- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 10,350
- Reaction score
- 4,989
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
To me, the OP as only partially hypothetical and in larger part just Wrong. So it begged for correction, not running with it.You can use a hypothetical. But you didn't give me a hypothetical. You said "make something up, then make up reasons it's true."
Like I said, what language do flying unicorns from Mars speak? Tell me, and then argue why they must speak that language.
That's pretty much what you just ask me to do. Yeah, I could make something up, but upon what logic would I base it? There is no suggestion that we were "put" here. It's nonsense built on top of nonsense.
I'll answer. The flying spaghetti monster put us here to eat toast because he couldn't come up with any other use for wheat, so he figured we should eat it.
Ok. So where do we take the philosophical debate from here?
Nowhere. Because what I just said is completely meaningless, because what you asked me is meaningless.
He assumed a god, and then further assumed that god put life here, and then yet further assumed 'he' put man here in this final form, rather than the incredibly relevant and demonstrably contradictory Fact We Evolved to be this creature, and were Not 'put' here, even if simple/single-cell life was hatched by 'him'. That/evolution would explain how/why H sapien came to dominate. (Previous hominids, primates, and the rest of the planet)
I see it as not just a hypothetical, but wrong premise begging to be corrected, not indulged.
The way he put it, he was wanting an answer to a question that would answer itself (ie, survival of the fittest) if he removed that False premise.
Another example would be him asking: "If the atmosphere is only 2% Oxygen why are we breathing so well?"
I'd correct it then too: it's 20% Oxygen, not indulge 2%.
Reminiscent also of "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Last edited: