Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI take it cause Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms bonded at an early stage of the universe.
No, I mean this question: So, why does water exist?
🙄
I guess that's probably it. I am sure there's tons of literature on that. What has it got to do with your stupid "it exists because it exists" though?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo. I will not. I will come to a point where I have to say I do not know. I can then proceed to accept that it is that way or do not. At no point will I come to a conclusion that the universe is that way because it is that way.
Yes. Let us narrow the field; why is Hydrogen? You will eventually come to a point were the only answer is, because the universe is that way.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. Let us narrow the field; why is Hydrogen? You will eventually come to a point were the only answer is, because the universe is that way.
not if you follow proper scientific methodology
the "why" in the way you are asking it is simply a linguistic trap. Its like "why is up, up" or "why does a C note sound like a C". You are making grammatically proper sentences that have no semantic value whatsoever, much like "what is the sound of one hand clapping".
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I will not. I will come to a point where I have to say I do not know. I can then proceed to accept that it is that way or do not. At no point will I come to a conclusion that the universe is that way because it is that way.
Some things are impossible to know. Those things that are impossible to know are the way they are because they are that way.
Originally posted by inimalist
not if you follow proper scientific methodologythe "why" in the way you are asking it is simply a linguistic trap. Its like "why is up, up" or "why does a C note sound like a C". You are making grammatically proper sentences that have no semantic value whatsoever, much like "what is the sound of one hand clapping".
That was the point I was trying to make a few pages back. To ask why are we here in this part of the universe, is like asking "why does a C note sound like a C". I was hoping that Bardock42 would get it on his own.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was the point I was trying to make a few pages back. To ask why are we here in this part of the universe, is like asking "why does a C note sound like a C". I was hoping that Bardock42 would get it on his own.
I don't think he missed that point, but instead answered the question in the only reasonable way it could be.
The "some things are impossible to know and therefore are just that way" is more the sentiment I was trying to address.
Things that fall under the "unknowable" or "are just that way" categories, to me, are more often linguistic tricks. The only reason that "why are we here" is unknowable is because the "why" is being used to ask a question to which there is no answer. "Why do unicorns only have one horn when 2 would have been better for evolution?" could be a question that would support intelligent design of unicorns. Just because "why" fits in front of the sentence grammatically does not mean that it does semantically.
To ask "why" in this way, presumes that there is some larger motivation to existence that is unfounded. An infinite number of unanswerable questions can be generated from a position of an unfounded premise.
no i think i get what shaky means. the mechanics of HOW the street got wet are not the same as to the PURPOSE of the street getting wet. purpose exists depending on perspective. to think that any ONE purpose given to an event is the actual true purpose is wrong, because, it wud depend entirely on the point of view of the observer, and without the perspective of the observer, such a purpose doesnt exist.{i.e all we know if that the street got wet. and we also know how it got wet depending on physical or statistical or psychological models of the behaviour of molecules around the area. but WHY it got wet wud inevitably bring in certain constant and ethnocentric perspectives into it}.
basically, there is no such thing as purpose outside of our perceptions and perspectives, things either happen or they do not.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think he missed that point, but instead answered the question in the only reasonable way it could be.The "some things are impossible to know and therefore are just that way" is more the sentiment I was trying to address.
Things that fall under the "unknowable" or "are just that way" categories, to me, are more often linguistic tricks. The only reason that "why are we here" is unknowable is because the "why" is being used to ask a question to which there is no answer. "Why do unicorns only have one horn when 2 would have been better for evolution?" could be a question that would support intelligent design of unicorns. Just because "why" fits in front of the sentence grammatically does not mean that it does semantically.
To ask "why" in this way, presumes that there is some larger motivation to existence that is unfounded. An infinite number of unanswerable questions can be generated from a position of an unfounded premise.
I am in complete agreement with you, and Bardock42 is never reasonable . That is why I have to treat him like I was handling a viper.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no i think i get what shaky means. the mechanics of HOW the street got wet are not the same as to the PURPOSE of the street getting wet. purpose exists depending on perspective. to think that any ONE purpose given to an event is the actual true purpose is wrong, because, it wud depend entirely on the point of view of the observer, and without the perspective of the observer, such a purpose doesnt exist.{i.e all we know if that the street got wet. and we also know how it got wet depending on physical or statistical or psychological models of the behaviour of molecules around the area. but WHY it got wet wud inevitably bring in certain constant and ethnocentric perspectives into it}.basically, there is no such thing as purpose outside of our perceptions and perspectives, things either happen or they do not.
Yes, that was the path I was directing Bardock42 down.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo. They are the way they are for a reason we don't know or can't know.
Some things are impossible to know. Those things that are impossible to know are the way they are because they are that way.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThe problem is you are not socrates. You are an idiot with a scholar complex. You are no intelligent and did not make a reasonable point. You said something stupid to sound enlightened you do that a lot.
That was the point I was trying to make a few pages back. To ask why are we here in this part of the universe, is like asking "why does a C note sound like a C". I was hoping that Bardock42 would get it on his own.
Proof of that is that the intelligent inimalist agreed with me, while the moron leonheart "got" what you said. Everyone that can read got what you said, it was just dumb. You are not buddha my friend, you are an idiot.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. They are the way they are for a reason we don't know or can't know.
Bull shit. There is no answer to the question to why is the Earth is just right for life other then because here is were life can be.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is you are not socrates. You are an idiot with a scholar complex. You are no intelligent and did not make a reasonable point. You said something stupid to sound enlightened you do that a lot.Proof of that is that the intelligent inimalist agreed with me, while the moron leonheart "got" what you said. Everyone that can read got what you said, it was just dumb. You are not buddha my friend, you are an idiot.
Inimalist saw the answer, and stated it. I think you were too involved with insulting me in a way you could get away with instead of thinking. Then you went off into some lala land, so I followed you.
BTW leonheart is not a moron. He has problems with his writings and he is young, but he is very intelligent.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bull shit. There is no answer to the question to why is the Earth is just right for life other then because here is were life can be.
That is your philosophy. There is no reason why it should be that way though. We know that most things in this world have a cause. It is true that here is life because life can be here. But to make that the only answer is stupid as it does not answer the question fully. You try to take an easy way out to appear smart. Man, you are not wise, or in any way special and enlightened. Just realize that most things are too complex for you to ever understand.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Inimalist saw the answer, and stated it. I think you were too involved with insulting me in a way you could get away with instead of thinking. Then you went off into some lala land, so I followed you.
Just because you claim that what inimalist said is your point doesn't mean that was what you said. I may point you to this quote: "I don't think he missed that point, but instead answered the question in the only reasonable way it could be."
For the record you are a ****ing idiot, please be embarrassed about your blatant stupidity now.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW leonheart is not a moron. He has problems with his writings and he is young, but he is very intelligent.
No
^thanku.
bardock your starting to sound like zeal.
and really, seeing as you are so intelligent n all bardock, try and give me one single uniform unbiased reason for why candy is sweet? that and no other view wud be the actual/real reason and all others wud be interpretations BASED of itt. go on im waiting.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is your philosophy. There is no reason why it should be that way though. We know that most things in this world have a cause. It is true that here is life because life can be here. But to make that the only answer is stupid as it does not answer the question fully. You try to take an easy way out to appear smart. Man, you are not wise, or in any way special and enlightened. Just realize that most things are too complex for you to ever understand.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
When a question has no answer; what’s the difference between an incomplete answer to a bogus question and a complete answer to a bogus question? I have already told you that the question was silly. I am not going to quibble over the answer to a silly question. I guess I didn’t make that clear.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just because you claim that what inimalist said is your point doesn't mean that was what you said. I may point you to this quote: "I don't think he missed that point, but instead answered the question in the only reasonable way it could be."
And if you had made the same conclusion that inimalist had made I would have agreed with you. However, just because someone else gives you the benefit of doubt or believe you are right, does not mean I can draw that same conclusion. I need more proof that you are following me, and as soon as you resort to insults, I become convinced that you are lost.
Originally posted by Bardock42
For the record you are a ****ing idiot, please be embarrassed about your blatant stupidity now.
Is your self esteem so low that you have to have the people around you lower then you?
Originally posted by Bardock42
No
I hope you forgive me for not considering your opinion on that.
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Playing the Planet earth video game...?
Answers all your questions.