In short, how could reality as we know it be accidental?

It seems to me that either there are inherent purposes in nature or else it is all some fluke. I'm not arguing that the purpose of men is to revere the purpose of the whole cosmos or any such thing. But that man has an end, which is happiness, and that we fulfill this end by achieving happiness, and that all other human functions are subordinate to the achievement of happiness. And that by achieving this end we will consequently find harmony between us and external reality.

When we achieve our purpose (happiness) then we are at one with the purpose of the whole.
--

For example: how could the earth repeat its revolutions with such a high degree of regularity? What could be the possible cause of this fact? How or why would the universe organize itself into galaxies, stars, planets and atoms? How could such a thing be a pure accident? How comes it that life exists? how is it that human consciousness with its history and sciences be a pure accident? In short, how could reality as we know it be accidental?

It seems to me that either there are inherent purposes in nature or else it is all some fluke.

There is a tendency to make an unnecessary distinction between random/accidental and deliberate action. Consider a simple example that is representive of any 'how can this be so perfectly...' question. 'Why do chemical x and chemical y, when joined at 65 degrees Celcius form precipitate z?' Unless you intend to merely describe the reaction, that question has no answer, and is in fact a non-sensical question; i.e. it is posed such that an answer is impossible, and not because we don't know the answer; there is no answer. An answer is not logically possible, could not be imagined. The only answer, which is nothing but an unsatisfying reformulation of the question (a grammatical solution, which should demonstrate that the problem is grammatical, not 'real') i is something like 'X and Y generate Z under Q circumstances because otherwise they would not be X and Y in Q circumstances.' In other words, the world is the world and not another world. The world is divisable into whatever conceptual parts we choose (elements, compounds, etc), whose behavior is defined by how we define them. 'Why is a ball round?' Because we have defined that which is round as 'ball.'

The point I'm trying to make is that nothing is random or accidental, unless everything is random or accidental, in which case the term means nothing; any definition only has meaning so long as it is to some extent exclusive; the essence of definition is division, into parts; a whole is not divided: no delimitation. Every action could be called either deliberate or accidental, but to use both for different phenomena implies a non-existent distinction.

IMO everything is absolutely deterministic; only what will happen can happen. The idea of accident or randomness is the product of our own error, i.e. our ascription of 'free will' to ourselves. Once this error is made (which is pleasant error by the way: error does not equal 'bad thing' or sin), everything which we do (or which we imagine a 'higher entity' does) seems deliberate and everything else seems accidental, like the fact that X and Y form Z. You have extrapolated further and turned the logic back upon itself, asking 'how can this be accidental?' In other words, there are already multiple (in my view faulty) assumptions in this question.

Thanks

There must be a more effective way to do chemistry, for example, and a less effective way to do chemistry; and this world must be capable of being more specifically this world than other designations of this world. And we are a priori more justified in performing certain experiments and less justified in performing others. The linguistic and logical terms that we give to identify things are indeed arbitrary but how can they be wholly arbitrary since there are both more and less adequate ways of doing things? So the errors are purely subjective in my view.

Now, I believe that nature exhibits purpose, but that purpose can be held independently from the minds of individuals

I agree that purpose is totally subjective, so I have to ask: affective/adequate for who or what? It is best for homo sapiens to conduct a certain experiment in a certain way in order to achieve a certain end. We cannot imagine what or who, but it is concievable in general that another entity would have other needs or abilities, or desire other ends and conduct that experiment differently. That experiment might be conducted with emphasis on some aspect of it unknown to us, or it might not be conducted at all because there is nothing in it of signicance or which is even sensable to the other entity.

The world is the world and not another world, but that dosen't mean that it is A cognizable world. The thought 'world' comes through and is inseperable from the being which thinks the thought; i.e. it is an interpretation. The world is as many cognizable worlds as there are perspectives, and I suppose that everything from quarks to galaxies has a perspective. Basically, my assertion is that the world which exists independently of our experience of it (which some people would say is the objective/empiric world) does not have a nature or properties or qualities. Those are products of the interpreting. Qualities (encompassing all terms that we use to define/describe/understand the world) ar e not facts of the world. Its a fine line, but saying that just the names or terms are arbitrary is not sufficient; there is nothing beyond the names and terms and the concepts they represent: i.e. nothing that we could understand, as understanding requires those names, terms and concepts. So to speak of underlying laws or properties that regulate chemical reactions regardless of our knowledge of them dosen't get to the heart of the problem..

It's all a matter of interpretation. I am reading 'Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene, a physicist, who says in the first chapter of the book that very many of the characteristics and attributes of the cosmos which have made it possible for humans to exsit, were apparently generated in the very first micro-billionths of a second of the big bang. Without saying the obvious 'well God did it', it is still impossible to argue that the seminal 'moment of creation' did not have a bearing on everything that has happened since. Platonists have always argued this, and I am finding it a very hard argument to deny. Now whether this amounts to 'intention' in the conscious sense is a different matter. But it certainly implies that the capacity of the universe to engender intentional beings was there from the outset.

It's all a matter of interpretation. I am reading 'Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene, a physicist, who says in the first chapter of the book that very many of the characteristics and attributes of the cosmos which have made it possible for humans to exsit, were apparently generated in the very first micro-billionths of a second of the big bang. Without saying the obvious 'well God did it', it is still impossible to argue that the seminal 'moment of creation' did not have a bearing on everything that has happened since. Platonists have always argued this, and I am finding it a very hard argument to deny. Now whether this amounts to 'intention' in the conscious sense is a different matter. But it certainly implies that the capacity of the universe to engender intentional beings was there from the outset.

It's all a matter of interpretation. I am reading 'Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene, a physicist, who says in the first chapter of the book that very many of the characteristics and attributes of the cosmos which have made it possible for humans to exsit, were apparently generated in the very first micro-billionths of a second of the big bang. Without saying the obvious 'well God did it', it is still impossible to argue that the seminal 'moment of creation' did not have a bearing on everything that has happened since. Platonists have always argued this, and I am finding it a very hard argument to deny. Now whether this amounts to 'intention' in the conscious sense is a different matter. But it certainly implies that the capacity of the universe to engender intentional beings was there from the outset.

Those characteristics and attributes were there due to the circumstances and situations that determined them. Also, we needed our Sun and planet to exist as we do, and those were certainly not there at the beginning of the universe, and most of the universe is too cold for life to even inhabit.

Any attempt (including Platonism) to assign purpose, design or intent to the universe will ultimately fail. The universe is neither malevolent nor benevolent, which is why you have natural fortune and misfortune. It has no intent or purpose, especially not for us, though we still like to think that the universe revolves around us.

The nature of reality should not just be a matter of interpretation or perspective. When we speak of ontology we need to keep our subjective thinking out of the discussion.

Why should the planets not being there at the start of the universe go against what he proposes nor if the majority of the universe is cold ..the desert is hot but not where i live..Purpose or intent is not what it proposes, it only concludes what is obvious its for you to argue that is not the case..

And what is obvious?

The formula for life has always existed...

Those characteristics and attributes were there due to the circumstances and situations that determined them. Also, we needed our Sun and planet to exist as we do, and those were certainly not there at the beginning of the universe, and most of the universe is too cold for life to even inhabit.

Any attempt (including Platonism) to assign purpose, design or intent to the universe will ultimately fail. The universe is neither malevolent nor benevolent, which is why you have natural fortune and misfortune. It has no intent or purpose, especially not for us, though we still like to think that the universe revolves around us.

The nature of reality should not just be a matter of interpretation or perspective. When we speak of ontology we need to keep our subjective thinking out of the discussion.