American Beauty Plastic Bag Scene

this part changed my life...seriously

The burden of proof lies with those who argue from assumptions, which we both did. If you want to argue opinions, that is one thing, but fact, and I mean truly indisputable knowledge (there is precious little that we can "know") that is entirely something else. You argue your opinion, rightfully so, but you try to disguise it as unapproachable scientific truth. I call bullshit - and please, with all your apparent intelligence, don't denigrate the rest of us with all the superfluous adjectives.

No, again, burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Anthropomorphization is assumptuous when speaking of the inanimate, but figuring a lack of emotion and consciousness is not, for that is the ostensible truth and in fact the definition of being inanimate in the first place. Gotta laugh - I've never been called out for "assuming" that a collection of gasses, stars, planets and galaxies didn't have feelings of its own. I wonder if the Milky Way would find this movie as shitty as I do.

Okay, I think there has been a miscommunication throughout this entire exchange, and I believe it's my fault - my apologies if that is true. I have been thinking throughout that we were discussing the existence of "god". When you referred to the universe as indifferent, I assumed (shame on me) that you meant the universe is godless (I still assume you think that - but I thought you were specifically referring to a godless universe when you used that phrase). continued

When I referred to the universe as benevolent, I meant a universe that is the creation of "god". I did not mean that the inanimate objects found in the universe are projecting benevolence towards the occupants of the universe because they are somehow imbued with emotion and consciousness. I meant that a divine presence within, above, throughout, under, (whatever) projects that benevolence.

I admit that "the universe is benevolent" is an assumption on my part and anyone else who subscribes to it. My purpose in contending with you has been to see if you wil concede that the statement "the universe is indifferent" (ie: the universe is godless, that its existence and configuration is completely random) is also an assumption, a belief, but not a knowable truth.

Lol, I don't want to speculate on the Milky Way's opinions - she may not have seen this movie yet. I also don't want to argue whether this movie is shit or gold - opinions are useless unless you can discuss the reasoning behind them, which is what I was attempting to do.

I agree a lower burden of proof is needed to say "I don't know if the universe is indifferent," however "the universe is not mindful of arbitrary human notions" has a much lower burden than, "there are guiding forces that care about whether something is beautiful." Whoever is claiming that something "Is" is always out on a limb, sort of the inverse of "you can't prove a negative." Lack of evidence to support that positive claim increases the burden. I wouldn't dare taunt logic so flagrantly.

Do you mean that a lower burden of proof is needed to say point blank "the universe is indifferent"? There is no burden of proof in saying "I don't know if the universe is indifferent" because there is no burden of proof in not knowing. Actually, this is the only truly logical position to take on the universe's indifference or benevolence, the existence or non-existence of "god". We cannot know this with our resources as human beings. We can only make assumptions of belief or disbelief.

sensational crap