Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Life IS Purpose...
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by nåte/">nåte on January 22, 1999 02:05:03 UTC
: To say that life has a purpose is in my opinion absurd, for it necessitates predestination and in many cases, demands that some form of power created and gave. : To say that we were "created" for any specific reason is to worship wishful thinking. : On the other hand, we as human beings feel such things as a sense of purpose, and create these for ourselves, which is just fine, as long as recognize it for what it is. Purpose is much like a driver, in computers it directs the function of the device, and our own drivers are much like these programs, but in biological organisms, much more complex, and much more freedom to control the alteration of the program even while you are operating in it. : As far as the universe is concerned, there are vast posibillities, life is only one of them, and viewed from the perspective of eternity in not only time but space(which is really the same thing), if something has even the slightest possibility of occuring at some point, then it will occur. We are so lucky to have a conscience such as we do, and should be thankful, but to who, or to what? I am just thankful, I do not direct this thankfulness toward anything specific, but use it to promote and relate to what I do know about what I am, where I came from, where I may just be able to go, and all of this allows me to accept my self, and my purpose. Child rearing is my dominant concern and then fulfilment of the basic desires first for myself and then for my mate. The self/mate seems lowly, but nature has a way of reciprocity whick alows for the fullfilment of both our needs through many of the same actions, therby forming a cooperative setting. : Although there are many more branches to this tree, I think I have at least shown some root and sap. : I would like to hear some other ideas on meaningfulness and purpose, thanks.
I noticed that you were quick to dismiss the reasoning behind life without a purpose... saying, "...purpose is in my opinion absurd..." What qualifications have you rationalized to come to this thinking? Have you all the answers as to why naturalism is the truth?
I admire your position and respect your beliefs, for I just as you, being a philosopher, wonder the cries of the heart beneath the outward expressions.
I noticed many presuppositions in your argument, as most arguments consist; however, should be validated objectively with logic and reason. This is to say however, that reason alone is not a measure of absolute truth, but rather the absolute possibility of coming to the understanding of the truth.
How is it that you deduce from logic and first principals that naturalism is ultimate reality?...'Ultimate', meaning the only rational reality? Is it not presumptuous to state that there is no such thing as the supernatural? Are you some how naturally aware of the 'inexistent supernatural'?
I understand that from your perspective you most likely draw all your conclusions of life from your five senses. I am presupposing this is true of you, but in my study I find this modernistic thinking common among naturalists.
In your reading I came upon a paradox.... "As far as the universe is concerned, there are vast possibilities, life is only one of them, and viewed from the perspective of eternity in not only time but space(which is really the same thing), if something has even the slightest possibility of occurring at some point, then it will occur."
First off, space is noteternal, but extraordinarily, blatantly finite. If you do not see this, we may as well stop talking here. How can you rationally and logically back up your statements about time and space being eternal? Further, if your first and second statement were true, we wouldn't be here right now because there is the slight chance that the laws of nature, specifically the 2nd law, would reverse. Your presuppositions are not harmonious with reality I'm afraid. There are too many internal and external inconsistencies.
Second, and probably the most enormous assumption is that of abiogenesis. It is my understanding that the mere presence of the correct arrangement of chemicals is not life. If this were so, life would be possible without the natural laws that govern and perpetuate its existence. I might add that my personal conviction is that of an omniscient, omnipresent, all loving creator, designer that has created and so magnificently crafted the laws that govern the natural laws and that of the supernatural that overlap our physical dimensions.
Back to my point...
I really have a problem with a theory that presupposes the existence of life. Abiogenesis, in my opinion, is the hurdle that needs to be validated before any assumptions of macro evolution are instated; unless one incurs the existence of an ultimate creator, spontaneous creation is ludicrous.
It is obvious the natural laws we have in operation are finely tuned for the mere presence of perpetual life. Carbon based organisms don't just come to life because all the right chemicals are present... As stated by M.R. Ghadiri:
"Of course, an immense problem in all of this abiogenesis research is, that we don't actually know what makes a given group of chemicals "alive..." saying, "We just don't understand why the chemistry that is happening in a living system is alive -----If it just boiled down to mere chemicals, then the chemicals in a bacteria, which has been indisputably dead for an hour, should be able to "jump-start" back to life -----because all the necessary chemicals are there.
Do you see the problem here? Let me also expound upon other noted phenomena that contradict a purposeless existence.
The fact and presence of natural law in our finite universe states or rather puts an enormous burden on the atheistic world view in that it begs the question of design. The question often follows, if we have natural law now, and there was a point in creation of space/time, matter and energy, what existed before in the void that instructed this void to construct a logical, natural law? This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence....a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.
And finally, if I may explain to you why it is I feel so many individuals are lead down a burdensome path of modernistic rationalism.
The basis of pride states the following mindset: self sufficient attitude. "I am fine the way I am, I am in no need of change". "I don't sin any worse than you do--you hypocrite!"... and finally, a conceited sense of one's superiority.
The last is one that I would like to expound upon. In the context of ones superiority over another is what we commonly infer the ideology of pride. However, it is this very ideology of pride that not only extends to our fellow man, but also in the expanse of the universe. We demand to know why we are here, and on our grounds dam nit!
It is this attitude i'm afraid that leeches in the very souls of all humanity. It is ever present... why you ask? It is our nature. We are fallen creatures out to disprove deity, lest He reveal our nature. We are in corporate denial. It seems extreme to think this, but it is a subtle thought that is beneath our fleshly desire. The desire to aquire. To have on 'my' grounds with no one to tell me no. Not even God.
Let me quote for you the popular, Stephen Hawking...
"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God."
I will finish in following Stephen Hawking... Stephen states that the ultimate triumph of human reason is to know the mind of God. Let me suggest that if we could know the mind of God, we would be god. We are not omniscient. To state that all of truth rests in the laws of physics to be discovered is stating that God is not supernatural. For if God is supernatural, He transcends space and time, and therefore all that encompasses what we know as reality...
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins