GOD IS DEAD

Hi Bertot,The posts are getting ridculously long so I'll try to be brief...key word try. No. This is your assertion and only YOUR assertion. 'Nothing' created anything, the BB is NOT a point of creation. Layman books may call it the beginning, but the BB is no more the beginning of the universe than yesterday was. The BB is just a point in our past, like yesterday was a point in our past. You cannot seriously be this ignorant to what is being told to you? Matter did not come to be till AFTER the BB, so to say that matter existed before is quite simply an ignorant statement that you continue to make just to prove your assertion about there having to be a creator OR eternal matter. Here again is the definition of matter,

quote:

---

Matter is commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space.

---

The Big Bang:

quote:

---

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated”certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[21] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 0.12 billion years.[22] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the CDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

​

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10’35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[23] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles

---

Please try to understand these 2 definitions so you don't continue to make ridiculous assertions about matter being eternal. Now if you'd like to say that the universe existed in some other form before the BB, than OK, I think we can all agree on that. But matter as in atomic structures, did not exist.Heres another definition,

quote:

---

The common definition of matter is anything which both occupies space and has mass. For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass. In chemistry, this is often taken to mean what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. For example, phosphorus sesquisulfide is a molecule made of four atoms of phosphorus, and three of sulfur (see image on right), and is thus considered to be matter.

​

However in physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter, partly because the notion of "taking up space" is ambiguous in quantum mechanics, and partly because mass doesn't lead to a "natural classification" of particles. Therefore physicists generally do not use the term matter when precision is needed, preferring instead to speak of the more clearly defined concepts of mass, energy, and particles.

---

No, this is where your assertions take over. And I see you are now resorting to ad hominem type arguments.Anyone who does not believe in the existance of God simply rejects the human concept of Gods. God, creator, intelligent designer, etc, etc. are just man made concepts that fill in the gaps. They are mythological ideas. They exist because people such as yourself can't see the universe existing without such a being so you cointinue to assert that God MUST be real.You can't just say, 'well the universe exist, either someone made it or it has always existed'. You have to show that God exist AND can create a universe,(not just saying 'yeah He exists and is all powerful'), I mean prove His power and capabilities outside of just your opinions about God. The way you have attempted to do this has failed because it is circular reasoning, "The universe exists, it must have a creator, God is that creator because the universe exists". This is not the proper way to access things, you must go where the evidence takes you and not make leaps of faith about origins. An ad hominem once again. Im not changing the meaning of things, relax theres no conspiracy group changing words to fuck with you. Matter is not eternal, period. No thoery even says that. YOU asserted that no boundary meant eternal, well it does NOT. Do you want to continue to say that no-boundary means eternal or will you concede that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Onifre writes:Your post are becoming shorter and shorter because you are runnining into a brick wall. Thats the whole point of the truth about there only being two alternatives, therefore you are limited in your response. Actually this will be the simplest post thus far to respond to due to the fact that it is repleat and fraught with so much circular reasoning and contradiction. This is ofcourse a natural result of the position you are trying to maintain. As a Matter (no pun intended) of fact I have already said it does not matter what you call whatever existed prior to the big bang, if you want to call it matter, if you want to call it something, if you want to call it 'that stuff', if you want to call it material or attach any name or nomenclature to it, it does not matter.
You will recall I said, something, no matter what it is called existed prior to the big shalbang. I think most people would agree with this point. Then you cooroborate this point by saying, "I think we can all agree on that", correct?.Then you say, in response to me saying, that something or someone caused the big bang: These are argumnetation tactics to avoid obvious points. Ok so,the BB is not a creation point but a continuance of something else.You now see the utter contradiction you are starting to involve yourself in, from which you cannot extracate yourself. Now you are calling that which existed before the BB, both something and nothing at the same time. It does not matter if you say it was the point of creation or the start of something else, the point is the same.These very fine examples you provide clearly demonstrate that "something" was there which produced the very technical explanation of the expansion, correct? So I think it is safe to say we can stop the quibbling about wehther there was SOMETHING that produced the BB and it is obvious this is not just my assertion, as you have clearly agreed with this simple point in the above quote from yourself, correct? So now we are are back to square one. Either that SOMETHING existed forever, eternally or something eternal in nature created it. Unless you are now willing to provide me with another alternative. Then in a very clear admission from your quotes it becomes obvious that even these "experts" are not sure what the nature of matter is or how we should define it, or how it can be applied to the nature of things, before during or after. Actually the two quotes you provided, while very informative and helpful are repleat with admissions of , maybe this or maybe that, why, because it is impossible for them to know with 100% accuracy. Simply because they do not agree with the standard definition of matter, or do they apply it the same way, does it follow that "nothing" was there to produce these results. So to your statement that, "Nothing created the BB", is simply non-sensical and completley ridiculous. I think you might have already demonstrated that something was there to produce it in your above statements, but you have also said, that nothing produced the BB, so to clarify, which position would you like to maintain in our continuing discussion, SOMETHING OR NOTHING, or something as nothing, or nothing as something. You really do need to be specific here. This statement seems as an attempt at an argument but ends up being just an assertion. Im not really sure what you are trying to say. I have already demonstrated that belief in God has nothing to do with mythology, philosophy, religion or any concepts of theology, but that it is a very real deductive alternative to the existence of "things", due to the fact that material things depend on thier existence for something else. Also, that things start, continue, and the digress to a point where they cannot regain thier former state, a positon that is clearly indicative of the fact that "things" are not eternal in nature. All you have to do is refute that very simple, observable point and demonstate that "things" are indeed eternal in nature.It should be obvious to anyone at this point that you are now avoiding the task of providing another solution besides the two and only two alternatives in connection with this question. In an attempt to avoid this point you now start criticizing peoples reasons for believing in God. You could do this if it werent appaernt that belief in God is rooted in reality, observation and a valid reasoning process which allows his existence to be a very clear alternative to the idea that "things", physical things are eternal in nature.No one here is suggesting that one can PROVE the existence of God absolutely, only that it is a very real answer to the nature of things and existence. It violates no reasoning principles and it violates no obdervable laws of nature, as a matter of fact when you start observing the nature of things it starts to look like the only real answer. The manner in which I have demonstrated the existence of God is both logical and reasonable in relationship to reality and observable things. One would need to demonstrate the mehtod as logically invalid, not simply cry that it involves circular reasoning, it i as valid a conlclusion as any principle could ever be.
Further in your estimation of my conclusions above, you very carefully avoided pointing out the fact that "things" tend to depend for thier existence on something else and that they start, continue and finally get to a point that cannot be regained (entropy), etc. Leaving these points out of my method as you call it, is Im sure not by accident on your part. In other words you purposely misrepresented my position.In this instance the evidence suggest that the universe and the nature of things could not be a product of themselves, atleast that is one alternative and it is not a logical contradiction. No blind faith is required to come upon this type of knowledge. Both positons involve some faith, but they are the only positions that anyone can espouse, if not give me another one please. You are running alot of ideas together here that really have no correlation to eachother. No group is required to change the meanings of words. You have already clearly indicated that the word Eternal in physics has a different meaning that in its common usage. I pointed out that it does not matter what physics wishes to call it, reality, commonsense and deductive reasoning would clearly indicate that "things" either existed forever or they had a start.
Matter is not the point. You keep bringing this up to avoid the point that "something", regardless of what you call it has to be eternal. I dont care what the NBP suggests, in fact whatever it suggests, its not that it has an ultimate explanation of the nature of things. If it does then please provide that explanation in simple english as I have suggested that Cavediver do. To which it now appears he has opted not to do.D Bertot

Bertot,You are not even reading my posts and are so wrapped up in winning an internet debate that you fail to see what is being explained. Im debating for the purpose of understanding, not to claim some meaningless victory.Here are my points, if you'd like to debate them in an honest fashion then we'll continue, if not then I see no point in arguing aimlessly.

• 1. You asserted that the No-Boundary Proposal meant the same as eternity, I, and others explained to you that within the scope of that theory no-boundary is the complete opposite of eternity, do you concede that you were wrong on that assertion?
• 2. The BB is not the beginning of anything so you don't know what came before it, nor do you know if it's finite or infinite; it's all speculations. However, what we do know about our universe has been explained to us by physics, wouldn't it be safe to conclude that the correct answers about pre-BB conditions would also come from physics? Do you concede on that, if not then why not?
• 3. You have not shown proof that a highly complex intelligent entity exists, therefore your use of it as an answer is meerly an attempt to answer something that is currently beyond yours/my capability to comprehend, so you are making things up about a powerful creator that exists without proof or verification...I just have to accept it on faith. God has not been proven to exist, so He as answer, at this point, is faith based. Do you concede on that? If you don't then why?
• 4. If we grant you the ability to postulate based off of your logic and reasoning, and do not demand that you show evidence other than subjective evidence, then theres no end to the stories about origin that we'll have to accept as equal to that of sciences, at that point intelligent inquery will be worthless. Do you concede that logic and reasoning alone do not amount to much more than a subjective opinion? Do you concede that the best evidence is that which can at least make predictions and follow the laws of physics? If you don't then why?

I'd like to keep it in order if you don't mind.PS...If it makes you happy then I agree, your the best debater ever, your a master-debater, your skills are unlike any I've seen! Wow im impressed!*So can we get back to the questions please now that your ego is satisfied?--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Well I am afraid that it is not at all scientifically valid and therefore not "as valid a conclusion as any principle could ever be" as you claim.As demonstrated in Message 264 deductive logic, even if applied adequately, to necessarily incomplete evidence fails to result in conclusions that have either been filtered for subjective bias or rendered reliable by any scientific measure.Until you address the whole issue of tested conclusions the whole principle upon which you found your argument remains in doubt.

Onifre writes: On the contrary, I am very carefully reading everything, looking for an argument that suggest another solution, and I find none. I find alot of complaining about my method, which I will address in a few. What would a meaningless internet victory profit me, neither of us is getting paid, there is no recognition to be gained by anyone, since no one knows who you are. Your statement is both illogical and especially unwarrented. Try and understand this my friend, we are speaking two different languages, atleast we might as well be, as indicated by your and Stragglers comments, which I will adddress in a few, if I can get finished with these unnecessary comments. The root of the problem is that you refuse to view deductive reasoning as a science and are further unable to see that you can reach conclusions that at times are unavoidable and irresistible using this method. In this instance it is that there are only two solutions to the existence of thingsand a creator is clearly one of those very logical and demonstratale solutions or possibilites In other words its a valid conclusion based on the observable and verifiable evidence. You however, want to maintain that it must be tested, I on the other hand say it is being tested and demonstrated in and just the same way your method demonstrates things. The conclusions that physics "demonstrates" at times are theories, speculation and hypothesis, even though they are based on the best possible information, they are not proof of absolute truth.
We can only continue if you understand these points.The debate thus far. Ag. said what would happpen if believers suddenly understood God was dead, several people offered thier points of view. Rahvin said, numerous other possibiltes, I said What other possibiltes, nobody has offered another one. Onifre and Bertot have been dancing around this point. Bertot has been waiting for another solution, O complains about his method but offeres no other solutions to the only two. O and B are now debating the meanings of words, ideas and concepts. O and B are speaking two different languages. Bertot has demonstrated that there are only two possibilites, one of which is a creator in the context of the science of deductive reasoning. Because a creator is a valid conclusion (not proof) that falls within the area of science, it involves no religious thought or concepts. That being the case it identifies itself as scientific and teachable as an explanation in ANY classroom. Since you insist on avoiding the question I keep putting before you I will asked it again. Does the NBP offer any solutions as to the origins of things, yes or no?Does it present another solution to the only possible two solutions in the context of the discussion. If so what is it?
Its possible I was wrong depending on how we were using the word "eternity". Remember that you complained about my usage of that word and that I pointed out that no matter how physics uses it, there is still a concept of no beginning or no end, never having a starting point or an ending. You applied it to walking in a circle and I applied it to the existence of matter, material, or stuff. So I would have to say I was not wrong, especially since you have not given me another solution. Onifre please pay attention. You have maintained that matter did not exists before the BB, but that Something did. If what happened at the BB was DIFFERENT than what was before, yet still something, it would follow that it was the beginning of something else. Surely even you can see this point based on your own contentions No I do not, because proof is not what we are talking about, it exists for nothing, including physics answers to the origins of things. Based on this line of reasoning of yours, physics has provided proof of nothing beyond that which we can observe. That which we can observe applied to physics cannot prove that matter is eternal in its character (having always exisited), it therefore cannot demonstrate that it was not created by something that is eternal in character. Both positions are based in truth and faith. The truth is that matter is eternal or it is not, logic would dictate this point beyond ANY DOUBT. As a matter of fact I continue to challenge you to giVe me another solution. If physics is essentially God in your estimations and statements, why cant it tell us the ultimate and true nature of things? Do you mean to tell me that you are basing your conclusions on insufficient evidence are your conclusions only faith after all? Your making the same mistake Rahvin and Cavediver did, your assuming there are other possibilties in your phrase, "then theres no end to the storieS about ORIGIN that well have to accept as equal to that of sciences". Onifre, what other STORIES (solutions)? Please put it forward. Give me another solution.
Your further assuming that the science of deductive reasoning cannot carry you to axiomatic truths, the conclusions of which are not only testable but irrefutable. You whole attempts in this debate are indicative of this fact.My friend, logic and deductive reasoning when applied to axiomatic truths are never wrong and certainly not SUBJECTIVE. If my conclusions are wrong or subjective you would have long since provided another solution. My prediction is that you will not even make an attempt. By all means, proceed. Actually I am none of these things, Im only better than you in this area, which is not saying much, ha ha.Straggler (big bulbous scary eye dude) writes I think I have addressed most if not all of your contentions in Onifre's posts. If you feel I have not then present that point and I will try to address it as well.Remember, proof is not required or possible. Axiomatic truths are both tried and tested. the evidence in some areas will lead you to conclusions that are demonstratable and irrefutable, yet not absolutely provable, because such a thing exists for nothing.I have kids bithdays and such coming up, so I will be very busy the next few days. I am enjoying the discussion so please do not go away. Hopefully others will chime in and offer there comments.Agobots original contention, specualting about the possibility of God being dead or non-existent is not even a remote possibility. There is therefore no need to worry about what my fellings would be otherwise.D Bertot

There is a third possibility and it will fall in the realm of the Copenhagen Interpretation of the double slit experiment. In a sentence it will posit that we(as observers) create the universe, and not the universe us (loosely interpreted, this theory is silly and is not well supported logically).There are other logical possibilities, one of which i addressed in other threads, but let's just sum it all up and say that when we get to the singularity point, all theories pertaning to it or prior to the BB seem ridiculous to human common sense. As long as you don't have preconceived notions about what the nature of that theory has to be, you'll be able to embrace most of them as possible IMO.Bertot, do you think the singularity is compatible with christianity? Where does it fall in the biblical account of Genesis? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

When you do get round to answering this I suggest that you might want to give examples of other areas of scientific investigation where you would consider untested conclusions borne of incomplete evidence and subjective deduction alone to be reliable?Medicine?
Solid state phsyics?
Genetics?Would you put your life in the hands of a conclusion that has not been empirically tested but merely derived from deductive logic?If not why would we lower the standards of scienctific evidence with regard to the most challenging questions of all?

AG writesI will take a wild guess and assume you did not want me to address this, correct? If you do, I will. This is NOT another logical possibility because it immediately assumes that something was PRIOR to that event.. If there was not one would need to demonstrate that those properties came from "nothingness" or that THAT those and other materials are eternal, a task that is for all intents and purposes impossible.I often hear people say that these Laws of existence were designed this way. That is not exacally correct. Its just the way things are if ANYTHING ANYWHERE exists, physical or spiritual. If there were only the spiritual world and no physical, the rules would be the same. Those spiritual properties would have to be eternal or not, only part of them could be finite, at some point something would have to be eternal if ANYTHING ANYWHERE EXISTS AT ALL.This why the scriptures say that a person is without excuse. Not to threaten people, but to point out that it is just the NATURE of EXISTENCE. Simply put it could not be otherwise, no matter what you discover or explain in another science.Reality, the nature of things, existence, logic and deductive reasoning are you DADDY. Whos you daddy? Logic and deductive reasoningD BertotIts just the nature of existence itself. Hence the statemnet, "Whom shall I say has sent me?. Say to him, "I AM, that I AM, has sent you" Eternal self-existence.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

On what basis do you conclude that "nothingness" must necessarily be stable?I suggest to you that this in itself is a philosophical, rather than an evidentially supported, position.

Yes. The NBP does not address any of the 2 proposed solutions because those 2 proposed solutions are not physics derived conclusions. The NBP deals with physics, i.e quantum fields, strings, membranes etc, etc...or no boundary. This is what you are failing to understand. Your proposed solutions does not match anything observable or testable. Those are philosophical solutions and do not deal with physics thus the NBP will not cover them. Eternity, in the NBP theory, is given as an analogy. It does not refer to matter, or material, or stuff. The BB is the beginning of spacetime, our universe. But let me rephrase your statement, "If what happened at the BB was DIFFERENT than what was before,", should read "If the conditions of the BB were different than the conditions before..."You see nothing happened, like as in a starting point, it was and changed its condition to something else that currently is. This 'was' does not indicate eternity, or nothingness, or anything else, by physics standards it is not currently fully understood, so it does not indicate anything yet.There are theories such as Loop QG, String/M-Theory, Theory of Everything that are trying to match the observed to the mathematics and make it understandable to those who can comprehend it, probably not you or I. Matter is not eternal in it's character(whatever that even means), no scientific theory leads to this conclusion, unless the theory is being misunderstood. Matter, is not eternal, matter came into existance after the BB, but, this is using the physics definition of matter. You do understand that a photon is not considered matter, right? Define matter as something observable, not 'stuff' or 'material'. How sub-atomic are you defining matter to be, beyond Quarks? In other words, what do YOU mean by matter.Physics is not God. Outside of religion the word God is meaningless therefore to apply it to another word does not make sense. Clapton is God doesn't really mean much does it? Except to me cuz he is now deal with it!Physics has defined the true nature of things down to the most sub-atomic level that is observed...and it is even going beyond that with QFT, String/M-theory, Loop Qm etc, etc. No, not stories(solutions), just stories, like the stories from all of the different religions and spiritual beliefs that have ever existed. You know, crazy stories about gods and godesses, "turtles all the way down" kinda crap. Deductive logic does not apply to the science of understanding the universe. If you are arguing from a philosophical PoV then fine, I will not try to apply physics as a standard for your reasoning. Feel free to postulate as much as you want, hell for all we know it may actually be turtles all the way down!!! Abogot must be freaking out! Sorry for having evaded this question.Scientifically:

• The BB is all we understand and only to a certain point. Beyond that point GR breaks down as a theory and spacetme is not understood. A unifying theory will likely bring about a better understanding of the physics behind the universe at such a microscale.

Philosophically:

• I think it's invisile turtles all the way down.

I humbly concure...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Strag writes: Im not even sure this is a valid statement, let alone makes any sense. Why would nothing have to be or do anything. Did you borrow some of Onifre' pot? Youve got to be kidding me. Does not a simple observation of reality and existence of things suggest the obvious conclusion of always existed or finite in character. By what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that this is some philosophical ideology man. You are forced to this simple very reasonable conclusion by simply being here. Its conclusion is axiomatic, there are only a couple of choices, as such, it should be OBVIOUS you are dealing with absolutes in reality, no imagination is required..Then your position is that all things have simply always existed, or does this not matter to you at all anyway.Try and address this argument before you conclude that it is a phily rather than a evi position. If it (anything)exists it was always there in some form forever or something eternal in character and nature set it in motion, given the characteristics of all things we are aware of at present. You can easily dismiss my argument as philosophy and set it aside by giving me another alternative. If you cannot it stands as it has for thousands and thousands and thousands of years as a valid principle, axiomatic in character.If you adopt that it was simply always there then you will need to look for something in the nature of things that does not have the qualities of change and or deterioration, ie entropy. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.Onifre writes: Like Sraggler you are jesting. The existence of things and its origins is testable from the mere fact that it exists. There is only two possiblites, it always existed or it did not. Nobody in his or her right mind would suggest that this principle is not real or testable by simple observation and understanding. Reducing its possible reasons for existence to the reality of obvious logical choices is not only science and testable, but to suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous.I think you are missing this very simple point, maybe it will help. Reality, and physical properties, in whatever manner they represent themselves, matter or other wise, and the facts and conlusions that flow from those properties are inseparable, essentially they are one and the same. In this instance "anything" in existence can be demonstrated to have always existed or started by another source at someother point. This conclusion that flows from the reality of existence and the properties is inserable from eachother. Its a natural and observable conclusion, not a product of the imagination.
The NBP does not address the question because it goal is not to explain its origins but simply to expalin its make-up and nature. Only the science of logic and deductive reasoning in conjuntion with properties and reality can answer these questions. it gives you the ability as being created in Gods image to deduce certain inexcapable conclusions. GO LOGIC. Im not sure what this means, however it should be obvious to anyone that eternality is a very real possibility in the nature of things, one way (God or Cosmological) or another. If things did not exists by themselves forever, then one would logically want to know where they came from. I was not indicating that it was the starting point of everything, only that it was different form what was before, as you are. This does not extracate you from you problem, it only pushes the process bacwards to someTHING else, so what, what have you demonstrated, Nothing. As stated before, physics cannot answer any of these question, not now or ever.
If at some point it did it would discover only one of two possibilites or choices. Nothing could be clearer than that.There are two vital principles here. Your physics will never extracate you from this problem, or at bare minimum it will never set aside this indistructable truth, because it is founded and rooted in reality and undeniable, observable fact. Believing in God is not a product of the imagination, but axiomatic truths that limit the choices of experimentation.Secondly, these principles which have been around for thousands of years are tried and tested against the real world. You can denounce them or dismiss them as untestable and unverifiable, however you will have to check your brain at the door to do so. If this were the case my friend Hawking would certainly not exclude the possibility of a creator.Because things exist, the eternality of something is unavoidable.
If these theories present any alternative solutions than the two, then feel free to present them at any time. Reality and Logic are your daddy Onifre, while I am speaking in jest ofcourse, I am also serious. I agree, matter is not eternal in character, but reality would require something to be. "NO scientific theory leads to that conclusion" , if you are limiting what science to naturalist conclusions, agreed? This is an assertion I have already dimissed as illogical and unwarrented. Actaully you are exacally backwards, its physics that does not apply in the science of origins of reality and properties. It can only explain its properties, then logic and the science of deductive reasoning takes over at that point. Heck, I would like to be there when it happens, to watch it bring us right back to square one in understanding.Straggler writes: There is no conclusion which could be more clear than an axiomatic one. Things are here for a REASON, that is reality and reality limits its choices as to why. God is the most reasonable of all those choices. I would stake my very life on it and indeed I am. So to answer your question, Yes.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The microscopic world,(quantum fields), can only be understood through physics. It's existence could not have been predicted with logic and deductive reasoning. Yes it is testable by the meer fact that it exists, but you didn't know it existed till physicist told you. Now you want to apply deductive logic to the origin of it, to me this doesn't make much sense. Just beause you say God did it doesn't help you understand how He did it, thats what science does, in this particular case it would be the science of physics. Exactly my point... Again, the 2 possibilities are not science related, they are philosophical. So no, science is not held to your 2 possibilities, no matter how many times you repeat it.Again, even if God did it, how did He do it? And WHAT is eternal? Matter? Matter is not eternal. You are talking about a very microscopic scale, a quantum scale, do you understand this area of science enough to understand what 'nothingness' means? Straggler asked you if you though 'nothing' was stable, you did not seem to understand that question.Here,
Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

quote:

---

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

---

Basically, particles coming in and out of existance from 'nothingness' because nothingness is unstable. See wiki definition above. Yeah so? Does my logic help physicist understand the complexity of the origin of the universe? No, and neither does yours. All you are doing is justifying your belief. You can't prove anything is eternal, especially not in the quantum world, and you can't prove that a highly complex intelligence just appeared magically out of nothingness...unless you are saying that God is a quantum fluctuation? Because at least that has been observed. Not in the quantum world. See wiki definition above. And explains what from that point? Some philosophical musing about origin? If you can't describe the properties of the conditions of the early universe, then you are not descibing anything. Beyond that you don't even know what the properties of the early universe were so your logic would have no basis, other than your religious beliefs, which are not in any way unique and do nothing to help understand HOW the universe came to be.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You are asserting that something cannot come from nothing as inarguable fact. I am merely interrogating the assumptions that are implicit in this assertion. Namely the assumption that nothingness is stable rather than unstable. Why should it be so? Is the statement that "something cannot come from nothing" not philosophical rather than evidential in nature?We have no empiriacl knowledge regarding the nature of "nothingness". The closest approximation that we do have, the vacuum of space, whilst admittedly a very far from perfect approximation does indicate that common-sense notions of nothingness and stability may well be very lacking. Obvious? Axiomatic? In the same way that "a simple observation of reality and existence" suggets that:

The Earth is flat

The sun goes around the Earth

Heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter ones

Solid objects are made of solid particles rather than particles that are overwhelmingly predominantly empty space

That the mass of an object is unaffected by the velocity at which it travels

That a clock at the top of a mountain would progress at exactly the same rate as an equally accurate identical clock at the bottom of a mountain

That the empty vacuum of space does not have particles popping in and out of existence continually

​

By "obvious" and "axiomatic" you seem to mean little more than common-sensical. But all of the above common-sense assumptions have been considered "obvious" or even "axiomatic" facts previously and yet we can now repeatedly demonstrate them all to be false.

​

If science teaches us anything it is that common sense is an unreliable tool borne of limited human perception and not to be relied upon.

​

I have never witnessed true nothingness and nor have you. Simply asserting statements about such things is not evidence. Your statements are philosophical at best and borne of demonstrably unreliable common sense at worst.

​

If it (anything)exists it was always there in some form forever or something eternal in character and nature set it in motion, given the characteristics of all things we are aware of at present. You can easily dismiss my argument as philosophy and set it aside by giving me another alternative. If you cannot it stands as it has for thousands and thousands and thousands of years as a valid principle, axiomatic in character.

​

To concept of eternity is also philosophical as we have no physical evidence that any such thing necessarily exists. Certainly not in the sense that you seem to use the term anyway.

​

So in summary:

​

Your "something cannot come from nothing" assumption appears to be derived from common sense which is demonstrably unreliable regarding conclusions that relate to the physical universe.

Your insistence on eternity is an unevidenced concept derived from philosophical bias.

Your overarching methodology of deductive reasoning as applied to necesarily incomplete evidence has been thoroughly demonstrated to be totally unreliable and wholly lacking as a valid method of investigation. See Message 264.

​

This is an assertion I have already dimissed as illogical and unwarrented. Actaully you are exacally backwards, its physics that does not apply in the science of origins of reality and properties. It can only explain its properties, then logic and the science of deductive reasoning takes over at that point.

​

You keep on claiming this despite a full refutation of this position having been fully provided. I would be interested to see your response to Message 264 if you are able to muster one. Thus far you have repeatedly promised a response but as yet provided none.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No no. You misunderstood what i was getting at, perhaps because you missed the threads where i discussed it. Anyway, i was thinking more in line with the reasoning of Einstein on the nature of reality and our human role in it, as in the following quote:"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Onifre writes:Your still missing and avoiding the point
However, sorry for the delay in responding, very busy at present. Will work on a response to all the most recent post today.ThanksD Bertot