• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More Hologram Theory ...

Iacchus said:
However, we both know that chickens don't just appear out of nowhere, precisely because everything was in the works and, scripted beforehand.
Click to expand...

Your problem with this is your complete inability to understand that our experience of PHYSICAL phenomenon composed of matter and energy CANNOT help us to understand such a thing as a singularity by mere analogy, simply becaue there are too many, fundamental differences.

Iacchus said:
Agreed, the Universe (as we see it) did not just come about overnight.
Click to expand...

Putting words in other people's mouths is not only a fallacy, it's intellectually dishonest, Iacchus. Quit it.
 
Belz... said:
Putting words in other people's mouths is not only a fallacy, it's intellectually dishonest, Iacchus. Quit it.
Click to expand...
No, I was merely rewording what I was saying, because apparently he didn't seem to "get it."
 
Iacchus said:
No, because something didn't just come along and squat and leave leave these things. However, that does not mean houses and cardboard boxes do not come from an "initial design."
Click to expand...
Note the difference between the observable squatter and designer in this example, and the lack therof in your universal example.
And apparently you seem unprepared to take into account what I said about "in the works" and, "scripted beforehand."
Click to expand...
No, I took it into account. Do you need me to be more explicit? Sure...You are inferring "in the works" and "scripted beforehand" purely from the observation of what you claim was scripted. That is circular.

Your egg/chicken metaphor has both an observable egg and an observable chicken. Your universal example has a "script" that has never been observed, but which you have inferred.

These differences are the reason your logic is circular. You really should be understanding this by now.
 
Mercutio said:
No, I took it into account. Do you need me to be more explicit? Sure...You are inferring "in the works" and "scripted beforehand" purely from the observation of what you claim was scripted. That is circular.
Click to expand...
Then you know nothing about chickens and eggs then? I was merely speaking from what I understood to be an observed fact. Deal with it.
 
Mercutio said:
Your egg/chicken metaphor has both an observable egg and an observable chicken. Your universal example has a "script" that has never been observed, but which you have inferred.

These differences are the reason your logic is circular. You really should be understanding this by now.
Click to expand...
Yes, analogy and conjecture. So what? How else are we supposed to understand (and/or explain) something, if we don't begin with that which we are most familiar?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Then you know nothing about chickens and eggs then? I was merely speaking from what I understood to be an observed fact. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Sheesh.

Knowing about chickens and eggs is not the problem. (Incidentally, I know quite a bit about them--one of the most salient things being that the smell inside a poultry barn is one of the nastiest things around, and if I go in without my respirator, I'll be coughing up blood the next day.) The problem is not with what can be observed, but with what cannot. You can speak to what you understand to be an observed fact about chickens and eggs because they can be observed. This is not the case with your alleged "universal egg". This is where your analogy fails, and the fact that you could not see that explains a lot about why your analogies are so universally terrible.
 
Mercutio said:
This is where your analogy fails, and the fact that you could not see that explains a lot about why your analogies are so universally terrible.
Click to expand...
No, it does not fail. The only thing it does not tell us is what, in conjunction with the information (or script) that tells it how to behave, laid the egg? This in fact is what we are trying to open up for discussion, is it not?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
No, it does not fail. The only thing it does not tell us is what, in conjunction with the information (or script) that tells it how to behave, laid the egg? This in fact is what we are trying to open up for discussion, is it not?
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I think the term you may be referring to here is "spoonfed."
Click to expand...

You and your fellow mystics are so proud of saying you think "outside the box", as if merely freely thinking up ideas that are unorthodox makes them truer. It's the same fallacious way of thinking that leads theists to think that, because their ideas have been around forever, they are necessarily truer.

Iacchus said:
Yes, analogy and conjecture. So what? How else are we supposed to understand (and/or explain) something, if we don't begin with that which we are most familiar?
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning is NOT conjecture. I've actually EXPLAINED to you what circular means in the past. Have you even READ anything people have told you ?

Conjecturing is basically imagining a possible explanation that we cannot, yet, conclusively prove. Circular reasoning is using your conclusion as a form of evidence to prove your conclusion. That doesn't make sense.. and ... please bear with me... I'm going to give you an example.

Tomorrow, I could very well write a book about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and claim that it was divinely inspired. Understandably, you ask how I can prove that the FSM exists and inspired my book, to which I answer: "The book says so." That's circular.

Iacchus said:
No, it does not fail. The only thing it does not tell us is what, in conjunction with the information (or script) that tells it how to behave, laid the egg?
Click to expand...

Okay, then. Let's refine that analogy. Your egg was never laid. It simply formed from pure chaos and cracked open to produce the chicken. Time and space also emerged with that chicken, as did dimension.

Iacchus said:
You don't agree that there's something very fundamentally missing with the Big Bang theory? There are many of us who would beg to differ.
Click to expand...

What's missing from it is some sort of spiritual element that would make you feel better.

NEWSFLASH

The universe DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMFORT.
 
Iacchus said:
No, it does not fail. The only thing it does not tell us is what, in conjunction with the information (or script) that tells it how to behave, laid the egg? This in fact is what we are trying to open up for discussion, is it not?
Click to expand...
No, Iacchus, your analogy fails miserably. The simple example of house eggs, car eggs, and cardboard box eggs (or rather, the lack therof) calls your analogy into question. If everything that existed came from eggs, you'd be fine. If there was any way possible to observe your putative universal plans, you'd be fine. But no, they don't, and no, you can't, and your analogy fails. The fact that you chose to quibble on the very idea of car eggs shows that you know how terrible your analogy is.

When your analogy falls apart like a wet paper bag, there is no "only thing it does not tell us". There is, in fact, only one thing it does tell us, and that is that you are so desperate to support your dreams that you will use even the silliest arguments to attempt to back them up.
 
I think we've passed beyond philosophy, beyond theology, beyond silliness, and possibly even beyond kittens when we start seriously debating cosmogony with someone who has introduced chicken and egg as the ruling metaphor!

Yeah, man, the egg came first, I know it did!
 
bruto said:
I think we've passed beyond philosophy, beyond theology, beyond silliness, and possibly even beyond kittens when we start seriously debating cosmogony with someone who has introduced chicken and egg as the ruling metaphor!

Yeah, man, the egg came first, I know it did!
Click to expand...
No way, man--God is the Cosmic Chicken! The Cosmic Chicken came first!

And don't bother asking whether the Cosmic Chicken hatched from an egg--the Cosmic Chicken is axiomatic!
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
I'm not sure if that is a joke, blame my ignorance(i do), but would you please verbose, as i don't know the reference, i'm very interested. :)
Click to expand...

Well it's a force of nature to be recognized in the various
equations of the social kind. As we look to our left and we
turn to our right always taken back when the heat starts
to rise, rise.

No one will tell you
Nobody will tell you

chorus

It's a measure of disorder
A matter of time
We're living in entropy

Well it's random reaction that's divided by rage.
A single-handed effort in the escalade.
The static will clear as the masses evolve.
A loss of information as the message fades away, fades away.

No one will tell you
Nobody will tell you

Repeat chorus

Rise
Nobody will tell you
Rise

Repeat chorus

Can't wait for her next album, where the chubby rock chick will sing about mass.
 
Mercutio said:
No way, man--God is the Cosmic Chicken! The Cosmic Chicken came first!

And don't bother asking whether the Cosmic Chicken hatched from an egg--the Cosmic Chicken is axiomatic!
Click to expand...
Really, all you folks need to do is pay attention to he principle of begetting here. It doesn't really matter who the mother or father is, so long as there was a mother and/or father ... which, is apparently the issue you don't wish to address.
 
Iacchus said:
Really, all you folks need to do is pay attention to he principle of begetting here. It doesn't really matter who the mother or father is, so long as there was a mother and/or father.
Click to expand...
Which has not been established, and for which there is no evidence, and for which your analogy is inappropriate.

Back to square one. This time, try looking at the evidence first, and then figuring out what it means.
 
Mercutio said:
Which has not been established, and for which there is no evidence, and for which your analogy is inappropriate.

Back to square one. This time, try looking at the evidence first, and then figuring out what it means.
Click to expand...
I'm just mentioning that it's glaring inconsistency to the theory, that's all. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom