Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

No one chooses what they believe


spartan max2

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol except it doesn't make sense

is she saying that neuro scientists have no more knowledge about how our brain and mind works than i do? Does that mean she believes NO one has any scientific understanding of the brain and mind.

That is simply so untrue we know an incredible amount and are beginning to utilise it in many ways from capturing mental images and verbal thoughts  on a computer to alleviating pain which is a neural construct

Heck we have been using neural interfaces, first with electrodes and then wirelessly,  to operate machinery, exo skeletons and vehicles,  for almost two decades   

Ah, but it does, it was a specific counter to your claim. You will have to go back in your posts and address the specific claim of yours that was unsubstantiated.

Basically, correct your understanding as it is in error.

.

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Untrue 

A great deal has been learned in the last 10 years using modern machinery capable of reading brain patterns in real time  Like many you argue on issues you are not up to date with  This is not to say our knowledge is complete or even a high percentage of what we will one day know, but we know a lot, and learn more every day. 

This is a specific counter to an substantiated claim of yours. 

No need to respond, once you figure it out correct your understanding.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 10:32 PM, spartan max2 said:

Do people really choose to be a believer or disbeliever ?

I'm an atheist. I would never say I chose think that way.

At all points in my life, when I was a believer , an agnostic , and an atheist , I never once felt like I chose that.

It always felt likes things that just happened to me. It was always a slow transition until I woke up one day and felt different. 

It seems people do not really choose what they believe. It seems like it just happens. 

Does anyone feel the same way? Or do you feel your belief or lack there of was a choice?

 

I`m am a Unity student. that has a prayer on the moon:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Church

I AM THERE

Do you need Me ?
I am there.
You cannot see Me, yet I am the light you see by.
You cannot hear Me, yet I speak through your voice.
You cannot feel Me, yet I am the power at work in your hands.
I am at work, though you do not understand My ways.
I am at work, though you do not understand My works.
I am not strange visions. I am not mysteries.
Only in absolute stillness, beyond self, can you know Me
as I AM, and then but as a feeling and a faith.
Yet I am here. Yet I hear. Yet I answer.
When you need ME, I am there.
Even if you deny Me, I am there.
Even when you feel most alone, I am there.
Even in your fears, I am there.
Even in your pain, I am there.
I am there when you pray and when you do not pray.
I am in you, and you are in Me.
Only in your mind can you feel separate from Me, for
only in your mind are the mists of "yours" and "mine".
Yet only with your mind can you know Me and experience Me.
Empty your heart of empty fears.
When you get yourself out of the way, I am there.
You can of yourself do nothing, but I can do all.
And I AM in all.
Though you may not see the good, good is there, for
I am there. I am there because I have to be, because I AM.
Only in Me does the world have meaning; only out of Me does the world take form; only because of ME does the world go forward.
I am the law on which the movement of the stars and the growth of living cells are founded.
I am the love that is the law's fulfilling. I am assurance.
I am peace. I am oneness. I am the law that you can live by.
I am the love that you can cling to. I am your assurance.
I am your peace. I am ONE with you. I am.
Though you fail to find ME, I do not fail you.
Though your faith in Me is unsure, My faith in you never
wavers, because I know you, because I love you.
Beloved, I AM there.

--- James Dillet Freeman

 This poem received a lot of attention in 1971 when it was taken to the moon by astronaut  James B. Irwin on Apollo 15. Irwin's mother gave it to him before the flight and he actually left a copy of the poem on the moon.  The author, James Dillet Freeman, is poet laureate of the Unity School of Christianity at Unity Village. He wrote the poem in 1947

 

http://www.meilach.com/spiritual/Poems_Freeman/iamthere.htm

  •  

 

My Dad  had a "bachelor's degree in the order of the Essenes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also been studying the order of the Essenes, they been finding a lot of women `s graves there and some did believe in marriage and some did  not . There`s kind of a belief Jesus and John the Baptist was a member of the Essenes and why Jesus loved Mary Magdalene but did not marry her.

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 4:33 AM, lightly said:

Yes,  and, people reject beliefs for facts all the time too?  

If they are rational. 

On 7/14/2019 at 4:33 AM, lightly said:

It's like Jodie said...when we are young we are told what to believe...but as we live and learn ....most of us Choose our own beliefs?  ...what ever they may be.

Choice is what most people go with over facts, which I don't find reasonable or rational. What sounds appealing has no impact on what is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If they are rational. 

Choice is what most people go with over facts, which I don't find reasonable or rational. What sounds appealing has no impact on what is. 

I was reading this a few minutes ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4

Quote

Science deniers question scientific milestones and spread misinformation, contradicting decades of scientific endeavour. Advocates for science need effective rebuttal strategies and are concerned about backfire effects in public debates. We conducted six experiments to assess how to mitigate the influence of a denier on the audience. An internal meta-analysis across all the experiments revealed that not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviours favoured by science (for example, vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviours. Providing the facts about the topic or uncovering the rhetorical techniques typical for denialism had positive effects. We found no evidence that complex combinations of topic and technique rebuttals are more effective than single strategies, nor that rebutting science denialism in public discussions backfires, not even in vulnerable groups (for example, US conservatives). As science deniers use the same rhetoric across domains, uncovering their rhetorical techniques is an effective and economic addition to the advocates’ toolbox.

I think it applies to anyone who doesn't use Bayesian logic or empirical thought processes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I was reading this a few minutes ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4

I think it applies to anyone who doesn't use Bayesian logic or empirical thought processes.

Good TED talk here too. 

This focuses on the vaccination issue mostly. 

I really think benign beliefs do encourage more radical ideas by lending credibility to belief based systems. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I was reading this a few minutes ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4

I think it applies to anyone who doesn't use Bayesian logic or empirical thought processes.

I've read a Cracked article that uses the "Why reinvent the wheel" argument - saying that research money is being wasted to keep proving anti-vaxxers wrong.

That message cuts through for me.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Choice is what most people go with over facts, which I don't find reasonable or rational. What sounds appealing has no impact on what is. 

Don't you mean that "most people go with" beliefs over facts ?   Choice is a good thing?   the Choice can be facts over beliefs...(like I said)

People can believe anything...even facts!    ;

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 1:44 AM, Mr Walker said:

Thats  semantics  You assume i meant some form of directed purpose, however evolution is a process which works towards constructing the most highly adaptive and successful species even though it does it without intent or design. 

the literature explains how and why things like confirmation bias evolved   The reasons we evolved things like confirmation bias and belief and imagination etc are identical to the reasons why we evolved a spine or fingers or the abilty to speak ie such adaptions increased the chances of survival of those who had them and their progeny  

Evolution has a purpose or it would not exist That purpose is not intelligent or self aware. Gravity has a purpose, sunlight has a purpose, rocks have a purpose Those purposes  may have nothing to do with human beings, but the y explain WHY we have suns rocks and gravity     

I think you are making the same mistake many make  of confusing directed purpose with chaotic purpose 

When you get any end result it comes from  a [purpose.  NOTHING exists or can come into existence without its own purpose 

eg why do we have fingers? 

Why do we have imagination?

Because those qualities served the purpose  of increasing human survival and mean we are still here and not extinct.  Their purpose was /is to increase our chances of  survival   or  Darwinian fitness  

 To take a wider example of the way i use purpose. Air movement results from differences in air  pressure  which. in turn. result from  differential hearing on the earths surface The greater the difference the stronger the winds 

So what purpose do winds serve? They distribute heat and prevent extremes of heat and cooling 

There is not design or intent in this. It is purely a natural  evolved process BUT when asked" what is the purpose  of winds?"  that is the answer 

As it happens, human life would be impossible without this natural mechanism,  but it is not the purpose of air or wind to serve human beings  We are a consequence of these things and their natural purposes 

MW, to me your issue is you don’t understand evolution, or perhaps you are intentionally seeking to be controversial for attention. 

Listen, Evolution is simply a description of how life changes over time under pressure from the environment,

Also, “natural selection (survival of the fittest) does not indicate one’s overall ability to survive, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation.”

It isn’t an easy subject to grasp, may I suggest 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2019 at 6:13 AM, DieChecker said:
On 6/30/2019 at 8:05 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I will never understand why some insist that some are ‘denying’ or ‘choosing’ to not believe religions and beliefs, when ‘choosing’ and ‘denying’ is an action that seems to be the opposite to ‘believing’ or ‘feeling’ that I can’t help see it as being ramifications to something. 

Nice post!

 

Sorry, that it took a bit for me to respond. 

Thanks for the compliment. :tu:  

Quote

I think the difference may be in if a person is a "evidence" based atheist, a "I don't care" atheist, or a non-religious.

 

I first read this, and thought that there were only a one kind Atheist. Considering, well I am that is, I was only an Atheist ( in my own right ;) ) for a few short years of my early adulthood, I don’t think think I can really say that. Also considering, if I can see the many different labeling (reasons for it) of the many different characteristics of all religious types, than I can see the different characteristics of Atheists. *shrugs* I would have thought that an Atheist was a default “evidence” based Atheist. And well, that would be it. 

Quote

People who are non-religious basically don't even think about religion, so obviously they've made no choices. But, then I don't consider them atheists. I consider them undecided, because they've never considered the issue.

I find that an interesting bit there, you said. This brings me to me, my experiences growing up non-secular. Considering my parents choose to have us not go to church (or any religious based meetings) or be forced to read the Bible (or other religious books)....((we didn’t own any either), I guess you would call that a non-religious upbringing. ;)  :D  And, I often felt that would explain how I have seen orthodox religions later on, because never considered them growing up, because of the lack of them. And yes, I guess that would be a situation where I didn’t have the choices to believe or not. There was no reason to believe them, when I didn’t become aware of them. 

I think, this would be a great way of how I explain how I cannot see how others see them, because of their past experiences with them and I didn’t have any. 

Quote

People who don't care may have at some point been atheist, or religious, and had considered choosing what to believe in the past, but now just will not consider it anymore, one way or the other. 

Well, my own experiences seems to me, to be different from that. Since, I didn’t consider them then, but the many experiences of my adult life have me consider them now, but not the usual orthodox one’s, one’s that would be considered in a New Age outlook. I guess, what I’m viewing this as, I wouldn’t think that all of this implies those who don’t care, I think there is a care, but it’s placed on another level. 

I would also think, there is a non-caring for all things, but I could be wrong on that. (I’m open to be corrected on that. :yes:

Quote

Actual atheists actively don't believe in divine beings. Many claim because of lack of evidence. This seems to be a choice to me also, as they are saying there's nothing to believe in. And therefore actively choosing something.

I agree to you’re two first sentences to this bit, and am surprised at the third sentence. I didn’t realize you were an Atheist or some sort. That is me though, and sometimes I perceive things a little later. *shrugs* 

Though, the last sentence, I don’t see it. Actively choosing to not believe? For me, I would see it as no choice, but a ramification of their being no evidence. I would look at it as the end result of not having enough evidence to have you automatically believe. 

I guess, this is what I was hoping to say in my previous post, that one cannot be said that they choose to believe and feel, they can’t help it, so it’s not right to say the opposite. 

Quote

IMHO everything we do is a choice. There may be genetic predispositions, but ultimately we need to own ever single thing we decide to do, say, or follow.

Frankly, I don’t think everything we do is a choice. But that’s me. ;) 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sherapy said:

MW, to me your issue is you don’t understand evolution, or perhaps you are intentionally seeking to be controversial for attention. 

Listen, Evolution is simply a description of how life changes over time under pressure from the environment,

Also, “natural selection (survival of the fittest) does not indicate one’s overall ability to survive, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation.”

It isn’t an easy subject to grasp, may I suggest 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

 

 

 

 

E-e-e-w! Double Ouchie!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Christian not-a-science-denier, I continuously wonder why people persist in this form of ignorance. Tradition, I suppose?

A person who denies genetics and evolution, may just as well demand to be a Young Earth Creationist, and Flat Earth believer. If someone is OK with the Earth being round, and orbiting the Sun, then why deny evolution? The one basiclly requires the other. We either believe science, based on observation, or we don't.

People that believe the world is flat might just as well call cell phones magic then. Because they function based on signals from orbit. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2019 at 7:10 PM, eight bits said:

Perhaps if you knew some semantics, then you'd more often manage meaningful utterances.

That which works toward is fairly said to be directed.

As to what I did or didn't assume in respoding to what you said: You know nothing of me, nothing of my "assumptions." The unscientific, even anti-scientific, character of your pontifications on biology moved me to remark upon them. That is all.

A river works towards cutting a ravine or valley. It has no intent or direction  to do so, yet that is its purpose. 

it is semantics 

My point was tha t you misunderstood my meaning of purpose.  All things have a purpose, and are part of an evolved system (including,an ecosystem) 

I think that, like many, you see  all  believers trying to impose intelligent  order or direction on the universe to support a belief in a god

I have no need for such belief. 

I am trained in a number of natural sciences and so i see, and understand, the nature of nature. eg   nature evolved gravity for, and with, a purpose of its own, .even though gravity has no awareness of its purpose. 

Give me any example of a non scientific point i have a made about biology 

It is true that while i studied university entrance levels in chemistry and physics, biology was a very new course in our schools and was generally given to girls who were considered not to have minds capable of understanding harder sciences like chem and physics  :) 

None the less i have an excellent layman's understanding of biology and have read a great deal about it over the years  besides which evolution has a wider sense than just biological evolution, including social, technological and other forms of evolution 

Humans however, when they evolved self aware intelligence, potentially and in reality stepped beyond the bounds of natural evolution, and began directed evolution,  which at this stage has the potential to transform what it means to be a human being 

Again, it seems that you let a prejudice based on other experiences in my life make you  think think that because i know god i must be a bit feeble minded  The two have no connection 

What has my experience with gods or angels got to do with my knowledge and understanding of the world, UNLESS you allow disbelief to form your judgements about me?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/07/2019 at 3:03 AM, Sherapy said:

Ah, but it does, it was a specific counter to your claim. You will have to go back in your posts and address the specific claim of yours that was unsubstantiated.

Basically, correct your understanding as it is in error.

.

 

 

Your post didn't give enough detail to rebut specifically,  and i could not distinguish which was a quote, and which part your opinion .

In brief we are increasingly coming to understand the nature and mechanics of the human brain, and thus of the nature of the human mind.  If your knowledge base is even a few years old it is way out of date  If your claim was that neuroscientists  have no real knowledge of this area, then it is totally false 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2019 at 7:30 PM, Piney said:

 Evolution is caused by environmental stresses and takes the path of least resistance. 

See! I did that without a wall of text. :yes:

True, but you were not accused of failing to understand Darwinian, and more modern, biological evolutionary principles :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/07/2019 at 2:30 AM, Tatetopa said:

 

The brain itself is the physical limitation.  

Yes, we  do use more than simply logic.  Logic is just one useful problem solving subroutine the brain has developed.  It is not the only one.

Intuition and creativity are two other subroutines for solving problems, really analogous to logic.  Not beyond logic, just other approaches  as  structured in their own way by our brains as logic is.

Emotions come from a deeper limbic programming not requiring thought at all..  Many creatures share basic emotions, more complex ones may provide more nuance to behavior.

All of that is formed from circuits and connections between neurons in the brain.  Indeed we do program ourselves, and that has proven quite adaptive and useful.  Yet we are limited by the kernel we began with and the architecture  we grow onto it.   Imagination comes from within and is limited by the physical connections it can grow, almost infinite but not infinite.. It is seeded with experiences, and can distort those or put several together, but it does not encompass all that there is.  There is a major gulf, a change of state  between almost infinite and truly infinite.  Imagination stops at almost infinite.

Those are the limits, way out there where some people do not go or pay attention.  Humans are a very wonderful electro-chemical and mechanical assemblage, but they are limited by the structure of the matter that composes them.

While i agree with most of this i can identify no physical limits on free will flowing from either the nature of our brains nor from  the nature of our minds 

Human emotions are on a totally differnt level to those of all other animal.s We share biological emotive responses but animals have no abstract, constructed,  intellectual, emotive responses. Indeed AI is more likely to develop human level emotions than other animals in the near future

true we do not know all and  it is hard to imagine the unknown unknowns, yet may writers do so successfully 

Your theory is good but unproven  There is no evidence of ANY strict limitation on  imagination because it does NOT require data or knowledge  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A river works towards cutting a ravine or valley. It has no intent or direction  to do so, yet that is its purpose. 

it is semantics 

My point was tha t you misunderstood my meaning of purpose.  All things have a purpose, and are part of an evolved system (including,an ecosystem) 

I think that, like many, you see  all  believers trying to impose intelligent  order or direction on the universe to support a belief in a god

I have no need for such belief. 

I am trained in a number of natural sciences and so i see, and understand, the nature of nature. eg   nature evolved gravity for, and with, a purpose of its own, .even though gravity has no awareness of its purpose. 

Give me any example of a non scientific point i have a made about biology 

It is true that while i studied university entrance levels in chemistry and physics, biology was a very new course in our schools and was generally given to girls who were considered not to have minds capable of understanding harder sciences like chem and physics  :) 

None the less i have an excellent layman's understanding of biology and have read a great deal about it over the years  besides which evolution has a wider sense than just biological evolution, including social, technological and other forms of evolution 

Humans however, when they evolved self aware intelligence, potentially and in reality stepped beyond the bounds of natural evolution, and began directed evolution,  which at this stage has the potential to transform what it means to be a human being 

Again, it seems that you let a prejudice based on other experiences in my life make you  think think that because i know god i must be a bit feeble minded  The two have no connection 

What has my experience with gods or angels got to do with my knowledge and understanding of the world, UNLESS you allow disbelief to form your judgements about me?  

“A river works towards cutting a ravine or valley. It has no intent or direction  to do so, yet that is its purpose” (Walker).

Setting aside for a minute your non existent grasp of Evolution, as is illustrated beautifully with your own quote. 

How does this sentence support that natural selection has no purpose but has purpose? 

“Purpose” is part of the religious lexicon which is all you are doing in actuality, you are trying to make your vast misconceptions sound like you get this. 

You don’t and it shows. 

Why not try and learn instead. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Your post didn't give enough detail to rebut specifically,  and i could not distinguish which was a quote, and which part your opinion .

In brief we are increasingly coming to understand the nature and mechanics of the human brain, and thus of the nature of the human mind.  If your knowledge base is even a few years old it is way out of date  If your claim was that neuroscientists  have no real knowledge of this area, then it is totally false 

 

For one, you do not know what you claimed.

Don’t even try and go down this path with me, I am prepared, what is your source? 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

“A river works towards cutting a ravine or valley. It has no intent or direction  to do so, yet that is its purpose” (Walker).

Setting aside for a minute your non existent grasp of Evolution, as is illustrated beautifully with your own quote. 

How does this sentence support that natural selection has no purpose but has purpose? 

“Purpose” is part of the religious lexicon which is all you are doing in actuality, you are trying to make your vast misconceptions sound like you get this. 

You don’t and it shows. 

Why not try and learn instead. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol Still the same insulting Sherapy

8bits and I are basically at  odds over  the meaning of words like purpose. For me, purpose can be used without implying intelligent intent. ie "winds have the purpose of redistributing heat on the earth's surface"; but there is no intelligent intent in that purpose.  Evolution evolved human fingers and an opposable thumb  to serve a specialised purpose, but there was no intent or design in that evolution.  I accept this difference in semantics but I believe it is a legitimate use of purpose I do NOT believe any natural thing is designed or created by a god and so I don't believe that god crteed them with a purpose   Gods, like men, are the natural result of natural evolution .  

Again if you can find ANY concrete errors in my understanding of evolution, either biological or other, then point them our to me 

I think you are still confusing me with someone who believes in intelligent design or creationism. I do not. god had no role in the evolution or existence of the earth its ecosystem or mankind.

For example mars was once a planet like earth while earth was much like mars Only because earth is larger did the internal dynamo caused by the movement of molten iron inside the earth,  which creates our magnetic field,  remain. Mars' internal fires cooled, and its magnetic field ceased to exist Only then  was its atmosphere stripped away by solar winds, and did  it's giant ocean dry up  As alwys you see me as the person you believe me to be, not the person i am  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

For one, you do not know what you claimed.

Don’t even try and go down this path with me, I am prepared, what is your source? 

 

 

I will not even attempt to argue with such ignorance

I simply claimed that humans have self aware consciousness This both allows them to construct and adopt intellectual constructs of emotion and also to override our biological triggers and responses caused by chemical or social conditioning  Basically human are no longer a the whim or mercy of natural evolved processes. we have choices based on knowledge understanding and willl power 

where neuro cognition comes into this is in understanding the nature and construction of human thoughts, both verbal and visual

There is an Incredible amount known about this, most of which has been discovered in the last 5 to 10 years.  yes there is still a lot to learn but we are well on the way  It was dumb and insulting of you to imply that neuro scientists, particularly neuro cognition experts,  don't understand functions of the human brain /mind.

I was just listening to two women professors in this field who sounded pretty knowledgable in their specific areas  One specialising in the nature of things like autism and other disabilities in young people, the other studying diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimers in older humans  Both doing so through the study of neuro cognition ie the way our brains, and thus our minds, operate.

roflmao

I just checked your source

written in 2004

I just finished explaining that most of the understanding in this area has been learned in the last  5-10 years 

2004 is 15 years ago 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely nothing inanimate has "purpose", in the absence of the animate ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Surely nothing inanimate has "purpose", in the absence of the animate ?

I would disagree but i understand the confusion  Nature works in an ordered and purposeful way Everything is as it is because it works and each part has a purpose  Eg gravity serves a very specific purpose  Soil  water   etc all have intrinsic purpose.  

Some atheists have taken some  creationists definition of purpose to mean intentful and intelligent purpose.  but purpose is a word which also goes to function or connection or integration of a part within a system eg

What purpose do a bee's wings serve? 

The y enable it to fly 

This occurs purely  naturally. The bee wasn't designed to fly. Evolution brought it to what it is today,  yet its wings (and proboscis) have, and serve, a specific purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

“Purpose” is part of the religious lexicon

The antennae are fInely tuned !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I would disagree but i understand the confusion  Nature works in an ordered and purposeful way Everything is as it is because it works and each part has a purpose  Eg gravity serves a very specific purpose  Soil  water   etc all have intrinsic purpose.  

Some atheists have taken some  creationists definition of purpose to mean intentful and intelligent purpose.  but purpose is a word which also goes to function or connection or integration of a part within a system eg

What purpose do a bee's wings serve? 

The y enable it to fly 

This occurs purely  naturally. The bee wasn't designed to fly. Evolution brought it to what it is today,  yet its wings (and proboscis) have, and serve, a specific purpose. 

I can't imagine anything having a purpose unless used by an organism.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.