Back to the topic:
My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.
To me… life makes sense, but not our existence.
But, Mags ( 
), how can life make sense to you and your existence not make sense to you?
All life is existence, but not all existence is life.
So: If your existence is senseless, then your your life is senseless too. Or (the other way around): If your existence makes sense, then your life makes sense too.
Have a nice existence by having a nice life. 
Arminius,
What do you mean by this?
Are you saying as to the latter that existence is not always quality of life and value?
Because Arminius ( 
), ‘our’ existence as a species is an odd rarity, and the reason and purpose for that existence still an unknown… if everything has purpose, what is ours? beyond a life that makes sense, but an existence that does not.
One is not dependent on the other to make sense… whilst living our lives, most always have a feeling that there is more/meant to be more than the existence the human race has mapped out for itself… an action plan that none of us actually signed up to, or perhaps the only prerequisite for this is birth.
Humans as a whole exist, but for what?
The meaning of life is self defined. Each sentient being perceives their own meaning. We each define what is meaningful to ourselves. Descartes maxim is backwards – I think therefore I am – should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. Our choices are the very definition of what we find meaningful. It is our obligation to make a choice – we hope and pray our decisions are beneficial.
What is our goal as a species?
To ask what is the goal of our species is not as easily defined or explained. As individuals we make meaningful choices for ourselves; part of our decisions is alliances with others. Some of the first alliances would be with a mother or father, sibling or friend. These first alliances are with the basic family unit. Beyond the family unit we created hunter/gather groups; then agricultural coops. These coops evolved into villages, towns, cities and nations. Do nations have a goal? Perhaps the goal of nations is to grow stronger and persist. Perhaps the goal of the species is to grow stronger and persist. I am not sure we are doing either today – growing stronger and persisting. That maybe what we want as a species, but I am not sure we are doing it.
Existence is not merely “‘our’ existence as a species”, existence refers to both individuals and groups (including “‘our’ species”). You could also speak of “‘our’ existence as living beings” or “‘our’ existence as (a gathering of) atoms” or “‘our’ existence as (a gathering of) particles”. You are talking about the difference between one’s personal life and the species’ “life” which you call “existence”. But existence does not refer to merely one of them. Existence is more than life, existence was earlier than life, existence is the basis of life, whereas life is the higher form of existence, and according to the formal definition: life is a subordinated form of existence; so existence is its superordinated form.
In other words:
Every living being is an existing being, but not every existing being is a living being.
Examples:
Stones do exist, but they do not live. They are existing beings, but they are not living beings. Trees are existing and living beings.
If life ever makes nonsense, then know that the truest sense has already been made and it still didn’t make sense without the nonsense.
Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous once randomness is understood
Because statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible
I am afraid that that is not 100% true.
It is still a bit questionable whether “randomness is understood” and whether “statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible”.
Randomness just means where there are multiple possibilities no single
outcome can be guaranteed because not all of the variables are known
That does not prove what you said before: “Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous …”
Questions about the meaning of life do not have to, but can even become more important in that case.
oops! … suppose there is no rational connection to previous posts.
Scanning the recent posts reminds me of Nietzsche … and I know frightfully little about the man or his writings.
Here’s my take on the man …
-
His raison d’etre … his life’s purpose … the meaning of his life … was —> attempt to put the final nail in the coffin of God … the coffin science had been building … and nailing shut … for centuries.
-
The people of his day wanted this … they were fed up with all the dribble about God … whatever/whoever He/She/It was.
-
Nietzsche achieved his life’s purpose … subsequent generations found … personally experienced … the meaning(less) of life … the purpose(less) of life … the direction(less) of life … ergo nihilism.
-
If history has any value … this is a recurring pattern … and the result is almost always the same. God suddenly and viciously inflicts a severe punishment.
There cannot be any objective meaning to life if it occurred randomly which it did. Even if life did not occur randomly
that would still not imply meaning. Asking what is the meaning of life is a loaded question because it assumes there is
a meaning. If it could be objectively determined then it would be known. But it cannot because it is purely subjective
Life could appear to have sense going foreward with the idea of having or gaining a will to power the need to develop more control over the choices a person takes to make sense.
In retrospect, even though people tend to remember mostly good events in their lifetime, a lucid and good memory serves well to negate that optimistism.
No, or let us say: that is only half a truth (if “half a truth” is possible at all). You do not know whether life is “occured randomly” or not (##). The question whether there is a meaning of life does always make sense, and people always ask this question. It does not assume that “there is a meaning”, as you suggest (probably because you yourself assume that there is no meaning). It is just a question. Everyone may find an answer to this question, regardless which answer it is. An objevctive answer is possible too (I am not saying that I know this answer for sure). That is the reason why I opened this thread.
If you assume that there is no meanig of life for you, then just say that there is “no meaning of life for you” (again: for you!). You have no objective - but only a subjective (##) - argument against those who say that there is an objective meaning of life. There is no proof of the thesis that there is no meaning of life.
The conditions which allowed life to evolve were most definitely random. As the number of variables and the time scale involved
are evidence of this. Now given how this is entirely fortuitous there can be no objective meaning to life as such. Because if it did
not evolve [ something that was entirely possible ] then such a meaning could simply not exist. But the fact that it did is entirely
incidental because as soon as the human race becomes extinct then so too will notions of meaning both subjective and objective