you still around?
@sharkb8 I'm here
I can see you and hear you
@mani_bharathy have you tried reloading? I reloaded and I'm still able to see myself so I think it's on your end but I'm not sure.
@sharkb8 It says Waiting for shark8 to start the debate
Again, We are not able to reach to any conclusion. Fun debate though
@mani_bharathy I have a few more minutes if you wanna go for a bit more.
@sharkb8 I have all the time in universe to talk about universe
@mani_bharathy haha lets go to the lounge.
@sharkb8 We are going live discussion or debate?
@mani_bharathy I'm in the lounge. Go click join live discussion and you'll see me.
@mani_bharathy actually crap I have to go I have a show in an hour and I should get ready for that. Let's continue this another night (well morning for you haha)
@mani_bharathy @sharkb8 I think that sharkb8 misunderstood mani_bharathy’s argument at the start of the round. As far as I can tell (and based on his citation of scientific discoveries), mani_bharathy isn’t saying that we should believe whatever idea is consistent with reality (this is what I think sharkb8 understands it as, since he brought up presuppositional Christians as a counterpoint). Instead, he is saying that we should believe whatever idea is MORE consistent with reality.For example, if we assume that there is no god, then it makes sense that babies are born with fatal birth defects because our planet is an accident, so nothing in the universe really cares about those babies. On the other hand, if we assume that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, then it doesn’t make sense that babies are born with fatal birth defects because god should be both willing and able to stop that.You may not agree with that specific example, but my point is that if one idea is inconsistent with reality and the other is consistent with reality, then we can reject the one that is inconsistent.I think that mani_bharathy is trying to say that the idea that we have a purpose is inconsistent with certain realities of the universe, and therefore should be rejected.With less than 5 minutes left in the debate, sharkb8 told mani_bharathy, “you haven’t made any arguments!” But the reason he hadn’t given any arguments was because sharkb8 stopped him at this framing issue before he could get to his arguments.The question isn’t whether mani_bharathy’s belief is practical, it’s whether it fits the evidence AND whether the idea of human purpose DOESN’T fit the evidence.Unfortunately, since the debate was almost entirely focused on framing, I’m going to have to vote draw on this.
@kyrothehero Yep. I think you got my point. But @sharkb8 was reluctant to agree on that. So we had to spend the whole time on the framework itself
@kyrothehero oh I know that's what he's saying, but it's totally inaccurate. We had another debate on the same topic and the whole time he kept saying "well we have to choose one" and I kept saying no we don't. There is absolutely no reason why we have to pick between there being an objective purpose or there not being an objective purpose to humanity. You "can" pick which one you personally believe, but there's nothing that requires us to choose, and it's logically invalid to do so since we don't have the necessary knowledge to do so in the first place.Mani isn't saying, showing, or proving that there is no purpose to humanity. He's just saying he doesn't personally see one. But that's irrelevant because human's aren't capable of seeing it in the first place.