(July 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm)edk141 Wrote: It already has been discovered. It was an accident. We don't know exactly how it happened, but what we do know is it happened on its own, not through the intervention of a supernatural being. Move the fuck on.You're claiming that life happened on its own. Can you please tell me what makes you think that? Can you also please tell me what in scientific discovery rules out the possibility of a creator which made life?
(July 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Again, subjective decisions (like most of your objections) are the realm of human thought for the moment. A special blend of reason and emotion. They are not objectively true.Can you please explain further? Are you claiming there there is no truthful answer to these questions (like moral judgments)?
(July 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Life is indeed the purpose of life. Every cell in your body is engaged life, and the perpetuation of life, 24 hours a day. Whether or not that satisfies you, is, again, subjective.Maybe we're working with different definitions of "purpose"? I defined purpose as "the reason for which something exists". Given this definition, it cannot be said that the reason for which life exists is so that it can continue to exist, i.e., perpetuate itself. It doesn't make much sense. There are two options: there simply is no reason for which it exists, therefore it is an accident (happened by chance) or that there is a reason fo which it exists (or began to exist, which is more accurate in this case) in which case we should try to find out the reason.
(July 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Science can answer to theism in general, it is deism that it currently does not address, because deism is a position taken explicitly to avoid contradicting scientific discovery. Christians are not deists, they are theists. There's a difference.Could you please provide an example of science addressing theism in general?
(July 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We may feel lucky to be here, a happy accident, but that is a subjective description. The sun, the earth, the initial composition and eventuall environment were not accidental, nor were they lucky, or designed. These are words which do not accurately describe the state of the cosmos, and why would they, being that we have only understood much of this for a few short decades. Using arguments, or terms that were designed to convey things like luck/fate, intent/design, and chaos/accident doesn't do our modern understanding justice. You are projecting facets of your personality unto your external environment, it's okay, we all do it, but it is not, factually speaking, accurate.What do you think: is it possible for us to actually provide a completely objective description of the universe or are we doomed to always see it subjectively, or at least partially subjectively?
