Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Why can't the universe have a purpose

Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:44:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many people deny that the universe could have a purpose because it is an inanimate system. But eyes have a specific purpose, noses have a specific purpose, ears have a specific purpose. Why can't we look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that it has the purpose to create intelligent life? Most scientists are flummoxed by how the universe is so set up. Doesn't that point to a designer?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 7:21:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:44:08 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Many people deny that the universe could have a purpose because it is an inanimate system. But eyes have a specific purpose, noses have a specific purpose, ears have a specific purpose. Why can't we look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that it has the purpose to create intelligent life? Most scientists are flummoxed by how the universe is so set up. Doesn't that point to a designer?

From my perspective, the universe does not contain a "purpose", but rather entails a multitude of miscellaneous functions, moreover intelligent life exists because it merely is permited to via the various and numerous functions and mechanisms the universe posesses.

Purpose is a paradigm that humans have summoned to label various concepts that they deem suitable, subjective if you will. An exemplary example would be your implicit notion that the universe contains the purpose to manufacture intelligent life. A ubiquitous proposal that human life serves a purpose is another example, which I may add is subjective and varies from person to person.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:21:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:44:08 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Many people deny that the universe could have a purpose because it is an inanimate system.

True.

But eyes have a specific purpose, noses have a specific purpose, ears have a specific purpose.

If by 'purpose' you mean they perform a useful function to the organism for which they evolved, then yes.

Why can't we look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that it has the purpose to create intelligent life?

After 13.7 billion years of no intelligent life (that we know of)? What do you think?

There is a failure of imagination here. You take one planet amongst eight barren ones. You take one solar system amongst 300 billion others in our galaxy alone. You take one galaxy amonst billions of others. And from that you extrapolate that the entire universe was made solely to produce humans on a tiny speck of dust lost in the vastness of the cosmos. What utter hubris.

Most scientists are flummoxed by how the universe is so set up.

Set up? There's nothing like assuming your conclusion.

Doesn't that point to a designer?

Not if you take a good hard look at the universe as it really is. It is instantly lethal to you a few kilometres above or below sea level on the skin of this sphere which we have evolved to inhabit.

The universe is cold, harsh and impersonal. And who would design a universe which is already in the process of self-destruction?
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:21:00 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:44:08 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Many people deny that the universe could have a purpose because it is an inanimate system.

True.

But eyes have a specific purpose, noses have a specific purpose, ears have a specific purpose.

If by 'purpose' you mean they perform a useful function to the organism for which they evolved, then yes.

Why can't we look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that it has the purpose to create intelligent life?

After 13.7 billion years of no intelligent life (that we know of)? What do you think?

There was intelligent life before we came about. Crows, for example, are pretty intelligent,

There is a failure of imagination here. You take one planet amongst eight barren ones. You take one solar system amongst 300 billion others in our galaxy alone. You take one galaxy amonst billions of others. And from that you extrapolate that the entire universe was made solely to produce humans on a tiny speck of dust lost in the vastness of the cosmos. What utter hubris.

You could say it's also utter hubris to think we all evolved from amoebas (without any good evidence to back that up).

Most scientists are flummoxed by how the universe is so set up.

Set up? There's nothing like assuming your conclusion.

I'm not assuming the conclusion. Scientists have assumed the conclusion with the anthropic principle for example.

Doesn't that point to a designer?

Not if you take a good hard look at the universe as it really is. It is instantly lethal to you a few kilometres above or below sea level on the skin of this sphere which we have evolved to inhabit.

But that might be able to seed life across the galaxy.

The universe is cold, harsh and impersonal.

To the untrained eye, perhaps.

And who would design a universe which is already in the process of self-destruction?

A just God.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:18:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:44:08 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Many people deny that the universe could have a purpose because it is an inanimate system. But eyes have a specific purpose, noses have a specific purpose, ears have a specific purpose. Why can't we look at the conditions of the universe and conclude that it has the purpose to create intelligent life? Most scientists are flummoxed by how the universe is so set up. Doesn't that point to a designer?

The difference between what we see, and what you are asserting is about intent. Is the universe the way it is because of some natural process or natural circumstances or because it was intended to be that way?

Eyes see and noses smell not because of the intent of nature to produce something that sees and smells, but because of natural processes that cause such things to arise are so powerful they lead to the illusion of intent.

You are arguing that "I don't know how it happened, therefore there is a designer".

The right answer is "I don't know how it happened, therefore I don't know."

Being able to demonstrate things are true with facts and evidence is what helps us seperate what is true from what is not true in the real world; the only real fact you have is that we don't know what the nature of things are. There are many equally plausible explanations and justifications that exist that do not require intent or purpose, so claiming that we don't know is a good argument for one over another is not valid.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:01:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:04:23 AM, Springheeledjack wrote:

There was intelligent life before we came about. Crows, for example, are pretty intelligent,

Crows? The purpose of the universe is to produce intelligent life such as crows? Okay, they've been around a little longer, I'll grant you that. But why did it take 13.65 billion years?

You could say it's also utter hubris to think we all evolved from amoebas (without any good evidence to back that up).

Firstly, there's an abundence of evidence. But you don't seem to understand what hubris is. It's thinking you are special with an exaggerated sense of self-importance at odds with reality. Me stating our humble origins evolving from more primitive life over hundreds of millions of years is the exact opposite of hubris. It's knowing that we are nothing particularly special in the animal kingdom, except for having a bigger brain.

I'm not assuming the conclusion. Scientists have assumed the conclusion with the anthropic principle for example.

That's a philosophical consideration not a scientific one.

But that might be able to seed life across the galaxy.

What does that have to do with your argument about design?

To the untrained eye, perhaps.

No, to the scientifically trained eye rather than the religious mind.

A just God.

A just god designed the universe to eventually run out of fuel and then tear itself apart in a runaway expansion? What's just about that?