Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Iacchus said:
By the way "meta" means before. Hence we're speaking of that which came "before" or, gave rise to the physical.
Click to expand...

No, we're not. Because nothing came "before" the physical since time itself is a function of the physical, via the Big Bang.
 
Iacchus said:
By the way "meta" means before. Hence we're speaking of that which came "before" or, gave rise to the physical.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: meta-
Variant(s): or met-
Function: prefix
Etymology: New Latin & Medieval Latin, from Latin or Greek; Latin, from Greek, among, with, after, from meta among, with, after; akin to Old English mid, mith with, Old High German mit
1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after <metestrus> b : situated behind or beyond <metencephalon> <metacarpus> c : later or more highly organized or specialized form of <metaxylem>
2 : change : transformation
3 [metaphysics] : more comprehensive : transcending <metapsychology> -- used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one <metamathematics>
4 a : involving substitution at or characterized by two positions in the benzene ring that are separated by one carbon atom <meta-xylene> b : derived from by loss of water <metaphosphoric acid>


Re 1a) this definition runs counter to what you are implying
Re 1b) suggests it would be behind/beyond space-time, is this what you are using?
Re 1c) moot to discussion
Re 2) moot to discussion
Re 3) Probably what you mean, however my contention stands. Since space-time may, or may not, have existed prior to the Big Bang, then we do not know if our current conditions existed. If they did, then it is not metaphysical. If they did not, it could be considered metaphysical
Re 4ab) moot to discussion
 
Iacchus said:
Do you deny that these (or any) conditions existed?
Click to expand...

Prior to the Big Bang? I will restate again, we can not predict what conditions, including the possible lack thereof, existed prior to the Big Bang.

Our current understand suggests, however, that any conditions that may have existed prior to the Big Bang did not have an effect upon the conditions post-Big Bang.
 
drkitten said:
Which part of "are unknown" did you miss?
Click to expand...
Do you deny that any conditions existed? If you do, then what you are saying is that what we see before us (reality) is an impossibility.
 
Last edited:
So, long story short....

Nobody can talk about anything speculative?

This is where I get really confused. The matter was there. Where did the matter come from? This is why I find it funny when there are arguments about creation and big bang. Both take a leap, warranted or not warranted.
 
Iacchus said:
So, would either of you agree that time and space originated from another dimension? Or, do you believe it has no origin? If it has an origin, then obviously it must have originated from some place other than time and space.
Click to expand...

Obviously ? I don't know about that.

This has been explained to you again and again. Singularity, etc. etc. I'm not doing this again.
 
Iacchus said:
Do you deny that these (or any) conditions existed?
Click to expand...

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "before" means something other than temporal "before". "Before" the Big Bang, there was a singularity. Spacetime Foam and all that. There were no "conditions" present. No space, time, matter or energy. Just chaos.

See, you made me do it again.
 
wastepanel said:
So, long story short....

Nobody can talk about anything speculative?

This is where I get really confused. The matter was there. Where did the matter come from? This is why I find it funny when there are arguments about creation and big bang. Both take a leap, warranted or not warranted.
Click to expand...

Speculation is fine and dandy. Thing is though. The Theory of the Big Bang states that at a point in space-time, the universe (as we know it) was compressed to a point where our current laws of physics break down. It does not attempt to address what the conditions were prior to that point.

Creation, OTOH, attempts to address those prior conditions.
 
Iacchus said:
So, you are not denying the possibility that something existed prior to the Big Bang then?
Click to expand...
Are you denying the fact that it is impossible for us to know that something existed prior to the Big Bang?

A simple yes or no will do.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Speculation is fine and dandy. Thing is though. The Theory of the Big Bang states that at a point in space-time, the universe (as we know it) was compressed to a point where our current laws of physics break down. It does not attempt to address what the conditions were prior to that point.

Creation, OTOH, attempts to address those prior conditions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what I don't get about theistic objections to the big bang.
They say, "You don't know what came before the big bang! You don't know where all that matter and energy came from!" Okay, fine. But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that someone or something created it.

So, we know that it exists. We know that spacetime and all of the known universe was condensed to a very small volume. That's all we know. Going beyond that is unwarrented by the evidence.
But that's exactly what theists do. They make the assumption that it needed a cause. Then they make the assumption that because we don't know what that cause was (or even if there was one!) that it must have been some sort of intelligent God.

It doesn't follow. That doesn't make it false, but it's no different from assuming that it was vomitted up by some cosmic frog.
Better to just say "we don't know", than to start making baseless assumptions.

Could the big bang have a cause? Sure, as far as I know, it might (though I admit to not knowing that much), but we make a big mistake when we start assuming that we know the attributes of that cause. Especially when we don't even know if one exists!

Going from "you have to at least admit the possibility that the big bang had a cause" to "you have to at least admit the possibility that the big bang had a cause, and it was an anthropomophic god who doesn't want you to eat pork,etc etc etc" is well... silly.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and what would you have me say?
Click to expand...
The truth, and the means by which you know it is the truth.

Example: We don't know what happened "before" the BB, because time and space as we can perceive them began at that point, as evidenced by cosmic background radiation, doppler shift evidence of universe expansion, and percentages of elements in the universe.

Example: I know what happened before the BB, because I had a really cool dream.


This way, not only can we evaluate your statement, but we can also evaluate the evidence which leads you to make that statement.
 
Huntster said:
We share outlooks. I don't speak for others, either. Just me.

I must have been in error with my generalizations, like the "good doctor".

You must be "different".
Click to expand...

You still have not answered my question. How am I "full of myself", as you claim all skeptics are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom