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
Purpose of the universe and our existence..
- Thread starter Mandana
- Start date
spiderquote said:
lightgigantic said:
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.
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.
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 tell me what is.
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.
Again the inability to read.
Value is minimized by recognizing it, and excluding it (think scientific method and individual bias elimination..).
??
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.
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.
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 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".
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...
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?
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 …
[humor]
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.[/humor]
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
.dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Is there "purpose" outside human brain cells? This is the question which should be answered first.
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.
Precisely.
That, is paying attention to scope.
Begin from what is accessible via our experience, and move outwards from that point.
errr ....ok
So you are asserting that "there is only "we"?
T/F?
Once again you offer replacing one value with another (in this case, the value of the scientific method)
:shrug:
Seriously, you think one can undertake the task of design bereft of value?
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?
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:
Perhaps .... until one's adds the condition that the universe is simply shadowing our purpose .....
If the universe simply exists to shadow it, it shouldn't really matter what they are
That should be obvious; as it's what I asserted long ago.
Incorrect.
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.
Indeed (although, I wasn't necessarily speaking of the ethical realm in particular..).
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.
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?
One example from many to suggest otherwise
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?
Fortunately the great thinkers of our time didn't display such a herd mentality
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.
Last edited: