danielsangeo

But, like the puddle analogy, there probably isn't a reason for the hole's existence, so, why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Why can't it just be "there"? Again, this presupposes an intelligent force of some sort that is not in evidence. I don't like to assume things that aren't in evidence and the atheists I've talked to (I've talked to a lot) aren't atheists because they misunderstand "god"...it's because they don't see any evidence of one. If you want to go Biblical, Thomas, Jesus' apostle, refused to believe that Jesus has been resurrected until he had evidence for himself. It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence: That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

Think of it like you're in a train. The train is going 50MPH (or about 80 KPH). You're at the back of the train. You move from the back of the train to the front of the train at a speed of 5MPH (about 8KPH). From the vantage point from outside the train, you are traveling at a speed of 55MPH (about 88KPH). But no human can walk at 55MPH/88KPH, right? That's similar to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate changes naturally, but there is evidence--conclusive evidence--that we are ADDING to the natural course of events (50+5=55). The atmosphere is "fricking huge", of course, but think of it like poison ivy. Poison ivy contains a substance called urushiol. 50 micrograms (about the size of a grain of table salt) will cause a rash in a great majority of people which could spread and impede on the daily functions of life for a while. A single drop of dimethylmercury, even on a gloved hand, will kill you. Just because something is "huge" doesn't mean that we can't have an effect.

I always like to go back to the puddle analogy that Douglas Adams proposed (paraphrased below): A puddle suddenly gains sentience. It looks around itself and says, "My, what a fortunate circumstance I find myself in. Oh, look at this hole! It's perfect for me. It follows my contours perfectly. Every single nook and cranny of myself is perfectly aligned with the hole." The puddle shudders at the realization and continues, "Why, it's almost like this hole was made especially for me. If any of the contours of this hole were off by a millimeter or it was rotated less than a degree, it wouldn't fit me at all. It's just too perfect to have happened by chance."

I'm just wondering how many pregnancies are aborted as a result of war.

[citation needed]

Thank you, Rover. I hate that word "proof" when talking about science. Science is not about proof; it's about evidence. And we have evidence that we are causing climate change that's in addition to what normally happens on this planet.

Dan-95: I know. That's why I was pulling this face: ThatSmartGuy: Action without purpose? What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

So, why can't we create our own purposes? This is what you posted. "Alleged purpose"? "Believing [your life has purpose] doesn't make it true"? Why not?

I think that climatologists take natural climate change into consideration when making their findings and their findings show that anthropogenic climate change (which is in addition to natural climate change) is happening. The mere existence of "natural climate change" (including "sunspots") does not mean that anthropegenic climate change is NOT happening.

Then what is "purpose"?

"If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of." This is where I take issue. "Purpose" is something we, as intelligent beings, create for ourselves. "Purpose" in the universe would posit an intelligent being or force for the creation of the universe....something not in evidence. One can have purpose in a purposeless world. It's not illogical.

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Why must there be a "why"? Why must there be a "purpose" for the universe?

I am not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just providing my views here, but simply saying that "religion solves everything" is a completely backwards way of looking at things. I can come up with just about anything to explain the unknown. I can say that the universe was sneezed out of a large dragon and that the end of reality would come in the form of a giant handkerchief (apologies to Douglas Adams). I can say that the entire universe was created to bring about the Dorito chip ("nacho cheesier!"). What is that light in the night sky? Aliens! The problem with using religion, in my view, to explain the unknown is that it can be anything. Again, not trying to start an argument. That's just how I feel.

I have no problem with people beliefs but I do find it curious why they have them if there's no evidence. I have never been able to believe something unless there was evidence beforehand. And, to me, "too complex" is an argument from ignorance and "purpose" is something we create for ourselves. Many of our top minds are working on the origin of the universe but there just isn't enough data to formulate a theory behind it. There are hypotheses galore, of course, but nothing that rises to "theory" yet. I'm just uncomfortable ascribing the unknown to a deity...but if it works for you, I'm happy.

My thoughts? They are "so invested in denying it" because they believe the rhetoric that "doing something about it" would mean loss of jobs, revenue, and would (somehow) destroy the country, that it's "just fearmongering", or that it's somehow completely political (read: "left wing") so it doesn't exist.

That's a bad study. I have so many comments about it that I don't even know where to begin....such as, did they study whether they were already violent beforehand? Or how about whether simply being "desensitized" to fictional violence makes you desensitized to real violence. I can only speak for myself but I know others are like me, but I've seen more than my share of gory and violent movies and played more than my share of gory and violent video games. I've watched Dead Alive, which ranks up as the goriest, most violent horror movie of all time (the lawnmower scene?), and it didn't affect me much. Have I been desensitized to fictional violence? Probably. But then, later, I saw a real life video of a truck driver getting pulled out of his truck by three people, and the three people began to beat the shit out of him...and that disturbed me to no end. You see worse on prime time television shows, so why did that bother me much more than the lawnmower scene? Because this was real life, not some special effect.

I personally don't see why logic should necessarily "impede" ethics or vice versa.

Any evidence of that?

There is evidence of common ancestry. It's not "theoretical" as you claim but evidenced. Really, you need to get educated on the subject before you speak further. I can't teach you the basics over a webforum; unless, of course, we draw up a contract and you start paying me for this education service.

Okay, so, does anyone else want a crack at providing evidence that evolution is false or that creationism is true?

Wait, I have to provide evidence of a creator? Or do I have to provide evidence there is no creator? You say you're a "philosopher"...but, at the moment, we are not talking about philosophy; we're talking about clearly defined facts. It's not that we're "dissing" philosophy, it's just that we're not on that subject at the moment. Trying to "change the subject" (as it were) is not conducive to a mature discussion. It's not any kind of reasoning if you cannot support one of the axioms. One of those unsupported axioms is "Every rule must have a creator" (and, by extension, every "creation" must have a "creator"...except for the original creator, of course). You just insist that this is self-evident when it's clearly not. And your video of Dawkins is grossly distorted because it leaves out all that was before it. Dawkins doesn't debate creationists generally because he doesn't want to take the time to educate them on very basic things. The pause you saw was not that he was "stumped" because he has already WRITTEN BOOKS on the question. The pause you saw was the realization that he had been duped into being interviewed by a creationist...then he stopped the recording. Then it started up again when he realized that there was no easy way to get out of the interview so tried his best to educate the interviewer.... on something he's already written books on. The video is just a blatantly gross misrepresentation and I thought you'd know better than that.... This has already been well debunked and even a cursory Google search would've told you that. I'm disappointed.

What ego! I'm sorry, but just because we make rules doesn't mean that ALL RULES have to be "created". You have to provide evidence of this creator. "It just has to be!" is not an argument. It is, again, a logical fallacy.

"Global cooling" has never been advocated in scientific circles. "Global cooling" is something the media misrepresented. Just sayin'... Regardless of the political mess that is coming from this, global warming remains a demonstrable fact and we'll have to address this problem. And I feel we are. It's just going to take time and these crackpots out there that do not provide any evidence but make false claims about global warming ("It's the sun!") aren't helping matters...

Why? Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist. So, someone just came along and commanded that magnets will attract each other at opposite poles and repulse each other at the same poles? Or how about if there's a salty reservoir next to a freshwater reservoir with a permeable membrane, the water equaling out to equilibrium....someone created a rule for that? Not all rules are "created". It's not logical. You are professing, once again, an argument from ignorance. Right. Rife with logical fallacies. What is? I don't understand. Please explain to me why all rules must be created.