Apr 15, 2012 -- 2:40AM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:45PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:47AM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:01AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 2:48PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:17AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:04PM, williejhonlo wrote:

I would not say that they are feelings, but rather, conditions realized due to not everything being equal.

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the proposition that there are absolutes?

Our finiteness, we are limited by time, place, and circumstances. We cannot self-sustain ourselves. Can we deny that we are always in a position of need? We don't sustain the universe, we are sustained by it.

Yes, but what does that have to do with the postulation of absolutes?

Would you say that it is absolutely true that we are dependent?

No. Our evolved nature allows us a good deal of independence, especially in the intellectual or spiritual realms. To suggest otherwise is to render humans simple automatons pushed about by circumstance and impulse, like a twig in a drainpipe.

I'm not denying that absolutes exist, simply questioning your criteria for their establishment.

No amount of evolution  changes the fact that we are beings of need. Doesn't this planet need the sun for life to be maintained on it? No atmosphere, no clouds, and no clouds mean no rain, no rain produces droughts, and when that happens food sources die and when that happens we ( humans ) die. We need food and drink to survive, so when have we ever been  independent?

Let's say that there is evolution, we didn't create the process, so our evolution would be an act of nature. No amount of intellectualism makes us free of our nature of being beings of need.

You are right, ultimately we are beings dependent on certain biological realities. Psychologically, but not ultimately either, we have the capacity, while alive, to transcend our biological nature.

This is why, unlike any other animal on the planet, we are both objects and subjects. And as subjects, also agents.

By the way, evolution is an unarguable fact.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 8:42PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Namchuck wrote:

By the way, evolution is an unarguable fact.

Who in this forum has denied that?

 

Williejhonlo with his line "let's say that there is evolution..."

Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:21PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:14PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 8:42PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Namchuck wrote:

By the way, evolution is an unarguable fact.

Who in this forum has denied that?

 

Williejhonlo with his line "let's say that there is evolution..."

Thanks

You're welcome.

Apr 16, 2012 -- 12:08AM, williejhonlo wrote:

The only thing that I've seen that is unarguable is the fact that we live and die. Everything else in religion, philosophy, politics, and science are arguable.

You're largely right, Williejhonlo, although there are no good or sound arguments against evolution.