| mesoteto said: You only say it lacks a purpose only b/c you cant find one in there |
And isn't that the smart thing to do? I mean, if someone said that there is "purpose" in the way the flour falls to the ground (meaning evidence of intelligence), I would expect that means that they can find purpose in it, right?
To that, I would say: "Excellent! Show me the purpose you've found in the flour, so that I can see it too!"
Except I find that most people who claim that there is purpose (in flour, in shuffled cards, in the universe) can't point it out very well, or explain it. Instead, they simply say that they "know" it's there, even if they can't describe it or demonstrate it, and that I should know it too... "somehow."
Eventually, I come to suspect that they haven't actually found purpose in the flour... they just want it to be there very badly. And that's a position that I can sympathize with. But I cannot base my worldview or my beliefs on what I want to be true. I can only look at the flour on the floor and base my conclusions on what I see there.
| Just b/c some cant be grasped by the humane mind does not mean it does not exist or isn’t there |
If something cannot be grasped by the human mind, then we're all of us SOL, and shouldn't waste our time trying to figure it out or discuss it (because the "human mind" is the best tool that we've got).
Moreover, nobody should believe it, because "believing" something without understanding it is meaningless at best, and very dangerous at worst.
| For the longest time it was common knowledge that atoms were the smallest bit of matter, then we smashed one and found smaller pieces, but just b/c we didn’t know they were there didn’t mean that they didn’t exist |
That's absolutely true. But the reason we believe in smaller pieces today is because we've found them. Which is how it's supposed to work.
We should believe in things after we find them--after we have evidence for them--not before. That might not be a "perfect" system, but I think it's certainly better than believing in things for which there is no evidence, or believing in things that contradicts the available evidence.
Is there "purpose" in the flour? Maybe. But so far the evidence points to "no." There's no good reason to believe that there's purpose in the flour, until we have some good evidence for it.
| you call the flour on the floor “without purpose” only b/c you assume that it has none , but you don’t know really either way now do you? |
Sure I do, based on the evidence of my senses and my ability to reason. The only way your "you don't know really either way now do you" works is if we try to discredit... everything.
And if we try to discredit all knowledge, then this all becomes absolutely meaningless and silly. I mean, if one person argues for the Christian God, why can't I say to him: well, maybe you should be worshipping Zeus. I mean, you don't know really either way now do you?
No. People reach conclusions based on the available evidence--that's how it works, and how it ought to work, and what this is ultimately about. I say that the available evidence says that there's no purpose to the flour, no Zeus, and no Yahweh.
If you think the evidence says otherwise, please enlighten me. I'd love to know which god to worship before I die (I've heard that Hell is unpleasant). But if your point is simply that no one can ever really know anything for sure... then it's not really helpful to anyone, or in support of any point of view (not even your own).
