What point is that? All I see is people interested in talking about the movies here.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter codeblue
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent
Belz...
Fiend God
We were talking about intelligent design (see the thread title) and about the expansion of the universe. I think you lost it, today.
And apparently you haven't seen my thread, A "Before" the Big Bang? While actually if you go to page 5, I think I got most of this worked out, regarding the notion of nothing and the perception of time.
I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?
Last edited:
Two quick problems that I can see. First, you are utterly wrong. And second, you posted this exact same wrong idea to start yet another thread.
You have been told, if it has a "relation to something", it is not nothing, it is something. And this is a nice trick you have here, to claim that there is something (conveniently called "nothing") that is there but we cannot perceive it. Nice...
Which is wrong of course. So what was the other one?
Really, so whatever it is that exists outside of the "known" Universe is not nothing? Please don't try to contradict me here.
So, which is it? Something or nothing? If you say it is something, I can accept that. If you say it is nothing in the absence of everything we know, I can accept that too. But, if you say it is nothing in and of itself (without relation to anything else), I say you're full of crap!And this is a nice trick you have here, to claim that there is something (conveniently called "nothing") that is there but we cannot perceive it. Nice...
Last edited:
No, Iacchus, he is completely right.
He said that your notion of "nothing in relation to something" is something, not the nothing that is outside the universe".
And I'd say you have no understanding of what you speak. Outside the universe there is no space or time. For something, anything, to exist, there must be space and time. Since, outside of the universe, there is no time and space, nothing can exist. Empty space requires time and space. If a god exists outside of the universe, there must be time and space for him to exist, and that means he is not outside the universe.
Indeed, could it be that it's "all in our minds?"
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
More like, "all in your mind".Indeed, could it be that it's "all in our minds?"
Tricky
Briefly immortal
No we don't.
Mercutio and I disagree about the definition of free will. Dr. Kitten (et. al.) disagree with me as to whether zero is a real number or not. And Tobias is a commie bastage.
About the only thing that most of us agree on is that Iacchus is incredibly and willfully ignorant. And the only reason we agree on that is because the evidence is so overwhelming.
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
That i am, that i am.
If you say so. Perhaps we can discuss the difference here?
Belz...
Fiend God
There is no time "before" the universe. The notion of time is meaningless at that point. Also, "before" the universe there wasn't "nothing". There is something allright.
Belz...
Fiend God
Other subject. Other threat.
The point is, there is "something" besides the universe, but it exists beyond time and space. You can see it as a random generator of quantum fluctuations, one of which happened to form our universe. Say we remove the universe, all that remains is the generator and the fluctuations, most probably without any dimension. That's why I styled it a singularity earlier on, but I don't know if it's in any way similar to a singularity.
Anyway, it is not a "thing" to speak of, either.
Yes, this is pretty much what I'm trying to say. In fact, I don't recall having said anything different.
Yes, I'm inclined to believe that it's a singularity ... which, for some strange reason, seems to get everybody all up in arms.
As I recall it you have been saying it's the spiritual world or a deity that exists beyond time and space. That's completely different from saying there's "something" that exists beyond time and space.
And Belz, I'd appreciate if you could give your sources. I'd be interested to read more about that "something" and those quantum fluctuations. Thanks.