Can you provide a source for this?
This seems to run contrary to what archeology tells us.
- Status
This seems to run contrary to what archeology tells us.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
something happened to my post. keilulo asked me for a source, which made me realize that i made a mistake in my assertion…
I
inthecloud
Guest
Actually I have read that the Neardenthals did not bury their dead, they just trow them into empty caves to for security reasons. Avoid predators and bad odors. The species that started buring their dead was ours. The idea of the afterlife appeared in force with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or species. Many believe that symbolic thought including religion and ideas of a after life appeared with us and gave us a evolutive advantage over the Neanderthals despide their more musculars bodies and bigger brains.
And yes, a inmortal life form would not evolve. Since it will have conquered death, it will need not to evolve. But them, a dying Sun or a dying universe will eventualy kill it.
And yes, a inmortal life form would not evolve. Since it will have conquered death, it will need not to evolve. But them, a dying Sun or a dying universe will eventualy kill it.
J
jimmy85
Guest
Actually I saw in a documentary that the Neandertals did buried their desceaced, that is why I stressed that, because normaly the Homo Sapiens were the ones that were deemed to be the first religious species.
and the fact that the Neandertals buried their desceaded was way before the Homo Sapiens.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Some animals are “spooked” by their dead. Namely most primates and some elephants, for example.
Most animals know that death is “un-natural” in some way, but only humans know why.
po18guy
Well-known member
The vast majority of scientists agree on the concept of entropy, the gradual degeneration of order and matter in the universe, such as seen in the extinction of stars and the expansion of the universe. It is seen on earth in such examples as the erosion of the seashore, the oxidation of organic matter (such as decomposition and fire) and the rusting and corrosion of metals. Yet, so many of them also accept evolution, which is counter to entropy, and holds that living things have some capacity to adapt in and of themselves, thus sidestepping the process. Why inanimate objects are exempt is beyond me, since anything with a chemical structure could conceivably be possesed of the same tendency. Unless there is an overriding outside force acting upon it. Hmmmm…
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Have you heard of “negentropy”…?
Of course you have…!!
The “will to live” is God given, and exists in all life.
Only WE know who the giver of that gift is, and His significance.
Those who deny Him, deny life itself, contrary to their own nature.
What wretchedness does that wretchedness create?
Just ask an atheist. They can tell you first hand.
po18guy
Well-known member
“Doctor” Jack Kevorkian. 'nuff said.
D
Dispector
Guest
I think evolution presents a very strong argument… as does the Big Bang Theory. It doesn’t conflict at all with my Catholic faith. And, as stated before the purpose of evolution isn’t to live forever but to continually adapt an organic organism that can thrive and reproduce in a particular environment. Having a species with a very extended life will slow the species overall ability to adapt quick enough to environmental changes and eventually cause its extinction because it couldn’t adapt through reproduction and selective breeding.
(Actually, when you think about it, the concept of “purpose” is human in nature. Without humans or God to imply a “purpose” nature and life really has no “purpose.” Without humans or God to present a purpose organic matter is the same matter of inorganic material… it’s just clumped together in a recognizable pattern. Without humans or God to provide a purpose matter exists only objectively… sorta like a wave pool that continually has the ripples running through it because someone through a rock in it.)
(Actually, when you think about it, the concept of “purpose” is human in nature. Without humans or God to imply a “purpose” nature and life really has no “purpose.” Without humans or God to present a purpose organic matter is the same matter of inorganic material… it’s just clumped together in a recognizable pattern. Without humans or God to provide a purpose matter exists only objectively… sorta like a wave pool that continually has the ripples running through it because someone through a rock in it.)
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
Why does there need to be a purpose?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
There doesn’t need to be purpose. There simply IS a purpose.
Have you ever wondered why it is that the “name” of God is the verb “to be”…?
God’s name is not “necessary”, or “useful”,… but “AM”.
“EXISTENCE” is purpose,… and that purpose is God, existence Himself.
All life, all “negentropic systems”, STRIVE to BE, to live.
Their purpose, no matter how “simple” the lifeform, is to EXIST,… to BE.
Their purpose is GOD.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Amen, brother!
i suppose the purpose of death is to promote change. to promote improvement.
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
I am quite at home accepting the proposition that life is its own purpose. There is no reason to accept anything beyond that, however.
The view you express is quite poetic and elegant. It also highly subjective. There remains no objective evidence of anything beyond this existence, and until such evidence is discovered, there simply is no reason to think that life has any purpose higher than propagation.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
“No evidence” argument. Here expressed politely and responsibly, but still making the same mistake.
Tosay that there is “no evidence” that life has any purpose higher than propagation you’ve got to be so selective in what you admit as “evidence” that really “no evidence” is not distinguished from “I don’t accept”.
You are conscious, are you not? There’s no biochemical explanation for that. Now there are possible explanations other than that you have something called a “soul”. But your case was “no evidence”. How can you ignore something so salient as your own self-awareness?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Life, as in the life of a single organism, is not it’s own purpose. Even life as “species/phyla/etc” is not it’s own purpose.
Life, as the “idea” of a negentropic system, is not even it’s own purpose.
The supporting under-structure (the universe) of negentropic systems (that which developed into the “first” negentropic system) is also not the purpose, though like the other things mentioned IS the “support” of the purpose, of life.
The purpose of all these things is existence. Once the matter of the universe was “created”, it’s purpose was to continue existing as itself AND to counter it’s perceived “enemy”, which is entropy (the great “running down”).
How did it DO that? It did that by “striving toward” more real existence, which was to “move” toward negentropy.
The PURPOSE of all the striving of all matter is to continue toward more real existence. The most real existence is God, which is utterly pure existence.
If you can understand that matter does indeed “strive” in this way, then you actually DO agree with those who believe in God that God as God, and not as “a god”, exists as that which all matter strive toward.
What is the purpose of propogation?
Is it not to extend existence,… into the future?
What is the purpose of extending existence? Is it not because existence is a “good thing”, the ultimate “good thing”…?
If the “ultimate” good thing is existence, how is that different from the ultimate good thing (God) being God (EXISTENCE).
You consider “existence” to be “consciousness”.
That is incorrect. Existence of a thing only exists where the thing strives to attain a more perfect version of existence. All matter does this.
Life, as a highly “refined” form of matter in the dimension of “negentropy” very observably strives for “perfection” (most real existence).
Animals are even more highly refined, and are even more easily observed in their striving.
Man is the most highly refined, and each of us can observe not only the outer striving of our fellows, but the inner strivings of ourselves.
What is the purpose of this striving, toward what is it that we each strive so as to have more “good”, more REAL existence?
You may call it what you like, and I call Him God.
The evidence of God, as the object of all the universe’s “bits” striving, is the striving itself.
That ALL MATTER, at whatever level of organization, STRIVES toward more real (more FULL) existence is all the evidence needed to “prove” the existence of EXISTENCE (God),…
…which is actually simple statement of the obvious:
“Existence proves EXISTENCE.”
You are more than your consciousness. Until you find that to be true, you can’t fully realize how you can only move AWAY from God by sheer act of will, while every atom in your body is striving toward God, heedless of your will whatsoever.
Only human will is “allowed” to reject striving toward God.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
D
Dispector
Guest
Without humans to conceptualize a purpose there really doesn’t need to be a purpose. However, because it is man who is conceptualizing purpose, purpose is not found in the environment, but rather in the mind. Purpose only exists through man’s consciousness (… and God’s). Purpose only exists to what you apply it to. You make the purpose.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Man does not make the purpose. He is simply the one “entity” (person) who can communicate to himself and others the fact that a purpose is perceived by him.
We don’t invent the purpose of the universe. We see it.
All of creation SCREAMS the same purpose, but man INSISTS, rather more often than not, that he be communicated with on HIS terms,… and the “narrow person” accepts ONLY “materialistic proof” (if not outright “human language”) as valid communication,…
…and therefore REFUSES to hear what is screamed at him by all of creation, and several of his brothers.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
D
Dispector
Guest
I actually wasn’t thinking in context of purpose in a theological sense, but rather in a purely secular and naturalistic sense. So… let’s change it to a theological sense.
In regards to the purpose of life… that’s a tough one. I’ve heard many different “purposes” of life. I don’t claim to know what the right one is. All we can do is live a good and moral life and hope that we are implicitly performing our purpose as expected from us by God. I believe that if we follow the Word of God we are performing our purpose… even if we don’t know specifically what that is (i.e. vocations, “calling”).
Also, I believe each person has a different purpose from God. You’re right that human communication and purely materialistic communication are not the only forms of valid communication. It’s a long story… but it’s only through those discrete forms of communication, prayer, and a strong faith that I am pursuing my current career.
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
“No objective evidence” was the operative term, with the emphasis on “objective”. To say that there is something more than this existence simply because we have not fully unlocked the mystery of consciousness seems a bit of a leap.
To be sure, there is plenty of evidence for something more, but it is evidence born of speculation, poetry, and/or imagination, and certainly not objective, non-biased evidence. To argue otherwise is to loosen the meaning of evidence to the point where it is synonymous with “I believe”.
D
davidv
Guest
Eye witness accounts are valid forms of evidence. Right? Eye witness accounts of Jesus being alive after being crucified and killed were documented and preserved. How can you say there is no objective evidence? You may say this is insufficient, or you think they are a lie. But these are just you opinions.
- Status