Does the cosmos have a reason?

[Kafka]

And AGAIN just because I do t know the purpose that doesn't mean there isn't .purpose.

Did you not understand my point? I said that's fine! It's like saying that you believe in the possible presence of an invisible polka-dot elephant that lives in your backyard but cannot be detected by any means.

SURE it may be real, but you have no REASON to believe such a thing exists nor do you have a MOTIVATION to even propose the idea.

 

[Yakuda]

Did you not understand my point? I said that's fine! It's like saying that you believe in the possible presence of an invisible polka-dot elephant that lives in your backyard but cannot be detected by any means.

SURE it may be real, but you have no REASON to believe such a thing exists nor do you have a MOTIVATION to even propose the idea.

Yes I understand your drviel, it's just not relevant. The question is does the cosmos have a purpose? I answered "Yes". You don't like it. I wish it mattered

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A reason? Who knows? But it is interesting that something so well organized, where everything at the atomic level meshes together so well and that continues up the chain of reality, could happen entirely by random chance...

 

[Hume]

You nurse grudges really well. If only you were smarter.

troll

 

[goat]

A reason? Who knows? But it is interesting that something so well organized, where everything at the atomic level meshes together so well and that continues up the chain of reality, could happen entirely by random chance...

Humans are 90% star dust.

 

[Cypress]

And AGAIN just because I do t know the purpose that doesn't mean there isn't .purpose. You need to explain how the purpose of the universe of a giraffe is co contingent upon my knowledge of that purpose.

I think on topics like this it's best to frame the right questions, rather than presume we know the right answers.

Militant atheists will frequently insist humans are supposed to be omniscient and have an answer for everything.

But then they also try to assert the indulgent privilege of the skeptic: other people have to have the answers, but they don't have to have any answers of their own. They cannot give a credible and testable theory for how rational mathmatical organization and mathmatical properties sprung out of nothing.

 

[Kafka]

Yes I understand your drviel, it's just not relevant.

Wrong. It is EXTREMELY relevant. It gets to the heart of why the proposal is even a rational question.

The question is does the cosmos have a purpose? I answered "Yes". You don't like it. I wish it mattered

If you don't actually know why you think it has a purpose I cannot address any point since you are not making one. You are loudly proclaiming that you believe in things for no reason that you can figure out. That sounds weird to me.

 

[Kafka]

troll

Yet I'm providing more insightful commentary on this thread than you are. See the last couple of posts, troll.

 

[Hume]

Wrong. It is EXTREMELY relevant. It gets to the heart of why the proposal is even a rational question.



If you don't actually know why you think it has a purpose I cannot address any point since you are not making one. You are loudly proclaiming that you believe in things for no reason that you can figure out. That sounds weird to me.

troll

 

[Kafka]

Militant atheists

That's the stuff. Cypress really hates atheists.

will frequently insist humans are supposed to be omniscient and have an answer for everything.

No they don't. LOL. As an atheist I have said on NUMEROUS occasions that I am not even sure the question CAN be answered. It just serves no purpose to HYPOTHESIZE a creator/intelligence without any real evidence for or even need for.

May I ask why you misrepresent people so egregiously dishonestly?

But then they also try to assert the indulgent privilege of the skeptic: other people have to have the answers, but they don't have to have any answers of their own. They cannot give a credible and testable theory for how rational mathmatical organization and mathmatical properties sprung out of nothing.

Nor can you. But the difference is: those of us who don't know don't make up "just-so" stories to ease our discomfort with not knowing.

 

[Kafka]

troll

Funny. You call me a troll ON A POST WHERE I PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC . I think you don't really know what the word "troll" means unless you are simply identifying yourself and your post as trolling.

Stick to the topic, troll.

 

[Hume]

Funny. You call me a troll ON A POST WHERE I PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC . I think you don't really know what the word "troll" means unless you are simply identifying yourself and your post as trolling.

Stick to the topic, troll.

buzz off troll

 

[Cypress]

That's the stuff. Cypress really hates atheists.



No they don't. LOL. As an atheist I have said on NUMEROUS occasions that I am not even sure the question CAN be answered. It just serves no purpose to HYPOTHESIZE a creator/intelligence without any real evidence for or even need for.

May I ask why you misrepresent people so egregiously dishonestly?



Nor can you. But the difference is: those of us who don't know don't make up "just-so" stories to ease our discomfort with not knowing.

So you demand other people must have an explanation, but you reserve to yourself the privilege of saying you don't know

 

[Cypress]

buzz off troll

And ankle biter

 

[Hume]

And ankle biter

He's like Yakuda. Trolls you with insults then gets self-righteous when you point it out.

 

[Yakuda]

Wrong. It is EXTREMELY relevant. It gets to the heart of why the proposal is even a rational question.



If you don't actually know why you think it has a purpose I cannot address any point since you are not making one. You are loudly proclaiming that you believe in things for no reason that you can figure out. That sounds weird to me.

No I'm correct. It's irrelevant

Why I think the cosmos has a purpose is a different question than does the cosmos have a purpose. The question of this thread is the latter question not the former.

 

[Kafka]

So you demand other people must have an explanation

Sigh. Your poor reading skills always catch me off guard. I keep forgetting how you can't really reason yourself out of a paper bag.

I do NOT demand others have a reason for the cosmos, but rather I suggest they have a REASON FOR BELIEF in any given hypothesis.

I know you can't possibly understand this as it is really subtle (not really)

, but you reserve to yourself the privilege of saying you don't know

Not at all. I'm quite fine if someone says "I don't know" but to suggest it means that there's a possibility of an intelligence or any other CHARACTERISTICS is pointless navel gazing. It brings nothing meaningful to the table (for reasons already discussed) and it have no evidence for it.

Honestly I wish JUST ONCE you would read my posts and actually THINK about what I'm saying instead of just seeing my name and getting pissed off and shouting at me.

 

[Kafka]

No I'm correct. It's irrelevant

Only if you don't know why believe in something.

Why I think the cosmos has a purpose is a different question than does the cosmos have a purpose. The question of this thread is the latter question not the former.

No it's not. That's a simplistic dodge. LOL. Not even worthy of you.

 

[Kafka]

And ankle biter

ankle biter who has taken down more than one of YOUR points. LOL. Guess your points aren't very strong.

 

[Kafka]

buzz off troll

Yet more trolling. unlike me you are not providing any insight into the topic. Please stay on topic, troll.