| ManusJustus said: What about your physical environment, is there any physical action or circumstance that you consider impossible? You say its possible that leprachuans that ride unicorns on the moon exist. However, you say that it is impossible that evolution could lead to conciousness. This is obvious hypocrisy in your logic. I am trying to understand if this is actually how you think logically or if emotions play a large part in your thinking. By emotional I mean that you want to believe in God so you think that fictional make-believe is possible, but evolution resulting in conciousness is impossible so God or some supernatural being must be responsible. |
Yeah, in my environment right now, theres what we conceive as a keyboard near me. That's rather factual, especially since it's in the present. I can't guarantee that it'll still be there later, not that I care...
Evolution in reality could very well account for it, just like it could be something else entirely different. If I made statements that sounded absolute, I likely tried to prove that statement (back it up). Unlike you who has not even tried to backup your statements with evidence besides saying that 'everything made up doesn't exist' which is just outright false.
Super-natural being? Why would a being have to be responsible? Why couldn't it be some form of physics which we don't understand yet? A sort of force or element that in a sense is not unlike gravity. Do we understand the source of gravity? All we know is its effects (Masses attract) but we don't know why; that's just the way things are.
Oh, and to add. I rather disaprove of emotional influence in logical debates. Though it's fine if feelings are being used as an argument.
Haven't you ever heard the saying " Judge the message, not the messenger " ? It's low to try and discredit a message by attempting to descredit the speaker. You can dissect messages by logic alone, at least in debates and any logical dissertion. It's a different story for testimonies though (like witnesses)
