In the thread, post here.......my argument was able to bring up the law of identity and so a broken watch spring as an entity is itself and not anything else.
This allowed me to ask "what is the purpose of a broken watch spring ?" (which is this thread).
If there is no answer then if we simply allow the existence of the entity to be its own purpose then this solves a lot of problems and allows the broken watch spring to have its own purpose. And the Universe itself to be its own purpose.
If we restrict the word "purpose" to only certain things then the burden is on the person that asks the purpose of 'x' to show their criteria for applying the word "purpose" to 'x' and not to my broken watch spring.
So the purpose of this thread debate is to see what the flaws in my argument are.
If the word purpose is only applicable to expected effects in a causal chain of events then it is not reasonable to ask the purpose of something unless this was planned i.e. it is not reasonable for me to ask for the purpose of a broken watch spring nor Creationists to ask the purpose of humanity.
What is the purpose of a broken watch spring ?.
Moderator: Moderators
Re: byofrcs
Post #21byofrcs wrote: In the end your method of debate is crude. You blatantly misrepresent what I have said, spam the forum with links to things which you have a relationship and are ignorant of basic fallacies.
So, using basic logical sentences is crude huh. Call it what you want really, call it religious even, it will not change it's basic, logical and conceptually consitent nature.
You are basically speaking words but actually saying nothing, and I am pointing out to that. Doesn't really matter how many other people do the same thing. Not even that brilliant genius Richard Dawkins. (He's just saying that people from a religious culture don't have factual proof to support their religion. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW, what an insight.).
You may say that what you understand under the phenomena of religion in the world is everything from Christianity, Islam, Judaism to stories about leprachauns. I am saying there is a huge difference between Christianity, Islam and Judaism and other "stories" for which there is no evidence. I don't know how you can possibly explain to me that they are the same concepts, because I thought people actually CONVERT to Christianity, but I've never seen anyone CONVERT to leprachaunism. So TO ME THEY ARE DIFFERENT PHENOMENA IN THE WORLD.
You know anyone claiming Leprachaunism is True? No?
You know anyone claiming Christianity (Islam, etc.) is True? Yes?
So, to me they are different PHENOMENA in the world.
You might all call them the same thing (Which is what I mean with basically saying nothing....) to me they are different phenomena in the world. One is a story, the others are Religions.
But I can see why you don't want to see it that way. Most people have very great difficulty with anything involving conceptual conistency especially when coming from a religious culture like yourself. They are not used to it. Anyway, clearly you not up for any debate that involves logical, conceptual consitency so I don't see any point.
Re: byofrcs
Post #22Talk about appeal to authority. Pathetic.byofrcs wrote: It is a quote, not mine but of [url=http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/20 ... h-children]Richard Dawkins
I already admitted it was out of lazyness on my part. I have a feeling that you have no clue what you are talking about yourself so you refer to someone who has a theory which you treat like gospel.
And I am debating now, not referring to anyone as proof. Hope you are capable of similar conversational treats.
Last edited by MrWigglez on Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #23
Now, if you are saying that people who BELIEVE in Truth (with capital T!) are religous, that much I can agree with. But that is not the same thing as saying:
Religion is: Absense of evindence.
That is just declarative nonsense any six year old would see in the world that that is not the case.
Saying: I believe in the theory of evolution (or asking: Do you believe in evolution?) is something ONLY people from a religious culture will claim.
Other people will say: The theory of evolution makes sense because it can be tested to my experience in the world. It's a workable theory which helps us understand the world we live in abit better. And until it is proven to be false I don't see a problem with using it.
If the above appears to be just semantics for you: That is a completely normal response. Many western people have a similar experience. But it is not just semantics. It signals a completely different way of being the world. They have no words for the kinds of questions religious cultures ask and the kind of declarative statements they make in native Indian languages. There are other experiences that I am relating to. It is very difficult for you to understand how there can be different experiences in the world but trust me, the western man is not the centre of the universe.
Religion is: Absense of evindence.
That is just declarative nonsense any six year old would see in the world that that is not the case.
Saying: I believe in the theory of evolution (or asking: Do you believe in evolution?) is something ONLY people from a religious culture will claim.
Other people will say: The theory of evolution makes sense because it can be tested to my experience in the world. It's a workable theory which helps us understand the world we live in abit better. And until it is proven to be false I don't see a problem with using it.
If the above appears to be just semantics for you: That is a completely normal response. Many western people have a similar experience. But it is not just semantics. It signals a completely different way of being the world. They have no words for the kinds of questions religious cultures ask and the kind of declarative statements they make in native Indian languages. There are other experiences that I am relating to. It is very difficult for you to understand how there can be different experiences in the world but trust me, the western man is not the centre of the universe.
Post #25
byofrcs wrote:Like I said. Crude.MrWigglez wrote:.......
Like I said. You have consistently been saying nothing. So far as that the mere question of this topic doesn't make sense. Unfortunately for you, science (knowledge) is all about that. Asking the right questions. I'm just saying noone is gonna get any wiser with asking this kind of nonsensical question. You might find some feeling of comfort in some respons you come up with, but that is not knowledge.
If you are not capable of debate, just say so. Nothing to be embarassed about.
