could be the whole thing starts again. exactly ? no what to know but doubtful.

The universe, according to the second Law of Thermodynamics is running out of energy. Thus it dies. If it is dead, and exhausted of energy, it cannot collapse on itself again. Its done. If think of the universe, its just time, space, and matter. If thats what came with the universe, then what was before it? Obviously not time, space, and matter. Therefore, everything came from nothing, just as the Bible says it. We detected the light waves and sound waves from the big bang, which follows what is written, "And God said, 'Let there be light' and it was so." This was, according to the Genesis story, before there was a sun, moon, and stars. Hmmmm

No because Mahayana Buddhists who dont have a God concept and have the Bodhitsatva concept, meaning one who forefeits enlightenment until all sentient beings have achieved happiness.

Their incentive? Well according to Buddhism, enlightenment is our natural state of being. Therefore the incentive to live life and be moral is that it helps everyone become enlightened. Only if oneself is enlightened can one help other achieve it.




However it does show that the most noblest ideals can be used for evil.

Well according to what I know of science, energy cannot be destroyed nor created. It just changes form.

Maybe we humans give the universe more meaning than it needs, think about it, if we were not alive the universe would keep doing what it does, witch is make suns, planets, etc. Essentially life IS meaningless, 'god' came in the picture because humans did not like the thought of death and nothing after, cause when you think that way it depresses you and makes everything pointless. Any more thoughts on meaning of life might lead to more ridiculous beliefs like 'god', now lets all except that life is meaningless (and any meaning came from humanity obviously) and instead of looking for a answer to questions like Why am I here? or Whats the meaning of life? And let us start focusing on our expansion into this strange dark nothingness that is the Universe and let see what we get.

You missed my point. Life is the purpose of the universe. Life creates potentialities. So to go back a step, perhaps the purpose of the universe is to create potentialities, ie to form possibilities where they would otherwise not exist.

It is both human fraility and human strength which questions purpose.The fact that you exist, and have the ability to ask such questions should give you your own answer. I already asked you, how can the universe be pointless when it contains beings, capable of creating purpose , within it?
If you cant find purpose within yourself, then perhaps, to you, the universe has no purpose. But the simple fact that i alone/ individually, within the universe can create purpose, and see it, means that the universe contains purpose. Egotistical perhaps, but true.
I exist.
I create purpose.
Ergo, the universe has purpose.

Perhaps the universes' sole purpose was to create me.

If so, that was purpose enough, and even if i die, and have no genetic successors, then just in creating me, the universe has purpose. A fulfilled purpose is still a reason for existence. Your failure to attribute point/purpose to the universe simply does not mean that it is so.

I have never thought of this subject in this way before, nor have I heard any other person present this. A very interesting thought, I like it.

One question though, you say that the earth contains beings who are capable of creating purpose, how does one create purpose?

Perhaps not to your satisfaction , but as i pointed out one intrinsic value of life is that it creates potentialities which do not exist without it. Second life is a counterbalance to entropy and while scientifically entropy will supposedly win in the end, philosophically life creates other possivle endings. Even if conscious life is a "random" or indeed inevitable product of the evolution of the univers as the energy within it evolves from chaos to order then as i stated sentience in itself creates intrinsic values and alters the balance of energy contained within the universe(to a lesser or greater degree depending on the nature and power of the sentience involved.) We make a minor difference . A sentience like god( theoretically speaking) would make a major difference in the energy /matter balance




Gee a lot of assumptions in there. You are assuming the universe is meaningless. You are asuming that the existence of potentialities is either of relevance to, or somehow controlled by the nature of the universe. You are linking man's consciousness and created purpose to that of the universe. Why do you think such links should, or need to ,exist? Morals are a product of sentience. So they dot apply to a rock . They do/will apply, however, to every form of self aware sentience the universe throws up, and if the universe/god is sentient, they will also apply to him. They only have value, and only apply, to sentience, true. So what?



As i pointed out, this is actually uncertain. It certainly would be true if sentient life did not exist, but life, particularly sentient life creates many alternate possibilities. One of those is that it will change the outcome, and entropy will not win the final battle. It is just possible that this is indeed the prime, or underlying purpose of sentient life.

You see, sentience is a living energy which is not indifferent to its fate, so it is not true to say that there is always the same amoiunt/ balance of the forms of energy in the universe. Sentience, just life, changes that balance physically and further seeks to change it through the application of both conscioius will and its own intelligence.
Dont assume that such attempts are futile/doomed to failure. We are only in the opening few minutes of the game, as yet.

1. Read the rules of calvin ball.
2.Sentient self awareness cannot exist without creating purpose. Thus our existence creates purpose(s) These would not exist without us.
3. Through many human qualities, including but not limited to; imagination, creativity, emotions, logic (eg the ability to extrapolate from the known to the unknown), belief, superstition.

Both we, and all the universe around us, are ours to command, We only have to exercise , for example, our imaginationt and our willt to create any purpose we want and, within a very few physical limitations, to achieve that purpose

. This is why morality and ethics are so impt to, and so intrinsically bound up with(either through evolution or through creation) intelligence. With such power, we must create controls and limitations, checks and balances, to ensure our abilities and purposes do more good than harm to our selves and the universe around us.

By doing so we ensure/ increase the likelihood, of our individual and species survival, and thus increase our potential ability to shape/shift the universe to our purpose. So survival is not the purpose of our lives, but rather the influence we can have on the universe.

My logical conclusion from observation is that every sentient self aware species, whether carbon based like us, or say silica based, would be the same.

A further conclusion, based on logical extrapolation of observed phenomenum, might be that a sentience or sentiences, far surpassing ours, has already played a significant part in shaping the universe towards its own needs, desires and purposes.

Well, The Second Law of Thermodynamics is king in these. Ask any physicist.

LOL I haven't read Calvin and Hobbes in years, so when you told me to look up calvin ball I thought I was looking for a person! I feel like such a dork.

Although right now the jury is still out for me on whether or not we have a purpose, I do agree with you that if we do, we create it ourselves. I love the view you have presented and am very inclined to study up on it some more. If you have any more information on it, or some good sources, I would love to hear it (or see it)!

Im afraid that, like calvin ball, my philosophy is self constructed and based on well over 2 billion words read, (thats 2000 million) and the experience of nearly 60 years.

However, for what its worth, here is a slightly expanded version i gave in a post over 2 years ago t,o a young person who could not see any point in life. I keep a 5 line version on my office wall to remind me of my prime philosophy at all times.



You are special.
Yes Life is just a game.
No, it is not pointless.
To summarise a lengthy personal philosophy developed. and still evolving over 55 years.

All life is subject to entropy and eventually ceases to exist.
This knowledge sets us free to make whatever we will of our lives.
Chose your own personal code/ set of beliefs to live by.
There are many truths out there, quite a few of which will work for you.
Set your own rules and change them if they don't work, for example if they hurt you, or others.
Above all, remember life is your game, and have fun playing it.
In the end you cant win, but it is how you play the game that is the point.
Do NOT play some one else's game.
This is a lot less likely to bring you happiness or satisfaction.


.................................. As you may see, i am now even more optimistic. While still not certain if i can win a personal battle against death/entropy, i am increasingly confident that human sentience can.

No, it doesn't sidestep the actual point, you just appear to have missed the actual point. Instinctively everything which has life is fueled to continue to exist and live on, if not let's quit and just watch you kill yourself because in the end it really means nothing right? Wait, no, you probably believe in some sort of "god" which gives your life "meaning" or "purpose" now so you won't kill yourself. :-P It's your opinion that life and the universe was an accident,but natural selection would plea otherwise. You'd say otherwise if you actually knew anything about it.....  Based upon how your quesiton on morality as only an evolutionary fucntion is structured, you seems to imply that "if life has no reward or punishment for being moral everything is meaningless". Yes although morality is based upon parts of your brain and how they work, that doesnt undermind the actual meaning of morality. Morality is the ability to make choices based on virtue towards your fellow man, not choices based on if in the end I get a reward or not.


Let me ask then....If you are moral, what's the purpose of YOU being moral? Do you do it soley out of your "love" for your fellow man or because you believe in the end you'll be rewarded for loving your fellow man? Let me put it to you this way "There's an evolutionary imperative why we give a crap about our family and friends. And there's an evolutionary imperative why we don't give a crap about anybody else. If we loved all people indiscriminately, we couldn't function."-House. Learn from it.

I don't know why, but I like that. Because even though I see life and humankind as pointless, I do enjoy living it everyday. I believe I will have to adopt this new philosophy now. Life is just a game...I like it.

THE FATE OF THE COSMOS
That means that the 100 billion or so galaxies we can now see though our telescopes will zip out of range, one by one. Tens of billions of years from now, the Milky Way will be the only galaxy we're directly aware of (other nearby galaxies, including the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Andromeda galaxy, will have drifted into, and merged with, the Milky Way).

By then the sun will have shrunk to a white dwarf, giving little light and even less heat to whatever is left of Earth, and entered a long, lingering death that could last 100 trillion years—or a thousand times longer than the cosmos has existed to date. The same will happen to most other stars, although a few will end their lives as blazing supernovas. Finally, though, all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black.

But that's not the end, according to University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams. An expert on the fate of the cosmos and co-author with Greg Laughlin of The Five Ages of the Universe (Touchstone Books; 2000), Adams predicts that all this dead matter will eventually collapse into black holes. By the time the universe is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old, the black holes themselves will disintegrate into stray particles, which will bind loosely to form individual "atoms" larger than the size of today's universe. Eventually, even these will decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void. And that will be that—unless, of course, whatever inconceivable event that launched the original Big Bang should recur, and the ultimate free lunch is served once more.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

In a weird way, the heat death of the universe makes me depressed.

Just thought to put in that most people are completely missing the point of my thread. I am not advocating that the universe is an accident or that God has to exist for it to be meaningful. I have simply stated a hypothetical philosophical question. If the universe and life are an accident without meaning then what is the incentive to be moral etc.

I am not saying how the universe is because I dont know. I am simply raising a hypothetical question. It isnt a right or wrong question. I am not debating whether or not the universe is an accident without meaning but debating if the universe was a pure accident.

Please read the original post.

Why do you assume I believe in some God? Why second guess me here? Of course it is my opinion that the universe is an accident. My original post says 'if'. If the universe and life is an accident from the big bang then why go on..... *read original post*

QUOTE

Side stepping my original point. If the universe and life is merely an accident without meaning then why should I care whether the speices survives or not? If I am gonna die anyway and never see the light of life or existence ever again then what difference does it make whether I learn from dawkins or house? Whether I learn from it or not I am still going to die and forget it all.

Yes I am assuming so. Because that's what this thread is (if you read the original post). It isnt a statement but a hypothetical question. I never said "this is how the universe is...." I wrote 'If the universe and life are merely accidents and there is no purpose to life other than survival and pro-creation (which consequently leads to death of one generation of species and the rehashing of pro-creation and survival of the next) then what is it about life we should value and be ethical so much about in order to maintain survival and pro-creation?'


I know I put in the heading 'is the universe morally meaningless' and I realized that has caused the confusion. I should have put 'if the universe is morally meaningless'.

I hear it's a dry heat !