Why we exist
- Thread starter Starlord
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There is a assumption in the question being asked. That there is a reason at all.
StarLord, do you acknowledge the possibility that there may be no why at all?
StarLord, do you acknowledge the possibility that there may be no why at all?
Waste of time quoting this - it's not applicable here.
Really?
How do you know?
What, for example, balances grass?
Can you tell us where this "nothing" is?
(And note, re the above quote, "nothing" isn't an action - ergo there can't be reaction to it).
Why is there not just a golfball? Or a just dead goldfish? Can you show why (or even make a rational argument that) the "reaction" to "nothing" is the universe and everything in it rather than just a single example of "something"?
Not shown.
1) Your supposition of "balance" is just that - a supposition.
2) Why must that "something" (as asked above) be the entire universe?
You need English lessons: anything isn't the same as everything.
Unsupported.
Drivel.
Not actually an answer.
Your final sentence here is nearly true: you're arguing something without either A) comprehending how to argue and B) making sense.
Unmitigated crap.
Correct. So, since your OP (and all subsequent ones) lack rationality why did you choose to post in the philosophy sub forum?
Claimed but not shown.
Make your mind up! Is it a "reaction" to"nothing" or is just "permitted" by "nothing"?
Either way you're talking nonsense.
Probably because
A) it's not a revelation and,
B) it's self-evident nonsense.
No it's not.
By the way: "epiphany" and "revelation" aren't exactly valid philosophical arguments.
It's been awhile Dwyer but for once , just perhaps this once ; I agree with you .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Hrm. And I was just about to say, for once, I disagree.
StarLord has been here barely a month. I feel that terms such as drivel, crap and nonsense are appropriate for members who have earned them with their behavior.
StarLord deserves not to be painted by the same brush that was used for all that came before him. The sins of other members do not come forward to land on his doorstep just because we are cynical.
I suspect it will be another debate about ambiguous terms such as nothingness and purpose, but it's "just" another debate only to us, not to StarLord.
He deserves the benefit of a clean slate and proper manners.
I have said my peace.
StarLord has been here barely a month. I feel that terms such as drivel, crap and nonsense are appropriate for members who have earned them with their behavior.
StarLord deserves not to be painted by the same brush that was used for all that came before him. The sins of other members do not come forward to land on his doorstep just because we are cynical.
I suspect it will be another debate about ambiguous terms such as nothingness and purpose, but it's "just" another debate only to us, not to StarLord.
He deserves the benefit of a clean slate and proper manners.
I have said my peace.
Given the number of completely unsupported assertions, the number of non-sequiturs and the (unjustified) arrogance ("Something most will never comprehend", "No one replying tho this has the slightest capability of grasping the magnitude of this revelation", "This epiphany is literally going to change the world") I claim that I tarred him with his own brush, not those of others.
Drivel, crap and nonsense is exactly what he's posting.
Drivel, crap and nonsense is exactly what he's posting.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
But, thanks.
And the drivel, crap and nonsense content has just gone up.
(As has the number of unsupported assertions).
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
"Say your peace would imply that you've had the opportunity to speak and set your mind at ease"
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/154595/is-the-expression-say-your-piece-or-say-your-peace
"An argument can be made for saying one’s peace after holding it,"
http://grammarist.com/spelling/say-ones-peace-vs-piece/
"But say one's peace is now so common among younger speakers... that it begins to rival have another thing (for original think) coming as a newly dominant variant."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001884.html
It wasn't accidental.
Apparently you have not read , as millions have not , read about our ancient history . It's vital that we all should.
When we have read about our ancient history ; who we are will make us think about us . Differently .
Um, I have read about our ancient history.
I've also read - as you've been told several times - the irrational claims of Sitchin (and his ilk) that purports (but fails) to be that history.
There is no history that includes ancient aliens - only fabrications based on wishful thinking and shoddy scholarship.
Many think differently and has supported his claims . Through analysis of his interpretation of the cuneiforms but also through archaeology.
Support all you like...Children, some of them, still support the Easter Bunny.
A claim only has credibility when it is supported by evidence.
Yeah?
Anyone credible?
(Clue: no).
Wrong.
He didn't "interpret cuneiforms", he made sh*t up, because he was neither qualified to, nor competent at, reading Sumerian.
And, equally, there's no archaeology that supports Sitchin.
The evidence is there you ostrich head in the sand .
Calm down young fella!!! There is no convincing evidence of any ancient Aliens what so ever, having visited Earth, now or in the past....FACT!!!
Some impressionable gullible people though are simply taken in by such sensationalistic nonsense.
Actually he didn't make anything up . It is what it is .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-new-chapter-one-great-works-literature.html
There is no convincing evidence of any ancient Aliens what so ever, having visited Earth, now or in the past....FACT!!!
Some impressionable gullible people though are simply taken in by such sensationalistic nonsense.
Don't be an ostrich head in the sand pad .