|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
why do humans have an aesthetic sense, and animals don't Come on... don't you think Peafowl have an aesthetic sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 418
The big bang is supposedly a very, very rapid expansion of matter, so in that sense, it is a sort or explosion. But if you want me to call it a rapid expansion of matter, then I will do so, and ease your fears. Actually, matter didn't coalesce until a significant amount of time after the big bang 
I really am sick of how nit-picky everyone is on here about my terminology. All we have to go by from you, is the words you present. We ought not assume that you're actually meaning something accurate when you're writing something erroneous.
And yes that "rapid expansion of matter" did cause everything I mentioned, because if the "matter had never rapidly expanded", then we wouldn't have any of the things I mentioned... No, that's a little too fluffy. You're equivocating "cause". Or do you think the big bang just caused my pencil to roll off my desk?
The "rapid expansion of matter" caused stars to form, causing solar systems to form, causing planets to form, causing amino acids to form, causing proteins to form, causing cells to form, causing multi-celled objects to form, causing fish to form, causing turtles to form, causing mammals to form, and then eventually, we came along, and we then constructed the laws of logic which somehow miraculously fit in with the whole world around us, and we were somehow able to sense beauty etc.... Just because something happens after something does not mean that that something caused it to happen. You have to zoom out too far to be practicle to see it as the Big Band causing mammals to form. From Message 413:
I don't think your argument explains logic in its entirety. When I talk about logic, I'm not just talking about the laws of logic that apply to language, but very, very simple laws of logic, such as "a=a", which can be applied to nature. "a=a" is not a law of logic that came out of language, because "a=a" was true before humans were around. You're seeing something that isn't really there. Yes, an apple is an apple. There is not an "intrinsic truth" to being an apple that suggests an outside intellegence, or wherever you trying to go with this (I didn't look it up). And the way we describe those intrinsic truths with symbols and words doesn't change that. Basically it boils down to: things orderly existing suggests god. We can discuss the weakness of that argument later if you want, but I want to first ask: Is there anything at all that can orderly exists without the need for god? Oh, and you must've missed my other post:
Message 396 quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're equivocating "cause". Or do you think the big bang just caused my pencil to roll off my desk? My logical progression was a very lengthy one, but that doesn't necessarily meant that it is an equivocation. For example, That's far enough. The answer to my question is: "Yes, I am saying the big bang caused your pencil to roll off your desk." Sorry man, but you are equivocating the word "cause".
Now this was just a three-step progression, which does not make it an equivocation. Now need I go through all the steps from the Big Bang to your pencil rolling of the desk? The steps are there, and there are quite a few of them; but this does not make it an equivocation. No, because you're not using the normal sense of the word "cause". The Big Bang did not cause my pencil to fall off my desk... I bumped it with my knee. That's what caused it. So like I said in Message 423:
quote: At this point, your argument has lost its profundity. You might as well be asking how Van Gogh's father ejaculating caused such a beautiful painting of sunflowers... as Dr. Adequate pointed out in Message 375. Note he recognized the equivocation as well.
But this isn't the point anyways, so it really isn't worth discussing anymore. But... but, you're wrong! 
My point in discussing the Big Bang is asking how the universe can go from being a pin-point (or whatever) of space-time, into an incredibly massive universe with a small planet in it upon which the most amazingly complex processes have come up. It took a really, really long time and a whole lot of different stuff happened in between. I mean, essentially your argument is: "ZOMG! Its sooo amazing! There must be a god..." No offense, but that is infantile.
And besides, without God, where did that pin-point of space-time come from in the first place? Nonsense. What's north of the North Pole?
You have to zoom out too far to be practical to see it as the Big Bang causing mammals to form. If the Big Bang hadn't happened (in an evolutionist's worldview; I don't believe that it happened) then mammals wouldn't have formed, would they?
Of course not. Too, if Van Gogh's father hadn't ejaculated, there'd be no painting Sunflowers.
ZOMG! How amazing! How could an ejaculation cause such a thing? That's so profound. There must be a god  These are immature arguments, sac. I suspect you're young. You have a lot of learning to do.
This can be explained by hormones, because, after all, a peacock's tail is used for attracting mates. Ours can be explained too.
But do Peacock's build art galleries? Do they compose music? Do they sing for the sake of singing? Do they take pictures of beautiful landscapes, or admire beautiful landscapes? More juvenile nonsense.
And even if peacocks and monkeys do have an aesthetic sense, don't you think it's an awfully big jump from them to Beethoven's 5th symphony? Yeah, sure. So what? An octopi's color changing ability is an awefully big jump as well. Or an eagle's eyesight. Or a rat's tooth (interestingly, we cannot emulate the enamal in a rat's tooth and the only way we know of having that structure created is by it growing in a rat's mouth, sythetic trials have failed) What you'll eventually find though, is all the things that humans can do are just modifications to things that another animal can do. There's nothing we can do that they can't, by category. Everything is a an alteration of a previous ability. And that's exactly what we'd expect to see if evolution happened. Seriously though, arguments from incredulity that conclude god existing look neat when you're childlike. Hopefully you'll mature enough to realize you're only impressing yourself. While you're at it, realize that none of my rebuttles to your arguments have anything to do with whether or not god exists. And I think she does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
