Atheism, Rival Conception of God.

[Eudaimonist]

Actually I think you pretty much nailed this one. It's the evidence of intelligent thought that distinguishes the hammer from the hammer-shaped branch. The evidence isn't found within the composition of the object but in the form and function of the whole.

Okay, then I think I understand your point better, but I don't see why you are assigning purpose, or some special version of purpose, specifically to the fact that something has an intelligent creator. Isn't purpose determined through use, or perhaps through ability, rather than creation?

If a hammer is created to pound in nails, then it will be sold with a recommended use, for which it is well-suited given the alternatives. The creator of the hammer designed it with a particular ability, which makes it suitable for certain purposes.

And so, if I make use of that hammer-shaped branch's ability to pound in nails, doesn't that branch nevertheless have this purpose in that context? The form and function appear to be nearly the same, even if it wasn't created and has no recommended use.

You wrote earlier that: "The atheist cannot allow himself to see purpose in the universe unless he is willing to ponder the possibility of the existence of a creator."

I suppose that this is true, if that purpose is the purpose of a creator, but I see human purposes all the time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sojourner<><]

Okay, then I think I understand your point better, but I don't see why you are assigning purpose, or some special version of purpose, specifically to the fact that something has an intelligent creator. Isn't purpose determined through use, or perhaps through ability, rather than creation?

I think I have to correct myself here. If I were to witness the random manifestation of a brand new Rembrandt out of thin air and directly in front of me, the fact of whether or not it was 'created' would be in question. I would still have to conclude that there were an intelligence behind its manifestation because of its form and function. Then I could deduce that it was somehow 'created' by an intelligence even if I can't understand how. So then evidence of intelligent thought and evidence of creation or manifestation by an intelligent being come almost hand-in-hand.

If a hammer is created to pound in nails, then it will be sold with a recommended use, for which it is well-suited given the alternatives. The creator of the hammer designed it with a particular ability, which makes it suitable for certain purposes.

And so, if I make use of that hammer-shaped branch's ability to pound in nails, doesn't that branch nevertheless have this purpose in that context? The form and function appear to be nearly the same, even if it wasn't created and has no recommended use.

Sure, a hammer is a relatively insignificant object that can be used for purposes other than what it was originally designed for. If a person were to come across one by chance in normal, every-day life it wouldn't really be a very special thing at all. But consider for a moment the setting of the walk through the woods in my original thought experiment and replace it with a walk across the surface of an alien planet. Here, a hammer shaped branch probably has little significance (aside from proof of the existence of plant life). But finding a real alien hammer... now that is something special because it is the evidence of intelligence.

So then what if the alien hammer shaped branch can be used for the same purpose as a real alien hammer. Is the hammer's original purpose more special than the purpose assigned to the branch? Yes, because of the information that we can deduce from our knowledge of it. In another example, graffitti in brooklyn might not be significant at all, but 5,000 year old graffitti on a remote cave wall would. Depending on the context it's not always the actual purpose of an object that makes it more significant than the natural, purposeless object, it's the information that it points to.

Back to how this all started, when a person of faith says "I see purpose in reality" what he or she may really mean to say is: "I see the evidence of a greater intelligence in the form and function of reality".

 

[Dissonancy]

Everyone go read Heidegger's Being and Time and then return to this thread with some intelligent insight regarding objects, purposes, and meanings.

And to the OP: For future reference, it is generally a bad idea to quote C.S. Lewis in a philosophy forum, or any serious apologetics forum for that matter.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Back to how this all started, when a person of faith says "I see purpose in reality" what he or she may really mean to say is: "I see the evidence of a greater intelligence in the form and function of reality".

Okay, this is unobjectionable. All I can say here is that I don't conclude the same thing about the universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Kahalachan]

A quote from C.S. Lewis that should be pondered.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there was no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

What is too simple? 1+1=2 is too simple for me but it is fact.

There is meaning in the universe when an evolved species differentiates itself from the environment. We create our own meanings.

We don't have eyes to see infra-red, but we know about it cause through reason we open our eyes wider than they have ever openned before.

 

[The Nihilist]

Everyone go read Heidegger's Being and Time and then return to this thread with some intelligent insight regarding objects, purposes, and meanings.

And to the OP: For future reference, it is generally a bad idea to quote C.S. Lewis in a philosophy forum, or any serious apologetics forum for that matter.

As if most people could even read Heidegger. Seriously, though, Being and Time is fantastic. I haven't read it in forever, though. What are you thinking of specifically?

 

[Brimshack]

Good grief, Tenka, extra effort to misspell my nick! How sweet.

Superb responses. And highly characteristic. Such perfection of the techniques of debate, distortion, and prejudice.

Thanks for the compliments. I am highly recommended by the caliber of my opponents.

Good grief, Tenka, extra effort to misspell my nick! How sweet.

Superb responses. And highly characteristic. Such perfection of the techniques of debate, distortion, and prejudice.

Thanks for the compliments. I am highly recommended by the caliber of my opponents.

You wanted debate? If the clear hypocrisy of your initial post isn't apparent, then I see no hope in future discussion.