Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You trying to escape the question,
Everything has a meaning,there is nothing existent without a logical reason.
Everything that is present has a reason for why it is like that.
Why can't the life also have a reason/purpose?

who says that everything have a meaning ....is there a rule in physics or mathematics which dictates things should have meaning?

[faye]

physics and mathematics are not static subjects, so what if there is no rule within those subjects pertaining to the meaning/reason for 'life, the universe and everything'?

'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

[faye]

i am questioning YOUR tangent.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I never said it couldn't. I simply said it is a logical fallacy to assume it has one -- and to assume that it is some higher purpose than 'to exist' -- 'to exist' is enough of a purpose to justify the existence of life.

Exactly; it's not an issue of denying or accepting a reason (conscious motive for why life should exist); but assuming it a-priori vs. deriving that life has a meaning.


It is ironically faulty REASONing.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

exactly, why stop there, what if there is no rule within the subject of meaning/reasons for life itself...such that there is none of these to begin with anyways?

[faye]

there's no proof either way, so labelling the question as a fallacy, unreasonable or illogical is just uni student waffle.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

well it is a fallacy since it is based on flawed reasoning, the evidence of something to the contrary is ...a red herring. in this context. The point being, do we need to implore the notion of "meaning" or "reason for life" as an explanation. And if we don't then it has no relevance. It is not the question which is a logical fallacy but the assumptions of the question which are.

[ozymandias]

there's no proof either way, so labelling the question as a fallacy, unreasonable or illogical is just uni student waffle.

I disagree. It *is* a fallacy -- since it meets the definition of a fallacy. It makes assumptions that are not necessarily true, making the question worse than worthless, since people may not understand the fallacy, and thus think it is a legitimate question.

That's all beside the point, though, since I still answered the question, fallacy or not. Were I 'waffling' I would have avoided answering the question, using the fact that it is a fallacy as an excuse.

[ozymandias]

well it is a fallacy since it is based on flawed reasoning, the evidence of something to the contrary is ...a red herring. in this context. The point being, do we need to implore the notion of "meaning" or "reason for life" as an explanation. And if we don't then it has no relevance. It is not the question which is a logical fallacy but the assumptions of the question which are.

I think the real problem here may be a one of world-view. While some of us are completely comfortable knowing that not everything has a purpose, or reason, some may have a difficulty understanding that concept -- and can't see why that is a flawed assumption.

[Afghanistan2010]

How will be if there is neither darkness nor light ...? Please explain.

[ozymandias]

How will be if there is neither darkness nor light ...? Please explain.

I do not understand the question. Darkness is, by definition, the absence of light -- having "neither 'the absence of light' nor light" is an impossibility. Either there is light, or there is not...

[Afghanistan2010]

No darkness is not just the absence of light,its the absence of visible light.
So actually its never dark,its just according to our eyes like that .

[ozymandias]

No darkness is not just the absence of light,its the absence of visible light.
So actually its never dark,its just according to our eyes like that .

Regardless, your question makes no sense.

[کیش]

Are you willing to take your believes to the grave? With the possibilities that your questioning awaits.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No darkness is not just the absence of light,its the absence of visible light.
So actually its never dark,its just according to our eyes like that .

yes he's right because light is defined as a visible form of electromagnetic radiation


do you mean visible electromagnetic radiation?

I'm going to pay attention to this thread to make sure your premises are scientifically correct.