Mungoman
Mostly harmless...
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,283
- Location
- In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Never heard of that before. Nothing from something? What does that explain?
Spending the kids inheritance?
Never heard of that before. Nothing from something? What does that explain?
We would hill 'em at least twice, sometimes three times, because spuds form from the bottom up
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.
If its not original then why is nobody else saying it. SHow me an example of them doing so.
Ignorance is bliss.
It isn't original ....mankind has been offering the supernatural explanation since the dawn of time.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Maybe we should try to figure out more philosophical things through the eyes of a child.
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.
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.*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.
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
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.
Or option 3 it's a simulated universe and the program had to start somewhere.
I can't find this post - the one cited doesn't mean what you say.
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.
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.
...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.
Never heard of that before. Nothing from something? What does that explain?
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.
Hmm.....it must be a British thing...perhaps you could give me some lessons?You're not really getting the hang of this 'refraining from personal digs and sniping' thing, are you?