What are some of the main flaws in this argument - Page 2

NotReady · #11 07-21-2007, 04:02 PM

[ 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.

gull · #12 07-21-2007, 08:57 PM

[ 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?

CrazyLond · #13 07-22-2007, 02:26 AM

[ 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.

NotReady · #14 07-22-2007, 03:42 AM

[ 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.

GoodCallYouWin · #15 07-22-2007, 03:47 AM

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

MidGe · #16 07-22-2007, 06:44 AM

[ 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]

Usagi_yo · #17 07-22-2007, 07:08 AM

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.

Usagi_yo · #18 07-22-2007, 07:23 AM

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

MidGe · #19 07-22-2007, 07:45 AM

[ 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?

vhawk01 · #20 07-22-2007, 01:29 PM

[ 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.