think with me anons pt1.)

File: 1489265917205.jpg (30KB, 403x302px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 403x302px

>Now imagine the universe from the perspective of a gallbladder
Well, the laws of physics still apply. The gallbladder only exists because the laws of physics compelled each individual atom to align itself the way it did. Moving forward with this understanding. The universe to a gallbladder is only a mix of chemical signals which cause it to secrete some green digestive enzyme. But here something’s different. Yes, the gallbladder is still a slave to it's surroundings, only reacting to the chemical signals it receives as the laws of physics compel it to. But the gallbladder, unlike the particle, does indeed have an objective higher purpose in this universe, to keep something living. Gallbladders don't just form out of the ether like particles do, they form only in things which are living, and they form to ensure that this thing thing continues to live. I don't think the following can be denied as an objective truth: gallbladders exist, they exist to sustain life, the laws of physics in this universe have compelled gallbladders to have an objective higher purpose. Of course, the gallbladder itself is unaware of this purpose. It is merely an organ with no tools to perceive what its purpose truly is yet this purpose is still there and undeniably true. Consider this: An atheist gallbladder would not believe in human beings.

File: 1486346646710.jpg (167KB, 600x3031px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 600x3031px

Before I jump in here I want to distance myself from a lot of the egocentrism that is present in discussions of god. Gallbladders exist in many different animals, I am just using humans as an example, I do not believe this “higher purpose” I have been alluding to is specific to humans, I think it is the goal for all forms of life, humans just have a nice head start, with that clear let’s continue:

>The universe from the perspective of humans
Nearly all men of science conclude that humans, and life in general exists to survive. Few would dispute the idea of survival as an objective reality. Whatever we have defined as “life” does indeed exist in this universe and the laws of physics do indeed compel it to attempt to “survive”.

The idea of biological survival is so widely accepted that it is frequently the basis of arguments against a god or higher purpose for life. After all, any thoughts we have of god are simply manifestations of our brains curiosity which was a trait we developed early on because it was beneficial to our survival as living things. Here is the problem with using survival as the counter to a belief in higher purpose, is that survival is not a purpose, it is merely a function. The same the function of a gallbladder is a decoder of chemical signals to be decoded, the function of humans (and all life) is to survive. FUNCTION != PURPOSE, this has been proven by the example of the gallbladder.

File: 1496060703070.jpg (43KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x441px

On what basis can a rational man assert that the laws of physics which have compelled atoms to become chemicals to become proteins and fats and enzymes all with an objective higher purpose to support this life, have compelled nothing more but for this life to survive. It wasn’t enough for the atom to merely survive, the chemical did not merely survive, the cell did not merely survive, nothing in the path to life has merely survived, so what is the evidence that now humans exist to merely survive. All evidence points to the idea that survival is merely a function for a higher purpose.
Before you reply, remember:
An atheist gallbladder doesn’t believe in human beings.

>>9169316
What's the opposite of NAXALT? Where you're such a filthy unwashed pleb that you believe nobody exists to the right of the fat middle of the bell curve?

I think you're gonna need a better definition of "purpose". Why does a gallbladder necessarily need to keep an animal alive?

If there is a higher purpose to life, then you can conclude that a gallbladder supports that purpose by supporting life. However, since there is no proof of an ultimate purpose, the gallbladder supporting life is no more than a function. Basically, you can't pretend there's a purpose on a smaller level to prove there is one at a higher level. You need to prove the higher purpose first.

File: River_terrapin.jpg (103KB, 350x442px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 350x442px

OP, your concept of "turtles all the way up" is interesting food for thought, especially the gallbladder example.
However, I agree with >>9171158 in proving the higher purpose first.
For example, I think it's fair to say that if all life on earth ends, and all information that it ever existed is lost to entropy, gallbladders will of never had any purpose.

>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>9171158
>Why does a gallbladder necessarily need to keep an animal alive?

I suppose that a gallbladder needs to keep an animal alive because gallbladders do not form in any other part of the universe except inside of living things. This is also what I use to describe the gallbladders "purpose". I know it's confusing so here's a quick summary of what I mean by function vs. purpose.


Function is what a thing empirically does. The thing may be unaware that it is doing it, for example a gallbladder has no tools of perception to realize that it is a chemical decoder attached to a mechanical pump, but that is what it is. And if the gallbladder did have tools of perception it would realize that it is a decoder/pump but that's all it would realize. It wouldn't have the tools to realize that the reason it decodes these signals is merely to keep a living thing alive. The atheist gallbladder believes the entire universe is nothing other than chemical signals to be decoded, it believes it's function is also it's purpose and rejects the notion of human beings because there is no proof.

The analog to this is the function of living things appears to be to survive. Either in simplistic life without tools of perception, or in complex life such as humans our functions remain the same. The laws of physics seem to compel living things to survive and pass down genetic information. The question is if the laws of physics compel any higher level order that is dependent on the survival of living things to occur. The atheist living things thinks that it's survival is also it's purpose, and that the laws of physics have compelled nothing more but for it to survive and pass on genetic information it says there is no universal tendency that occurs when life survives for long enough.

>>9171158
>>9172509

cont.
A higher level purpose exists when a function is not merely an end but actually a means to an end. Some examples in which survival may be a means to an end and in which living things have a higher level purpose would be like:

>Survival is only a necessary step in finding god, the purpose to being alive is to find god
>Survival is only a necessary step in gathering information about the universe, the purpose to be alive is to gather information

Both of these examples concede that survival is the necessary function for accomplishing these goals, but the atheist would deny that the laws of physics compel living things to either gather information or find god.

Note I do not claim to know what the higher purpose of life is, only that in following the patterns of physics it seems more likely that there is at least 1 rather than 0.

>>9169291
>But the gallbladder, unlike the particle, does indeed have an objective higher purpose in this universe, to keep something living.
No, purposes are for things which are designed by an intelligence with intention. The idea that the gallbladder exists to keep something living ignores that the gallbladder arose due to spontaneous order, which is of course incidental to life since life is spontaneous order. It wasn't designed to do anything.

>Nearly all men of science conclude that humans, and life in general exists to survive.
No, life in general survives by existing, it does not exist to survive. You have it completely backwards.

>Here is the problem with using survival as the counter to a belief in higher purpose, is that survival is not a purpose, it is merely a function. The same the function of a gallbladder is a decoder of chemical signals to be decoded, the function of humans (and all life) is to survive. FUNCTION != PURPOSE, this has been proven by the example of the gallbladder.
This seems rather contradictory. You claimed gallbladders have a purpose because they all have the same function. Now you deny survival is the purpose of life even though all life uniquely survives. Rather than your example proving this point, it contradicts it.

>It wasn’t enough for the atom to merely survive, the chemical did not merely survive,
Atoms and chemicals don't survive. You seem to now be conflating "exist" with "survive" when they are completely different.

>An atheist gallbladder would not believe in human beings.
No, an atheist gallbladder would not believe in a supreme gallbladder which designed all gallbladders with the purpose of keeping humans alive. And they would be 100% correct. Your analogy is pure sophistry. Atheists do not deny the physical environment from which they develop and in which they operate.

>>9172509
>And if the gallbladder did have tools of perception it would realize that it is a decoder/pump but that's all it would realize. It wouldn't have the tools to realize that the reason it decodes these signals is merely to keep a living thing alive.
I don't see how the analogy then applies to humans since humans do indeed have the tools to discover how humans developed. To understand why a gallbladder exists has nothing to do with it's "purpose," it's to understand how it came to be and how it persists. It exists because of evolution, which follows directly from the laws of physics.

Before humans had scientific knowledge, we would have thought that the gods made rain in order to reward or punish humans. But now we know that rain is merely incidental to our existence. To a primitive mind, everything seems to revolve around itself, since that is all it knows. That is all you are doing really.

>The question is if the laws of physics compel any higher level order that is dependent on the survival of living things to occur.
Of course, human society has plenty of spontaneous order, like markets. Doesn't mean the "purpose" of humans is to form a market. How is that a hard/important question?

>>9172512
>Both of these examples concede that survival is the necessary function for accomplishing these goals, but the atheist would deny that the laws of physics compel living things to either gather information or find god.
What are you talking about? An atheist would deny that God exists to be found in the first place. Why would an atheist deny that the laws of physics compel humans to do anything that they actually do? By making up "purposes" you are just assuming an intelligence behind the universe when there appears to be none.

>>9172533
>humans do indeed have the tools to discover how humans developed

Haha, this is the true arrogance of man. Explain to me why the laws of physics have compelled for intelligent life to form. We can observe the steps along the way, but we can not look at the laws of physics and understand how charged particles became brains.

>you are just assuming an intelligence behind the universe when there appears to be none

You are saying a universe in which the laws of physics compel for intelligent beings to exist appears to have no intelligence behind it?

>>9172512
You're still trying to draw a conclusion where you can't. If a gallbladder's purpose is to keep an animal alive, than the only reason it has a purpose is because that higher being exists. So wouldn't there have to be proof that something on a higher level above humans exists before you suggest we have a purpose?

>>9172851
you could be in circus with those mental acrobatics

>>9172854
??? If animals didn't exist, than according to OP's definition, a gallbladder would have no purpose. I don't see your argument.

>>9172509
>The atheist gallbladder believes the entire universe is nothing other than chemical signals to be decoded, it believes it's function is also it's purpose and rejects the notion of human beings because there is no proof.
A gallbladder doesn't believe anything, it literally lacks the infrastructure for thought.
Typical of someone who wants to believe humans are special ( and don't pretend that you don't believe humans are special by deflecting with saying life is special ) has trouble with not anthropomorphize everything.

>>9172656
>Haha, this is the true arrogance of man. Explain to me why the laws of physics have compelled for intelligent life to form.
We don't know, nor do we even know if the question makes sense. It is not clear that the laws of physics were determined from something or are just the fundamental necessary properties of the universe. I know that's really "arrogant" of me to admit.

>We can observe the steps along the way, but we can not look at the laws of physics and understand how charged particles became brains.
Why not? This seems more like a practical scientific problem than a metaphysical one.

>You are saying a universe in which the laws of physics compel for intelligent beings to exist appears to have no intelligence behind it?
Yes. It's called spontaneous order and it's all around us. I really don't understand why you people think your naive intuition matters.

So much nonsense in this thread. Life is literally what it looks like: a bunch of biological robots naturally designed to fuck each other when they are older to make more biological robots to fuck each other. The nature of our universe has allowed this process to take place, thanks to the existence of time. The process continues until there is no more energy left for the robots to fuck, then there is no life and then nothingness and its all over. So life is ultimately pointless, BUT, it's still cool and fun that it exists. So go out and fuck someone, I heard it feels good.