The mistake : You are arguing just for the sake of arguing
Actually i do not wanna come into tis thread again. However it
seems no other people seems to be interested to discussing with u
and tat is why u decide to drag me back into the picture. I don't
think u got my message right. Lets see your example
It is just like tis. It is same as saying why r there stones
on the ground or why black look like black etc. There is no higher
reason. It ends here. If everything have a reason, tat will never
end. U can ask why wat is the reason behind tat reason and wat is
the reason behind the reason's reason. And so on. In the end, the
answer is just... It is just there. Why not just cut the cake and
say the rock is there because it is there and water is there
because it is there and baby r happy if they r treated well (I said
babies already display emotion. I never say babies r always
happy)
U felt tat tis passage is against science because it is not
enquiring deeper into the reason why such a phenomenon exist etc.
However in fact u have misinterprete the rationale of the above
paragraph.
If I am not wrong, u expect there is a "higher" reason why
certain physic laws exist. In a way, u r arguing why these laws
exist is there because it is "designed" or "planned" to exist.
My answer to u is, why do u expect there should be a higher
reason for certain phenomenon to exist ? Why should such laws be
planned or designed but not there because it is there. The law of
gravitation is there because it is there. We can go and probe
deeper into how it originate but we should not expect it to
suddenly link with some higher plan from some higher being because
we think tat should be it.
If u ask me about silly passages, the passage where u bring out
H2O and how it seems it does not lead science to conflict with
religion to be really... silly. Throughout the thread people r
talking about the conflicts with religious scripture and here u r
coming out with a point tat shows u do not understand the issue at
hand. Obviously after tat there is complete silence about your
example of H2O since it was shown to be out of point
Rule #1 - join a discussion (of this nature) only if you are
genuinely interested in the topic, which is always
controversial.
Rule #2 - If you were to make a point, that point's objective is
to share and benefit in someone's understanding, and not just
adding noise to the discussion by just wanting to argue.
Rule #3 - we are humans and subjected to the fallacies and
weaknesses of all human, so we make mistakes and may not always be
right. Use a tone and language consistent with this
understanding.
If u ask me I am genuinely interested in tis topic and I
do present valid opinions. Or do u view people tat is against your
stand as "uninterested", "add noise" and use a poor tone and
language ?
If u talk about noise, u talk about your last reply where it
present zero contribution to the discussion and just act as
personal insults to attempt to invalidate the things I said. In a
forum, my way of debating is already considered muted compared with
others (such as u). If u find it too harsh, then i guess debating
in tis forum is not suitable for u