so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[muhammad rasullah]

I did answer your question when I said I never beat my wife. That means I never started beating my wife and I never stopped beating my wife because I NEVER BEAT HER!!!!! So i corrected your false assumption. We can create meaning in anything we do because it is us who are initially doing or attempting that thing. But when we have no initial involvement of the beginning of our existence then where does that why come from then. Or where does the purpose come from then and who gives it that purpose? When you look at everything in existence you can find the answer the to why questions about its purposes if we examine close enought. So why not with our own lives? Everything that man creates has a purpose and man is the most knowledgeable of creators on earth so why not examine ourselves the same way we examine other things that exists?

The answer to "What is the purpose of the universe?" the answer is "There is no purpose. It's just the universe. Purpose is something that living things have, and the universe is not alive."

Now, if you're paying attention, you'll ask where living things got purpose from. The answer is that purpose evolved.

TC

Okay!! Where are you coming up with your logic of thinking. So your answer is its just the Universe...What does that even mean? Purpose is something that living things have! What kind of logic is this? really! So your house that you live in has no purpose? your sneakers that you put on your feet have no purpose? the clothes you were have no purpose? Of course they do!! This is an example of being illogical.

[Thought Criminal]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

Look as I said you are side stepping the question here. What I am asking is not for the closest ancestor I didnt say anything about that in my line of questioning. What I asked was...
According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals.
1. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water?
2. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen?
3. How long would it take?
4. And where is the evidence for all of these changes?
Not the closest relative to the whale. Because if the closest relative to the whale is the hippo then you have a really big problem in accounting for the rest of the morphical changes that occured between the hippo and the whale!

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false

Well I didnt claim anything at all I simply asked a question which I am waiting still for the answer. Like I said I just want science to explain itself. So if you have the answers please tell me.

You asked a question and it was answered. As part of the answer, you were politelly directed to consult the relevant article in a standard reference web site. You have shown no signs of doing so. In addition, you have shown no sign of reading and understanding my response. Instead, you spam me with questions that I have already answered. In short, you have failed to debate.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Okay!! Where are you coming up with your logic of thinking. So your answer is its just the Universe...What does that even mean? Purpose is something that living things have! What kind of logic is this? really! So your house that you live in has no purpose? your sneakers that you put on your feet have no purpose? the clothes you were have no purpose? Of course they do!! This is an example of being illogical.

You've shown an unwillingness to debate, so I'm answering this for the peanut gallery. You can respond or not, but my expectations are appropriately calibrated.

Purpose is defined in terms of being for something. For example, legs are for walking on; that is their purpose. What makes a thing for a role is design. Legs are designed for walking, wings are designed for flying, and so on.

But designed by what? It turns out that natural selection takes the role of a designer without actually have a mind or foresight. In this way, living things, having evolved, are full of design, hence full of purpose.

As for the things we build, these are explicitly designed by us, gaining purpose from us. In this way, they indirectly get their purpose from evolution.

In fact, it can be very indirect because evolution has granted us enough intelligence to make our own decisions about purpose, overriding the implicit intent of our genes. We can, for example, create condoms, whose purpose is to thwart the very reproduction that is -- from the implicit point of view of our genes -- our ultimate purpose.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Logic deals with patterns of thinking that lead from true premises to true conclusions. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Frege began a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.

Within any arguement logic exists if a person is not logical then there arguement cannot be valid from it's premises to its conclusions.
You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

An animal walks on land.
It starts gathering food at the shore.
It starts swimming out further and further for food.
It quits going on land all together.

There ya go, four easy steps. Of course its more complicated, but it works in these short steps. As to time, it would take only as much as necessary to support the mentioned changes.

You are accepting a belief in a god for which there is NO empirical evidence, and refusing a belief in science for which there are mountains of evidence. Refusing to accept the evidence is not a disproof of the evidence.


(edited for space)

[muhammad rasullah]

You say that science is the answer to evolution. Well this is a big fat lie. Science doesn't have the answers to evolution. If it does then tell me how many morphical changes would it take for a dog like creature to go from that to a whale as we see it today. Please answer this and dont side step it. According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water? How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen? How long would it take? And where is the evidence for all of these changes? Science has all the answers right lets see science attempt to answer this!
I am not trying to get science to explain everything I just want science to explain itself Logically!! This I believe is a reasonably question!

If you'd done the research that was requested, you'd know that the closest non-marine relative of the whale is the hippo. The hippo is semi-aquatic, capable of pinching closed its nostrils and even sleeping underwater, automatically surfacing to breath every five minutes or so. Its skin is likewise adapted to water, being hairless and well-insulated, and it is very large. Despite this, it can walk on land and outrun a human. It is, in and of itself, a fine example of an intermediate species.

Now, we have a fairly complete fossil chain from the common ancestor of both the whale and the hippo, and we can see the steps along the way, including whales with legs. Modern whales show the vestiges of these legs if you look at their skeleton.

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false. But asking you when you've done the research is as much begging the question as asking when you stopped beating your wife.

TC

Look as I said you are side stepping the question here. What I am asking is not for the closest ancestor I didnt say anything about that in my line of questioning. What I asked was...
According to evolution the whale used to be a land based creature and is in the category of the mammals.
1. So how did it get from a dog like creature living all its life on land to a mammal who spends all it's life in the water?
2. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this to happen?
3. How long would it take?
4. And where is the evidence for all of these changes?
Not the closest relative to the whale. Because if the closest relative to the whale is the hippo then you have a really big problem in accounting for the rest of the morphical changes that occured between the hippo and the whale!

In short, if you'd done any basic research, you'd know your claim was false

Well I didnt claim anything at all I simply asked a question which I am waiting still for the answer. Like I said I just want science to explain itself. So if you have the answers please tell me.

You asked a question and it was answered. As part of the answer, you were politelly directed to consult the relevant article in a standard reference web site. You have shown no signs of doing so. In addition, you have shown no sign of reading and understanding my response. Instead, you spam me with questions that I have already answered. In short, you have failed to debate.

TC

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

[Thought Criminal]

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

Do all non-Muslims look alike to you? I ask because I'm not one of the people who's posted WP links for you here. The link I was referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. You'll find that it answers your question in considerable detail, linking to articles with even more detail. Go read it and don't ask me any questions about whale evolution until you do.

Enjoy.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Please accept my sincere apology. I wrongly assumed that providing a link to wikipedia would also induce a further search for whale/cetacean evolution. I am sorry for not realizing some would need further prodding to find the information they seek.

In my defense may I submit I did post the pertinent links to what I felt were the main gist of Mr. Rasullah's argument of the OP.

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

When you speak of the human lives of women, You are right about many believers care nothing for their lives. I am referring to their live that can not be unconvinced with having or caring for a child. I am not referring to their physical life being in danger.

Also, some women, no matter what they are told the risk is, chose not to abort the child. Putting the life of the Child above their own. Often based on religious beliefs. Often on love for the unborn child.

Your so called Basis facts are what you accept as facts. Pro-choice being consistent with being a Christian. You must have hit your head quite hard.

Christ took away mankind’s accountability for sins. But the do unto others as you would have them do unto you would cover what you do to your unborn child also.

What I “Look� like, or what I appear to be, does not mean much. That is a point in being a believer, a belief that God knows exactly what we are, and what our motives are. A believer would only be fooling themselves.

Moral high ground is not where we stand, But what God set as goals for mankind. All fall short, But the goals are intact.

WAIT A MINUTE. You are moving your beliefs. If it is not a Baby, Then a few weeks, or full term has no difference. No difference between the Morning After pill or Partial Birth Abortion.

You do not support a Abortion of a viable fetus? And complain about a believer not caring about the woman’s choice? A choice which would have to be allowed to be made during the full time she is pregnant.

Did you see what yourself, was saying? Didn’t look too good, did it?

It is not only believers in God creating life that deny Abiogenesis, It is the experiments the Scientist conger up which fail and bear witness that Science can not show life coming into existence without God. Would that be because the “Intelligent design� needs a lot more intelligence then mankind has?

A person is an un-killed corpse. Our earthly lives are terminal, and something will kill these bodies. The Soul which is the physical life within these bodies, has eternal life. Even those who call themselves an Atheist. Cute part is God does not believe in an Atheist, God says all know Him.

Take that to the bank? Great. They seem to be a financial illusion trying to tread water, these days. An Atheist can not be morally bankrupt. I do not know anyone who would give an Atheist CREDIT for Morality.



Joeyknuccione.

You say you are an Atheist, That you value all human life, Then value the decision a woman makes regarding Abortion. SO? That seems to apply that you do not hold an unborn child as Human life.

And as far as outlawing Abortions will only increase harm to people? What about all those PEOPLE being aborted? A lot of women would still get or attempt to get an abortion, But not in the Numbers you find when an Abortion is this easy to get under today’s law.

My slam at evolution is off topic? Not really, The question is “WHY�, being asked about life as we see it existing, and “WHY� of our world’s existence. If God created it, the WHY is much different then if Chance brought it in, and there is really no WHY involved. If it was Chance, Then the question would be “HOW�

Degree? How about a 180 Degree Atheist, And that is called, A Born Again Christian.

Ken

[muhammad rasullah]

You didnt request me to do any research! you posted a wiklepedia site for philosophy and mind. Thats it! What article are you talking about? You have failed to answer the questions that I have asked. You are asking me to do reasearch why cant you just explain it to me dont you know this? isnt this what you hold as truth? Why do you want me to learn what you already know? why dont you just tell me? If science has the answers for evolution then present them thats all that I ask. You still have not answered for how long the morphical process would take? or how many morphical changes would have to occur for it to go from a land base dog like animal to a whale that we see today? And most importantly where is the evidence for these changes? This is so simple and you should already have the answer for them if there is one...I need numbers and this is what you haven't given me. If my claim is false then prove to me that it is false by showing me the evidence for these changes. dont tell me to do the research...you present the research that has been done this is debating.

Do all non-Muslims look alike to you? I ask because I'm not one of the people who's posted WP links for you here. The link I was referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans. You'll find that it answers your question in considerable detail, linking to articles with even more detail. Go read it and don't ask me any questions about whale evolution until you do.

Enjoy.

TC

I've read it and I can't find the answers to my questions. How many morphical changes would have to occur for this wolf like artiodacyls related to Pakicetus to go from that to the whale we see today? No number is given just different species but it doesn't list nor explain the changes that occured. How long would this process take? and where is the evidence for these changes? I haven't found the evidence maybe it is somehwere else.. why dont you show me these answers instead of side stepping the qusetions...And no all non-muslims do not look alike.

[Thought Criminal]

When you speak of the human lives of women, You are right about many believers care nothing for their lives. I am referring to their live that can not be unconvinced with having or caring for a child. I am not referring to their physical life being in danger.

Ken, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Since you didn't bother quoting what this is in response to, I have no context to fill in any blanks.

Also, some women, no matter what they are told the risk is, chose not to abort the child. Putting the life of the Child above their own. Often based on religious beliefs. Often on love for the unborn child.

Some women, while unhappy about their unwanted pregnancy, choose to carry it to term. Some women do so even at serious risk to their health. This is not something contested, so I'm not sure why you bring it up except as an excuse to use deceptive and emotional language. This brings us to a few quick linguistic reminders:

1) Pregnancies are aborted, not children. At the time of the abortion, a woman is pregnant with an embryo or fetus. These are the correct, neutral terms. If you use other terms in an attempt to distort reality, I will point out your error.

2) The phrase "unborn child" is as dishonest as "unkilled person". More on this later, though I don't know why I need to repeat myself.

Let's move on now.

Let me remind you of a few things that you seem to have forgotten:
1) Your so called Basis facts are what you accept as facts. Pro-choice being consistent with being a Christian. You must have hit your head quite hard.

Claiming I hit my head just because I recognize that many Christians are pro-choice is nothing more than a gratuitous insult. Retract it and apologize. Now. If you want to claim the moral high ground, stop wallowing in the mud and slinging it.

Christ took away mankind’s accountability for sins. But the do unto others as you would have them do unto you would cover what you do to your unborn child also.

As I've pointed out before, the fundamental dishonesty about the term "unborn child" is that it seeks to mislead us into thinking of an embryo as a baby, thus giving it more rights than it deserves. It is little different than calling you an "unkilled corpse", suggesting that you have no right to live.

In any case, the golden rule fully supports abortion. I would not want to be born to a woman who did not want to carry her pregnancy to term. Every child should be wanted, not resented, so parenthood must be a matter of choice, not chance.

What I “Look� like, or what I appear to be, does not mean much. That is a point in being a believer, a belief that God knows exactly what we are, and what our motives are. A believer would only be fooling themselves.

Again, no idea what you're getting at here and, due to your refusal to quote, no context by which to decode it.

Moral high ground is not where we stand, But what God set as goals for mankind. All fall short, But the goals are intact.

To have the moral high ground, you would have to be correct. However, this turns out not to be the case. As I have argued (quite successfully, if I do say so myself) , you are mistaken on the issue of morality.

WAIT A MINUTE. You are moving your beliefs. If it is not a Baby, Then a few weeks, or full term has no difference. No difference between the Morning After pill or Partial Birth Abortion.

At one end, a fertilized egg is not a person. At the other, a baby is. As we follow along this potential timeline, we move closer to personhood. Once the fetus is viable, we have sufficient reason to "round up" to personhood in that we can now terminate the pregnancy without terminating the fetus.

I'm explaining all this in the hope that you realize the distinction between what something was, is, and might be. It does not follow that emergency contraceptives are identical, even morally, to one of the rare late-term abortions that are sometimes forced upon us. In fact, I have no idea on what basis you might equate the two. Perhaps you could explain.

You do not support a Abortion of a viable fetus? And complain about a believer not caring about the woman’s choice? A choice which would have to be allowed to be made during the full time she is pregnant.

Correct, I do not support the abortion (lower-case "a", by the way) of a pregnancy when there is a viable fetus, precisely because it is unnecessary. I certainly do complain about anti-choice activists who do not care about the woman's choice (regardless of whether they're "believers"). I don't see how the choice to abort could be made by a woman who is not pregnant, so the last part means nothing to me.

Did you see what yourself, was saying? Didn’t look too good, did it?

If I understand your grammar, you're suggesting that you perceive an error in my stance. If so, you would need to spell it out.

It is not only believers in God creating life that deny Abiogenesis, It is the experiments the Scientist conger up which fail and bear witness that Science can not show life coming into existence without God. Would that be because the “Intelligent design� needs a lot more intelligence then mankind has?

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and suspect that this is mutual. What experiments do you mean? I'm guessing that perhaps you would require that we create life from scratch without the benefit of an entire abiotic world and a few billion years to work with. I hope not, though, because that would be a ridiculous requirement on all counts.

A person is an un-killed corpse. Our earthly lives are terminal, and something will kill these bodies. The Soul which is the physical life within these bodies, has eternal life. Even those who call themselves an Atheist. Cute part is God does not believe in an Atheist, God says all know Him.

An unkilled corpse is a corpse that we haven't gotten around to killing. It has no rights, since it's not a person. See how that little trick works? Instead of looking at the living person, we misdirect the reader's attention to the potential state, not the actual one. That's precisely the same trick that "unborn baby" uses, only in the opposite direction of personhood. It's a trick, though, and I won't allow it here.

If you're going to try to bring up souls, you're going to have to understand that such arguments do not carry much weight with those who don't share your belief in souls. Therefore, you're either going to need to support your belief, which seems unlikely, or find another way to argue.

As for the idea that atheists nonetheless believe in God or know God exists or somesuch, this is not only unsupported but ridiculous. If you're going to debate, you'll have to learn how to do more than throw out empty claims that get laughed out.

Take that to the bank? Great. They seem to be a financial illusion trying to tread water, these days. An Atheist can not be morally bankrupt. I do not know anyone who would give an Atheist CREDIT for Morality.

In English, we call phrases like "you can take that to the bank" idioms because their meaning is not literally what the words would lead you to think. I would hope that as a native, if uneducated, speaker of the English language, you would know this and not try to claim that I'm talking about actual banks.

Atheism, as such, has no bearing on morality. There are moral atheists and immoral atheists. For that matter, there are moral theists and immoral theists. Both theists and atheists can be morally bankrupt. Of course, a theist who pretends that no atheist can be moral is quite likely to be one of the bankrupt, as such bigotry is unacceptable.

TC