Jonesy

Let's have a 'CLEAN' debate.

This is/(are) assertion(s)/view(s):

1. In the beginning there was Nothing.
2. Intellect appeared IN the Nothing. How? We don't yet know.
3. This Intellect developed infinitely. To what extent? We don't yet know.
4. This Intellect imagined, designed and initiated the Big Bang. How did he do it? We don't yet know, but note that the Big Bang occurred.
5. Anything in the Universe is thus a single process, in which the Big Bang was the starting event. There was a t=0 for this Universe, a moment at which, for the 'intelligent being' who initiated the big Bang, it could have been already Billions of years in his own reality/time perception. It is also possible he might be initiating Big Bangs whenever he feels like it - and we are part of just 'one' such 'experimental' Big Bang.


I'm happy to stick to a discussion on ANY or ALL of the points above. Eg., we can discuss why there HAD TO be a NOTHING before there was 'something'; or, we can even discuss why a complex process such as the Big Bang could not have 'just happened' and must have been imagined and designed; or, we could even debate the fact that the 'intelligent being that designed the Big Bang appeared and developed in the NOTHING, thus, initially, being the ONLY 'thing' that existed'; and so on...

Let the debate start. Remember the rule (to which I WILL stick - this will hopefully get SOME people to actually JOIN the debate instead of mentioning cults and t-shirts) - no references to books, articles, websites, other people's work/ideas - ONLY arguments that YOU can 'think up' on the spot.

A purely intellectual debate.

Let's start.

Oolon Colluphid

Not sure why it requires a capital, but okay. You do know what nothing is, right?

Uh-oh, loony alert!
1) By definition, there was nothing for anything to appear IN.
2) The question is not “how?”, but “oh yeah?”
3) You have some evidence for this assertion? No, we don't yet have it.

What intellect?

So you’re offering:

1. Assertion.
2. Assertion.
3. Assertion.
4. Assertion.
5. Assertion.

Followed by

1. -
2. Don’t know.
3. Don’t know.
4. Don’t know.
5. A conclusion less substantiated than mine that I can fly by whirling my willy like a helicopter.

Since this has absolutely Fanny Adams to do with evolution, and since it would be a shame to pollute Science & Skepticism, it's off to RRP with it.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>