• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Universe Is Supernatural

MungomanII said:
We would hill 'em at least twice, sometimes three times, because spuds form from the bottom up
Click to expand...

I start them off in a hole. Makes earthing up very easy. And also may have something to do with the shape of the Universe.
 
dr wu said:
After 15 pages the issue has become somewhat muddied imho.....it seems that the 'original' idea proposed in the first post that 'it came into being from nothing as a supernatural act' is neither original , a conundrum, nor one that can be proven over any current scientific model.
The bottom line is one can pontificate all they want- with or without logic-.... but at this stage saying 'we simply don't know' is the best answer.
Click to expand...

If its not original then why is nobody else saying it. SHow me an example of them doing so. Can't be proven? it's a matter of deduction. All the logical options are not possible hence the only option left to us must be true. The cosmos is supernatural.
Saying we simply don't know is telling. Nobody knows because they are trying to answer the problem with logic and it isn't a logical problem. You may not know, but I do.

But why I bother to respond to posts like yours is beyond me. You come on and have your say and like int21 you vanish never to post again. Ignorance is bliss.
 
fudgetusk said:
If its not original then why is nobody else saying it. SHow me an example of them doing so.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths just scroll down to 'Ex Nihilo' (from nothing) and you'll see that people have been thinking that way for quite a while, albeit termed in ways that medieval folks could picture.

fudgetusk said:
Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

I see earlier in this thread that you accuse people of being damaged by scientists, and then you use quotes from scientists to try and get your point across? Are these 'scientists' a good or bad thing? Are they blissfully ignorant too?

You also brought up the Dunning-Kruger effect, without an ounce of irony.
 
fudgetusk said:
If its not original then why is nobody else saying it. SHow me an example of them doing so. Can't be proven? it's a matter of deduction. All the logical options are not possible hence the only option left to us must be true. The cosmos is supernatural.
Saying we simply don't know is telling. Nobody knows because they are trying to answer the problem with logic and it isn't a logical problem. You may not know, but I do.

But why I bother to respond to posts like yours is beyond me. You come on and have your say and like int21 you vanish never to post again. Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...
It isn't original ....mankind has been offering the supernatural explanation since the dawn of time.
It can't be proven no matter how much you think. It can be argued as can other positions.
And the fact of the matter is at this stage we don't know.
I post on multiple threads here and this is not the only one I'm interested in.
You might try being less obnoxious in your own ignorance.
 
fudgetusk said:
If its not original then why is nobody else saying it. SHow me an example of them doing so. Can't be proven? it's a matter of deduction. All the logical options are not possible hence the only option left to us must be true. The cosmos is supernatural.
Saying we simply don't know is telling. Nobody knows because they are trying to answer the problem with logic and it isn't a logical problem. You may not know, but I do.

But why I bother to respond to posts like yours is beyond me. You come on and have your say and like int21 you vanish never to post again. Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

Because we don't know, it must be supernatural? That's what people thought about thunder and lightning a few hundred years ago as well. Now we know better.
 
Last edited:
dr wu said:
It isn't original ....mankind has been offering the supernatural explanation since the dawn of time.
It can't be proven no matter how much you think. It can be argued as can other positions.
And the fact of the matter is at this stage we don't know.
I post on multiple threads here and this is not the only one I'm interested in.
You might try being less obnoxious in your own ignorance.
Click to expand...

I mean the content of my op is original, BUDDY. Yeah, I know people have been saying the world has a supernatural genesis for thousands of years. I'm not stupid. Nobody has made the claim, as I have, that there are only two options for how the cosmos started and that both are illogical/impossible. And who are you claiming is ignorant and obnoxious? Clearly I threaten you. Why else would you be insulting me?
 
Vardoger said:
Because we don't know, it must be supernatural? That's what people thought about thunder and lightning a few hundred years ago as well. Now we know better.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Same old same old. If you'd understood my op then you wouldn't be saying this obvious statement. I'll reiterate: There are only two ways the universe could have come about. Either it came from nothing or it was always there. Both of these options are impossible, hence the only other option is that the universe is impossible and supernatural. See what I mean? It's pretty easy. I don't understand why people on here don't get it.
 
*Dons Mediaeval-Looking Hat*

The moderation team would be most grateful if posters on both sides of this dispute would endeavour to maintain good manners and refrain from personal digs and superfluous sniping; if your point/counterpoint cannot stand without invective, it isn't worth making.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
fudgetusk said:
There are only two ways the universe could have come about. Either it came from nothing or it was always there. Both of these options are impossible, hence the only other option is that the universe is impossible
Click to expand...

Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere.
 
fudgetusk said:
Clearly you can't explain your post where you clearly attempt to put out the idea that you can count to infinity. Now you're slinking away to lick your wounds.
Click to expand...

I can't find this post - the one cited doesn't mean what you say.
 
Yithian said:
*Dons Mediaeval-Looking Hat*

The moderation team would be most grateful if posters on both sides of this dispute would endeavour to maintain good manners and refrain from personal digs and superfluous sniping; if your point/counterpoint cannot stand without invective, it isn't worth making.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I agree.....sadly the OP has been arrogant, obnoxious , and argumentative from the outset. and many have already said this earlier so I'm not trying to be personal here.
I think that explains why the rest of the replies have also been a bit combative.
 
Last edited:
Roland Deschain,

...Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere...

An interesting option. But one that needs it's own thread.

One would not wish to contaminate this (Fudgetusk's) thread with logical discussion.

It will, as you probably already knew, need an explanation of where the operator(s) of this artificial universe are located.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
Roland Deschain,

...Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere...

An interesting option. But one that needs it's own thread.

One would not wish to contaminate this (Fudgetusk's) thread with logical discussion.

It will, as you probably already knew, need an explanation of where the operator(s) of this artificial universe are located.

INT21
Click to expand...

I totally agree, and there are numerous threads on this idea covering philosophy and theoertical physics.

I just got a bit frustrated with the idea that there are only two choices. Is there ever such a simple choice?

I also made a few points regarding consistency and logic in a previous post that were not addressed.
 
Last edited:
...Is there ever such a simple choice?..

Nope, always more than one way to skin a string theory; as they say at the Perimeter Institute.

INT21.

They probably don't say that; but you never know.
 
Roland Deschain said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths just scroll down to 'Ex Nihilo' (from nothing) and you'll see that people have been thinking that way for quite a while, albeit termed in ways that medieval folks could picture.



I see earlier in this thread that you accuse people of being damaged by scientists, and then you use quotes from scientists to try and get your point across? Are these 'scientists' a good or bad thing? Are they blissfully ignorant too?

You also brought up the Dunning-Kruger effect, without an ounce of irony.
Click to expand...

I found no reference to ex nihilo on that page. I'm not saying that I am the first to postulate that the world came from nothing. I am saying it is impossible and if it did happen then it has to be regarded as a miracle.

Yes people have been damaged by scientists. Not all scientists. As for the dunning Krueger thing. If you think that applies to me then prove it.
 
Frideswide said:
I can't find this post - the one cited doesn't mean what you say.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't even direct my post at you. THe person I did direct the post at knows what I was saying.
 
dr wu said:
I agree.....sadly the OP has been arrogant, obnoxious , and argumentative from the outset. and many have already said this earlier so I'm not trying to be personal here.
I think that explains why the rest of the replies have also been a bit combative.
Click to expand...

No just angry that people cannot understand my viewpoint. I think you'll find they were snobbish and dismissive before I was.
 
Roland Deschain said:
I totally agree, and there are numerous threads on this idea covering philosophy and theoertical physics.

I just got a bit frustrated with the idea that there are only two choices. Is there ever such a simple choice?

I also made a few points regarding consistency and logic in a previous post that were not addressed.
Click to expand...

No one else has come up with a third option, nor have you. Which is telling. Clearly I am correct in saying there are only two and both are illogical...hence the universe has to be the work of a God or something like a God.

As for not replying to your post, make the same points again and I will answer them.
 
INT21 said:
...Is there ever such a simple choice?..

Nope, always more than one way to skin a string theory; as they say at the Perimeter Institute.

INT21.

They probably don't say that; but you never know.
Click to expand...

If you know a third option to where the universe came from then say it.
 
fudgetusk said:
Never heard of that before. Nothing from something? What does that explain?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, at first glance the 'Nothing- From- Something,' cosmogenesis is somewhat autodidactic and contra-punctual. NFS's theoretical underpinnings look at the relationships (non-binding), between the absence of something (the time and space thing), and its potential 'nothing-ness-ness..'

All quite simple , apart from the brane unfolding hierarchies which may un-limit the implied nothing ness-ness. The math for that is downright elegant.

I think i'll go and have a cup of tea and a lie down now...
 
This is a technology that supports group interaction. If you want to limit yourself to one person then use the PM system.

fudgetusk said: ↑
Clearly you can't explain your post where you clearly attempt to put out the idea that you can count to infinity. Now you're slinking away to lick your wounds.

Earlier you repeated the post you claimed showed the "count to infinity" idea. It clearly doesn't.

Why are you making this claim?
 
dr wu said:
I agree.....sadly the OP has been arrogant, obnoxious , and argumentative from the outset. and many have already said this earlier so I'm not trying to be personal here.
I think that explains why the rest of the replies have also been a bit combative.
Click to expand...

You're not really getting the hang of this 'refraining from personal digs and sniping' thing, are you?
 
Yithian said:
You're not really getting the hang of this 'refraining from personal digs and sniping' thing, are you?
Click to expand...
Hmm.....it must be a British thing...perhaps you could give me some lessons?

:)
 
Allow me. Don't refer to others as arrogant or obnoxious. However, you can be as creatively scathing about their ideas and propositions as you please, provided it's justifiable. So you can say it's bullshit, but not accuse them of being a bullshitter.

I've called bullshit from time to time. Sometimes it's quite the best phrase :).
 
In #322 above..



fudgetusk said:
There are only two ways the universe could have come about. Either it came from nothing or it was always there. Both of these options are impossible, hence the only other option is that the universe is impossible

Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere.

Roland Deschain's sugestion of a third way is depicted in blue.

Yet in #334

In a response to a post by myself we find; again by Fudgetusk....

...If you know a third option to where the universe came from then say it...

Guess he missed it.

Note this does not say there is a third way. It suggests there may be.

INT21

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top