Cross.eyed
If all the universe came by random chance, what would there be to hope for?
All the universe. The answer is in you're own question, imagine that. '
Chance' isn't random, but it's also not too common either. There is a high '
chance' it's going to rain again tomorrow, does this make the event of rain itself '
random'? no, not at all. Other factors come into account with the universe, this is why
natural selection has been observed and become aware too humanity in the first place. There was no '
random chance' that we came across this principle, it was already established even before the first humans came along. We don't have to deny gravity, just because there is a '
chance' that another fire will consume the forests of California this year as well. The universe didn't come by '
random chance', even though a random, chaotic, 'living', realm (or deity, I'm not forcing you to decide either option) would provide the '
chance' for the universe to expand and to have various lifeforms. Tapeworms, and other parasitic organisms can if not already do exist inside us. Let's narrow things down by calling an organ for instance the stomach is going to be 'Earth' temporarily, these parasites will compete and eliminate each other if the environment doesn't extinct them all up in one sweep. The placement was
not '
random', and there is a
high chance/probability as well as a
low chance/probability that various things could have happened within the organ/Earth. It is anything but '
random', however the changes each species will go through will be '
random' and the chances are staggering
near '
impossible' outcomes. This does not make existence, in itself, alone, a '
random chance' without something (or someone, whichever you prefer) to guide the '
chance' and something to avoid bringing absolute order too the '
randomness'.
If we are here accidentally, how could we trust that our brains are giving us accurate information?
We aren't here '
accidentally'. The brain is a receiver. It is the cooperation of an entire organic structure/body to analyze the given information and accept or reject it as '
accurate'.
Trust shouldn't be an issue when dealing with our own conscious, unless there is a genetic history of mental illness and the like. If you
fail to trust you're brain with full potential, you wouldn't be reading this, nor would you be typing on a keyboard nearby. Empirical information takes time to develop and agree upon for an entire species, this is why change is a slow process more often than a constant case of speeding mutations and imbalanced advantages and disadvantages. In other words, our brains will continue following the '
speed limit' for adaptation and survival either with an expanse or reduction in size and a future descendant will be formed to be suitable for it's environment like any other primate (or reptile, amphibian, insect, etc). Also, when coming to
deny the processed information your brain provides - you become no less than a worm - limbless and vulnerable without attachments too the brain. No offense intended, but that's what it would come down too, as a result. Vision reduction, change in '
diet', loss of certain hormones, limited hearing, shorter or no limbs, basically, prey. I could continue, but I don't feel like emotionally hurting anyone with whatever I have to say. Including, when it's not my intention.
What purpose would there be if we can't trust the information we receive?
The ability to
distrust serves
it's own purpose. I'm not going to beg you to '
trust' any information
I provide, however it never hurts to be reasonable with you're approach towards the given data.
In a world without absolutes, could we use such words as right and wrong?
We do anyways, often able to explain why one is '
right' and the other happens to be '
wrong'.
If there is no right and wrong, how could there be justice?
'Justice' itself is capable of being unjust. Without '
right' and '
wrong', the '
justice' would be an attempt to control or correct large or small populations.
I would call the Borg a
'just' species, because they are not brought together by racial concerns, or political child's play, and '
peace' doesn't exist for permanent periods of time. Now, I also happen to know that they are less emotional and more
'fine tuned' (can I say advanced instead? seems more appropriate) too the collective purpose. Without going into too much detail. They are both '
right' and '
wrong', they are both
'just' and
'unjust', between polar opposites we are
both and
neither at the same time. Not absolutely synchronized with the correct alignment(s). '
Justice' would exist, like
a mixed gender, playing a double-role without
'right' direction or '
wrong' misdirection. It's an unbalanced scale, a hypocritical code, and a struggling self-deceleration that doesn't even understand itself without '
right' and
'wrong'. It's
'American', in debt and having all the world's appeal.
If there is no justice, why do we have a conscience?
We are
not conscience to heed an agreement made between several people that calls itself '
justice'. We are to
observe the
conscience these '
justice' makers and followers, even if we disagree with them. An
'unjust' conscience can and will adapt it's own '
justice', this is why
America has '
Independence' (supposedly), amongst a few others. It is self-'
justice', it has
never really been '
justice for all' truly. Our conscience
does not depend on '
justice',
'justice' is
not part of the body or
even an extension of it, as much as each of us should be able to customize and share our individual '
justice' without too much trouble by exercising our wills. We have '
conscience', because
we can,
not because we
deserved it, or
we're the best the universe (or God)
has ever produced/'created'.
What, if we merely live and die, would make for a meaningful life?
A temporary '
life' is
more meaningful than an
eternal '
life' of repetitive cycles. We can
contribute and
guide ourselves, and each other,
that's meaningful for a short life span.
Where would we have ever gotten the concept of LOVE in a natural world?
From the
unnatural world.
A lot doesn't require a definition, an expression, or even a '
sign' to make itself culturally important.
It is these non-physical manifestations that help us cling onto '
living' instead of going suicide on-the-spot.
It's the voice,
not the body. It's the sound,
not the instrument,
it's the ingredients
not the first step, it's the progress
not the set-back.
It is this very same thing that hooks us onto fictional writings, whatever the inspirations
be (or just the chance to burn out some more creativity for you're fellow Terran's).
The conception is a failed attempt wherein,the undefinable is brought through a filter (physical presence)
and if not corrupted then cleansed after constantly going through several physical lifetimes.
We are '
love', even though we cannot be fully
'loving' too ourselves without another incarnation of '
love'.
In the same way, we shouldn't be seeking '
the truth', when we are '
the truth' and always dependent on
another
'truth' (Jesus, anyone?) to be as honest as we can in a dishonest body, universe, and '
self'.
'Love' came about naturally, even though it wasn't or hasn't actually been a constant
'thing' within or of the world or universe.
~SC
~CS
, if you're still here. 
