On May 6, 1:33 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> That depends on what you mean by "nothing".
> >>   1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
> >>   2) Lack of matter and energy
> >>   3) Lack of matter and energy and space
> >>   4) Lack of matter and energy and space and time.
> >>   5) Lack of even the potential to produce something.
> > > Without #5 though, the scientific cosmology is no better than any other
> > creation myth.
> Good heavens, what a dumb thing to say!

What an irrelevant, ad hominem opinion!

> Even if science can't explain how
> the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics came to be, if it can explain how
> those few simple laws generated time and space and matter and energy and
> life you think that's no better than Greek mythology?

I didn't say that. I say that it is no better than Greek mythology at
explaining the origin of the universe. It may have many many more
practical applications, but as far as explaining where the universe
came from, it's still a 21st century creation myth (really probably a
holdover from 20th century tbh).

>! Idiotic. And what
> the hell do you expect science or religion or anything else to do with #5?
> You define X as something that can not produce Y and then you demand to
> know how X produces Y.  Nuts.

#5 isn't a problem once we understand that sense is primordial.
Nothing nuts about it, although it is unfamiliar to many people.
People who have some degree of expertise with Indian cosmology seem to
find the idea quite agreeable.

> > I have explained that causality itself is an epiphenomenon of time which
> > is an emergent property of experience or sense which
> Causality is not nothing, neither phenomenon nor epiphenomenon is nothing,
> time is not nothing, experience is not nothing, sense is not nothing, and
> "emergent property" just means X created Y but I don't know how. You really
> haven't explained much now have you.

Sense is not nothing. Nothing comes from sense. Sense is primary. You
are too busy spitting and condescending to notice that I have
explained everything that I claim to.

> >> BULLSHIT! Anybody who says these are "incredibly shallow questions" is a
> >> fool. Full stop.
> > > They are shallow to me. I'm not an engineer.
> I know, that's part of the problem.

I think it's part of the solution. As the saying goes, if all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

> >I don't care about the mechanism of the universe, I care only about the
> > biggest possible picture.
> You think you can answer the deepest question in the universe but you don't
> even bother to glance at the many many profound questions that science
> already has answers to, many found centuries ago.

What specifically are you talking about that you accuse me of being
ignorant of?

> Gaining wisdom takes work
> but you are not willing to put in the time, and so as a result you have no
> more knowledge of how the universe actually operates than your average
> 18'th century gentleman. You Sir are a dilettante.

You confuse inner wisdom with external information. Your argument
continues to be ad hominem fallacy.

> > Sorry that was a typo. It should be nothing instead of something.
> Easy mistake to make, the difference between the two is so small.

It can seem that way sometimes.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to