(March 23, 2015 at 5:03 am)Losty Wrote:taking an indirect approach. If the two sources of knowledge - empiricism, rationalism - (http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/sources-of-knowledge/) were correctly applied, the answer to the question ‘Does the Universe exist for a purpose?’ would be inconclusive; empiricism or rationalism wouldn’t provide a definite answer one way or the other; hence the reason why revelation is needed. I incorrectly assumed that the board atheists would say the question is unanswerable and wouldn’t post an answer of ’no purpose’. Kudos to any atheist that didn't endorse.(March 22, 2015 at 11:50 pm)snowtracks Wrote: There isn’t one atheist on this board that will unequivocally state that the universe exist for no purpose. They may attempt to qualify it with an adjunct like that it has meaning for them, or they make their lives meaningfully. If by some quirky chance one ever did flat out state that, they wouldn’t get any kudos as a stamp-of-approval. There is a reason that won’t be done.
Why did you quote that when you didn't respond to it?
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
