Intelligent Design ...

[Iacchus]

You forget, Trixie, Iacchus has redefined most of the words in the above sentences. Abandon hope...

Which is to say it's not possible for meanings to overlap? If I am to be accused of anything, perhaps this is it? ... but, that is all. And who knows, it may affford you the opportunity to look at things a bit differently?

Just curious, Iacchus. Do you recall ever having said that sentence before, and what the reaction was to it?

Disbelief is not an acceptable answer. Thus far this is all that I've heard from you here. While I'm sure that at some point, you will claim this was one of those times when you refuted what I had to say.

 

[Mercutio]

Which is to say it's not possible for meanings to overlap? If I am to be accused of anything, perhaps this is it? ... but, that is all. And who knows, it may affford you the opportunity to look at things a bit differently?

Certainly, meanings may overlap. Yours do not.

Disbelief is not an acceptable answer. Thus far this is all that I've heard from you here. While I'm sure that at some point, you will claim this was one of those times when you refuted what I had to say.

Why would I do that? I have merely asked you if you recall previous times. I have not "refuted" you here, and it would be lying for me to claim that I had. I do not like the insinuation that I would lie, but if that's what you need to believe...

And do you really think all that I have given you is "disbelief"? Perhaps your memory for my answers is as bad as your memory for your own posts.

 

[Iacchus]

Certainly, meanings may overlap. Yours do not.

And this is what you mean by refute? Sorry.

Why would I do that? I have merely asked you if you recall previous times. I have not "refuted" you here, and it would be lying for me to claim that I had. I do not like the insinuation that I would lie, but if that's what you need to believe...

If my ideas about the Big Bang are easy enough to refute, then it should be easy enough for someone to reiterate. Everyone seems to be forthcoming on whatever else they have to say, why should it be any different here? I really only see this as your attempt to derail my thread.

And do you really think all that I have given you is "disbelief"? Perhaps your memory for my answers is as bad as your memory for your own posts.

As I have already said, I recall having received very few "meaningful" answers.

 

[Mercutio]

And this is what you mean by refute? Sorry.

As I said above, I was not attempting to refute them in that post. Please read what I do say, not what you wish me to say.

If my ideas about the Big Bang are easy enough to refute, then it should be easy enough for someone to reiterate. Everyone seems to be forthcoming on whatever else they have to say, why should it be any different here? I really only see this as your attempt to derail my thread.

Have you looked through your old posts yet to see if you are asking people to do the same thing they have done for you before? I am not derailing your thread by telling you that you have had your question answered for you many times before. Indeed, I am streamlining your thread because now you don't have to go through the process yet again.

As I have already said, I recall having received very few "meaningful" answers.

They have been given to you. If you do not recall them, this is not good incentive for you to be taken seriously now.

 

[Iacchus]

They have been given to you. If you do not recall them, this is not good incentive for you to be taken seriously now.

You definitely have a way of bogging the issue down. Do you realize it's just you and me now, talking the same clap trap? If people don't wish to discuss something, then they don't "need" to discuss it.

 

[Mercutio]

You asked the same question you have asked many times before. I have been there to read the answers you have been given. If people are sincerely interested in your asking the same question again, then they can also search your old posts. Or they can conclude that you are spamming, if they wish.

Do you really seek the answer to the questions you asked? Then look in your posting history and quit complaining. I am not "bogging the issue down", I am telling people it has already been covered. They can save time and not go over everything all over again.

 

[Donks]

You definitely have a way of bogging the issue down. Do realize it's just you and me now, talking the same clap trap? If people don't wish to discuss something, then they don't "need" to discuss it.

What is the point in Mercutio, or anyone else, explaining to you why that is a bad question if you will "forget" the explanation?

 

[Mojo]

As I have already said, I recall having received very few "meaningful" answers.

Have you recieved any answers that you don't consider to be meaningful?

 

[Iacchus]

You asked the same question you have asked many times before. I have been there to read the answers you have been given. If people are sincerely interested in your asking the same question again, then they can also search your old posts. Or they can conclude that you are spamming, if they wish.

Do you really seek the answer to the questions you asked? Then look in your posting history and quit complaining. I am not "bogging the issue down", I am telling people it has already been covered. They can save time and not go over everything all over again.

So, we could go on and on without getting back to the point of this thread. Is this what you like? Have you noticed that no one else is responding now? Apparently or, at least it would seem to me, no one is particularly interested in listening to this.

 

[Mojo]

Have you noticed that no one else is responding now?

Hey, Donks, Have you noticed that no one else is responding now?

 

[Donks]

Hey, Donks, Have you noticed that no one else is responding now?

Yeah, I did. Everyone else is probably oogling the skepchicks calendar

 

[Mojo]

oogling

Does that mean searching the internet for porn: i.e. a cross between ogling and Googling?

 

[Iacchus]

What is the point in Mercutio, or anyone else, explaining to you why that is a bad question if you will "forget" the explanation?

Most people's reply to this falls along the lines of, "Well, we simply don't know?" Now, how does that make it a bad question, let alone refute it? Albeit Mercutio attempted to take a stab at it just recently, not as lame a reply as most I might add but, I still don't recall him telling me something I didn't already know. He was still in effect trying to prove to me that something could come from nothing. His argument was not strong enough to convince me otherwise.

 

[Donks]

Most people's reply to this falls along the lines of, "Well, we simply don't know?" Now, how does that make it a bad question, let alone refute it?

You're right, your silly strawman does not show how your question is bad.

Albeit Mercutio attempted to take a stab at it just recently, not as lame a reply as most I might add but, I still don't recall him telling me something I didn't already know. He was still in effect trying to prove to me that something could come from nothing. His argument was not strong enough to convince me otherwise.

Care to link to this post? I'd rather read Mercutio's words tan your recollection of them.

 

[Iacchus]

You're right, your silly strawman does not show how your question is bad.

Am I to take this is your refutal then?

Care to link to this post? I'd rather read Mercutio's words tan your recollection of them.

Or, perhaps Mercutio can recall them? By the way, do you have anything particularly worthwhile to say on the matter?

 

[Taffer]

My lord...

I step away for one movie and I come back to this! Amusing as it is, I'd like to add my two cents.

You want an answer to your "big bang question" Iacchus? I'll give you one.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? Isn't this in effect when matter was "created?" So, what existed before the Big Bang?

Yes, I believe the Big Bang, as it is the best theory we have so far. Although I'm not up to date on current big bang theory, I'll go so far as to say "yes, all matter was created during the big bang". (This could be wrong, but it doesn't matter for this discussion).

These first two questions are all very well and good, but then you start getting silly. "What existed before the Big Bang?".

The answer is simple. Nothing. There was no existance before the big bang (excluding, of course, the possibility of a universe which ended in a big crunch, starting another big bang...). Existance is defined as something that is inside our universe. As our universe 'started' at the time of the big bang, anything before the big bang did not exist. This means not only is the answer "nothing", but we can never actually know if there was anything before big bang. This is not an "I don't know" answer, it's a "we can't know" answer.

This makes all metaphysical ideas about a 'creator outside the universe', etc, especially moot, as they are all unfalseifiable. We simply can never know why the universe started (i.e. what caused the big bang).

And so, having answered your question, I ask again. What is your 'proof' that existance demands meaningness?

 

[Donks]

Does that mean searching the internet for porn: i.e. a cross between ogling and Googling?

Curse thee and thine proper typing skills!

 

[Donks]

Am I to take this is your refutal then?

It wasn't intended as such. If that's how you want to take it, be my guest, though I cant see how it is a refutal of any sort. But you do seem to enjoy arguing against strawmen, so if you like I can construct a couple for you.

Or, perhaps Mercutio can recall them?

I'm sure he can, but why should he?

By the way, do you have anything particularly worthwhile to say on the matter?

Yes, just not to you.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, I believe the Big Bang, as it is the best theory we have so far. Although I'm not up to date on current big bang theory, I'll go so far as to say "yes, all matter was created during the big bang". (This could be wrong, but it doesn't matter for this discussion).

As I understand it, matter is derived from energy. Are you sure some form of "pure energy" (or, whatever you wish to call it) didn't exist before the Big Bang?

The answer is simple. Nothing.

Which of course is nonsense. Not even Mercutio or, so it would seem, agrees with this.

There was no existance before the big bang (excluding, of course, the possibility of a universe which ended in a big crunch, starting another big bang...). Existance is defined as something that is inside our universe. As our universe 'started' at the time of the big bang, anything before the big bang did not exist. This means not only is the answer "nothing", but we can never actually know if there was anything before big bang. This is not an "I don't know" answer, it's a "we can't know" answer.

You only speak of that which is finite here.

This makes all metaphysical ideas about a 'creator outside the universe', etc, especially moot, as they are all unfalseifiable. We simply can never know why the universe started (i.e. what caused the big bang).

Which is to say, we live in a Universe that was never "meant" to be. Very interesting.

And so, having answered your question, I ask again. What is your 'proof' that existance demands meaningness?

You have in effect said something can come from nothing. How does that answer my question?

 

[Donks]

As I understand it, matter is derived from energy. Are you sure some form of "pure energy" (or, whatever you wish to call it) didn't exist before the Big Bang?

Just so you don't keep endlessly on about this, I'll give you a little hint. What makes you think there was a *before the Big Bang*?