Don't know what your purpose in life is?

[Phil8659]

So, you are claiming your design is not biological.

No, numpty.

I'm not stating we aren't biological,
which is why I didn't give a definition of biological.

I'm stating we are not designed,
which is why I gave a definition of design.

You need the definition of design,
because you're using it incorrectly.
You applied the word to something that it doesn't apply to.

Design: To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect / To have as a goal or purpose; intend.

Natural selection isn't designing anything.
It's producing a bias between that which is present,
and that which was present, and is present no more.

It explains what traits are selected for,
and why those traits are more frequent.
Because organisms without those traits,
are outcompeted by organisms with those traits.

Thus, an abundance of those traits emerge.

Natural selection shapes us - molds us -,
but not through intent or design,
not with any objective.

Beyond the bias that living being apply to the world,
it is not inherently good or bad if a being survives or goes extinct.
If a species goes extinct, that is not a failure or success -
these are value judgements which are projected onto it.
If a species survives, that is not a failure or success -
these are value judgements which are projected onto it.

We are not designed.

-

Is it starting to click in your brain yet?

A thing is defined by its elements, relative and correlative, and you are claiming, like an idiot, that this is not a design? And since binary recursion can only produce a binary result, you are claiming that by the use of grammar that there is a design over all things, and with words claiming that it is not so.

So, you connect the dots brainiac. Every word out of your mouth is contradicting your own existence. And since you cannot follow, two and only two concepts, you are hopelessly illiterate.

Show the world, how 1 when added to one, or one sum set into proportion with another, results in 0. I am interested in you imaginary mathematical magic.

Simply put, if you really believed that you had no purpose, you would not even be motivated to breathe, or even get out of bed.

[Ben JS]

you are claiming, like an idiot, that this is not a design?

You claimed we're biologically designed.
I state we are not designed.

Things can be designed.
Not all things are designed.

Guess what's not designed?

Us.

Do you think our species is designed, Phil?

Define design for us, bud.

[Phil8659]

you are claiming, like an idiot, that this is not a design?

You claimed we're biologically designed.
I state we are not designed.

Things can be designed.
Not all things are designed.

Guess what's not designed?

Us.

Do you think our species is designed, Phil?

Define design for us, bud.

Try learning grammar and how to use a dictionary.

[Ben JS]

Try learning grammar and how to use a dictionary.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/design

de·sign (dĭ-zīn′)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
v.tr.
1.
a. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
b. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To make a graphic or schematic representation of (something), especially as a plan for its structure: design a building on a computer; design a new car model.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend: "Mrs. Bennet had designed to keep the two Netherfield gentlemen to supper; but ... she had no opportunity of detaining them" (Jane Austen).

design (google): purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Try reading one.

-

Clearly you have no capacity to defend your claims.
I'm done with you.

[Phil8659]

"or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."

Publicly posts a contradiction to his own particular application, not even having the wit to realize, he lost his argument at every turn. That is classic stupidity.
Congenital stupidity is not curable.

[promethean75]

Well, Aristotle's forms of causality are a little off. The purpose of the acorn is not the oak tree... the tree just follows from a series of natural chemical and material processes, none of which have any purpose either. It's the great assembly of contiguous regularity in nature that makes us think things are designed and have purpose. You'd have to be a moron to look around at this incredibly fragile, incredibly complex world and only say, "it just happened, and there is nothing behind it." And yet there really is nothing behind it.

Think of it like this. One wouldn't say the purpose of a single celled organism swimming around a vent at the bottom of the ocean is to become a human being millions of years later. So why give purpose to an acorn because it becomes a tree a little later? Or, say, a collection of axons in the brain that form a network that makes thinking possible a little later?

None of the antecedent conditions, things, or states of affairs in either of those examples had as their 'purpose' to come together and make a tree and thinking happen.

[Ben JS]

"or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."

Publicly posts a contradiction to his own particular application, not even having the wit to realize, he lost his argument at every turn. That is classic stupidity.
Congenital stupidity is not curable.

Holy shit you're a coward.

Do you have any integrity?

Don't even have the courage to give a personal definition.
'I can't be held to account for my stupid statements,
if I never admit to any of the stupid possible meanings or implications I think'.

Thinking something exists, does not make it so.

Are you claiming biological design exists, because you think it exists?
Is this what you're telling us, Cowardly Phil?

[Phil8659]

Well, Aristotle's forms of causality are a little off. The purpose of the acorn is not the oak tree... the tree just follows from a series of natural chemical and material processes, none of which have any purpose either. It's the great assembly of contiguous regularity in nature that makes us think things are designed and have purpose. You'd have to be a moron to look around at this incredibly fragile, incredibly complex world and only say, "it just happened, and there is nothing behind it." And yet there really is nothing behind it.

Think of it like this. One wouldn't say the purpose of a single celled organism swimming around a vent at the bottom of the ocean is to become a human being millions of years later. So why give purpose to an acorn because it becomes a tree a little later? Or, say, a collection of axons in the brain that form a network that makes thinking possible a little later?

None of the antecedent conditions, things, or states of affairs in either of those examples had as their 'purpose' to come together and make a tree and thinking happen.

You do not seem to grasp the idea behind the definition of a thing. Binary recursion always produces a binary result.
This means, as a form of life, our purpose was put into a metaphor "To have life, and have it more abundantly."
Life contradicting itself, is a dysfunction in that form of life.

If a mind is functioning, binary recursion is the only thing it is possible to understand.

Genius failed to post design as a noun, that is an assertion boundary or limit, which is applied as a manner of parsing information.

[Ben JS]

"Binary incursion" is not a widely recognized term in general discourse, and its meaning can depend on the context in which it's used. However, we can break down the term:

Binary refers to something involving two parts, often related to binary code in computing, where information is represented using two states (0 and 1). It can also refer to anything with two components or categories.

Incursion typically means an invasion or intrusion, especially a sudden or brief one, into another area, often with a sense of conflict or disturbance.

Combining these ideas, "binary incursion" could potentially refer to:

A digital or cyber-related attack – In the context of computer science or cybersecurity, it might refer to an intrusion involving binary data (such as a virus or malware using binary code to breach a system).

A two-part or dual-process invasion – It might be used more metaphorically to describe a situation where two factors or forces invade or disrupt a system or environment in a coordinated manner, possibly related to technology, military tactics, or even political discourse.

You do not seem to grasp the idea behind the definition of a thing. Binary recursion always produces a binary result.
This means, as a form of life, our purpose was put into a metaphor "To have life, and have it more abundantly."

This is Cowardly Phil trying to hide behind more terms he randomly combined to mean something he wont admit.

Coward wont define his words.

Coward hides from accountability.

Coward comes to a philosophy forum, and explains purpose in metaphor.

[Phil8659]

"Binary incursion" is not a widely recognized term in general discourse, and its meaning can depend on the context in which it's used. However, we can break down the term:

Binary refers to something involving two parts, often related to binary code in computing, where information is represented using two states (0 and 1). It can also refer to anything with two components or categories.

Incursion typically means an invasion or intrusion, especially a sudden or brief one, into another area, often with a sense of conflict or disturbance.

Combining these ideas, "binary incursion" could potentially refer to:

A digital or cyber-related attack – In the context of computer science or cybersecurity, it might refer to an intrusion involving binary data (such as a virus or malware using binary code to breach a system).

A two-part or dual-process invasion – It might be used more metaphorically to describe a situation where two factors or forces invade or disrupt a system or environment in a coordinated manner, possibly related to technology, military tactics, or even political discourse.

You do not seem to grasp the idea behind the definition of a thing. Binary recursion always produces a binary result.
This means, as a form of life, our purpose was put into a metaphor "To have life, and have it more abundantly."

This is Cowardly Phil trying to hide behind more terms he randomly combined to mean something he wont admit.

Coward wont define his words.

Coward hides from accountability.

Coward comes to a philosophy forum, and explains purpose in metaphor.

LMAO, so I am accountable for your stupidity, and I am the coward for not taking responsibility for someone else's illiteracy?
A coward will not own up to their own mistakes.

Again, the computer has proven Plato's teaching about grammar, mankind has had 2,400 year to write a correct grammar book. I suppose that is my fault too?

[Ben JS]

A coward will not own up to their own mistakes.

You've evidenced this very well.

-

I'll leave you with the last stupid word.
Likely not responding.

[Phil8659]

A coward will not own up to their own mistakes.

You've evidenced this very well.

Well then big boy, point out and prove my error.

[Ben JS]

Natural selection did not intend for us to exist.
It did not design us.

The universe as a whole, did not intend for us to exist.
It did not design us.

They shaped us, influenced us, affect us - but did not design us.
They want nothing of us,
are indifference to our presence or absence,
and indifferent to our actions or inactions.

Whether we live or die, is completely neutral beyond the bias of the living.
We exist because we are capable of existing.
We survive because we're capable of surviving.

We are a naturally unfolding outcome of a state of existence prior to our being.

We are not 'meant' to do anything.

Though we can build meaning from our being.
Construct purpose for why to continue existing,
and what to aim towards.

Meaning is founded within ourselves.
Our objectives, our goals, our preferences.

If determinism is true,
then arrogance is foolishness.
And mocking others,
or feeling above others,
is also foolishness.

==

My views have changed slightly from below,
but general gist remains the same.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/how-to-live/33693/1

What is our purpose?

We came into existence without our choice or intent, so the purpose of our existence resides outside of us.

What exists beyond us?

The planet. Beyond? The Solar System. Beyond? The Galaxy. Beyond? The Universe. Beyond? Nothing. The Universe contains all existence.

What does the Universe will for us?

Not much. Our existence doesn’t affect the Universe, for before life existed, the Universe was doing just fine with inanimate matter/energy.

If the Universe lacks will for us, how could there be purpose?

Relative to the Universe, there can’t be purpose.

If our existence is without purpose, why do we want to exist?

We enjoy the process of existence. We enjoy what it is to be alive and attaining our desires.

What do we desire?

We desire to stop experiences of discomfort, and attain experiences of pleasure.

Where did our desires come from?

Desires evolved due to natural selection.

Organisms that had drive to extinguish threats to their existence, and seek what extended the existence of their species, survived better than organisms that lacked these.

How do our desires relate to the Universe?

The Universe has no access to our desires, so they don’t. Our desires exist within us, and relate to us only.

If our desires only relate to us, and affect nothing but us, ought we give them credit?

We have no obligation to give our desire credit, or to act on them. It is our choice whether we want to.

What are we without desire?

Matter that is aware of itself.

What would happen if we ignored our desires?

We would die.

Should we die?

Life and Death is neutral, relative to the Universe. Your death is neutral, your life is neutral. You’re not obligated to do either.

Where does that leave us?

In a position of choice. You are free to make your own choice. If you prefer to live, seek that. If you prefer to die, seek that. It’s irrelevant.

What influences our choice?

Our desires, which are bias towards survival.

If nothing is expected of us, what should we do in life?

Attain your desires to the maximum potential.

How do we achieve maximum results?

Cooperate with anything that will aide the process.

So, you are claiming your design is not biological.

No, numpty.

I'm not stating we aren't biological,
which is why I didn't give a definition of biological.

I'm stating we are not designed,
which is why I gave a definition of design.

You need the definition of design,
because you're using it incorrectly.
You applied the word to something that it doesn't apply to.

Design: To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect / To have as a goal or purpose; intend.

Natural selection isn't designing anything.
It's producing a bias between that which is present,
and that which was present, and is present no more.

It explains what traits are selected for,
and why those traits are more frequent.
Because organisms without those traits,
are outcompeted by organisms with those traits.

Thus, an abundance of those traits emerge.

Natural selection shapes us - molds us -,
but not through intent or design,
not with any objective.

Beyond the bias that living being apply to the world,
it is not inherently good or bad if a being survives or goes extinct.
If a species goes extinct, that is not a failure or success -
these are value judgements which are projected onto it.
If a species survives, that is not a failure or success -
these are value judgements which are projected onto it.

We are not designed.

-

Is it starting to click in your brain yet?

By biological design

--> Wrong. <--

you are claiming, like an idiot, that this is not a design?

You claimed we're biologically designed.
I state we are not designed.

Things can be designed.
Not all things are designed.

Guess what's not designed?

Us.

Do you think our species is designed, Phil?

Define design for us, bud.

[Ben JS]

Claiming we are biologically designed is the error the coward made.
Illustrated by my above post.
-
I've given him far too much time.

[Phil8659]

Claiming we are biologically designed is the error the coward made.
Illustrated by my above post.
-
I've given him far too much time.

Well, prove to me or anyone else that mankind is not a biological organism and you are not just another arrogant fool who cannot even understand grammar.

I have posted over 21,000 pages of grammar lessons, show me your work. Show me that grammar is not a binary product.
That Grammar, the only power a mind has, has no purpose, by design. that it is just some chance.