Summations Only

Yes - It demands (assumes?) that there is a purposeful agent that is not itself subject to physical cause and effect.Whose purpose are the "woo inspired" religious questions seeking?

Some of Chuck77 answers in another thread have caused me to rethink my expectations. Surely we want creationists to participate in these threads. But when you don't know all that much science, how are you going to participate in science based discussions?Perhaps calling science "mumbo jumbo" is the best we're going to get. At least it isn't his job five days a week.

You might be right. But I optimistically have higher hopes for Chuck. And even when my optimism fails me I try to think of the others reading the thread that might be swayed by better arguments.But - Ultimately - I am here for my own entertainment and people like Chuck, Buz etc. provide a useful foil for that. Plus I am increasingly fond of the silly but familiar devils (Chuck, Buz, ICANT, Dawn Bertot etc.) no matter how silly I think they might be.

Nope. That is why we are here. It's the same question, it just has a built in assumption of a higher purpose given by some agency that simply has no evidence. Without that assumption, the answer is simply mundane. But it still answers the question, even if it is not to the listeners satisfaction.

No. The claim in statement (2) in this O.P. was being made. That's the incorrect one that the proper usage of "why" is for questions of purpose.

The concept yes, but not all. After the fall of man things went haywire. The good things he is. No, He's not. That would be satan. Maybe my "whys" are messed up. Which "why" questions are we talking about?Why is the sky blue? I think there is some sort of explanation for that or something to do with reflection of the ocean. Why is there a sky? Because God created it.Why questions can;t be only explained thru science. Why questions lead to more why's.

Then before you can attribute monkeys' desire for bananas to God, you first have to establish that it's a good thing. Perhaps it's an abomination before the LORD like so many other things that no rational being would give a flying fuck about.

Actually that comment was for Straggler but he wont mind. You seem bored so i'll entertain you for a few more minutes. Yes, bananas are good for you.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

But is it good that monkeys should eat bananas? Perhaps it's sinful. How would we know?

Because sin procuces ill effects. Bananas are not causing harm to monkeys who eat them.

What are the ill-effects of wearing mixed fabrics? Or picking up sticks on Saturday? Or sitting on a menstruating woman's bed but not subsequently sacrificing a dove?

The penalty for disobeying God's Laws back then could be a lot of things.Although, I thought we were talking about bananas? Would you like to discuss OT laws instead?

* head spins *It's wrong ... because it has ill-effects ... the ill-effects being ... that people will stone you to death ... because it's wrong.* head spins some more *So if people start stoning monkeys to death for eating bananas, will it become a sin? After all, it will then be bad for them. Well apparently before I can understand why monkeys eat bananas, I first have to understand the will of God. This is one of the many, many difficulties in carrying out a creationist research program.

Why would anyone do that? We're you out on Baker St tonight? It's not so much a stretch that God supplied bananas for monkeys. No need to try to find Gods will for that. It's quite simple. Yet you are all over the place. Care to focus on one thing at a time?

Yesterday I was bitten by a cat flea. It sucked my blood and presumably was good for it so that would be God's will?But it made a large red, itchy swelling appear on my leg which could cause septicaemia and kill me. That would be Satan then?If so, God's will resulted in a Satanic outcome. Have I got this right?