or it has inherently the creative power to give itself consciousness and purpose. — leo
No "matter inherently has the power to give itself" is not accurate, or at least it's a very strange way of putting it. Matter is the building block, it's only a certain configuration of those building blocks that has purpose and consciousness. Matter and itself don't have the same meaning in that sentence. — ChatteringMonkey
Edit: You can combine carbon atoms with carbon atoms to form really hard or really soft substances. The property of hard and soft is not something the carbon atom by itself has, it only a property of certain configurations of it. — ChatteringMonkey
Let's say they are created. Creation presupposes a process from something to something else. Now for creation to make any sense that process should be predictable in some way, otherwise one never knows what one is creating and anything can come from anything. Predictability presupposes that there is some ' way things go'. — Tobias
The same applies for 'reasons'. things have a reason when they are there to accomplish a certain something. Now one can only accomplish a certain something if it can be predicted what will cause that something to come into being. Therefore also ' reason' is only applicable against the backdrop of some natural laws. — Tobias
If you want to fill it in with wild speculative metaphysics , more power to you, but why would you, if it is pointless to do so? — Tobias
Ok fine, if you really want, matter combines itself into consciousness. What is your point? It still doesn't make matter itself conscious, like a carbon atom itself isn't hard or soft. — ChatteringMonkey
Take a traffic light. Yes, you have to stop, but because it regulates all the participants in traffic, it enables you to plan your journey and safely arrive at a destination. — Tobias
The point is reality is much more extraordinary and amazing and awe-inspiring than materialists would have us believe, that's the point. — leo
Sure. But if the 'way things go' is ultimately that the creator can create whatever he wants, then the creator isn't constrained by any external law, any law would come from himself. In that instance it is false to say that the laws "just are", they are created.
It isn't wild speculative metaphysics to point out that saying natural laws "just are", that there is no reason for them, is an assumption and not a logical necessity. It is the assumption that there is a fundamental meaninglessness. And I'm not the one who believes the universe is pointless, you have to see the other guy for that.
Fathoming how traffic lights work should be a first task amongst philosophers.
The physical description of their construction and implementation tells us nothing about what they actually are for. Nor will a description of the intent of one individual explain why they are there. Even a brief explanation must cover the full range from basic physics to ethical and social theory.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.