What Duty is there of life? Per God or others
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
what is the difference?
perhaps that man makes the intent known or has a duty to do so, by choice?
do your lungs have a duty?
OK... fair
are you a life within mother nature; yes or no?
did you evolve from your previous generations?
is there an underlying purpose or 'intent' to live within all living things which is often called 'instinct'?
so reproduction is not an instinctive attribute of mammels (and most every species of life on earth)?
did that evolve from mother natures living things? yes or no!
you answered my questions, i now am asking for your clarification in english so that others can see the applicability: whether you are answering the questions about life, or your opinion of life!
Oh for...You post this question and don't even know the difference?
How about "I intend to have something to eat in ten minutes" - is that a duty?
No, they have a function.
Of course, and?
"Intent", "instinct" and "purpose" are not synonymous.
What does that have to do with "duty"?
Yes, so what?
The concept of duty is a human cultural invention. Animals sense something differently, more like instinct, or bonding, or love, which is a product of evolution.
The thread subject is really just a variation of the classic question - what is the purpose of life.
Purpose can only be established by the creator of an object. A chair has a purpose, a painting has a purpose, etc. An employer will assign taks that the employee has a duty to perform, etc.
The existence of purpose and hence duty to achieve the purpose necessarily implies a creator or authority that established the purpose.
A purpose for life can only exist if life was created to achieve something specific and that would have been defined by the creating intellect.
If however, there was no creator of life and everything is the result of evolutionary processes, then the only purpose and duty is that which we choose to define for ourselves.
Purpose can only be established by the creator of an object. A chair has a purpose, a painting has a purpose, etc. An employer will assign taks that the employee has a duty to perform, etc.
The existence of purpose and hence duty to achieve the purpose necessarily implies a creator or authority that established the purpose.
A purpose for life can only exist if life was created to achieve something specific and that would have been defined by the creating intellect.
If however, there was no creator of life and everything is the result of evolutionary processes, then the only purpose and duty is that which we choose to define for ourselves.
Well said.
but a life having choice can follow its own choice. So duty can be synonymous to intent as the concept of choice.
We differ from the instinctive by have a conscious choice. Hence 'duty' is a catch all as it inquires to each persons 'choice' to perform.
The underlying reality is that each have the instinct to survive within (by intent) but people have a choice to be inactive of any duty to anything but their own concept of life versus the instinctive realities of a living species.
Incorrect.
The two are not synonymous.
"Duty" connotes more than an intention; it implies an obligation.
Good Job!
Same question for millenium and to this day, no concensus equal to both belief and science.
That's a funny outlook but i could see religions trying to impose that.
Something like; you were created to worship "him". (scary stuff)
Thanks for the opinion.
I disagree. I don't see a creator creating a niche for a platypus. That is just too weird to accept. But i do see the funny little guy as an evolved species.
IN your 'purpose' idea..... does that mean nature created the platypus?
your next statement implies something to that effect
i just don't get that.............
i like evolution, i don't do magical creations or creators or anything but evolution from atoms and energy over time (and identifying the laws at the molecular scale)
if you do, then that is your choice; not mine!
again...another funny set of ideas
all life evolved and has nothing to do with 'we choose to define for ourselves'
Words are what we use to define, the process of evolution is natural, not man-made; the words to describe nature are what man created, not the process.
I see, life as abusing entropy (the laws are what is wrong and why life is not understood to have intent/purpose: to continue!)
So as above, mankind's descriptions are off based on errors of accepted benchmarks. Notice both paradigm fall with observing common sense and realizing them true; first fact; god don't talk to people, second fact: life abuses entropy..... both are considered 'wrong' in their respective feilds.
that is why nothing i say makes sense to people when i suggest life is not defined correctly and why most have no idea what a duty to life is.
because neither of the current ideologies are correct (religion/science)
a few see exactly what these threads are doing
I don't see it that way........
are morals an obligation? ........yes or no!
In a god style belief, there is a duty; to worship god. (this is a religious section perhaps 'open up your mind')
I don't worship; that's my choice. But i have a 'duty' and that is to do good (support life to continue).
i am morally obligated by choice; of duty!
Just because you feel you have nothing of duty, perhaps step aside and let others make their case
i am asking what others think; once you have squeezed your whine; step aside
I realize that.
But the 'way' you see it is both irrelevant and incorrect.
There is the proper usage of a term, and one's preference. The two are not the same.
In my opinion, no.
But in any case, this has nothing to do with the thread as it's titled..
Good for you.
I never made such a claim.
I answered the question you attempted to pose by stating that your question is erroneous.
Sorry bub, all threads are public domain.
Bishadi,
It’s not a funny outlook; it is based on observation and reason. The foray into religion must follow along the same lines. If a deity created living things including us then he is likely to have a purpose in mind and most religions and I guess most people are constantly trying to understand what that purpose might be. Some claim they know but most are unsure.
If there is a purpose for humans and one agrees with it then one would likely feel duty bound to fulfill that purpose. This is a major point of most religions. Mostly this encompasses rules to do good for example.
Humans can only have a duty to something if they have been assigned a purpose and feel obliged to fulfill that purpose. The contract between employer and employee for example, or the vows via a marriage contract between a man and a woman. In terms of the bigger picture of life then we can only be duty bound if we were created by a creator and are indebted to him.
Be careful in your assumptions concerning entropy. The strict definition of entropy is that it operates within a closed system and the planet earth with its prolific growth of life is not a closed system. The sun for example is an external factor and bombards the planet with energy at incredible rates every day.
It’s not essentially a religious thing. When people make things they pretty much always have a purpose in mind. It is rare for someone to make something just for the sake of making something. In other words created objects are intended for specific purposes.
It’s not a funny outlook; it is based on observation and reason. The foray into religion must follow along the same lines. If a deity created living things including us then he is likely to have a purpose in mind and most religions and I guess most people are constantly trying to understand what that purpose might be. Some claim they know but most are unsure.
If there is a purpose for humans and one agrees with it then one would likely feel duty bound to fulfill that purpose. This is a major point of most religions. Mostly this encompasses rules to do good for example.
Yes very good. You are beginning to see the idiocy of theistic belief. One of the major arguments leveled at Darwin when he was writing his famous book was that God had specifically designed and created every living thing quite independently. Darwin simply showed how they were all linked together and how changes occur to result in what was observed. In this case there is no purpose for the platypus; it was just the result of a fortuitous undirected evolutionary development.
Ok, I guess that is because you are very young and you haven’t had long to think about these things. If something has purpose then something with an intellect must have determined that purpose. I.e. purpose is dependent on the intention of the originator of the item.
Humans can only have a duty to something if they have been assigned a purpose and feel obliged to fulfill that purpose. The contract between employer and employee for example, or the vows via a marriage contract between a man and a woman. In terms of the bigger picture of life then we can only be duty bound if we were created by a creator and are indebted to him.
Good, but I hope you understand that evolution has no intellectual intent and while we are the result of evolution there is no onus for us to be duty bound to a process where purpose and intent were absent.
You do not understand the basics of life yet. While I hope you now understand that we owe nothing to any creator or process for our existence, since there is no intended purpose to our existence, then if we want to be duty bound or want to follow a purpose, then such purpose and duty is not for someone else but would be entirely for ourselves. In other words if you want a purpose in life then create your own purpose, no one else has done it for you.
Be careful in your assumptions concerning entropy. The strict definition of entropy is that it operates within a closed system and the planet earth with its prolific growth of life is not a closed system. The sun for example is an external factor and bombards the planet with energy at incredible rates every day.
That’s because your opinions and views are very undeveloped, naïve, and simpleminded for the moment. As you experience more of life and think more then you may eventually develop a meaningful perspective.
There is no inherant intent or "duty" for life.
Those are both concepts and life predates such things as concepts by about 3.5 billion years.
Life is just an effect of the natural circumstances of this planet.
funny transition on these last three posts.
i've been here posting for a long time and you three are just getting the picture that i don't do religions to belief.
I observe the analogies and metaphor but NEVER have believed the literal writings.
I can't believe it took you all that long!
Then when i point out that i don't consider the 2LoT as the absolute, by combining knowledge and reality; it seems neither of you understand what i am coming from.
So let's put it clear; BOTH CAMPS ARE INCORRECT!
God don't talk to people and the 2LoT is a joke, as it has ruined the comprehension of how mass and energy combine for life to exist
Not a scientific rendition available, in literature, to define life that is pure to nature/existence.
kind of funny, that 3.5 billion years of life 'continuing by intent' (instinct) and with barely 100 yrs of planck; and the scientific community tells people, it was all random chance.
That ignorance bred into education is almost as stupid as suggesting a god made it all with magic.
random is based on the undefined parameters; not the reality of how nature performs.
i've been here posting for a long time and you three are just getting the picture that i don't do religions to belief.
I observe the analogies and metaphor but NEVER have believed the literal writings.
I can't believe it took you all that long!
Then when i point out that i don't consider the 2LoT as the absolute, by combining knowledge and reality; it seems neither of you understand what i am coming from.
So let's put it clear; BOTH CAMPS ARE INCORRECT!
God don't talk to people and the 2LoT is a joke, as it has ruined the comprehension of how mass and energy combine for life to exist
Not a scientific rendition available, in literature, to define life that is pure to nature/existence.
kind of funny, that 3.5 billion years of life 'continuing by intent' (instinct) and with barely 100 yrs of planck; and the scientific community tells people, it was all random chance.
That ignorance bred into education is almost as stupid as suggesting a god made it all with magic.
random is based on the undefined parameters; not the reality of how nature performs.
as you don't learn; you simply discount what you don't understand.
that is why i appear irrelevant to you
when you can perform in english to define your case, then i will listen; but you offer nothing but cheese and whine
You have yet to demonstrate how the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
Despite repeated requests to do so.
One more time: intent is not instinct.
OK..... when considered from a human perspective; but a dog don't poop to admire his pile.
and God don't make anything, by choice
Morals perhaps? ( as they define them of course)
but i see basic compassion as being innert in all and it requires no fear or god isssues of theology
for decades and of knowledge covering more religious material then most people even know exists
try sanskrit, tantra or the gazillions of documents from the east; you have no idea what this fool has covered
ie... don't patronize me!
but the life itself has a purpose; to continue
we all know, designing is for jeans; not living things from scratch.
when i speak in 'purpose' i am founded in the 'intent' of life; the energy upon that mass at the molecular scale (bound to the CORRECT analogy of how mass and energy works, not the ignorance of random (current physics))
I guess i am young, born 6/66 but as for depth of material knowledge..... combine all your teachers you ever had plus most of the greats you have even read about, then find yourself tapping on how much i have observed in the last few decades. (eg... when i bark about planck, be certain i know the math, the papers he wrote and what, why and how all of it was deduced)
and i don't like 'walking the planck' but i care enough to swallow my needs and simply make sure before i open my chops.
awe.... so now life is purposed to you?
Or are you just going back to anythig a human being does has a purpose?
basically; a fart is purposed to release gas
or are you suggesting something different
but i see breathing as having a purpose; such that life itself has intent
never did suggest that
but knowledge is based on intellectual intent and it is evolving too
awe..... but you are incorrect as defining life and comprehending how it works is what i am all about.
it is why most everything i write is about life, the progression the evolution of knowledge and basically that 'mass can comprehend its existence"
mankind is defining itself within mother natures existence (we are the only thing in existence (that we all are aware of) that is doing just that; assisting knowledge to evolve with the words 'mankind' creates)
don't tell me to be careful on the most ignorant assumption to physics on the planet
i consider what planck did worst than what nicea (Constantine) did to religion
and the FACT IS, there is no such thing (it is impossible to create a perfect vacuum) as a 'closed system' especially when it comes to life
that macro analogy of hot-cold should never have been incorporated into physics at the atomic scale
it made the foundation of energy based on speed (c) and is just stupid when comprehending the 'l' was replaced by angular momentum with removes any possibility to identify the total power to combining systems
if you were a person comprehending physics, you might understand that
but even them fools are so strung up (almost like a cardinal of a church) that even with 'evidence' the practitioners are bound to their beliefs
cris............ you are so far out of your league you are lost to your complacent acceptance of current ideologies versus realizing you are learning more 'right now' than during your whole life combined.
life; abuses entropy and the perfect method of seeing that is from evolution
meaning; if all life (as darwin suggested) came from the 'tree of life' (see the drawing in his book).... then that basically means, all living things came from little single celled things and evolved over time.
They had, divided and continued living all the way to this day; life abused the pants off of equilibriation.
nothing random about it; at the molecular scale
as life is "purposed to continue" (once born, the entity intends to continue)
Last edited: