Purpose

[Benadam]

Exactly. God, for many people is a comfortable answer to the unknowns. I think people need this comfort but it isn’t really an answer is it?

I don’t think that’s the reason most people believe in God. I thinkit’s the only reason ‘you’ can imagine that you would believe in God. I could just as easily say that you think believing in God would make life difficult and you aren’t comfortable with that. So, you want to be comfortable and that want is more important to you than the need you would have for God.

Why did God create something for the purpose of loving him?

 

[tonyrey]

Er, that’s what I said. Glad you agree with me.

I’m delighted you agree that science cannot explain everything and never will have all the answers - even about rationality!

Are scientific answers the only real answers?
Yes. They’re the only answers that can be repeatably, objectively demonstrated.

What about human thoughts, choices and decisions? Can’t they be repeatably, objectively demonstrated? And why should answers that cannot be repeatably, objectively demonstrated be “unreal”?

Can science explain the basis of reality and the foundations of science?
Science has a hypothesis with limited supporting evidence, yes.

What is its explanation of the basis of reality and the foundations of science?

Theism doesn’t invent something to cover the gaps in knowledge: it provides a foundation for the richness of reality and for scientific knowledge, a foundation based on the rational nature of the universe and the power of reason.
No, it doesn’t, it simply says, “Stop asking difficult questions, God did it and we can never understand why so stop trying”

That is your distortion of theism. You have evaded the points I made in that statement.
You are also implying that all philosophical and theological research and discussion is a waste of time…

Science is based on a one-dimensional perspective of reality for which it gives piecemeal explanations and leaves many unfilled gaps - which are of the most important aspects of reality.
The gaps that are left unfilled are admitted by science, and science endeavours to understand what is in those gaps. Religion just encourages you to stop trying.

What do you think philosophers and theologians are doing? Twiddling their thumbs?

The evidence is the immense value of existence and the power of the human mind which is responsible for the amazing success of science. How much value do you attach to your existence and the existence of the universe with all its contents?
None of this is evidence of God, as you know.

Then how do you explain those facts? Please explain how much value you attach to your existence and the existence of the universe with all its contents.

Why do you bother to do anything?
I’ve answered this question in the context in which it was originally framed; please don’t try to cast me as disingenuous.

I simply wish to know the answer. “I don’t bother to do anything which is unnecessary and for which I know the outcome in advance” is not an answer to my question.

What evidence do you have that the process of evolution could be accomplished directly?
None - as you know, that’s not the point.

The point is that you complained about the longwindedness of evolution…

Do you have any experience of designing and creating universes or processes of evolution?
No - do you? Because you don’t understand it, it had to be done by God?

I did not imply that it could have been done more efficiently. You did.

You are assuming that the universe was created solely for the purpose of creating human beings. You are assuming that the process itself is valueless…
How do you infer that assumption? And then maybe take a minute to realise that your comment actually has no bearing on my original point of God’s assumed omnipotence.

Your original point is “a waste of time”…

You have made it clear you believe evolution is an unnecessarily long-winded method and are imposing a human criterion of economy on reality as a whole.
Oh come on, you’re clutching at straws a bit here!

Didn’t you imply that should have God created us with a metaphorical snap of the fingers? What is that but a demand for instant results? You have ignored my question about the value of the process…

Saying “Science will explain everything eventually” is an act of faith for which there is no justification whatsoever.
You’re absolutely right. Only I didn’t say that.

Not explicitly but it is implied in your attitude to reality and knowledge.

Your act of faith in science is again evident. You assume particles are prior to persons even though persons are clearly more powerful and more valuable than particles.
Yes, this is clearly true. In the same way that an internal combustion engine is more powerful and valuable than its component parts laid out on a table. You have a problem with this concept?

Not at all. You couldn’t have given a better example. The internal combustion engine is more powerful and valuable than its component parts precisely because it was designed and created by rational beings - although of course it is not a person…

 

[tonyrey]

Your criterion of reality is physicality which is self-evident nonsense. Is the truth physical?
No, my criterion of reality is “that which is observable.” In fact I would probably have several criteria, but that will do for now.

Is the truth physical? Is it observable?

It is not only improbable but physically impossible for a set of particles which lack rationality consciousness, free will and purpose to be a source of rationality, consciousness, free will and purpose: in short, for a set of particles to become a person…
Can you prove this? Or is it just that you can’t imagine how it could happen? Ref my internal combustion engine analogy - what you seem to be claiming is effectively that a set of pistons, valves etc. cannot possibly be put together in such a way that rotational drive is produce. Do you own a car?

I know how it was made - by intelligent persons. Do you know how a set of particles were made into a person?

Would you stake your life on the ability of irrational particles to become rational?

But as it happens, I would stake my life on it. In fact, I believe my life has resulted from it.

What makes you so sure you have irrational ancestors? And in this context how much do you value your life?

I’m glad you admit science doesn’t attempt to claim an in-depth knowledge of this process. It doesn’t have in-depth knowledge of any of the most important aspects of reality.

Perhaps not. That’s no reason to postulate God.

What other explanation can you give?

On the contrary theology takes into account scientific discoveries and refines its explanations accordingly. It back-pedals furiously as science proves its falsehoods, yes. For example, it views evolution as a process of development designed by God rather than a haphazard sequence of events largely due to random mutations which originated in the fortuitous combination of atomic particles.
Well originally, it viewed evolution as non-existent and that God knocked the universe together in six days. It’s (largely) changed its view as science pointed out the nonsense of such a scenario and provided a sensible, evidence-based alternative.

Science originated because belief in God led men to believe the universe is intelligible and has a rational basis. Science has often modified its theories. So has Christianity but the fundamental truths remain the same.

Science, of course, does not takes into account any non-scientific discoveries or progress in any other field of knowledge. It is restricted to atomistic, mechanistic and materialistic explanation.
There is not other field of knowledge, only fields of speculation.

Now your scientism and physicalism are really evident beyond all doubt whatsoever.
N.B. “There is not other field of knowledge”. The most dogmatic statement one could possibly make. How do you know this “unassailable fact”? How can you prove it beyond all doubt?

That’s the point. God is speculation, conjecture, hypothesis. There is no evidence.

These are mantra which lose their force the more often they are repeated… I can just as easily say “Physicalism (or scientism) is speculation, conjecture, hypothesis. There is no evidence that it explains the whole of reality”.

Maybe if you stopped thinking of science as people in white coats with test tubes you might feel less hostile towards it.

Again I could say: “Maybe if you stopped thinking of religion as people in churches with prayer books you might feel less hostile towards it.”

Well, you do love to rephrase other people’s comments as if you think it proves your point, but yet again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the simple concept that atheism does not claim to know the answers.

I rephrase comments deliberately to demonstrate that they are unnecessary and do not deal with the issue at stake. Take the following example:

“The funny thing is, I know that you do understand it, but yet you still consistently demonstrate otherwise, undermining your own intellect.”

I could easily repeat that because it does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion. Why waste time and energy on such statements?

 

[wanstronian]

I’m delighted you agree that science cannot explain everything and never will have all the answers - even about rationality!

Why would I not? You seem to think that this basic truth supports your conclusions??

What about human thoughts, choices and decisions? Can’t they be repeatably, objectively demonstrated? And why should answers that cannot be repeatably, objectively demonstrated be “unreal”?

The fact that humans think, make choices and decisions can be demonstrated, yes. I’m surprised you haven’t noticed.

What is its explanation of the basis of reality and the foundations of science?

Well, I’m not a scientist, but as I understand it, the basis of reality was founded in the Big Bang which may have been created by a singularity. The foundations of science are the natural laws we can observe and the logic we use to create hypotheses that we can then turn into theories by use of scientific method.

That is your distortion of theism. You have evaded the points I made in that statement.

You are fond of accusing your adversaries of evasion, but I’ve yet to see you do so accurately. I haven’t evaded, I’ve refuted.

You are also implying that all philosophical and theological research and discussion is a waste of time…

You need to understand the difference between what I imply and what you infer. I cannot be held responsible for your lack of understanding.

What do you think philosophers and theologians are doing? Twiddling their thumbs?

I don’t know, but I doubt they are arriving at provable conclusions.

Then how do you explain those facts? Please explain how much value you attach to your existence and the existence of the universe with all its contents.

I grow rather tired of point out that which I know you know. Not knowing the answer to something is not evidence that God exists. If you think otherwise, then with all due respect, you lack integrity and intelligence.

I simply wish to know the answer. “I don’t bother to do anything which is unnecessary and for which I know the outcome in advance” is not an answer to my question.

Well, for someone who infers incorrectly a large percentage of the time, I’m surprised you couldn’t at least infer something. But to spell it out: I do things that bring me and me co-existents advantage.

The point is that you complained about the longwindedness of evolution…

I didn’t complain about it - I simply pointed out that if God exists, he could achieve his aim directly without having to wait for evolution to produce being to ‘do his bidding.’ Again, I suspect you know this but have no answer but to try and dissect my comment. Sad.

I did not imply that it could have been done more efficiently. You did.

For someone who recently complained in another thread that I was ‘once again’ misrepresenting you (and, if you’ll remember, we subsequently ascertained that I was not then, nor ever had, misrepresented you), you sure are a hypocrite.

Your original point is “a waste of time”…

And you are arrogantly assuming that human beings are the only beings that God would bother with. And my point was that, regardless of the creation or otherwise of humans, if God is all-powerful, he doesn’t need to go creating a Universe and all its life to achieve his aim. Unless his aim is purely the creation of the Universe in the first place. In which case there is no ultimate purpose.

Didn’t you imply that should have God created us with a metaphorical snap of the fingers? What is that but a demand for instant results? You have ignored my question about the value of the process…

Hopefully answered it now.

Not explicitly but it is implied in your attitude to reality and knowledge.

I have never stated nor implied that science will one day explain everything. Maybe this is why you keep trotting out the same ineffective defenses against the logic of atheism - because you are unable to understand such logic?

Not at all. You couldn’t have given a better example. The internal combustion engine is more powerful and valuable than its component parts precisely because it was designed and created by rational beings - although of course it is not a person…

That’s true. It doesn’t logically follow that anything not designed could not be more than the sum of its parts. That would be a narrow-minded and dogmatic (same thing actually) point of view.

 

[wanstronian]

Is the truth physical? Is it observable?

Truth is observable, yes.

I know how it was made - by intelligent persons.

The fact that you state this so boldly exposes your lack of irrationality and logic. As if that wasn’t already apparent by most of your previous comments.

Do you know how a set of particles were made into a person?

Evolution by natural selection provides the only rational explanation.

What makes you so sure you have irrational ancestors?

At a macro level, evolution provides evidence that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. At a micro level, I am aware that I am composed of atoms which in themselves are incapable of rationality. I am also aware that I have a leg composed of elements which in themselves are unable to kick a football. I see no difference.

And in this context how much do you value your life?

Immensely, but not quite as much as I value the lives of my wife and children. Knowing that I am probably made up of individually unintelligent particles does not make my life less wondrous - in fact the opposite is true.

What other explanation can you give?

Give me strength! Are you really this obtuse? “It’s God or nothing?” It’s pitiful that this is your best response.

Science originated because belief in God led men to believe the universe is intelligible and has a rational basis. Science has often modified its theories. So has Christianity but the fundamental truths remain the same.

Yet science and Christianity both modify their theories due to scientific evidence. Or sometimes, in the case of Christianity (but never in the case of science), to appease the moral zeitgeist.

Now your scientism and physicalism are really evident beyond all doubt whatsoever.
N.B. “There is not other field of knowledge”. The most dogmatic statement one could possibly make. How do you know this “unassailable fact”? How can you prove it beyond all doubt?

It may be dogma by one definition, but at least it’s demonstrable. This is the kind of dogma which is okay, because a cynic can check it out for themselves and arrive at the same conclusion. It’s the only field of knowledge which can be proven repeatably.

These are mantra which lose their force the more often they are repeated… I can just as easily say “Physicalism (or scientism) is speculation, conjecture, hypothesis. There is no evidence that it explains the whole of reality”.

It’s a shame they have to be repeated, as people like yourself seem to lose sight of these basic tenets. Your analogy is, as ever, inconsistent. Because as you are well aware, scientism does not claim to explain the whole of reality. These discussions would be more fulfilling if you debated honestly.

Again I could say: “Maybe if you stopped thinking of religion as people in churches with prayer books you might feel less hostile towards it.”
I rephrase comments deliberately to demonstrate that they are unnecessary and do not deal with the issue at stake.

If that were true it would be a valuable tool. But your rephrasings are devoid of appropriate analogy so just seem petty and immature.

Take the following example:
“The funny thing is, I know that you do understand it, but yet you still consistently demonstrate otherwise, undermining your own intellect.”
I could easily repeat that because it does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion. Why waste time and energy on such statements?

Well, actually it demonstrates that you are consistently failing to recognise a basic foundation of atheism - that a refutation of a hypothesis with no supporting evidence does not oblige the refuter to propose an alternative solution. I know you understand this, but you consistently demonstrate otherwise, presumably because you have no other response. A further demonstration that, for you, any answer is better than no answer.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
God explains intelligence, free will and our creative power
God doesn’t explain anything.

God explains lots of things in the sacred scriptures of the world! (The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley)

But even if he did, he would be a superfluous explanation, since we can explain all those things quite nicely without appealing to a hypothetical disembodied mind.

That sounds very impressive but it would be interesting to know exactly how you explain the origin of personality, intelligence, free will, creativity, purpose and love…

Evolution without design is far more parsimonious than evolution with design.

There is a difference between evolution with design and evolution by design!
Not only that. Evolution without design fails to explain the existence of design in the universe.
Parsimony is desirable but not at the cost of adequacy. To explain intelligence in terms of chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Genetic variation comes from random mutations.

So you believe evolution is primarily fortuitous, i.e. we exist by chance?

Natural selection is the mechanism of biological evolution.

Blind selection from a range of random mutations?

If you think this is an important point, you will have to provide some justification, since I have made a point of rejecting it.

Your original statement: “To say that we have purpose is to say that we have a certain functional roles in this physical world.” Do you believe our functions are basically the same as other living organisms? If so why are we the only beings who are legally responsible for what we do?

We cannot have free will if we cannot override our physical nature.
So you say. I have no reason to believe that, however.

Then explain why you cannot believe it. How can we infringe physical laws? Where do we get the power to control ourselves?

I hold non-biological machines responsible for their actions in varying ways.

But not in ways like having to appear in court for criminal activity.

We can’t help but think rationally, regardless of our ability or inability to explain why that is the case.

I entirely agree with you but we are concerned not just with rational thinking but with how we (and our ability to reason) originated.

I doubt any serious philosopher would attempt to make a case against any and all rational thought.

Again I entirely agree with you but then you are faced with the problem I have just mentioned. Surely it is highly unlikely that rational thought is caused by irrational processes?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5597156

 

[survive]

Purpose can’t be invented after that to which the purpose belongs exists. You don’t make a tool and say, “I think this can be used to pound nails.” If you did, it would be an accident, not a purpose, and the tool would have no purpose, only a use.
My life either has a purpose and would have the same purpose regardless of whether or not I liked it or was aware of it, or has none and will never have one no matter what I make up and call “purpose”. Calling a use-after-the-fact a purpose doesn’t make it one.

 

[liquidpele]

Purpose can’t be invented after that to which the purpose belongs exists. You don’t make a tool and say, “I think this can be used to pound nails.” If you did, it would be an accident, not a purpose, and the tool would have no purpose, only a use.
My life either has a purpose and would have the same purpose regardless of whether or not I liked it or was aware of it, or has none and will never have one no matter what I make up and call “purpose”. Calling a use-after-the-fact a purpose doesn’t make it one.

Not allowing the tool to decide to pound nails all day if it wanted would take away it’s free will. Besides, just because something is created with a purpose in mind doesn’t necessarily mean that purpose continues to be. We have a cut up milk jug outside with a plant in it, that’s hardly the purpose of the jug originally.

 

[survive]

Not allowing the tool to decide to pound nails all day if it wanted would take away it’s free will. Besides, just because something is created with a purpose in mind doesn’t necessarily mean that purpose continues to be. We have a cut up milk jug outside with a plant in it, that’s hardly the purpose of the jug originally.

You modified the jug and reused it for an additional usage – a bonus. It already fulfilled its purpose: to hold milk. Had it decided not to hold milk because it got just as much “sense of purpose” out of hopping down the street full of rocks it would have been failing its purpose whether it knew it or not.

 

[liquidpele]

You modified the jug and reused it for an additional usage – a bonus. It already fulfilled its purpose: to hold milk. Had it decided not to hold milk because it got just as much “sense of purpose” out of hopping down the street full of rocks it would have been failing its purpose whether it knew it or not.

You’re arguing my simple example as if that defeats all possible examples. Think of a case where something is created for a purpose and then is used for a different purpose without the original being fulfilled… if you can’t do that I’m not sure what to say except you’re not being honest with yourself. Note that I’m not saying that this necessarily is the case with humans or creation in general, just that by definition purpose does not have to be absolute, unchangeable, or singular.

 

[survive]

You’re arguing my simple example as if that defeats all possible examples. Think of a case where something is created for a purpose and then is used for a different purpose without the original being fulfilled… if you can’t do that I’m not sure what to say except you’re not being honest with yourself. Note that I’m not saying that this necessarily is the case with humans or creation in general, just that by definition purpose does not have to be absolute, unchangeable, or singular.

It’s odd you would assume I’m not being honest with myself. It was a humbling moment of insight to myself that led me to abandon the idea of seeking a purpose and begin seeking clues to my actual purpose instead, so many years ago now. Purpose does indeed precede creation by definition, and though it may not be singular it cannot be the decision of the creation. Action can but purpose cannot. What we invent for ourselves may give us one benefit or another but is unrelated to why we were put here. Either we are here on a mysterious errand or we are not. If not, then under all the making-ourselves-feel one thing and another we know our self-designed purposes aren’t real purposes. If so, then it is possible to misunderstand what the mission is. We have a responsibility to try to discover it.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s odd you would assume I’m not being honest with myself. It was a humbling moment of insight to myself that led me to abandon the idea of seeking a purpose and begin seeking clues to my actual purpose instead, so many years ago now. Purpose does indeed precede creation by definition, and though it may not be singular it cannot be the decision of the creation. Action can but purpose cannot. What we invent for ourselves may give us one benefit or another but is unrelated to why we were put here. Either we are here on a mysterious errand or we are not. If not, then under all the making-ourselves-feel one thing and another we know our self-designed purposes aren’t real purposes. If so, then it is possible to misunderstand what the mission is. We have a responsibility to try to discover it.

Purpose can precede creation, but creation does not have to be a product of purpose.

Why can’t a purpose be created by the creation? You make quite the claim there. You seem to be defining purpose as only that of the original thing that had a want or need. This seems very narrow to me, though I guess I should have expected it.

 

[Benadam]

]Purpose can precede creation, but creation does not have to be a product of purpose.

Creation as an act of will would seem to demand that purpose precede creation. I think.

Why can’t a purpose be created by the creation?

Why can’t purpose be made rather than created? An act of creation without purpose? Worth exploring.