SonOfCaleb
Active member
Nietzsche was a proponent of the nihilism you seem to espouse. He eventually went mad......
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
Nietzsche was a proponent of the nihilism you seem to espouse. He eventually went mad......
There's quite a big leap between 'triggered' and REASON.
Can you justify this leap or are you purposefully bridging the two through preconception?
eider
Well-known member
Hang on. You have already said that there does not have to be a reason for existence. True?
In which case there is no point in you wondering about 'why' it exists, because 'why' suggests there is a reason.
Your posts are self contradicting.
Equivocation. "why" as a cause to an effect is different then "why" as intention.
eider
Well-known member
Meh....
Why is simply a question...... seeking an answer.
It's as simple as that.
If Jonah declares that there's no reason for a thing, then he can't later ask somebody to give him a reason for that thing!
It's....... very basic.
Greg Jennings
New member
That's certainly a possibility. The only issue being that no one can ever prove He exists
Greg Jennings
New member
There is little certainty when it comes to this. It all highly speculative, because we are going to a "time" that is before the laws of physics were applied.
When it comes to "time" prior to the Big Bang there are multiple theories. They range from the universe coming from nothing, to a parent universe budding ours into existence, to dimensional waves colliding to produce a singularity that expanded into our Big Bang.
We simply don't have that much info to go on. And we might never. We put info that fits in with measurements that we have (from distant starlight we can determine elements and radiating heat of different types) into computer models, and we run them 100,000 times until we have an idea of what SHOULD have happened given what we currently see in the universe around us.
It's not nothing. But I very much doubt that the Big Bang tells the whole story
He will prove it soon enough
No, but thank you anyway
And the reason some people get cancer is...?
SonOfCaleb
Active member
From a philosophical point of view how do you square the concept of 'something from nothing?' Eg the Universe courtesy of the serendipity of the Big Bang when everything we can observe empirically tells us otherwise. EG its simply not possible for something especially an absurdly complex Universe and life could come literally from nothing? I know the house i live in didnt come from nothing. And yet Science has no problem accepting this theory on an intergalatic scale?
Its also clear that laws indicate intelligience. Its simply not possible for random abberations to be produced by a precise set of laws EG Physics, Quantum mechanics etc. How do you also square that circle? Or do you just dimiss it and attribute it to random causality?
Greg Jennings
New member
I have issues wrapping my head around something coming from nothing, in regards to ANYTHING. I have trouble picturing a beginning to the universe, but I also have trouble imagining a universe with no beginning that has existed forever.
In terms of a creator, I've never understood why your question doesn't apply to Him. Why, if the universe must have a beginning, must God not? What "began" God? Did He poof into existence one day and start creating?
Saying "he was always there" is no better an answer than saying "the universe has always been here" to me. If logic can be applied to the beginning of time/universe, then it should also be applied to the beginning of God.
If the laws of physics were different, then life would have developed differently and looked differently to fit the universe it is in. Physics is fine-tuned for life in our universe because physics has been the same since before life existed. Life evolved in response to our universe's specific physical properties.
If our universe's gravity 1,000,000 times as great as it actually is, life could still have evolved, it just would look much much different. Normal life would probably more resemble deep-sea life (they handle intense pressures well).
What specific natural properties do you think must be designed? There is much symmetry and order throughout nature because atoms interact with each other in an effort to produce stable states, and this tends to gravitate towards order over randomness. Now maybe God did make atoms with this in mind, but it isn't a necessary step that God is responsible for order in the universe
jsanford108
New member
Excellent questions, Greg.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
That's because "house" is a preconceived concept...a derivation with an intentional essence, end-game or goal. Nature harbors no such goal. The universe is not mankind's "house" as presumed by the religious 'artifact theory of existence'. Nature is a (continuous) process not a product; it's patently self-serving to believe that within such a vast universe, which existed billions of years prior to mankind, the utter minutia we call human-life is some end-game for the universe...a process which will no less advance eons post-religious hubris.
Answer me a few questions:
Wherefore your strong instinct favoring intelligent design:
Take a wooden rocking chair and juxtapose it next to a tree. Now, why is there such an obvious, strongly intuitive, juxtaposition here?
Well, simply because you're experiencing a phenomenal contrast of an intentional design within a non-designed environment. Design is wrought from non-design, the derivation of the rocking chair is wrought for the tree (nature/universe); the opposite may not be true...yet, religion wants us to accept some contrived design of the tree.
By what demonstrable instinct or method may the tree be actuated as design?
Intelligent Design is a mere anthro-centric illusion.
Last edited:
eider
Well-known member
Very good!
Now you're thinking, at last.....
You see?
You've asked for a 'reason' for cancer, which means that you believe there is or are reasons for cancer.
Now, back to our existence. As soon as you wonder 'why', or 'how', you have basically consented to the common sense logic that there had to be a reason.
eider
Well-known member
Wrong.
'Why?' is a question. No more, no less.
Equally. How?' is a question, no more, no less.
As soon as a person wonders 'Why?' or 'How?' that person has already accepted that there is an answer to their question.
By the way, do you accept that there is a reason for our existence?
eider
Well-known member
That sentence is a contradiction of itself!
Life is simply.........
.................a logically necessary existent!
Question: Are you a Star Trek fan? You write like 1st Officer Spok talks.
That sentence is a contradiction of itself!
Life is simply.........
.................a logically necessary existent!
How so?
Question: Are you a Star Trek fan? You write like 1st Officer Spok talks.
What a fascinating statement.
lain: