The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: svenanders on December 30, 2008, 07:48:53 AM
-
1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't! Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)
2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.
-
FE explains this with Dark Energy. See this topic.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24563.0
-
Oh, that surely convinced me....With the proof and all....
-
Oh yes, well it's good to know our atmosphere is held in with ozone, a gas made of three oxygen molecules, because a gas expands until it reaches a gas.
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
-
Oh yes, well it's good to know our atmosphere is held in with ozone, a gas made of three oxygen molecules, because a gas expands until it reaches a gas.
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
The ozone layer would drift away as well. It's not a solid, and it'd have nothing to keep it there.
The ozone layer is just a O3 gas layer floating on top of the air. It doesn't actually do enough to keep it in.
Perhaps it's just the gravity wich prevents the air from floating out in space....that seems logical...;)
-
1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull.
Not what you said. Though I don't believe the ozone layer is the edge of our atmosphere either.
You said a barrier keeps it in, then said the ozone layer is the barrier.
There is not immediate end to our atmosphere, the gas just keeps getting more and more dispersed and closer to a vacuum.
@goldstein, if something wasn't being accelerated, it would be very far below us by now.
-
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.
-
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.
Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.
-
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.
Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.
You have to give them credit for searching for it. All this coming from a theory that won't even chart the coast line in their own back yard? Please.
-
Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.
An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.
Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.
You have to give them credit for searching for it. All this coming from a theory that won't even chart the coast line in their own back yard? Please.
Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.
Searching for does not prove.
-
The Earth is accelerating up into the air, simulating gravity.
-
1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't! Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)
2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.
1. There is a dark energy shield formed around the earth, formed when something gets in the way of DE.
2. No, pressure would not increase. The formula for pressure is Force/Area. Is the mass of the air changing? Is the acceleration changing? Is the earth shrinking? No No No.
By your logic I could argue that we will all be doomed by atmospheric pressure eventually.
-
1. There is a dark energy shield formed around the earth, formed when something gets in the way of DE.
Would you (or any other FE'er) care to advance FET by creating a scale drawing of the FE, sun, moon, stars and dark energy shield showing how the UA is able to flow around the DE shield and accelerate the celestial objects along with the FE? Nothing fancy is needed, just a simple cross section view would be sufficient.
-
Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.
Maybe if you did the coasts first, then took the money you made from the book deal, and the film rights etc etc you could set up a lab to research dark energy and dark matter, and the universal accelerator, and the shadow object, and the twin moon, and the celestial gears, and the ice wall and all the other stuff FE requires yet cannot be seen by mortal eye.
Just an idea.
Ah yes, give up my life to chart coasts, which would require extensive training. Also, one person in a boat charting coastlines would be considered a lunatic for declaring the Earth Flat.
Have you charted the coasts yourself?
-
Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.
Maybe if you did the coasts first, then took the money you made from the book deal, and the film rights etc etc you could set up a lab to research dark energy and dark matter, and the universal accelerator, and the shadow object, and the twin moon, and the celestial gears, and the ice wall and all the other stuff FE requires yet cannot be seen by mortal eye.
Just an idea.
Ah yes, give up my life to chart coasts, which would require extensive training. Also, one person in a boat charting coastlines would be considered a lunatic for declaring the Earth Flat.
Have you charted the coasts yourself?
All you need to know is how to work a boat to chart a coast line.
-
Please keep to serious discussion. If you would like to discuss the lizard army, take it to angry ranting.
-
The Earth is accelerating up into the air, simulating gravity.
Ok thats just stupid, gravity has nothing to do with magnetic poles, compasses point to a polar north(not true north by the way). This is due to the arrangement of the iron on the earths crust, which is aligned in a way that creates aagnetic polar north, this is caused my magma flow in the earths mantle, as a matter of fact the the earths poles are slowly moving because of this, eventually our compasses may point east
-
FE explains this with Dark Energy. See this topic.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24563.0
Dark energy does not interact with regular matter!!!! This is why it is called DARK ENERGY, because it is undetectable because it does not interact with matter, this is why of is only speculated to exist, are there any of you FEers who can put up an intelligent conversation?
-
Air contradicts a flat earth? ::)
Not only can RET not account for air, it cannot even explain why its oceans don't float through it...
-
Of course. Its all Dark Energy, isn't it.
Are any of you parents, cause I can invision this conversation.
Child:When did we go to the moon.
Parent:We never went to the moon.
C:Why not?
P:Because... um... Dark Energy!
C:Whats dark energy?
P:Energy that's... uh.... Dark.
C:Why did Neil Armstrong say he's been their?
P:Because Neil is just a blob of Dark Energy.
C:Oh...
And to the last post:
Yes it can. Oceans are more dense than air so they don't float. The atmosphere is here because the things that form it are attracted by gravity.
-
Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.
-
Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.
RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.
-
Of course. Its all Dark Energy, isn't it.
Are any of you parents, cause I can invision this conversation.
Child:When did we go to the moon.
Parent:We never went to the moon.
C:Why not?
P:Because... um... Dark Energy!
C:Whats dark energy?
P:Energy that's... uh.... Dark.
C:Why did Neil Armstrong say he's been their?
P:Because Neil is just a blob of Dark Energy.
C:Oh...
And to the last post:
Yes it can. Oceans are more dense than air so they don't float. The atmosphere is here because the things that form it are attracted by gravity.
Wow, mocking a theory you don't understand. Since about the third grade I've been asking teachers, "what causes gravity" and they always told me "gravity is the attractive force between two objects" never siting how or why. I have yet to get a good answer from a teacher on this.
-
Why are we arguing gravity again? Both models have an unknown force that keeps us attracted towards the surface. The fact gravity is unknown doesn't make the RE model any weaker than the FE model, as FE model DE is just as unknown, and vice versa.
-
Why are we arguing gravity again? Both models have an unknown force that keeps us attracted towards the surface. The fact gravity is unknown doesn't make the RE model any weaker than the FE model, as FE model DE is just as unknown, and vice versa.
He decided to act like we know nothing, when in fact we have a perfectly viable argument for that specific stance. So instead of picking apart that boring strawman I am bringing up a point, RE'ers will gladly declare an explanation is fact when they don't even know why it works.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
-
Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.
RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.
Because you say so?
-
Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.
RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.
Because you say so?
Because he is taking his preconceived conclusion (RE) and working backwards in order to form his opinions.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
To make more like ourselves.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
To make more like ourselves.
For what reason?
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
To make more like ourselves.
For what reason?
It works because it works. We make more of ourselves because our ancestors were able to make more of themselves.
The reason we do is because we can. If we couldn't we wouldn't. Make sense?
-
So that is the purpose of existence, because we can?
-
So that is the purpose of existence, because we can?
I'd say that sums it up pretty well, because if we couldn't we wouldn't be here.
Find any more rules to existence. There is no fair, there are simply dids and didn'ts.
-
The fact is that we exist, but there aren't any scientific evidence for the purpose of our existence.
Why we exist is a philosophical question which we never can fully find an answer for.
-
The fact is that we exist, but there aren't any scientific evidence for the purpose of our existence.
Why we exist is a philosophical question which we never can fully find an answer for.
No it is a biological one, and all evidence points to making more of ourselves. Why do you think girls are so damn attractive, and the most attractive parts are the ones that would help her make you kids.
Butt and tits, because there is fat stored there, meaning she isn't starving, a girls hips are amazing, because they tell you she will probably survive child birth to raise it, in shape so she can stay alive long enough to have it.
We are made to make more of ourselves.
-
I know that!
But why, what is it good for?
Why do we want reproduce? For what purpose?
Why is this so important?
Having sex feels nice, and may lead to offspring.
But what if we were evolved in a way that sex was a
painfull experince. Would we still reproduce?
-
I know that!
But why, what is it good for?
Why do we want reproduce? For what purpose?
Why is this so important?
Having sex feels nice, and may lead to offspring.
But what if we were evolved in a way that sex was a
painfull experince. Would we still reproduce?
No we wouldn't reproduce, therefore there would be no more offspring and we would not exist.
The reason we are here is our ancestors reproduced. If we didn't reproduce we wouldn't be here to consider that question.
We came from self replicating amino acids, our very first process was reproducing, and they got better and better at it. We are the pinnacle of reproducing.
-
Wow, mocking a theory you don't understand. Since about the third grade I've been asking teachers, "what causes gravity" and they always told me "gravity is the attractive force between two objects" never siting how or why. I have yet to get a good answer from a teacher on this.
The reason your teacher kept saying that is because She/He thought you did not have enough understanding of science to comprehend the actual explanation, or they themselves didn't know.
There is a proper explanation along with experiments done that prove the explanation is not false.
I ahve tried to explain it several times here, but as I can see form your continued lack of understanding of it, that you don't actually understand it (or you are just trolling).
Yes, these experiments are not easily reproducible by just any one and do require a lot of high precision and high powered machines. But the concepts behind the equipment is understandable, at least if the engineering simplified.
So here I go again (yes there will be a large wall of text, so take your time):
A theory is only as good as its ability to allow us to use it. This means that a theory has to make testable predictions. Now a test does not ahve to be a specific experiment, but it can be use of that principal in an engineering capacity. For instance the theory of electricity tell us about how various materials will behave in electric fields. Using this we can design devices that behave in specific ways. Say one that resists the flow of an electric current (flow of electrons through potential difference of an electric field), or that we can store a charge (capacitors), or even that some devices will one become conductors in certain circumstances (transistors).
So a theory is only as good as its ability to allow us to use it. If a theory gives an explanation, but does not allow us to derive anything useful form it, then it is a poor theory. All this means is just explaining the Facts is not enough, a theory has to be able to not only explain the facts, but make predictions about future "facts" that are covered by it.
So now we enter into the realm of scientific theory.
Isaac Newton saw objects fall (not necessarily apples). And came up with an idea: There is some force that exists between objects that cause them to be attracted to each other.
Now, as an Idea, this is pretty "out there". A "Spooky action as a distance" as someone put it. But there were precedents. Magnets were known and as could be seen, a magnet could affect another at a distance without them touching. So such an idea was not completely unheard of.
Newton proposed an Effect, not a cause of falling. Namely Gravity, and like Magnetism, it acted at a distance without any direct contact.
But, they were wrong about magnetism. There was direct contact in the form of small packets of energy that we call Photons. This is what Einstein won the Nobel prize for, not gravity, or relativity (or why tea leaves in a stirred cup move towards the centre when centrifugal force should send them outwards - yes, this was another of Einstein's contributions to science ;D), but for proof of Photons through the Photoelectric Effect.
But how does the Photoelectric effect prove that the earth can not be flat and is indeed round?
Now, for the Photoelectric effect to work, light must behave in a certain way, it must obey Maxwell equations on the prorogation of electromagnetic waves. One of the properties of these waves is that they must always travel in a straight line in free space. The path a Photon takes can not bend unless Space Time itself bends (and then the light is not bending, it is still travelling in a straight line, it is just that Euclidean Geometry is wrong).
What I need to explain here now is Geodesics. A Geodesic is a straight line in Non-Euclidean Space.
Euclidean space is the space we normally associate with geometry. You know at school drawing circles and triangle and so forth. Euclid came up with some postulate about geometry, but it the Fifth one, known as the Parallel postulate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate) that is of importance. Essentially, this postulate is wrong. It is actually a special case of what is now known as Non-Euclidean Geometry, that is one where the surface is flat.
A Straight line in Euclidean Space is defined as the Shortest line between two points. However, as Euclid assumed a flat surface, he didn't include the idea that the surface itself could be curved.
If we correct for this we come up with: The shortest path between two points that follows the surface.
This is known as a Geodesic.
So if the Surface is flat, a Geodesic is identical to a Euclidean Straight line. But if the surface is curved, then Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not correct.
This is all probably not new to you, but it is important as these are the things that are needed to explain what causes gravity. If you don't understand these and how they are "useful" (see above) then this previous section is needed.
Now, on to the proof of gravity:
As Maxwell's equations state, light must travel in a straight line, but that was assuming a Euclidean space. In non-Euclidean Space, the fabric of Space can be bend and this would cause any light travelling through it to follow the Geodesic. It would be incorrect to say that light was bent, but as an analogy that is a good one.
The light is not bent by gravity, or anything, in fact according to Maxwell's equations which if they were incorrect, then we would not get the results that we do from the Photoelectric effect. We would get different amounts of energy, and particles kicked off would not travel in the directions that they do.
If the Photoelectric effect was incorrect, then we would not have the devices that we do. Digital cameras, smoke alarms, automatic doors, etc, etc all use the photoelectric effect and would not work as they do without it. Digital Cameras are an important one as they require precise energies of photons, and if these were different, then they would not work as they do. If Maxwell's equations were incorrect, then the Photoelectric effect would produce different energies and so Digital Cameras woudl not work as they do.
So if Digital Cameras work as the do, then Maxwell's equations must also work as stated.
However, if Maxwell's equations work as stated, then this can be allowed as proof of Gravity.
As I said, Light must travel in a straight line, or if space is non-Euclidean, then along the geodesic.
If space is Euclidean, then light will always travel in a straight line, never deviating from it. But if space is non-Euclidean, then it will deviate form the Euclidean straight line because space itself is bent.
To put it crudely (and incorrectly) light will appear to bend.
This means that if we see light deviating from a Euclidean Straight line, then Space itself must be bent by something.
If space is bent, then there is probably a cause. If we can find something common to all incidents of where light deviates from the Euclidean path, then what is common would be a reasonable cause for that distortion of space.
The thing that we have seen that causes this distortion is what Newton called "Gravity". And what Newton said was the cause of gravity was Mass. Everywhere we see mass we see gravity, where we see gravity we see light deviating form the Euclidean path.
In this respect "Mass" is just the "Charge" of matter that produces gravity. Just like Electricity has a charge, Gravity has the Charge of "Mass".
But the results of careful experiments did not quite match up with the result of this theory. The theory was wrong.
One of the results was that the stronger the field of gravity the slower time seemed to move. Reactions that took known times were slowed down if they were in a stronger field, or would appear to operate faster if they were in a weaker field.
This is what Einstein proposed, that it is not just space that is distorted by gravity, but Time as well.
And this is what gravity is:
The field of Gravity is space/time (just like the electric field is the field for electricity). Distortions of this field produce distortions in the Geodesic path through it. The same can be shown for the Electric and Magnetic fields. As we can easily manipulate the Electric and Magnetic field, we can introduce such distortions and even get results that confirm that this is the case.
IF we treat the Electromagnetic force as a fabric Space/Time, we can reproduce all the effects that we associate with Distance, Time, Geodesic Paths, a form of Inertia, a form of "Gravity" (which matches with the inertia effect produced) and much more. In other words, we know the cause of Gravity as much as we know the causes of the Electromagnetic force.
They have even gone as far as manipulating the Electromagnetic force to simulate a black hole's event horizon. Of course, as it is not truly gravity that they are generating, and that they can switch it off, there is absolutely no danger, all this is a simulating (or better yet, emulation) of the event horizon of a black hole by treating the electromagnetic force as if it is a space/time.
What it shows is that Space and Tim are the results of a Field, just like the electromagnetic field, only that it uses a different form of Charge, that of Mass.
Now, one might speculate that we don't exactly know what an electric charge is. We know that electrons have it, and so do Quarks, but we don't exactly know what it is. And the same is for the Mass "charge" of matter. We know it is possessed by matter, we can directly measure the effect and we can even indirectly measure the effects, but we don't exactly know what causes the charge, only that this charge does indeed exist.
So although we don't know what causes this "charge" called Mass, we do know that it really does exist, and if it does exist, then we have Gravity and all that comes with it. We don't know what causes the charge we call "Electric Potential" but we do know that it does exist, and if it does exist then we have electricity and all that comes with it.
And as a final part, although we have detected the Photon, we have not detected the Graviton, but we might just be about to detect the actual cause of Mass, that of the Higgs Particle.
The Higgs field (of which the Higgs particle is the carrier) is actually more analogous to the experiments where the Electromagnetic field was manipulated to cause the effects of Space and Time. The Higgs, field, although not actually the cause of gravity would allow the Higgs field to create the effects of a space time, just as was done with the electromagnetic field. Space and Time might not literally exist, but be just an artefact of the metrics of the Higgs field. This will be settled by the LHC, if they do detect the Higgs particle, then this will mean that space and time are not what they seem, but are an artefact of this Higgs field.
The next few years might actually allow us to find out what exactly Gravity is made from.
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
You're assuming an answer exists, which assumes that there is an ultimate authority, which usually assumes that there is a deity, which is a bad assumption. :)
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
You're assuming an answer exists, which assumes that there is an ultimate authority, which usually assumes that there is a deity, which is a bad assumption. :)
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just asking questions.
But if there's no purpose for existence, what's the point?
If you look at the big picture, we're kind of unique.
We evolve and adapt, but for what reason? Why is it so important to exist?
When an organism is about to die, it will do everything in its power to survive.
The so called survival instinct. Why do we have this?
-
There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.
I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.
That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence.
You're assuming an answer exists, which assumes that there is an ultimate authority, which usually assumes that there is a deity, which is a bad assumption. :)
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just asking questions.
But if there's no purpose for existence, what's the point?
If you look at the big picture, we're kind of unique.
We evolve and adapt, but for what reason? Why is it so important to exist?
When an organism is about to die, it will do everything in its power to survive.
The so called survival instinct. Why do we have this?
We have this so we are more capable of procreating, because if our ancestors didn't have this they would be less capable of procreating and therefore we would be less likely to be here.
-
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just asking questions.
But if there's no purpose for existence, what's the point?
Precisely. You answered your own question.. I say, there is no point.
If you look at the big picture, we're kind of unique.
We evolve and adapt, but for what reason? Why is it so important to exist?
Evolution and adaption is not exclusive to humans, so I'm going to assume you are referring to something else that makes us special. If so, please tell me what it is.
But yeah, I believe it isn't so important to exist.
When an organism is about to die, it will do everything in its power to survive.
The so called survival instinct. Why do we have this?
...Evolution, fear, et cetera.
-
Sure, but why is it this way? Why are we build like this?
-
Sure, but why is it this way? Why are we build like this?
We are built like this due to random genetic mutations that were passed on, and because these mutation were successful. There are no reasons for the way we are.
Perhaps the answer to your question is there is no purpose.