Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pahu on July 18, 2011 at 2:13pm

Reply by John Locke yesterday

 Stephen Hawking, a man who has studied this subject more than any other man to date would be best to get an explanation from. He pretty much sums it up like this, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,". Hawking has many articles on this topic and I suggest you read more about them.

 

Pahu: Before the universe existed, wouldn't there be nothing, including gravity?

 

John Locke: Also it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omniscient. If god is omniscient, he already knows when he is going to intervene and use his omnipotent powers. But that means he cant change his mind about intervening, thus making him no longer omnipotent.  Omniscience and omnipotence are not compatible.

 

Pahu: Perhaps what is impossible for man is possible for God. He also reveals He is omnipresent.

Permalink Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak on July 18, 2011 at 3:41pm

according to quantum mechanics even nothing contains information.

 

its like telling a grown man there is no santa.

Permalink Reply by Pahu on July 19, 2011 at 2:42pm

Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak 22 hours ago

according to quantum mechanics even nothing contains information.

 

Pahu: If that is true, which I  doubt, then quantum mechanics is as confused as evolutionists and atheists. Can you demonstrate how nothing can contain anything?

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on July 19, 2011 at 3:45pm

In QM you have something called the Uncertainty Principle and following from this you have an uncertainty relation between time and energy, as follows: the uncertainty about the amount of energy (in Joules) times the uncertainty in what amount of time that amount of energy is present (in seconds) is always minimally equal to Plancks constant (divided by 4 pi).

Therefore an atom for example cannot ever be perfectly still which in turn means no patch of spacetime can ever reach the temperature of absolute zero (on the Kelvin scale) and there is always energy present in the vacuum: zero point energy.

This is established science. When we go one further in the realm of quantum-gravity theories that are "background independent" that is to say, that (this is guaranteed when a quantized) spacetime itself flows out of the theory as it were, the uncertainty relations are already built into spacetime as it is dynamically created conforming to the rules set out in the theory.

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on July 19, 2011 at 4:07pm

On large scales this would resemble in classical Newtonian terms what Mark Whittle in his wonderful Cosmology lectures called "falling outward."

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 19, 2011 at 10:51pm

Then you are saying there cannot be nothing , but must be something?  Ok then , your logic works for me.  So the universe has always been here?  No need for a God?  

 

Did you ever think if you replaced the word 'universe' with 'God' in your original logical arguments , you might get a hint of what we are talking about?  

Permalink Reply by ZachsMind on July 17, 2011 at 1:52pm

The first two assumptions I will grant.

1. The universe exists.

It's possible there is no universe and our conscious existence is a lie but I hate that line of thinking cuz it's boring & redundant. If assumption one is wrong, this entire argument is moot. So I'll grant that leap of faith. I grant that assumption w/o sufficient evidence outside what we know about our own existence. We'll pretend that's a given. The universe exists. If it doesn't, this is all academic anyway.

2. The universe had a beginning.

Now, we kinda have proof for number two. There is the echo of The Big Bang at the furthest reaches of our known universe. Scientists have detected it. Our known perception of the universe has an outer layer. We can observe it and examine it from this great distance. Our universe as we know it is not infinite. It's finite. This does allow us one further leap of faith: the known universe had a beginning.

This is big really. Cuz until recently we really couldn't stretch this far in our knowledge of the universe. We've jumped to a lot of conclusions as a species that have later proven to be false. We're getting better at this but we still have a long way to go.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

We don't know this. Someday we might figure out a way to get information about what is outside the known universe but right now that looks about as impossible as breaking the sound barrier once seemed to be, or figuring out speed of light travel appears to be now. Human Flight was once impossible. Going to the moon was once impossible. Maybe someday we'll resolve number three too. However, not today. Not yet.

Perhaps before this universe began there was another universe. A different one. Maybe there's something outside our known universe even now. Maybe whatever that something is is still there, maybe it was replaced by something else and we didn't notice cuz we're inside this bubble. Maybe it was there then but it's gone now. We don't know. We have no way of knowing if statement 3 is correct or not. It's too much of a leap of faith from what we know.

This argument is a load of dingoes kidneys. It's an argument from ignorance. Because we are inside the universe, we can't see what is outside the universe, if in fact there is anything. We don't know. Assuming from what we know is always a leap of faith.

Believers leap w/o looking. Doubters look first, and in this case, we can't look. At least not yet.

Currently we simply can't see outside our known universe. That doesn't mean nothing's there. That doesn't mean something's there. That doesn't mean anything. Maybe the laws of nature as we know them don't apply outside the known universe. By definition that'd make anything outside what we know supernatural. However, that doesn't mean YOUR god is definitely THE answer. It'd make all the gods mankind has ever envisioned a few possibilities among a near infinity of possibilities.

Any of the assumptions made past number three are not relevant, cuz you can't get past number three. It's too much of a jump from rational thought to assume before the something we can perceive now there was nothing. That's what the bible insists. It's just a book. It's no more right than the creation stories from other cultures. It's a great myth. It's fun. It's thought provoking. That doesn't make it the final word.

The bible is not the word of god. It only claims to be. It was written by men who wanted to control other men and tell them how to think, feel, behave & treat one another and sometimes that was beneficial to mankind and sometimes that was malevolent. I'm not arguing the ethics here. I'm arguing for knowledge.

Assumptions are not facts. If you can back up assumptions with facts, then what had been an assumption previously may be seen as a fact, but to accept assumptions blindly without evidence takes religion, and humanity simply doesn't need that BS any longer.

We need proof. Prove your god. Or shut the f*** up.

Permalink Reply by Pahu on July 18, 2011 at 2:36pm

Reply by ZachsMind yesterday

The first two assumptions I will grant.

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

We don't know this. 

 

Pahu: You begin by agreeing the universe had a beginning and then balk at the idea that before it existed there was nothing. Isn't that a logical conclusion? How could the universe exist before it existed?

 

ZachsMind: Perhaps before this universe began there was another universe. A different one. Maybe there's something outside our known universe even now. Maybe whatever that something is is still there, maybe it was replaced by something else and we didn't notice cuz we're inside this bubble. Maybe it was there then but it's gone now. We don't know. We have no way of knowing if statement 3 is correct or not. It's too much of a leap of faith from what we know.

 

Pahu: You attempt to explain your contradiction with a series of speculations of perhapses and maybes. As I pointed out, my statements are based on known observation, experience and experimentation. Not speculation or "faith." Isn't your response faith that maybe some day we will finally discover natural causes for the existence of the universe? Do you resist conclusions based on facts because they disprove what you want to believe?

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on July 18, 2011 at 2:44pm

Faith is a belief without reason to believe. Maybe perhaps and speculation are anti faith. You formulated that he isnt operating on faith by saying hes using those things. Your contradicting yourself just as you do in most of your arguments.

 

You keep claiming evidence, observation, and experimentation(a word your obviously unfamiliar with) of god but i have yet to see a single piece of evidence mentioned from you. Your bible of fairytales is no more evidence then the myths of ancient rome or greece. Got any actual evidence?

Permalink Reply by David Pietrzak on July 17, 2011 at 2:51pm

"the Law of Causality" actually breaks down once you go into quantum physics... Meaning it doesn't exist. There further we "theoretically" travel back in time to the big bang the weirder things get. The laws of physics that we all know, and see to be common everywhere, actually break down when one gets close to "the big bang". So in all reality, there doesn't have to be a time of "nothing". It could have always been here, and the only reason we feel "time", is because ourselves recognize that we will die. Cats and Dogs don't understand time as humans do, and sadly, they have it right. Again back to quantum physics, things can seem to come from nothing, matter, after all, is only "trapped packets of energy", light is a form of energy. Weird to think about, right? Another example. Vacuum energy is an attraction between two completely uncharged plates, placed next to each other in a vacuum. With no forces pushing on the plates at all, they will move towards each other. Theres no understanding of why yet, but we shall soon know. I think existence is a little bigger than vacuum energy, so it'll take longer to find out how it works. So I am not convinced at all that existence was made "supernaturally" and your argument has fallen apart. But I guess I'll go a little farther. Live does not always come from "pre-existing life of the same kind". In fact, it never does. Every time a organism replicates, it has slight changes. Over time the changes that where beneficiary will aid that organism while trying to survive, and/or trying to replicate itself again. Over time again, the changes that where bad (maybe born without arms) will give a disadvantage for survival and/or replication. Over greater amounts of time, all of the advantages add up. Both would be the same species, so they would have the same niche. Since only one can live in the same area, the advantaged would eventually kill of the disadvantages. Leading to us as we are now. Ironically, this is how cancer works as well.

Finally, life can come from nothing. A group of scientists once took carbon, water, electricity, and various other substances that we know existed before use, and they created nucleic acids. Once naturally occurring enzymes where added, they formed together. After a lot of getting banged around in the ocean, and gentle mutations, they can become bacteria. Scientists have also made their own synthetic DNA and created an entirely new bacteria that never existed naturally. You must remember though, from bacteria to fish, takes a LOOONNNNNGGGGGGGG time. Even if scientists could do it in a quarter of the time that nature did, it would still take over a billion years.

As more research is being done on our brains, and how memory works, the more memory and thought are becoming similar. If this trait continues than your thoughts are just your mind organizing its memories to better live the current situation. If thought isn't freewill, than there cannot be an "eternal soul". Which would disprove God with science. Just give us a few more decades =]].

Thank you for your attempt, sometimes i wish it was that easy.

Permalink Reply by David Pietrzak on July 17, 2011 at 2:58pm

if you cant believe that existence has always been, how can you believe that God has?

Permalink Reply by Pahu on July 18, 2011 at 3:01pm

Reply by David Pietrzak yesterday

if you cant believe that existence has always been, how can you believe that God has?

 

Pahu: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).  This has not occurred.  Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed?  Something cannot bring itself into existence.  Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence?  It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

 

All things that came into existence were caused to exist.  You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed).  Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• …
• 60
• Next ›
• Page