Author Topic: How many GODS do you have?  (Read 3387 times)

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #375 on: June 13, 2019, 01:20:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, Airk is a Yogi Bear and coming to us straight from Jellystone Park.
Except that Yogi is smarter than the average bear, and I don't think Arik fits that description. Or maybe Yogi only believes he's smarter than the average bear, in which case Arik fits better.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,"
Ecclesiastes 10:16

Online Mr.Obvious

  • Atheist Mantis
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3038
  • Total likes: 1679
  • The rules are made up, and the points don't matter
Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #376 on: June 13, 2019, 06:36:00 PM »
Yogi was a talking bear. But, saying things, as shown in this thread for instance, is not a sign of intelligence. If he had an ounce of intelligence, he would've used that ability to become stinking rich, allowing him to get all of the picknick baskets he wanted.
Instead, he chose to sit and shit in the woods.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #377 on: June 13, 2019, 06:41:55 PM »
Do bears shit in the woods?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,"
Ecclesiastes 10:16

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #378 on: June 14, 2019, 08:58:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Management requires deception.  Only technicians can pretend that honesty and process are all that are required.

Materialists are narrow in their perception of what could be real.  The world is material, but much more.  I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution.  In that way I disagree with Arik.  There are random changes only.  Except with entropy, it is one step forward and two steps back.



When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.

Thanks. 
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #379 on: June 14, 2019, 09:22:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not CB, but will comment anyway.  Decent list, but not quite right. 
#5--No, not for me.  Religion always has a hierarchy which leads to destruction and evil.  Spiritually is a personal thing and is not always unproductive for either the person or society.  For example, I have a good friend who meditates daily and says he is searching and getting in touch with his 'higher' being.  He claims his spirituality makes him a better person and I don't argue with that.


Oh, well at least there is something that you like.
Congratulation mate.







Quote
#7 NDE's are not lies, even if they are hallucinations. Optical illusions are not lies but just how our brain interprets what it 'sees'.


Now you talk nonsense Mike.
How on earth can a brain off as declared by doctors be able to interpret anything?



Quote
#8--Since our consciousness is a function or our brain, as our brain changes (and evolves), our consciousness will as well.



More nonsense Mike.
Who told you that the consciousness is a function of the brain?
Would you say that the driver is a function of the vehicle?

Can't you ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense?



Quote
The rest I agree with.  And please continue if you wish.


Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #380 on: June 14, 2019, 09:32:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, finally posting something that is not bullshit. I wouldn't say we consider all of the facts..but until we get something from a reputable source telling us otherwise with some backup.




I have to ask you a big big favor aitm.

I am talking about these atheists facts.

Would you be so kind to bring some evidence about them.

You see aitm I did put down these facts a bit too fast but I did forget to produce any evidence about them.
I am sure you can help with that considering also that you agree with them.

Thanks mate.
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Offline Baruch

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #381 on: June 14, 2019, 10:09:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


When you say......... I don't agree with progress, with teleology, with purposeful evolution..........can you please go a bit further and give some examples.

Thanks.

Subject of sentence.  You believe in progress, teleology, purposeful evolution.  In that sense, you are closer to the regular posters than close to me.  Which is fine.  You differ from the regular posters in your metaphysics.  Which is fine too.  They see teleology from a materialist POV, you see it from a spiritualist POV.  In that sense, we are closer to each other, than to the regular posters.  Because our metaphysics agrees.

Venn diagram ... I am the set that partially covers set A and set B.  A natural bridge drug.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 10:23:18 AM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #382 on: June 14, 2019, 10:24:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bullshit. This isn't just "my guess." This is the body of neuroscience. Specific aspects of consciousness are indeed linked to particular areas of the brain, for instance. Damage your Brocha's area, you will not be able to form or even comprehend sentences, and at best pick out words and try to deduce their meaning; damage your Wernicke's area, and you will start babbling gramatical nonsense. Split the brain down the corpus colosum and you will have two distinct personalities in one body β€” one "consciousness" has become two, and it's certainly not a de neuvo consciousness either. There is no conservation of consciousness. It shows every indication that it is something that the brain does.



What a nonsense Haku.........

Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.


Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia


Quote
NDE do not demonstrate that they are anything other than the brain's attempt to reconstruct what was happening after the fact. We've tested NDE, and they fail to show that they are anything supernatural. Yes, these patients describe what they think might have happened during their revival


You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense. 



Quote
but they all utterly fail to notice the rather incongruitous and obvious playing card laid atop a shelf in plain view of a supposed soul.

It's like, everyone's seen TV dramas of a patient being revived on an operating table, and everyone expects to be floating above the scene in their NDE, and that's what they experience, but they don't expect to see playing cards in emergency rooms, and so they don't experience it. Funny thing if NDE's are actually out-of-bodies, huh?



This is a terrible failing Haku.

NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.



Quote
While consciousness in neuroscience is still being studied,



Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.




Quote
that does not mean that we can't say anything about it. We have plenty to say, and the notion that it is a woo thing that "comes from" somewhere and "goes" somewhere is completely unfounded and shows every indication that it is wrong. Your notion that "neuroscience is guessing" on the broad category of what consciousness is (thing vs process) is simply wrong.



I send the woo back to the sender. LOL



Quote
First off, zombies are fiction. Fiiictiooon. They don't exist the way you think of them. At best, real zombies are still fully alive but brain-damaged people. I have no need to explain what is not evident.
And then there's the fact that there are the brain-dead. People with silent brain matter and well-correlated to having no detectable consciousness, yet are still alive in every other sense. If you can call a meat vegetable "alive." Their organs may even be donated to other people who need them, and will live perfectly happily in them but for immune system rejection issues.



I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.



Quote
You calling something garbage does not make it so.



True.



Quote
Bad analogies are still bad. There is no driver, no homunculus in the brain. Nobody has demonstrated that a consciousness can exist apart from a functioning brain. No, NDE are not examples of this. Again, we've tested them and they show no signs of them being other than reconstructions after the fact. It is a mere experience, not a reality.



I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.



Quote
[Irony meter exploded.]
You have not demonstrated that anything we believe is "magic." Believing that some aspect of yourself exists beyond the expiration of your body, with no evidence to indicate that such a thing exists, and that it has properties that is seen in no other entity in this universe (you think that the consciousness is the only permanent thing in this universe), is to you less magical than believing that such things are horse-hooey. Sorry, your woo is still, at the end, woo.



Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them.  :wink:



Quote
Gaslighting, pure and simple. Dude, this reality right here that I'm sitting in is the one I have to deal with. You promise me that your woo is more important than the reality that I can readily verify. You promise me that I will achieve peace of mind and permanent happiness with your woo. And if you're wrong and all I get is an empty box... I have no course for redress. In any other context, such a promise would be rightly regarded as a con, so I'm calling it as I see it.

If there is an afterlife, then its gravy on an already fulfilling life. If there isn't, then I still have my fulfilling life. Either way, I still come out ahead of you.



You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.




When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #383 on: June 14, 2019, 11:20:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you mean to be sarcastic or did you actually express a fairly ground worldview without duress or external aid?


Sarcastic but without any bad feeling after all we share this universe.
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #384 on: June 14, 2019, 12:17:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Very sad Mike, very sad indeed.
Yes, Arik,  sad is indeed, one way to take all of your posts.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #385 on: June 14, 2019, 09:23:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What a nonsense Haku.........

Neuroscience as you can see here below study the nervous system not the consciousness and because the consciousness is no part of the nervous system obviously your point is faulty.
Mere assertion. Your stating that consciousness is not part of the nervous system does not make it true.

Quote
Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, mathematical modeling and psychology to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits. Wikipedia
I see nowhere where Wikipedia claims consciousness is not part of the nervous system.

Quote
You fail on this point same same as our friend Mike so I repeat what I said to him to you.
How on earth can a brain which has been declared off and dead be able to reconstruct anything?
You too should ponder a bit more before you come up with this nonsense. 
You really are a dumbass, aren't you? It's called a NEAR DEATH experience because you experience after being near death and come back from the brink. At no point are you actually dead. Even if you are declared dead, that doesn't make you actually dead, because many cells remain alive hours after clinical death.

It's called a NEAR death experience because the people who experience aren't actually dead!

Maybe you should ponder this before you open your big trap.

Quote
This is a terrible failing Haku.

NDEs are given for a reason which is to learn and to use this learning in order to improve the life of those people so obviously God wouldn't engage in playing games such as that.
God doesn't give the tips to find the gold because this is not a treasure hunt.
That is also why God doesn't show to you and make you believe in Him.
He is just not part of the universal game.
You got to find Him without using any tricks.
Nonsense. All God is doing is playing games by being this fucking evasive. People experiencing NDEs never give testimony out of line from what they expect to find in such experiences. When tested, they never are able to gain any genuinely unexplained knowledge that would prove the are actually sensing something beyond the norm, like those hidden playing cards. Should they have been reliably been seeing those playing cards, even if God has to point out that the playing card is important and they should memorize it, then that would be interesting and something to talk about. But they don't. All we get is pap testimony of things beyond that could just as easily be imagination.

NDEs have never shown themselves to be a reliable source of verifiable knowledge, and until they are, I don't see why anyone would or should trust them any more than any other story that people tell.

Also, a God that is unwilling to be verified by any means obviously values gullibility above critical thinking, and that is a God I cannot respect.

Quote
Consciousness is NOT part of neuroscience.
Put that in your mind Haku.

Mere repetition does not make it any more true than the first time you said it. We even have a field of neuroscience dedicated to the study of the link between consciousness and neurology, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as behavioral neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and affective neuroscience.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neurobiology, and computational modeling.[2]


So, this notion that cognition (including consciousness) is "NOT part of neuroscience," is just you speaking out of your ass again.

Quote
I send the woo back to the sender. LOL
Yeah, yeah. Calling that "woo" does not make it so.

Quote
I do not believe in zombies.
Mine was a way to say that even a total idiot need a tiny bit of consciousness to live or be alive.
Prove it, then. Prove that you are not a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login who is so detailed that it even "thinks" (in whatever facsimile of thinking it's able to perform) that it is conscious. Prove that people are actual conscious beings instead of intricately programmed facsimiles that have been given false experiences and thoughts and the mere illusion of consciousness. Prove that you have actual consciousness instead of the convincing illusion of it, and you might be getting somewhere. Otherwise, you're up the creek.

And keep in mind, people are quite easily fooled into believing that bots on the internet are real people, at least for a while, and those things are quite simple in their action.

Quote
I am afraid Haku that NDEs are the perfect example of that.
Everything make sense and show evidence.
The real patient, the real casualty situation, the real hospital, the real doctors and nurses and a real experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years.
On the other hand hallucination are forgotten after a very short time and their vision is all blurry.
And yet they never seem to see those playing cards, do they? God never gives them the hint that maybe they should, as part of that "clear, sharp and remembered even after years and years" experiences, be remembering the card and its suit and value, to give some indication... ANY indication... that they're actually remembering a real experience and not just reconstructing one.

And before you point out the clearness and sharpness again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a reconstructed memory is shoddy and distorted. Not so. Each and every memory you recall is, at that moment, reconstructed from whatever pieces the brain pulls together. We know this because not only do we have brain scans that show this in action, we know that "clear memories" can be filled with inaccuracies no matter how clear and sharp they seem, because if you compare such a recalled memory over time, it changes! Especially if the memory is recalled often. What happened to these "experience that are clear, sharp and remembered years later," Arik? If the story changes, then at most one of the different versions is accurate, if any of them.

Again, until NDEs are validated as a source of real knowledge, I don't see why anyone should take them seriously. A God that is playing games with sending cryptic messages via ALMOST dead people taking about the hereafter (that they never experienced) brought back from the brink instead of first confirming that such a channel can be trusted is a God OBVIOUSLY uninterested in our welfare.

Quote
Most of the atheists beliefs are build on magic not on reality.
The evidence is not there and by the way they also go against the very science that atheists rely to.
See my 10 points in previous post and see if you can come up with any evidence in anyone of them.  :wink:

Okay:

ARIK: 1) When we die is all over.

Evidence: The glaring lack of verifiable evidence that the above is anything but this case, even from a God that SHOULD know what kind of evidence would convince us. When there's a lack of evidence in exactly the places where they should be expected, that is evidence against.

ARIK: 2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.

Evidence: The intimate relation between damage to the brain and damage to the consciousness. Again, a consciousness that is supposedly permanent should be able to weather such damage without consequence, but when we study brain damaged people, these faculties betray every sign of being completely gone instead of simply having no outlet. When we temporarily silence these regions with transcranial stimulation, patients describe their experience as such. For temporary aphasics (no language), they describe themselves after the fact that during the period of time they were simply unable to comprehend words even in their thoughts.

ARIK: 3) We never lived before and we will never live again.

Obvious deduction from 1 and 2, with the caveat that this holds as long as the universe does not satisfy the conditions of Poincare's recursion theorem.

ARIK: 4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.

Evidence: The complete inability for theists to explain why God can exist in the first place if the universe needs a God to create it. The attempts all boil down to special pleading. If God may exist without a cause, there is no real compelling reason why a unverse couldn't exist without a cause as well. Occam's razor slices off the unnecessary premise (God).

ARIK: 5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.

CORRECTION: Not a position held by us. I just consider them equally bogus on account that they rely on exactly the same types of evidence for brodly similar claims.

ARIK: 6) Jesus never existed.

If he wasn't a mangod, it wouldn't matter one whit if he existed or not β€” the feats attributed to him are obvious fairy tales and cannot be verified, and again, God would know exactly what kind of evidence it would need to really rigiourously verify such claims. I'm on the side that Jesus is a historicized mythical figure, but that's another story.

ARIK: 7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.

CORRECTION: Not necessarily. They're experiences, but not necessarily of the things that they think they are.

Evidence: Again, not one of these NDE people caught on that there was a playing card on those top shelves, and a God didn't see fit to point out the card to those people and say, "See that playing card? Memorize it! It'll be important later!" Again, it looks exactly like people are reconstructing memories after the fact, rather than a genuine real phenomenon. Reconstruction of memories does not require any knowledge of things we don't know about; supernatural woo does. Occam's razor deletes the woo in favor of reconstruction.

ARIK: 8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.

We don't call the change of a consciousness with time "evolution." People learn, think, imagine, and grow. But it's not an evolution as you think of it.

ARIK: 9) Physical science is the real McCoy.

Evidence: All theories of woo fall flat on their face. They don't work. Physical science, grounded completely in materialistic thinking, works a charm. This is exactly the distribution of success and failure that you expect if physical science is all there is.

ARIK: 10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Evidence: All martial artists who are able to break concrete are able to do so after conditioning their bodies, not spindly little gurus who eschew their bodies. There's a mental component, as one's natural inclination is to not bash their hands, feet, and head against hard rock-like substances, but discipline is as far as it goes. Furthermore, every mechanical advantage is given to the martial artist. And finally, actual calculations indicate that breaking the blocks of concrete actually seen broken is well within the capability of the human body if its well-trained. This is exactly what we would expect to see if the breaking of concrete is a physical phenomenon, rather than a mental one.

Quote
You make the whole situation a bit too complicated.
You don't have to believe in anything as you start your journey.
All you have to believe is to believe in yourself.
Step by step you improve your life and what is needed for climbing to the next step will unfold automatically.
I do belive in myself, but I don't believe you. You have said nothing in your drivel that has the ring of truth to it. I believe in my ability to understand and grasp even a little bit how the world actually works, and I've worked to gain the knowledge necessary to understand it, and I have been rewarded with a less shallow than average understanding. You see humans breaking concrete and think, "WOW! That's obviously impossible physically for a human, so it MUST be mental powers!" whereas I think, "Huh, that's cool, and seems to be impossible! But is that really beyond human capability? Let's see... WOW! Human bodies are more capable than I first thought!"

In short, I see in you nothing more than nonsense masquerading as knowledge. Find a way to VERIFY anything you say with a means equal to your claims, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just a snake-oil salesman trying to sell me cure-all.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Cavebear

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #386 on: Today at 06:07:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, well if you like to talk about FACTS then I mention a small list of atheists facts.

1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

Shell I continue CB?

Seems basically right.  I'm not sure I would call #7 NDEs "lies" as the people who suffer that truly believe their experiences are true.  Lies are deliberate falsehoods.  And I'm not sure what you mean by #8 or #10
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Cavebear

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #387 on: Today at 06:11:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
with purposeful evolution.

No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful".  Would you like to discuss that further? 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #388 on: Today at 07:01:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No evolutionists say that evolution is "purposeful".  Would you like to discuss that further?

Purpose ... comes from Aristotle.  Aristotle is pre-modern.  Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn?  For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us.  The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being.  That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle.  In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything.  Example.

You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it.  The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone.  As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone.  Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps.  Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.

So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind?  It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture.  It is lazy, as all things are.  Like slumping in your chair.  But without life, without mind.  The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment.  And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way

Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past.  Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see.  A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man).    The past can be seen, the future cannot.  Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future.  And repeats every mistake.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:04:38 AM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: How many GODS do you have?
« Reply #389 on: Today at 08:45:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Purpose ... comes from Aristotle.  Aristotle is pre-modern.  Aristotle had this idea .. it is the purpose of the acorn, to make an oak tree, or is it the purpose of the oak tree to make an acorn?  For Aristotle, cause/effect worked backwards to us.  The acorn of the future, calls the oak tree of today into being.  That is teleology/purpose to Aristotle.  In current scientific method, there is no purpose to anything.  Example.

You have an ice-cream cone, with ice-cream in it.  The ice-cream is a hard cold ball, it doesn't fill the whole cone.  As the ice-cream warms up, it starts to melt, it becomes soft, and starts adjusting to gravity and the shape of the cone.  Eventually, before melting completely, the ice-cream fills the cone from the bottom up, without gaps.  Its shape is that of the cone, not a sphere.

So I ask you, did the ice-cream have a purpose in mind?  It reacted to its environment, and took on the least-energetic posture.  It is lazy, as all things are.  Like slumping in your chair.  But without life, without mind.  The simplest things always respond to their immediate environment.  And like a "break" of the balls on a billiard table, the cue ball hits the triangle of balls, and they go every which way

Explanation moves from present to future, not future to the past.  Ancient people saw time the opposite to what we see.  A man looks into the past, not into the future (if you are ancient man).    The past can be seen, the future cannot.  Modern man is opposite, he turns his back on the past, and looks forward into the future.  And repeats every mistake.

OK, I have a pack of cigs and a glass of wine, let's talk...

First, let me say that the concept of "purpose" was an important idea. Given that most of the Greeks and others thought the world was pretty random an poly-deitically-controlled, that was a serious thought.

But second, let's agree that an acorn or an oak tree doesn't have a "purpose" in the sense that intent is involved.  Purpose does imply, well, "purpose".  Nothing has purpose without intent and intent requires thought and plan.  So your oak tree can't actually have "purpose".

Third, your ice cream cone is only about viscous liquid responding to temperature and gravity, so there is no purpose in that.

Fourth, you mention ancient people only looking to the past.  While they certainly did think of the past (as we also do at times), that says nothing about "purpose" or their whole way of thinking.  Did some people in places around the world build terraces for future farming by thinking only of the past?  Of course not. 

I would even say they mummified or otherwise maintained their ancestors to get advice for their future.  Humans always think to the future.  They have to.  They need to worry about next year crops and children, not the past harvests and births. 

And "purpose"?  Its the egg not the chicken.  The egg always comes first.  It's because the genetics demand the first of anything is the result of 2 parents mating who "aren't quite the egg". 

Have a good day...



 

Purpose doesn't "come from" Aristotle. He might have recognized its existence, but it didn't come from him.   

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk