Posted: Sep 02, 2017 10:15 am
DavidMcC wrote:Just A Theory wrote:DavidMcC wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another big problem with creationists is they keep insisting on a 'why' question. As if there must be some intelligent plan behind the universe and it cannot just be.
A. There are two basic meanings of "why": "what was the cause?" and "what for?". You are obviously ignoring the former in favour of the latter. Still, you're in good company, because Richard Dawkins made the same oversight, years ago. Perhaps you even got it from him.
The former definition of 'why' ("what was the cause?") was addressed in my post. It is functionally equivalent to asking "how did" which reflects a need for certainty which, absent a time machine, cannot be achieved for events in the deep past.
It also fundamentally assumes that there is a cause for everything lest the question lead to infinite regression halted only by the assertion that there must have been a First Cause (so beloved by creationists).
Nonsense. The use of the word does not assume that there is an answer, only a question (that may or may not have an answer).
To ask a question is to assume it is a valid question, i.e. it has an answer.
In other words, to ask why the universe exists (in the motivation sense), is to assume there must be a motivation or purpose to the existence of the universe.