|
Paging PKC - An idiot needs some direction
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| can you quote it? cronodevir is quite the stupid cvnt and i cant make it thru all his posts before finding the one with the correct amount of idiocy.... |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...8&pagenumber=22
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
mfitterer1
Science is a production of Logic. Logic makes science. Not the other way around. You are implying that there was no logic, then someone came up with science, then logic was formed. Which is wrong.
As for infinity, it doesn't require observation to know time and space is not infinite.
I mentioned infinity because its part of the Infinite Recession concept, which says that there can't be an unlimited number of events before the current one.
The universe [all time and space, and things dependent upon them], there are only two [2] [Doce] options for how it is here...
1. It was brought into existence.
2. It always existed.
Number 2 cannot be true simply because of the fallacy Ive mentioned over and over again. Further study in any field of science will not change that. Getting more people to think about it will not change it, nothing will change it, there can not have been an infinite number of events before 1200, 2000, now, pick any date you want, it doesn't matter.
Number 1. Things do not bring themselves into existence. The power 'to create', to bring something into existence. Is an attribute. A thing that doesn't exist, is does not have attributes. So it cannot bring itself here. No amount of scientific data, or observation or anything will ever change this fact, ever. A thing that doesn't exist cannot do. Or, to say it more eloquently. ...Doing Entails Being
Conclusion? One who is not part of the universe in any way, not bound by any of its laws, brought it here. Anything that has a body, or is located, or changes, or goes through a process, or is a quantity or had a mode or state, is part of the universe, and the one that created all those things, does not need them.
fledz, you hang around scientists all day who hate the idea of a Creator, so they only try to look at things that "prove" their notions, and they reject anything that brings them to the conclusion that there is a creator. They are just like Catholics, they accept logic that benefits them, and reject logic that doesn't. Not to mention the western science model is so broke it doesn't even recognize the existence of thought for insatnce. Because thought cannot be observed. On top of that, most of it is polluted with crackpot theories and such, and the situation is so messy, no one cares if their achievements are based on 200 year old unproven theories. They believe what they want to believe.
You can have a 'fact' that is based on theories. And if all you have is theories, you have no progress. This old cripple guy, can't think of his name right now..hes made no progress what so ever, yet everyone loves him because they like his theories. Perfect example of people not giving a about the basis of someones claim, they only want to hear the claim itself. |
This is probably the most lucid post of his, I've read.
Honestly, it's like shooting fish, packed into a barrel made entirely out of fish with a Javelin Anti-Tank Missile. You really don't have to look too hard to find something as ridiculous (or more) as this. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| How the hell did a thread about producing tracks turn into a thread about the universe and our existence? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
How the hell did a thread about producing tracks turn into a thread about the universe and our existence? |
lollercoaster.
Did you see how many pages? It was on its way to veering dangerously off-topic by page 7 then all hell broke loose. Oh, the humanity.
You won't find that in the DJ Booth! |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
How the hell did a thread about producing tracks turn into a thread about the universe and our existence? |
That's just how crazy producers are :crazy: |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
That's just how crazy trance is :crazy: |
Fix3d |
|
|
| astroboy |
| Ah the old "something from nothing" argument. I wish they'd at least get the science right before trying to use it in their arguments. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Ah the old "something from nothing" argument. I wish they'd at least get the science right before trying to use it in their arguments. |
evolving "something from nothing" really has to come down to chance. 1 in a 100 billion or however remote the possibility is, of elements in this universe cooking themselves into something that "exists". Science beings when we start to wonder how the tiny specs of existance "evolved" into complex beings such as human. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
evolving "something from nothing" really has to come down to chance. 1 in a 100 billion or however remote the possibility is, of elements in this universe cooking themselves into something that "exists". Science beings when we start to wonder how the tiny specs of existance "evolved" into complex beings such as human. |
The only logical position to admit that we don't know and CAN'T know how things came to be. These things are beyond our comprehension and beyond all experimental verification. If you claim there was a creator, this begs the creation of who created the creator? It's an infinite regress paradox. If everything created was created by someone..then the creator must have had a beginning too no? If not, then your position is no more illogical than the person who says everything has always existed. |
|
|
| astroboy |
I meant in a universal context. The question posed is how the universe (matter, space etc) came into being. His argument being that these things haven't existed forever and therefore had a beginning point and therefore must have an original cause.
The question is flawed because it entails a misunderstanding of the science, and is therefore a straw-man argument. Firstly the big bang theory doesn't suggest that everything sprang forth from nothingness.A According to physics energy can not be created or destroyed. The universe and all the energy contains was a singularity (NOT "nothingness") and underwent a sudden expansion during which space-time as we know it came into existance. Asking what happened "before" is meaningless as in the absence of time there is no before or after.
In a more general sense postulating that all things must have a cause and the initial cause of the universe therefore is God only raises more questions, since by the same reasoning God must have had a creator and so on ad infinitum. To further suggest that one knows the nature of the creator in the absence of any real evidence is even more ridiculous. |
|
|
| daft_max |
| Cats. I love cats. |
|
|
|
|
