If we are here by random chance, then it is axiomatic that life has no purpose or meaning. It simply is. Purpose implies an intelligence behind it. Meaning implies that there is something greater than life to which it conveys meaning. If it is random chance, then it has neither.
This, as well as the snipped part following it, indeed applies to the agnostic outlook on human beings. The fact is, if we take God out of the equation, then we are left with these unanswered questions. (This is what puts many people off, because people hate not having the answers to questions. )
However, if we bring God into the equation, we are just 'bumping' all the questions that would have pertained to human beings, one level upwards.
It has been argued that God just is. He wasn't designed or created.
If God wasn't designed, then surely he has no purpose. (The word "purpose" implies design, accoridng to the teleological argument). If he has no purpose, he has no meaning. If he has no meaning, why logically do we have to honour him? Do we argue that we need to obey him ad baculum?
Why would God bother to exist at all? Well, God ostensibly cannot "bother to exist"; God finds himself existing, without any purpose, the ultimate axiom.
So there exists this Being, who had no say in his own existence and cannot tell you why he exists, because since he wasn't created, he exists without purpose. This would have seemed sad, except that this purposeless being just happens to be the most powerful being in existence. So he can console himself for not knowing what his purpose is, by finding purpose in creating things. (Hey, this sounds a lot like the agnostic, making his own purpose in the absense of an objective standard!)
Is it objectively more logical to believe in this being, that exists who-knows-why, than to believe the universe just sprang into existence? I see very little difference.
Edited by Skeptic, 31 March 2004 - 01:38 AM.