Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by TheWill
Hi Will, Apologies for the delay.
Not to worry, it's not as though I check ATS every half-hour (well, I do, but that's just because I have no life)
When I say true accident, I say something that is ACTUALLY an accident rather than something that is APPARENTLY an accident. So we might look
at someone who is lying at the bottom of a cliff and say "hmm, they fell accidentally", when actually they were pushed. That is to say that just
because we perceive something as an accident, doesn't mean that it is one, and so "true accident" was a qualification. Something may appear to be an
accident, but not be one, and that WOULD involve intent.
You are speaking as though you are in the third person. a mere observer. Only the
fellow who "Pushed" the unlucky recipient knows for sure. I agree.The only sure way to know if something is intent-full is to ask the person who
intended it.Just like the only way one can 100 percent know for sure what the purpose of something is for is to ask the creator. We are in
agreement.
That seems cleared up then.
If you're not saying that evolution was an accident, why call the thread "a factual digression concerning evolution and creation"?
Simply because those who believe in evolution believe that we were created by chance.No intent. I believe we were created.We as humans have
evolved physically.
So, we're not FULLY in agreement, then. I believe in evolution (I think that much is clear), however, this does not mean that I would reject the
suggestion that evolution occurred with intent. (Due to the intrinsic nature of most deities to the system, I'd like to change the analogy to whether
he fell on purpose or by accident. Is that alright?). Consider evolution to be the path taken by the man when he left the cliff - it is the same,
regardless of the reason for his fall. As I know that he passed from the cliff to the ground, I can say this, but neither knowing the man nor
personally witnessing the fall, I cannot say WHY he fell.
I have never asked a carpenter what a table is for, neither has one ever offered that information, and yet I use tables for specific
(and multiple) purposes
Tables are meant for many purposes not just one.I agree. However the carpender who build the table had a specific one
in mind. Coffee, Dinner table,computer table,end table, etc... without one knowing what kind of table it was used for, It would be misuse.
For several years, I used a kitchen dresser to support a large aquarium. This was a purpose not intended for it by its carpenter, but by me, the owner
of the dresser. Whether this was misuse depends on perspective - the carpenter and I are both creators of purpose, although only the carpenter created
the dresser.
I can ASK a termite why it builds a mound, but I am unlikely to receive an answer. I can discover its function - which is sufficiently
homologous with purpose in my mind that I make no distinction, which may be adding to the confusion - through removing said mound and considering the
effect on the termites, in much the same way that we could discover the function of the separate sexes by removing one of the and watching the effects
on the human race
This would be a colorful alternative but still not 100%. The only way we could possibly know termite nature is by having the
creator of the termite tell us. Same goes with man.
You treated the function of the separate sexes as proof of purpose, but have you ever ASKED the creator what they are for? If you have, I find
it likely that you have not received a direct answer.
Goodness for me that I do not have to ask. It has been revealed to me though Gods word.
Tried, True, And tested!!!.I could start Quoting scripture, However I would like to keep this simple.
I'm combinging these two (above) because I feel that my next point depends upon them both. Unless I misunderstood, you treated the presence of the two
seperate sexes, and the function derived thereof, as proof of man's purpose. I can test this function, and thus by what I perceive to be your
reasoning its purpose, by removing one of the sexes and observing the result (= no children). I can test the function, and again by what I perceive to
be your reasoning the purpose, of the termite mound by removing it (=termites crop of fungus fails, termites starve and die, or overheat/suffocate in
the process). Termites serving as intermediary between the mindless - evolution - and the omniscient - a deity - the function of this example was to
demonstrate that creator need not be conscious of function (purpose) for function (purpose) to be served (the man might have fallen on purpose, or he
might have fallen by accident. I don't know). That is not to say that creator cannot be conscious of function (the man COULD have wanted to jump),
merely that function does not require a conscious creator.
As for scripture, returning to the tired analogy of the reasons for the man's falls, the bible would fit into this analogy as a witness account. A
person who was present at the time tells me that the man jumped. I note that they have said this, but they are a person - of very much the same ilk as
the people who wrote the bible - and their motives are as invisible to me as those of any person. I may trust them (= faith), but if I were
investigating the man's death and had to establish its cause, I would have to understand the witness' motives and fallabilities before I could safely
make that judgement. It might be that they saw something he did which showed that he intended to fall, or it might be that they believed they saw such
a thing when it did not occur. They might even, for an unknown reason (perhaps they pushed him?) want me to believe something that they know to be
false.
So I am aware of the scripture, but I recognise that it is written by people as an account of events that in many cases they have not witnessed first
hand. I do not distrust the accounts per se, but I take it in context as best as I can, and in my recognition that I cannot know any man's motives, I
do not trust the accounts either (In this area at least, I lack faith).
As for man's purpose being elusive, taken as a generalisation to mankind, I accept you point
Thanks, Though I never implied that
mans purpose is ' elusive' Ive only been clear and precise.However, there is so much more concerning man than procreation.Thats another
subject.
I discussed procreation in reference to your nod to the separate sexes. I am aware - although Dawkins, it seems, is not - that there is more to life
than procreation.
However, individuals, by extension of being conscious entities, are capable of assigning purposes to themselves, and attributing
functions to others.[
This is true, However, Again, These people are not 100% sure if the path they chose is correct.Only a creator of sorts
can can tell them purpose.
I would suggest that correct is a matter of perspective, and depending upon the various perspectives, two apparently distinct purposes can in fact be
correct - if a creator intended everyone to know all that they could, for example, and one person spent their life studying all that there was to know
about the creator, concluding that all true knowledge could be found only by seeing by His (or Her) light, while the other spent their life studying
all that they could of the world, but it's own light, each would have discovered an equal amount of knowledge by two quite different paths.
That sounds really hippy. Point is, you can try to understand a god to understand the world by Him (or Her), or you can try to understand the world on
its own (regardless of the conclusions that you come to). As both gods and worlds hold more to know than any human can ever learn, neither of us will
ever exhaust our quest for knowledge.
edit on 5/12/2010 by TheWill because: Some words are central to a point and must not be ignored.
