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.

[JoeyKnothead]

As abortion is not the point of this thread, I will not comment further on it.

Ken1burton, that's some mighty fine preaching, but would you mind addressing the OP?

[Thought Criminal]

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.

Your question about the specific number of morphological changes makes little sense because changes aren't discrete, so the number depends on how we do the counting. Is sonar one adaptation or should we count each of the features that contribute to it?

The deeper problem is that you don't actually care about the answer. You're asking rhetorically so you can wave your hands and say that it's a huge number. This ignores the fact that many of these adaptations are evolving at the same time, driven by the same pressures to be more effective in the marine environment.

Anyhow, if you followed the link from the article I mentioned to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea#Re ... holocation, you'll see that it lists a number of specific adaptations, without pretending to be exhaustive. Some of these adaptations are not going to be preserved well in fossil remains, but some are.

A good example of a well-preserved adaptation is the loss of legs. We have plenty of fossils for every stage in this process, from terrestrial, to amphibious and then to fully aquatic. This is a simple disproof of your claim that there is no evidence for these changes, not that it's going to matter.

I'll go on to point out that the article lists the terrestrial Pakicetus as living 53 million years ago, while the habitually aquatic Indohyus was around 48 million years ago. It had some of the adaptations that whales do now, but still looked pretty much like a typical land mammal.

From there to the first fully marine whales took until Dorudon, 38 million years ago. Even then, there were still small legs and it didn't yet have echolocation, which came around 33 million years ago. By about 14 million years ago, we had whales that looked pretty much like they do today. To put it in context, this was still more than 7 million years before the lineage that led to us branched off from our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

So, depending on what you pick as the starting point, I'd say from 50 million years ago when the lineage became partially aquatic until fully modern whales 14 million years ago, it took about 36 million years for the transition from land mammal to whale. Of course, even though this is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from many different directions, you're going to deny it anyhow, because your fundamentalist take on your religion compels you to disregard the truth.

TC

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

I think the conversation between us needs an abortion.

Joeyknuccione.

I know the Thread is about “Why� and that can apply if there is a Creator with a Reason WHY. But Chance does not have reasons, Sometimes they have possibilities. Sometimes they have impossibilities.

Ken

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

I think the conversation between us needs an abortion.

You're free to run away, but first you owe me an apology.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Joeyknuccione.

I know the Thread is about “Why� and that can apply if there is a Creator with a Reason WHY. But Chance does not have reasons, Sometimes they have possibilities. Sometimes they have impossibilities.

Ken

I would request you go back through the threads and read some of the earlier posts.

Chance has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

Philosophy explains the why, at least to dang near all non theists.

Where religion explains the why to the religious, it does so on false and or unprovable premises.

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

Run away? Naw, I am still here. When the debate is not being very honest of what is real and what is not. And one wishes to debate, To monitor the debate themselves, and judge what side has shown merit, Then that is better left alone.

I owe you? See you in Court. One where you do not get to be the Judge and Jury as you have played here.

You might feel you won the debate, I think you showed yourself worst then I had even suggested some Atheists are. Abortion is of a pregnancy, not a Baby? Swift, real Swift.

As far as the Why, It gives God a chance to fine tune people, and see what is really wrong with them, What needs fixing, also called “Trying the hearts and reigns of men.� and earth is where those tests are conducted.

So instead of just having people born in Heaven with Eternal life, He starts with Earth, and does not establish that there is a God here for everyone to know, So those who would not want one, Can pretend there is no God and act accordingly.


Joeyknuccione.

I have read the threads. And the question was still asked which starts the thread. Chance has a lot to do with this thread, It shows that without God, Chance does not do things for reasons, so no why.

You say Philosophy explains the why? At least to dang near all non theists. Good, for Philosophy. I will take those false or unprovable premises you spoke about. And calling them false or unprovable will be seen as “According to Joeyknuccione�


Ken

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

Run away? Naw, I am still here. When the debate is not being very honest of what is real and what is not. And one wishes to debate, To monitor the debate themselves, and judge what side has shown merit, Then that is better left alone.

Like I said, you're allowed to run away from the debate, but you owe me an apology and I insist upon it.

I'm quite happy with my performance in this debate, but I'll certainly let people judge for themselves. That's really the point, isn't it?

I owe you? See you in Court. One where you do not get to be the Judge and Jury as you have played here.

I am asking that a mod intercede here.

You might feel you won the debate, I think you showed yourself worst then I had even suggested some Atheists are. Abortion is of a pregnancy, not a Baby? Swift, real Swift.

I think the dictionary is quite clear on this matter:

a·bor·tion (Ã bôrÆshÃn), n.
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.
3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def. 3).

This confirms what I said about what an abortion is. The key point is that "baby" is not only inaccurate, since it substitutes potential for actual, it's blatantly manipulative because it's such an emotional term.

As far as the Why, It gives God a chance to fine tune people, and see what is really wrong with them, What needs fixing, also called “Trying the hearts and reigns of men.� and earth is where those tests are conducted.

The god of your Bible is portrayed as not only sexist, racist and homophobic, but someone who endorses all of these bigotries. He is hardly in any position to judge me.

As for the idea that an omniscient being needs to test anything, that's even more absurd than the omniscient being existing in the first place.

So instead of just having people born in Heaven with Eternal life, He starts with Earth, and does not establish that there is a God here for everyone to know, So those who would not want one, Can pretend there is no God and act accordingly.

Perhaps he's testing to see which of us are rational and moral. If so, I'll see you in heaven, if you change enough to make the grade.

TC

[Jester]

You might feel you won the debate, I think you showed yourself worst then I had even suggested some Atheists are. Abortion is of a pregnancy, not a Baby? Swift, real Swift.

Moderator note:

Please refrain from making negative comments about others. While this can be an emotional issue for many of us, these kinds of comments will not serve to convince anyone of your beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

I have read the threads. And the question was still asked which starts the thread. Chance has a lot to do with this thread, It shows that without God, Chance does not do things for reasons, so no why.

You say Philosophy explains the why? At least to dang near all non theists. Good, for Philosophy. I will take those false or unprovable premises you spoke about. And calling them false or unprovable will be seen as “According to Joeyknuccione�

Am I to take your claims of biblical proofs to be "according to ken1burton"?

The OP is saying they are not asking about function, but the philosophical 'why' of the universe. I have previously admitted that the Bible has the 'why' for the theist, but not for the atheist. The OP specifically says:

i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

Therefore, I was writing to the OP, explaining how philosophy seeks to find these answers. Now you, ken1burton, may wish to disregard philosophy as I disregard the Bible, but I would be closer to correct as to the OP.

Of course you feel God is necessary to answer the question, but in your attempts to argue away from philosophy you have absolutely failed to prove why God is necessary to answer the question. Until you can prove God to be necessary to answer the question, you have not answered the question.

So let's have it. What is this profound proof you have that proves God is necessary to answer the question.

Why?

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

You insist on an apology? When I was young, I wanted a pony, Life has it’s disappointments. Did you figure out that means, you will not be getting what you want? You will not be getting what I think you do not deserve. You will not be getting what I think is not owed you in any way, shape, or form.

You decided you gave a good debate, You decided you proved your points, You decided you won the debate, You decided, you decided, you decided.
Why not go to a store which makes up the Plaques for awards, and have them inscripe one which says you won every debate at Debating Christianity.com Get a really fancy one to impress people.



You are happy with your performance? I would expect that. And you’ll let people judge for themselves? WHY? You already did the Judging. Based on your opinion of your performance.

You are asking that a mod intercede here? Why did you not ask for one before you declared you had given such great answers? Like a baby not being part of an abortion process.

A dictionary? Does a dictionary bleed when it is aborted? Does a pregnancy bleed when it is aborted? Just what is doing that bleeding?

pregnant according to the dictionary: (of a woman or female animal) Having a CHILD or YOUNG developing in the uterus. To abort a pregnancy is to abort a Child.

God has no intention of Judging you. Jesus was judged in our place, Found Guilty, and condemned to death. But I think you missed something. When someone has the power, They can do a lot of things. Adolf Hitler judged and condemned a lot of people, Saddam Hussein judged and condemned a lot of people.

You might find yourself being judged by someone who you do not think is in position to judge you. Might even be someone in your own family. And you might not like what that Judgment might effect in your life.

Friends, Family and loved ones judge us all the time. They are in position to judge us, and their judgment does not need to be fair, or even based on anything real. Other people we come in contact with, Often on the internet judge us also. And like it or not, those judgments do effect our lives in some form.

You have judged that I owe you an apology, I judged I do not in any way owe you a apology. We both were in that position to make that judgment. You judged yourself and was happy with your performance, Good, Live with it.

There is no grade level for heaven. Jesus took all our sins and rendered to mankind His righteousness, The locust might give you a hard time, Telling you of the Mercy and love of God whom you seem to like to insult. He has broad shoulders, No problem. And that little talk of their only takes five months, and what is that in the span of Eternal life?



Jester? Are you a moderator? I see nothing on the left. I would not think Guru means moderator.

I try not to make negative statements, But when what you write get called, Deceptive, Dishonest, Misleading, Mistaken, and Ridiculous. I might slip a bit.

And that does not even begin to take into consideration the negative comments being made about God and Jesus that are being said. If one does not believe in God, Calling Him as portrayed as a sexist, racist, homophobic, who endorses all of these bigotries? Serves what purpose? To insult anyone who believes in Him, Perhaps?

There are direct insults, and indirect insults. They all come out insults.


Joeyknuccione.

Please take my claims of Biblical proofs as “According to ken1burton�, If you want, You can use the references I often use to search out the concepts. But do not accept them without search. Know for sure if they are at least Scriptural or not. Then you can go from there.

I saw what the opening post said, and there is a “IF�

I see God AS NECESSARY to answer the question. As WHY implies a reason or purpose, And this is before what is called the Big Bang? So to paraphrase: “What was the Reason or purpose that the Big Bang started the Universe?�

You accept a philosophical answer? I do not think that philosophy can give a answer for the WHY, Maybe a HOW, not a WHY.

That “I would be closer� is you judging this point of debate, what does “Conflict of interest� say about such a statement?

When you say that I feel God is necessary to answer the question, That is not without my searching if there is a God or not. I can look at both sides of this world we live in, and question Chance, Evolution or God? I am not into blind faith. I have also gambled, I know about odds.

The odds of our form of life on earth, coming into existence, and surviving?, They just do not exist. Death would come in too fast after the life and kill it. Too many complex systems needed to get past the first day.

I have no problem with another life form evolving from non life, A Spirit form, More on an energy base, But not like our life on earth. One cell may seem very simple, Very complex is what they are.

Before they died, They would have to reproduce another life. Feed. Find something to eat? And if that means to manufacture food? Get rid of waste, have some form of body, etc. It is just not possible.

If I need PROFOUND proof that God is necessary, I guess you need PROFOUND proof on you philosophical answer, But forget it, An answer that makes sense is sufficient

Ken