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.
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.
Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect.
Hence out of nothing comes nothing.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
"--> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
When ignorance is rewarded, stupidity becomes the new genius, and genius the new stupidity.
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.
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.
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.
"no reason to believe that energy has any more intelligence or awareness".
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.