Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

No.

I do believe that if those who claim we have an eternal soul are correct, then we each elected to be here, so only we can know our personal reasons for coming to live in this material exsitence.

No.

Seconded.

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

If that was the case, wouldn't it be so that that 'us' -and all the other entities in universe- in the end is to be the part of ultimate purpose itself?

So, assuming any entity's existance to receive whatever this ultimate purpose in the end is, to ask: "Is there a god?" "And will it ever tell me what's going on?" That's all isn't it?

And the answer is NO.

I think there's a main principle in the Universe that could be stated as:

"The purpose of the existence is to enjoy life and if we can't we can think and work to make it possible."

The situation now is that we cannot really totally enjoy life because there's lot of problems (diseases, aging, violence, questionable foods and drinks, the fact that we must work a lot to have a "house" to live, clothing,etc, etc...)

Does this answer your question?

Religions says some "God(s)" created the Universe perfectly and humans "putrified" it or that our "souls" are here to pay some pain for something we could have made in other lifes, in summary that we (humans) are guilty.
Science has a compatible approach: That Nature is perfect and humans only bring pollution (all kinds: chemical, structural, visual, auditive, etc, etc).

I think in another viewpoint/paradigm, that the Universe has a flaw, particularly that there's a flaw in the Physics of the Universe:
http://www.anewlightinphysics.com/sections/Universe_Physics_System_flaw.htm

No, the purposes for our lives are the ones we invent.

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?
Its impossible to answer "no" since if one advocates that the universe has no purpose, one is simply left with one's own purposes.

IOW the universe becomes the field of action (or a tool) to pursue whatever the hell one thinks is important (the standard avenues being wealth and prestige on the road to enjoyment).

Do you believe...

No.



...that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

Also no.

Its impossible to answer "no"
On the contrary: it's perfectly possible to answer "no" since the question was "Do you believe".

On the contrary: it's perfectly possible to answer "no" since the question was "Do you believe".
inasmuch as one can separate belief from action without being hypocritical

On the contrary: it's perfectly possible to answer "no" since the question was "Do you believe".

NO , I don't believe

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

No.

But you can make one for yourself if you wish too. Many do.

Its impossible to answer "no"

No.


since if one advocates that the universe has no purpose, one is simply left with one's own purposes.

The universe is not congnizant in and of itself so of course it has no purpose. Making up purposes is something only cognizant being do to pass the time.

You are hardly left just with your own though. You can also adopt the purposes of other's, your friends, family, country, social groups, the possibilities are endless.

its impossible to answer "no"

No.

To all "No.": I think YES!

Its impossible to answer "no" since if one advocates that the universe has no purpose, one is simply left with one's own purposes.

That is correct. There is no purpose other than the ones we invent.

That is correct. There is no purpose other than the ones we invent.

Thank you.

Now, hopefully, this thread can return to something potentially useful.
(Though, given the base premisses of the OP, I doubt it....)

There is no purpose other than the ones we invent.
I think you are confusing things.
One thing is the purpose of our own lifes but the the opening post of this thread refers to which would be the purpose of the existence of the Universe and everything in it.
Of course our own purposes in our lifes will be those we would "invent" only but I think a more general purpose for the entire Universe and all possible living beings could be expressed as I have done:

"The purpose of the existence is to enjoy life and if we can't we can think and work to make it possible."

Of course is not a "revelation" of any kind.
Is just what I think at the end everybody do in the World.

That's not a purpose to the universe, just a creed. One that we invented to make us happy. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I think the freedom to invent a purpose is wonderful.

I think the freedom to invent a purpose is wonderful.
It's a double-edged sword.

The idea that everything has a purpose is an interesting one to consider. Such a question has a larger scope than this one, however.

Here's an if-then for ya.

If the universe has a purpose then all things within the universe have a purpose. If something with a purpose achieves that purpose, they become obsolete, having no purpose. Things which are obsolete within the universe quickly(galactic time) cease functioning.

Thus achieving one's purpose means hurrying one's demise. Thus, to have a long life, one should avoid serving any purpose.

Then again, if there is no purpose to the universe, then why bother?

No, all purpose is subjective, creations of our own imagination.

Spidergoat


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its impossible to answer "no" since if one advocates that the universe has no purpose, one is simply left with one's own purposes.
”
That is correct. There is no purpose other than the ones we invent.
Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"

If the universe has a purpose then all things within the universe have a purpose.
Well, then they are all part of the purpose the universe has because the universe has a purpose. They don't necessarily have a 'local purpose'.


If something with a purpose achieves that purpose, they become obsolete, having no purpose.
So the 'purpose' of red blood cells is to bind oxygen in an oxygen-rich environment and release oxygen in an oxygen-starved environment.
Does that mean that any red blood cells that achieved this purpose, namely the ones that provide your tissues with oxygen, are obsolete?


Things which are obsolete within the universe quickly(galactic time) cease functioning.
Evidence? And when is something obsolete?


Thus achieving one's purpose means hurrying one's demise. Thus, to have a long life, one should avoid serving any purpose.
lol Are you being funny?


Then again, if there is no purpose to the universe, then why bother?
Because you are programmed to bother.


No, all purpose is subjective, creations of our own imagination.
Exactly.

Spidergoat

Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"

You think rocks invent purposes for themselves? :roflmao:

Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we":rolleyes: If you want to assume existence of something, I suggest you try to support it.

Even if we do assume there is more than "we", there is no implication of purpose. Creation does not imply purpose for the created - sometimes creation is a by-product of other actions, with no inherent purpose whatsoever.
When the FSM farted, which ultimately led to the creation of our universe, his intent was presumably to expel the gaseous build up in his bowel. Is that the purpose of our universe, then, to be a one-off means by which the FSM can get relief from bloating? That purpose was fulfilled before, and irrespective of, our creation - and thus we / our universe have no purpose.

Feel free to assume otherwise.

Fsm?

Creation does not imply purpose for the created - sometimes creation is a by-product of other actions, with no inherent purpose whatsoever.

Creation?

God never created heaven and Earth: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/10/god_separated_heaven_and_earth.php

Fsm?

Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

OHHH!
I know him.
I've known a few Pastafarians.

Creation?

God never created heaven and Earth: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/10/god_separated_heaven_and_earth.php:D Ah well, you learn something new every day. :)

You think rocks invent purposes for themselves? :roflmao:
I think if someone invented a rock, they probably did so for a purpose.

:rolleyes: If you want to assume existence of something, I suggest you try to support it.
there's a host of normative descriptions that surround knowing god.

Its only a question of application

:shrug:


Even if we do assume there is more than "we", there is no implication of purpose. Creation does not imply purpose for the created - sometimes creation is a by-product of other actions, with no inherent purpose whatsoever.
perhaps, but more often than not, the opposite is the case, particularly when it touches on issues of design.



When the FSM farted, which ultimately led to the creation of our universe, his intent was presumably to expel the gaseous build up in his bowel. Is that the purpose of our universe, then, to be a one-off means by which the FSM can get relief from bloating?
Even the design of the FSM follows the requirements of purpose for an atheist.

:shrug:


That purpose was fulfilled before, and irrespective of, our creation - and thus we / our universe have no purpose.
For the purposes of a nihilistic world view, you stand correct.



Feel free to assume otherwise.
The only reason you assume so is because your assumption is supported by an absence of evidence (evidence on your behalf of course).

Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"

Which is the rational assumption...

Which is the rational assumption...
Tell me, do you think that values in any way shape the picture of what is deemed rational?

Spidergoat

Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"

Even if one can acknowledge the possibility of something other than we, this possibility alone does not present a purpose.

Even if one can acknowledge the possibility of something other than we, this possibility alone does not present a purpose.

If "we" are operating in the jurisdiction of another person's domain, there certainly is.

For instance there might be a host of (relative) purposes amongst a dozen children in a house. This does not mean that their purposes alone run the workings of the house, since it is an adult who maintains it (no doubt for some purpose of their own).

Tell me, do you think that values in any way shape the picture of what is deemed rational?

Not necessarily. Of course, they certainly can, but if one is careful, one can remove the interference.

Not necessarily. Of course, they certainly can, but if one is careful, one can remove the interference.
Intriguing

You think care can be exercised divorced from issues of value?

Let's get down to something (hopefully) non-controversial and simple.

What would you say is a rational approach to justice, education, science, philosophy, music, architecture, diet, economics or car mechanics divorced from issues of value?

Intriguing

You think care can be exercised divorced from issues of value?



I have no idea what you mean here.





What would you say is a rational approach to justice, education, science, philosophy, music, architecture, diet, economics or car mechanics divorced from issues of value?

Not sure what you're asking here either. The rational approach for any objective is that which approaches the particular goal in as efficient manner as possible.

Now, of course you're going to say that the means by which we define the objective is determined precisely by a value. I don't deny this. That is afterall, how we go about deciding what it is that we wish to achieve.

All I am saying is that while we may establish an objective by a value based criterion, the introduction of values into the approach by which we seek to attain the goal is problematic. Thus, using one of your examples, though in the Justice domain we may assert that 'freedom' is a worthy ideal, the practice of law supports and seeks to be impartial, and unemotional.

In any case, we're going offtopic here. We're not discussing what it is to be rational, we're discussing what it is to be purposive. You seem to be supporting the notion that humans are not alone in being capable of this kind of behaviour.

I have no idea what you mean here.
you made the statement that yours was the rational outlook

I asked whether one can be rational divorced from value.

You said possibly, if one is careful.

I asked whether one can be careful without value (since, if it proves impossible to be careful without value, being rational would be underpinned by value to the degree that one exercises care).

Do you follow?






Not sure what you're asking here either. The rational approach for any objective is that which approaches the particular goal in as efficient manner as possible.

Now, of course you're going to say that the means by which we define the objective is determined precisely by a value. I don't deny this. That is afterall, how we go about deciding what it is that we wish to achieve.

All I am saying is that while we may establish an objective by a value based criterion, the introduction of values into the approach by which we seek to attain the goal is problematic. Thus, using one of your examples, though in the Justice domain we may assert that 'freedom' is a worthy ideal, the practice of law supports and seeks to be impartial, and unemotional.
hence in all times, places and circumstances, rationality is applied after we apply value


In any case, we're going offtopic here. We're not discussing what it is to be rational, we're discussing what it is to be purposive. You seem to be supporting the notion that humans are not alone in being capable of this kind of behaviour.
I'm just pointing out that you are trying to cut rank with your assertion of the rational assumption.

Its not rationality that is speaking, but your values.

If "we" are operating in the jurisdiction of another person's domain, there certainly is.

For instance there might be a host of (relative) purposes amongst a dozen children in a house. This does not mean that their purposes alone run the workings of the house, since it is an adult who maintains it (no doubt for some purpose of their own).

One can of course speculate, but that's all it is. Nothing appears to be following some universal purpose.

you made the statement that yours was the rational outlook

I asked whether one can be rational divorced from value.

You said possibly, if one is careful.

I asked whether one can be careful without value (since, if it proves impossible to be careful without value, being rational would be underpinned by value to the degree that one exercises care).

Do you follow?


Ah, I see.

The I say yes; in fact, one can be more careful when value is minimized.




hence in all times, places and circumstances, rationality is applied after we apply value


I agree.

However, the two are not applied in the same manner. As I said, one is used to determine, the other to practice.



I'm just pointing out that you are trying to cut rank with your assertion of the rational assumption.

Its not rationality that is speaking, but your values.

Not at all (unless you're going to play the game and say that I'm valuing rationality above all else...).

As spidergoat has pointed out, we have greater reason to assert that we are alone in being purposive agents, than we do to deny this.
That is a rational assumption.

One can of course speculate, but that's all it is.
sure

until one comes to the next stage, application.


Nothing appears to be following some universal purpose.
Given that purpose follows personality and your values don't accommodate a universal personality, what else would you expect us to hear you say?

Needless to say, even in empirical terms, the jury is perpetually out on this one since it doesn't appear to have the hardware to access anything other than the metonymic (which would make all opinions on the matter speculation, since application is always elusive)

Ah, I see.

The I say yes; in fact, one can be more careful when value is minimized.
I can understand how one value can supersede or replace another but I can't understand how value can be minimized (unless you are also calling upon value to determine one being "greater" and another "lesser")






I agree.

However, the two are not applied in the same manner. As I said, one is used to determine, the other to practice.
Hence your statement about having the low down on "rational assumptions" is simply a statement about how you apply yourself to your values.

It says nothing about how your values exist in relation to the values of others.

IOW given your values (ie an atheistic universe), of course it is rational to assume that there is no universal purpose




Not at all (unless you're going to play the game and say that I'm valuing rationality above all else...).
Then once again, feel free to explain how you can launch into a rational explanation of universal non/management divorced from values.

Let me help you out here.

The real discussion here is not one of rationality but values, since rationality comes after one has laid one's values on the table.

Again you can try and cut rank by saying "Oh but unless you mean to say that I am valuing rationality ..." but this is meaningless since its impossible to be rational unless it is brought to bear against a value.

Its like you are trying to discuss algebra without using numbers or polynomials.

:shrug:


As spidergoat has pointed out, we have greater reason to assert that we are alone in being purposive agents, than we do to deny this.
My point is that you don't have a hope in hell to escape the incumbent requirement for bringing value to the table first.





That is a rational assumption.
Only when factoring in your values about the universe and the relationship between its components first

sure

until one comes to the next stage, application.


Given that purpose follows personality and your values don't accommodate a universal personality, what else would you expect us to hear you say?

Needless to say, even in empirical terms, the jury is perpetually out on this one since it doesn't appear to have the hardware to access anything other than the metonymic (which would make all opinions on the matter speculation, since application is always elusive)

It's got nothing to do with my values, just the evidence. Until you have something more than speculation, there is no apparent purpose to the universe. Indeed, early cosmology that features humans as central to existence have given way to cosmologies that make our existence merely a peripheral phenomenon.

It's got nothing to do with my values, just the evidence.
Exactly how do you propose to ascribe meaning to evidence divorced from value?

Or do you think that the simple act of gathering evidence never warrants any controversy about what it indicates?


Until you have something more than speculation, there is no apparent purpose to the universe.
two points

1 - I do have something more : application

2 - the statement "there is no apparent purpose to the universe".
Apparent to who/what? (bonus points if you can answer with out touching on issues of value)

If you mean "apparent to empiricism", what else would you expect? The very nature of empirical investigation precludes it from determining universal purpose (since its a reflection of our purposes .... of course I assume that you don't think our purposes are sufficient to convey universal purpose)


Indeed, early cosmology that features humans as central to existence have given way to cosmologies that make our existence merely a peripheral phenomenon.
And there's your values.

(even to use the word "human" as sufficient to encompass "god" is an example of values at work)

I suppose if you do not value the methods and historical success of empiricism, you would not accept what it reveals. It does not preclude universal purpose, but it does not support it. There is no reliable evidence of any representative of the universe that could relate a universal purpose to us.

I suppose if you do not value the methods and historical success of empiricism, you would not accept what it reveals.

Actually if you look at my argument, it is even if you do value the methods and historical success of empiricism, it has no means to breach issues of universal non/management.

On the other hand, if a person does not value the methods and historical success of theistic disciplines ....
:scratchin:



It does not preclude universal purpose, but it does not support it. There is no reliable evidence of any representative of the universe that could relate a universal purpose to us.
feel free to offer anything other than an absence of evidence (which is not an accepted empirical methodology)

There is no record of success in the theistic disciplines in determining how things work.

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence when the evidence should be there. Absence of elephant poop is evidence of the absence of elephants in your local park.

There is no record of success in the theistic disciplines in determining how things work.
Feel free to document your rigorous findings ....


Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence when the evidence should be there.
feel free to explain why or even how empirical means should be able to evidence god?

(IOW at what point do you think sufficient research with the mind and senses should be able to indicate something beyond the mind and senses ... once again, bonus points if you can do so without touching on values)

I can understand how one value can supersede or replace another but I can't understand how value can be minimized (unless you are also calling upon value to determine one being "greater" and another "lesser")


Simply by not allowing it to be a factor.
If I'm designing a gun, I would do well to not take into consideration the fact that I love my wife in doing so.





Hence your statement about having the low down on "rational assumptions" is simply a statement about how you apply yourself to your values.


No; it's a statement about how one can organize rational statements (or suppositions).



It says nothing about how your values exist in relation to the values of others.


Of course not, that would be entirely irrelevant.



IOW given your values (ie an atheistic universe), of course it is rational to assume that there is no universal purpose


No, given rationality, it is rational to support such a position.



Then once again, feel free to explain how you can launch into a rational explanation of universal non/management divorced from values.


I already have. You seem to be confusing the actual nature of values, and how they take part in our behaviour.



Let me help you out here.

The real discussion here is not one of rationality but values, since rationality comes after one has laid one's values on the table.


Incorrect. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with values. Whether or not any thing may act purposively is a question of an empirical nature, not of an aesthetic one.



...
but this is meaningless since its impossible to be rational unless it is brought to bear against a value.


Incorrect again. Just because a concept precedes another, it doesn't follow that the latter is contingent upon the former...

To be clear: while we may grant value antecedent to rationality, this does not mean that rationality in some way is contingent upon value. The two need not interplay.



Its like you are trying to discuss algebra without using numbers or polynomials.

:shrug:


Not at all. The metaphor doesn't hold at all. Value and reason are not remotely similar concepts (linguistically or ontologically).



My point is that you don't have a hope in hell to escape the incumbent requirement for bringing value to the table first.


The your point is irrelevant. Ignore the value element, and focus on the subject at hand. (which is neither value nor rationality here...)




Only when factoring in your values about the universe and the relationship between its components first

Incorrect.

LG, if you feel that values lie foundationally within the framework of all human experience that's fine. However, if you're going to take such a reductionist position, it should be apparent to you that ultimately, any discussion therefore will inevitably become cumbersome due to a complete elimination of scope. It should be understood that, to be effective, a discussion must necessarily refrain from chasing down all purported premisses that should arise. If you don't feel that you can do this, then I'm afraid you'll find yourself engaging in nothing but monologue. Again, that's fine. But I cannot allow you to pursue this kind of behaviour to the extent that it thereby disengages others.

This discussion is concerned with the purpose of our existence, not deities, not aliens, not FSM's, not aesthetics.

LG, if you feel that values lie foundationally within the framework of all human experience that's fine. However, if you're going to take such a reductionist position, it should be apparent to you that ultimately, any discussion therefore will inevitably become cumbersome due to a complete elimination of scope. It should be understood that, to be effective, a discussion must necessarily refrain from chasing down all purported premisses that should arise. If you don't feel that you can do this, then I'm afraid you'll find yourself engaging in nothing but monologue. Again, that's fine. But I cannot allow you to pursue this kind of behaviour to the extent that it thereby disengages others.

This discussion is concerned with the purpose of our existence, not deities, not aliens, not FSM's, not aesthetics.
The problem is that you made the assertion that your take on the purpose of existence is the rational approach.

Furthermore you also assert that you arrived at this position bereft of value.

This is the monologue.

:shrug:

The problem is that you made the assertion that your take on the purpose of existence is the rational approach.



No, what I said was that your take on the purpose of existence was not rational.



Furthermore you also assert that you arrived at this position bereft of value.



No again. I asserted that a rational analysis of the subject should do as much as possible to minimize the inclusion of value.




This is the monologue.



Speak for yourself.
Funny how it's always you and you alone who supports your take on things....

...food for thought methinks...

Feel free to document your rigorous findings ....
We usually just call it history. Science has a track record of revealing things that are right. Religion never does and somehow it gets a pass.




feel free to explain why or even how empirical means should be able to evidence god?
Because the only God worth considering and the one most affecting our lives is one that influences observable events. If the events can be observed, they are the subject of science. The commonly defined attributes of God(s) have observable implications.


(IOW at what point do you think sufficient research with the mind and senses should be able to indicate something beyond the mind and senses ... once again, bonus points if you can do so without touching on values)
I have not heard of any popular religion that puts the effects of God beyond the senses, in fact miracles are an attempt to put evidence before the senses.

We usually just call it history. Science has a track record of revealing things that are right. Religion never does and somehow it gets a pass.
Actually if you examine scientific history you see that it's track record is practically 100% built on honing error (at the very least, there's certainly an abundance of redundant theories out there)... but even then, as it pertains to the thread, its not clear what body of scientific work you are calling upon to determine the issue of purpose (You're more likely to encounter teleology in philosophy). Religion on the other hand is built on that foundation.





Because the only God worth considering and the one most affecting our lives is one that influences observable events. If the events can be observed, they are the subject of science. The commonly defined attributes of God(s) have observable implications.
The problem is that there is a nonnegotiable divide between the observation of events and god for empiricism since it is epistemologically lodged in the senses.

IOW your requirement for empiricism to branch out as far as determining god doesn't make philosophical sense, since the very nature of his definition stands outside the methodology.

Its kind of like demanding that the only valid requirement for having direct perception of the president is to open a door and say hello (a process which is unlikely to see you get past the first of their 100 secretaries).
IOW its the nature of a person operating withing the jurisdiction of a greater personality that they meet only according to their terms. Empiricism has no scope for factoring in this.



I have not heard of any popular religion that puts the effects of God beyond the senses, in fact miracles are an attempt to put evidence before the senses.
I have not heard of a credible rendition of religion that places god within the purview of the senses (even though there is tons on the subject of how our world, which is partially observable through the senses, is contingent on his existence)

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The problem is that you made the assertion that your take on the purpose of existence is the rational approach.

”
No, what I said was that your take on the purpose of existence was not rational.

no you didn't

here's the post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2381952&postcount=34)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"
”
G - Which is the rational assumption...

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Furthermore you also assert that you arrived at this position bereft of value.

”
No again. I asserted that a rational analysis of the subject should do as much as possible to minimize the inclusion of value.
Yet you completely fail to explain how value can be minimized.

Instead you offer an example (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2382112&postcount=52) of replacing one value with another.

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I can understand how one value can supersede or replace another but I can't understand how value can be minimized (unless you are also calling upon value to determine one being "greater" and another "lesser")
”

G - Simply by not allowing it to be a factor.
If I'm designing a gun, I would do well to not take into consideration the fact that I love my wife in doing so.


Its not at all clear how focusing on the value of "good" gun design instead of loving one's spouse is an example of value being minimized.


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
This is the monologue.

”
Speak for yourself.
Funny how it's always you and you alone who supports your take on things....

...food for thought methinks...
If philosophical ideas were determined by vote I guess philosophers would have paid more attention to gaining the support of their ideological compatriots than valid arguments.

:shrug:

Actually if you examine scientific history you see that it's track record is practically 100% built on honing error (at the very least, there's certainly an abundance of redundant theories out there)... but even then, as it pertains to the thread, its not clear what body of scientific work you are calling upon to determine the issue of purpose (You're more likely to encounter teleology in philosophy). Religion on the other hand is built on that foundation.



The problem is that there is a nonnegotiable divide between the observation of events and god for empiricism since it is epistemologically lodged in the senses.

IOW your requirement for empiricism to branch out as far as determining god doesn't make philosophical sense, since the very nature of his definition stands outside the methodology.

Its kind of like demanding that the only valid requirement for having direct perception of the president is to open a door and say hello (a process which is unlikely to see you get past the first of their 100 secretaries).
IOW its the nature of a person operating withing the jurisdiction of a greater personality that they meet only according to their terms. Empiricism has no scope for factoring in this.



I have not heard of a credible rendition of religion that places god within the purview of the senses (even though there is tons on the subject of how our world, which is partially observable through the senses, is contingent on his existence)

Honing in on truth by focusing on error is a time tested method. The success rate has been astounding, and is at least partially responsible for your ability to communicate with me on this forum. When I talk about science being able to comment on purpose, I refer to revelations such as evolution, which has no purpose, since it is the result of a myriad of random mutations and natural selection by many factors, each having purposes of their own, but no universal one. I refer to cosmology, which reveals space to be vast beyond comprehension, a universe that is not conducive to human exploration. I talk about scientific reasons for rejection of the supernatual claims that are responsible for the God hypothesis in the first place. I refer to the detail revealed about the nature of the atom, which leaves no room for any thought, much less purpose. I refer to medical advances which reject the hypothesis of spirit, in favor of cells and chemistry.

Religion assumes purpose and then goes about trying to justify that belief, a method proven to be faulty when trying to find out how things really work. We do know that humans like to have purpose, and that our stories reflect that need, so any assumption of a universal purpose should be highly suspect.

Empiricism is not merely the senses, but anything observable, even if indirect, such as the means some use to determine there is a God. If your conclusion is based on nothing more than your mind or some kind of logic, then it really isn't all that valuable. It is as most, informed speculation and should properly lose out to empirical methods.

As long as religious assumptions contain some interaction with the physical world, then they are within the scope of empiricism to examine.

I have heard thousands of stories meant to support a religious viewpoint that have, as their initial means of pursuasion, a physical observation. Examples include the empty tomb of Jesus, his ability to change water into wine, the burning bush of Moses, the supposed complexity or perfection of nature, prophets and prophecy, oracles, miracles, numerology, moral perfection or refinement, prayers that work, human sacrifice that achieves some goal, etc...

The question itself may be its own answer. We are the universe waking up... to consciousness. Our purpose may be for us to ask what that purpose it. The ultimate probe, using the five senses to observe, experience and record observations, each with its own unique solution to the problem at hand...we are the beginning of quantum computing.

Honing in on truth by focusing on error is a time tested method. The success rate has been astounding, and is at least partially responsible for your ability to communicate with me on this forum. When I talk about science being able to comment on purpose, I refer to revelations such as evolution, which has no purpose, since it is the result of a myriad of random mutations and natural selection by many factors, each having purposes of their own, but no universal one.
needless to say, this theory about evolution and teleogy is certainly a work in progress to say the least.

IOW its one thing to talk about scientific achievement that is evidenced by a very "doable" practice (such as internet connection). Its another to talk of a lofty interpretation of a reading of evidence that is completely bereft of any doable practices.


I refer to cosmology, which reveals space to be vast beyond comprehension, a universe that is not conducive to human exploration.

similarly you could talk of the microcosm too.
IOW its the nature of this epistemology to be surrounded by mystery on both the macro and microcosm since the very language it uses (the language of the senses) is tacit.


I talk about scientific reasons for rejection of the supernatual claims that are responsible for the God hypothesis in the first place.
then you've just taken a radical departure from science and let your values take rein since there exists only rejection of theism by scientists predisposed to atheism.



I refer to the detail revealed about the nature of the atom, which leaves no room for any thought, much less purpose.
empirically speaking, the nature of an atom is as much a mystery as the nature of the universe.
The only scientific avenues that have access to making life arise from atomic structures are in science fiction.


I refer to medical advances which reject the hypothesis of spirit, in favor of cells and chemistry.
once again, there is no scientific body of work for your wild claims.

You are simply sporting your atheistic fervor while borrowing from the credibility of science.

The differences between issues of medicine and spirit are more vast than the differences between car maintenance and car manufacture.

Death still has a 100% success rate.


Religion assumes purpose and then goes about trying to justify that belief, a method proven to be faulty when trying to find out how things really work. We do know that humans like to have purpose, and that our stories reflect that need, so any assumption of a universal purpose should be highly suspect.
On the contrary, any discipline of knowledge assumes a purpose and goes about trying to justify it.

Some even call it a hypothesis.


Empiricism is not merely the senses, but anything observable, even if indirect, such as the means some use to determine there is a God.
You're not factoring in the requirement for the controlled environment and repeatability in empiricism.

IOW in all cases, empiricism requires that the subject not have a will of its own capable of circumventing investigation.


If your conclusion is based on nothing more than your mind or some kind of logic, then it really isn't all that valuable. It is as most, informed speculation and should properly lose out to empirical methods.
the conclusion, much like that of empiricism, is based on practice.

The difference with theism is of course that the practice involves being compliant to the nature of the object under investigation (in empiricism you have the exact opposite, making the object subservient to the seer).

A similar methodology lies in gaining direct audience with an important person



As long as religious assumptions contain some interaction with the physical world, then they are within the scope of empiricism to examine.
sure

But given that the object of such action is beyond its scope, such readings are frequently inaccurate.


I have heard thousands of stories meant to support a religious viewpoint that have, as their initial means of pursuasion, a physical observation. Examples include the empty tomb of Jesus, his ability to change water into wine, the burning bush of Moses, the supposed complexity or perfection of nature, prophets and prophecy, oracles, miracles, numerology, moral perfection or refinement, prayers that work, human sacrifice that achieves some goal, etc...
Then you have filled your ears with useless nonsense since all that is not the means for verifying the nature of god

The question itself may be its own answer. We are the universe waking up... to consciousness. Our purpose may be for us to ask what that purpose it. The ultimate probe, using the five senses to observe, experience and record observations, each with its own unique solution to the problem at hand...we are the beginning of quantum computing.
If we were the final call for purpose in the universe, we wouldn't experience our desires coming against a brick wall ... which is practically everyone's experience 24/7

I talk about scientific reasons for rejection of the supernartual claims that are responsible for the God hypothesis in the first place.


then you've just taken a radical departure from science and let your values take rein since there exists only rejection of theism by scientists predisposed to atheism.

That is false. It is neither radical nor a predetermined conclusion. Science reveals that no agent is necessary or evident in the observable universe. A purpose requires an agent with a motive or goal. Although you may reserve a concept of a God(s) that intentionally evades detection and/or has no interaction with the physical world, there is no evidence of this.

The nature of the atom is still a mystery, but it is not complex enough to have purpose. Such a concept is limited to complex entities. There are several plausible scenarios about how life developed from chemistry, and until some fact is discovered that precludes this, it supercedes any supernatural explanation. Never mind that there is no evidence of supernatural intervention in the process of life arising.

Science has long ago proven that spirit is not responsible for life.


On the contrary, any discipline of knowledge assumes a purpose and goes about trying to justify it.

Some even call it a hypothesis.
No, you misunderstand science. A hypothesis is not a purpose, and it is only a tentative assumption. Unlike your assumptions, they are tested against observation.


IOW in all cases, empiricism requires that the subject not have a will of its own capable of circumventing investigation.
So the only way you can justify your belief in a creative agent with a purpose is to suggest that although it is constantly inserting itself in the processes of life so as to distinguish itself from random chance, it also deliberately evades detection. In any other facet of life, such a suggestion would be absurd.

Can I evade a murder conviction by suggesting the murderer was invisible, immaterial, and not detectable by any scientific means? But there is a tape of the murder, you might say. Well, the entity responsible temporarily inhabited my body and moved my hands for me. But you confessed. Well, this thing was speaking through my mouth. You see, it's insane, and could not be seriously considered in any other area of life. It's opposed to both science and common sense.


Then you have filled your ears with useless nonsense since all that is not the means for verifying the nature of god
Then tell me what is.

no you didn't


Apparently you've lost your ability to read.
Your comment quoted ("Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we" ) is equivalent to the denial that there is only 'we'. This then is to assert that there is other than 'we'. That is irrational.



Yet you completely fail to explain how value can be minimized.


Again the inability to read.
Value is minimized by recognizing it, and excluding it (think scientific method and individual bias elimination..).



Its not at all clear how focusing on the value of "good" gun design instead of loving one's spouse is an example of value being minimized.


??
You've lost it now.
I never said anything about any "value" of a good gun. My example was contrasting the act of designing a weapon whose purpose is to slay, with the esteem said designer holds for the value of love.



If philosophical ideas were determined by vote I guess philosophers would have paid more attention to gaining the support of their ideological compatriots than valid arguments.

:shrug:

A stunning ignorance of the history of, and philosophy in general.
Philosophical ideas (like all ideas) are determined by "vote".
It's called peer review.
By the by, note that all logic systems as well are subject to the aforementioned support by consensus.

LG, I'm afraid you've gone too far with the incessant petulant nay-saying. There is a world of difference between critical contextual skepticism and a refusal to recognize legitimately established conventions.

Enjoy your monologue.

If we were the final call for purpose in the universe, we wouldn't experience our desires coming against a brick wall ... which is practically everyone's experience 24/7

Patently ridiculous.
Asserting that the purpose of the universe is in the hands of humans only doesn't entail in any way whatsoever that we could therefore satisfy our desires.

the purpose of the Universe , a place for life to stand on

the purpose of our existence , a life form , that life can

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

The purpose of the universe is to crash, destroy, explode, collapse everything to one another, this is what science has discovered and presented in the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy (potential for disorder) in a thermodynamic system (including universe itself) always increases in time.

The purpose of our existence has also been revealed to us when our ancestors first controlled the fire around a million year ago: We must find a way or ways to control the issues, agenda or tendency of nature against us. We have to create ways to ensure that our food supply will always answer our needs -feed our population-, we must create ways to eradicate diseases and other serious obstacles in front of us, we must harness new energies, find other planets, establish new strategies, etc. etc.

Although the purpose of universe and our purpose have been obvious and simple for our kind, we have been trying to invent more dramatic, mystic or comprehensive stories to cope with this simplicity. We even created Gods for a while... Obviously, it did not work; Jedi force will not work either.

Entropy vs mortal naked apes on planet earth, that is the question...

Two posts in a row showing lack of understanding of the word "purpose". :rolleyes:

Two posts in a row showing lack of understanding of the word "purpose". :rolleyes:

I bet everybody is aware of the well accepted meaning of purpose as "intentional, designed, planned target of an intelligent being".

In that sense, nature can not have any purpose since it was not controlled by a supreme idea or mechanism. Yet its whole existence -including our bodies as dependants and slaves to this environment- impose us a reality: you will be transformed until you will not be recognised from your origin (whatever it is), and be extinguished ultimately within the gravity. This is how nature impose itself in my brain: The most serious power with a mission. Knowing that this power "was/is not designed" does not make it less serious, the mechanised destiny of things in this nature makes more fundemental demands. "Nature does not work with organisers and plans, shit happens, a cell division evolution may result into us, or an asteroid may hit your planet..." You can enter this data into a computer with numbers; but as a conscious being, I recognize things slightly different than a computer or a bacteria: Nature does not have any purpose, OK, but everything else (?) is trying to kill my conscious existence... Because nature is consist of purposeless, yet targetfull happenings: A charged rhino, spreading disease, exploded volcano, decaying atom, mutating DNA. I am always on the ways of any of these unplanned motions, and my existence is destined to be part of something else other than me. If I want to put all these happenings into one basket against me, I must give it a title: Say purpose, great plan, cosmic coincidences, chaotic cycles, dances of forces or anything else you would prefer.

I am an ape, I work with emotions, opponents, and representations. Nature did not have any purpose behind my existence, and that does not bother me since I was not around. Now I exist and has started to "understand" the mechanisms which made me possible somewhere in the spacetime of this universe. My "understanding" also tells me that the very same universe will do everything (without purpose, without purpose, Amen) in its power to abolish my existence. Its purpose is against my purpose...

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe …
First, let me ask if you would ask the same question if you believed that the universe was not created, but that it has always existed?


our existence,

And let me ask if you would ask the same question if you believed that intelligent life has evolved within our universe instead of being created?


and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?
And if there was no creation because the universe had always existed, and if Human life could be generated and evolve naturally without purpose, would you believe that there could still be some purpose that might be revealed to us in the future?

Given a universe that has always existed and where life is generated and evolved, the only way I can see to answer “yes” is if you then believe that the universe is God. And it could be but …

It would certainly be a different God than one that would lurk in the background and then reveal our purpose to us later after we had screwed up our lives by not knowing our purpose in advance. I would certainly have treated my parents better :). Oh, and I hope my brother forgives me for breaking his balsa airplane. … and oh yes, forgive me for everything that I would have changed if I knew my purpose.


I do believe that the current standard cosmology, Big Bang Theory with Inflation, has a rather dismal fate in store for living beings what with the Heat Death and the Big Rip and all of that at the end of things. However I do have my own view of cosmology that is more to the liking of those who think the survival instinct is wasted if ultimately the universe is going to end :eek:.

Is there "purpose" outside human brain cells? This is the question which should be answered first.

First, let me ask if you would ask the same question if you believed that the universe was not created, but that it has always existed?

...

And let me ask if you would ask the same question if you believed that intelligent life has evolved within our universe instead of being created?


While certainly interesting and tangentially related questions, it would be best for our present purposes not to follow these lines of thought.
This thread has been teetering dangerously over the cliff of derailment for too long now. Let's pay attention to our scope.


Is there "purpose" outside human brain cells? This is the question which should be answered first.

Precisely.
That, is paying attention to scope.
Begin from what is accessible via our experience, and move outwards from that point.

“ Originally Posted by dixonmassey
Is there "purpose" outside human brain cells? This is the question which should be answered first. ”

NO , there is no purpose


Precisely.
That, is paying attention to scope.

okay


Begin from what is accessible via our experience, and move outwards from that point.

I disagree

I begin from just the Universe its self

the Universe just is , does , and can , obviously exists

nothing more nothing less

we exist because the Universe gives us the circumstances in which ,life and advanced life , Humans , is possible , and therefore becomes

now how LONG we exist , is entirely up to us Humans

Apparently you've lost your ability to read.
Your comment quoted ("Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we" ) is equivalent to the denial that there is only 'we'. This then is to assert that there is other than 'we'. That is irrational.
errr ....ok

So you are asserting that "there is only "we"?

T/F?





Again the inability to read.
Value is minimized by recognizing it, and excluding it (think scientific method and individual bias elimination..).
Once again you offer replacing one value with another (in this case, the value of the scientific method)
:shrug:





??
You've lost it now.
I never said anything about any "value" of a good gun. My example was contrasting the act of designing a weapon whose purpose is to slay, with the esteem said designer holds for the value of love.
Seriously, you think one can undertake the task of design bereft of value?




A stunning ignorance of the history of, and philosophy in general.
Philosophical ideas (like all ideas) are determined by "vote".
It's called peer review.
So if 99% of people (or philosophers) agreed that it was ok to perform acts bereft of morality, that's all you require to hear on the subject?


By the by, note that all logic systems as well are subject to the aforementioned support by consensus.

LG, I'm afraid you've gone too far with the incessant petulant nay-saying. There is a world of difference between critical contextual skepticism and a refusal to recognize legitimately established conventions.

Enjoy your monologue.
On the contrary, the strength of logic is that it doesn't have to comply to a consensus. That's why it has acted as a powerful tool for revolutionizing society (for better or worse)
:shrug:

Patently ridiculous.
Asserting that the purpose of the universe is in the hands of humans only doesn't entail in any way whatsoever that we could therefore satisfy our desires.
Perhaps .... until one's adds the condition that the universe is simply shadowing our purpose .....

“ Originally Posted by glaucon
Patently ridiculous.
Asserting that the purpose of the universe is in the hands of humans only doesn't entail in any way whatsoever that we could therefore satisfy our desires.


Perhaps .... until one's adds the condition that the universe is simply shadowing our purpose .....

what purpose of ours ( sorry glaucon for butting in ) I just had to ask

We have three purposes:

To live
To learn
To improve for the next generation.

what purpose of ours ( sorry glaucon for butting in ) I just had to ask
If the universe simply exists to shadow it, it shouldn't really matter what they are

errr ....ok

So you are asserting that "there is only "we"?

T/F?


That should be obvious; as it's what I asserted long ago.




Once again you offer replacing one value with another (in this case, the value of the scientific method)
:shrug:


Incorrect.



Seriously, you think one can undertake the task of design bereft of value?


Of course. Any task can be undertaken in such a manner.
Value is always, and only granted by us. We need not introduce it however.



So if 99% of people (or philosophers) agreed that it was ok to perform acts bereft of morality, that's all you require to hear on the subject?


Indeed (although, I wasn't necessarily speaking of the ethical realm in particular..).



On the contrary, the strength of logic is that it doesn't have to comply to a consensus. That's why it has acted as a powerful tool for revolutionizing society (for better or worse)
:shrug:

Incorrect. From axioms to syllogisms to forms of validity, all are a result of consensus. To think otherwise would be to assert some form of immanence, or transcendental ontological status to logic, and that would be silly.

That should be obvious; as it's what I asserted long ago.
I know

I am just trying to take this nice and slow since you have a peculiarly obtuse manner of responding.

So once again, are asserting that "there is only "we"?

T/F?



Incorrect.
One example (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oPlNcHQUvSAC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&source=bl&ots=BgGRh9KMnb&sig=2aNMeNReSsh9DVFrXz6WiLaKVZI&hl=en&ei=eZTTSo-TL4TKsAPGoMjvCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22values%20of%20the%20scientific%20method%22&f=false) from many (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&fp=ef4dae79243053b3) to suggest otherwise





Of course. Any task can be undertaken in such a manner.
Value is always, and only granted by us. We need not introduce it however.
So tell me, if one can design a gun without the need to introduce values, how do you account for the variety of gun designs? What is it that each particular gun designer is bringing to design brief?
:o





Indeed (although, I wasn't necessarily speaking of the ethical realm in particular..).
Fortunately the great thinkers of our time didn't display such a herd mentality




Incorrect. From axioms to syllogisms to forms of validity, all are a result of consensus. To think otherwise would be to assert some form of immanence, or transcendental ontological status to logic, and that would be silly.
Incorrect.

Even the most popular ideas tend to have gone through a period where there was no consensus or even strong opposition against it.

One particular quality of logic that grants it its exceptional power is that it can reshape values. Numerous philosophers have granted it a status close to transcendent, from aristotle through till the madness of WW1 and 2 which put the final nails in the coffin of modernism. One particular quality of logic that grants it its exceptional power is that it can support values ... although with the demise of modernism, you generally see a greater movement towards intuition in the said field.

I know

I am just trying to take this nice and slow since you have a peculiarly obtuse manner of responding.

So once again, are asserting that "there is only "we"?

T/F?


I've already answered that question.



One example (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oPlNcHQUvSAC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&source=bl&ots=BgGRh9KMnb&sig=2aNMeNReSsh9DVFrXz6WiLaKVZI&hl=en&ei=eZTTSo-TL4TKsAPGoMjvCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22values%20of%20the%20scientific%20method%22&f=false) from many (http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=%22values+of+the+scientific+method%22&fp=ef4dae79243053b3) to suggest otherwise


Yes, an opinion I disagree with.
The Scientific Method is not a value; it's a methodology.





So tell me, if one can design a gun without the need to introduce values, how do you account for the variety of gun designs? What is it that each particular gun designer is bringing to design brief?
:o


Explain the differing designs in say, screws. They each ultimately serve the same function, but in a different manner. Design has nothing to do with value, it has to do with achieving an objective.




Fortunately the great thinkers of our time didn't display such a herd mentality


Alas, they did. Without consensus, there can be no standards.
The fact that there are standards, is testament to this.

Ever heard of language?





Even the most popular ideas tend to have gone through a period where there was no consensus or even strong opposition against it.

Correct.
Until consensus was reached.
Competing ideas are filtered by verification and utility, until one is deemed to be superior.

I've already answered that question.
so why feel shy about reiterating it with a T or F so the discussion can progress?





Yes, an opinion I disagree with.
The Scientific Method is not a value; it's a methodology.
Or as others will poignantly point out, a methodology with values of reason, detachment and objectivity driving it. To say the least, if you bring the same values in your affairs with your wife, you would be in strife.







Explain the differing designs in say, screws. They each ultimately serve the same function, but in a different manner. Design has nothing to do with value, it has to do with achieving an objective.
hehe

I guess you must be a stranger to the hardware store .....

You don't think some screw manufacturers value profit over, say, product reliability?

(once again, perhaps its another opinion you disagree with ..... yet tradesmen will no doubt be getting their supplies from sources remarkably distinct from you).

Seriously, I challenge you to find a single article of professional industrial design on the net that explicitly states how there was no requirement for an assessment of value ... or even any design brief that is bereft of any issues of value.






Alas, they did. Without consensus, there can be no standards.
The fact that there are standards, is testament to this.
So what happens during the interim periods of consensus?


Ever heard of language?
ever wondered how new words gradually find their way into dictionaries?






Correct.
Until consensus was reached.
Competing ideas are filtered by verification and utility, until one is deemed to be superior.
fancy that, eh?

There's more forces at work behind philosophy than just democracy ....

Or as others will poignantly point out, a methodology with values of reason, detachment and objectivity driving it. To say the least, if you bring the same values in your affairs with your wife, you would be in strife.

Or, as others would point out, a methodology that serves us best bereft of value.




You don't think some screw manufacturers value profit over, say, product reliability?

Seriously, I challenge you to find a single article of professional industrial design on the net that explicitly states how there was no requirement for an assessment of value


Ah, I understand you now.
You're equivocating. You're saying that profit, or reliability can be addressed as values.
You're a value - essentialist. [Either that or you're agreeing with me that there is no such thing as value beyond that which we grant a thing...]
That being the case, you are always going to assign a value to any and everything.

I suppose I should have seen this earlier. Given this then, I think we're at an impasse LG.




So what happens during the interim periods of consensus?

As I've already said, competition.



ever wondered how new words gradually find their way into dictionaries?

Not at all; it's no mystery. As words gain common public usage, they are added. Again, by popular 'vote'.




There's more forces at work behind philosophy than just democracy ....

??

Actually the process I described is exactly and only that (i.e. 'democratic').



Suffice it to say that given you and I can't even agree on the definition of the terms involved in the discussion, there's no doubt we will come to any consensus.

Still, this doesn't mean that others can't continue with this thread, and so, as to hopefully get back on track....

Given your complete lack of positive response to the OP, as best as I can discern form your posts so far, your answer would be this:

a), the purpose of anything can be anything and b), this purpose could be more than what we humans determine it to be.

Or, as others would point out, a methodology that serves us best bereft of value.
Then why not use the same methodology in dealing with your wife?






Ah, I understand you now.
You're equivocating. You're saying that profit, or reliability can be addressed as values.
And you're not?



You're a value - essentialist. [Either that or you're agreeing with me that there is no such thing as value beyond that which we grant a thing...]
That being the case, you are always going to assign a value to any and everything.
Actually the question was whether the values we assign things exist within a greater context of purpose - IOW whether "we" is the final last word in purpose in the universe.

You equated that it was rational not to think so.
I suggested that this was your values speaking, since the argument that there is a designer works out of premises that are mot necessarily disharmonious with values of rationality, detachment, etc but certainly disharmonious with an atheist viewpoint.
(although its a common misnomer of website atheists to equate logic with atheism .... )


I suppose I should have seen this earlier. Given this then, I think we're at an impasse LG.
Given the reserves of energy a person usually invests in their values, its the the impasse of most discussions that involve a conflict of values





As I've already said, competition.
and do competitions take place in an environment with an established consensus?




Not at all; it's no mystery. As words gain common public usage, they are added. Again, by popular 'vote'.
hence there is another element at work "as words gain public usage".
Before a person lodges a vote, there is usually some sort of discussion of the values of it (except in instances of donkey voting).



Suffice it to say that given you and I can't even agree on the definition of the terms involved in the discussion, there's no doubt we will come to any consensus.

Still, this doesn't mean that others can't continue with this thread, and so, as to hopefully get back on track....

Given your complete lack of positive response to the OP, as best as I can discern form your posts so far, your answer would be this:

a), the purpose of anything can be anything and b)
The purpose of anything can be determined by the qualities it possesses. For instance, utilizing as microphone as a kitchen knife poses unique challenges. This does not say anything about the purpose of a kitchen knife however.
Similarly, taking the tact that it is irrational to assign purpose to the universe based on human experience says nothing about the purpose of an entity who's jurisdiction of prowess involves the creation,maintenance and annihilation of the universe.


, this purpose could be more than what we humans determine it to be.
even in terms of mundane thinking, human purpose is frequently turned on its head. Such is the nature of being forced to operate in a system that places obstacles in implementing one's will.

That is false. It is neither radical nor a predetermined conclusion. Science reveals that no agent is necessary or evident in the observable universe.

more correctly, empiricism is underpinned by a metonymic viewpoint so its in no position to offer a claim about whether there is an agent to things of the macro or micro cosm.

IOW science has no scope for garnering a complete view of either the macro or microcosm (since it deals exclusively in tacit terms) so its no position to offer an opinion about requirements of agency there.


A purpose requires an agent with a motive or goal. Although you may reserve a concept of a God(s) that intentionally evades detection and/or has no interaction with the physical world, there is no evidence of this.
the best form of your argument is an absence of evidence ... which still remains considerably weak when you factor in what evidence empiricism is capable of dealing with.

All you are effectively saying is that empiricism has not turned up anything with god. As mentioned earlier, this is hardly surprising since one wouldn't expect an investigation with the senses to be capable of revealing something beyond it. You hint that this necessarily excludes god or the notion of a purpose driven universe. This is bogus since empiricism is in no position to view the universe (or indeed anything in it) in a complete fashion ... what to speak if one introduces different means of knowing aside from empiricism.


The nature of the atom is still a mystery, but it is not complex enough to have purpose. Such a concept is limited to complex entities.
If an atom is created by a purpose driven entity, it has issues of purpose that surround it. Much like the car of the president may not display an innate sense of purpose, but due to its connection with the president, it certainly serves one.


There are several plausible scenarios about how life developed from chemistry, and until some fact is discovered that precludes this, it supercedes any supernatural explanation. Never mind that there is no evidence of supernatural intervention in the process of life arising.
This is a classic case of where you depart from empiricism, since it requires a "fact" within its own epistemology (as opposed to a plausible explanation) in order to be valid. IOW the fact that you are not worried by an absence of facts that surround abiogenesis, yet play the same card against theism (even though it lays claim to a completely different epistemology to empiricism) indicates your clear bias.

In short if there are several plausible scenarios about how life developed, yet none of them enter the realm of being "doable", you're talking about something other than empiricism.


Science has long ago proven that spirit is not responsible for life.
Once again, differences between issues of medicine and spirit are more vast than the differences between car maintenance and car manufacture.

Death still has a 100% success rate.
Life still remains 100% evasive from reductionist paradigms.


No, you misunderstand science. A hypothesis is not a purpose, and it is only a tentative assumption. Unlike your assumptions, they are tested against observation.
and that's the point

You completely overlook the host of issues of application that surround theistic claims and instead just see it as an issue of faith compounded by issues of application that surround empiricism.

If you disengage issues of application from any methodology, of course all you will see is a claim of faith.
:shrug:




So the only way you can justify your belief in a creative agent with a purpose is to suggest that although it is constantly inserting itself in the processes of life so as to distinguish itself from random chance, it also deliberately evades detection. In any other facet of life, such a suggestion would be absurd.
Not at all.

I am just painfully reminding you that human perception is not the ultimate ... much like the president doesn't become any less of an entity because he reserves the right no to come over to your place for idle chit chat.


Can I evade a murder conviction by suggesting the murderer was invisible, immaterial, and not detectable by any scientific means?
probably not, but then scientific means are the standard means for determining such issues .....


But there is a tape of the murder, you might say. Well, the entity responsible temporarily inhabited my body and moved my hands for me. But you confessed. Well, this thing was speaking through my mouth. You see, it's insane, and could not be seriously considered in any other area of life. It's opposed to both science and common sense.
Actually you illustrate how difficult it is to avoid issues of purpose when issues of quality become known.

This says nothing about laying claim to a means of knowing qualities ... especially those that lie outside what you are prepared or capable of applying.

For instance a forensic scientist can present a sequence of events on a crime scene that can defy the understandings of another.



Then tell me what is.
If you are a person and you wish to directly perceive a person who has a greater status than you ( say incredibly rich or famous) how would you go about it?

more correctly, empiricism is underpinned by a metonymic viewpoint so its in no position to offer a claim about whether there is an agent to things of the macro or micro cosm.
What do you mean by metonymic?

Are you saying observation can teach us nothing about the thing being observed? Because science has already proven itself as the best means for finding things out. Science does not exactly say there is no agent, there might be one. However, there is no evidence for one. There should be evidence for one if there was one. Therefore, there is most likely no universal intelligent agent that controls events.

You cannot say that there is evidence of purpose, only that our methods are not omnipotent. Absense of evidence where evidence should exist is not weak.


If an atom is created by a purpose driven entity, it has issues of purpose that surround it. Much like the car of the president may not display an innate sense of purpose, but due to its connection with the president, it certainly serves one.
That is not possible, since the early universe was in a state of extreme chaos. No predetermined pattern could survive. Therefore no information could be encoded into it as an agent of purpose.


In short if there are several plausible scenarios about how life developed, yet none of them enter the realm of being "doable", you're talking about something other than empiricism.
Plausible means doable. Since there is no evidence of anything that is not naturalistic, all plausible naturalistic explanations, even if unproven, must be disproven in order for any supernatural one to be reasonably considered.


Once again, differences between issues of medicine and spirit are more vast than the differences between car maintenance and car manufacture.
There is no evidence for anything called "spirit".


Life still remains 100% evasive from reductionist paradigms.
That is false. DNA is one reductionism paradigm that explains many things about life.


I am just painfully reminding you that human perception is not the ultimate
I never said it was, only that it is a better method than any alternative, which rely on things other than observation. Spiritual methods have no basis in fact. Spiritual theories cannot be distinguished from guessing or imagination.


If you are a person and you wish to directly perceive a person who has a greater status than you ( say incredibly rich or famous) how would you go about it?
I'll take indirect perception too. Science does not depend on direct perception. One could say that no perception is really direct.

What do you mean by metonymic?

Are you saying observation can teach us nothing about the thing being observed? Because science has already proven itself as the best means for finding things out. Science does not exactly say there is no agent, there might be one. However, there is no evidence for one. There should be evidence for one if there was one. Therefore, there is most likely no universal intelligent agent that controls events.
by metonymic I mean that there is only scope for a periphery of observations (which means the terms dealt with are exclusively tacit as opposed to explicit).

For instance suppose one is observing a cup of flour - empiricism offers no means to explain what it is essentially (since it offers no bottom line explanation for the microcosm). The exact same problem is encountered with macrocosm.

Its the nature of a metonymic view point that one can only see parts .... which is perfectly fine for dealing with the relative nature between such parts ... but completely lousy for accepting as a departure point for laying the final line on the contexts such parts appear in.

IOW since the seer as an empiricist appears within a context, they have no means to analyze it (how do you propose that one sees what they are seeing with?)


You cannot say that there is evidence of purpose, only that our methods are not omnipotent. Absense of evidence where evidence should exist is not weak.
It certainly is weak when the tool for acquiring evidence doesn't , by definition, have the means to approach the topic. For instance saying that tape measures don't evidence anything about temperature says more about a poor choice of tools for the task than anything intrinsic about temperature.




That is not possible, since the early universe was in a state of extreme chaos. No predetermined pattern could survive. Therefore no information could be encoded into it as an agent of purpose.
once again, there is no final last call within empiricism about what constitutes a universal state that is too chaotic to contain some sort of encoding ... there's not even a final last call about what the complete system of encodings for the universe are .... nor is there a final last call for the age of the universe or the state of it (or even if is practicable to age the universe since it could possibly move between states of creation and annihilation systematically)

IOW the only thing that is not possible is for you to hold some current empiric understanding of the universe as a valid truth since its hard to find any claim in the field that has been consistent for 20 years or more. The further the object stands outside from empiric investigation, the weaker its grasp on it.

This of course doesn't make empiricism any less valid in its preferred ball park of the senses and its objects.



Plausible means doable.
that's precisely it.

There is no doable tasks with what you are holding.

For instance if it was suddenly proven that water doesn't have a boiling point of around 100 degrees., it would become difficult to explain all that we have achieved in the name of metal smelting.

What doable practices would be placed in jeopardy if it was suddenly discovered that the universe wasn't in such a chaotic state as to make all encoding systems possible?


Since there is no evidence of anything that is not naturalistic, all plausible naturalistic explanations, even if unproven, must be disproven in order for any supernatural one to be reasonably considered.
This is just as much nonsense as saying tape measures don't evidence temperature.

How exactly would you propose that a naturalistic process ever have the means to stumble across anything that was beyond it?



There is no evidence for anything called "spirit".
perhaps for as long as you refuse to accept life as one of its symptoms



That is false. DNA is one reductionism paradigm that explains many things about life.
big difference between life and the chemicals it utilizes



I never said it was, only that it is a better method than any alternative, which rely on things other than observation.
Given that observation occurs through the vehicle of consciousness, or a state of being, a grander method would be one which deals with that state


Spiritual methods have no basis in fact. Spiritual theories cannot be distinguished from guessing or imagination.
they cannot be distinguished as long as one remains ignorant of the pending issues of application ... much like any other claim of knowledge you care to mention.



I'll take indirect perception too. Science does not depend on direct perception. One could say that no perception is really direct.
Its not clear what you are saying makes the grade for indirect perception .... I take it the notion of relying on the perception of others is not what you had in mind.

It certainly is weak when the tool for acquiring evidence doesn't , by definition, have the means to approach the topic.
I disagree. A universe with some purpose would appear different than one without a purpose. Until some purpose becomes evident, it is not reasonable to believe that there is one.

So far, your argument seems to be that since there is a gap in knowledge or our means of acquiring it, anything is possible. Isn't this just an extension of the God of the Gaps argument? Gaps, by the way, which are ever shrinking. There is no last call on a complete scientific understanding of the universe, but I'm not suggesting that there is. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing? I'm only saying that at present, there is no supporting evidence for a purposeful universe. Call me crazy for wanting evidence, but I find it more compelling than no evidence.


How exactly would you propose that a naturalistic process ever have the means to stumble across anything that was beyond it?
It would show up as a violation of natural laws we know to be true. A phenomenon with no other plausible naturalistic explanation.

I disagree. A universe with some purpose would appear different than one without a purpose. Until some purpose becomes evident, it is not reasonable to believe that there is one.
What difference would you expect to encounter?


So far, your argument seems to be that since there is a gap in knowledge or our means of acquiring it, anything is possible.
no

my argument is that the evidence required is available. Available through means other then the one you are sold out to, since, even theoretically speaking, it doesn't have the means to approach it.


Isn't this just an extension of the God of the Gaps argument?
A humorous equivalent of the god of the gaps argument is the post dated rain cheque one favoured by reductionists
("One day we will know that")
... and actually this is the argument you are offering


Gaps, by the way, which are ever shrinking. There is no last call on a complete scientific understanding of the universe, but I'm not suggesting that there is. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing?
No

As mentioned numerous times before, empiricism works perfectly well in its own ball park, but it quickly gets out of its depth when you take it to a macro or microcosmic setting.

IOW you can't indicate that just because I have a functioning computer that the universe is just waiting to be delivered on a golden platter via empiricism.


I'm only saying that at present, there is no supporting evidence for a purposeful universe.
Much like at present, there is no supporting evidence for tape measures being able to give accurate readings of temperature.

IOW the very question of determining purpose from an entity of greater than ourselves is simply not deliverable via empiricism.


Call me crazy for wanting evidence, but I find it more compelling than no evidence.
I call you crazy for expecting evidence to take form within a methodology grossly inadequate for the task.



It would show up as a violation of natural laws we know to be true. A phenomenon with no other plausible naturalistic explanation.
If the creator utilizes natural laws as a tool of its own creation, and if you are a million miles away running in the opposite direction of actually taking on the means to understand it, what exactly would show up to you?

I think a more general purpose for the entire Universe and all possible living beings could be expressed as I have done:

"The purpose of the existence is to enjoy life and if we can't we can think and work to make it possible."


If you want to make that your purpose that's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with any one else.

there's a host of normative descriptions that surround knowing god.

You claim to know god, but all you do is make empty claims.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
what purpose of ours ( sorry glaucon for butting in ) I just had to ask



If the universe simply exists to shadow it, it shouldn't really matter what they are

so the Universe somehow shadows our purpose ???

how does the Universe do this ???

so the Universe somehow shadows our purpose ???

how does the Universe do this ???
I'm not sure.

You would have to ask Dejavuinblue for details

The question itself may be its own answer. We are the universe waking up... to consciousness. Our purpose may be for us to ask what that purpose it. The ultimate probe, using the five senses to observe, experience and record observations, each with its own unique solution to the problem at hand...we are the beginning of quantum computing.

You claim to know god, but all you do is make empty claims.
err ... feel free to explain why indicating that there are normative descriptions that surround a claim is empty.

If you want to make that your purpose that's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with any one else.
Did you enjoy telling Martillo that?

so lightgigantic

for you it is about god ?

so lightgigantic

for you it is about god ?
and I take it for you, it isn't?

Guess we must have different purposes then ....
:D

“ Originally Posted by thinking
so lightgigantic

for you it is about god ?



and I take it for you, it isn't?

yes


Guess we must have different purposes then ....
:D

yes

my purpose is about the survival of Humanity without a god , because there is always the possibility the " gods " will fail us , in the end

or is this game between good and evil in which we , Humans , are caught in the middle , we are the pawns

yes



yes

my purpose is about the survival of Humanity without a god , because there is always the possibility the " gods " will fail us , in the end
Its not clear what your criteria for failure is.


or is this game between good and evil in which we , Humans , are caught in the middle , we are the pawns
The only high drama of our existence, from god's perspective, is that we are temporarily habituated to nonsense. Material existence deals with that issue effectively.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yes



yes

my purpose is about the survival of Humanity without a god , because there is always the possibility the " gods " will fail us , in the end ”


Its not clear what your criteria for failure is.

that this god puts himself first above Humanity

“ or is this game between good and evil in which we , Humans , are caught in the middle , we are the pawns ”


The only high drama of our existence, from god's perspective, is that we are temporarily habituated to nonsense. Material existence deals with that issue effectively.

you didn't answer my quote

that this god puts himself first above Humanity
I'm not sure what you mean here.

Do you mean that a constitutional great divide exists between god and the living entity in terms of quantity and potency?

you didn't answer my quote
I thought I did.

The only "game" from god's perspective is that we are in ignorance (namely accepting an identity that we are not) and he is seeking to remedy that via material existence

“ Originally Posted by thinking
that this god puts himself first above Humanity


I'm not sure what you mean here.

Do you mean that a constitutional great divide exists between god and the living entity in terms of quantity and potency?

no

that god punishes those that don't follow his advice

Eve and Adam for example

Eve took the bite of the apple of knowledge and then god condemed all of Humanity for it , sounds like a Human reaction , an immature , controlling attitude , than a god

no

that god punishes those that don't follow his advice

Eve and Adam for example

Eve took the bite of the apple of knowledge and then god condemed all of Humanity for it , sounds like a Human reaction , an immature , controlling attitude , than a god
So its not so much that we have a god that punishes but that we have a god that is out to lunch on ethics (or the application of punishment)?

Personally I have never really accepted the adam and eve story on face value... and IMHO is exemplary of the plethora of text critical issues that surround the bible.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
you didn't answer my quote


I thought I did.

The only "game" from god's perspective is that we are in ignorance (namely accepting an identity that we are not) and he is seeking to remedy that via material existence

what identity are we not ?

what identity are we not ?
this body and all its constituent properties (such as the mind) which are generated out of taking birth in an ephemeral geographical and social environment.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
no

that god punishes those that don't follow his advice

Eve and Adam for example

Eve took the bite of the apple of knowledge and then god condemed all of Humanity for it , sounds like a Human reaction , an immature , controlling attitude , than a god



So its not so much that we have a god that punishes but that we have a god that is out to lunch on ethics (or the application of punishment)?

from the begining




Personally I have never really accepted the adam and eve story on face value... and IMHO is exemplary of the plethora of text critical issues that surround the bible.

of course not , no surprise

from the begining





of course not , no surprise
then it appears you have problems with christianity (and even then, only a particular interpretation of it) as opposed to some wider philosophical gripe with god

Then why not use the same methodology in dealing with your wife?

??
I did.
My point in that example was that values can (and do) arise when it could come into conflict with what one is attempting to accomplish.




And you're not?


Not at all.
From the beginning, when I made use of the term "value" I was always making use of it in the classical philosophical sense.



Actually the question was whether the values we assign things exist within a greater context of purpose - IOW whether "we" is the final last word in purpose in the universe.

You equated that it was rational not to think so.
I suggested that this was your values speaking, since the argument that there is a designer works out of premises that are mot necessarily disharmonious with values of rationality, detachment, etc but certainly disharmonious with an atheist viewpoint.


And I maintain that it is irrational.
To support anything beyond "we" is irrational, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any value set, regardless of what you'd like to think. While a non-atheist POV may not necessarily be incongruent with rationality in general, when faced with a more efficient POV lacking such an entity as a designer, Ockham's reigns.



Given the reserves of energy a person usually invests in their values, its the the impasse of most discussions that involve a conflict of values


I would agree with this.
Nonetheless, that's not the topic here either. We've gone too far astray.




and do competitions take place in an environment with an established consensus?


Naturally.



...
hence there is another element at work "as words gain public usage".
Before a person lodges a vote, there is usually some sort of discussion of the values of it (except in instances of donkey voting).


I would completely disagree.
The relative value (in your hyper-extended sense of the term..) only becomes fixed once it has achieved consensus.

(Again, way offtopic here... but certainly an interesting line of thought in its own right..)




The purpose of anything can be determined by the qualities it possesses.

How very Platonic....
And thus.. right into the old ontology of qualia problem...

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;2385705]
Similarly, taking the tact that it is irrational to assign purpose to the universe based on human experience says nothing about the purpose of an entity who's jurisdiction of prowess involves the creation,maintenance and annhilation of the universe.


Correct.
Yet interestingly, moot. We have no reason whatsoever to support the notion of such an entity.




even in terms of mundane thinking, human purpose is frequently turned on its head. Such is the nature of being forced to operate in a system that places obstacles in implementing one's will.

I fully agree.
But to thereby propose that those obstacles are in some way an antagonist is, again, unreasonable.

LG,

You seem insistent that 'value' (even in your odd definition) is a pervasive element of experience. I'm fine with that, and do not disagree with that. Unlike you however, I cannot support the notion that it is a necessary element of experience. Regardless of this question of scope and efficacy, what I cannot agree with you on, in any way whatsoever, is your insistence that it is somehow reasonable to claim anything whatsoever beyond our particular realm of experience. All "value", or "purpose" I have ever known, is nothing but that invoked by a human mind.

It is this that ultimately causes the two of us to constantly find tension, regardless of the topic. Feel free to say that this is due to some 'value' of mine, call it reason, or logic,or what you will. In any case, all I can say is that there is no 'value' that I hold to, that could possibly cause me to see the utility in anything that is necessarily defined as being outside the scope of human experience. To me, that would be the height of folly.

??
I did.
My point in that example was that values can (and do) arise when it could come into conflict with what one is attempting to accomplish.
hence we choose different values in accordance with our objectives






Not at all.
From the beginning, when I made use of the term "value" I was always making use of it in the classical philosophical sense.
there is no overarching classical philosophical sense of being active bereft of value (although you could spout a few mechanistic flavours that like to consider themselves there)





And I maintain that it is irrational.
To support anything beyond "we" is irrational, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any value set, regardless of what you'd like to think.
Given that the atheistic mindset prohibits such a venture, it only becomes irrational when one keeps such values to the fore.

I mean, do you suppose that an atheist could sincerely apply themselves to a theistic practice (a theistic practice capable of establishing something of god's nature) or do you think that it requires an ideological crisis to be surmounted?


While a non-atheist POV may not necessarily be incongruent with rationality in general, when faced with a more efficient POV lacking such an entity as a designer, Ockham's reigns.
Once again, the moment you start talking about a POV being more efficient (because it doesn't have a designer) is the moment, once again, when your values have taken the floor.








Naturally.
funny
I always thought that competition was the process that established a consensus ...




How very Platonic....
And thus.. right into the old ontology of qualia problem...
trying to utilize the sharp edges of a microphone to cut a potato also poses problems





Correct.
Yet interestingly, moot. We have no reason whatsoever to support the notion of such an entity.
so your values dictate ...

IOW comfort in a universe perceived to be godless is probably not the best location for an investigation of the claim.





I fully agree.
But to thereby propose that those obstacles are in some way an antagonist is, again, unreasonable.
well yes, if you don't perceive any overarching direction of the universe it would be rational to interpret such reversals as arising from chance.


LG,

You seem insistent that 'value' (even in your odd definition) is a pervasive element of experience. I'm fine with that, and do not disagree with that. Unlike you however, I cannot support the notion that it is a necessary element of experience. Regardless of this question of scope and efficacy, what I cannot agree with you on, in any way whatsoever, is your insistence that it is somehow reasonable to claim anything whatsoever beyond our particular realm of experience. All "value", or "purpose" I have ever known, is nothing but that invoked by a human mind.
Its not so much beyond our realm of experience, but beyond the realm of experience of persons who neglect the requirements. Kind of like just because deep sea diving is beyond the realm of experience of persons who don't use deep sea diving suits says nothing about the experiences of persons who do.

And furthermore, the reason why some people take advantage of theistic processes and others don't is one of values.


It is this that ultimately causes the two of us to constantly find tension, regardless of the topic. Feel free to say that this is due to some 'value' of mine, call it reason, or logic,or what you will.
as mentioned numerous times already, logic and reason are completely subservient to the values and experiences it departs from. Hence you can have two people offering rational viewpoints that are both diametrically opposed since they both have different experiences and values.

That's why the real topic of discussion is which values or experiences are more encompassing than others.


In any case, all I can say is that there is no 'value' that I hold to, that could possibly cause me to see the utility in anything that is necessarily defined as being outside the scope of human experience. To me, that would be the height of folly.
sure there is.

A mechanistic view point is underpinned by a host of values that make venturing into such an area extremely problematic and difficult.

hence we choose different values in accordance with our objectives


Or, we do our best to eliminate them.



there is no overarching classical philosophical sense of being active bereft of value (although you could spout a few mechanistic flavours that like to consider themselves there)


I never said there was. What I said was that there is a standard usage of the term "value" within philosophy (that differs vastly form yours..).




Given that the atheistic mindset prohibits such a venture, it only becomes irrational when one keeps such values to the fore.


Incorrect.



I mean, do you suppose that an atheist could sincerely apply themselves to a theistic practice (a theistic practice capable of establishing something of god's nature) or do you think that it requires an ideological crisis to be surmounted?


Sincerely? No. (though I would argue that even theists cannot "sincerely" apply themselves to such practice...)
However, anyone, regardless of ideology, can in principle entertain the idea, so as to explore it.



Once again, the moment you start talking about a POV being more efficient (because it doesn't have a designer) is the moment, once again, when your values have taken the floor.


Nope; more equivocation.
I don't regard a methodology as being 'value-laden'.




funny
I always thought that competition was the process that established a consensus ...


It is. Within and amongst a context of constant competition.




so your values dictate ...


Incorrect.




Its not so much beyond our realm of experience, but beyond the realm of experience of persons who neglect the requirements. Kind of like just because deep sea diving is beyond the realm of experience of persons who don't use deep sea diving suits says nothing about the experiences of persons who do.


I disagree. One need not dive to know what it is like.




as mentioned numerous times already, logic and reason are completely subservient to the values and experiences it departs from. Hence you can have two people offering rational viewpoints that are both diametrically opposed since they both have different experiences and values.


As I've said, I agree with this. However, just because one begins from a value doesn't mean that this value 'cascades' through the process. More often than not, the value is used to establish the objective, and from there it is left inert.




That's why the real topic of discussion is which values or experiences are more encompassing than others.


I fail to see how this relates to the concept of purpose.



sure there is.

A mechanistic view point is underpinned by a host of values that make venturing into such an area extremely problematic and difficult.

And yet, so much more fruitful than any competing POV....

Mod Hat,

This thread has become destabilized.

There have been a number of posters (myself included) who have gone off on tangents that have yet to return to the topic at hand. A number of these tangents in and of themselves are interesting, and worthy perhaps of threads in their own right.

For those of you who would like to pursue any of these investigations, please do feel free to start a new thread. With respect to this thread however, I kindly implore everyone to do your best to keep to the topic. Feel free to follow lines of thought that go askew, but do remember to bring it back on topic, or at the very least, note their relevance and/or significance to the topic at hand.

Thanks all.

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

To give glory and praise to God in all that we do.

I think as far as I would stretch the OP is to say maybe some other intelligent beings have a purpose for us, and maybe they will show us one day (maybe 2012 :-O ) But I still won't give a **** because my own purpose is far more important.

Is there "purpose" outside human brain cells? This is the question which should be answered first.

I find this answer interesting.:rolleyes:

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?


yes.

we are alive

we can choose

how that works and what it means is what 'understanding' is purely about

ie.... 'what makes me alive and why?" most everything else is practically irrelevant, when observing 'what knowledge is for'

think of 'your' purpose as 'to continue' (life; purposed to continue)

think of the evolution of knowledge and progressing towards understanding

think of the total of mankinds knowledge (learned ideas; recorded and transcending) as 'existence' could be 'defining itself'

like rocks trying to figure out how to make more rocks;

pretty basic

think of 'your' purpose as 'to continue' (life; purposed to continue)
As has been pointed out every time you make this statement, it is incorrect.
Life is not "purposed" to continue.

As has been pointed out every time you make this statement, it is incorrect.
Life is not "purposed" to continue.

tap the surface of a pond, does the wave continue?

can you stop it from existing once started?

does the instinct of most any life, in all history, share the same 'intent' (to continue)?

the problem is, you just using antiquated understanding to retain your bias within ignorance (and by choice; your own intent)

it seems you have nothing but others opinions to harass with, as you never since day one, have been able to discount that argument YET, with comprehensible debate.

i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent (purposeD to continue)

mirror it to the idea of entropy (intent to equilibrate) but in reality the opposite is true:

life: purposed to continue

ie.... autonomous (the first breath)

D, your problem is you do not comprehend how life exists upon mass

been the same problem since i came here; you ignorant of life

so no wonder you have no idea of purpose, what purpose is, or why the heck you even wake up in the morning.

i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent (purposeD to continue)

mirror it to the idea of entropy (intent to equilibrate) but in reality the opposite is true:

life: purposed to continue

ie.... autonomous (the first breath)

D, your problem is you do not comprehend how life exists upon mass

been the same problem since i came here; you ignorant of life

so no wonder you have no idea of purpose, what purpose is, or why the heck you even wake up in the morning.It sounds to me like you're confusing purpose with function. Purpose implies intent which implies intelligence, neither of which are required for life. What life does is propagate itself but this does not mean there is any intention or intelligence behind the function anymore than there is intent in a ripple moving across the surface of a pond or a fire burning across of field. Life is merely a complicated chemical reaction.

That being said, some forms of life have a lesser or greater ability for self determination. In which case these beings can have purpose.

~Raithere

i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent ...



Fair enough, no problems so far.



...
(purposeD to continue)



Ah. There it is. A silly equivocation.

Bishadi, you've been warned about this before.



It sounds to me like you're confusing purpose with function.

Indeed.
Bishadi is confused with these (and a number of other) terms.

It sounds to me like you're confusing purpose with function. Purpose implies intent which implies intelligence, neither of which are required for life.

wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')

i said life: purposed to continue

once started it is on its way.........

has nothing to do with intellect or ID or magic

and it definitely aint random


What life does is propagate itself but this does not mean there is any intention or intelligence behind the function anymore than there is intent in a ripple moving across the surface of a pond or a fire burning across of field. Life is merely a complicated chemical reaction.

see what i mean

there is no intellect behind the 'life' of mass

but that energy itself is continuing on its own and not a reduction of chemical processes (ie... consumption by living things is not random, and why life often MOVES to consume)

the 'chemical reactions' are not accidents

and since INSTINCT is a naturally existing reality sharing that the LIFE is doing what it's niche is within the environment, shares that life is going on about its business by it own charge (not some magical maybe's of belief or uncertainties)




That being said, some forms of life have a lesser or greater ability for self determination. self determination has little to do with an ameoba continuing to survive by its own INTENT to continue

wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')



You didn't need to.
The term 'purpose' [as pointed out by Raithere...] implies intent.

wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')
i said life: purposed to continue
But you did.
As Raithere said, the word PURPOSE presupposes intent which requires intelligence.
Which has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions and you still return to "purposed".

Fair enough, no problems so far.

as oooosual, you mean

the problem is not me, as i said the same things practically a year back and you just catching up to the reasoning



Indeed.
Bishadi is confused with these (and a number of other) terms.

like what?

seems you are too dense, and that has nothing to do with me

ie... you've learned more since i arrived, than your whole education

life once started is "purposed to continue"

it has its own intent (purposed)

and if any want to debate this straight up, then come on with it

the phrase you don't like is

life: abuses entropy

but

life: purposed to continue

is exactly what this means

Originally Posted by Bishadi

i claim, life once started will continue by it's own intent ... (purposed to continue)


(and you find an agreement to the same but just not my use of the word "purposed")

funny shit

i suppose now i can't use certain words?

Fair enough, no problems so far.

and your consistancy stands all by itself


“ Originally Posted by Bishadi
wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')
”

You didn't need to.
The term 'purpose' [as pointed out by Raithere...] implies intent.



you damn right, life has an intent, to continue (instinctively)

whether you like it or not


once started, it does what it does (per its niche within the environment)

with PURPOSE (eat, shit, procreate; to continue)

But you did.
As Raithere said, the word PURPOSE presupposes intent which requires intelligence.
Which has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions and you still return to "purposed".

because you don't do the philosophical implications

you following a guise of the observer having to be a part of the life.

a machine once started, is running on purpose

the autonomy of the heart muscle is running on purpose

you both have lost the suffix to your root word without understanding the implications

a machine once started, is running on purpose
Correct - the purpose of the intelligence that started it.


the autonomy of the heart muscle is running on purpose
No. There is no purpose to heart muscles. There is, however, a function.


you both have lost the suffix to your root word without understanding the implications
And you're still spouting gibberish.

i suppose now i can't use certain words?

Correct.
Moreover, you must use terms properly, and not in your specialized sense.

Raithere, Dywyddyr, and myself have each pointed out to you your error.

As for the rest of your posts, nothing but more gibberish and abuse.
Enjoy your holiday.

The purpose of humans is to feel good.
And that there is all to it,nothing less nothing more.

wait a second.... i never implied a choice (intelligence 'choice')You need to be more careful with your word selection then. The terms "purpose" and "intent" both imply intelligence. Not all life is intelligent.


but that energy itself is continuing on its own and not a reduction of chemical processesI'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to asset the existence of a life force? Or do you have some other grounds upon which to argue that life is not a chemical process? Or perhaps you mean that we can't use a reductionist approach when analyzing life?


(ie... consumption by living things is not random, and why life often MOVES to consume)Some living things have brains and thus some measure of intelligence and self-determination. The actions of most living things, however, are guided by complex bio-chemical feedback mechanisms that function very much like machinery.


and since INSTINCT is a naturally existing reality sharing that the LIFE is doing what it's niche is within the environment, shares that life is going on about its business by it own charge (not some magical maybe's of belief or uncertainties) When you say "life is going on about its business by its own charge", you again seem to be implying that all life is somehow guided by intelligence. But most of the biomass of Earth has no appreciable intelligence and therefore the argument seems merely anthropomorphic.


self determination has little to do with an ameoba continuing to survive by its own INTENT to continueI would argue that an amoeba has no awareness of its actions and thus no intent what-so-ever.

a machine once started, is running on purposeNo. The machine does not have a purpose. It may have been created for a purpose. It may be started and used for the purposes of an intelligent operator. But the machine itself has none.


I know I sound like I'm being a bit finicky over semantics here but, with philosophical questions such as this, if we allow vague terms to confuse the discussion we'll wind up with nonsense.

~Raithere

The purpose of humans is to feel good.
And that there is all to it,nothing less nothing more.As simple as that sounds it's not really simple.

Different things make us feel good for different reasons for different durations, at different intensities, at different times, in differing sequences of events. We even have some measure of control over what makes us feel good.

Fascinatingly, society and ethics come into play as well, influencing what makes us feel good. Which means that the entire realm of ethical debate along with values and beliefs become a part of our simple rewards based behavior.

Of course, we also try to avoid what feels bad. And often what might make us feel bad.

And then there are some people who enjoy feeling bad, or scared, or angry...

Hmm...

~Raithere

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?
In biological terms, our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring so that they too survive long enough to reproduce.

The universe itself? It's purpose is simply to exist. And, perhaps, to one day collapse upon itself into a new singularity to start the whole process again

There is cause and effect, there is no coincidence. But there isn't necessary a higher meaning or purpose of our existence and life.

There is cause and effect, there is no coincidence.
Not quite true.
What is called a coincidence could be synchronicity:

A coincidence lacks a definite causal connection. Any given set of coincidences may be just a form of synchronicity, that being the experience of events which are causally unrelated, and yet their occurring together carries meaning to the person observing the events. (In order to count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence

As simple as that sounds it's not really simple.

Different things make us feel good for different reasons for different durations, at different intensities, at different times, in differing sequences of events. We even have some measure of control over what makes us feel good.

Fascinatingly, society and ethics come into play as well, influencing what makes us feel good. Which means that the entire realm of ethical debate along with values and beliefs become a part of our simple rewards based behavior.

Of course, we also try to avoid what feels bad. And often what might make us feel bad.

And then there are some people who enjoy feeling bad, or scared, or angry...

Hmm...

~Raithere

Not quite, the "feel good" is alot more than it seems.
It is simple in a macro-view however the fundamental idea of "feel good" will look complicated in micro-view; the one you used to answer.

But "feel good" is hardly a purpose, instead merely a mechanism by which we operate.

Is the purpose of a screwdriver to rotate - or is it to remove / put in screws?
Surely the rotation is merely a mechanism to allow it to achieve its purpose?

Likewise I see "to feel good" as merely a mechanism for whatever purpose we have, if any at all.


I only see "purpose" as being applicable to deliberately created objects.
If you hold that there was no deliberate creation to existence / the universe etc - then there is no purpose.
If you hold that there was deliberate creation then I suggest you go and ask who/whatever created us... as only they would know the answer - the same way that only I could answer in relation to the object I just made:
- If anyone else claims to know without me telling them it can be but a guess.
- And if they claim that I have told them then of course you'll have the issue of trying to convince everyone else that I have told you.

And so on...

Yes, some will undoubtedly lay claim to there being "normative descriptions in scripture" that detail our purpose - and to them I wish them good luck in their cycle of "believe to believe" that I'm also sure they're oblivious to.
But that's a whole other thread.
Or twelve.
Or hundred.
;)

the Universe has no fundamental purpose , persay , it just is

our , Human existence , life existence , on this planet , just can be

because of the enviroment the planet , Earth , gives life

nothing more and nothing less

Not quite, the "feel good" is alot more than it seems.
It is simple in a macro-view however the fundamental idea of "feel good" will look complicated in micro-view; the one you used to answer.I'm not sure I accept this. Certainly we can talk about generalities vs specifics but the fact is that "feeling good" does not merely appear complicated, it is complicated.

The point I was trying to get across is that even if it is true it doesn't really relieve one of the need to make a more complicated ethical consideration. The general principle comes up a bit short. If it were that simple gluttony and sexual promiscuity would be sufficient.

~Raithere

I reiterate


the Universe has no fundamental purpose , persay , it just is

our , Human existence , life existence , on this planet , just can be

because of the environment the planet , Earth , gives life

nothing more and nothing less

the Universe has no fundamental purpose , persay , it just is

our , Human existence , life existence , on this planet , just can be

because of the enviroment the planet , Earth , gives life

nothing more and nothing lessThere are two parts to this statement and to the second part, Human existence based on the environment of the planet seems like a good philosophy. It accounts for life being generated when the right chemistry and environment exists, it accounts for evolution, adaptation, diversification of life forms, etc. All that is consistent with observations as far as I can tell.

Now about the first part, "the Universe has no fundamental purpose, it just is." That I would say is a widely accepted philosophy in an area where there is a wide scope of opinion. Personally I agree with that view but I respect different views of the origin and the purpose of the universe. My view is based on my belief in the possibility that the universe has always existed. If it has not, then either it came from nothing or it was created. Both of those possibilities have supporters and I respect their views as I expect them to respect mine. But respect ends when someone insists that any particular view is right or wrong unless they can produce evidence to support a particular view. I don't believe there is any irrefutable evidence of either the existence of a Creator, of the generation of something from nothing (I mean nothing, no universe, no space, no energy, etc.) or that the universe has always existed. It is a personal view and our personal views are often the result of a personal decision.

In biological terms, our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring so that they too survive long enough to reproduce.

If so,we shouldn't encounter a phenomenon called menopause.;)

This is for the record. This includes everyone that answered, "No."
1. It is strictly your opinion and your opinion only.
2. You have no evidence, and will never obtain evidence for such unless That Day comes.
3. If That Day comes, you are all fucked and you won't be able to reason with what you are being accused of.
4. If that Day does not come, you are all wrong because the only way to really find out what happens is if it happaned in your lifetime or when you die.

So you see, atheists lose, no matter what.

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?


Perhaps but maybe not to us ...

This is for the record. This includes everyone that answered, "No."
1. It is strictly your opinion and your opinion only.
2. You have no evidence, and will never obtain evidence for such unless That Day comes.
3. If That Day comes, you are all fucked and you won't be able to reason with what you are being accused of.
4. If that Day does not come, you are all wrong because the only way to really find out what happens is if it happaned in your lifetime or when you die.
So you see, atheists lose, no matter what.
Strangely enough that entire argument also works for you:
It's your opinion, you have no evidence and won't have unless etc etc...

Strangely enough that entire argument also works for you:
It's your opinion, you have no evidence and won't have unless etc etc...

Everything I posted .is true and a fact. Tell me which part is my opinion

Everything I posted .is true and a fact. Tell me which part is my opinion
Ah I see, deliberate misunderstanding or lack of comprehension on your part?
I said the ARGUMENT works for you: everything you believe is your opinion and not a fact. And you won't find out (if ever) until the "the day", IF it's true.
In other words the comments apply also to those who answered "yes".

Ah I see, deliberate misunderstanding or lack of comprehension on your part?
I said the ARGUMENT works for you: everything you believe is your opinion and not a fact. And you won't find out (if ever) until the "the day", IF it's true.
In other words the comments apply also to those who answered "yes".

I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?

I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?
Nope, since "good" and "evil" are human terms also.
So they can apply equally to either "side".

Nope, since "good" and "evil" are human terms also.
So they can apply equally to either "side".

That's what I said. The only real difference is what side you choose. So you see in the end it matters what you choose, if you only realized it.

Though there are generally accepted definitions of good and evil, ultimately they are defined by the individual. If an individual defines those terms for themselves, then they can choose between good and evil. If a second person has diametrically opposed views of what is good and evil, then they could both decide to choose good, and be completely at odds with each other.

If you follow that reasoning far enough, ND is completely wrong about this conclusion (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446603&postcount=143) unless you agree with him.

That's what I said.
No it isn't: you defined the sides by giving them names.
The "sides" (as you like to think of them) aren't "good and evil".


The only real difference is what side you choose. So you see in the end it matters what you choose, if you only realized it.
Belief and reality?
Evidence and belief?
"Good and evil" is simply wrong...

Why does it matter?

Though there are generally accepted definitions of good and evil, ultimately they are defined by the individual. If an individual defines those terms for themselves, then they can choose between good and evil. If a second person has diametrically opposed views of what is good and evil, then they could both decide to choose good, and be completely at odds with each other.

If you follow that reasoning far enough, ND is completely wrong about this conclusion (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2446603&postcount=143) unless you agree with him.

So im wrong by the laws of the universe, but I'm not wrong by opinion?

No it isn't: you defined the sides by giving them names.
The "sides" (as you like to think of them) aren't "good and evil".


Belief and reality?
Evidence and belief?
"Good and evil" is simply wrong...

Why does it matter?

Well, I thought that you and I agreed that those 4 things I posted apply to both parties. (yes's and no's) That leaves off heaven and hell and only this life and earth. So the only difference in a person's life would be if he does good things or bad things.

I mean I don't understand what you don't understand. That killing is wrong? Helping is good? Perhaps you see it this way. Killing is good and helping is bad?

What are you going to tell me? That there is no such thing as good and evil?

Well, I thought that you and I agreed that those 4 things I posted apply to both parties.
So you agree it applies to both believers and atheists?


So the only difference in a person's life would be if he does good things or bad things.
Nope.
Or are you saying atheists can't do good things and believers never do bad things?


I mean I don't understand what you don't understand. That killing is wrong? Helping is good? Perhaps you see it this way. Killing is good and helping is bad?
The failure of understanding is entirely yours. Where have I said or implied that?


What are you going to tell me? That there is no such thing as good and evil?
Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

Thanks for seeing that Dywyddyr. The confusion was starting to get me confused.


I am still confused however, as to how this has become an Ethical issue [or in fact, how an Ethical element at all is significant].


-ND- reintroduced it here:


I guess the only real difference that is left, is which side you choose? Good or evil? Correct?


quite unwarrantedly.

So you agree it applies to both believers and atheists?


Nope.
Or are you saying atheists can't do good things and believers never do bad things?


The failure of understanding is entirely yours. Where have I said or implied that?


Ah you have failed to understand.
Of course there are such things: because we as humans have defined what is good and what is evil.

Yes, I thought I just said that.

Nope. What I am saying is that ultimately the choices we obtain or receive are based on the branches of good and evil. A person is a person. Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. are still people faced with good and evil. They are all capable of delivering the same outcome. The only real difference between all human beings is, if you decide to be good or bad. That is really your only and ultimate choice. There is no in between.

I was just making sure you still have morals. I thought you were going to say there is no evidence for morals.

Stereotypes aside. You agree that good and evil are defined accordingly?

Thanks for seeing that Dywyddyr. The confusion was starting to get me confused.


I am still confused however, as to how this has become an Ethical issue [or in fact, how an Ethical element at all is significant].


-ND- reintroduced it here:




quite unwarrantedly.

Relax, SS. We are trying to get rid of the confusion. I believe the op is about purpose and existence. This includes sub-branches as what we are trying to untangle. I appreciate you trying to control the situation.

Yes, I thought I just said that.
Yep, in that post, not prior to it.


The only real difference between all human beings is, if you decide to be good or bad.
So you think someone who is seen by others as evil took the decision to be evil?


There is no in between.
Of course there is since very few people behave exactly the same way for their entire their life or to everyone alike. For example even Hitler did a lot of good (admittedly early in his career). Even serial killers (probably) care for their relatives.


Stereotypes aside. You agree that good and evil are defined accordingly?
Roughly. They aren't absolute and they aren't constant.

Relax, SS. We are trying to get rid of the confusion. I believe the op is about purpose and existence. This includes sub-branches as what we are trying to untangle. I appreciate you trying to control the situation.

So you're asserting that ethics is a relevant sub-branch somehow related to purposive existence? If so, feel free to elaborate.


"SS" ??

Yep, in that post, not prior to it.


So you think someone who is seen by others as evil took the decision to be evil?


Of course there is since very few people behave exactly the same way for their entire their life or to everyone alike. For example even Hitler did a lot of good (admittedly early in his career). Even serial killers (probably) care for their relatives.


Roughly. They aren't absolute and they aren't constant.


Post 150, I thought that made it clear I agreed.

Seen by others to be evil and being evil is different as in the root of evil. Everyone knows what wrong and right is, whether you choose to be one or the other is entirely up to you. The reason why you say this is because you are adding personal views in this. I'm talking about root of evil and root of good. We all know what they are. Choices inflicting towards self can also be evil or good.

Lol, he was good but then turned bad. Where is neutral? Where is in between. You can' be a person stuck in between good and evil.

Well if you say that, than that means that you also believe in, my truth, his truth, their truth, our truth, and not just "the truth."

... I'm talking about root of evil and root of good. We all know what they are. Choices inflicting towards self can also be evil or good.



This is the source of confusion here though -ND-.

You believe that there is such an absolute sense of 'good' and 'evil'.

Others do not.



...still not sure why we're on ethics here...

So you're asserting that ethics is a relevant sub-branch somehow related to purposive existence? If so, feel free to elaborate.


"SS" ??

Well, Dywyddyr beat you to it. You can follow along if you like. Won't be hard to catch up since you are already against me :).

Schutzstaffel.

Well, Dywyddyr beat you to it. You can follow along if you like. Won't be hard to catch up since you are already against me :).


Please elaborate.



Schutzstaffel.

ibid

This is the source of confusion here though -ND-.

You believe that there is such an absolute sense of 'good' and 'evil'.

Others do not.



...still not sure why we're on ethics here...

To prove that in the end, the only thing that matters is, if you are a good person or bad person. Belief in God or no God is just opinionated. In the end the only choice you truly have is whether you are going to be a good person or bad person. That is the purpose of your life and that is the end choice. Everything else is opinions and personal preferences. This is also called "THE TRUTH."

Please elaborate.



ibid

Look up the definition. I'm scared you are going to give me a warning again. :)

In the end the only choice you truly have is whether you are going to be a good person or bad person. That is the purpose of your life and that is the end choice. Everything else is opinions and personal preferences. This is also called "THE TRUTH."

Aaah.
Very good. You've made your position clear to me. Thanks.

Look up the definition. I'm scared you are going to give me a warning again. :)

lol

Actually, I was more concerned about you elaborating on the first point.

As to the second, I suppose you'd better not elaborate as, if it does refer to what I think it does, that would indeed be a violation of the site Rules & Regs, and therefore worthy of a suspension, to say nothing of being libelous...

Aaah.
Very good. You've made your position clear to me. Thanks.

Not a problem. That is where it was going anyway with Dywy until you interrupted. If you read the post before you might be able to catch a little bit of the sense I made.

lol

actually, i was more concerned about you elaborating on the first point.

As to the second, i suppose you'd better not elaborate as, if it does refer to what i think it does, that would indeed be a violation of the site rules & regs, and therefore worthy of a suspension, to say nothing of being libelous...

lol.

Seen by others to be evil and being evil is different as in the root of evil.
Is it? How so?


Everyone knows what wrong and right is, whether you choose to be one or the other is entirely up to you.
People rarely choose to be evil: they choose to do actions that are considered evil by others.


The reason why you say this is because you are adding personal views in this. I'm talking about root of evil and root of good.
There are roots of evil and good?


We all know what they are.
Untrue.


Lol, he was good but then turned bad.
Nope, he continued along a line of actions and behaviour.


Well if you say that, than that means that you also believe in, my truth, his truth, their truth, our truth, and not just "the truth."
Wrong. Totally wrong. If it's your truth and not mine then it isn't true.


To prove that in the end, the only thing that matters is, if you are a good person or bad person.
Which has nothing at all to do with the OP. You haven't proven at all there's a purpose, simply shown that you believe there is one.
Either way the person has a purpose, but it is STILL self-defined.


In the end the only choice you truly have is whether you are going to be a good person or bad person. That is the purpose of your life and that is the end choice.
No it's not the purpose of life.


This is also called "THE TRUTH."
Really? How so?

Is it? How so?


People rarely choose to be evil: they choose to do actions that are considered evil by others.


There are roots of evil and good?


Untrue.


Nope, he continued along a line of actions and behaviour.


Wrong. Totally wrong. If it your truth and not mine then it isn't true.


Which has nothing at all to do with the OP. You haven't proven at all there's a purpose, simply shown that you believe there is one.
Either way the person has a purpose, but it is STILL self-defined.


No it's not the purpose of life.


Really? How so?

If you don't know right from wrong, you should blame your self and your parents, I on the other hand know my right for left. If you are too scared to assume that being good is being good and being evil is being evil, I don't know how you survived.

If you don't know right from wrong, you should blame your self and your parents, I on the other hand know my right for left. If you are too scared to assume that being good is being good and being evil is being evil, I don't know how you survived.
More assumptions on your part again?
Where have I said that I don't know right from wrong?
And still you fail to show there's a purpose...

The purpose has been already set down in the comments before. You are too blind and too into your own situation to see anything else. There is no point in this arguement since neither of us can provide evidence as you claim in order for something to be true. This means that you can't prove to me whatever it is you are trying to prove and I can't prove whatever it is I am trying to prove.

The purpose has been already set down in the comments before.
But that's your opinion. And you claim to have proved it. Wrong.


You are too blind and too into your own situation to see anything else.
False assumption on your part.

But that's your opinion. And you claim to have proved it. Wrong.

False assumption on your part.

You have a weak mind. How about that for a true assumption.

You have a weak mind. How about that for a true assumption.
Nope.
False again.
And resorting to (attempted) insults doesn't do much for your credibility either, little boy.

You have a weak mind. How about that for a true assumption.

That's it for the insults -ND-.

If you can't formulate an argument, or even post without them, you have no place here.

Consider this a Warning.

That's it for the insults -ND-.

If you can't formulate an argument, or even post without them, you have no place here.

Consider this a Warning.

Roger that!

Nope.
False again.
And resorting to (attempted) insults doesn't do much for your credibility either, little boy.

You get offended because it's true. I am not a little boy, I am 21 years old, however you can call me a young adult/adult.

You get offended because it's true.
So you missed the word "attempted". I'm not offended, I'm amused by your assumptions.


I am not a little boy, I am 21 years old, however you can call me a young adult/adult.
Then I suggest you stop acting like a little boy and address the points rather than throw a tantrum every time you fail to back up your assertions.
I'll address you as an adult when you perform like one.

Do you believe that there exists an ultimate purpose for the universe and our existance,and that purpose shall one day be revealed to us?

REPLY: Perhaps our purpose is to create Artificial Intelligence. Truly godlike entities that will either help us solve our problems or put us out of our misery for ever, annililate us. Who knows, and many of us may live to see the POST HUMAN ERA. ...TRAVELER

There's many theories (but of course Christians don't have theory, they have truth). Many Buddhists, Hindus, and Native Americans would agree that the purpose of mankind is to ascend in spirituality into a state of "Enlightenment" achieved through meditation, contemplation, concentration, dedication to a god/goddess, and leading a spiritual life. I would like to agree with this, save the fact that the Messiah guaranteed Heaven to the righteous and a burning lake of fire located somewhere in the abyssal realm of the netherworld for the wicked.

Humanists would say, of course, that their own power would guarantee them positive vibrations and some type of peace here on earth and possibly a peace afterwards. Same thing for New Age guys.

Whichever you believe, one thing's for sure: technology is the enemy of mankind, viz. artificial intelligence, nuclear warfare, microchipping, cyborg humans, cloning and human hybridization, and human mutations.

There's many theories (but of course Christians don't have theory, they have truth).
Please learn the difference between claiming to have the truth and actually having it.


Whichever you believe, one thing's for sure: technology is the enemy of mankind, viz. artificial intelligence, nuclear warfare, microchipping, cyborg humans, cloning and human hybridization, and human mutations.
More nonsense.
Technology is a tool of mankind: it's the uses we ourselves put it to that make it dangerous or not.

There's many theories (but of course Christians don't have theory, they have truth).

Forceman,

Dywyddyr is correct.
I would advise you to refrain from making such statements.

More nonsense.
Technology is a tool of mankind: it's the uses we ourselves put it to that make it dangerous or not.
In other words: technology mankind is the enemy of mankind :thumbsup:

;)