Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Why' is question begging, since it means 'for what purpose'?  Hang on, who has said that there is one?

But then you don't know that there isn't a why so insisting it is expunged is acting in large part like an atheist with a massive entitlement complex.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

No it doesn't.........

Yes it does. Try constructing a "why" question that doesn't involve a purposive agent. It can't be done can it because the meaning "for what purpose?" is baked in to the question "why?".

On the other hand:

"Q: Why did Mary go to the shops?"

"A: To buy some ginger biscuits"

...is fine, because it involves a priori an agent (Mary) and a purpose (to buy the biscuits) but is incoherent without them.   

...that, I move, is just a fanatical antitheistic mind working overtime.

Then, as ever, you're just parading your semi-literate paranoia to avoid engaging with the arguments that undoes you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Sorry Mr Zen....i'll use the word How in the presence of ''you people''.

You should, but because it's a different word with a different meaning to the one you used wrongly rather than because of your audience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Q: Why did Mary go to the shops?"

"A: because she was predetermined to do so by purely naturalistic processes

Would be acceptable. I think you are doing linguistic piracy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

But then you don't know that there isn't a why...

More stupidity. The "why" question gives you the burden of proof problem as it begs the question of a purposive agent a priori. The dead end you've just crashed into also legitimises questions like, "why don't unicorns like clowns?" which even you must be able dimly at least to perceive as a problem.   

...so insisting it is expunged is acting in large part like an atheist with a massive entitlement complex.

Further semi-literate paranoia noted. It's got nothing to do with atheism (or with antitheism) - it's just about your ignorance of language and logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dictionary definition includes Cause.

Wigginhall and The Side caught talking rubbish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

More stupidity. The "why" question gives you the burden of proof problem as it begs the question of a purposive agent

Fucking shite, Hillside, you could only get away with it on this forum which exists in it's own bubble universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Would be acceptable. I think you are doing linguistic piracy.

Then you think wrongly. Using words correctly rather than wrongly isn't piracy, it's just using words correctly rather than wrongly.

You should try it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Dictionary definition includes Cause.

Wigginhall and The Side caught talking rubbish.

Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Fucking shite, Hillside, you could only get away with it on this forum which exists in it's own bubble universe.

As you claim to have access to a dictionary why not try using it?

[wigginhall]

No, Vlad.  If I say, 'why is the kettle on?', that usually means 'for what purpose'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Then you think wrongly. Using words correctly rather than wrongly isn't piracy, it's just using words correctly rather than wrongly.

You should try it.

Why is what is the cause, what is the reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, Vlad.  If I say, 'why is the kettle on?', that usually means 'for what purpose'.

No wiggs 'why is the kettle on?'' A short circuit switched it on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Why is what is the cause, what is the reason.

You're getting there. Now focus on that word "reason"...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You're getting there. Now focus on that word "reason"...

Yes, Cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

No wiggs 'why is the kettle on?'' A short circuit switched it on.

Deliberately obtuse or genuinely dim? Hard to tell.

Anyway, that short circuit didn't just appear ex nihiilo. Somebody decided first that he wanted a nice cup of tea (which answers the "why" question). The switch was just the process by which it happened (which answers the "how" question you meant to have asked in the first place). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Yes, Cause.

Whose "reason" though?

Keep trying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Whose "reason" though?

Keep trying.

If the question why is equivalent to asking what is the cause? why are you bringing in whose ''reason''?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

If the question why is equivalent to asking what is the cause? why are you bringing in whose ''reason''?

Because in the sense you attempted it (and have attempted it before) you clearly meant "for what reason?" (ie, "why?") rather than, "by what process?" (ie, "how?"). You do this cheat because you think it then allows you to drop in "god" as the purposive agent to decide on the "why" without bothering with the hard yards of demonstrating this god in the first place. 

A purposeless universe in which only "how?" questions are legitimate requires fewer assumptions than a purposive universe that also requires an agent to decide on the "why?" a priori. That's why the former is the default position, and that's why "why?" questions aren't meaningful.   

If you plan to reply with your usual insult, obtuseness and dishonesty can I suggest that for once you don't bother as I won't reply. 

[wigginhall]

I think that a lot of creationists ask 'why' questions, as it enables them to smuggle in 'purpose'.   For example, 'why does anything exist?', as opposed to 'for what purpose do things exist?, which is more explicit.    Generally, you have to ask them what they mean by 'why'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I think that a lot of creationists ask 'why' questions, as it enables them to smuggle in 'purpose'.   For example, 'why does anything exist?', as opposed to 'for what purpose do things exist?, which is more explicit.    Generally, you have to ask them what they mean by 'why'.

Quite - it opens the door to the answer "because goddidit" provided the audience doesn't spot the trojan horse inside the "why". After all, if not for god who else could have decided on the why? 

[wigginhall]

It's one of the creationist tricks that you get used to, along with misquoting, and well, just lying.   For Jesus, of course.

[Rhiannon]

Hi Wiggs,

Just to add the question the 12-year-old me asked (and has still never had answered): why too would a god concerned to install his favourite species bother with several hundred millions of years-worth of dinosaurs before getting around to us just a few seconds before midnight relatively speaking?

So we can have the fun of digging up dinosaur bones and putting them together. Then putting them in museums and rearranging the bits we got wrong. And eventually make films about them.

[Rhiannon]

'Why' is question begging, since it means 'for what purpose'?  Hang on, who has said that there is one?

Well quite, and if the answer is that there isn’t one then it’s up to us to give our lives purpose. That some people choose to focus their purpose on beliefs about what happens after their lives have ended is rather odd. And where does that leave personal responsibility?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that a lot of creationists ask 'why' questions, as it enables them to smuggle in 'purpose'.   For example, 'why does anything exist?', as opposed to 'for what purpose do things exist?, which is more explicit.    Generally, you have to ask them what they mean by 'why'.

Zen lunacy