Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[painted wolf]

Anything which doesn't agree with your belief pattern would seem obtuse to you.

just what comes across as purposefully vague and/or misleading wording. My worldview is quite flexible, not that you anything about my worldview... despite your attempts to label me.

wa:do

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

Who says there was an ultimate beginning? You are an aspect of the totality. Asking of the "beginning" would be akin to asking an eyeball to look at itself.

 

[footprints]

That's not exactly what he was saying. He said to know HOW something occurred you had to have been there when it occurred. It doesn't say anything about not believing in cause and effect because you can still believe there was a cause albeit unknown with a known effect.

If there is a natural event whose cause is not currently known, do you believe that the event occurred? Take for example a certain phenotype and although it'd be reasonable to think a genotype(s) was involved but the exact genotype(s) and mechanisms are unknown, do you still believe in the observable phenotype?

The Universe exists Malleus, it isn't an illusion.

Logician did say that, albeit you convieniently left out what was said directly after that. Let me refresh your memory, the obvious alternative.

Logicians "obvious alternative," is a belief pattern. No different in size or effect to a theist who holds a belief in a deity. Something always existing Malleous, something existing without ever having been created (come into existance by any means). An effect without a cause. That Malleus is a miracle by all knowledge known to mankind, and Logician may as well believe in a deity.

 

[footprints]

just what comes across as purposefully vague and/or misleading wording. My worldview is quite flexible, not that you anything about my worldview... despite your attempts to label me.

wa:do

I just quoted you painted wolf, nothing more and nothing less, then I explained why. You told me my point was obtuse, I explained why you would see my point as being obtuse. No label, just truth, your belief patterns are stopping you from seeing reason. The bigger picture encompasses the narrow view, the narrow view does not include the bigger picture.

As quoted by you, post 490:

I seem to be missing the point of this obtuse attempt at depth.
Perhaps that in and of itself is the point... muddy water and all.

wa:do