Deep thinkers only

I cannot believe this but nobody has yet understood what I ment. Mad

All this bullsh!t about trees and forest crap does not have any relation to my analogy. I cannot believe how so many people can be so dumb. Mad

I'll have to try one last time to explain what I mean. Here goes. This time the question/analogy is totally simplified. Apply that logic to my original question.

Example 1:

Q)Why the heck did man invent and make the chainsaw?

http://www.duxfordhireandsupply.co.uk/imagelibrary/stihl%20TOY%20CHAINSAW500.jpg

A)Especially designed to fell trees and remove branches and foliage duh!

Would there be a need for man to have invented the chainsaw IF trees didn't exist?
==============

Example 2:

Human eyes are designed to view colours.

http://www.healthyeyes.org.uk/uploads/pics/Eye-1.jpg

Would there be a need for human eyes to be created that way IF colours did not exist ? Wouldn't they be created to only view black and white images on this universe. That would make sense.

Back to the main question. Why would there be a need to create the planet Earth if life did not exist ?

Trees cannot live without water and sun light. If water and sunlight did not exist. Why would there be a need for trees ?

Basically, everything on this Planet and possibly the Universe is needed to sustain life. Therefore, IF life did not exist, there would be no need for the Universe to exist.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Why would there be a need to create the planet Earth if life did not exist?"

Why do you assume there even was a need? Once upon a time, Earth was a clump of gas and rocks floating around in space, then some mold grew on it, and the mold evolved. Lucky for the mold, there was the right combination of water and sunlight and chemicals to allow it to. There are probably billions of planets that didn't hit the biology jackpot and where life never had an amoeba's chance in hell (and I don't need to tell you how bad amoebas have it in hell).

According to modern astronomy, the universe existed long before there was any life needing it to and it will probably exist long afterwards.

Just be glad you're not an amoeba.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Human eyes are designed to view colours.

Would there be a need for human eyes to be created that way IF colours did not exist ? Wouldn't they be created to only view black and white images on this universe. That would make sense.

Back to the main question. Why would there be a need to create the planet Earth if life did not exist ?

Trees cannot live without water and sun light. If water and sunlight did not exist. Why would there be a need for trees ?

Basically, everything on this Planet and possibly the Universe is needed to sustain life. Therefore, IF life did not exist, there would be no need for the Universe to exist.

It seems you are insisting things were "created" because there was a need. Evolution just says things evolved to better function in the world as it is. No creation; only evolution. No creator; just chance in survival of the fittest.

The conclusion that "IF life did not exist, there would be no need for the Universe to exist." is an incorrect conclusion because there is no need for life to exist. There is no need for the universe to exist. The two are mutually exclusive. They both exist because they are here. The universe exists with no God being a prime mover. Life exists with no God creating life. If you or anyone chooses to believe that is incorrect, that is anyone's choice, since there is no need to believe my own opinion.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Redux of "If a tree falls in the forest..." question.

I concur.

The answer is of course it still would exist.

Self-awareness is not special; other animals are thought to possess it.

What is so special about self-awareness that it should define existence?

I think existence defines existence.

Duh.

Zippo, I think you need to review your theories on design. Humans have a tendancy to believe in simple cause and effect, in other words meaning. Clouds are made to rain. We look for the meanings of objects in relation to ourselves. It is an evolutionary feature of our minds, but that does not make it correct. We have it purely because it is easier and better to catagorise things in terms of meaning rather than description. A cloud is made to rain, rather than a cloud is a big white thing in the sky. It is far more important for us as a species to know the application of something rather than what the something is. The truth is that clouds aren't made to rain. They are giant collections of water vapour which happen to condense when the conditions are correct. There is no such thing as meaning. It's a harsh truth, but one you will have to accept.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

snood wrote:
Redux of "If a tree falls in the forest..." question.

I concur.

The answer is of course it still would exist.

Self-awareness is not special; other animals are thought to possess it.

What is so special about self-awareness that it should define existence?

I think existence defines existence.

Duh.

Zippo, I think you need to review your theories on design. Humans have a tendancy to believe in simple cause and effect, in other words meaning. Clouds are made to rain. We look for the meanings of objects in relation to ourselves. It is an evolutionary feature of our minds, but that does not make it correct. We have it purely because it is easier and better to catagorise things in terms of meaning rather than description. A cloud is made to rain, rather than a cloud is a big white thing in the sky. It is far more important for us as a species to know the application of something rather than what the something is. The truth is that clouds aren't made to rain. They are giant collections of water vapour which happen to condense when the conditions are correct. There is no such thing as meaning. It's a harsh truth, but one you will have to accept.

Clouds gave cotton candy meaning!

0 Replies

Deep thinkers only

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know