Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's a double-edged sword.
Purpose of the universe and our existence..
- Thread starter Mandana
- Start date
The idea that everything has a purpose is an interesting one to consider. Such a question has a larger scope than this one, however.
Here's an if-then for ya.
If the universe has a purpose then all things within the universe have a purpose. If something with a purpose achieves that purpose, they become obsolete, having no purpose. Things which are obsolete within the universe quickly(galactic time) cease functioning.
Thus achieving one's purpose means hurrying one's demise. Thus, to have a long life, one should avoid serving any purpose.
Then again, if there is no purpose to the universe, then why bother?
No, all purpose is subjective, creations of our own imagination.
Here's an if-then for ya.
If the universe has a purpose then all things within the universe have a purpose. If something with a purpose achieves that purpose, they become obsolete, having no purpose. Things which are obsolete within the universe quickly(galactic time) cease functioning.
Thus achieving one's purpose means hurrying one's demise. Thus, to have a long life, one should avoid serving any purpose.
Then again, if there is no purpose to the universe, then why bother?
No, all purpose is subjective, creations of our own imagination.
Spidergoat
Only if one assumes that there is nothing else other than "we"
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, then they are all part of the purpose the universe has because the universe has a purpose. They don't necessarily have a 'local purpose'.
So the 'purpose' of red blood cells is to bind oxygen in an oxygen-rich environment and release oxygen in an oxygen-starved environment.
Does that mean that any red blood cells that achieved this purpose, namely the ones that provide your tissues with oxygen, are obsolete?
Evidence? And when is something obsolete?
lol Are you being funny?
Because you are programmed to bother.
Exactly.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You think rocks invent purposes for themselves? :roflmao:
If you want to assume existence of something, I suggest you try to support it.Even if we do assume there is more than "we", there is no implication of purpose. Creation does not imply purpose for the created - sometimes creation is a by-product of other actions, with no inherent purpose whatsoever.
When the FSM farted, which ultimately led to the creation of our universe, his intent was presumably to expel the gaseous build up in his bowel. Is that the purpose of our universe, then, to be a one-off means by which the FSM can get relief from bloating? That purpose was fulfilled before, and irrespective of, our creation - and thus we / our universe have no purpose.
Feel free to assume otherwise.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Creation?
God never created heaven and Earth: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/10/god_separated_heaven_and_earth.php
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I think if someone invented a rock, they probably did so for a purpose.
there's a host of normative descriptions that surround knowing god.
Its only a question of application
:shrug:
perhaps, but more often than not, the opposite is the case, particularly when it touches on issues of design.
Even the design of the FSM follows the requirements of purpose for an atheist.
:shrug:
For the purposes of a nihilistic world view, you stand correct.
The only reason you assume so is because your assumption is supported by an absence of evidence (evidence on your behalf of course).
Which is the rational assumption...
Tell me, do you think that values in any way shape the picture of what is deemed rational?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Even if one can acknowledge the possibility of something other than we, this possibility alone does not present a purpose.
If "we" are operating in the jurisdiction of another person's domain, there certainly is.
For instance there might be a host of (relative) purposes amongst a dozen children in a house. This does not mean that their purposes alone run the workings of the house, since it is an adult who maintains it (no doubt for some purpose of their own).
Not necessarily. Of course, they certainly can, but if one is careful, one can remove the interference.
Intriguing
You think care can be exercised divorced from issues of value?
Let's get down to something (hopefully) non-controversial and simple.
What would you say is a rational approach to justice, education, science, philosophy, music, architecture, diet, economics or car mechanics divorced from issues of value?
I have no idea what you mean here.
Not sure what you're asking here either. The rational approach for any objective is that which approaches the particular goal in as efficient manner as possible.
Now, of course you're going to say that the means by which we define the objective is determined precisely by a value. I don't deny this. That is afterall, how we go about deciding what it is that we wish to achieve.
All I am saying is that while we may establish an objective by a value based criterion, the introduction of values into the approach by which we seek to attain the goal is problematic. Thus, using one of your examples, though in the Justice domain we may assert that 'freedom' is a worthy ideal, the practice of law supports and seeks to be impartial, and unemotional.
In any case, we're going offtopic here. We're not discussing what it is to be rational, we're discussing what it is to be purposive. You seem to be supporting the notion that humans are not alone in being capable of this kind of behaviour.