• 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.

Intelligent Design

Iacchus said:
I agree, that would be like trying to separate thunder from a flash of lightning. However, you seem to be associating time with existence itself, as opposed to the existence of matter. Are you suggesting that the two are one and the same? If so, then you will have to find a way to explain how can something come from nothing. If you are unsure, then perhaps you should go ask Merc? ;) At least he seems to be under the general impression -- albeit I'm not sure he can explain it any better than you can? -- that such a thing is not possible.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying something came from nothing. I'm saying that, from our position inside the universe, we cannot know what was before the Big Bang. Perhaps it was nothing. Perhaps it was a giant's fart. We can never know. Do you understand now?

Additionally, although it is logical that it is impossible for something to come from nothing, this does not make it certain. Why do you keep telling me to talk to Merc? I'm arguing with you, not him. Is this some vague attempt at an appeal to authority?
 
Robin said:
Now to my questions that you still haven't answered - how could something that 'always existed' be 'pre-planned'?

If irreducible complexity implies the existence of a designer and the designer is irreducibly complex, doesn't that imply the designer was designed?
Click to expand...
What I'm referring to here is the "potential" for something to exist. Where everything is so-arranged -- albeit not in the physical sense -- that it allows for what appears to be new to come about. Consider for example, if you had a "replicator" like in the original Star Trek series. Here, it would simply be a matter of coming up the the correct formulas which, must also exist in "potential," in order to replicate/create whatever you wish.
 
Iacchus said:
What I'm referring to here is the "potential" for something to exist. Where everything is so-arranged -- albeit not in the physical sense -- that it allows for what appears to be new to come about. Consider for example, if you had a "replicator" like in the original Star Trek series. Here, it would simply be a matter of coming up the the correct formulas which, must also exist in "potential," in order to replicate/create whatever you wish.
Click to expand...

Dodge noted. Please answer the question, Iacchus.
 
Taffer said:
I'm not saying something came from nothing. I'm saying that, from our position inside the universe, we cannot know what was before the Big Bang. Perhaps it was nothing. Perhaps it was a giant's fart. We can never know. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
No, I don't understand, because it doesn't explain the existence of anything spiritual.

Additionally, although it is logical that it is impossible for something to come from nothing, this does not make it certain. Why do you keep telling me to talk to Merc? I'm arguing with you, not him. Is this some vague attempt at an appeal to authority?
Click to expand...
Because this is the strawman argument that Merc continues to accuse me of committing ... My insistence that other folks on this forum argue from the standpoint that something can from nothing. So, whenever possible, I will attempt to illustrate exactly what Mercutio is referring to here.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Dodge noted ... ;)
Click to expand...

This is not a dodge, Iacchus. It's simply the truth. We cannot know what was before the Big Bang, because to do so would mean to go before time-space, and to leave the universe. That is impossible.
 
Taffer said:
This is not a dodge, Iacchus. It's simply the truth. We cannot know what was before the Big Bang, because to do so would mean to go before time-space, and to leave the universe. That is impossible.
Click to expand...
And I call you "willfully ignorant," because it is explainable ... by virtue of the fact that you (and others) claim that something cannot come from nothing. Or else what is this "something" that you're referring to here? Are you saying that it cannot be identified as "something" ... or, what? :eek: :eek:
 
Iacchus said:
And you just merely assume, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

My assumption comes from reading your multitude of posts, which lead me to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Iacchus said:
And I call you "willfully ignorant," because it is explainable ... by virtue of the fact that you (and others) claim that something cannot come from nothing. Or else what is this "something" that you're referring to here? Are you saying that it cannot be identified as "something" ... or, what? :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

I am not referring to any "something". Speculation about its nature is pointless, as it is impossible to know its very nature. It could be God. It could be a fart. We will not, can not, ever know. This is not willfull ignorance, Iacchus. It is the nature of the universe.
 
Taffer said:
I am not referring to any "something".
Click to expand...
Which is to say, you are not referring to any-thing. Which, in fact is no-thing.

Speculation about its nature is pointless, as it is impossible to know its very nature. It could be God. It could be a fart. We will not, can not, ever know. This is not willfull ignorance, Iacchus. It is the nature of the universe.
Click to expand...
Yet if we can identify it as "something," we have already begun to speculate. So, which is it?
 
Iacchus said:
Which is to say, you are not referring to any-thing. Which, in fact is no-thing.
Click to expand...

No. I was saying that there could be something. I was not, however, referring to any particular "something".

Yet if we can identify it as "something," we have already begun to speculate. So, which is it?
Click to expand...

We haven't idetified it as "something" at all. I am simply using that to illustrate the point. I see you have picked up on one tiny part of the discussion, is this because you finally realise your argument is false?
 
Taffer said:
No. I was saying that there could be something. I was not, however, referring to any particular "something".
Click to expand...
So you are saying you really don't know and are leaning towards the possibility of nothing?

We haven't idetified it as "something" at all. I am simply using that to illustrate the point. I see you have picked up on one tiny part of the discussion, is this because you finally realise your argument is false?
Click to expand...
Ah, but an entire Universe doesn't arise out of a "tiny" sliver of nothing you see. Or, as you seem to suggest above, does it? ...
 
Taffer said:
My assumption comes from reading your multitude of posts, which lead me to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Yet you have made it imminently clear, that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Iacchus said:
So you are saying you really don't know and are leaning towards the possibility of nothing?
Click to expand...

*sigh* Try to understand this, Iacchus. It's not that I don't know. It's that we can't know. What I think is not the issue. I might personally think the universe arrose as the by product of two super-heated particles fusing in another universe, but that makes no difference. It's simply speculation. Anything is speculation. Iacchus, we cannot know.

Ah, but an entire Universe doesn't arise out of a "tiny" sliver of nothing you see. Or, as you seem to suggest above, does it? ...
Click to expand...

How do you know it didn't?
 
Tricky said:
Oct 22, 6:53PM

No, I think I think I have it pretty well in hand.

What does time measure? It measures things happening. It could be clock hands moving, planets circling, atoms vibrating, or the relative movement of any existing things. So the only way that things could "happen" is if time exists. By the same token, the only way time can be a meaningful concept is if "things" exist (for time to measure).

There is no existence without time and no time without existence. They are the space-time continuum.

So it is meaningless to talk about what happened "before" existence. There was no "before" because "before" is a time-based concept.

There. I've explained it to you again. How much "time" will it take you to ignore/forget it this "time"?
Click to expand...

Iacchus said:
Oct 23, 6:57 pm
So, what existed before the Big Bang then? Are you saying there was no reality there to support it? Or, how could such a "complex" universe as this arise out of nowhere?
Click to expand...
Apparently I have an answer to my question. It takes approximately 24 hours for Iacchus to completely ignore/forget what has been explained to him. If you are the type who likes debating with Iacchus, you might want to make a note of this. You can expect your debate points to be remembered for about one day until you have to make them again.

Sort of like the movie 50 First Dates
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom