Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 13, 2018, 11:43 (94 days ago) @ GateKeeper

dhw: Briefly, as I see it, there is a difference between what we might call micro and macropurpose. For all living organisms, there is a clear (micro) purpose of survival, while humans have many additional, personal purposes. [...] Obviously if there is no God, there is no macropurpose. That doesn’t matter at all to me, since I am happy to follow my own path.[...] If there is a God, “purpose” requires an attempt to read his mind […]. In view of the astonishingly rich spectacle of an ever changing history of comings and goings – with humans clearly offering the richest spectacle of all – I have suggested that if there is a God, his purpose might have been to create an astonishingly rich spectacle of an ever changing history etc. I can’t help feeling that an eternally conscious mind would be bored to oblivion if it had nothing to do all eternity long. Whether such a God has any purpose beyond that of the spectacle will only be revealed to me if there is some form of conscious afterlife.

GATEKEEPER: well, its kind of certain that religion has many traits wrong. I don't agree that "purpose" is to read its mind. that implies more than we know.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We are talking about the purpose (if any) of life. If God exists, you can hardly guess at his purpose without trying to read his mind. But of course we can’t know. If God doesn’t exist, I've made my suggestions above.

GATEKEEPER: we are part of something larger and more complex than humans. that's just a fact. whatever we classify ourselves as we must classify large parts of the universe that way also. In fact, it's almost mandatory that we classify it as "far more than human".

Agreed. But that does not mean the “something larger and more complex” has a conscious mind with a specific purpose for creating us. That is why I have offered alternatives of micro and macro purposes, atheistic and theistic.

GATEKEEPER: So, for me, its about describing the universe the best way we can. Deny "god" at every turn is quite different than denying religion's ownership of reality to me.

Nobody knows the origin, nature, purpose (if any) of the universe. All we can do is speculate, and we all draw different conclusions from the evidence at hand! Below are two theistic approaches. I remain fascinated but mystified. How about you?

DAVID: We certainly part of something big. But I think by analyzing reality we can see purpose and method of design.

TONY: By "denying God", I am of course referring to naturalism, which posits that all that we know comes from nothing and nowhere by any other means than those of a purely materialistic source. i.e. No God, no designer, just random chance and fluctuating quanta produced all that we see.
I’ve just seen your latest post, which answers my question!

GATEKEEPER: Based on what we know, "from nothing" is as valid as "from God." To me, because I have no stake in the answer, both are assumed to be "natural"

what do we do now?

We exchange ideas! Thanks for joining in.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum