Philosophy and other pseudo-intellectual spoutings

[Prufrock]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Or you've drawn false conclusions - rumbled by the human need to have things happen in a linear sequence

Why conclude that the matrix must have been created, when you accept that sooner or later (or sooner or earlier!) something must have popped into existence of it's own accord.

Either some 'stuff' has existed 'forever' or something at some point popped into existence. In both cases Occam's razor says discount the deity and stick with the stuff you absolutely know exists as having been here forever or as having popped into existence.

because, when you look, stuff must have been created. For it to have existed forever is a nonsense - it had to start, that is what time is. The thing that's been there needs a creation too.
But to be created, one requires a creator... Which might just be an equation, it's not necessary to be a creature!
But the problem is that even that needs a starting point. Something cannot come from Nothing... not even God. God needs a creator too. It's impossible to reconcile...

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

Therein lies my problem. I don't believe either is correct, which I admit is a logical impossibility.
Stuff exists - even if you use the argument that time is looped, there must be a foundation behind time that set the loop going. I accept that the foundation might be a mathematical concept similar to Plato's ideal sphere, cube etc. But then even that concept had to arrive from somewhere.
You hit the nail on the head with the turtles all the way down - that's all I can see: scientific turtles - but still turtles. I've reduced some of my turtles to turtle soup (mock-turtle soup to fit in with the thread title if you must), and I can even make the turtle soup just an ideal Platonic turtle soup, but I just don't see where the soup came from (even if it has been here forever, where was it before that?).
I don't believe either religion or science can provide the answer, but I still want an answer.

[thebish]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

which is fine - except for the part where you said you were applying Occam's Razor... I guess it just sounds better than "I reckon"!

[Worthy4England]

Or you've drawn false conclusions - rumbled by the human need to have things happen in a linear sequence

Why conclude that the matrix must have been created, when you accept that sooner or later (or sooner or earlier!) something must have popped into existence of it's own accord.

Either some 'stuff' has existed 'forever' or something at some point popped into existence. In both cases Occam's razor says discount the deity and stick with the stuff you absolutely know exists as having been here forever or as having popped into existence.

because, when you look, stuff must have been created. For it to have existed forever is a nonsense - it had to start, that is what time is. The thing that's been there needs a creation too.
But to be created, one requires a creator... Which might just be an equation, it's not necessary to be a creature!
But the problem is that even that needs a starting point. Something cannot come from Nothing... not even God. God needs a creator too. It's impossible to reconcile...

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

You mean science hasn't managed to prove this one yet?

Some people made something up to try and fit a particular hypothesis? So there is a chance that some sort of biological/chemical/physical reaction started from nothing couldn't happen? I'm shocked. I thought that notion was as irrefutable as God did it was impossible.

I'm now thoroughly confused.

What happens at forever minus one? Nothing? If so how did forever start?

I'm losing my faith in Science. I'm starting to think they make shit up to suit them and brainwash the masses with it.

[TANGODANCER]

A Catholic prayer says:
"Glory be to the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, as it was in the Beginning, is Now and Ever shall be. Amen." (or if Pru prefers it in Latin: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.)
The relevant part indicates a "beginning" but not an end, ie, endless. It doesn't explain anything, but must have some relevance. Likewise: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Again, the Beginning?

It must be pretty obvious that any discussion on this topic would like a a possible resolution, but it can't and wont have, however many mulberry bushes we dance around. Science likes to think all things have explanations. In God, it's met its match.

For Spotty: Instead of thinking beginning and end, think instead of the shape of our Universe where everything works in circles. If God is at the centre, then beginning and end explanations seem less important. Leastaways, it might be a possibility, who really knows?

[William the White]

A Catholic prayer says:
"Glory be to the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, as it was in the Beginning, is Now and Ever shall be. Amen." (or if Pru prefers it in Latin: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.)
The relevant part indicates a "beginning" but not an end, ie, endless. It doesn't explain anything, but must have some relevance. Likewise: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Again, the Beginning?

It must be pretty obvious that any discussion on this topic would like a a possible resolution, but it can't and wont have, however many mulberry bushes we dance around. Science likes to think all things have explanations. In God, it's met its match.

For Spotty: Instead of thinking beginning and end, think instead of the shape of our Universe where everything works in circles. If God is at the centre, then beginning and end explanations seem less important. Leastaways, it might be a possibility, who really knows?

So slim it's skeletal...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

A Catholic prayer says:
"Glory be to the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, as it was in the Beginning, is Now and Ever shall be. Amen." (or if Pru prefers it in Latin: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.)
The relevant part indicates a "beginning" but not an end, ie, endless. It doesn't explain anything, but must have some relevance. Likewise: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Again, the Beginning?

It must be pretty obvious that any discussion on this topic would like a a possible resolution, but it can't and wont have, however many mulberry bushes we dance around. Science likes to think all things have explanations. In God, it's met its match.

For Spotty: Instead of thinking beginning and end, think instead of the shape of our Universe where everything works in circles. If God is at the centre, then beginning and end explanations seem less important. Leastaways, it might be a possibility, who really knows?

Trouble is, I can quite easily eliminate God out of the equation. Whether he exists or doesn't is irrelevant to the equation as he is merely one of Pru's 'Turtles'. Not only that I don't need God to explain matter/energy/time etc but I do need science. But, however, science (no matter how marvellous it is at explaining the universe) cannot take me to the prime cause and explain it, because once again we hit the turtles all the way down scenario. And, more to the point, I'm not content with parables: I demand answers to the impossible.

[Hoboh]

I am

[bobo the clown]

I am

" .... therefore you think ??"

[Hoboh]

I am

" .... therefore you think ??"

No, I just am

[Bruce Rioja]

I am

Pissed?

[William the White]

I am

how do you know?

I mean, in Descartes' case he claimed, famously, 'I think, therefore I am...'

But, in your case???

[William the White]

I am

Pissed?

Indeed, as Monty Python had it...

Renee Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I am

how do you know?

I mean, in Descartes' case he claimed, famously, 'I think, therefore I am...'

But, in your case???

That is just cruel. (I did laugh though).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I am

Pissed?

Indeed, as Monty Python had it...

Renee Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am...

Seriously, I 've always contended that the Python version makes more sense than Rene's.

[William the White]

I am

Pissed?

Indeed, as Monty Python had it...

Renee Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am...

Seriously, I 've always contended that the Python version makes more sense than Rene's.

It's really advisable, I've discovered, the hard way, to keep drinking and 'thinking' as separate activities... but... not always managed it...

[Prufrock]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

which is fine - except for the part where you said you were applying Occam's Razor... I guess it just sounds better than "I reckon"!

Well Wiki backs me up. So ner. It's not me making stuff up, what I quoted is still a valid logical tool, and you haven't addressed that. So if it makes you happy, edit "Occam's Razor" for "the thing often mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor". Doesn't affect the point. It's like arguing against somebody who says they love the line "Et tu, Brute" by pointing out it's almost certainly not a historically accurate representation of Caesar's last words. And...?

[Prufrock]

Or you've drawn false conclusions - rumbled by the human need to have things happen in a linear sequence

Why conclude that the matrix must have been created, when you accept that sooner or later (or sooner or earlier!) something must have popped into existence of it's own accord.

Either some 'stuff' has existed 'forever' or something at some point popped into existence. In both cases Occam's razor says discount the deity and stick with the stuff you absolutely know exists as having been here forever or as having popped into existence.

because, when you look, stuff must have been created. For it to have existed forever is a nonsense - it had to start, that is what time is. The thing that's been there needs a creation too.
But to be created, one requires a creator... Which might just be an equation, it's not necessary to be a creature!
But the problem is that even that needs a starting point. Something cannot come from Nothing... not even God. God needs a creator too. It's impossible to reconcile...

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

You mean science hasn't managed to prove this one yet?

Some people made something up to try and fit a particular hypothesis? So there is a chance that some sort of biological/chemical/physical reaction started from nothing couldn't happen? I'm shocked. I thought that notion was as irrefutable as God did it was impossible.

I'm now thoroughly confused.

What happens at forever minus one? Nothing? If so how did forever start?

I'm losing my faith in Science. I'm starting to think they make shit up to suit them and brainwash the masses with it.

Except, and this is genuinely wonderful, at the point science realises it doesn't know, guess what it says? (Clue: it's not "God must have done it"). "We don't know" is not the same as "Anything could explain this, and should be given equal weight as any other "theory"* because you can't say it's definitely not true".

Seriously, the best thing that my parents taught me that I don't think they would have taught me had they been religious (not to say no religious parents would teach their kids this, just that mine wouldn't have) is that it's OK not to know. You don't have to fill the gap with a benevolent old man, and you can still give a preference one way or the other, but it's fine to just say "I don't know".

*#1 contender for most misunderstood word ever. And not to blame Bish, the pedantry of mathematicians is entirely to blame.

[Prufrock]

A Catholic prayer says:
"Glory be to the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, as it was in the Beginning, is Now and Ever shall be. Amen." (or if Pru prefers it in Latin: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.)
The relevant part indicates a "beginning" but not an end, ie, endless. It doesn't explain anything, but must have some relevance. Likewise: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Again, the Beginning?

It must be pretty obvious that any discussion on this topic would like a a possible resolution, but it can't and wont have, however many mulberry bushes we dance around. Science likes to think all things have explanations. In God, it's met its match.

For Spotty: Instead of thinking beginning and end, think instead of the shape of our Universe where everything works in circles. If God is at the centre, then beginning and end explanations seem less important. Leastaways, it might be a possibility, who really knows?

That's not an argument, and a prayer is not evidence. You can't only argue in metaphor .

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑ Yes he can.