So the universe has always contained what we term “life” ?
Do you plan to respond to me, or are you a lost cause?
Thank you for responding and giving an answer.
1 Like
This question is passive aggressive. As Cog pointed out, it doesn’t. As your own definition points out, it’s a human perception of…
A better question or more fair (ironically an aspect of justice) would be…
Why does human society require justice?
Just-a suggestion. 
1 Like
Well you posted a tremendous amount about very little .
The fact that somebody can state that I am using circular reasoning while they are doing the exact same thing from the opposite side of a debate and yet theirs is perfectly acceptable ? , large amount of bollocks that is
I disagree . The premise that naturalism presents is that a lifeless inanimate universe then goes on to produce life and all the attendant values - love, justice etc . I am asking what is the benefit to a lifeless universe in love , justice etc ?
Not unless life can survive in a singularity that is so hot we probably can’t measure it. Once again, why are you jumping to all this conclusion. It does not logically follow that because a universe is devoid of life at one point, it will be devoid of life at all points. You are just randomly bouncing about without making much sense. Why would you leap to such an inane conclusion as “So the universe always contained life?” This is black and white thinking at its best. Do you even hear yourself? You make comments like a 13 year old child.
And I clearly told you there is no value to a lifeless universe. It is life that created the concept of justace.
1 Like
Then why would you ask:
If you knew it was solely a subjective human perception the question seems bizarre and disingenuous? Organic life forms can be sentient, there is no evidence the universe is.
Not remotely what happened, I explained specifically what you had posted was a circular reasoning fallacy and why, you simply ignored this and resorted to whataboutism (as you are doing here again), except of course you cited no circular reasoning fallacy I had made, but do please select a post of mine containing a circular reasoning fallacy. FWIW here is your circular reasoning fallacy:
You assume your conclusion on your initial premise. quod erat demonstrandum.
Note that even if I had offered a fallacy, it doesn’t make your original claim any less fallacious, that is called whataboutism. This is a tactic that again donates poor or weak reasoning.
Can you cite which of those you think doesn’t exist, or hasn’t happened?
Straw man fallacy, whoever said it was? In case you’ve still not grasped this, the universe is not lifeless. Notions like justice and morality, though they are entirely subjective, clearly have a survival benefit to animals that have evolved to live in societal groups, indeed such existence would be impossible without some shared notions of what was acceptable and fair behaviour for any society.
Now my question has gone unanswered far longer than anyone else’s:
How, as you claimed, is the existence of an (evolved) human emotion like love a reason to believe a deity exists?
Define life.
We don’t know that the universe is lifeless.
Justice (is one of many) human descriptors of behaviours we deem socially acceptable or unacceptable. Same with love or anger etc, are descriptors of actions, behaviours and emotions.
We can use these descriptors in regard to other species that have the same behaviours or aspects of these behaviours.
1 Like
Forgive me, but I’d say his question is implying that the existence of justice somehow implies it must be of benefit to the universe, or there must be some overarching reason for it, or else it wouldn’t exist.
Now one assumes he means beyond the objective fact that human life has evolved, and the fact that subjective notions like fairness and justice along with morality, provide a survival benefit, societal cohesion for a start, and this is why we evolved with such notions, they are essential to animals that have evolved to live in societal groups, and this can be explained by natural selection obviously.
Now even were this not the case, and we had no idea why humans have evolved with subjective notions of justice and morality, this doesn’t tell us anything. To claim not knowing something somehow validates a belief, is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, we can’t explain X, therefore god did it.
What is the benefit of love , justice etc to a blind pitiless indifferent universe that has no purpose or meaning ? There isn’t any .
if you know this, then why do you keep repeating a question that has no meaning, and that you already know the answer to? Humans have evolved with those ideas and emotions, what has that to do with the universe per se? What is your point here? If you can demonstrate evidence the universe can experience a human emotion like pity then please do, otherwise referring to it as pitiless in this debate is no different than calling a sandwich pitiless, it has no meaning or significance? unless of course you can explain what meaning or significance you think the adjective has when applied to the universe?
It has been explained over and over that those ideas and emotions provide a survival benefit to animals that have evolved to live in societal groups. However for the sake of argument lets say we couldn’t explain their existence at all, so what?
Also are you going to tell us why you think love is evidence for a deity?
And just like that, you’ve rid me of the burden of taking you seriously.
From here on out, I will only respond to you as I would a young child.
Why does a blind pitiless universe need survival benefits ? That implies meaning and purpose
Why do you believe you have any capacity for reason, when you haven’t learned the subjects required for such a capacity?
Exactly!
What benefit is an ant hill to an indifferent universe? None. Well, except for the ants. They derive some benefit.
1 Like
I very specifically never claimed it did, and very specifically explained how natural selection drives species evolution, so you either can’t read or are trolling again.
Why, as you claimed, is the existence of an (evolved) human emotion like love a reason to believe a deity exists?
It’s been weeks, are you ready to admit you don’t have anything beyond the claim?
1 Like
@Sid, thank you for finally providing an answer to my question. I’ll address that in a moment. In the mean time, I’ve caught up on what’s been posted this morning and noticed something about your responses. The following are a few snippets from them:
“Why does a blind pitiless universe need survival benefits ?”
“…a blind pitiless indifferent universe that has no purpose or meaning ?”
“So why does a lifeless indifferent universe need justice ?”
“…a lifeless inanimate universe then goes on to produce life…”
Those snippets sound an awful lot like you consider the universe as an actor in all of this. You are having it produce and need things. You’ve repeatedly asked why it lacks human/animal attributes as if it is suffering because of that lack. I just don’t get it.
1 Like
That has clearly been answered, twice by me, by Cali, Sheldon, and probably others on the site. It is a survival mechanism. This is really fucking boring.
2 Likes