Paradox of irreducibility

[sthitapragya]

There is a paradox as it is mentioned in OP: An irreducible thing cannot be created ...

How did you come to this conclusion?

[bahman]

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.

We know for certain that irreducible things should exist. That is true since the process of division cannot go into infinitum.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

We know for certain that irreducible things should exist.
OK, I like "should." It's honest!

That is true since the process of division cannot go into infinitum.
You can't 'know' this! This is a philosophy forum, dealing with "knowledge" above all things. There are things that humans cannot 'know' currently. If you spoke of probability that would have been acceptable.

[bahman]

You can't 'know' this! This is a philosophy forum, dealing with "knowledge" above all things. There are things that humans cannot 'know' currently. If you spoke of probability that would have been acceptable.

This is a philosophical argument: Things cannot be divisible into infinitum because it takes forever to divide things into its constitute hence it takes forever to build things up based on constitute.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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?

As far as I can decipher your OP simply boils down to the old fundy 'argument' 'you can't get something from nothing'. There might never have been a 'nothing' for all you know. You are stating as fact things that you know little about. When you get down to the tiniest particles so far discovered there really is essentially 'nothing' but maths, (and there are about as many quantum theories as there are quantum physicists, because they just don't KNOW yet).
It's a shame our scientific posters aren't around to deal with bollocks any more. Blaggard was banned and Obvious Leo sadly passed away.

[Harbal]

Intelligent Design mixed with pure nonsense and babble!

Only in ID they babble about irreducible complexity, which was disproved thus debunked, but mr babbleman uses some bad circular logic.

Mr bahbleman plz shut up and leave this forum, you are but a mere charlatan and demagog!

Excuse me Mr. Hexhamster, but criticising without contributing is my niche. I've put a lot of time and effort into carving it out and have no intention of being usurped by you. I'll bid you good day Sir.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Only in ID they babble about irreducible complexity, which was disproved thus debunked, but mr babbleman uses some bad circular logic.

Excuse me Mr. Hexhamster, but criticising without contributing is my niche. I've put a lot of time and effort into carving it out and have no intention of being usurped by you. I'll bid you good day Sir.

I don't know. I thought his comment here had the OP sussed in a nut shell.

[Harbal]

I don't know. I thought his comment here had the OP sussed in a nut shell.

I'm not saying he hadn't, VT, it's just that I think he's trying to steal my job.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know. I thought his comment here had the OP sussed in a nut shell.

I'm not saying he hadn't, VT, it's just that I think he's trying to steal my job.

Hex just gave you a spanking. He must have had second thoughts and deleted it.

[Harbal]

Hex just gave you a spanking. He must have had second thoughts and deleted it.

The coward. I don't suppose you can remember what he said, can you?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hex just gave you a spanking. He must have had second thoughts and deleted it.

The coward. I don't suppose you can remember what he said, can you?

It was only a mild spanking.

[Harbal]

It was only a mild spanking.

Even so I think it was a bit underhand of him to do it behind my back.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It was only a mild spanking.

Even so I think it was a bit underhand of him to do it behind my back.

Isn't that where spanking is usually done?

[Harbal]

Isn't that where spanking is usually done?

Well yes, I suppose so but normally both the spanker and the spankee are present when the spanking takes place. I'm a bit offended that he started without me.

[HexHammer]

I don't know. I thought his comment here had the OP sussed in a nut shell.

I'm not saying he hadn't, VT, it's just that I think he's trying to steal my job.

Hex just gave you a spanking. He must have had second thoughts and deleted it.

Only after I wrote my last post, I saw that you tried to correct mr Grumpy and he admitted kinda I was right in a extremely subtle way, so there was no need for the post and I deleted it.

Just that mr Grumpy doesn't take well to criticism, even when I'm right and say intelligent things, he will lash back and act puerile and grumpy.