Yep, I'm stuck in reality, and I don't speak or understand the language of fantasy and mental illness.Iacchus said:
Plus, lifegazer uses language that he thinks makes him sound smarter, and it just makes him look stupid. For instance, why say "by definitive default", when you can use the much clearer term "by definition"?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Iacchus said:
try a Google search on vacum energy. 'Nothing' can actualy be an energy potential.
As I have tried to explain to LG, the vacum may be empty but it is not 'nothing' it can be devoid of energy and matter but still be 'something'.
The thing about the Big Band is this, we can make assumptions about the form the music has taken since the band began to play. But we can not find out what was there in the Hall before the music started. All we can do is observe the music.
Due to the nature of the Big Splooge there is no way to know what caused the Big Splooge or to see past it. We are stuck inside the universe with no current way to see out of it. We can engage in all sorts of modeling but currently there is no way to answer the question of the primal cause. Under quantum theory , you can have a virtual universe arise from a quantum fluctuation as long as it also gives rise to a virtual anti-universe and the two universes do not excede the energy of the vacum which they popped out of.
Inflation is very cool too, in that an inflating universe can lead to an infinity of inflating universe.
But it is just like me making a machine to go back in time and create the universe. In doing so I will leave the universe and not be able to say that i did it.
Kind of frustrating that the primal cause can never be determined, but it sure makes for a great debate.
You don't have an argument, you have an assertion that YOU have to present evidence for, not that we have to refute. Your assertion still boils down to "everything has a cause, therefore something exists which doesn't have a cause." then you assert that this 'causeless cause' is God, because it suits you, not because of any logic.lifegazer said:
Plus, my left boot(God) is becoming angry at you, and is threatening a one-way trip through your digestive system, starting at the exit and working its way up.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Iacchus said:
Well maybe you should open your mind to the fcat that science does not deal in absolutes but in approximations.
The 'nothing' that verything came from is most likely a 'something', the nature of which we can only make some vauge surmises about. We can only model the possible events that might have led to the universe as it appears to be.
And virtual particles are a real phenomena, but like verything else the process of science involves a lot of overcoming 'the way things ought to be' in favor of ' a theory that adequatley explains observed phenomena.'
Most current cosmologies do allow for the something that exists for evr, we just can't determine what that might be.
Everything I see has a cause, do you agree with that? Everything that we know about has a cause. You just posted that everything is an effect, therefore everything has a cause.lifegazer said:
How do you get from there to saying that something exists without a cause? That is like saying 'all birds have wings, therefore there must be a bird that doesn't have wings.' Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
GhostWriter said:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
GhostWriter said:
Plenty of causes so little time!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Iacchus said:
Uh, I think I just said that there are no absolutes in science that are used as 'absolute in philosophical terms'. The 'whatever' was most likely not absolute prior to the Big Band, and it ceratianly seems to be non-absolure now.
We can not know what 'existance' was prior to the Big Band starting to play, we can only see the music.
Where is thees absolute? We have fermions and bosons and leptons, and not even those seem to be absolute.(white solution?)
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
That is neither a position nor a philosophy. It is merely a definition.
~~ Paul
triadboy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 2,556
Iacchus said:
Apparently you believe the 'cosmic chicken' did it. I believe his name was Yahweh. The most pitiful excuse for a god in mythological history. He sure was a lot more active back when ignorance ruled. We don't see him much anymore, do we?
No, just a definition. Basically, it is like saying "Thor is the god of storms, by definition. You see storms, therefore Thor exists."Iacchus said:A definition of what? His philosophy?
"Primal cause" is a phrase that lifegazer made up, or borrow, and he defines it a certain way, which doesn't prove its existance, any more than my definition of Thor proves that Thor exists.
"But the Orphics say that black-winged Night, a goddess of whom even Zeus stands in awe, was courted by the Wind and laid a silver egg in the womb of Darkness; and that Eros, whom some call Phanes, was hatched from this egg and set the Universe in motion." ~ Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Vol. 1 ...triadboy said: