originally posted in:Secular Sevens
answering why to that question is difficult for me to put into words but i can easily explain how it comes back down (gravity and so forth)
so far my best way for answering why is because it was thrown in the air; anything other than that and i'd have to get metaphysical, philosophical, or religious, which is why i don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive.
English
-
Because bodies of mass are attracted toward one another. There you go, have you abandoned your premise yet?
-
Edited by darkcrusader117: 8/27/2013 9:43:23 AMthats still how when you ask why, you ask intent, and truth be told im not sure why the ball was thrown in the air nor am i confident i know why it comes back down. beit the will of a god or no reason at all. what i do know and can easily describe and explain is how it gets in the air and how it comes back down. now let me ask you something; why are we here?
-
Edited by Seggi: 8/27/2013 10:14:07 AMNo, I wasn't asking intent, I was asking why something in the air falls down to the ground. Not why somebody put it in the air, not why we're talking about balls in the air, why it falls once it's up there. Intent isn't a magical thing that stops 'why' questions dead, it's a phenomenon that occurs just like gravity - and, by the way, intent can often be explained by science (social sciences and psychology, for example). The reason 'why' questions are tricky is because you can keep asking them - why, then, are bodies of mass attracted to each other? Because of this or that fundamental particle that does this or that with the other, but why does it do that? You can keep going, there's absolutely no limit, no final question, and introducing a God or some old dead guy's shitty pseudo-philosophical parables doesn't change that. If what you're trying to talk about are, specifically, questions of 'why' that regard the intent of conscious beings more universal than humans (ie. a god, however abstract or personal) as the full stop before which you can capitulate and be content that all questions on the matter are answered (and I think you are), then you're begging the question by implicitly assuming that there [i]is[/i] any intent to begin with - religion might be 'answering' those questions, but it's also the thing conjuring them up in the first place! This isn't the insightful recognition of a fundamental divide between faith and empiricism, it's an onanistic, self-serving and trivial line of bullshit. Religion doesn't answer 'why' questions, it answers 'why does God do that' ones.
-
Edited by darkcrusader117: 8/27/2013 10:56:51 AMyou're asking me why but you're expecting me to answer how well the most im gonna give you to that is sometimes there is no why, hell maybe theres never a why. maybe things just happen for no reason at all and we're just left to try and make sense of it. as ive said before, things like gravity and physics answer how things happen. when you ask why gravity affects the ball, you're asking the wrong question because gravity does not have reasoning and you need reasons or things that have reasons to answer why. and ya' know what, the same can be said for how questions. in fact, it can be said for question because when theres a fundamental understanding or explanation of something there's always a deeper and more fundamental understanding and explanation which [b][i]both[/i][/b] religion and science struggle to find. and no i'm not trying to implicate that a god is the reason behind everything, im trying to explain that science and religion have to fundamentally different goals that people confuse for the same goal and if you can't tell the difference between how and why you have no right make scientific or religious inquiry until you do because there is a whole world of difference. so to answer your question of why the ball is falling, its because some random guy threw it in the air or it fell off a ledge how is it falling? gravity reacts with the ball pulling it towards the larger mass (earth) until it makes a complete stop due normal force equaling the force associated with gravity. and religion tried to answer why questions, their best answer was some divine force and then they asked why it does it now please tell me [u][b][i]why[/i][/b][/u] we're here on this big rock flying through space, and you better not tell me the big bang or evolution.
-
Edited by JAMES Z666: 8/30/2013 1:53:15 AMSo you're telling us that how and why are mutually exclusive? That's untrue. Plus gravity's got no intent. There is no why there is only how. Why does gravity exist? Because of gravitons. How did gravitons come to be? Energy during the Big Bang. [I]How?[/I] Ha, ha! Science explain that one. Why is known though. How? Is it God? Not necessarily it could be anything. Knowing why isn't as difficult as you think. However implying that it must have intent behind it and therefore God must exist is a ridiculous insertion. It must have intent? No, not really. We either can explain it or it's just because of God? What a false dichotomy! Religion's bullshit. All the intelligent babble you keep going on about is just straight up philosophy. Just because the question's good doesn't mean to say the answer's God and religion just because science hasn't found it yet (or maths, psychology, sociology, medicine, ethics, philosophy etc.) Religion isn't important in those things because it's a belief system not logic (philosophy) or empiricism (physics). It's stupid to answer something with either religion or God (yes those things are separate entities). It's not a valid argument for God's existence or for a coexistence of religion and science when they're clearly separate. Put it this way: Why? Is explained by philosophy, not religion, religious philosophy is not necessarily different from ordinary philosophy even if you change the context but it's still not inherently religion, it's philosophy which is different. How? Is empiricism and it's maths and science.
-
Edited by Seggi: 8/27/2013 11:51:47 AMYour contrived distinction between 'why' and 'how' is based on the premise that something can have a reason for occurring exterior to its cause for doing so. This is not the case: a 'reason' is at most a cause framed from a subjective perspective as being of use to a particular end, but is more practically just a cause arising from a person's whim. I can tell you why we're here on this big rock flying through space to a certain degree of satisfaction because I can explain many of the antecedent factors leading up to the current situation in which find ourselves, as you said, on this big rock - including the big bang and evolution. That is a valid answer. If, instead, you're asking what the [i]reason[/i] is for this to be the case, then I'd have to interject by asking you if you've stopped beating your wife. But, no, that's not all - the flaws extend well beyond those inherent to any loaded question: Firstly, as I'm sure you've gathered, I have to object to the hyperbolic way you've managed to glorify the concept, as if it's perfectly complementary and essential to the practice of determining causes and modelling reality - it's not. Like I said above, it's not about 'why', it's about 'why does God do that'. But more importantly for practical purposes, I'd like to know how exactly we can be expected to measure the veracity of any claim to know 'why'. Empirical claims can be verified or contradicted by observation, but questions of some spiritual 'reason' absolutely can not, and your insistence that they should be held to a different standard, one that doesn't demand that things actually, you know, try to be correct, only reveals its inability to serve as a means for determining knowledge - or 'answering questions', if you will.