Will science ever wipe out organized religion?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You painted yourself into a corner here. You are obviously in the wrong and should give up.

I've painted myself into a corner and am in the wrong because you've made a misguided personal attack against me because you refuse to elaborate on your argument of how evolution (not science you said, but evolution specifically) answers the age-old human question of WHY? I suppose I can understand why you'd want to keep it under wraps. I mean... wow as soon as you publish you're certain to win the Nobel Prize!

Give up. You've been exposed. Anyone can go back through the painfully bad arguments you made, the way you twisted and turned through "por que" and all the other bullshit. Of course evolution explains why we are here... because of the operation of evolutionary principles. I made no misguided attack; you really are a quasi-mystical religious nutjob. It is not a personal attack to point out that you are religious based on your own statements.

Exposed for what? That you're an ignorant pseudoscientist who wrongly thinks that science can answer all of life's questions? And you're so upset that I attacked your precious faith that you had to make a personal attack against me here?

"Because of the operation of evolutionary principles"? What kind of closed-loop logic is that? That's no different than some fundie proving the Bible using the Bible. Should one use those "evolutionary principles" in order to find guidance in his life? :roll:

I can't be a pseudoscientist, as I never claimed to be a scientist and don't practice pseudoscience. You are playing the stupid game "refuse to admit you're wrong". I also specifically said that science cannot answer all of life's questions, and that no scientist would claim that it does. I have no precious faith. I have pointed out repeatedly that you do, and successfully at that. Keep twisting and turning, Vic! I'm enjoying this.

Why should I admit I'm wrong when I haven't been proven wrong?

BTW, why don't you answer my question? You said that evolution answers the age-old human question of why. Then you backpedal that "science cannot answer all of life's questions." So which is it?

I suggest you seek treatment for your ignorance at your nearest library or similar place of learning.

edit: btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You painted yourself into a corner here. You are obviously in the wrong and should give up.

I've painted myself into a corner and am in the wrong because you've made a misguided personal attack against me because you refuse to elaborate on your argument of how evolution (not science you said, but evolution specifically) answers the age-old human question of WHY? I suppose I can understand why you'd want to keep it under wraps. I mean... wow as soon as you publish you're certain to win the Nobel Prize!

Give up. You've been exposed. Anyone can go back through the painfully bad arguments you made, the way you twisted and turned through "por que" and all the other bullshit. Of course evolution explains why we are here... because of the operation of evolutionary principles. I made no misguided attack; you really are a quasi-mystical religious nutjob. It is not a personal attack to point out that you are religious based on your own statements.

Exposed for what? That you're an ignorant pseudoscientist who wrongly thinks that science can answer all of life's questions? And you're so upset that I attacked your precious faith that you had to make a personal attack against me here?

"Because of the operation of evolutionary principles"? What kind of closed-loop logic is that? That's no different than some fundie proving the Bible using the Bible. Should one use those "evolutionary principles" in order to find guidance in his life? :roll:

I can't be a pseudoscientist, as I never claimed to be a scientist and don't practice pseudoscience. You are playing the stupid game "refuse to admit you're wrong". I also specifically said that science cannot answer all of life's questions, and that no scientist would claim that it does. I have no precious faith. I have pointed out repeatedly that you do, and successfully at that. Keep twisting and turning, Vic! I'm enjoying this.

Why should I admit I'm wrong when I haven't been proven wrong?

BTW, why don't you answer my question? You said that evolution answers the age-old human question of why. Then you backpedal that "science cannot answer all of life's questions." So which is it?

I suggest you seek treatment for your ignorance at your nearest library or similar place of learning.

Stupid. The question of why we are here is only one of life's questions, not all of life's questions. I didn't backpedal. You should admit you were wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You painted yourself into a corner here. You are obviously in the wrong and should give up.

I've painted myself into a corner and am in the wrong because you've made a misguided personal attack against me because you refuse to elaborate on your argument of how evolution (not science you said, but evolution specifically) answers the age-old human question of WHY? I suppose I can understand why you'd want to keep it under wraps. I mean... wow as soon as you publish you're certain to win the Nobel Prize!

Give up. You've been exposed. Anyone can go back through the painfully bad arguments you made, the way you twisted and turned through "por que" and all the other bullshit. Of course evolution explains why we are here... because of the operation of evolutionary principles. I made no misguided attack; you really are a quasi-mystical religious nutjob. It is not a personal attack to point out that you are religious based on your own statements.

Exposed for what? That you're an ignorant pseudoscientist who wrongly thinks that science can answer all of life's questions? And you're so upset that I attacked your precious faith that you had to make a personal attack against me here?

"Because of the operation of evolutionary principles"? What kind of closed-loop logic is that? That's no different than some fundie proving the Bible using the Bible. Should one use those "evolutionary principles" in order to find guidance in his life? :roll:

I can't be a pseudoscientist, as I never claimed to be a scientist and don't practice pseudoscience. You are playing the stupid game "refuse to admit you're wrong". I also specifically said that science cannot answer all of life's questions, and that no scientist would claim that it does. I have no precious faith. I have pointed out repeatedly that you do, and successfully at that. Keep twisting and turning, Vic! I'm enjoying this.

Why should I admit I'm wrong when I haven't been proven wrong?

BTW, why don't you answer my question? You said that evolution answers the age-old human question of why. Then you backpedal that "science cannot answer all of life's questions." So which is it?

I suggest you seek treatment for your ignorance at your nearest library or similar place of learning.

Stupid. The question of why we are here is only one of life's questions, not all of life's questions. I didn't backpedal. You should admit you were wrong.

btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

See bolded. That statement indicates to me that Vic doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense, but as a part of one's self.

No, it means that he believes that when one prays to God one may be praying to one's self; it does not mean that he is not religious. Gimme a break! Learn to read a little better, and quit defending the scumbag. He doesn't argue honestly.

Nothing from that post of Vic indicates to me that he believes in God in the traditional sense. He was specifically replying to a post by Red Dawn asking what was meant by the term "God."

Honestly, I would suggest you read (especially in context) before telling others they need to try harder. Your hard-on for Vic is typical fundie behavior you see by the religious you hate.

You must be his friend... how nice. However, you are also making a boob of yourself here. I never said he was traditionally religious; in fact I have several times talked about his quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo etc., a clear indication that I think he is non-traditionally religious. When one posts things like "There is only one God, regardless of what names you choose to give Him ... I believe that the true nature of God is that He is apart of us and we are apart of Him. That a part of God exists (or is capable of existing) in each one of us. Most Christians would refer to this as the presence of the Holy Spirit", there is only one possible conclusion.

He was directly responding to Red asking what God was. And the simple fact is, when you say the word "God," the vernacular refers to exactly what he was talking about. Saying Gods, gods, or god have completely different implications.

And why not compare it to something that many people are familiar with?

And honestly, if anyone is making a boob out of himself, it's you. Taking a step back, you've:
-Never supported your theory on evolution answering why
-Resort to insults for anyone that dares say something positive about Vic
-Take posts out of context

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

Really, I did? Which is why the Spanish example I gave for clarity matched EXACTLY the English dictionary definition that you linked to, right? Text

What you've been seeking is how. Science, I have always found, answers that particular question wonderfully. Unfortunately, it tends to be not so good at why.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

See bolded. That statement indicates to me that Vic doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense, but as a part of one's self.

No, it means that he believes that when one prays to God one may be praying to one's self; it does not mean that he is not religious. Gimme a break! Learn to read a little better, and quit defending the scumbag. He doesn't argue honestly.

Nothing from that post of Vic indicates to me that he believes in God in the traditional sense. He was specifically replying to a post by Red Dawn asking what was meant by the term "God."

Honestly, I would suggest you read (especially in context) before telling others they need to try harder. Your hard-on for Vic is typical fundie behavior you see by the religious you hate.

You must be his friend... how nice. However, you are also making a boob of yourself here. I never said he was traditionally religious; in fact I have several times talked about his quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo etc., a clear indication that I think he is non-traditionally religious. When one posts things like "There is only one God, regardless of what names you choose to give Him ... I believe that the true nature of God is that He is apart of us and we are apart of Him. That a part of God exists (or is capable of existing) in each one of us. Most Christians would refer to this as the presence of the Holy Spirit", there is only one possible conclusion.

He was directly responding to Red asking what God was. And the simple fact is, when you say the word "God," the vernacular refers to exactly what he was talking about. Saying Gods, gods, or god have completely different implications.

And why not compare it to something that many people are familiar with?

And honestly, if anyone is making a boob out of himself, it's you. Taking a step back, you've:
-Never supported your theory on evolution answering why
-Resort to insults for anyone that dares say something positive about Vic
-Take posts out of context

You are using particularly weaselling tactics here, by failing to admit the absolutely obvious. There is NO WAY to take this so out of context as to rob it of its meaning: "There is only one God, regardless of what names you choose to give Him ... I believe that the true nature of God is that He is apart of us and we are apart of Him. That a part of God exists (or is capable of existing) in each one of us. Most Christians would refer to this as the presence of the Holy Spirit".

1. Go read an article on evolution
2. Not merely resorted to insults, also pointed out how you (two) were wrong
3. No

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

Dude, you are deeply confused. I shall name you Backpedalus Maximus under the Linnaeus system.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

Dude, you are deeply confused. I shall name you Backpedalus Maximus under the Linnaeus system.

Repeating something doesn't make it true. You are saying this because I originally pointed out your backpedalling tactics. The definition is right in front of your face, and it is true.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

Dude, you are deeply confused. I shall name you Backpedalus Maximus under the Linnaeus system.

Repeating something doesn't make it true. You are saying this because I originally pointed out your backpedalling tactics. The definition is right in front of your face, and it is true.

I never backpedaled. I'm glad however that it is clear and out in the open that the reason for all of this is because you don't understand the simple differences in definition between how and why.

You've made yourself look like a superstar here. Keep up the ignorant trolling. Please.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

No, you don't have two out of three. Evolution is how we came about after the Big Bang. So for what reason did the Big Bang occur and what triggered it to happen? That would be the Why.

Again, it does not cover the cause of our existance (again, what happened before the Big Bang for the universe to come into existence, IE what was the cause of the Universe coming into existence). It simply covers the cause of our existence coming about after the Big Bang and eventually our evolution to current status.

IMHO, the truest answer (as of right now) to why we exist is simply because we do. Evolution does not answer it. Science is trying to answer it using the available knowledge we have, but we're still a long way off from getting an answer from science.

I'm perfectly ready for science to tell me why the big bang occurred. We simply don't know right now, and we exist simply because we do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

No, you don't have two out of three. Evolution is how we came about after the Big Bang. So for what reason did the Big Bang occur and what triggered it to happen? That would be the Why.

Again, it does not cover the cause of our existance (again, what happened before the Big Bang for the universe to come into existence, IE what was the cause of the Universe coming into existence). It simply covers the cause of our existence coming about after the Big Bang and eventually our evolution to current status.

IMHO, the truest answer to why we exist is simply because we do. Evolution does not answer it. Science is trying to answer it using the available knowledge we have, but we're still a long way off from getting an answer from science.

I'm perfectly ready for science to tell me why the big bang occurred. We simply don't know right now, and we exist simply because we do.

Science doesn't answer that question. According to Stephen Hawking, it would be (and I quote) like asking "What's north of the North Pole?"

Why is a personal question. The answer is IMO, you find your own answer and there is no wrong answer. Just like how we exist because we exist, what we make of our existence is what we make of it.

Only someone with devout religious views (or religious-type views) or who is otherwise trying to control you would tell you that there is a definitive answer to the age-old Why.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Vic
I never backpedaled. I'm glad however that it is clear and out in the open that the reason for all of this is because you don't understand the simple differences in definition between how and why.

You've made yourself look like a superstar here. Keep up the ignorant trolling. Please.

Of course you did. You've made yourself look like a loser. I have not trolled before and never will. You may want to refer back to the English definition of the word "why", where it discusses causation.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Vic
btw, I made it extremely clear from the start of this little tirade of yours that why is not how. That's why I mentioned the Spanish translation of why (por que) in order to clear up any possible misconception (as it already seemed that you were quite confused about that). I never once questioned that evolution can tell us how we got here.

You definitely backpedaled.

We may go into an infinite loop here, due to your intellectual decrepitude. You mentioned "por que" in an attempt to divorce the word "why" of its standard English interpretation. Why are we here? Because of the operation of evolutionary and other principles of the physical world. Did I stutter? Evolution tells you why we got here-- if you don't discount it due to a religious bias.

By your own link to the definition, it included the following:
"for what reason, cause, or purpose"

Evolution clearly explains how. But evolution is the purpose of us being here? Evolution is our cause? Evolution is the reason for which we exist? No. Evolution is simply how we came about.

Two out of three ain't bad. Notice the "or". Reason and cause are both covered. It explains the reason for our existence-- the operation of physical phenomena-- and also obviously covers the causation of our existence (ditto). To presuppose a preexisting purpose for our existence is to presuppose a creator, and I know you're not about to do that. And Vic would never, ever do something like that... oh, no. :disgust:

No, you don't have two out of three. Evolution is how we came about after the Big Bang. So for what reason did the Big Bang occur and what triggered it to happen? That would be the Why.

Again, it does not cover the cause of our existance (again, what happened before the Big Bang for the universe to come into existence, IE what was the cause of the Universe coming into existence). It simply covers the cause of our existence coming about after the Big Bang and eventually our evolution to current status.

IMHO, the truest answer (as of right now) to why we exist is simply because we do. Evolution does not answer it. Science is trying to answer it using the available knowledge we have, but we're still a long way off from getting an answer from science.

I'm perfectly ready for science to tell me why the big bang occurred. We simply don't know right now, and we exist simply because we do.

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

On the contrary, I've done anything but fail to understand that causation occurs in the chain. You've either failed to understand or chosen to ignore that if it is a chain, it had to begin somewhere.

If all of causation occurs in a chain, you are simply deciding a convenient place on the chain to start from to answer why. On the other hand, I'm requiring that the start of the chain be able to be identified to completely answer why.

Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And finding the cause of the Big Bang would indeed explain how it came about, but it would in no way explain why the cause of the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang was specifically used because it's our best guess at a starting point of the chain so far.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

On the contrary, I've done anything but fail to understand that causation occurs in the chain. You've either failed to understand or chosen to ignore that if it is a chain, it had to begin somewhere.

If all of causation occurs in a chain, you are simply deciding a convenient place on the chain to start from to answer why. On the other hand, I'm requiring that the start of the chain be able to be identified to completely answer why.

Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And finding the cause of the Big Bang would indeed explain how it came about, but it would in no way explain why the cause of the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang was specifically used because it's our best guess at a starting point of the chain so far.

Just another of your minor failings: you say that if we know why the Big Bang occurred, we will know why the human race came about. Notice anything missing?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And another: when you go to the store, this also occurs as part of the chain of events starting with/just before the Big Bang. By your standards, to answer the question of why you went to the store, because we have an imperfect understanding of the origins of the cosmos, you would be forced to answer, "I don't really know." And that would be the only correct answer to every such question asked by anyone, in your world.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

On the contrary, I've done anything but fail to understand that causation occurs in the chain. You've either failed to understand or chosen to ignore that if it is a chain, it had to begin somewhere.

If all of causation occurs in a chain, you are simply deciding a convenient place on the chain to start from to answer why. On the other hand, I'm requiring that the start of the chain be able to be identified to completely answer why.

Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And finding the cause of the Big Bang would indeed explain how it came about, but it would in no way explain why the cause of the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang was specifically used because it's our best guess at a starting point of the chain so far.

Just another of your minor failings: you say that if we know why the Big Bang occurred, we will know why the human race came about. Notice anything missing?

In what sense?

Going back to the "chain," if we're saying BB is the start, and human existence is the end, obviously everything in the middle. What's your point? Obviously it's inferred that everything in the middle (including evolution). AKA How.

If you're talking about finding a link before the Big Bang, to go back to the chain again, obviously it had to start somewhere. We're always striving to find the start.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ
Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And another: when you go to the store, this also occurs as part of the chain of events starting with/just before the Big Bang. By your standards, to answer the question of why you went to the store, because we have an imperfect understanding of the origins of the cosmos, you would be forced to answer, "I don't really know." And that would be the only correct answer to every such question asked by anyone, in your world.

I knew you were going to bring this up. Very predictable. I should've answered it in the original post, but oh well. The difference is, going back to the BB is not fundamentally important to understand why I'm going to the store. To understand why we exist, it is fundamentally important to understand the entire process of creation. Evolution would be the correct answer to why if the question asked was "why do we exist in the universe itself," implying that the creation of the universe (the start of the chain) is not fundamentally important.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

On the contrary, I've done anything but fail to understand that causation occurs in the chain. You've either failed to understand or chosen to ignore that if it is a chain, it had to begin somewhere.

If all of causation occurs in a chain, you are simply deciding a convenient place on the chain to start from to answer why. On the other hand, I'm requiring that the start of the chain be able to be identified to completely answer why.

Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And finding the cause of the Big Bang would indeed explain how it came about, but it would in no way explain why the cause of the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang was specifically used because it's our best guess at a starting point of the chain so far.

Just another of your minor failings: you say that if we know why the Big Bang occurred, we will know why the human race came about. Notice anything missing?

In what sense?

Going back to the "chain," if we're saying BB is the start, and human existence is the end, obviously everything in the middle. What's your point? Obviously it's inferred that everything in the middle (including evolution). AKA How.

If you're talking about finding a link before the Big Bang, to go back to the chain again, obviously it had to start somewhere. We're always striving to find the start.

The universe could have existed without us... in fact it did, for a long time. Creating a universe does not imply the creation of the human race. Hence just talking about the Big Bang is not the whole picture, no matter how you look at it. In fact, even a theist would likely not view these as the same question: their God would not have the same reasons for creating the universe and creating people.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ
Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And another: when you go to the store, this also occurs as part of the chain of events starting with/just before the Big Bang. By your standards, to answer the question of why you went to the store, because we have an imperfect understanding of the origins of the cosmos, you would be forced to answer, "I don't really know." And that would be the only correct answer to every such question asked by anyone, in your world.

I knew you were going to bring this up. Very predictable. I should've answered it in the original post, but oh well. The difference is, going back to the BB is not fundamentally important to understand why I'm going to the store. To understand why we exist, it is fundamentally important to understand the entire process of creation. Evolution would be the correct answer to why if the question asked was "why do we exist in the universe itself," implying that the creation of the universe (the start of the chain) is not fundamentally important.

And in the same way, going back to the BB is not fundamentally important to understand why we exist. The movement of large amounts of plasma etc. does not really have much to do with the human condition or how the human race arose. The human race arose a good deal of time after the Big Bang, as well. I can as easily and truly argue that to understand why you went to the store, it is fundamentally important to understand the entire cosmology of the universe.

We cannot exist anywhere but in the universe.

If it were so predictable you would not have slipped up.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

You are correctly identifying this as your opinion, but you are taking an incorrect view of causation. Evolution (which Vic mischaracterizes as his opponents' "be-all-end-all") explains why we came to be, just as you can answer "Why did you go to the store?" without going into how your parents came to meet, the behavior of cavemen during the Ice Age, and eventually the Big Bang. In other words, you have failed completely to understand that all of causation occurs in a chain. Obviously I never said that evolution explained the genesis of the universe-- just our genesis.

You are also conflating "how" and "why" in the way that Vic finds so infuriating. Finding the causation for the Big Bang would tell you both how the universe came about, and why it came about (if it were proven to be due to purely physical phenomena, and there are plausible although unproven theories for this).

On the contrary, I've done anything but fail to understand that causation occurs in the chain. You've either failed to understand or chosen to ignore that if it is a chain, it had to begin somewhere.

If all of causation occurs in a chain, you are simply deciding a convenient place on the chain to start from to answer why. On the other hand, I'm requiring that the start of the chain be able to be identified to completely answer why.

Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And finding the cause of the Big Bang would indeed explain how it came about, but it would in no way explain why the cause of the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang was specifically used because it's our best guess at a starting point of the chain so far.

Just another of your minor failings: you say that if we know why the Big Bang occurred, we will know why the human race came about. Notice anything missing?

In what sense?

Going back to the "chain," if we're saying BB is the start, and human existence is the end, obviously everything in the middle. What's your point? Obviously it's inferred that everything in the middle (including evolution). AKA How.

If you're talking about finding a link before the Big Bang, to go back to the chain again, obviously it had to start somewhere. We're always striving to find the start.

The universe could have existed without us... in fact it did, for a long time. Creating a universe does not imply the creation of the human race. Hence just talking about the Big Bang is not the whole picture, no matter how you look at it. In fact, even a theist would likely not view these as the same question: their God would not have the same reasons for creating the universe and creating people.

Sure the universe existed without us. This doesn't change the fact that in our current incarnation, it seems we need the universe to exist.

And just talking about the Big Bang is of course not the whole picture. But it is definitely part of it, aka part of why we exist.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BigJ
Your example with the question of "Why I am going to store" is simply answered because it implies an understanding of the events leading up to the situation. The question of "why we exist" and having evolution as an answer would imply that we understand all the events starting from the beginning up until evolution. This is simply not the case.

And another: when you go to the store, this also occurs as part of the chain of events starting with/just before the Big Bang. By your standards, to answer the question of why you went to the store, because we have an imperfect understanding of the origins of the cosmos, you would be forced to answer, "I don't really know." And that would be the only correct answer to every such question asked by anyone, in your world.

I knew you were going to bring this up. Very predictable. I should've answered it in the original post, but oh well. The difference is, going back to the BB is not fundamentally important to understand why I'm going to the store. To understand why we exist, it is fundamentally important to understand the entire process of creation. Evolution would be the correct answer to why if the question asked was "why do we exist in the universe itself," implying that the creation of the universe (the start of the chain) is not fundamentally important.

And in the same way, going back to the BB is not fundamentally important to understand why we exist. The movement of large amounts of plasma etc. does not really have much to do with the human condition or how the human race arose. The human race arose a good deal of time after the Big Bang, as well. I can as easily and truly argue that to understand why you went to the store, it is fundamentally important to understand the entire cosmology of the universe.

We cannot exist anywhere but in the universe.

If it were so predictable you would not have slipped up.

Actually it was that predictable, I just didn't feel like addressing it.

You admit that the universe is a fundamental part of our existence in the universe. Since we cannot exist anywhere but in the universe, it is fundamentally part of why we exist.

And I would argue that the activity of the universe before we existed is a large and fundamental part of how we exist in our current form. There is no telling what would have become of our existence if even a small amount of activity didn't occur.