What we are speaking of here, are limitations imposed upon a Universe which is bound rules and logic, not the Creator of that Universe.
It was very clear to me what I was saying, regarding the "principle" of time.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter codeblue
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
So the one that gives you problems is the one that potentially can be known, and the one that is fictional you are comfortable with. Fine.
And it was clearly circularly defined. Was that "very clear" to you as well? If it was clear to you, you should have anticipated the circularity problem and known what responses you would get. Which is why I have often recommended to you that you educate yourself on logical fallacies, so that your ideas can be presented and debated on their merits, rather than on your inability to present them coherently.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Of course I am requiring that certain people think about what it is I'm saying.
I have been thinking about what you're saying. I now have a headache and I'm going to go have an ibuprofin or ten.
In context of the OP, "something came from nothing" is cosmological and not something that we can logically discuss.
I am willing to get rip-roaring drun....um, have a less rigiorous discussion over a pot of tea, about this where we don't have to abied by any formal rules of logic, reason, good taste, decorum et al. Here, however, it generally helps to:
a) have a grasp of logic and debate forms.
b) have a point
c) use a) to defend b) rather than throwing all manner of crap at people.
Things don't just manifest themselves out of thin air do they? If you're not sure then perhaps you should go ask Merc?
Sorry, this is what I meant to say originally, but forgot I had opened it up in another window. I'm still in effect asking how something can come from nothing though.How so? ... Only if you're willing to concede that God does not exist.
The fictional part is in "your" mind.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
By that I assume that you mean that new things don't just pop into existance? If that's your meaning, then, no, I have never observed such a phenomenon, nor have I ever heard a credible report of such.
Ok, so, since it is reasonable to assume that things don't just pop into existance, then God done it? Where'd God come from? Which God are we talking about? Maybe Brahma reall DOES sleep. Maybe Anistasi did weave the world. Or, maybe it's all just rot and "random" forces started it all. I don't know, I wasn't there, but I' have seen "random" forces at work, but i've never see evidence of God.
Why do you hold us to a higher standard than you hold yourself? That really hardly seems fair.
Okay, so how many things have to exist in theory, before one thing can exist in actuality? Or, do all things have to exist in theory first? ... which is to say, things don't really evolve.
Or, maybe it's just a problem with language?
Iacchus, why does this change the situation a bit? Once you let in one entity for which there is no evidence, in order to attempt to explain something, what is to stop you from admitting another, and another, and turtles all the way down? You are trying to infer from our mere existence that god must logically exist to have jump-started the whole thing. So, this god is both inferred from our existence and allegedly the cause of same. Where have we heard this before?...ah, yes, circularity!
So, the logical argument you are attempting is bankrupt. You are left with either simply assuming the existence of a god (and admitting it is an assumption which is backed by neither logic nor evidence) or finding some evidence. The latter will be difficult, as you are attempting to find evidence for something which is outside the knowable universe. Good luck with that.
So it is not so much the notion of "conceding that god does not exist". Frankly, your attempt at logic renders any god irrelevant, so our default position is "no evidence for a god". It is not the same as conceding that god does not exist, but I don't think you'll be particularly happy with it either.
Once again, Iacchus, the honest answer is that we do not know, because we have no evidence, much at all about the opening moments of our universe. And neither do you. And none are claiming "something came from nothing", because that is more knowledge than we have. (It may be the case, though, that you are claiming that god came from nothing. That is something you will have to work out for yourself.)
If I thought you knew what this meant, I'd give you credit for your first true statement of the day.
And this is utter nonsense, of course.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
As Tricky said, that's the definition. Please, let's not co-opt "irreducibly complex" to mean whatever we feel like, as has been done with "quantum."Hammegk said:
~~ Paul
Iacchus, it is clear that your readers think about your posts more than you do. We actually pay attention, which is why we pick up the logical inconsistencies. You do not pick them up--why? It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that you do not think about what you are saying.Iacchus said:
The evidence is the fact that we exist. Or, haven't you figured that out yet?
I already know that God exists. So, it's just a matter of trying to explain it to other folks in a way that they can understand.
Yes, and you merely speak for yourselves.
No, I'm not giving you the least bit of credit for thinking something is "fictional" when it's not ... if that's what you think?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Or "species," which Hammy seems to have recently redefined to include any two organisms with a common ancestor.
Too bad we can't check with the universe next door.
Yeah, I guess. It does apply to life itself, so far.
You misunderstand. Rna-Dna per se would not be here, or a least it wouldn't have "emerged" as materialists believe it did.Tricky said:
Iacchus, I am willing to cede that on a certain (non-quantum) level, there is no such thing as randomness. I see where you're coming from on this. (Yes, I speak gibberish.)
When a gambler throws a pair of dice down a craps table, the result is not entirely random. The size and weight of the dice, the shapes of the corners, the position of the dice before the throw, the force, spin, and momentum of the throw, even temperature and windspeed will affect the outcome. These are all non-random factors. If one wanted to do all of the math involved with the physics, one could indeed calculate exactly what the result of the throw would be. However, such math is beyond the realm of most mortal gamblers. For the purposes of the casino, the results are truly random.
In much the same way that for the purposes of evolution, genetic mutations are random. Even though the causes of such mutations are based in a very real physics, those causes have little to do in the expression of whether the host organism gains any ability to catch a tastier rabbit, thus survive longer, thus birth a healthier litter. The granularity of evolution is not sufficiently granular enough to care. For all intents and purposes, it's all random.
Same with the dice. The gambler doesn't care about about microscopic imperfections of the dice. Such things will not make enough of a difference in the way the house sets its odds. Nor does it -- and this is the important thing -- imply that such imperfections are evidence of long term advanced planning by a superior intelligence has cosmically determined that Joe Schmendirck from Reno will hit a hard eight.
Things can unfold without advance planning. Anyone who's worked on a long term office project can attest to this.
Or, to put it in words that will mean as much to you:
Banana cycle moving parsimonious crysanthimum borscht giving has blender mudpie asks.
When a gambler throws a pair of dice down a craps table, the result is not entirely random. The size and weight of the dice, the shapes of the corners, the position of the dice before the throw, the force, spin, and momentum of the throw, even temperature and windspeed will affect the outcome. These are all non-random factors. If one wanted to do all of the math involved with the physics, one could indeed calculate exactly what the result of the throw would be. However, such math is beyond the realm of most mortal gamblers. For the purposes of the casino, the results are truly random.
In much the same way that for the purposes of evolution, genetic mutations are random. Even though the causes of such mutations are based in a very real physics, those causes have little to do in the expression of whether the host organism gains any ability to catch a tastier rabbit, thus survive longer, thus birth a healthier litter. The granularity of evolution is not sufficiently granular enough to care. For all intents and purposes, it's all random.
Same with the dice. The gambler doesn't care about about microscopic imperfections of the dice. Such things will not make enough of a difference in the way the house sets its odds. Nor does it -- and this is the important thing -- imply that such imperfections are evidence of long term advanced planning by a superior intelligence has cosmically determined that Joe Schmendirck from Reno will hit a hard eight.
Things can unfold without advance planning. Anyone who's worked on a long term office project can attest to this.
Or, to put it in words that will mean as much to you:
Banana cycle moving parsimonious crysanthimum borscht giving has blender mudpie asks.