Theory of Crevolution

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think "God" would be able to create/construct by just speaking it into existence, he is God ya know.

You did ask for a bridge, I provided the bridge, like God and Man you have the choice to cross it or not.

Sorry, that looks like it was a lot of work. Thank you. What I was looking for is the reasoning that you use to move across the gaps that I highlighted in my initial response. Logic doesn't get you there with the information provided in your original post and none of the information in your second post helps because it cannot be verified [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You argue pretty heavily against "nothingness". Who have you found arguing for it?

[Ahldagor]

I'll sum this up in a question: Does the sun exist without man?

[Blitzers]

I am Not arguing that NOTHINGNESS cannot exist. I am only applying the scientific standards required when proving existence. If you apply those scientific standards consistently you would have a theory like what I "fabricated" Crevolution.

[Ahldagor]

Doesn't answer my question.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll sum this up in a question: Does the sun exist without man?

Yes the sun would exist, but if you were to apply scientific standards then it would not in absence of man.

So our scientific standards for proving existence are FLAWED.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am Not arguing that NOTHINGNESS cannot exist. I am only applying the scientific standards required when proving existence. If you apply those scientific standards consistently you would have a theory like what I "fabricated" Crevolution.

Blitz, I don't think anyone cares whether "nothingness" exists or not. It exists in the same realm as gods and ghosts: unverifiable and therefore outside the purview of science.

We are free to speculate and philosophize, but in the end we have no way of knowing whether the universe was always here, sprang from nothing, or was created.

We've evidence to support various theories, but ultimately when trying to assess the nature of something so distant in the past, it is statistically moronic to assert with any confidence that something must have happened a certain way. That is why reasonable people do not. As Lune said, we cannot know what preceded the Big Bang, assuming it was indeed a thing.

Asserting itherwise is akin to the madness of man-made climate change. Our climate data for the past 250 years or so suggest that the earth which has been here for 4,500,000,000 years and which we suspect to undergoes wild climate deviations of periods of thousands of years is most certainly warming due to human activity. 97% of the great minds who devote their lives to substantiating the proposition agree it is the truth. How could they be wrong?

[JurisDictum]

When I was about 9, I was fascinated with the concept of nothing. I remember feeling extremely cleaver that there was no "such thing as nothing."

But in the end, I was just playing around with semantics. Just because I kind write "circular square," doesn't mean such a thing exists and I have to find some way to philosophically coup with it.

[Aesop]

pretty good panel on nothingness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Blitz, I don't think anyone cares whether "nothingness" exists or not. It exists in the same realm as gods and ghosts: unverifiable and therefore outside the purview of science.

Again, your asserting that my objective is to prove or disprove nothingness, that is NOT my objective as previously stated.

We are free to speculate and philosophize

Yeah, exactly what I have been doin.

We've evidence to support various theories, but ultimately when trying to assess the nature of something so distant in the past, it is statistically moronic to assert with any confidence that something must have happened a certain way. That is why reasonable people do not. As Lune said, we cannot know what preceded the Big Bang, assuming it was indeed a thing.

So because you "deem" it moronic no one else should engage in any attempt the otherwise? I'll be sure to tell Charles Darwin how you feel when I see him. Seriously, How esoteric of you, if you find the discussion beneath your intellect then please move on. No one forced your participation.

Asserting itherwise is akin to the madness of man-made climate change. Our climate data for the past 250 years or so suggest that the earth which has been here for 4,500,000,000 years and which we suspect to undergoes wild climate deviations of periods of thousands of years is most certainly warming due to human activity. 97% of the great minds who devote their lives to substantiating the proposition agree it is the truth. How could they be wrong?

I don't remember forcibly telling anyone they must agree with anything I said or theorized, and I definately did not suggest they be punished for disagreeing. If this conversation is beneath you then fine disengage. I was doing nothing more then try to spark a civil discussion where parties could voice their own positions. Not be pseudo-intellectual assholes.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, your asserting that my objective is to prove or disprove nothingness, that is NOT my objective as previously stated.



Yeah, exactly what I have been doin.



So because you "deem" it moronic no one else should engage in any attempt the otherwise? I'll be sure to tell Charles Darwin how you feel when I see him. Seriously, How esoteric of you, if you find the discussion beneath your intellect then please move on. No one forced your participation.



I don't remember forcibly telling anyone they must agree with anything I said or theorized, and I definately did not suggest they be punished for disagreeing. If this conversation is beneath you then fine disengage. I was doing nothing more then try to spark a civil discussion where parties could voice their own positions. Not be pseudo-intellectual assholes.

Lol <3