Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[Stefan-A]

OK. One might say that life is just an emergent property of chemistry and physics but If you're going to say that, it's like saying that something is the emergent property of nothing. That time and matter emerged from nothing all on it's own.

How does that follow?

"Emergent property" is just another way of saying that life emerged from chemistry and physics without admitting the existence of a creative intelligent design. This is why I say we are incapable of understanding/grasping the real answers to our questions (basically, "what is reality") because we are made of matter and operate inside the laws of physics and time. In order for us to understand it fully, we would have to operate outside of it and if we could do that, we would be "God". Obviously, we are not or we wouldn't need to ask the questions in the first place. There would be no question if we were capable of understanding the answer.

How do you figure that's an obstacle? Moreover, how does operating outside of it, presuming that it's even logically possible, help understand / grasp anything happening "on the inside"? Wouldn't you be blind (metaphorically speaking) to everything on the inside?

That brings us back to one of your other questions. I said that we were incapable of understanding the answers and you asked me what I based that on. In order for the universe to exist we must believe that it had a beginning. Most of us do. It was created by an intelligent deity, or something came from nothing on it's own.

Well, we can trace it back to the moment immediately after the so-called big bang. Anything before that (presuming the word "before" has any meaning, considering that this was the point of origin of both time and space) is for now beyond what we can figure out and I am reluctant to mix beings into the debate, because that's nothing more than a stopgap explanation. Or rather a placeholder for an actual explanation.

Either way, we can't comprehend it.

Yet.

We would have to comprehend how something can come from nothing,

Not really, nor is that the proposition.

or we would have believe that it was created by a deity

Which I presume we must allow to have come from nothing, in which case we're doing a lot special pleading, as far as the "something from nothing" claim goes.

that just for the sake of simplicity, I will call "God". But what is God? Again, we wouldn't have to ask the question, if we were capable of understanding the answer.

It's a major cop-out.

The answers are right under our noses, and observable, and yet we still ask the questions. Therefore, we are incapable of understanding the answers.

An answer isn't an answer without a question preceding it.

It's no different than explaining to a 5 year old child, where he came from. If you give him all the biological details, in other words, the truth, instead of telling him the stork brought him, he still won't understand. Even if he witnessed the creation of a human life in real time, he still wouldn't fully understand what he was seeing. What makes you think adults are any different?

By 5 years of age, I was well aware of where babies come from. I may not have had every biological detail, but neither do most adults. Understanding doesn't require all the information.

[ConcinusMan]

How does that follow?

Because chemistry and physics can't exist without matter and matter is presumed to have come from nothing at the moment of the big bang.

how does operating outside of it, presuming that it's even logically possible, help understand / grasp anything happening "on the inside"? Wouldn't you be blind (metaphorically speaking) to everything on the inside?

No, because it's only "logically possible" if our very existence (and minds) are infinite and beyond the physical. If our minds were infinite we would be wouldn't be "blind" to anything.

or we would have believe that it was created by a deity

Which I presume we must allow to have come from nothing

Not exactly. Because for the sake of argument, "nothing" in this case simply means the lack of matter/a universe as we understand it. It does not mean there can't be something that isn't matter.

Well, we can trace it back to the moment immediately after the so-called big bang. Anything before that (presuming the word "before" has any meaning, considering that this was the point of origin of both time and space) is for now beyond what we can figure out and I am reluctant to mix beings into the debate, because that's nothing more than a stopgap explanation. Or rather a placeholder for an actual explanation.

either way, we can't comprehend it

Yet.

Which is the reason it is only a "placeholder". Put there until the day comes that we can comprehend it. If that day ever comes. I say that day can't come because we would have to understand what existed before time. There would have to be meaning in "before".

(presuming the word "before" has any meaning, considering that this was the point of origin of both time and space) is for now beyond what we can figure out

Exactly my point. It is beyond what we can figure out because our very existence is a copoareal one. (one of physical substance or matter, existing in the confines of space time)

An answer isn't an answer without a question preceding it.

There would be no questions if we could comprehend the answer to just one. There is only question that needs to be answered in order for all other questions to be unnecessary. If we knew the answer to that one question, we wouldn't have to ask any questions. We don't even know what that one question is.

[Stefan-A]

Because chemistry and physics can't exist without matter and matter is presumed to have come from nothing at the moment of the big bang.

Incorrect.

No, because it's only "logically possible" if our very existence (and minds) are infinite and beyond the physical. If our minds were infinite we would be wouldn't be "blind" to anything.

If it's "beyond the physical" it doesn't exist.

Not exactly. Because for the sake of argument, "nothing" in this case simply means the lack of matter/a universe as we understand it. It does not mean there can't be something that isn't matter.

That's not nothing in any sense of the word. That's something.

Which is the reason it is only a "placeholder".

What "it" and what is "it" needed for?

Exactly my point. It is beyond what we can figure out because our very existence is a copoareal one. (one of physical substance or matter, existing in the confines of space time)

That's not a license to fill in that gap with just anything.

There would be no questions if we could comprehend the answer to just one. There is only question that needs to be answered in order for all other questions to be unnecessary. If we knew the answer to that one question, we wouldn't have to ask any questions. We don't even know what that one question is.

Yeah, unfortunately the Earth was destroyed by Vogons just as the mice were about to figure out the question.

[Invisible Snake]

How about you guys just settle it in the octagon?

[Stefan-A]

How about you guys just settle it in the octagon?

I prefer the traditional way of settling disputes.

Holmgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ConcinusMan]

How about you guys just settle it in the octagon?

Because, while can't speak for Stefan, I'm not trying to "settle" anything. Just having dialogue.

Hey, it's been a very cold day today. I heard it was going to freeze tonight so I went outside to bring in some potted plants. It's snowing. So far up until now we haven't even come close to getting a taste of winter. We haven't even been getting overnight freezes, which is rather unusual. Those usually start in late Oct or early Nov. There are even rose bushes and geraniums that are still blooming.

[ConcinusMan]

More snow tomorrow and through tomorrow night too. Right down the valley floor. (Willamette Valley)

I don't think we have to worry about it sticking around for too long. check out the forecast

[Invisible Snake]

483607_10151566569013242_999511739_n.jpg

[ConcinusMan]

Good grief ^^^. This is exactly why I think it's just downright stupid to own a snake that you can't easily physically control, especially one that weighs as much, or more than you do.

Incorrect.

If it's "beyond the physical" it doesn't exist.

Only if you put limits on existence by defining it as only physical. Those limits are the limits of our own existence so it's only natural that you would think that.

[Stefan-A]

Only if you put limits on existence by defining it as only physical. Those limits are the limits of our own existence so it's only natural that you would think that.

It's not a limit on existence, it's what existence is. If you want to lump together the non-existing and the existing, you need another word to describe that.