Atheism, evolution, and purpose

by Matt Slick | Dec 9, 2008 | Atheism, Secular Issues

This outline attempts to show that the evolutionary theory, based on naturalistic principles, leads to purposelessness. Is it philosophically, bankrupt? Having purpose is indicative of a purpose giver, a designer. I propose that God gives us a purpose. Also, with this outline, I am trying to show that the best the naturalist position can offer is an illusion of purpose.

Quit using outlines. Stupidest method. If you cannot “discuss” your Horse Hoowhee, then simply keep quiet.

The premise from an Atheistic Perspective.

The universe exists.
The universe has principles and laws inherent in its properties of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc.
1. Any derivative principles based upon the laws must be consistent with the inherent laws.
These inherent natural laws cannot be violated.
1. Any apparent violation of these laws is only a display of our lack of understanding of all the laws and is consistent with more complex inherent laws.
Life is the product of these inherent natural laws of the universe.
1. That is, due to the properties of matter and energy, life necessarily arose since we exist.
Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
Life is limited to and governed by these inherent principles since life is a product of the inherent laws and cannot violate them.
Therefore,
1. Human existence, thoughts, feelings, etc., are merely the end result of the inherent universal laws and principles of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc., that have resulted in life.

Question: From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?

Since the laws of the universe are immutable and cannot be violated, any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has a purpose.
1. The atheist, therefore, is nothing more than the product of your environment and naturals laws.
  1. He is guided and led by these laws; he reacts, plots, hopes, and wills only in agreement with these laws.
  2. Any purpose thus offered is still nothing more than the product of natural laws of matter, chemistry, and energy flow. In other words, the atheist is nothing more than the result of natural laws inherent in the natural universe.
2. If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have "risen above" these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose...
  1. Then it can still be asserted that his reasoning is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in his brain causing him to say and believe this.
  2. Then he has violated principle 5 above which is.
    1. Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
3. If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly “free-will” creatures,
  1. Then he is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws.
  2. Then it is, essentially, an argument from silence.
4. Therefore, from the atheist’s perspective, he is not independent or autonomous nor does he possess a free will.

Conclusion

Therefore, the concept of “Having a Purpose” becomes meaningless because
1. The atheist has no purpose beyond the programming inherent in himself.
  1. Therefore, he has no independence and no free will.
2. If he claims he is thinking in harmony with the limitations imposed by natural laws, and that the sum of his evolution is greater than those individual natural laws, then he has again violated principle 5 above.
  1. Principle 5: Life can only develop in harmony with the inherent laws in the universe.
    1. If life only develops in harmony with the laws, then it is restricted to those laws and cannot exceed them.
  2. Also, it can still be said that the atheist’s claim of independence is nothing more than the chemical reactions in his brain.
If the atheist says he has a purpose not derived from, or that is beyond, the mere derivation of life from the original inherent natural laws, then . . .
1. This implies the existence of the supernatural.
  1. If the supernatural exists, then it is certainly possible that God exists.
2. The atheist is denying the principles from which evolution is derived.
  1. This would mean that evolution is not true and/or
If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then . . .
1. He has no self-determined purpose.
2. He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.
3. He serves nothing more than natural laws.
Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self-intended purpose for existence.
If there is a God, then I have a purpose since I have a will, and my purpose is given to me by God.
1. Since I claim to have a purpose not derived from natural laws, it follows that I claim there is a God.
  1. To claim purpose outside the natural is to conclude that purpose is derived from something beyond the natural.
Since I determine I have a purpose and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by natural laws, it is reasonable to assume I believe in God, and that there is a God.
1. Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.

my turn

My Brain Diarrhea appears thusly. Lists have been unordered since needed not be ordered.

This outline attempts to show that the evolutionary theory, based on naturalistic principles, leads to purposelessness.
- False.
Is it philosophically, bankrupt?
- No. If you are going to separate philosophically and bankrupt, then this should have been: Is it, philosophically, bankrupt? OR, Is it philosophically bankrupt? Y’awl at carm.org do not know English very well do you?
Having purpose is indicative of a purpose giver, a designer.
- False.
I propose that God gives us a purpose.
- False. The Three of Me gives me self purpose. I do not need some invisible sky spook.
Also, with this outline, I am trying to show that the best the naturalist position can offer is an illusion of purpose.
- No illusion. Purpose is Self-Determined. Subjective and Relative to each individual person. When many agree…

The premise from an Atheistic Perspective.

When did you become Syostic?

The universe exists.
- This represents the ONLY truth in this entire treatise.
The universe has Principles and laws that seem inherent in its properties of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc.
- I corrected the above. They are NOT laws. They are Principles, which is far different than “principles”. Kind of in-line with the difference between “Theory” and “theory”.
Any derivative principles based upon the laws must be consistent with the inherent laws.
- False. Utterly. ALL Principles are derived by humans only. Otherwise, the Principles were always there, it just took time for humans to discover them.
These inherent natural laws Principles cannot be violated.
- False. How do YOU know they cannot? Others, please remember they are NOT laws, but Principles. I ain’t correcting every one.
Any apparent violation of these laws is only a display of our lack of understanding of all the laws and is consistent with more complex inherent laws.
- False.
Life is the product of these inherent natural laws of the universe.
- False.
That is, due to the properties of matter and energy, life necessarily arose since we exist.
- False.
Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
- False.
Life is limited to and governed by these inherent principles since life is a product of the inherent laws and cannot violate them.
- False.
Therefore, human existence, thoughts, feelings, etc., are merely the end result of the inherent universal laws and principles of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc., that have resulted in life.
- False.

Question: From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?

Humanity has NO purpose but what we make for ourself. Individually, persons focus their Self-Determined purpose into a more refined purpose.

Since the laws of the universe are immutable and cannot be violated, any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has a purpose.
- False. And I had only read, “Since the laws of the universe are immutable…” before I knew it was False. But I DID read the whole statement. As far as, “…any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has a purpose” is True. It is the result of chemical reactions within me mind that helps the Three of Me decide such things. I give me self purpose. Not some invisible sky spook.
The atheist, therefore, is nothing more than the product of your environment and naturals laws.
- Kind-of True. But, False.
He is guided and led by these laws; he reacts, plots, hopes, and wills only in agreement with these laws.
- False.
Any purpose thus offered is still nothing more than the product of natural laws of matter, chemistry, and energy flow. In other words, the atheist is nothing more than the result of natural laws inherent in the natural universe.
- Kind-of True. But, False.
If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have "risen above" these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose...
- Uhh… WTH? You lost me. Need more input. Or, better input.
Then it can still be asserted that his reasoning is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in his brain causing him to say and believe this.
- False.
Then he has violated principle 5 above which is: Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
- Where is this “principle 5”? Do you mean, “Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.”? If THAT is what you meant, then you need to header that listing as “Principle 5:”. OK. Fixed. False.
If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly “free-will” creatures, then he is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws.
- You lost me again. What is this Brain Diarrhea?
If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly “free-will” creatures, then it is, essentially, an argument from silence.
- You lost me again. What is this Brain Diarrhea?
Therefore, from the atheist’s perspective, he is not independent or autonomous nor does he possess a free will.
- You lost me yet again. What is this Brain Diarrhea?

WTH is THAT↟?

Conclusion

Therefore, the concept of “Having a Purpose” becomes meaningless because
- … it is meaningless. Except for the meaning we define for our selves.
The atheist has no purpose beyond the programming inherent in himself.
- What programming?
Therefore, he has no independence and no free will.
- However, I SHALL ALWAYS HAVE FREE CHOICE.
If he claims he is thinking in harmony with the limitations imposed by natural laws, and that the sum of his evolution is greater than those individual natural laws, then he has again violated principle 5 above.
- I have harmony within the Three of Me. Only limitation is knowledge. Otherwise, False.
Principle 5: Life can only develop in harmony with the inherent laws in the universe.
- False. This is how it should have been listed each time. But where are 1-4? And possibly 6+?
If life only develops in harmony with the laws, then it is restricted to those laws and cannot exceed them.
- False. I know what you are trying to get at…
Also, it can still be said that the atheist’s claim of independence is nothing more than the chemical reactions in his brain.
- Life is interdependent. No independence.
If the atheist says he has a purpose not derived from, or that is beyond, the mere derivation of life from the original inherent natural laws, then…
- False.
This implies the existence of the supernatural.
- False.
If the supernatural exists, then it is certainly possible that God exists.
- False.
The atheist is denying the principles from which evolution is derived.
- Only if lacking knowledge…
This would mean that evolution is not true and/or
- Then why all the mountains of OHEEF proving otherwise?
If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then…
- Kind-of True.
He has no self-determined purpose.
- Every decides such for their individual self.
He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.
- What programming?
He serves nothing more than natural laws.
- False.
Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self-intended purpose for existence.
- False. Utterly.
If there is a God, then I have a purpose since I have a will, and my purpose is given to me by God.
- That is a very Big IF… Not will, Free Choice.
Since I claim to have a purpose not derived from natural laws, it follows that I claim there is a God.
- Every one can claim a purpose. But, purposes can change. That one Absolute.
To claim purpose outside the natural is to conclude that purpose is derived from something beyond the natural.
- Religitardistic claim.
Since I determine I have a purpose and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by natural laws, it is reasonable to assume I believe in God, and that there is a God.
- Religitardistic claim.
Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.
- “Ugly bags of mostly water.” Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 1, Episode 18, “Home Soil” (wiki (nt)).

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page