If the beginning of life was when amino acids and proteins married, where is the purpose of life these days? If this in fact was how things started, how could there be any purpose at all to life?
Edit I have to go out and get some things done so will be back to check out replies.
Who or what is to say a purpose to life is required? We can find our own purpose or live without it. Would that really make a difference to ones happiness and fulfillment?
Religionists have no purpose, for example, they are programmed robots that only serve their masters.
Good question. If our purpose just comes from ourselves and we're just the product of uncaring chemical reactions, then how can our individual (made-up) purposes be significant?
There is a whole world out there full of active happy people doing lots of good things and living wonderful lives without needing to believe in a god.
I'm not denying this, but how does naturalism explain it?
What IS this naturalism thing?
Not believing a myth is truth requires no more than not being gullible doesn't it?
No belief system is needed to tackle the tooth fairy, why should religion be any different?
I'm not sure if you asked what naturalism was to make a point or because you don't know. So here's a definition from an online dictionary.
Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.
So my question remains, how does naturalism explain 'a whole world out there full of active happy people doing lots of good things and living wonderful live'?
OK I get that, but how does that have anything to do with how and why people are happy?
Why would belief (or disbelief)in the supernatural have any effect on personal happiness and well being?
I thought you must have had a different understanding of the word or a meaning I did not know.
That's what I'm asking you. How can a happy naturalist exist?
I think it's because people believe intellectually that naturalism is true, but then
(1) they either don't follow the logical implications of naturalism (any purpose you have in life is made-up, just like religion)
(2) or they do follow the implications and discover that purpose is no more real than religion, but they irrationally live as if the opposite is reality.
I can only answer this from a personal perspective, but hope it will throw some light on your question.
As you would know already I have a belief in Psychology, and made a study of religion.
I can only say that I know my life is what I make it. You could say it is my myth. A personal myth.
I believe that I live my life according to that myth.
As joy and love are about the feeling function, words to explain are hard to come by and very personal, so I hope you will understand the difficulty in striving to honour your question with answers from that function which is at best a bit shaky for me as I know it is for others.
These feelings make me happy although I realise it is in fact a myth because it is how I view the world, not what the world is. The world can never be as I see it, as it is different according to each persons beliefs and I am no exception.
I also believe that my myth works because I enjoy the love and joy That is inherent to it.
For example outside my little world, I could be seen as quite insane and this is a part of my pleasure also. I talk to all animals, birds, cats, dogs, sheep, any animal that is sentient even to a small degree delights me.
I know how I came by this joy, it is from being in the bush for years as a kid alone often with the wild animals of the Australian outback or bush as we call it colloquially. It is from myself
I feel great even delirious joy when around small children and have been known to tear up by simply seeing mother and child in the street as strangers. Again, I recognise that others would see this as odd.
I feel an enormous love for my children and grandchildren that can be almost overwhelming at times, and this feeling comes to me from my past as well.
All these things are a part of my madness as others may see it, to me it is my myth and I love to be like this.
Religion is another matter entirely. It can be learned, just like a trade. I can open a workshop manual that tells me I am working on a motor that has 3 valves per cylinder not the usual 2. I will run my diagnosis based on the manual.
If the motor and my experience of it is different to the manual I know immediately because I am strongly in my thinking which is clinical, analytical and clear as a bell to me.
Any contradictions or anomalies are dealt with swiftly and with full confidence based on experience and knowledge. Much easier to deal with than feeling.
This is another part of me, that is joyful as I enjoy my capacity to match my beliefs to what actually takes place. My myth works!
I know I have skills when it comes to things outside myself that are in the world and can be disseminated, as I have the proof of having got the same result as anticipated time and time again.
I hope this explains some small part of my perspective.
SirDent, Anyone should be able to sense there has to be a purpose to life. Very interesting topic.
Sir Dent, Here is an answer to your question (although I'm not certain I totally understand it, but here goes anyway).
Logic is a product of the human mind, and as such it is a product of the natural world. That is why the logic in our brains is consistent with the natural world outside our brains. (That's why we can understand the natural world.)
In the same way, an objective, impersonal purpose for human beings can be seen when we consider it as a product of the human mind, and thus as a product of the natural world. So our purpose will therefore conform to the natural world, because that is where we came from.
Life from the very beginning has continuously sought to grow, nourish itself and extend itself. That is what all human beings are constantly doing in various ways, whether realizing it or not. So this is a very easy option for identifying our purpose. The purpose of human life is to grow, nourish and extend human life as much as possible. Growth and nourishment can come in all sorts of ways, including learning and expanding knowledge, attaining pleasure, happiness and comfort.
Now, on a separate but related note, some say that in a God-created universe, God is the source of human purpose. However, remember that deriving purpose from God is not more logical, in and of itself, than deriving purpose from the natural world or human nature. One must assume, on blind faith, that "God wants me to do X," and further, that "I should do what God wants." These are 2 blind assumptions with no basis in anything.
An equally logical claim can be said: "my pet rock wants me to do X" and further that "I should do what my pet rock wants."
By contrast, in a human-based purpose or human-based morality, the purpose is self-evident, because it comes by the very act of thinking. That is, simply by thinking, or simply by breathing, you are accepting that human life has value and a certain meaning. Thus a naturalistic human-based morality is far simpler, far more powerful and far more elegant than one derived from an external presence.
You've given a well-thought out answer, but I have a few questions about the logic. Maybe you can expand a little more.
First, if logic, illogic, and religion are all products of the mind, are they also products of nature? Follow up question (if you answer 'yes'), if illogic is a product of our nature, why isn't it consistent with the natural world?
Second, if everything we think is a product of our minds and our minds are a product of the natural world, what makes one idea objective and impersonal and another idea not?
Third, you wrote, "That is what all human beings are constantly doing in various ways, whether realizing it or not." Does this mean that everything we do is purposeful? Later you mention both human-based purpose and human-based morality. If we are fulfilling our purpose (whatever we want to do) is that to be considered moral?
Fourth, this isn't a question. Your comparison between God and a pet rock is inadequate. It's like saying it's equally logical to look to Steve Jobs and a pet poodle to find out the purpose of an iPhone. Steve Jobs says it's for communication while the poodle says it's a chew toy.
Actually not that well-thought out--I kind of just slapped it together, lol! Ok, let's see:
"First, if logic, illogic, ... natural world?"
Illogic is simply the absence of logic. Just like darkness is the absence of light. An analogy: a star is formed from the natural world. A star gives off light, therefore light is (ultimately) a product of the natural world. When the star flickers or has a sun spot, do we say it is "producing darkness"? No, we say it is producing less light, or no light, and this is perceived as darkness.
Thinking is a product of the mind, and thus a product of nature. When thinking confirms or conforms to nature we say it is "logical" and when it does not, we say it is "illogical." But illogical thought is a byproduct of the mind's evolved ability to imagine or entertain new ideas and create new ideas.
"if everything we think ... another idea not?"
All ideas are generated by individual brains, thus no idea is "impersonal" per se. Impersonal things are revealed when we look at impersonal tendencies--in other words, the tendencies of all people, what all people share in common. Indeed, what all life forms share in common is that tendency aforementioned toward growth and extension of life. That points us in the direction of an impersonal "purpose" insofar as we understand what "purpose" is.
"Does this mean that everything we do is purposeful?"
Not everything we do conforms to that universal purpose (growth, extending life, etc), but it is all undertaken with that ultimate goal. For instance, if I am running a business, everything I do is with the purpose of increasing profits. Whether or not my actions ACTUALLY increase profits is another story entirely.
"If we are fulfilling our purpose (whatever we want to do) is that to be considered moral?"
Yes, that is the idea. A human-based morality would, by definition, base morality on humans, on humanity. And humanity has a built-in purpose. So there is a link between what makes actions moral or immoral, and the overall purpose.
"Your comparison between God ... chew toy."
Ok, this is an interesting one. What makes Steve Jobs the arbiter of the iPhone's purpose? Just because he made it? So what? To me, a gun's purpose is to kill people. To you, it may be to hang as a trophy on your wall. Who's right? The maker? Why?
You see, there is no way to LOGICALLY deduce that just because Jobs made the item, that therefore his designation of its purpose is the correct one. In the same way, just because God made us does not mean his purpose is the "objectively" correct one. There is no logical connection there. One must accept or buy into his purpose.
(This gets to the "is-ought" problem of David Hume, one of my favorite philosophical ideas.)
Remember: in a godless world, all purpose is a human invention, or a product of humanity. Then what, you will ask, is humanity's purpose? Answer: Humanity creates its own purpose. Humanity is self-justifying. Note that if I were to ask you "what is God's purpose" you would say the exact same thing--God is not justified by anything, he makes his own purpose. So you are already familiar with this concept. You simply need to transfer the purpose-making power to humanity.
Thanks for the added clarification, but I still have some questions.
It appears (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that you are saying that humans are a product of nature, and likewise, so are our minds. Thus, our thinking is also a product of nature, and through out thinking we can determine our purpose. And the objective purpose of humanity is to do what's natural--grow, learn, spread, etc. And this is our purpose because we are made by nature. Is this what you're arguing?
But then, it seems you completely contradict yourself when you write about Steve Jobs and the iPhone. Why can't I say the same thing about nature?
What makes nature the arbiter of our purpose? Just because nature made us? So what?
I'm also not very clear on your idea of human-based morality. Maybe you could share an example of how you would use this human-based morality to declare something moral and something else immoral.
"And the objective purpose of humanity is to do what's natural--grow, learn, spread, etc. And this is our purpose because we are made by nature. Is this what you're arguing?"
Essentially yes. But it's not that "this is our purpose because X." There is no "because." It just is the way nature made us, just as nature made the sky blue, nature gave us the drive to pursue life.
"What makes nature the arbiter of our purpose? Just because nature made us? So what?"
Ahh, very good! But here's the thing. It is impossible for us to escape nature's grasp. We are incapable of not choosing life expansion and growth. Nature is truly inherent to us, inside of us. (See the last paragraph of my first comment above.)
By contrast, God's purpose is not inherent to us, because we can choose to not pursue it. Steve Jobs' purpose is not inherent to the iPhone, because other humans can choose to not pursue it, and can decide to use it as an expensive chew toy. Good question, though.
The transcendent purpose we are all constantly striving towards whether we realize it or not is to be happier, healthier, more comfortable, smarter, live longer. When we study human behavior and the behavior of other life forms, we see they are all pursuing this ultimate goal. And even when we think we're not--we still are
Regarding human-based morality, first everyone must understand there is no logical basis for morality. This is the is-ought problem I referred to. It is not possible to logically deduce an "ought" from an "is."
This means that all morality must begin with a blind faith assumption, an axiom: "X should be done." Once that is established, we can logically deduce various moral imperatives: X should be done. B supports X, therefore B should be done. Etc.
Now, an example is very simple: Humanity should be preserved, protected, enhanced, extended (again, related to purpose). Improving people's health helps to preserve and extend humanity, therefore we should improve people's health. It's that simple.
Note that just because we know what humanity's objective purpose is, does not mean we necessarily SHOULD pursue that purpose. To make that connection, the is-ought connection, we must take a short blind faith leap to transition from using the word "is" (the stuff of observation, which reveals the purpose) to using "should" (the stuff of morality).
I'm not sure what your point is in taking out the 'because'. It's just grammar, but anyways, let's continue.
You write, "Nature is truly inherent to us" and "God's purpose is not inherent to us." I would disagree with these statements. There are many aspects of people that are not found elsewhere in nature. For example, we use logic to make decisions. We are creative inventors. We are religious and philosophical, asking questions such as 'where do we come from?'. We communicate about both concrete and abstract ideas. We are altruistic. We have a conscience. We have beliefs about morality.
In contrast, if humanity is really stamped with the image of God, then it makes perfect sense that we are thinking, creative, moral creatures.
You wrote, "because we can choose to not pursue it" as the reason that God's purpose is not inherent, but I don't see why this doesn't also apply to nature. If nature says our purpose is to choose life expansion and growth, how can suicide (stopping life and growth) fulfill this purpose?
"Just because we know what humanity's objective purpose is, does not mean we necessarily SHOULD pursue that purpose." This sentence seems to support the idea that we have a choice in whether to fulfill nature's purpose for us, which would make it no longer inherent.
But if you argue that we don't have a choice in whether we fulfill nature's purpose for us, then why is there any need for morality to keep us inline with nature?
Nature is inherent to us. That doesn't mean there cannot be qualities in us that are not found elsewhere in nature. Just because economic value is inherent to a can of soda, does not mean a can of soda cannot have qualities not found elsewhere in the world of economic value. For example, a can of soda has a certain shape. This shape is not found anywhere else in the economic system.
And yet the shape of the can is itself a product of economic value and economic calculations. In the same way, creativity, morality, conscience, etc--these are all derivations of nature in various ways. A single cell grows by absorbing nutrients. We grow by learning or studying. Same basic process of improvement of a life form, but different manifestations for different types of life forms.
"If nature says our purpose is to choose life expansion and growth, how can suicide (stopping life and growth) fulfill this purpose?"
I was wondering when suicide would come up. Suicide is pursued by a person going through immense pain and suffering, especially psychological. So killing oneself is seen as an option to stop the pain. Note--the effort to stop pain, which underlies suicide, is itself an aspect of pursuing growth and improvement in life. (Thus suicide is a kind of "wrinkle" in the system, a rare occurrence where the effort to pursue life ends life.)
Again, the key difference is that pursuing pleasure and growth and whatnot is inherent to everything we do. Can you honestly say that pursuing God's purpose is inherent to everything we do? Does brushing your teeth further God's purpose? Does choosing between Pepsi and Coke further God's purpose? I am not religious, but I think not. However these things are manifestations of the naturalistic effort toward life improvement and growth, even if very small. You might say that "part of God's purpose is for us to succeed in our choice in soda," in which case, yes, I suppose we could say that God's purpose is inherent to everything we do. But I don't think that's what most theists believe.
"But if you argue that we don't have a choice in whether we fulfill nature's purpose for us, then why is there any need for morality to keep us inline with nature?"
Another good question. We do have a choice in whether to fulfill it, but we don't have a choice in whether to participate in the effort. It's like gym class: you have a choice whether or not to win the game, but you don't have a choice in whether or not to play. Remember the business example. Same idea. My specific actions day-to-day may or may not actually increase profits, even if that is my overall goal.
The function of morality is to tell us which specific actions to do, and which not to do. Just because our base tendencies are preprogrammed by nature and evolution to pursue growth and improvement as a general goal, does not mean they always wind up having that effect in the real world (suicide again is an example).
Rape is another good example. A man may try to rape someone because, in evolutionary terms, it is better to rape and reproduce than not rape and not reproduce. So the desire for rape is an example of our tendency to seek to fulfill our purpose (note--to seek to fulfill our purpose, not to actually fulfill it). But in reality, rape has a number of very harmful effects to everyone.
Only when we employ a rational morality will we see that rape should not be done, because it actually works against our purpose.
If nature-based morality really is 'far simpler, far more powerful and far more elegant than one derived from an external presence", could you write out this argument in a manner that is simple, powerful and elegant?
I'm not sure if I understand this human-based morality. Let me know if this is what you're trying to communicate.
If we seek to fulfill our purpose and fail, that is immoral.
If we seek to fulfill our purpose and succeed, that is moral.
See how complicated you religious people make things? Morality is a concept. Nothing to do with the "purpose" you want your life to have, that is not possible for you without believing nonsense.
You make your own purpose. I make my own purpose. You need to believe nonsense to have purpose. I do not.
Morality does not exist outside of our subjective perceptions and has utterly nothing to do with "failing or succeeding," - typical judgmental Christian thinking - no offense.
Secularist is attempting to build a logical case for human-based purpose and morality, and I'm just helping to critique it along the way. I'm curious to see what he'll come up.
By the way, have you written a single hub yet? I'm not a biologist or a scientists so maybe you can answer these questions in a hub.
1. Intelligent design people point to irreducible complexity to show that life couldn't have evolved. Can you show how evolution led to irreducible complexity?
2. What is the simplest self-replicating life form? And how simple/complex is its DNA?
3. Intelligent design proponents also look at the natural laws and seemingly fine tuning of the universe to support life. How does naturalism explain this seemingly perfect tuning of the universe?
These questions are rather off topic on this thread, but I thought that answering any one of them could be a good first hub for you.
Ah - telling me what you think I aught to be doing? Typical Christian behavior again. No offense, but why don't you mind your own business instead?
Intelligent design is religious nonsense and not worth responding to.
And what you are actually doing is attempting to defend your irrational belief system.
Your profile page says, "I came across hubpages accidentally while surfing the internet and was shocked to discover that there are people arguing against evolution for religious reasons.
I am not entirely certain what gives people the idea that they are qualified to have an opinion on evolutionary biology because they have read a religious book, but I hope to spend some time here helping to educate those people about evolution."
So, will you please educate me?
Besides, by not responding to intelligent design, it makes me think that you don't have a good response.
There is nothing to respond to. It is religious nonsense. Typical religious attack on genuine knowledge and - as always - seeking to avoid the burden of proof.
"The world is so complex a god musta dunnit, now prove other wise."
The only appropriate response is laughter.
One cannot respond to intelligent design reasonably or rationally because it is the very same things as creationism, which is meaningless drivel.
Ha, well just because it is logically simpler does not mean our language can necessarily phrase it in simple terms. Ice is pretty simple and ubiquitous, yet the Eskimos have 100 words for "snow," as they say.
Well your summation is on the right track. But I typically say the following: That which is moral is that which contributes to human wellbeing/ growth/ thriving. And that which is immoral is that which detracts from human wellbeing/ growth/ thriving. (Just because one fails to contribute to human wellbeing does not mean one harms anyone or anything, so it's not necessarily "immoral.")
But again, this is morality stuff. The original issue was purpose, which is different.
I understand what you are saying and I agree. Logic is a product of the human mind. I have no doubt about.
How did the mind come about when protein met amino acids and everything formed from those? Does protein know it has a purpose? Do amino acids know?
I am still studying the rest of your post and will address it when I can.
I am working on it Beel.
If proteins etc knew they had purpose, then sperm would be screaming about their failure & looming death each ejaculation.
A baby with its still developing brain has no comprehension of purpose. Neither does the old person with dementia because their brain is breaking down.
Neither does the boy that thinks he's a chicken (true story - I wrote a hub about him).
"How did the mind come about when protein met amino acids and everything formed from those? "
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you asking how the mind evolved from simpler parts? The answer is that the human mind progressively became more complex over time through the process of evolution, just like all aspects of life.
A bug's brain is extremely simple. A fish's brain is a little more complex. A bird's brain is a little more complex still, etc. So simpler life forms over time gave way to more complex ones, because of evolutionary pressures.
"Does protein know it has a purpose? Do amino acids know?"
It's not that "proteins know they have a purpose," it's not explicit. When we look at simple life forms like a single cell, we see that it has a tendency to nourish itself, expel waste, grow, reproduce, etc. It automatically moves toward water, it absorbs nutrients, etc.
Now, a single cell cannot think, it cannot learn, it cannot predict anything, etc. But its automatic tendencies toward self-preservation and life extension demonstrate the beginnings of what we call "purpose."
a cat plays with a mouse or a bird until it finally dies & doesn't eat it....what is this purpose?
a dog eats its own poo....what is its purpose?
most baby turtles that make the race to the sea get eaten...what is the purpose in this?
a caterpillar gets attacked by stinging ants (I saw this happening)....what is the purpose of this?
The biggest purpose for life is that you are still alive and if that is not enough try making some new purposes for your self.
Life never begin by the combination of protein and amino acid, you guys have to be very logical spiritually, you said it all by asking the question what then is the purpose for life if the beginning of this all important phenomenon is simply explained by the combination of protein and amino acid.
Life is more than that, life is life and it is really life, in the senses of man, life is more than what he can comprehend period.
I cannot imagine why the origin of life has to be directly related to life's purpose. That simply doesn't connect logically.
The origin of a carrot (my garden, a local farm, a distant farm) has no bearing on the purpose of the salad I make with it. The inherent purpose of a thing, of *any* thing, whether that purpose preexists or is imbued into it, has no necessary relationship to where it originates.
In the beginning there was no flesh....but was SPIRITS......CELESTIAL SPIRITS to be exact.
Easily figured. It is up to the individual to create their own purpose for their life.
Geeze Cags! I took half a bloody page to say that!
are you saying something like ... we are each a universe in and of ourselves and we get to create anything within our own little universe that we can imagine .... then ... wait and see if we survive?
Of course you didn't! now tell me where I was wrong!
I'm outa here now ... be back later to see how wrong I was.
I've come to that conclusion myself - there is no external purpose to our lives. We each make our own meaning.
Everyone off to their own version of Oz. Our purpose is to become civilized. Then we will find our next purpose. There is no purpose is a dangerous ideology. Leads to hopelessness. No purpose...no meaningful answers. With whats coming, thinking like that is defeatist.
there is a purpose to our life that is personal and universal.
it is the same purpose as it is now, to live and to find better ways to ensure living longer.
but aren't believers keen to ditch their human body to get an eternal one?
Where does your purpose in life come from right now. Is you only purpose in life to sings praises to the Lord? Is that all you do and all you find meaning in?
My purpose in life is to write fiction, to rescue abused animals and to enjoy the world. YMMV.
If there is only the subjective expression of purpose, all are correct.
If you have one, well and good. If not, well and good.
The real issue is that no-one wants to admit that if purpose is a "personal thing", how can any one say that raping is bad, or that murder is unacceptable?
A rapists purpose is self gratification.
A murderers purpose is utter domination.
If right and wrong are therefore subjective ( a logical end result), why do all the NON-religionists, and atheists get so outraged?
I propose it's because they inherently HAVE a purpose (and a conscience) that rebels against injustice.
But you already knew that I felt this way.
Good on you for asking the question!!
some Rapists believe it is pleasure, they are addicted to the feeling not worried about gratification.
Some Murderers think it is normal behavior, not domination,
you can not say it is so, and only that way, Thats you, your opinion of it only. and it may not be fact.
I believe Lawrence Krauss does a great job of explaining the beginning of life.
We are stardust.
Here is a brief explanation.
complex polymers from organic monomers which were already present on the primitive Earth. The monomers have been demonstrated to be from two sources: either formed from terrestrial synthetic pathways  or were derived extraterrestrially from solar system materials . Over time, simple molecules developed into larger, more complex biological molecules and eventually to cells. Following further diversification, some cells developed that became metabolically capable of photosynthesis . This caused a cascade of irreversible events, interconnected by biogeochemical cycles. The atmosphere of the Earth changed to that of an oxidizing one and subsequently developed an ozone layer. The introduction of oxygen no longer supported the development of new life forms from the primordial building blocks, but instead supported the biological development and diversification of the early microorganisms. The ozone layer served as a means of protection, filtering the harmful UV radiation. These dramatic changes transformed the early Earth into our present day biosphere.
THE BEGINNING OF LIFE AND AMPHIPHILIC MOLECULES
By Janet Woo
nonesense! Nature does not know such things as a leaving or nonleaving thing! There was no beginning of life! Life comes directly from the fundamental laws of nature.
The term "purpose" in the form you use it is an abstract, a human invention to make people feel better about themselves. It has no relation to reality but is a fantasy.
Purpose implies an intelligence to cause an action rather than the blind forces of nature. It is a common fallacy that because a thing has come into existence that there must be a purpose to it; while there is a cause for nearly any action (gravity caused the slow formation of the earth for instance) that cause is not purpose. Cause is not purpose.
The purpose of the earth is not to provide a place to anchor your feet. The purpose of the sun is not to provide heat and energy for mankind. These things simply are, with no purpose at all. That man may assign an imagined "purpose" to them, whether provided for by a great God in the sky or by themselves changes nothing at all.
Many animals have a limited sense of purpose with their limited intelligence. The lion may head for a female for the purpose of mating or towards a gazelle for the purpose of eating but beyond these immediate purposes there is nothing on his mind. The existence of the lion has no "purpose" in the greater sense; he is not here for any particular reason. Like the earth and sun, he just is. A product of natural forces operating through 5 billion years.
Thus it is with the "purpose of life". While humans may (and usually do) assign their own purpose to their own life (just as the lion in its more limited ability does for its actions) the existence of life in general can have no purpose without a guiding intelligence causing that existence for a particular reason.
Mankind will undoubtedly continue to want a purpose for their life beyond what they assign it. Somehow the concept that something else has assigned that purpose rather than themselves makes it more important and thus the person becomes more important but, sadly, that purpose is not to be.
All the imaginings in the world, all the beliefs and all the statements to that effect will not affect reality one whit. There neither is nor was any guiding intelligence to give purpose to the creation of life on earth. You may not like that fact and you may highly desire that it be different but all your wants and desires will not create an intelligence 5 billion years ago to give your life "purpose".
following your reasoning, i will advice your children to regard the bread you give them daily as a thing that has no purpose. Just blind forces of nature at work? I can explain this to you:
a signal is sent from the brain, muscles move and lo! Your boy gets the bread! Who has done anything to anybody here? Where do a loving father emerge from in blind firing of neurones in the skull? If you answerer me this, i will show you how purpose emerge from the heat from the sun!
Wheat was ground for the purpose of making bread by an intelligence. The bread was buttered and given to children by an intelligence for the purpose of feeding them. Just as the intelligence in a birds skull will result in the bird carrying a worm back to the nest for the purpose of feeding its chicks.
Now show me the intelligence that makes the sun have heat. Not, you understand, the fantasy intelligence called "God" but a real intelligence. One that actually exists and causes the sun to be hot for the expressed purpose of heating man.
Or are you asking me to explain all the biological, physical and cultural details of the animal called "man"? Even if I could you wouldn't sit still for the years necessary to learn them.
I appreciate all the replies. It has also been civil and I like civility. I am going to address the carrot that deblipp wrote about.
Though the carrot has a purpose, it doesn't know it has a purpose. In fact, it doesn't even know it's a carrot. It only grows when conditions are right for it to grow.
What does the protein know of it's purpose? We know the purpose of protein as far as needful for man to survive.
Same question for amino acids. We know that they are the building blocks of humanity. Does it know what it's purpose is?
So how would you distinguish what something/one does, and a purpose? Because it is very different to ask a person what they do, what their functions is, than to ask them what their purpose it.
Whirr-click-ding-bing. Robot, reporting on First Life. Click-click-whirr-bing! First terran forms planted by terraforming crew from the last reality. Evolution of programmed forms proceeding. Top predator: Man...extinction eminent...all resources expended...no hope in sight...techno-species mankind system failure! Danger. Danger. Danger. Whoop, whoop, whoop. Whirr-click-ding-bing
There doesn't have to be a purpose to life at all! The odds of any one of us existing at this point are so astronomical they cannot be imagined.
Every one of direct ancestors had to meet and mate in order for us to be here now. Otherwise the correct sperm would not have won the race to the correct egg, resulting in a broken link to our existence.
Imagine all of the untold multitudes of unborn "losers" who never got the chance to experience this "Mother of all lotteries! Why does one need anything else to explain our being?
Good one, Godwin. Consider that there is energy pouring from each of us, as in heat, and in some spectrums, light, and that too, is an unbroken chain linking each of us back to that original memo.
But it is all purely random events which shape our lives, not only thousands of years before we are born, but perhaps thousands of years after. It's best not to try and find reasons for it and just enjoy the privileges we are given to experience it.
Exactly. Don't stress. But as to the randomness, I can't conceive of 50 billion accidents resulting in this. Mathematics dictates that everything is predictable. Physics dictates that to every action there is a correspondingly equal and opposite reaction. This testifies that once the chain reaction began, nothing could change or stop it, resulting in us. We are destined to be here.
What is it religionists don't get about living a happy and full life without the need to hand it over to myths?
This life is what is important, not living for the time we become worm food?
I love my life, and have no need for fairies to enhance it!
I believe religionists are miserably unhappy with the life chance has given them, and need to find a happy way to end it.
Worm food enjoys nothing.
maybe they're too scared to take personal responsibility for their lives?
Yep! That will hold water.
The theme remains constant across all the major religions.
I am not in charge of my life, the fairy is!
That is not the theme of all religions. You must have had very poorly taught teachers,earnestshub. The theme of all religions is "believe". Belief as a creative act, sure by an external power but the choice is still yours. if you believe, you achieve.
Show me! I'm from Missouri
Which major religion doesn't do this?
Where did you get the idea that anything is achieved by believing in a sky fairy.. was it Napoleon Hill?
"Faith (Pāli: saddhā, Sanskrit: śraddhā) is an important constituent element of the teachings of the Buddha for all traditions of Buddhism" According to received tradition, some of the first words voiced by the Buddha after resolving to teach Dharma were, "Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith [saddha] to meet it."
"Faith, in Christianity, has been most commonly defined by the biblical formulation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) as "'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". (also since it's Hebrews, that is shared by the Jews)
"Judaism teaches that every person (Jewish and non-Jewish) was created "b'tzelem Elohim," which is Hebrew for "in the image of God." For this reason every person is equally important and has an infinite potential to do good in the world. People have the freewill to make choices in their lives and each of us is responsible for the consequences of those choices."
"Most Hindus believe in Brahman, the supreme spirit that pervades the Universe, and that the human spirit or soul (ātman) is eternal and an indistinct part of Brahman. The goal of life is to realize non-duality, and to lead a life that leads to this realisation and thereby reaches Moksha (liberation or freedom)"
"Jainism (play /ˈdʒeɪnɪzəm/) is an Indian religion that prescribes pacifism and a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Its philosophy and practice emphasize the necessity of self-effort to move the soul towards divine consciousness and liberation."
So you see, you were misguided. The religions actually stand for doing your part to be liberated and you do this through FAITH, through belief.
That is why it is referred to as FAITH, as in catholic faith, jewish faith, buddist faith. It is different styles of believing in the power of the human spirit to transcend earthly suffering.
I agree fully, Earnest! The secret is being satisfied with reality, not depending on imaginary overlords running our lives!
That is a presumptive statement. Our continued existence does rely directly on what we do. When you insist on thinking within the context of organized religion and christianity in specific, you lose all understanding of what it is that makes us human, and our reason is to become civilized, but all you seeem to want to do is focus on the final bastardization of the truth. None so blind as those who refuse to see.
NO, what I said is all true, I even asked the worms!
Are you another one of the poor miserable who are waiting to die so you can live?
that's what is seems to be Earnest - they get promised a beautiful fantasy when they die & they don't bother making the most of living now
This is what I said.
"What is it religionists don't get about living a happy and full life without the need to hand it over to myths?"
I rest my case.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "belief" or "faith".
You don't believe? You control? There is only so much control can do. But faith, faith bridges possibilities. But I guess, you are impatient and want to take matters into your own hands, no?
Well, I am the only one in this with hands that I can see.
No invisible impossible fairy seems to be available with or without faith, so yes. I take things that are of me and deal with them myself.
As for patience, I have plenty of patience, one of my stronger attributes..
all i can say is "use the force, luke" it's easier! Sorry, I know it's not my fight. carry on...
can I call you luke, from now on? who is yoda?
Damn! I thought you were yoda! MAybe I'm not Luke!
I'm soooo confused!
really? wasn't I princess leia to you? darn! Maybe you're Harrison Ford, (what was his name?--I can't believe ...Han Solo)
I would never have thought you were princess what's her name.
I saw her as a sexless boring woman! Not my speed at all!
I'm a bit Like Ford, only much better looking!
I have to agree and that's an objective point of view. I couldn't understand why he was such a heartthrob.
Princess Leia had like an iconic costume that put her ever in the walls of nerds.
I must admit, I have difficulty recalling much of the series. The two robots were pathetic, Leila needs acting lessons and Ford would not appeal to me if I were a female.
you didn't answer my question! There was no purpose of making the bread! It all resulted in blind electric pulses in the skulls! So you haven't shown me any intelligence in the process of making bread! Why do you think I can show you how intelligence is behind the heat from the sun!
I started a new thread because we got to far over to the side up above.
I looked at the sites you suggested, and I saw that they had a lot of information about evolution. Would you mind directly me to the parts that deal with the questions I asked? Thanks.
Not really, no. You are not asking questions to get answers, and the information I provided goes directly to your questions in any case.
How about you provide me with some facts, evidence, tests or logic that prove your statements instead?
Why not make us both world famous and prove evolution is impossible?
I do not see a new thread.
I took a second look at the three websites you gave me,
and I didn't find answers to my three questions. If there is anybody else reading this thread, would you mind checking to see if the above websites provide answers to the three questions I asked Evolution Guy? Maybe I just missed it. Thanks.
1. Intelligent design people point to irreducible complexity to show that life couldn't have evolved. Can you show how evolution led to irreducible complexity?
2. What is the simplest self-replicating life form? And how simple/complex is its DNA?
3. Intelligent design proponents also look at the natural laws and seemingly fine tuning of the universe to support life. How does naturalism explain this seemingly perfect tuning of the universe?
That term, 'irreducible complexity' was coined by Behe in his attempt to support Intelligent Design. You won't get a direct answer because the term is meaningless garbage.
How is that going to help you? What is the purpose of your question? There are plenty of self-replicating systems in nature. So what?
Another meaningless question. The universe is not fine tuned to life, that would be the same thing as saying the pothole is fine tuned to fit the water in it. You are putting the cart before the horse.
If the universe were "tuned" a different way, life forms would simply be a little different. Simple, really.
I ask the second question because I want to find out how simple/complex the DNA of the simplest life is. Does it have the complexity of this sentence or is it more like the complexity of wikipedia?
Perhaps, the most simplest has yet to be identified, yet. I would suspect it would be a bacterium. Does that help?
Thanks Beelzedad. Earnestshub posted a link on a previous topic that also suggested bacterium as the simplest life form. So, how simple is bacterium? (asked rhetorically because I'm going to copy and paste a section from the link)
When I was a child our science lessons taught us that the amoeba was the simplest form of life and that it was nothing much more than a piece of jelly. We now know that the amoeba is fantastically complex (beyond all our human imagining.) It is not, though, the most basic form of life that can exist independently of other life. That honour is held by a bacterium. Is it simple? No, it, like the amoeba is astoundingly elaborate, way beyond the wit of any scientist fully to describe or comprehend.
Here's the link.
OK - You did not understand what you read in 6 minutes. We get it. You did not bother reading anything, I suspect. I offered you a vast amount of information and you immediately came back with these silly questions based on nothing.
Now try making a case for this nonsense instead of asking questions so you can ignore the answers.
Just want a fight huh? More typical Christian behavior.
I would agree, just perusing the third link you provided shows mountains of information that would easily have one gain a very good grasp of evolution. It even starts out with 'Evolution 101'
says the guy who has never heard of epigenetics
As I've repeatedly mentioned before, I'm not really interested in engaging your kindergarten playground tactics, thanks.
well look it up :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
genes don't makes us, we make the genes...yes with our adaptive choices and then we pass it on, and the the offspring will improve on that and so on and so forth. epigenetics mean the environment and the adaptive choices is what is sculpting evolution.
meaning your habits becomes your children's genes.
I want to apologize to everyone for not replying sooner. I had to reformat my computer and it is still giving me fits. I will be back to posting very soon.
Here is some more ideas relating to life formation and genes.
The following points are made by S. Rasmussen et al (Science 2004 303:963):
1) All life forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves alive. But in what ways do living and nonliving matter differ? How could a primitive life form arise from a collection of nonliving molecules? The transition from nonliving to living matter is usually raised in the context of the origin of life. But some researchers(1) have recently taken a broader view and asked how simple life forms could be synthesized in the laboratory. The resulting artificial cells (sometimes called protocells) might be quite different from any extant or extinct form of life, perhaps orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest bacterium, and their synthesis need not recapitulate life's actual origins. A number of complementary studies have been steadily progressing toward the chemical construction of artificial cells (2-5).
2) There are two approaches to synthesizing artificial cells. The top-down approach aims to create them by simplifying and genetically reprogramming existing cells with simple genomes. The more general and more challenging bottom-up approach aims to assemble artificial cells from scratch using nonliving organic and inorganic materials.
3) Although the definition of life is notoriously controversial, there is general agreement that a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving. Regeneration and replication involve transforming molecules and energy from the environment into cellular aggregations, and evolution requires heritable variation in cellular processes. The current consensus is that the simplest way to achieve these characteristics is to house informational polymers (such as DNA and RNA) and a metabolic system that chemically regulates and regenerates cellular components within a physical container (such as a lipid vesicle).
4) Two recent workshops(1) reviewed the state of the art in artificial cell research, much of which focuses on self-replicating lipid vesicles. David Deamer (Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) and Pier Luigi Luisi (ETH Zurich) each described the production of lipids using light energy, and the template-directed self-replication of RNA within a lipid vesicle. In addition, Luisi demonstrated the polymerization of amino acids into proteins on the vesicle surface, which acts as a catalyst for the polymerization process. The principal hurdle remains the synthesis of efficient RNA replicases and related enzymes entirely within an artificial cell. Martin Hanczyc (Harvard Univ.) showed how the formation of lipid vesicles can be catalyzed by encapsulated clay particles with RNA adsorbed on their surfaces. This suggests that encapsulated clay could catalyze both the formation of lipid vesicles and the polymerization of RNA.
by paarsurrey6 years ago
The atheists agnostics skeptics apatheists; all while away their lives; finding no purpose in life and no goal in life, their actions become meaningless and their thoughts get frustrated.
by servantofgod5 years ago
For an atheist, what is the meaning/purpose of man's existence?This question is intended for me to know what really makes an atheist. Maybe, by this question, I can understand more an atheist and see where they are...
by jcnasia6 years ago
I saw in another forum a good discussion on 10 questions that someone wanted to ask a Christian, so I came up with a few questions that I want to ask an evolutionary naturalist.1. Since naturalism can be logically...
by John D Wilson18 months ago
Have you ever asked yourself what your purpose in life was? If so, what was the answer? A friend posted an article about this. Basically the article said this was THE most important question to ask. And of course, the...
by TacoRecipes6 years ago
Does life have a purpose? How do we find our purpose in life? How to live a meaningful life? Is lack of meaning in life the same as depression?
by gary dube5 years ago
What is the most valuable purpose in life?Many a times I wonder about what and why of life. We perform multitude of activities in our lives for decades together and at times we realize the futility of most of the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.