What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

, Either our universe arose spontaneously or it was created intentionally

,,,,, If it arose spontaneously, it has no purpose, for the purpose of an object is to fulfill the intent with which it was created

,,,,, If it was created intentionally, then the universe that created it was either created intentionally or arose spontaneously

,,,,,,,,,,The "root" or initial universe in this chain had to have arisen sponatenously, for if it had been created intentionally, there would have had to be a creating universe around, which would precede the created one and defeat its claim to being the "root" universe.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Therefore the "root" universe, having arisen spontaneously, has no purpose. Therefore, as a subset of the "root" universe, our universe has no purpose. Therefore life has no purpose; in fact, life can not possibly have any purpose.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

ask the person if making this argument has any purpose. then hopefully he will see that

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, as a subset of the "root" universe, our universe has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

is wrong

Just because human consciousness may have arisen spontaneously doesn't mean that all actions performed by that consciousness have no purpose.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

The main flaw is assumed temporal linearity.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

"for the purpose of an object is to fulfill the intent with which it was created" assumes that the object can't create or change it's purpose after creation.

Your life can have as many or few purposes as you want it to.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore life has no purpose; in fact, life can not possibly have any purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, it has no objective purpose. It just 'is'.


And even if the universe was created, or man was 'created', then that still wouldn't matter to us.


To resolve this issue and lead a peaceful life becomes the exercise. And yes, grasping reality as it is is THE way of doing that. If you don't do that, then you're just playing some silly, imposed, game.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
, Either our universe arose spontaneously or it was created intentionally

[/ QUOTE ]

or it always existed

[ QUOTE ]

,,,,, If it arose spontaneously, it has no purpose, for the purpose of an object is to fulfill the intent with which it was created

[/ QUOTE ]

linking purpose with intent of the creator is a significant error. consider if i am trying to make a simple calculator to add two numbers together, but i screw up the code and it multiplies them instead. i intended to make an adding machine, but is a machine that multiplies numbers together have the purpose of being an adding machine. this seems dubious at best.

[ QUOTE ]

our universe has no purpose. Therefore life has no purpose; in fact, life can not possibly have any purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

this smacks of assuming that characteristics at the macro-level will persist at the micro-level. quantum phenomena are evidence that this is at least sometimes incorrect.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

Your use of the word "purpose" is completely arbitrary and doesn't relate to anything.

What is a "Spherical Bastard"?

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is a "Spherical Bastard"?

[/ QUOTE ]

a heavyset illegitimate son.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]

What is a "Spherical Bastard"?

[/ QUOTE ]

A bastard any way you look at it. I don't recall who came up with that, but he was a fan of symmetry...

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

Hypothetical scenario:

I am walking along a path.
I find a dead tree branch.
I pick up the stick and use it as a walking stick.


Now, the stick was created without a purpose. Yet I am still able to make it useful, purposeful. The stick helps me walk. That is its purpose. From what did its purpose arise? I assigned it purpose.

Similarly, there may be no inherent purpose to the universe or us, but we still can assign purpose and make our lives purposeful, right?

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, there may be no inherent purpose to the universe or us, but we still can assign purpose and make our lives purposeful, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

A finite, accidental being assigning its own purpose makes no more sense than a dead tree branch assigning its own purpose.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, there may be no inherent purpose to the universe or us, but we still can assign purpose and make our lives purposeful, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

A finite, accidental being assigning its own purpose makes no more sense than a dead tree branch assigning its own purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes more sense to me. Dead tree branches don't think.


Why is there a distinction for assigning purpose to selves? If I manipulate someone (use him as a tool), I give him a purpose. People can certainly have purposes that were unintended at their creation. Why can't selves?

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
,,,,, If it was created intentionally, then the universe that created it was either created intentionally or arose spontaneously

,,,,,,,,,,The "root" or initial universe in this chain had to have arisen sponatenously, for if it had been created intentionally, there would have had to be a creating universe around, which would precede the created one and defeat its claim to being the "root" universe.


[/ QUOTE ]
a) like another posted mentioned, this is all assuming the universe hasn't always existed. Given what we know about energy, it seems unlikely that it hasn't always existed in some shape or form.
b) Why must a seperate entity have given the universe its purpose, if it has one? For example, what if a race of creatures within the universe went back in time and created it? I don't think the limitations which govern my actions would necessarily govern whatever may have created the universe.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]

People can certainly have purposes that were unintended at their creation. Why can't selves?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can have your own purpose. I'm just saying that as a finite being it make no sense. It can only be a part of a finite system. And a finite system makes no sense.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

The main flaw, as I see it, is by saying because the universe has no purpose that means life has no purpose.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can have your own purpose. I'm just saying that as a finite being it make no sense. It can only be a part of a finite system. And a finite system makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it is a matter of ego inflation. I understand exactly where you come from! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

It's binary. You can make the argument that it has always existed.

Verses spontaneously and purpose, no purpose. Something spontaneously arisen can inherit a purpose, from something elses viewpoint.

Verses created and having a purpose ... something can be created to see if can be done, therefor, as soon as it's created, it ceases to have a purpose.

Your conclusion is a tautology.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

A clearer definition imho is:

You are in a room with no windows and no doors and no instrument that can pass through the walls and you're trying to theorize whats beyond the walls.

There is no argument that can prove or disprove the existence of God. Yet to me, when I look around it is so obvious that God exists.

I'm a firm believer in the "Mysterious Clock maker" argument

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yet to me, when I look around it is so obvious that God exists.

I'm a firm believer in the "Mysterious Clock maker" argument

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking around, you ever thought that instead of a clock maker it was a torture instruments maker?

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
A clearer definition imho is:

You are in a room with no windows and no doors and no instrument that can pass through the walls and you're trying to theorize whats beyond the walls.

There is no argument that can prove or disprove the existence of God. Yet to me, when I look around it is so obvious that God exists.

I'm a firm believer in the "Mysterious Clock maker" argument

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the catastrophic failure of this argument, as applied to biological evolution, at least give you some pause? I'm well aware that this failure, in one arena, doesn't prove the foolishness of this argument in all other arenas, but I'm a bit surprised at the hubris.

Re: What are some of the main flaws in this argument
 

really need to define purpose here.