I
IWantGod
Guest
Then why make claims about what i am saying if you don’t know what is meant by a metaphysical possibility?
Last edited:
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
I never made that claim.
I
IWantGod
Guest
That is not what i meant either.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Could you explain what you do mean? Now, I’m confused again.
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
I don’t think so. In mathematics and in every axiomatically based system there is only one “why” kind of question: “why these axioms and why not other ones?”. And the answer: “why not?” . Axioms can be arbitrarily chosen, and the system is either useful or not.
And remember: the “system” is not necessarily limited to science. Chess, for example is an axiomatic system, where the axioms are rules of the game. Could they be different? Certainly, and they changed during the ages. There is no specific “why” for them.
B
Bradskii
Guest
“many atheists would prefer an explanation that would reduce goal directed activity to being nothing more than the end result of a blind natural process”.Bradskii:
I never made that claim.
You think the people picked up stones as a goal directed activity. Fighting off animals. They didn’t. It was just a blind natural process. And it’s just that in some circumstances it comes in handy and helps them survive.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
If i throw a stone at an attacker, it is clear that i am throwing it for the goal of fending off a threat.
Are you really in so much denial that you cannot see that? It is strange that i even have to argue a case for goal directed activity. It’s self-evident.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Does a crystal growing in a solution have a goal? Does a star going supernova have a goal? And does a goal always imply intent? Does a spring have intent to form a stream that will end up at the sea?
I
IWantGod
Guest
No. It is clear that it is a blind natural process
No. It is clear that it is a blind natural process
If you act for a goal then it should be self-evident to you as it is to me that you have an intent towards that goal, unless you are mentally ill.
No. It is clear that it is a blind natural process
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
You’re division of goals seems self serving and artificial, and meant to win an argument. It seems to have absolutely no utility.
I
IWantGod
Guest
How could i be self serving and artificial if my activity is a blind natural process?
Lool. It seems that your intent is to make me laugh, but i fear that you were being entirely serious.
But i guess that’s what happens when you take things for granted and are not critical enough to see a distinction between goal directed activity and blind natural activity.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
And here you go building an artificial wall. I simply don’t buy into dualism, or into the underlying fake morality argument you’re making, whether you openly admit it or not. I think blind natural forces can ultimately produce intelligence. I simply do not accept your false dilemma in the slightest.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Then don’t. Just don’t expect me to think that you are being rational or have a reasonable doubt.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I don’t care whether you think I’m rational. I think I am, and furthermore at least I state my views, instead of making insinuations. I find your debating style pretty darned dishonest, and extraordinarily arrogant and dismissive. Enjoy believing you have some special observation point on which to judge me. That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.
B
Bradskii
Guest
As I said earlier, you just need to delve a little deeper.Bradskii:
If i throw a stone at an attacker, it is clear that i am throwing it for the goal of fending off a threat.
Are you really in so much denial that you cannot see that? It is strange that i even have to argue a case for goal directed activity. It’s self-evident.
What you are doing throwing stones is acting aggressively. In some cases, that will make matters worse. In some cases it may improve your chances of survival. Maybe it’s best to run away. All those options were developed as a part of a blind, natural process.
As was the avoidance of pain. As was fear. All natural processes. All blind to any purpose.
You say that throwing stones serves a purpose - to survive. But you annoy the lion and it eats you, then throwing stones served no purpose whatsoever. Maybe shouting at it would work. Or walking up to it and slapping it. Or ignoring it.
You can only infer a beneficial purpose (and surely they are the only ones we need talk about) after the event. ‘Hey, Harry slapped the lion and got killed. Dave ignored it and the same thing happened. Pete tried shouting at it. No more Pete. But I threw some stones and guess what. It seemed to serve the purpose of frightening the lion off!’
That’s how evolution works. It tries lots of things. With no purpose in mind. The ones that work keep going.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Accept that you have no rational reason to think so since rational intent or goal directed activity is the antithesis of a blind natural process. It’s a contradiction, like a square-circle.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I don’t view goals as some special category.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I guess that’s why you are likening the activity of a ball rolling down a hill with a person fending off a threat.
B
Bradskii
Guest
They START as blind processes. We retroactively infer purpose.niceatheist:
Accept that you have no rational reason to think so since rational intent or goal directed activity is the antithesis of a blind natural process. It’s a contradiction, like a square-circle.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Yup, complexity of behavior cannot be used to infer natural versus non natural. That begins to look suspiciously like the infamous “Intelligence Filter”.
- Status