An original argument against creationism

[i win you lose.com]

Why would you assume that there wouldn't be a function or necessity? So your saying you can't think of any empirical evidence that would show its necessity or function?

Exactly.

It's clear that air has a necessity and function, leaving me with a natural assumption that the universe has a necessity and function

[genkaus]

So could social eugenics be an axiom of evolution?

No. An axiom is a premise from which reasoning begins and leads to a particular conclusion. Ideally, it is a premise so self-evident that it can be accepted without question. Social eugenics is not a self-evident proposition. You cannot reason to evolution (which is a natural and biological phenomena) from social eugenics. And finally, the very proposition of social eugenics requires evolution to be true in the first place. An axiom cannot presume the truth of its conclusion at the onset much less depend upon it so completely as is the case here.

---

It's clear that air has a necessity and function,

No, it's not.

leaving me with a natural assumption that the universe has a necessity and function

That wouldn't be the case even if air did have necessity and function.

[i win you lose.com]

to the conscious mind who requires a air to exist it would see how air would be the necessity for its own existence... that doesn't mean that air has to exist but, to the conscious mind that requires it, it will always seem as a necessity... so to it, it sees a function, it's very existence... and I'll concede that this still doesn't prove that air has to exist. but at minimum it shows that it does have a function

[genkaus]

to the conscious mind who requires a air to exist it would see how air would be the necessity for its own existence... that doesn't mean that air has to exist but, to the conscious mind that requires it, it will always seem as a necessity... so to it, it sees a function, it's very existence... and I'll concede that this still doesn't prove that air has to exist. but at minimum it shows that it does have a function

You seem to have answered your own question. A conscious mind - the only kind of conscious mind we are familiar with, that is - requires air to exist and therefore it perceives a necessity and function to it. As you point out correctly, this doesn't imply a necessary existence nor does it indicate any function independent of that conscious mind. The same would apply to universe - any necessity or function we can perceive or expect the universe to have would be the product of our conscious mind stemming from the fact that we cannot exist without it.

[i win you lose.com]

Philosophically does this not impose that Existence is dependent on consciousness?

[genkaus]

Philosophically does this not impose that Existence is dependent on consciousness?

No. It just tells you that any appearance of necessity or function to that Existence is dependent on consciousness.

[i win you lose.com]

How would we ever know the difference without consciousness?

[genkaus]

How would we ever know the difference without consciousness?

Given that the very concept of 'us' and 'know' require consciousness - that question does not make any sense. We cannot know anything without consciousness - we can't even be without consciousness.

[i win you lose.com]

What do you think allowed the conditions of consciousness to exist?

[Zen Badger]

Philosophically does this not impose that Existence is dependent on consciousness?

Existence of what?