Philosophy Now Forum

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

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 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.

bahman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bahman wrote:
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.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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 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?

HexHammer wrote: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!

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
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.

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

Harbal wrote:

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

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 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 wrote: It was only a mild spanking.

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It was only a mild spanking.

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

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Isn't that where spanking is usually done?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 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.