Actually, it is the floor that drops, relative to the observational frame of the brick.
Actually, this strawman of Iacchus's is one we have seen many times before, most recently in the "elephant" thread. Iacchus equates "anything less than 100% certainty" with "total uncertainty"; in his black-and-white world of absolutes, it might even make sense to him.
As Trixie hints, we can be certain of some things. We can, for instance, be certain that something does not exist if it is logically impossible (within two-dimensional Euclidian geometry, a square circle cannot exist). Because of the inherent circularity in the arguments you have presented, we can be certain that there is no evidence whatsoever for your notions of "before time" and "outside of space". (I speak here only of Iacchus's notions--I am not aware of other theories which might be logically tenable, but I suppose they could exist.)
We can certainly be "more confident" and "less confident" in our statements even if "certainty" is reserved for 100%. We can know, for instance, that a particular claim is consistent with evidence, and another is not. Again, Iacchus's notions lose out here.
For Iacchus to point to science and say "there is no 100% certainty here...therefore my ideas are as legitimate as theirs" is laughable. Somewhere recently on this forum, somebody paraphrased Sagan: "if a person says the earth is flat, he is wrong. If another person says the earth is a perfect sphere, that person is also wrong. But if you think that the two of them are equally wrong, you are more wrong than both of them put together!"
eta: it was in Roborama's sig, and it was Asimov, not Sagan:
Last edited:
