The downward trend continues

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

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".

Actually it’s a “how” rather than a “what”, and I’m not changing it at all – “why” is ambiguous: it can mean “how” and it can also mean, ”for what reason did sentient being X do action Y?”. People who ask the question need to explain which version they mean. 

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.

No we wouldn’t. Maybe something else would though, or maybe nothing would. Whatever. The point though is that the question there is a “how” one – ie, by what processes do we understand how the universe works etc.

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.

Yup – and who knows – maybe that did happen bajillions of times before the current one happened. It may be highly unlikely that we specifically are here but it’s only miraculous of you assume that we were some kind of wished for outcome all along.

It's also for example a big F*** number against winning the lottery by the way. What's so special about the person who does though? 

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.

Well, first all that was necessary was for the conditions to be right for simple single-celled life. Evolution did the rest.

Second, that’s just an argument from personal incredulity: “I can’t imagine how we happened, therefore God”.

Third, again you just assume that “intelligent life” was meant to be all along. Maybe it wasn’t. Or maybe it was but in a different species entirely. Or maybe a much more intelligent species would have emerged if the starting conditions were slightly different.

Who can possibly say? We're still just a lottery winner though.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

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?

Begging!! 

Need to be made?

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.

Once again you have lost me, are you taking Vlad pills, purposive meaning? magical assertion tour? where have I asserted, I don't need to do any hard yards, the questions are all there for the asking.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

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

And there's your problem right there. When you ask, "why something and not nothing?" and have the reply, "I don't know" that gives you the opening for, "Aha! Godiddit then!"

When someone says, "why God?" though and you reply, "don't know" presumably that would give that someone the opening for "Aha - God's dad did it then" or indeed for anything else as causal agency.

Just filling in the gap caused by a "don't know" with "God' in other words just repeats the problem at one remove, and adds nothing of explanatory use.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Begging!! 

Need to be made?

Once again you have lost me, are you taking Vlad pills, purposive meaning? magical assertion tour? where have I asserted, I don't need to do any hard yards, the questions are all there for the asking.

Gonnagle.

Your position that 'why'  in the purposive sense is a reasonable question by looking for an answer without justifying its reasonableness. You just assume it, and go from there and that is where you are begging the question. You need to justify it, else you are saying that 'What bogly footy tinkers piece stool?' is meaningful simply because I just asked it.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Susan,

Because it works.

Gonnagle.

Which means that you support IS because their answer works for them.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Where to start?

Well, first all that was necessary was for the conditions to be right for simple single-celled life. Evolution did the rest.

Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism

And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.

Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.

You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Blue,

Where to start?

Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism

And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.

Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.

You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.

Gonnagle.

no one has been saying this. Rather questioning the meaningfulness of the 'why' question. Stop helping Vlad with his straw supply.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Which means that you support IS because their answer works for them.

Never took you for a Dawkins devotee, no that is not what I am saying.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.

Gonnagle.

Gonners

Why do you think that, in this context, 'why' is a valid question in the first place?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

no one has been saying this. Rather questioning the meaningfulness of the 'why' question. Stop helping Vlad with his straw supply.

Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.

Thanking you in advance,

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Never took you for a Dawkins devotee, no that is not what I am saying.

Gonnagle.

It's the implication in stating 'because it works'. If you think that because individuals can say well it works for me is an argument in support of something, then you support IS"s position when they say it works for them.

Not for a minute do I think you support IS but I am challenging you making statements that back up their approach.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.

Thanking you in advance,

Gonnagle.

Where does blue say 'just is'?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

Why do you think that, in this context, 'why' is a valid question in the first place?

A good question me old china plate probably because the science points to a why or maybe because I am a God botherer, it could be that all life strives, life wants to survive, evolution is very quiet on this, yes we know that all life wants to go on but "why".

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Not for a minute do I think you support IS but I am challenging you making statements that back up their approach.

Fair enough.

Dear Susan,

My Christianity works for me.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

A good question me old china plate probably because the science points to a why or maybe because I am a God botherer, it could be that all life strives, life wants to survive, evolution is very quiet on this, yes we know that all life wants to go on but "why".

Gonnagle.

If science points to anything it is a 'how': if there is a something, say rattlesnakes, then knowledge about evolution deals with the 'how' (the evolutionary history of that species): but to say 'why are there rattlesnakes' presumes that there is a 'why' answer to be had, and that presumption needs to be justified else it is begging the question (which is a fallacy). 

[SusanDoris]

Dear Susan,

Because it works.

Gonnagle.

I think maybe I'll withdraw the question. I was thinking more in terms of analysing right back to childhood and a realisation that all beliefs are entirely due to human information given to and surrounding children even before they can speak, let alone afterwards.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Where does blue say 'just is'?

Here.

No we wouldn’t. Maybe something else would though, or maybe nothing would. Whatever. The point though is that the question there is a “how” one – ie, by what processes do we understand how the universe works etc.

His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

If science points to anything it is a 'how': if there is a something, say rattlesnakes, then knowledge about evolution deals with the 'how' (the evolutionary history of that species): but to say 'why are there rattlesnakes' presumes that there is a 'why' answer to be had, and that presumption needs to be justified else it is begging the question (which is a fallacy).

No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".

Is that fallacious question.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".

Is that fallacious question.

Gonnagle.

I think so, since the 'why' in 'why are we even here' presumes there will be a 'this is why' answer which unless justified is assuming the conclusion (there is a 'why' answer) in the premise, which is begging the question: a fallacy.

[ippy]

ipster,

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.

In short Blue, you're saying that you missed the same medeia event that included all of Hope's evidence that I did and in the unlikely event of this elusive evidence were to see the light of day, do you think we'd ever be allowed to hear the last of it?

I wonder why the above hasn't occured to these these god believing scientists?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism

And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.

Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.

You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.

That's not it though. That part of my reply concerned only the, "what are the chances of a planet just right for us to live in" when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which basic life could evolve, after which evolution (a function of natural laws and forces) would do the rest. Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all. You're also confusing "how it all started" with evolution by the way - TW's repeated error.

Single cell life may not be that simple (though you could go back to precursor stages and find examples that are increasingly more simple) but it's an awful lot more simple than Homo sapiens. That's all.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Here.

His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.

Gonnagle.

That doesn't say just is. It says a lot of maybes and ends up I don't know if why makes sense.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gordon,

No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".

Is that fallacious question.

Gonnagle.

is it a sensible question in your meaning where you import intention?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.

Only as a sidebar response to the "what are the chances of an Earth just right for Homo sapiens?" line - the other rebuttals you didn't reply to. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Where does blue say 'just is'?

blue doesn't. What blue does say though is that, when the answer is "don't know", inserting "God" just adds another layer with the same "don't know" behind it.   

Which adds nothing of explanatory value.