11 Oct '11 08:32>1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomurgggg, keks or keggs as we say, lol, haven't heard that for ages. Also know as skads. RJH is fluent in all forms 😉
Na. That's just all the animal blood we drink dripping thru our keks!
Originally posted by Dasathat's because they have something called reason. something you're not very well acquainted with, let me explain the position. i know this will be a little tough for you, it uses grade 6 logic so try to follow along.
Atheism is synonymous with dishonesty.
Why?
Because they observe life coming from life.............and teach life comes from non life.
Edit: at least your post was polite.
Originally posted by sumydidImo, nothing "defeats" anything when trying to acertain these sorts of questions (the sort of questions where the normal human ken fails to detect).
Sorry to burst your bubble voidspirit, but, even IF one postulates that life came from non-life, it still spirals back to infinitum.
You can't escape the infinity problem by just saying life came from non-life. Because whatever this "non-life" substance is, it still had to be created.
Now if you are actually arguing that existence came from absolutely ...[text shortened]... g from absolutely nothing" hypothesis on the basis of logic alone.. if for no other reason.
Originally posted by sumydidthere was no bubble to burst, you have accomplished nothing. if life came from non life, it does not spiral back ad infinitum because we are talking about life, not existence.
Sorry to burst your bubble voidspirit, but, even IF one postulates that life came from non-life, it still spirals back to infinitum.
You can't escape the infinity problem by just saying life came from non-life. Because whatever this "non-life" substance is, it still had to be created.
Now if you are actually arguing that existence came from absolutely ...[text shortened]... g from absolutely nothing" hypothesis on the basis of logic alone.. if for no other reason.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthe god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers??? I would say the opposite
there was no bubble to burst, you have accomplished nothing. if life came from non life, it does not spiral back ad infinitum because we are talking about life, not existence.
you are right in that the infinity problem can't be escaped and it remains to this day a mystery. there is no shame in saying "we do not know, but what the heck, let's keep loo ...[text shortened]... for any argument. it is claiming to have answers where there are no answers to be had.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you want to explain something (anything) you have to do it in terms of something we already understand.
the god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers??? I would say the opposite
is true, in fact, a purely materialistic point of view does nothing to help us find any
answers, in fact, knowing how a cake is baked, tells us absolutely nothing as to why it
was baked and for whom.
Originally posted by googlefudgeok then, why does the universe exist. You have stated that you know how it came
If you want to explain something (anything) you have to do it in terms of something we already understand.
If you try to explain something in terms of something we don't/can't understand then you simply move our lack
of understanding from one thing to another.
As god/s is/are unexplained and inexplicable, he/she/it/they can't be used to 'explain'
or who it was made for, because you have absolutely no evidence it was 'made' at all.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhoa there. I haven't said anywhere that I know why/how the universe exists.
ok then, why does the universe exist. You have stated that you know how it came
about, then I want to know, why it came about. You have stated that a materialist can
answer the question, well , here is your chance. Why does the universe exist.
Originally posted by googlefudgeoh i read it alright, i simply dismissed it as the words of a madman. sooo lets get this,
Whoa there. I haven't said anywhere that I know why/how the universe exists.
I don't know how the universe came to exist, or if it has existed forever.
However my point was that just because we don't know, is not a good or
justifiable reason for saying god did it (which is a god of the gaps btw).
Saying god did it isn't trying to explain things ...[text shortened]... on trying to explain things.
Read my post again as you obviously didn't read it right.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot that I need to defend googlefudge, but he simply did not say what you said he said.
oh i read it alright, i simply dismissed it as the words of a madman. sooo lets get this,
you know how the universe came into existence, yet knowing as much, does not tell us
why it came into existence. Logically it therefore appears that a materialistic
understanding of the processes which we observe inherently at work within the
universe cannot tell us anything about why it came into existence. Is it not the case.
Originally posted by Rank outsidera simple, 'no from a purely materialistic perspective we cannot possibly know why the universe exists', would has sufficed.
Not that I need to defend googlefudge, but he simply did not say what you said he said.
I would love to know why the universe came into question, but you should be able to accept that the inability to answer the question says nothing about the validity of the belief that the question has, in fact, no answer. And the fact that it has no answer (beca dn't misrepresent someone's position just because you do not like the conclusion it reaches.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK - I can accept that, if you can also accept that it is a valid view there does not have to be an answer to the question.
a simple, 'no from a purely materialistic perspective we cannot possibly know why the universe exists', would has sufficed.
Originally posted by Rank outsideryou know, when i was being interviewed for entry to art school, a lecturer there, during
OK - I can accept that, if you can also accept that it is a valid view there does not have to be an answer to the question.
Nice to end on a point of agreement for a change!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, this time you are misrepresenting me, but you do tend to do that, so I'll let it go and not take it personally.
you know, when i was being interviewed for entry to art school, a lecturer there, during
the interview proffered similar sentiments, he stated, 'there are no right answers, only
correct questions', now while i had to physically restrain myself from jumping out of
my chair like a stag being chased by a leopard and slapping his forehead, i refrai ...[text shortened]... ts based upon
assumptions are like castles made of sand, they fall into the sea, eventually.