Is there any purpose in the universe?

[tonyrey]

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.

God doesn’t need to change His mind because He knows everything. We lived in the past, live in the present and shall live in the future but God transcends time and space because He creates everything in the eternal present. Like Him aspects of spiritual reality like goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love don’t change but He causes change. He knows what we are doing throughout our lives because He gives us ontological support! In other words He sustains us in existence. As St Paul pointed out: “In Him we live, move and have our being”.

 

[tonyrey]

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

I fail to see how my view is a new conception of God. To cause change doesn’t entail changing oneself. Why should it? Do you become a different person and lose your identity? What precisely is it in you that changes when you write a sentence?

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
   Quote:
   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.

Science isn’t concerned with logical possibility but with probability. It is possible that nothing exists but it is clearly self-contradictory. Similarly to argue that the power of reason is derived from things which lack that power is certainly an argument from ignorance. You are relying on your power of reason to derive it from powerless particles - which is absurd. If that isn’t self-refuting I don’t know what is. For one thing reasoning implies free will which inanimate objects do not possess. It also violates the principle of conservation of energy so which is it to be? Is reasoning a mechanistic process or is it independent? I’m curious to know what you believe.

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.

The topic is whether there is any purpose in the universe which presupposes the existence of rationality. You can’t have one without the other. A purposeless universe is necessarily irrational unless you can explain how they are compatible…

 

[Eric_Hyom]

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.

I think it was always in God’s nature to show mercy and give people another chance, if there was hope that the people would change. If you read your quote in context, it is Israel that has to change, and not God. I think most of the prophets had a message that came with a blessing and a curse. I think it is in God’s nature to want to give us every blessing possible, but we have to change first.

Jeremiah 18New International Version (NIV)

At the Potter’s House

18 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I fail to see how my view is a new conception of God. To cause change doesn’t entail changing oneself. Why should it? Do you become a different person and lose your identity? What precisely is it in you that changes when you write a sentence?

For example, your memory of having written the sentence, and your skill at writing sentences. Also, as I emphasized in the quote from the Catholic encyclopedia, it is impossible for God to change in any way because of the way he is defined in terms of acuality/potentiality. So when you are saying “well, God does stuff temporally, but who he is doesn’t change” all you are doing is demonstrating that you don’t understand how God was defined in terms of actuality/potentiality. I suspected as much back when you tried to attack my argument involving those terms by calling it mumbo jumbo attempting to introduce a red herring.

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.

The topic is whether there is any purpose in the universe which presupposes the existence of rationality. You can’t have one without the other. A purposeless universe is necessarily irrational unless you can explain how they are compatible…

No. You are trying to force some weird backwards reasoning. This is a complete and valid argument, with no additional work needed:

Is there purpose in the universe?

1. (definition) A universe is without purpose if and only if it is devoid of rational actors.
2. (premise) The universe actually does contain rational actors.
3. (conclusion) The universe is not without purpose.

What you are doing is to look at this argument, stick your fingers in your ears once you get to the conclusion, and then demand to know how rational actors can exist in a purposeless universe. I suspect that what you are trying to do is create a definition like this:

A thing can be rational only if it’s existence is purposeful (i.e. constructed by another rational actor.)

Science isn’t concerned with logical possibility but with probability. It is possible that nothing exists but it is clearly self-contradictory. Similarly to argue that the power of reason is derived from things which lack that power is certainly an argument from ignorance. You are relying on your power of reason to derive it from powerless particles - which is absurd. If that isn’t self-refuting I don’t know what is. For one thing reasoning implies free will which inanimate objects do not possess. It also violates the principle of conservation of energy so which is it to be? Is reasoning a mechanistic process or is it independent? I’m curious to know what you believe.

Spoken like someone who has only the vaguest understandings of science. There are all sorts of examples of physical phenomenon where simple arrangements of matter lead to incredibly complex behaviors, including memory storage and logic. Moreover, there is nothing about rationality which demands non-physical explanations, such as a reliance on the “purpose” of its mechanisms. Therefore, your only possible defense of the argument I described previously is:

The only way matter can come together to behave rationally is if it is deliberately assembled by another rational actor.

I’d wager that the fraction of scientists who would take on that position is comparable to the fraction of the public who think that Obama is the literal anti-christ.

However, your whole foray into science was prompted by your failure to understand what is happening here. We were making philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. That is why I took a “logical possibility” stance on the issue earlier, so that we would not be distracted by the scientific nuances that most people here are not able to assess.

On the other hand, your attempted denial rests on either a denial of current scientific understanding (i.e. that simple and purposeless arrangements of matter can give rise to more complex behavior) or the assertion of an unproven scientific claim (i.e. that rationality is necessarily constructed by rational beings.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If the universe has a purpose, that purpose cannot be intended by the universe itself, but by the creator of the universe, God. Since the existence of God cannot be physically demonstrated, neither can it be physically demonstrated whether the universe has a God-given purpose. But scientism is a hopeless avenue to finding whether there is a God, since scientism has no methodology for proving God (if anything, it does not want to find God, and therefore necessarily sees the universe as purposeless … it just is.)

So if we are to find purpose for the universe, we have to abandon science and enter the world of metaphysics and natural theology supplemented by revelation. Here other methods or avenues are open for exploring purpose, namely the reasons of the heart along with the reasons of the head. Scientism repudiates all such explorations as fool’s errands. But the heart tells us, as Pascal and Isaiah said, that only the fool in his heart says there is no God, and therefore no purpose to creation.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think it was always in God’s nature to show mercy and give people another chance, if there was hope that the people would change. If you read your quote in context, it is Israel that has to change, and not God.

It says if Israel changes, the God will relent. Similarly, if the faithful offer up a plenary indulgence to be applied to a soul in Purgatory, God will relent in that case also.

 

[tonyrey]

I fail to see how my view is a new conception of God. To cause change doesn’t entail changing oneself. Why should it? Do you become a different person and lose your identity? What precisely is it in you

Memory and skill are attributes of a person.

Also, as I emphasized in the quote from the Catholic encyclopedia, it is impossible for God to change in any way because of the way he is defined in terms of acuality/potentiality. So when you are saying “well, God does stuff temporally, but who he is doesn’t change” all you are doing is demonstrating that you don’t understand how God was defined in terms of actuality/potentiality. I suspected as much back when you tried to attack my argument involving those terms by calling it mumbo jumbo attempting to introduce a red herring.

You still haven’t explained how causing change changes the identity of a person.

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.

The topic is whether there is any purpose in the universe which presupposes the existence of rationality. You can’t have one without the other. A purposeless universe is necessarily irrational unless you can explain how they are compatible…

No. You are trying to force some weird backwards reasoning. This is a complete and valid argument, with no additional work needed:

Is there purpose in the universe?

1. (definition) A universe is without purpose if and only if it is devoid of rational actors.
2. (premise) The universe actually does contain rational actors.
3. (conclusion) The universe is not without purpose.

What you are doing is to look at this argument, stick your fingers in your ears once you get to the conclusion, and then demand to know how rational actors can exist in a purposeless universe. I suspect that what you are trying to do is create a definition like this:

A thing can be rational only if it’s existence is purposeful (i.e. constructed by another rational actor.)

(“it’s” = “it is”, a very common mistake).

Please give your definition of “rational” as it applies to persons and their activities.

You are confusing “purpose** in** the universe” with “the purpose **of **the universe”.

Science isn’t concerned with logical possibility but with probability. It is possible that nothing exists but it is clearly self-contradictory. Similarly to argue that the power of reason is derived from things which lack that power is certainly an argument from ignorance. You are relying on your power of reason to derive it from powerless particles - which is absurd. If that isn’t self-refuting I don’t know what is. For one thing reasoning implies free will which inanimate objects do not possess. It also violates the principle of conservation of energy so which is it to be? Is reasoning a mechanistic process or is it independent? I’m curious to know what you believe.

Spoken like someone who has only the vaguest understandings of science. There are all sorts of examples of physical phenomenon where simple arrangements of matter lead to incredibly complex behaviors, including memory storage and logic. Moreover, there is nothing about rationality which demands non-physical explanations, such as a reliance on the “purpose” of its mechanisms.

Rationality presupposes a** person**'s hindsight, insight and foresight.

1. How are these powers derived from **impersonal **“simple arrangements of matter”?
2. Does a person have free will or not?

Therefore, your only possible defense of the argument I described previously is:

The only way matter can come together to behave rationally is if it is deliberately assembled by another rational actor.

I’d wager that the fraction of scientists who would take on that position is comparable to the fraction of the public who think that Obama is the literal anti-christ.

Argumentum ad populum

However, your whole foray into science was prompted by your failure to understand what is happening here. We were making philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. That is why I took a “logical possibility” stance on the issue earlier, so that we would not be distracted by the scientific nuances that most people here are not able to assess.

On the other hand, your attempted denial rests on either a denial of current scientific understanding (i.e. that simple and purposeless arrangements of matter can give rise to more complex behavior) or the assertion of an unproven scientific claim (i.e. that rationality is necessarily constructed by rational beings.)

The claim that persons are the product of impersonal molecules violates the principle of adequate explanation because it fails to account for a person’s unity, identity, continuity, conscience, capacity for unselfish love, power of abstract thought, emotions, intuitions, choices, decisions, values, ideals, rights and principles…

 

[tonyrey]

If the universe has a purpose, that purpose cannot be intended by the universe itself, but by the creator of the universe, God. Since the existence of God cannot be physically demonstrated, neither can it be physically demonstrated whether the universe has a God-given purpose. But scientism is a hopeless avenue to finding whether there is a God, since scientism has no methodology for proving God (if anything, it does not want to find God, and therefore necessarily sees the universe as purposeless … it just is.)

So if we are to find purpose for the universe, we have to abandon science and enter the world of metaphysics and natural theology supplemented by revelation. Here other methods or avenues are open for exploring purpose, namely the reasons of the heart along with the reasons of the head. Scientism repudiates all such explorations as fool’s errands. But the heart tells us, as Pascal and Isaiah said, that only the fool in his heart says there is no God, and therefore no purpose to creation.

An excellent demonstration of the absurdity of atheism! Science cannot even explain itself let alone the nature of reality…

 

[Wesrock]

tonyrey, I think your use of a human person in this analogy is flawed. What is actual in us and what is potential in us do change. We are the same being, but we are changed and moved. Pretty much everything in our experience is changed when producing an effect (every action has an equal but opposite reaction).

This is not true with God. God can produce effects without changing himself. There is no backwards effect on him, no actualization of potential or anything of the sort, as he is a being of pure act.

 

[Wesrock]

Anyway, I think the point is that intentionality is something that couldn’t arise in an entirely mechanical universe (lacking anything qualitative, or something such as formal and final causes/teleology). In such a conception, the only seemingly coherent explanation is an extreme eliminative materialism. Intentionality, then, is either an illusion or evidence against such extremes.

Also, denial or partial applications of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (in all things, but for the topic, that that there is a reason the universe exists and/or for it’s state of being this way as opposed to another way) ultimately undermine any claim to belief in our own rationality, too.

Not sure reason is the same thing as purpose, but it seemed relevant to recent discussion.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Anyway, I think the point is that intentionality is something that couldn’t arise in an entirely mechanical universe (lacking anything qualitative, or something such as formal and final causes/teleology). In such a conception, the only seemingly coherent explanation is an extreme eliminative materialism. Intentionality, then, is either an illusion or evidence against such extremes.

Also, denial or partial applications of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (in all things, but for the topic, that that there is a reason the universe exists and/or for it’s state of being this way as opposed to another way) ultimately undermine any claim to belief in our own rationality, too.

Not sure reason is the same thing as purpose, but it seemed relevant to recent discussion.

I discussed this earlier:

I got to an understanding of “purpose” via an unusual route. I thought about how I would make a computer program to write a story.

In order to write a good story with interesting characters, you need to have some information about why the characters did what they did. In order for there to actually be such information, the only things the characters need are:

1. Expectations about the outcome of events.
2. A preference for certain future events over others.

With those two things alone, you can start to talk about purpose. You don’t need magic, or souls, or anything else.

A rock falling off a cliff might ordinarily seem like a purposeless event, but if a character had expected that the falling rock would lead to an outcome they preferred (e.g. landing on the bad guy) then suddenly the falling rock is purposeful and important to include in the story.

One interesting tangent is to ask whether or not God is capable of imparting purpose to this universe under this framework. God is not capable of having expectations because he can only have certainty.

 

[tonyrey]

Anyway, I think the point is that intentionality is something that couldn’t arise in an entirely mechanical universe (lacking anything qualitative, or something such as formal and final causes/teleology). In such a conception, the only seemingly coherent explanation is an extreme eliminative materialism. Intentionality, then, is either an illusion or evidence against such extremes.

Coherence isn’t the sole criterion of truth!

Also, denial or partial applications of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (in all things, but for the topic, that that there is a reason the universe exists and/or for it’s state of being this way as opposed to another way) ultimately undermine any claim to belief in our own rationality, too.

Indisputable!

Not sure reason is the same thing as purpose, but it seemed relevant to recent discussion.

They are interdependent: reasoning is purposeful and purposeful activity is based on reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

I got to an understanding of “purpose” via an unusual route. I thought about how I would make a computer program to write a story.

In order to write a good story with interesting characters, you need to have some information about why the characters did what they did. In order for there to actually be such information, the only things the characters need are:

1. Expectations about the outcome of events.
2. A preference for certain future events over others.

With those two things alone, you can start to talk about purpose. You don’t need magic, or souls, or anything else.

You are assuming physical organisms have foresight. How is that possible? For them the future doesn’t exist! Time is an abstract concept beyond the scope of mindless processes trapped in the here and now.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please give your definition of “rational” as it applies to persons and their activities. Rationality presupposes a** person**'s hindsight, insight and foresight.

Very early on, I laid out what I thought were the two requirements for something to be able to introduce “purpose.” Rationality came up later as a shorthand for those two things. The criteria were:

1. Expectations about the outcome of events.
2. A preference for certain future events over others.
   With those two things alone, you can start to talk about purpose. You don’t need magic, or souls, or anything else.

I apologize for using the term rationality, since it does to have too many other interpretations.

You are confusing “purpose** in** the universe” with “the purpose **of **the universe”.

I’d actually argue that it is you who is making that mistake. I have been stating all along that there is purpose in the universe, because there are entities which meet the criteria I laid out earlier. I made a few side arguments to suggest that the universe itself (or, separately, existence itself) might not have a purpose.

Argumentum ad populum

Only to counter your “argumentum ad yourself” where you simply make assertions that run contrary to what is known about the universe through science. By claiming that certain kinds of order or behaviors cannot arise from matter because those behaviors are somehow “not present” in the underlying material you are letting your metaphysics get ahead of your actual physics.

The claim that persons are the product of impersonal molecules violates the principle of adequate explanation because it fails to account for a person’s unity, identity, continuity, conscience, capacity for unselfish love, power of abstract thought, emotions, intuitions, choices, decisions, values, ideals, rights and principles…

Now you are simply flailing around intellectually. You don’t actually know that there is no way for impersonal molecules to explain those things, you’re just asserting that there isn’t. I would simply contend that such explanations are possible, even if we don’t know what those explanations are.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You are assuming physical organisms have foresight. How is that possible? For them the future doesn’t exist! Time is an abstract concept beyond the scope of mindless processes trapped in the here and now.

I’ll let you know when I finish making my game.

 

[Wesrock]

I discussed this earlier:

I’m not sure your really addressing my point, but I should still point out that the problem with your scenario is that whatever intentionality exists in the computer program was imparted to it by you. The computer program has no expectations or preferences. Nor does its coding or outputs have any meaning apart from a mind to understand them.

Anyway, my point was that intentionality, that is, “aboutness” of things beyond itself (a neuron pattern representing something beyond itself… a neuron pattern), cannot emerge from a purely mechanical world devoid of qualitative aspects such as formal and final causes. Expectations, preferences, these are things with a whole lot of “aboutness” about them.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure your really addressing my point, but I should still point out that the problem with your scenario is that whatever intentionality exists in the computer program was imparted to it by you.

Everything is imparted from external sources. Even instinct is the result of previous stimulation (in previous generations) from external sources, so if you had never seen a snake before, you would have a negative reaction to seeing one. A computer program is no different. Same with intentionality, as has been mentioned. It is simply a choice between two possible outcomes and you choose the one you want (or the computer does) because you (or the computer) has a preference based on past experience.

Do you eat the fresh fish or the rancid one? Does the computer connect to the reliable power source or the one that might overload the circuits? There’s no difference.

 

[Wesrock]

Everything is imparted from external sources. Even instinct is the result of previous stimulation (in previous generations) from external sources, so if you had never seen a snake before, you would have a negative reaction to seeing one. A computer program is no different. Same with intentionality, as has been mentioned. It is simply a choice between two possible outcomes and you choose the one you want (or the computer does) because you (or the computer) has a preference based on past experience.

Do you eat the fresh fish or the rancid one? Does the computer connect to the reliable power source or the one that might overload the circuits? There’s no difference.

To repeat myself, my point was that intentionality, that is, “aboutness” of things beyond themselves (a neuron pattern representing something beyond itself… a neuron pattern), cannot emerge from a purely mechanical world devoid of qualitative aspects such as formal and final causes. Expectations, preferences, these are things with a whole lot of “aboutness” about them . . . Intentionality, then, is either an illusion or evidence against such extremes.

So I’m interested in how you mean there’s no difference. Are you saying we have no intentionality and are just a chain of quark-gluon reactions from which no higher properties emerge and things such as consciousness, choice, and intentionality are just illusions? Or are you saying that the arrangement of on and off switches in a computer and its outputs are inherently about fish and that such an arrangement absolutely and objectively is about fish (fresh and/or rancid)?

 

[Bradski]

To repeat myself, my point was that intentionality, that is, “aboutness” of things beyond themselves (a neuron pattern representing something beyond itself… a neuron pattern), cannot emerge from a purely mechanical world devoid of qualitative aspects such as formal and final causes. Expectations, preferences, these are things with a whole lot of “aboutness” about them . . . Intentionality, then, is either an illusion or evidence against such extremes.

So I’m interested in how you mean there’s no difference. Are you saying we have no intentionality and are just a chain of quark-gluon reactions from which no higher properties emerge and things such as consciousness, choice, and intentionality are just illusions? Or are you saying that the arrangement of on and off switches in a computer and its outputs are inherently about fish and that such an arrangement absolutely and objectively is about fish (fresh and/or rancid)?

Neither paragraph is easy to parse. I’m at a loss as to what you are asking.

Consciousness is an awareness of one’s relationship to the environment. Develop a nervous system, centralise it and keep adding neurons and voila. Seems to work with quite a lot of living organisms.

Intentionality is choice coupled with proposed action. Simple logic gates will accomplish that with no problem. Eat food. Move away from danger.

It’s no more complex than a plant turning to the light. Except that because we are aware of the process, it seems like there is something more to it. Or maybe some people want there to be more to it. We’re complex but not really that complicated.

 

[Wesrock]

Intentionality is aboutness. For example, the arrangement that forms the word “cat” has derived intentionality. It’s a pointer to a concept beyond just that arrangement of scribbles. It has a meaning about something external to itself (a cat).

I stated that the word has derived intentionality, which itself is a conclusion of my view on the subject, with it only having such a meaning if there is a mind to understand it. That arrangement of scribbles forming “cat” does not objectively carry the meaning cat. That info isn’t objectively or absolutely embedded into that arrangement of scribbles.

Does that help?

I’m trying to parse out your own understanding of our consciousness. Are our thoughts actually about anything external? When I think about cats, am I truly thinking about cats? Or is that just illusory and the neurons in my brain firing with this thinking process are just a mechanical chain reaction and nothing truly about cats (or about anything, really) manifests anywhere in my thought process?