Wow! "the more we discover and the fewer questions are left to philosophy"!!!! That has to be as close to bull shit as any man could ever post.
The Earth could fall into the sun tomorrow and nothing would change. Meaning is a product of human consciousness. It only exists so much as we think it does. Once we're gone, our version of meaning is gone as well. And time marches on.
Whatever you say brother. As you already pointed out, the connection of your idea of evolution must require abiogenesis. In fact you've explained this a few times in our debate. So when I say "evolution" in regard to a naturalist pov, it would be entirely safe to assume that abiogenesis would be "you egg" theory of the existence of life. And this is your opinion, which we are debating. So regardless if you think this debate is going nowhere, I believe it is. I argued that creation can be used as scientifically as evolution (described better, naturalist evolution), using the naturalist's tool of abiogenesis.
Yet I disagree. The purpose of the sun is to help give life to our planet. Purpose is how and why I believe there is a conscience in this universe. The fact that you and I are debating is purpose and that is no mistake nor chance. You choose to debate me, I choose to respond. The lion chooses to eat the gazelle, the volcano chooses to erupt. I am a firm believer that everything in this universe is a choice and they are doing so purposely.
So is the purpose of the sun to blast insane radiation and heat at Mercury and blast off whatever atmosphere it had (or Mars)? And to just pump Venus up with green house gasses? Sounds like an ass hole, that sun.
Have you ever watched "world war z"? It's a silly movie, but there was a line made by the scientist in the plane. I'm summarizing but He said "Mother Nature is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history"
Geez man! If understanding of the the physical world is everything and the philosophy developed from the composite of human experience means nothing, then perhaps you have been reading the wrong writings. Given that measure, the Bonobo might have made as much progress in the the quest of knowledge has his cousin the man.
As the rest of my post explained, we have a new way of dealing with someone who predicates a claim on questionable givens (i.e. the adaptation) so we don't necessarily need "begging the question" to mean what it used to. It can evolve to a new meaning with no catastrophic loss to our communication. Also, I was largely bantering rather than making a serious argument. I have no strong opinions on this, though I do tend towards the "language is a living thing" argument and don't feel too concerned about meanings changing over time.
Actually that's an idea lots of quantum physicists take seriously. But it's not just everything that you will experience in the future that has "already happened" (exists in some sense concurrently with your "now"), but everything that could POSSIBLY happen. Your consciousness is just traversing one particular set of existing possibilities. Smoke something and think about that!
An unconscious singularity doesn't need to expand. It doesn't even need to exist. As the saying above, the sun can consume the planet earth and the universe wouldn't skip a beat. Then again, maybe it would? I look at this universe as a deeply fragile state, that even the most minute change, could be the difference the universe being entirely different. I see purpose in existence and get a feeling that there was a design.
I know man! It's crazy to think being a theist or atheist! The common thinking is the time map has already been laid out like a rug. Our existence has already arrived the moment the Big Bang expanded.
Go back and look for yourself. I tried to stick to the question I was asking you, but you keep dragging me into your "debate." I don't think I said that. In fact I said several times that abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other. We're debating my opinion? What did you decide my opinion was again? "You egg"? I'm getting the feeling you're deeper down the rabbit hole than I thought. And I argued that creation has no scientific merit or backing and asked you to explain why you thought so. Remember?
Perhaps. I didn't say philosophy meant nothing. It means a whole hell of a lot. Many things do. But only to us. I know you think that humans are something special and are part of some Grand Plan, so let's just agree to disagree.
Bro, abiogenesis IS absolutely necessary for you to believe evolution with chance. Unless, of course, you have some other theory that supports that claim? Well yeah because "your opinion" has being tossed around like fact. Just read back bro! Hahaha And I responded that it's as scientific as using abiogenesis as the theory on the start of evolution. But let's be real here. You don't believe philosophy isn't a tool for science either.
Newsflash, you wouldn't have your science without philosophy. And the even funnier thing is you explain we are only humans. Yes, humans that now can split an atom. Just imagine were we will be in a million years?!
Evolution as a theory doesn't speculate on how life first began. If life had been created by a higher power, it could have then started to evolve naturally from there. I'm assuming that is what you believe. So, no, abiogenesis is not necessary to the theory of evolution. Man, I've been going back and reading all the old posts every time you respond, desperately trying to figure out where the hell you're getting your arguments from. I'm still perplexed. You saying that doesn't give it any credibility. You haven't given any evidence that there's any science to creationism. I pointed out that abiogenesis is based on actual science, and you said that no scientist alive would agree with me. I don't believe that philosophy isn't a tool for science either? The rare triple-negative statement... I would answer that but I have zero idea why you're making that statement, so I'll just let it go.
