Is there any purpose in the universe?

[tonyrey]

I am not convinced that consciousness and self awareness can be explained by a purely materialistic philosophy.

I’m delighted, Tom. As Hamlet remarked, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”…

 

[tonyrey]

To compare the Creator with creatures is a category mistake. All statements about God are analogous and imperfect because our insight and knowledge are finite and limited. Yet it is also a mistake to think we can know nothing at all because we are aware that we exist and know there must be a** reason **

You have posed a false dilemma. We can understand the meaning of “God” even though our interpretation is imprecise. We know our power of insight and understanding must have an adequate explanation which implies that the Creator is infinitely wiser than we are. David Hume pointed out that the cause must be proportionate to the effect - and he was a sceptic!

 

[IWantGod]

Some people don’t believe there is any purpose in the universe but David Hume who was a notorious sceptic wrote:

davidhume.org/texts/dnr.html

What is your opinion?

There are rules by which the universe expresses itself. There is no reason to think those rules are necessary; they could have been different. Neither can we say the universe is the cause of the rules by which it operates because that is like saying the universe is the cause of itself.

It makes more sense to think that these rules are created by an intelligence beyond our comprehension, and these rules exist to serve a purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

There are rules by which the universe expresses itself. There is no reason to think those rules are necessary; they could have been different. Neither can we say the universe is the cause of the rules by which it operates because that is like saying the universe is the cause of itself.

It makes more sense to think that these rules are created by an intelligence beyond our comprehension, and these rules exist to serve a purpose.

It’s certainly the most cogent explanation because rules are not self-explanatory, nor is the universe for that matter. The only “thing” that is not self-explanatory is nothing! That is why the argument from contingency is so powerful and convincing: there must be a Necessary Being because an infinite regress of physical causes simply evades the issue.

Similarly to argue that we create our own purposes when nothing else is purposeful is absurd. It amounts to getting something from nothing. If everything is purposeless at the outset wishful thinking will never make anything purposeful. Purpose implies a reference to the future whereas material things are trapped in the present. Sooner or later we have to admit the brain cannot explain itself nor can anything else explain the supposed power of the brain to explain itself! There is another dimension of reality which materialists constantly use but ignore or reject: their independent mind…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s certainly the most cogent explanation because rules are not self-explanatory, nor is the universe for that matter. The only “thing” that is not self-explanatory is nothing! That is why the argument from contingency is so powerful and convincing: there must be a Necessary Being because an infinite regress of physical causes simply evades the issue.

Similarly to argue that we create our own purposes when nothing else is purposeful is absurd. It amounts to getting something from nothing. If everything is purposeless at the outset wishful thinking will never make anything purposeful. Purpose implies a reference to the future whereas material things are trapped in the present. Sooner or later we have to admit the brain cannot explain itself nor can anything else explain the supposed power of the brain to explain itself! There is another dimension of reality which materialists constantly use but ignore or reject: their independent mind…

I’ve explained the problem with this before

So the position [that is available to an atheist] is this:
It is the “natural” state of affairs for this universe to exist, with morality/significance as an inherent part of its existence.

What do I mean by “natural?” Specifically, I mean “what we get in the absence of overriding external cause.”

Now, you might argue that this is too close to being a brute fact. You might instead assert that in the absence of overriding external causes, nothing would exist. But if my assertion that the natural state of affairs is X constitutes a brute fact, then so does your assertion that the natural state of affairs is Y.

Here X = “a universe with significance exists” and Y = “Nothing exists”

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve explained the problem with this before

You are getting something for nothing. There is no obvious reason to believe a purposeless universe is valuable – or significant in any respect.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not convinced that consciousness and self awareness can be explained by a purely materialistic philosophy.

The power of the mind is evident to anyone with an open mind.

 

[IWantGod]

The power of the mind is evident to anyone with an open mind.

Yep. Be careful, the more you push the closer they get to saying nothing exists and freewill is just in our heads. Such is the power of denial. Its Amazing.

 

[tonyrey]

Yep. Be careful, the more you push the closer they get to saying nothing exists and freewill is just in our heads. Such is the power of denial. Its Amazing.

Then they would be contradicting themselves because our heads wouldn’t exist! Why should they?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You are getting something for nothing. There is no obvious reason to believe a purposeless universe is valuable – or significant in any respect.

Look, the point everyone here seems to be tiptoeing around is that value and purpose and significance are fundamentally concepts that only make sense when you have an eye of a beholder. They can’t just exist all by themselves, by definition. I made my previous response to someone who was claiming that somehow value and purpose were inherent to existence. I was pointing out that this claim is simply a disguise.

To have purpose, there needs to be someone with an intent. To have significance, there needs to be someone assigning value, and to have value, there needs to be an evaluator. You cannot simply have those things as fundamental and inherent features of reality. God is a valid intender and evaluator, and since some claim he is literally existence itself, it is therefore tempting to claim that this does make his evaluations and intention somehow privileged.

However, I think this conception has problems. For example:

1. (premise) God has no un-actualized potentials
2. (premise) God is existence itself.
3. (1 + 2) Existence itself has no un-actualized potentials.
4. (premise) You cannot desire the actualization of a potential which does not exist.
5. (3 + 4) You cannot desire the actualization of a potential belonging to existence itself because such potentials do not exist.
6. (definition) An entity intends something if and only if they desire the actualization of a potential.
7. (definition) The actualization of a potential has meaning if and only if it was *intended *by an entity.
8. (5+6) No entity can intend something for existence itself.
9. (7+8) Existence itself cannot have meaning.

 

[tonyrey]

You are getting something for nothing. There is no obvious reason to believe a purposeless universe is valuable – or significant in any respect.

1. Your analysis is erroneous because it is based on the assumption that “existence” is static and not dynamic.
2. The Creator transcends the existence of everything and everyone else and cannot be identified with the existence of what is created.
3. The Jews had a unique insight into the nature of God as “I Am Who Am” but they didn’t claim to understand the full implications of that expression as you are doing.
4. You are putting the Supreme Being in a human category as if you have privileged insight into the nature of divinity.
5. Juggling terms like “potential” and “actual” has no bearing whatsoever on the indisputable fact that there is nothing in the universe - nor the universe itself - that can account for itself.
6. Nor is there are any explanation of the origin of rational and purposeful activity which is presupposed in every argument that you present here or elsewhere.
7. To deny that existence has any meaning implies that nothing has any meaning - which is clearly absurd. In a meaningless universe the term “meaning” becomes no more than wishful thinking. Once again you are trying to get something for nothing - like deriving persons from impersonal particles…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

1. Your analysis is erroneous because it is based on the assumption that “existence” is static and not dynamic.

I’m pretty sure that God is not allowed to change. If someone wants to argue that God = Existence itself, then they’re going to have to accept the fact that existence itself doesn’t change. You could deny the unchangeability of God, or that God is existence, but you can’t escape that conclusion if you accept both of those premises.

1. The Creator transcends the existence of everything and everyone else and cannot be identified with the existence of what is created.
2. You are putting the Supreme Being in a human category as if you have privileged insight into the nature of divinity.

No, I am saying that concepts like value and significance require by definition a rational observer to set them. Therefore, if existence has value or significance, it will not be because of some “inherent property of existence” it will be because an observer assigned the value or significance.

1. Juggling terms like “potential” and “actual” has no bearing whatsoever on the indisputable fact that there is nothing in the universe - nor the universe itself - that can account for itself.

I don’t know how that is germane to this discussion.

1. Nor is there are any explanation of the origin of rational and purposeful activity which is presupposed in every argument that you present here or elsewhere.

If we were to presuppose that there was purposeful activity that required an origin, then we would indeed be in trouble.

1. To deny that existence has any meaning implies that nothing has any meaning - which is clearly absurd. In a meaningless universe the term “meaning” becomes no more than wishful thinking. Once again you are trying to get something for nothing - like deriving persons from impersonal particles…

Here you are equivocating on definitions of meaning.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Your analysis is erroneous because it is based on the assumption that “existence” is static and not dynamic.

To cause change doesn’t entail universal change. We remain the same persons however many changes we introduce.

2. The Creator transcends the existence of everything and everyone else and cannot be identified with the existence of what is created.
4. You are putting the Supreme Being in a human category as if you have privileged insight into the nature of divinity.

No, I am saying that concepts like value and significance require by definition a rational observer to set them. Therefore, if existence has value or significance, it will not be because of some “inherent property of existence” it will be because an observer assigned the value or significance.

Your definition is arbitrary. Existence is intrinsically valuable and significant because it is a source of opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment.

5. Juggling terms like “potential” and “actual” has no bearing whatsoever on the indisputable fact that there is nothing in the universe - nor the universe itself - that can account for itself.

I don’t know how that is germane to this discussion.

You identify God with “existence” as if the universe includes God!

6. Nor is there are any explanation of the origin of rational and purposeful activity which is presupposed in every argument that you present here or elsewhere.

If we were to presuppose that there was purposeful activity that required an origin, then we would indeed be in trouble.

Indeed. It doesn’t originate in purposeless molecules. It exists in persons who owe their existence to God.

7. To deny that existence has any meaning implies that nothing has any meaning - which is clearly absurd. In a meaningless universe the term “meaning” becomes no more than wishful thinking. Once again you are trying to get something for nothing - like deriving persons from impersonal particles…

Here you are equivocating on definitions of meaning.

Whatever meaning you attach to meaning it presupposes the existence of rational beings rather than impersonal particles.

 

[tonyrey]

The power of the mind is evident to anyone with an open mind.

That is the value of the argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To cause change doesn’t entail universal change. We remain the same persons however many changes we introduce.

Look, you can invent different “kinds” of existence, and say that God’s kind of existence is different than ours, but in logic, if A = B and B = C, then A = C. If God = existence and God = unchanging, then existence = unchanging. There are no “ifs, ands or buts” here. My earlier syllogism was explicitly about the kind of existence that God is. If you want to try to relax the “God is existence” part without outright denying it, you will need to say:

God is Existence A
We have Existence B

The rest of the post that you made seems very confused. I said:

No, I am saying that concepts like value and significance require by definition a rational observer to set them.

But you acted like you disagreed, and said:

Your definition is arbitrary. Existence is intrinsically valuable and significant because it is a source of opportunities for [things that require rational observers]

Now, you have appeared to object to my assertions about the definitions of things by supplying your own definition which was fully consistent with my original assertion. That was simply a waste of time on your part. What really got me, though, was when you concluded your post by asserting virtually the same thing as I did:

Whatever meaning you attach to meaning it presupposes the existence of rational beings rather than impersonal particles.

The only problem with this is that you seem to be arguing against an argument I am not making. I am not arguing that the universe cannot contain meaning. You are the one who wants to force a false dichotomy where the only possibilities are “meaning and God” or “no meaning and no God.” I am arguing that meaning and significance and purpose are created and set by rational observers. Since rational observers demonstrably do exist (i.e. us) the universe can contain those things regardless of whether or not God exists.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m pretty sure that God is not allowed to change. .

The Bible seems to be contradictory on this. There are some verses that indicate that God changes His mind, and there are other indicating that God does not change?
Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
1 Samuel 15:29
“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Malachi 3:6
I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

 

[tonyrey]

The Bible seems to be contradictory on this. There are some verses that indicate that God changes His mind, and there are other indicating that God does not change?
Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
1 Samuel 15:29
“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Malachi 3:6
I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

Only Fundamentalists believe the Old Testament is literally true in every respect.

 

[tonyrey]

To cause change doesn’t entail universal change. We remain the same persons however many changes we introduce.

You have ignored my point that to cause change doesn’t necessarily entail change in the agent. We remain** the same persons **however many changes we introduce.

*

No, I am saying that concepts like value and significance require by definition

a rational observer to set them.

But you acted like you disagreed, and said:

Your definition is arbitrary. Existence is intrinsically valuable and significant because it is a source of opportunities for [things that require rational observers]Now, you have appeared to object to my assertions about the definitions of things by supplying your own definition which was fully consistent with my original assertion. That was simply a waste of time on your part. What really got me, though, was when you concluded your post by asserting virtually the same thing as I did:

:
*Whatever meaning you attach to meaning it presupposes the existence of rational beings rather than impersonal particles. *

The only problem with this is that you seem to be arguing against an argument I am not making. I am not arguing that the universe cannot contain meaning. You are the one who wants to force a false dichotomy where the only possibilities are “meaning and God” or “no meaning and no God.” I am arguing that meaning and significance and purpose are created and set by rational observers. Since rational observers demonstrably do exist (i.e. us) the universe can contain those things regardless of whether or not God exists. Look, you can invent different “kinds” of existence, and say that God’s kind of existence is different than ours, but in logic, if A = B and B = C, then A = C. If God = existence and God = unchanging, then existence = unchanging. There are no “ifs, ands or buts” here. My earlier syllogism was explicitly about the kind of existence that God is. If you want to try to relax the “God is existence” part without outright denying it, you will need to say:

God is Existence A
We have Existence B

The fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption that rational observers can exist in an irrational universe. In other words you either have no explanation or you derive the power of reason from mindless molecules - which implies that the effect is superior to the cause. It is more economical and intelligible to derive our power from the Supreme Being who is superior to us in every respect. We** participate** in God’s existence but not completely because He is the Source of all existence. “God is Existence A and we have Existence B” is a false dilemma. Without God we wouldn’t exist but the reverse is false because we are contingent beings and we don’t invent meaning and significance for ourselves. Otherwise they would be arbitrary and worthless…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You have ignored my point that to cause change doesn’t necessarily entail change in the agent. We remain** the same persons **however many changes we introduce.

Ok, just be aware that you are inventing a new conception of God that I have not heard of before. Prior to this, I was assuming this view of God:
newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be** in any way** changeable.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption that rational observers can exist in an irrational universe. In other words you either have no explanation or you derive the power of reason from mindless molecules - which implies that the effect is superior to the cause. It is more economical and intelligible to derive our power from the Supreme Being who is superior to us in every respect. We** participate** in God’s existence but not completely because He is the Source of all existence. “God is Existence A and we have Existence B” is a false dilemma. Without God we wouldn’t exist but the reverse is false because we are contingent beings and we don’t invent meaning and significance for ourselves. Otherwise they would be arbitrary and worthless…

Essentially, you are arguing that because I have not explained a completely separate issue, that I am not allowed to use the premise “rational beings exist” despite the fact that they clearly do exist.

There are two problems with that.

1. It represents an appeal to ignorance. You are asserting that because I have not explained how something could exist, that it must therefore not exist. This is:
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

I will simply say that it is a metaphysical possibility for irrational components to give rise to a rational actor. If you really want to press the point, I will ask you to prove, in syllogism form, that it is impossible.

1. It is off topic. We are discussing the question “Is there any purpose in the universe?” However, you are trying to make some kind of “argument from the existence of rationality” proof of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

Only Fundamentalists believe the Old Testament is literally true in every respect.

But even Roman Catholics believe that God can change His mind. For example, someone dies and God decides that he should spend 100 years in Purgatory. But by prayers on earth and the application of indulgences, God may change His mind on the punishment and lessen the amount first given. Roman Catholics are taught that prayers and indulgences are beneficial to the soul in Purgatory.
OTOH, Catholic philosophers say that God cannot change.
Also, the Bible is not consistent on whether or not God can change His mind.