The downward trend continues

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dogmatic agnostic and reductionist twaddle.

Feeling better after your random word eructation?

Good.

Now then - did you have an argument to offer?

And yet another example of an antitheist trying to put words in mouths.

Again you confuse "antitheist" with "atheist", and no-one put words into anyone's mouth - it was just a question about which meaning of "why" you were attempting. I still don't know which it was.
 

I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.

With you, clearly not - whose fault is that do you think?

Oh, and as you just vanished from the thread on which you were asked repeatedly what connection you think there to be between desiring a relationship with something and that something existing, perhaps you'd finally like to give it a go here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear WHY!

The why of it all, "just is" is the exact same as "Godidit".

By all, I mean everything, the whole shooting match, us, plant life, the animal kingdom, the world, the universe and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into.

Why electricity, why photosynthesis, why has man the gift to imagine, why does every living thing on this planet strive, why poetry, music, art that can make a human laugh, cry, fill him with hope and wonder.

Stephen Hawking at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" chunters on about the "why" ( is this one of those fallacies ) he asks, "why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing", he chunters on about scientists being to busy with the "what" and the "how" and it is the business of philosophers to ask the question "why".

And of course he also states when we can answer the question "why" then we will know the mind of God" but for me that then raises the question, does God have a mind, it's that anthropomorphism Profdavey is chuntering on about, we give God human traits, God has a mind, he is a big guy with a long white beard.

Another "why" Michelangelo's painting "The Creation of Adam" ( there's a picture of it in the book ) Adam is naked but God is wearing a toga, "WHY".

Gonnagle.

Doesn't the toga represent the Glory of having created the universe?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Doesn't the toga represent the Glory of having created the universe?

Maybe - it also represents the fact that people create gods in their own image. That's why your pick of the gods is as culturally defined as the gods of the Egyptians and the Sumerians were defined by their cultures. 

How's it coming with your reply by the way to why you think desiring a relationship with something has anything to do with that thing being real?

I can put the question in bold and in 24 point typeface again if that helps?

[ProfessorDavey]

But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?

But it depends upon whether you are considering 'why' in a mechanistic sense, or in a more reason or metaphysical sense.

So why are we here - well on the former approach - we are here because basic chemistry and energetics developed increasing complexity, which through evolution lead to humans. And that is relevant universally.

On the metaphysics or the reason we are here, well that is only relevant when considered from the perspective of human consciousness, it has no universal credence.

[ippy]

Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is.  Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted.  There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.

OK Hope, let's have it and while you're about where do we find the extensive media reports about this world shattering evidence that must have been published about this enormous ground shaking event?

ippy 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

So why are we here - well on the former approach - we are here because basic chemistry and energetics developed increasing complexity, which through evolution lead to humans. And that is relevant universally.

That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".

Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

OK Hope, let's have it and while you're about where do we find the extensive media reports about this world shattering evidence that must have been published about this enormous ground shaking event?

There is no evidence. What there is though is wishful thinking, personal opinion, faith etc. What Hope does is to re-define the term so as to include these things, though he seems oblivious to the problem it gives him – namely that anyone else’s wishful thinking etc about anything else must thereby be evidence for their beliefs too.

His recent (fairly desperate) throw of the dice is to say, “yes, but look - here are some scientists who believe in God” as if in some way we’re meant to assume that the fact that they happen to practice science in various disciplines means they must have, well, you know, proper evidence for God.

It implies no such thing of course.

His other trick is to try to dismiss actual evidence as simplistic, limited etc as if he has in his pocket some other means of testing claims and conjectures only he doesn’t feel the need to tell us what that method might actually be.     

All very odd, but hey-ho. 

[jjohnjil]

There is evidence, of course, the main evidence being the various Holy Books.

It is the same sort of evidence as when Bert Bloggs, the well known burglar stands up n Court and gives his evidence ...

"I wasn't nowhere near the blleding place, me lord. I swears it!"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".

Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics   ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.

Same question as for Vlad – which meaning of “why” are you attempting here?

If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.

If though you mean, “for what reason did a sentient being decide to make things this way?” then you’re falling into Vlad’s begging the question territory.

Just to note too that “don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer when there are no testable answers available.   

[ProfessorDavey]

That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".

Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.

Gonnagle.

Because they are governed by the fundamental laws of physics.

It is a bit like asking why if you mix up a bottle containing oil and water and then let it settle the oil and water separate out.

It isn't a question of it 'just is' - not at all - it is driven by fundamental physical laws.

Sure the ultimate evolution of humans is a darned sight more complicated than oil and water separating out but every step of the ways if governed by and predictable according to fundamental physical laws.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

fundamental laws of physics.

I could become quite annoying about all of this but that is another "why" question, or I could accuse you of the "just is" answer, but I won't, yer a nice guy but why do we have fundamental laws.

Strange thing is, we do have fundamental laws, strange thing is that it all works, the really strange thing is that, as Einstein points out, we can in our very limited capacity understand how it works, or, OR! me and Einstein are just puddles thinking it all fits ( puddles don't think, well do they!! next time I meet a puddle I will ask one )

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Maybe - it also represents the fact that people create gods in their own image. That's why your pick of the gods is as culturally defined as the gods of the Egyptians and the Sumerians were defined by their cultures. 

How's it coming with your reply by the way to why you think desiring a relationship with something has anything to do with that thing being real?

I can put the question in bold and in 24 point typeface again if that helps?

I think you don't get Art.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners,

Same question as for Vlad – which meaning of “why” are you attempting here?

If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.

If though you mean, “for what reason did a sentient being decide to make things this way?” then you’re falling into Vlad’s begging the question territory.

Just to note too that “don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer when there are no testable answers available.   

When you commit to suggesting things people aren't, you really commit don't you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you don't get Art.

Garfunkel?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When you commit to suggesting things people aren't, you really commit don't you.

What do you think I've suggested you are that you aren't exactly?

Your constant evasions make it impossible to know what point you think you're making. Which version of "why" for example were you attempting - the "how" version or the begging the question version? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Garfunkel?

In your case Guff uncle!               Snork.

[Brownie]

Vlad,

Garfunkel?

Someone I would definitely have liked to get when I was younger, face and voice of an angel, "Bright Eyes", etc (gone to seed a bit since).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

I could become quite annoying about all of this but that is another "why" question, or I could accuse you of the "just is" answer, but I won't, yer a nice guy but why do we have fundamental laws.

Strange thing is, we do have fundamental laws, strange thing is that it all works, the really strange thing is that, as Einstein points out, we can in our very limited capacity understand how it works, or, OR! me and Einstein are just puddles thinking it all fits ( puddles don't think, well do they!! next time I meet a puddle I will ask one )

You're in anthropic principle territory here. It's only "strange" if you think there's some special significance in the fact of our existence, rather than that we just happen to have emerged from an indifferent universe governed by fundamental laws. Had those laws been different and a different sentient creature had emerged as the result would it too be entitled to think how strange it was that the universe was just right for little old him?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.

Seems to me that you are changing the "why" into a "what" and I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to say, I dunno, but this is why I ask the question "why".

Question like, why do we, humans understand how the Universe works ( in our very limited capacity ) Profdavey talks about fundamental laws, without these laws, we would not be here to talk about fundamental laws.

Everytime I look at the science behind how we got to where we are today I do a Prof Cox and think, it is a miracle we are even here, revisiting Prof Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" even he asks the question, "why" did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion......................if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, ( a big F*** me number ) the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.

The amount of stuff that had to happen just for life is staggering, never mind the fact that we have intelligent life, and when you start to think of intelligent life ( not just us ) that for me points to, hell!! outside influence, God, purpose, God is in the equation ( what ever God is ) somewhere.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Except Goddidit is a useless answer as then the question applies to god and creates an infinite regress, unless 'just is' apples to god in which case the denial of that as an answer would be inconsistent.

[Nearly Sane]

And, of course, the whole purposive 'why' is built on, as Vlad might say, an enormous argument from incredulity of Meldrewian proportions.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Are you asking, who made God, a perfectly good question, my answer, I just don't know.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Are you asking, who made God, a perfectly good question, my answer, I just don't know.

Gonnagle.

No, I'm pointing out that you keep on begging the question. Why does something need to be made. Why is any making of that thing by a being (which is implied by the 'who' in your question above?

You have not done the work needed to make why, as a purposive meaning, sensible. You and Vlad have gone off on a magical assertion tour, but not done the hard yards, nor even the easy inches.

[SusanDoris]

The 'why' question to which I would very much like  to know the answer is:  Why do you believe? This is addressed to the believers here, obviously!
I mean, I know that I am totally clear about why I do nnot believe in any supernatural thing, particularly any god, but why do believers believe?

Responses (on message boards) are all, without exception, anecdotes, talks of 'experiences', and always avoid actually looking really clearly at WHY people believe.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Susan,

Because it works.

Gonnagle.