It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

For the umpteenth time, what was god's cause? And which god, for that matter? How can you rule out multiple gods?




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Hence quoting your word "insertion" proved my point that is doesn't make logical sense to say that God is just a made up word to be inserted whenever Cause and Effect is being discuss.


...That's not how proof works. "I say this proves that, ergo it's settled." No, it's not. You are not the sole authority on valid evidence and rational thought in this thread, so stop acting like it. If you want to claim that there is proof to be beheld, then explain it and discuss it.


Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect.

Hence out of nothing comes nothing.


Hence, no god. By your own admission.

Game over.




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"

b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)

c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

d) a workable definition of "nothing"

e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists

f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"

g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter


Third time posting these questions, are you going to have a crack at them or not?



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I haven't debated a Creationist yet who answers the questions. They simply ignore the questions, ignore the hard evidence and march on as though any rational person would change their minds based on what they're trying to sell.
I have never debated one either who had any education or true understanding of the sciences. That says everything we need to know about them. And you can't debate ignorance.

I don't regard Creationism as a Christian religion. It's far from it. It's a cult espousing irrational ideas and discouraging free thought and critical thinking. Religions for the most part are fairly benign. The Creationism cult is more like a Jonestown cult who will follow their leader to death's door if need be. And I don't put it above Ken Hamm to buy his own island and setup a commune for the believers. All he has to do is write another junk bond issue (he's put out a few of them) to finance the whole thing.

It's amazing as well as frightening to see how easy it is for people to fall into these traps.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Really?

So if gravity is "just Man's Language for our Experience " and that such "Universal Laws don't really exist in the real sense but just help us describe the Universe which simply IS."

Does this mean then that we can now jump off a building with no deadly consequences?

I hope that's not what you're saying.


No. I would never try to imply Gravity is not real or to challenge the Rules that govern the Universe. So don't go jumping off any buildings.

What I mean is that the Laws we use to define the universe are only our interpretation of things and even though they are a working set of rules that do accurately produce results they aren't exactly complete. This is obvious when you consider that for just about every Law we establish there is another Law we soon establish that allows us to bend or break the first law in some way. That is why we still look for an all inclusive "Theory of Everything" to this day because we have a multitude of rules which we've established from various areas but cannot yet combine them all into one conclusive interconnected truth, so to speak. We just have many semi completed area's that are independent of one another.

Like Gravity for example. We can't know for sure that Gravity is what we say it is based upon our measurements of certain events, even though our theory does produce reliable and repeatable measurements. That's why we still have certain theories such as Gravitons or recently Dark Matter which is actually filling the negative space, pushing on everything instead of the idea that it's Gravity pulling in on everything.

Does that make sense??

In other words "The map is not the terrain." It only represents the terrain to some degree of accuracy.
edit on 16-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

He did answer.


originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

OK - let me take a gander.

GetHyped you said:

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

I say: --> Who's saying this? Not me since my premise is that it came from a pre-existing "something" or an Always Existing Someone.


You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"


--> If logic and common sense and everyday experience won't do, how else can I explain it?

In fact even space that we call empty space, it's not really empty because there's always SOMETHING in it - just invisible to the naked eye - like the Higgs field. Hence, nothing or nothingness is just a terminology we use to define SOMETHING that is undetectable to us. In short, there's ALWAYS SOMETHING rather than nothing. There's no way around it however you slice it and dice it. There's always something there - and I'm sticking to it


b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)


--> Because the Creator is higher/ greater than the materials used to create the system - i.e. the universe. If He is not higher or of the same level as an atom then how does a weak or equal force overcome the stronger force? It can't be done whether in our plane of existence or otherwise. It just can't. For how can cold overcome hot? In other words - cold ALWAYS will flow from hot - not the other way around. Hence in this sense - Hot will always precede cold - until equilibrium is achieve then both are in equal state, hence no work.



c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

Who's saying this? See a)


d) a workable definition of "nothing"


To me, there's no such thing as "nothing" - since there's Always Something to begin with.
Something will always produce something. Hence the Universe, hence Infinite Space.
See a)


e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists


I thought this is your premise and those who believe that there's no God or that nothing was there before the singularity. In any case see a) d)



f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"


See a) d) and e)


g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter


See OP

My 2c,
Thanks for the post.



edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

If it wasn't chance or dumb luck, then it was design. Are you saying your conception was predesignated, right down to the exact sperm that would succeed in fertilizing the egg?


No, I don't think there is a Design. But I don't consider life or the universe to be something of chance exactly either. Let me explain. Chance to me denotes that there was some other option available. I see it as being something that was simply inevitable so dumb luck or chance don't seem the right words for it. Also I'm talking Origins of Universe and Reality here also not my own personal birth. On an infinite time line everything regardless of how improbable would still happen because infinite reduces even the largest Odds to zero. So the improbable chance that the universe could exist in just the perfect way it does to function correctly isn't improbable at all, it's certain.

Just so we're clear I am not in support of any Creator or Designer being in charge, I just don't think the term "Chance or Luck" is the correct way to explain the alternative. In no way do I support some Intelligent Design either as I've already shown that what seems to us very Complex and seemingly in need of some intelligent controller is not always correct. Complexity can come from Simplicity all on it's own.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"

b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)

c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

d) a workable definition of "nothing"

e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists

f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"

g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter


Third time posting these questions, are you going to have a crack at them or not?


You must have missed it back in page 7.

Anyway pasting it here:
a reply to: GetHyped

OK - let me take a gander.

GetHyped you said:

Who says the singularity came from nothing? "Before" the singularity makes no sense as time itself didn't exist.

I say: --> Who's saying this? Not me since my premise is that it came from a pre-existing "something" or an Always Existing Someone.


You've still yet to substantiate:

a) the claim that "something can't come from nothing"


--> If logic and common sense and everyday experience won't do, how else can I explain it?

In fact even space that we call empty space, it's not really empty because there's always SOMETHING in it - just invisible to the naked eye - like the Higgs field. Hence, nothing or nothingness is just a terminology we use to define SOMETHING that is undetectable to us. In short, there's ALWAYS SOMETHING rather than nothing. There's no way around it however you slice it and dice it. There's always something there - and I'm sticking to it


b) why any god is exempt from a) (other than hand wringing and special pleading)


--> Because the Creator is higher/ greater than the materials used to create the system - i.e. the universe. If He is not higher or of the same level as an atom then how does a weak or equal force overcome the stronger force? It can't be done whether in our plane of existence or otherwise. It just can't. For how can cold overcome hot? In other words - cold ALWAYS will flow from hot - not the other way around. Hence in this sense - Hot will always precede cold - until equilibrium is achieve then both are in equal state, hence no work.



c) the claim that the singularity came from "nothing"

Who's saying this? See a)


d) a workable definition of "nothing"


To me, there's no such thing as "nothing" - since there's Always Something to begin with.
Something will always produce something. Hence the Universe, hence Infinite Space.
See a)


e) observational evidence that "nothing" even exists


I thought this is your premise and those who believe that there's no God or that nothing was there before the singularity. In any case see a) d)



f) how, given the lack of e), you can make any assumptions about "something" not being able to come from "nothing"


See a) d) and e)


g) even if all of the above is valid, how you can conclude "therefore, god dunnit". Which god? How many gods? Why even god? This is a complete non sequiter


See OP

My 2c,
Thanks for the post.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2


Hence quoting your word "insertion" proved my point that is doesn't make logical sense to say that God is just a made up word to be inserted whenever Cause and Effect is being discuss.


...That's not how proof works. "I say this proves that, ergo it's settled." No, it's not. You are not the sole authority on valid evidence and rational thought in this thread, so stop acting like it. If you want to claim that there is proof to be beheld, then explain it and discuss it.


Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect.

Hence out of nothing comes nothing.


Hence, no god. By your own admission.

Game over.



Who says I'm the sole authority? Not me but the facts as I see them.

For instance you haven't disprove my proof that you will only get something from something especially when that something or someone is eternal.

Where just to clarify Eternal means all existing.

Like the source of E = m c 2 is eternal, always existing.

Hence my contention is that there' Always had been something or someone there from the beginning of creation - also known as the "Big Bang" IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You can't disprove nor debunk it.

And since you can't disprove nor debunk it thus your premise that something from nothing hold no "water".

Therefore a false premise.

Unless of you agree with me that ONLY something or someone eternal is the ONLY valid logical explanation to our existence or fort that matter the universe.

Hence game over.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
"I say: --> Who's saying this? Not me since my premise is that it came from a pre-existing "something" or an Always Existing Someone. "

Who is saying that the singularity comes from nothing? Find me as physicist who says that. You can't talk about "pre-existing" anything considering time itself did not exist at the point of the singularity.

"--> If logic and common sense and everyday experience won't do, how else can I explain it? "

Logic and everyday experience tells you the earth is flat. That the sun goes around the earth. That the stars are specks. Show me some scientific evidence that "something can't come from nothing".

"--> Because the Creator is higher/ greater than the materials used to create the system - i.e. the universe. If He is not higher or of the same level as an atom then how does a weak or equal force overcome the stronger force? It can't be done whether in our plane of existence or otherwise. It just can't. For how can cold overcome hot? In other words - cold ALWAYS will flow from hot - not the other way around. Hence in this sense - Hot will always precede cold - until equilibrium is achieve then both are in equal state, hence no work. "

I said without hand wringing and special pleading.

"To me, there's no such thing as "nothing" - since there's Always Something to begin with.
Something will always produce something. Hence the Universe, hence Infinite Space. "

Then who produced god? We're back to square one. Again.

"I thought this is your premise and those who believe that there's no God or that nothing was there before the singularity. In any case see a) d)"

Who says there was nothing before the singularity? How can you even speak of before the singularity whentime itself didn't exist.

"See a) d) and e) "

You haven't offered up an actual working definition of nothing so you can't make any claims about "something" not being able to come from "nothing".

"See OP"

We've all seen your OP. All you've offered up is your personal, unsubstantiated opinion as fact.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


"--> If logic and common sense and everyday experience won't do, how else can I explain it? "

Logic and everyday experience tells you the earth is flat. That the sun goes around the earth. That the stars are specks. Show me some scientific evidence that "something can't come from nothing".


Do you have reason to believe that something can come from nothing? That a universe can essentially be produced from a vacuum without outside influence?
edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Unless of you agree with me that ONLY something or someone eternal is the ONLY valid logical explanation to our existence or fort that matter the universe.



Here is where I Agree and the part where I disagree.

Agree:
Nothing is Just Nothing and has no meaning in respect to what we're talking about or anything else for that matter.
Something (Finite yet Currently still expanding Universe) came from Infinite Something(which is considered "Nothing" in Terms of Physics or Void Philosophically which isn't the same thing as absolute Nothing, but is Infinite meaning it can't be considered "Something" in the same sense as the universe since all "Things" have limits while the Void does not.)

Disagree:
Everything above I think we are in agreement with while the only part I disagree with you on is that while I use the "Void" Something as meaning Infinite and Eternal which Created our Universe, I don't give Personal Qualities to it like you do. You have God as the Eternal Creator of the Universe where God is Infinite. You use God the way I use Void. Both have the same properties and function only you also make God into some Personal Being. To me that is illogical because by doing so you've now just limited what Infinite means by specifying certain qualities it must possess such as intelligence and all the other Personal God characteristics. It can't be limited and limitless at the same time and be logical.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Who says I'm the sole authority? Not me but the facts as I see them.


And how we, the other 99.9% of the forum, see these facts is of no concern to you, right? After all, you are convinced of your own special genius and want only to share it with us. That's the impression I get, anyway.


For instance you haven't disprove my proof that you will only get something from something especially when that something or someone is eternal.


You said it yourself. Should I post it again?

"Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect. Hence out of nothing comes nothing."

If God has no cause, then it follows that there's no God. According to your logic, as quoted above.


Where just to clarify Eternal means all existing.

Like the source of E = m c 2 is eternal, always existing.


I have no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness than the chair I'm sitting on. If you think you can prove otherwise, then go for it. And I'm talking proof, not speculation or philosophy.


Hence my contention is that there' Always had been something or someone there from the beginning of creation - also known as the "Big Bang" IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You can't disprove nor debunk it.


What was that commandment again? You shall not lay the burden of proof on them who are questioning the claim. If you have the fortitude to stand up and make a statement, you have the fortitude to back it up or admit you were wrong and sit down.

Allow me to demonstrate how flawed your "winning assertion" is: Your god is dead, now and forevermore. Prove me wrong.


Unless of you agree with me that ONLY something or someone eternal is the ONLY valid logical explanation to our existence or fort that matter the universe.

Hence game over.


I'll share your quote with you one more time, so everyone here can see how easily you flip your stance:

"Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect. Hence out of nothing comes nothing."

If God has no cause, then it follows that there's no God. Too late to retract your statement. And I'm using it as proof.

And one more thing: the game isn't over until you have convinced us, or you have given up. You have an untested, unproven, unreviewed theory. Professionally speaking, it is only appropriate to allow your peers to determine the merit of your theory. Self-approval is a cheap tactic to employ in these matters, so I hope you'll understand if we don't lower our standards to that point.
edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
You shall not lay the burden of proof on them who are questioning the claim. If you have the fortitude to stand up and make a statement, you have the fortitude to back it up or admit you were wrong and sit down.


I like that. Can you imagine how many arguments simply wouldn't even be around or at least have been done and over with had everyone known and understood but most importantly followed such a rule!!

It would be so much more quiet I imagine it might even make the world someone boring. Hard to imagine such peace and quiet.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
You shall not lay the burden of proof on them who are questioning the claim. If you have the fortitude to stand up and make a statement, you have the fortitude to back it up or admit you were wrong and sit down.


I like that. Can you imagine how many arguments simply wouldn't even be around or at least have been done and over with had everyone known and understood but most importantly followed such a rule!!

It would be so much more quiet I imagine it might even make the world someone boring. Hard to imagine such peace and quiet.


When ignorance is rewarded, stupidity becomes the new genius, and genius the new stupidity.
edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

When ignorance is rewarded, stupidity becomes the new genius, and genius the new stupidity.


"In a mad world, only the mad are Sane."



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2




And how we, the other 99.9% of the forum, see these facts is of no concern to you, right? After all, you are convinced of your own special genius and want only to share it with us. That's the impression I get, anyway.


Believe what you want to believe, no one here is telling you what to believe even though it's been proven to be wrong. That there's no such thing as nothing - an absolute nothing that doesn't exist. As for genius - it's not a matter of knowledge but what is logical. Heck you might be the smartest in the world but if what you're saying doesn't make logical sense then it's useless.




For instance you haven't disprove my proof that you will only get something from something especially when that something or someone is eternal.

You said it yourself. Should I post it again?

"Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect. Hence out of nothing comes nothing."

If God has no cause, then it follows that there's no God. According to your logic, as quoted above.


Nope. It's not according to mine but your logic because you're assuming that there's no FIRST CAUSE!

Again ...just to clarify: Eternal means all existing.

Like I said - the source of E = m c 2 is eternal.

Hence God IS/was the FIRST CAUSE!

As the FIRST CAUSE, the one who Always Existed, He is uncreated.

Why you can't understand this simple logic, I don't know.




I have no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness than the chair I'm sitting on. If you think you can prove otherwise, then go for it. And I'm talking proof, not speculation or philosophy.


Thus the FIRST CAUSE is no other than God (Yehowah / Jehovah / Yahweh)!!! For simple reason you said above:

"no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness".

And 'this not speculation or philosophy but a simple logic.

'Hence my contention is that there's Always had been something or someone there from the beginning of creation - also known as the "Big Bang" IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You can't disprove nor debunk it.'


What was that commandment again? You shall not lay the burden of proof on them who are questioning the claim. If you have the fortitude to stand up and make a statement, you have the fortitude to back it up or admit you were wrong and sit down.


I just did. I've proven my point and you've confirmed it.

Here let me show you again.

The FIRST CAUSE is no other than God (Yehowah / Jehovah / Yahweh)!!! For there's:

"no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness".

This not speculation or philosophy but a simple logic.


Allow me to demonstrate how flawed your "winning assertion" is: Your god is dead, now and forevermore. Prove me wrong.


Really?

But you really can't prove me wrong because you're premise is illogical.

You said so yourself:

If as you said:

"no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness".


Then what makes you (with lack of proof) that IT can transform ITSELF into something with no intelligence and awareness?

Only an illogical person will say this.

Hence the only logical thing to do is to 'agree with me that ONLY something or someone eternal is the ONLY valid logical explanation to our existence or for that matter the universe.'

game over.


I'll share your quote with you one more time, so everyone here can see how easily you flip your stance:

"Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect. Hence out of nothing comes nothing."

If God has no cause, then it follows that there's no God. Too late to retract your statement. And I'm using it as proof.


Only true IF GOD IS not THE FIRST CAUSE!

For Logic dictates that there must always be a first cause. Otherwise it will not make sense, just like what you're saying.


And one more thing: the game isn't over until you have convinced us, or you have given up. You have an untested, unproven, unreviewed theory. Professionally speaking, it is only appropriate to allow your peers to determine the merit of your theory. Self-approval is a cheap tactic to employ in these matters, so I hope you'll understand if we don't lower our standards to that point.


If you can prove that there's no need for a first cause to have a CAUSE AND EFFECT then you've proven me wrong. But if you can't then I rest my case. All you're doing from here on is chasing your tail.


edit on 16-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: Dang iphone

edit on 16-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Believe what you want to believe, no one here is telling you what to believe even though it's been proven to be wrong. That there's no such thing as nothing - an absolute nothing that doesn't exist. As for genius - it's not a matter of knowledge but what is logical. Heck you might be the smartest in the world but if what you're saying doesn't make logical sense then it's useless.


It doesn't help that this discussion is apparently supposed to revolve around your logic, rather than scientifically accepted logic. It has to be your personal brand of "what makes sense".

Also, you're the one who keeps talking about "something can't come from nothing, so the universe had to be created. Oh, god doesn't need to be created, he just always existed"

If we're going to talk about illogical, let's start there. For the 15th time.


Nope. It's not according to mine but your logic because you're assuming that there's no FIRST CAUSE!

Again ...just to clarify: Eternal means all existing.

Like I said - the source of E = m c 2 is eternal.

Hence God IS/was the FIRST CAUSE!

As the FIRST CAUSE, the one who Always Existed, He is uncreated.

Why you can't understand this simple logic, I don't know.


God was his own cause? So God created himself. Spontaneously, God gave birth to his own existence. How is that logical? You act as though every time you share a menial and vague detail with absolutely no support whatsoever, the act of just saying it makes it logical. EXPLAIN IT.


Thus the FIRST CAUSE is no other than God (Yehowah / Jehovah / Yahweh)!!! For simple reason you said above:

"no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness".

This not speculation or philosophy but a simple logic.

'Hence my contention is that there' Always had been something or someone there from the beginning of creation - also known as the "Big Bang" IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You can't disprove nor debunk it.'


Of course I can't. I mean, I could, but it would be like teaching calculus to a monkey. You can't even grasp simple logic.


Only true IF GOD IS not THE FIRST CAUSE!

For Logic dictates that there must always be a first cause. Otherwise it will not make sense, just like what you're saying.


Which you still haven't proven. Basically, you're saying energy is god. Prove it.
edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

If you can prove that there's no need for a first cause to have a CAUSE AND EFFECT then you've proven me wrong. But if you can't then I rest my case. All you're doing from here on is chasing your tail.



Cause and Effect are two different states at two different points of Time. When speaking of the "First Cause" there is no time nor space until the "First Event". Even then No possible measurement can be made until the Next Event happens as that would be the first possible time/space measured between two points. That would then make the "First Cause" also the "First Event" and then leading on to other events which can be measured in relation to the first.

The argument of which was first Cause or Effect is pointless and is nothing but a paradox brought forth because of a breakdown in language. This can be fixed however with logic and math.

Think about the Fibbonacci Series and how it starts:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 ....(Notice the only double number that happens)

The 1 represents the "First Cause/Effect". The root of the series is 0 and 1 which then starts the series with 1 but must also include the first 1 to reach the next number. The first is both the Cause and the First Effect of the series and must in fact be included but is in fact still there before you even start the series in motion.

Personally calling something the "First Cause" doesn't help because people like to attribute Causes as having intention. It should be changed to "First Event" or even just "First CausEffect" to be accurate.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

Unless of you agree with me that ONLY something or someone eternal is the ONLY valid logical explanation to our existence or fort that matter the universe.



Here is where I Agree and the part where I disagree.

Agree:
Nothing is Just Nothing and has no meaning in respect to what we're talking about or anything else for that matter.
Something (Finite yet Currently still expanding Universe) came from Infinite Something(which is considered "Nothing" in Terms of Physics or Void Philosophically which isn't the same thing as absolute Nothing, but is Infinite meaning it can't be considered "Something" in the same sense as the universe since all "Things" have limits while the Void does not.)

Disagree:
Everything above I think we are in agreement with while the only part I disagree with you on is that while I use the "Void" Something as meaning Infinite and Eternal which Created our Universe, I don't give Personal Qualities to it like you do. You have God as the Eternal Creator of the Universe where God is Infinite. You use God the way I use Void. Both have the same properties and function only you also make God into some Personal Being. To me that is illogical because by doing so you've now just limited what Infinite means by specifying certain qualities it must possess such as intelligence and all the other Personal God characteristics. It can't be limited and limitless at the same time and be logical.


Your second point is true only if - there was absolutely no need for intelligence, a guiding force to direct things - to come out the way they are. Otherwise like I said before, you're left with "dumb luck" as the one responsible for everything including the laws that preceded creation.

What do you think is the probability for that happening given that he universe is 14 byo?

I'd say, none. Only a directed force can make the universe as it is - if logic prevails.







 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join