The Will to Purpose

[de_budding]

Originally Posted by beyond123

When I seriously and deeply think of the zillions upon zillions of extremely various and complex aspects and activities of nature-yet also, detect such an unbelievably simplistic certainty for it endless operations, I most certainly sense an intentional and purposeful organization, which necessarily arises from, and relies upon, some extreme (perhaps supreme) wisdom that includes an independent will of its own.

Systems show 'intentional and purposeful' traits all the time, it is sometimes necessary that they do because of their structure or how they came into existence.

Dan.

[beyond123]

Of course, as you said,....."Systems show 'intentional and purposeful' traits all the time, it is sometimes necessary that they do because of their structure or how they came into existence. "

Take the system of the river and rain, which involves a numerous set of exact conditions and circumstances to come into being and to continue working as it so simply and reliably does.

But supreme wisdom seemingly must be behind the orginazation of such a complex-yet simple-system itself, as well as its structure.

Unless you yourself carry your own thought beyond abc123 thinking on the point i am trying to make-mostly to myself-you will doubt that my point has any merit.

Which is most certainly ok, for my point just may not have merit, to anyone but me.

[de_budding]

I'm just not sure what 'abc123' thinking is...

Dan.

[beyond123]

i take your above statement: "I'm just not sure what 'abc123' thinking is...", as a question.

if i am right, my answer as i mean it is: simply to go deep into your own thinking beyond the established thought on the point trying to be made.

[de_budding]

O' in that case you need to read Creation: Life and how to Make it by Steve Grand to see how your thinking is typically top-down and perhaps shallower than you think. You seem to conclude a God or ultimate will because of ’intentional and purposeful' traits which you have noticed in systems. That is, in my opinion, a cowards way out of a tough challenge.

Although you have notice the 'unbelievably simplistic' you perhaps don't understand the systems you watched enough to work out how they could operate solely on the simplistic. There is never any cause to appeal to a 'wisdom that includes an independent will of its own' when describing the origins of anything; to do so is to seriously upset your explanation ration and destroy your own theory.

But please go on, I wish to know how you think beyond abc123 and how it is so profound that you think your common hypothesis holds more weight than it usually does when projected by religious apologists.

Dan.

[beyond123]

Sir,

I have not asserted anything about God.

Only that supreme organization is necessarily involved with existence; and suggested that one may sense that necessity only with personal thought beyond established thought.

Since you see no merit to what i have said, i see no cause in discussing it any more.

I most certainly will not argue my simple point.

[de_budding]

Supreme organisation is unrealistic: It suggests a top-down approach where information is cascaded down and spread out into the complex final result. The existence. When dealing with natural existence it is a God concept, god being the one cascading the information down and down through evolution until we reach our complex finale.

The opposite, bottom-up from a common denominator, is the case naturally; existence forming from common constituents, exploiting common cause, unknowingly forming new bonds and systems which again find common cause amongst themselves grouping to make further improvement. This is pretty much how I imagine the forming of the universe from chaos, the raising of life from the primordial goo and the evolution of that life.

Lastly, I don't think there is much cause for any of the discussion in this place, so I'm sorry you won't speak to me further on the subject, I'll take it personally as I hold that argument is a philosophical compliment, as I'm sure most will agree.

Dan.

[beyond123]

One final fiddle,

Philosophy constitutes but the study of thought with the use of thought alone for the betterment of humanity.

When nature becomes the focus of philosophical thought, it quickly becomes clear that no human effort-science, religion, government, and all others-presently understand what is realistic or unrealistic within the focus.

Only when one takes their though thereof beyond the established though, including their own, can they even hope for truer understanding.

By the way, in my original reply to the OP, i assured one and all that i would not argue my point with anyone.

[de_budding]

If you do not wish to argue your point your in the wrong forum. As I said, I take it personally that you refuse to engage me. You keep appealing to some thought processes that is beyond abc123 and you reiterate this in an even more abstract and poorly written post above... 'Only when one takes their though thereof beyond the established though, including their own, can they even hope for truer understanding.' I am lost for what this means!
Why don’t you try to explain what steps you have taken to prove to yourself that there is an ultimate will... like I said this is a God 'concept' and has been argued into the ground long ago.

Dan.

[beyond123]

I, not you, must decide where and when I should post a thought. You, of course, do the same for yourself.

I originally posted in direct reply to the OP. The author there saw no reason to reply.

Arguing with others to prove a point never produces the desired results. Each must argue with, and prove to, them self, not each other.

Socrates argued-and died for-the point that being just and appearing just was best for humanity.

Jesus argued-and died for-the point that loving your enemy was best for humanity.

Gandhi argued-and died for-the point that nonviolence was best for humanity.

All three of these great thinkers fundamentally urged the same human conduct: for one and all to conduct them self in manners harmless to all others.

Nonetheless, humanity’s ever growing violence against itself has only constantly increased and intensified.

To me, this seems true because none-a few at best-took those thought beyond abc123 thinking in an argument with them self to see the fundamental proof benind them.

How could they? they were to busy arguing with each other about their own already established proof to the contrary.