Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you'd said, "We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe."

I said, "We don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it."

The problem is deeper than that. Even if we accept that small beings such as elementary particles can pop in and out of universe then how things persist to exist?

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you'd said, "We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe."

I said, "We don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it."

The problem is deeper than that. Even if we accept that small beings such as elementary particles can pop in and out of universe then how things persist to exist?

By not popping out of existence or otherwise changing so that they're no longer that thing.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: bahman, you'd said, "We don't however experience that a being, human for example, pop in universe."

I said, "We don't really know if we experience this or not. Maybe we experience it frequently, but we just don't realize it."

The problem is deeper than that. Even if we accept that small beings such as elementary particles can pop in and out of universe then how things persist to exist?

By not popping out of existence or otherwise changing so that they're no longer that thing.

Well, we get a net zero changes in existence if things can pop in and pop out of existence. Things must persist to exist. Why?, I don't know.

Is this a sneaky creationism thread?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Is this a sneaky creationism thread?

I have problem with the concept of God/creationism. I have problem with how anything could exist otherwise too as it is illustrate in OP and the rest of this thread. So I am trapped.

bahman wrote:Well, we get a net zero changes in existence if things can pop in and pop out of existence.

I don't understand that really.

Things must persist to exist.

Well, as long as it doesn't persist, it doesn't exist, yes.

bahman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Is this a sneaky creationism thread?

I have problem with the concept of God/creationism. I have problem with how anything could exist otherwise too as it is illustrate in OP and the rest of this thread. So I am trapped.

Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

For amusement I used to tune into a station, Cornerstone TV and watch a program called "Origins". They always presented some good science, but spoiled it at the end by declairing that they can't see how anything so complex could have evolved by chance. The problem is that evolution isn't by chance, and usually when the example they present gets enough traction, some scientist will investigate and present an evolutionary answer to the organism in question. I always found the science interesting and the conclusions (based on their stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the Bible) quite amusing.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

For amusement I used to tune into a station, Cornerstone TV and watch a program called "Origins". They always presented some good science, but spoiled it at the end by declairing that they can't see how anything so complex could have evolved by chance. The problem is that evolution isn't by chance, and usually when the example they present gets enough traction, some scientist will investigate and present an evolutionary answer to the organism in question. I always found the science interesting and the conclusions (based on their stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the Bible) quite amusing.

Rather like the esteemed scientist Ray Comfort, and his treatise on the banana.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

For amusement I used to tune into a station, Cornerstone TV and watch a program called "Origins". They always presented some good science, but spoiled it at the end by declairing that they can't see how anything so complex could have evolved by chance. The problem is that evolution isn't by chance, and usually when the example they present gets enough traction, some scientist will investigate and present an evolutionary answer to the organism in question. I always found the science interesting and the conclusions (based on their stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the Bible) quite amusing.

Rather like the esteemed scientist Ray Comfort, and his treatise on the banana.

I believe that claim has been countered with the data that the current Banana, that we buy in the store, is man made, (the second in the line), and not a naturally evolved product of nature. I also believe that Comfort has apologized for his mistake and moved on to other silly claims.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:
For amusement I used to tune into a station, Cornerstone TV and watch a program called "Origins". They always presented some good science, but spoiled it at the end by declairing that they can't see how anything so complex could have evolved by chance. The problem is that evolution isn't by chance, and usually when the example they present gets enough traction, some scientist will investigate and present an evolutionary answer to the organism in question. I always found the science interesting and the conclusions (based on their stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the Bible) quite amusing.

Rather like the esteemed scientist Ray Comfort, and his treatise on the banana.

I believe that claim has been countered with the data that the current Banana, that we buy in the store, is man made, (the second in the line), and not a naturally evolved product of nature. I also believe that Comfort has apologized for his mistake and moved on to other silly claims.

I know, but it was so funny that he should NEVER be allowed to live it down.

bahman wrote:Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

I believe these words to simply be supposition at this point in human history. As such there is no need to debate or agree with such things, as it would simply be an unending flight of fancy, as all possible assertions would be equally conjecture.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:Anything can be divided to its irreducible parts. Any irreducible part cannot be divided further hence it cannot be annihilated or created. It cannot be annihilated because it has no part. It cannot be created since if we go back in time we never see that it is created as sum of parts. So the question is how can an irreducible entity exist?

I believe these words to simply be supposition at this point in human history. As such there is no need to debate or agree with such things, as it would simply be an unending flight of fancy, as all possible assertions would be equally conjecture.

He's talking bollocks anyway. He's basing his silly claims on the assumption that when a thing is 'evolving', then something is necessarily being 'added' to it, making it more 'complex'. He's obviously someone who doesn't understand evolution (or doesn't want to). The creationist position is that evolutionary science states that a human (as an example) was once little 'bits' floating around, that magically managed to find each other, one by one, eventually making a human. When it's put like that then I suppose it would seem like an impossibility to uneducated idiots.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bahman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Is this a sneaky creationism thread?

I have problem with the concept of God/creationism. I have problem with how anything could exist otherwise too as it is illustrate in OP and the rest of this thread. So I am trapped.

Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

There is a paradox as it is mentioned in OP: An irreducible thing cannot be created or annihilated whether there is a God or there is not. One can argue that irreducible things could pop in and out of nothingness, as scientist argue, but we cannot expect a universe to exist unless there is something which cause that irreducible things to persist to exist. Otherwise we have nothing in net. So, the question is why irreducible things persist to exist?

bahman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bahman wrote:
I have problem with the concept of God/creationism. I have problem with how anything could exist otherwise too as it is illustrate in OP and the rest of this thread. So I am trapped.

Whatever that means. There's no 'paradox'. Look up some science websites instead of 'answers in genesis dot com'.

There is a paradox as it is mentioned in OP: An irreducible thing cannot be created or annihilated whether there is a God or there is not. One can argue that irreducible things could pop in and out of nothingness, as scientist argue, but we cannot expect a universe to exist unless there is something which cause that irreducible things to persist to exist. Otherwise we have nothing in net. So, the question is why irreducible things persist to exist?

No one knows for certain that there are things that are irreducible. How long was it believed that atoms were the smallest things? Science takes time, especially when man has to devise methods/tools to examine things that can't be seen with the naked eye. Just the same, we can't fully see the big picture at this time either.