The intention of living things is to survive.
The effect of the intention to survive is life.
Since life is the effect of the intention to survive,
it follows that the cause of the intention must preceed the
living things.
Intention is only derived from consciousness, as will.
Therefore consciousness is the origin of the process which brings life.
"No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil."
Isaiah 59:4
scio me nihil scire
What is this "intention" thing? And while you're at it, do "will" too. Things are seeming circular and not necessarily following, of necessity from the form of your logic.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Okay, let's analyze this really quickly.
Most creatures have no intentions at all, let alone ones that predate their consciousness (for instance, when they were an infant/child).The intention of living things is to survive.
You posit, then, that creatures only survive because they intend to? What about suicidal people? What about creatures that can't intend anything? What physiological process is undertaken that allows intent to dictate basic biochemical and organic reactions?The effect of the intention to survive is life.
You posit, then, that your God-Consciousness himself has no intention of surviving, because in order for him to live at all, he too must supposedly have an intent to survive - and that must be attained from an outside source of consciousness. Hello, infinite regress, we meet again.Therefore consciousness is the origin of the process which brings life.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Just askin', but isn't this a circular argument?Quote by: The
What is "life" if not "living things"?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Is it not true that the "intention to survive" is a characteristic of all living things?
It's not possible, it seems, for there to be an "intention to survive" without life. Therefore, it seems, either that life (likely in a very primitive form) preceded the "intention to survive" or "life" and the "intention to survive" are inseparable and the latter is merely a characteristic of the former.
Let me recast your assertion to be (hopefully) more clear. All life reproduces. Which came first, then, the ability to reproduce or life?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
An advanced being (god) could be why we're here. I kinda like the theory that this is all a computer simulation. Would the simulator be a god to us? Without evidence it's all just speculation though.
What I have a problem with are all the god clubs that have sprung up over the millenia that claim to know things they can't and tell us how to live our lives. You know, the typical stuff man screws up when we get involved in something.
The pope for instance knows exactly what I know about gods and that's diddly squat. Where does he get off trying to claim he's got gods ear and speaks for him? Sorry, little bit of a rant there...
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
The problem lies below on your understanding of what 'intention' constitutes in the natural world.
Here lies the weak link in your argument. Your assumption of the necessity of anthropomorphic Intention as only derived from consciousness, as will' would be a theistic assumption. The present objective evidence of the nature of our physical existence supports that everything complies with a set of natural laws, and natural cause and effect is the only observed 'intention' we have to base our knowledge of the universe on. Underlying this is QM, which has no known observed 'intention' and cause and effect.Intention is only derived from consciousness, as will.
The empty cup contains the most
Frank A Doonan
Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk
I do not know, therefore I think . . .
The problem lies in the anthropomorphic use of 'intention' from the theist perspective.
From the scientific perspective, being able to reproduce was the first primitive indicator of life.Let me recast your assertion to be (hopefully) more clear. All life reproduces. Which came first, then, the ability to reproduce or life?
The empty cup contains the most
Frank A Doonan
Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk
I do not know, therefore I think . . .
I've always been troubled by this argument. Not the god part, but rather the advanced part.
It seems to me that a creator need not necessarily be "advanced" at all. Indeed, the "creator" could be or could have been quite primitive. All it needed to do was get things started, nothing more. An argument can be made that such a creator did not need to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omnipresent. Indeed, the creator could have been a single-purpose, single-minded, dumb entity whose "life" ended with the creation of the Universe.
Is there some reason I'm not aware of why the creator would need be "advanced" given what we know about some of the "laws" of the Universe?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Good point. I guess I always imagined some aliens whizzing around in a flying saucer planting the seeds of life (or universes). Your argument for a dumb creator, even one that was extinguished as the universe was created, is just as plausible.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
The simulation analogy is actually pretty much how I see things, the proof will come from quantum physics I think.
"No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil."
Isaiah 59:4
scio me nihil scire
Here lies the weak link in your argument. Your assumption of the necessity of anthropomorphic Intention as only derived from consciousness, as will' would be a theistic assumption. The present objective evidence of the nature of our physical existence supports that everything complies with a set of natural laws, and natural cause and effect is the only observed 'intention' we have to base our knowledge of the universe on. Underlying this is QM, which has no known observed 'intention' and cause and effect.
You make a valid point sir, this will take some thinking. I guess to argue on these things we have to begin with some consensus with regards to the definition of the terms..... everyone wants to cry Lexical ambiguity, but in light of your argument I see my error.
"No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil."
Isaiah 59:4
scio me nihil scire
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks