Intelligent Design ...

[c4ts]

It exists out of the relationship between you and the string. So, unless you have a piece of string, you couldn't even begin to assess its length.

So you be agreein' that shortness be a property external to the string, since the string by itself don't posess none of it, matey.

(edited for Talk Like a Pirate Day)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You're right, I have nothing to learn here -- or, very little anyway -- except how to refine my technique.

huh, yeah... sure..

 

[Iacchus]

So you be agreein' that shortness be a property external to the string, since the string by itself don't posess none of it, matey.

(edited for Talk Like a Pirate Day)

As if to say, a piece of string does not maintain its properties outside of that which observes it? No. I do understand what you're trying to say though.

 

[c4ts]

As if to say, a piece of string does not maintain its properties outside of that which observes it? No. I do understand what you're trying to say though.

TRANSLATION: So you agree that shortness is a property external to the string, since the string alone does not possess shortness.

If shortness were a property belonging entirely to the string, I could take out an even shorter piece of string for comparison, and if I were to ask you which of the two was the short string, the answer would be the long string. This is absurd. In this comparison, the new string is now the short string.

I am not saying all properties are external. For example, if I had a wool string, and I took out a nylon one, and asked you which was the wool string, it would be the same answer no matter what the other string was made out of. Therefore, composition is a property internal to the object.

 

[Iacchus]

TRANSLATION: So you agree that shortness is a property external to the string, since the string alone does not possess shortness.

Does a piece of string exist in and of itself, without being related to other things? No. Therefore, it's a relationship between "things," that defines meaning. Not whether some silly human being comes along and attempts to do so by putting it into words.

 

[c4ts]

Does a piece of string exist in and of itself, without being related to other things? No. Therefore, it's a relationship between "things," that defines meaning. Not whether some silly human being comes along and attempts to do so by putting it into words.

Look at the second example. Would the composition of the wool string change if it were observed (but not acted upon) by different people?

 

[billydkid]

So, why does the Universe seem so comprehensible and completely "intelligible?"

Tell me, how would existence be possible in an incomprehensible universe? What would compell a universe to populate itself with being to which it is incomprehensible? How would a universe go about doing that? In as much as the beings inhabiting the universe spring from the universe itself, by what mechanism could a universe create intelligence to which the universe is unintelligible? Cats don't lay eggs. Universes don't create creatures which operate by rules other than those of the universe itself.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Intelligent Design ...

Tell me, how would existence be possible in an incomprehensible universe?

I dunno. For millions of years in the history of the Earth, it was populated only by bacteria and other single-celled creatures. These are, not to put too fine a point on it, not noted for their ability to comprehend things. And yet, uncomprehending and incapable of comprehending, they still existed.

I see no reason that we should expect to have a better comprehension of the universe than bacteria do -- it's not like the universe is obliged to be here for our personal convenience.

 

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus 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?

Nope, I'm not. neither are you.

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

Why is it nonsense? Because you can't comprehend 'nothing'? As I explained, using the definition of existance, outside the universe there is nothing.

You only speak of that which is finite here.

Because I understand what infinite means .

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

So? If there was a probability of .5 that the universe comes into existance, and it does come into existance, this does not mean that the universe was "meant" to come into existance. It simply means it did. What, exactly, is your problem with this? Also, please not (once again) that existance does not equal meaningness.

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

I answered your question by saying that, in effect, the question is unanswerable. An unanswerable question is pointless, Iacchus. You ask "what created the universe"? I answer "we can never know". I also notice that you didn't give me any proof. I have asked for your proof many times, but I'm willing to wait.

 

[Mercutio]

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.

If your interpretation of my argument was that "something could come from nothing", then it is no surprise that it did not convince you. Hey, just for fun, why don't you look back through your posts and try to figure out what it is that I did say! Here's a hint: The whole "something came from nothing" is your own strawman.

It looks increasingly like it does not matter what I or anyone else says; you will hear some strawman version of it, and then "forget" that you ever had your question addressed.

 

[Taffer]

Yarr! I say we send this hare thread down t' Davey Jones!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Does a piece of string exist in and of itself, without being related to other things? No.

Huh, just how do you know this? what is this "being related"? how do you define "other things"?

it's a relationship between "things," that defines meaning. Not whether some silly human being comes along and attempts to do so by putting it into words.

Why do you put the word things like this "things"? what is to define meaning? how do you know if he (the human) was really silly? what is "to put something" into words?

 

[Mojo]

Does a piece of string exist in and of itself, without being related to other things? No.

I know a piece of string when I see it. And in fact, I'm looking at one right now. It is not really relating to anything else, as far as I can tell. But it still seems to exist.

 

[Iacchus]

If your interpretation of my argument was that "something could come from nothing", then it is no surprise that it did not convince you. Hey, just for fun, why don't you look back through your posts and try to figure out what it is that I did say! Here's a hint: The whole "something came from nothing" is your own strawman.

So, you wouldn't care to reiterate what you had to say? Oh, and what did you infer from Mr. Taffer's statements? Indeed, it looks like my strawman has become your strawman. Liar!

It looks increasingly like it does not matter what I or anyone else says; you will hear some strawman version of it, and then "forget" that you ever had your question addressed.

Yes, it looks increasingly like no one really has anything to say on the matter.

 

[Iacchus]

I know a piece of string when I see it. And in fact, I'm looking at one right now. It is not really relating to anything else, as far as I can tell. But it still seems to exist.

Does string have the tendency to manifest itself out of nothing? How does it get there, if not in relation to something else?

 

[Mercutio]

So, you wouldn't care to reiterate what you had to say? Oh, and what did you infer from Mr. Taffer's statements? Indeed, it looks like my strawman has become your strawman. Liar!

I will not do your work for you, no. And I inferred from Taffer's statements that Taffer understands that your question was meaningless. Taffer's words were different from mine, but even Taffer did not say, as you have claimed, that "something comes from nothing." Or have you "forgotten" already that taffer said "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."

Your strawman remains your own, and I demand an apology for your insult.

Yes, it looks increasingly like no one really has anything to say on the matter.

It has looked all along like you have nothing to say on the matter.

 

[Iacchus]

Why is it nonsense? Because you can't comprehend 'nothing'? As I explained, using the definition of existance, outside the universe there is nothing.

Oh I can, it's the total absence of something.

So? If there was a probability of .5 that the universe comes into existance, and it does come into existance, this does not mean that the universe was "meant" to come into existance. It simply means it did. What, exactly, is your problem with this? Also, please not (once again) that existance does not equal meaningness.

No such luck as chance.

I answered your question by saying that, in effect, the question is unanswerable.An unanswerable question is pointless, Iacchus. You ask "what created the universe"? I answer "we can never know".

Yes, your question is unanswerable without a God. It's as simple as that.

I also notice that you didn't give me any proof. I have asked for your proof many times, but I'm willing to wait.

As I have already said, your proof exists in your demand for a "meaningful" answer.

 

[Iacchus]

It has looked all along like you have nothing to say on the matter.

And this is your strawman. Liar!

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, your question is unanswerable without a God. It's as simple as that.

And so, an honest accounting admits that the question simply is unanswerable. It is better to admit ignorance than to make up an answer.

Taffer explained why the answer to this question is unknowable. Can you explain why you think that inventing a god answers the question?

 

[Mercutio]

And this is your strawman. Liar!

Please demonstrate where I have lied, or withdraw your characterization. Have you provided anything of substance? No. You have redefined words, misrepresented others' positions, repeated questions that have been answered many times before in other threads, refused to provide evidence for any of your fantastical notions...you have had nothing to say.