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

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

--> Agree, that's why we call it infinity because we can't assign any value to it. And since we can't assign any value, thus its "unknown" or "unknowable". Unless of course IT or He lets us KNOW who or what it / He is.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.

--> Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.

--> Not logical for how can an infinite being exist if his place or plane of existence is not?

3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.

--> Illogical because it's meaningless as it will make our existence or for that matter space itself locked in to something limited - confined/bounded. Hence, an expanding Universe is just an illusion as is the law that govern it.

4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.

--> Illogical as it creates an unending question of who then is the Ultimate Creator of God?

5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.

--> Illogical as it will render our existence or for that matter the universe and space a product of what?
Absolute nothing - an unimaginable emptiness.

6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.

--> This then makes "chance event" the PRIME Mover and the Creator of the universe. It doesn't make logical sense as it makes a non-intelligent thing creating an intelligent mind and order through an undirected chance event.

7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.

--> Yet God Himself tells us that He is not unknowable. In fact He already provided information of how to KNOW him. Hence to know him is to have a "glimpse" of infinity or to be exact - eternity.

8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

--> Hence the existence of the Holy Scriptures. And through logic coupled with observation - everyday experience, we can prove that space is infinite otherwise the alternative is to accept and believe that we're living in an "egg shell", where again begs the question, what's outside the "shell" and on and on.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

--> No, not questions but the OBVIOUS and the logical!

That is, God exist for ORDER to exist. And since order exists thus we can OBSERVE its cause and effect.

In fact, to quote one of my favorite scriptures, it bluntly tells us:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [Rom 1:19 ESV]

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." [Rom 1:20 ESV]

As to infinity - whether you believe the Scriptures or not, it tells us the profound and logical truth:

Here are just but a few of the many truth about God.

"Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable." [Psa 145:3 ASV]

"Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" [Job 26:14 ASV]

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!" [Rom 11:33 ASV]

"I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with." [Ecc 3:10 ESV]

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11 ESV]

just my 2c.

thanks for the enjoyable post.

Why are you using scriptures in a scientific discussion? I don't recall scriptures having anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics or entropy. Or did you give up on that?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: edmc^2
For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there.

Your turn...

I found this impeccable little gem of creationist logic the highlight of the entire post. It would seem less than possible for an argument to degenerate from such a position, but once again creationism proves miraculous.

Except that you quoted it out of context:

So here's what that "little gem" is all about.
In either case you might think that this claim "of nothing created the universe" is scientific, or that it makes much more sense than the alternative. But I assure you, it's not for the simple reason that it flies against logic and commonsense. It goes against the very nature of things. But if you insist that it is, then should it be be the norm, not the exception? Is it not? Of course! And why not? If true, we should expect this then to be happening in any case. For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there. After all, what's a $billion in comparison to the universe with its "billions of billions" of stars and galaxies? If such "thing" as the universe can come by, by means of nothing, surely a $B should be nothing at all in the scheme of things. But everyday experiences show otherwise because we know for a fact that you can only get something from a pre-existing something and NOT from nothing. Hence when nothing is put in, expect nothing to come out. Otherwise it's short of a miracle if not magic on your part. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your "context" makes it no less ridiculous (in fact more so). I'm not even sure who this argument might be aimed at. Simply a more convoluted take on the old "god of the gaps", although you first supply an imaginary position/argument to facilitate you arguing your own fractured logic against it. You are simply building up a massive straw man of illogic and errant claims and then attacking it as if it means something.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: edmc^2
For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there.

Your turn...

I found this impeccable little gem of creationist logic the highlight of the entire post. It would seem less than possible for an argument to degenerate from such a position, but once again creationism proves miraculous.

Except that you quoted it out of context:

So here's what that "little gem" is all about.
In either case you might think that this claim "of nothing created the universe" is scientific, or that it makes much more sense than the alternative. But I assure you, it's not for the simple reason that it flies against logic and commonsense. It goes against the very nature of things. But if you insist that it is, then should it be be the norm, not the exception? Is it not? Of course! And why not? If true, we should expect this then to be happening in any case. For example if you put "nothing" in a bank account you should expect at least a $billion or more in there. After all, what's a $billion in comparison to the universe with its "billions of billions" of stars and galaxies? If such "thing" as the universe can come by, by means of nothing, surely a $B should be nothing at all in the scheme of things. But everyday experiences show otherwise because we know for a fact that you can only get something from a pre-existing something and NOT from nothing. Hence when nothing is put in, expect nothing to come out. Otherwise it's short of a miracle if not magic on your part. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your "context" makes it no less ridiculous (in fact more so). I'm not even sure who this argument might be aimed at. Simply a more convoluted take on the old "god of the gaps", although you first supply an imaginary position/argument to facilitate you arguing your own fractured logic against it. You are simply building up a massive straw man of illogic and errant claims and then attacking it as if it means something.

Of course that's you're opinion which is the
extent of your logic.

But in any case, what's ridiculous obout stating the fact that nothing produces nothing? Or that there must always be a pre-existing something or someone to produce something? Where's the gap? I fail to see it.

Kindly enlighten my ignorance?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

--> Agree, that's why we call it infinity because we can't assign any value to it. And since we can't assign any value, thus its "unknown" or "unknowable". Unless of course IT or He lets us KNOW who or what it / He is.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.

--> Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.

--> Not logical for how can an infinite being exist if his place or plane of existence is not?

3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.

--> Illogical because it's meaningless as it will make our existence or for that matter space itself locked in to something limited - confined/bounded. Hence, an expanding Universe is just an illusion as is the law that govern it.

4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.

--> Illogical as it creates an unending question of who then is the Ultimate Creator of God?

5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.

--> Illogical as it will render our existence or for that matter the universe and space a product of what?
Absolute nothing - an unimaginable emptiness.

6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.

--> This then makes "chance event" the PRIME Mover and the Creator of the universe. It doesn't make logical sense as it makes a non-intelligent thing creating an intelligent mind and order through an undirected chance event.

7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.

--> Yet God Himself tells us that He is not unknowable. In fact He already provided information of how to KNOW him. Hence to know him is to have a "glimpse" of infinity or to be exact - eternity.

8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

--> Hence the existence of the Holy Scriptures. And through logic coupled with observation - everyday experience, we can prove that space is infinite otherwise the alternative is to accept and believe that we're living in an "egg shell", where again begs the question, what's outside the "shell" and on and on.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

--> No, not questions but the OBVIOUS and the logical!

That is, God exist for ORDER to exist. And since order exists thus we can OBSERVE its cause and effect.

In fact, to quote one of my favorite scriptures, it bluntly tells us:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [Rom 1:19 ESV]

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." [Rom 1:20 ESV]

As to infinity - whether you believe the Scriptures or not, it tells us the profound and logical truth:

Here are just but a few of the many truth about God.

"Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable." [Psa 145:3 ASV]

"Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" [Job 26:14 ASV]

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!" [Rom 11:33 ASV]

"I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with." [Ecc 3:10 ESV]

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11 ESV]

just my 2c.

thanks for the enjoyable post.

Why are you using scriptures in a scientific discussion? I don't recall scriptures having anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics or entropy. Or did you give up on that?

Part of the argument since God is part of the discussion and text cited have bearing to the question of KNOWING God.

In fact during my studies, I've discovered that the principle of thermodynamics are in there. Of course I have to cite the text again as proof.

a reply to: edmc^2

Of course that's you're opinion which is the
extent of your logic.

Pfft. You've been posting nothing but opinions.

But in any case, what's ridiculous obout stating the fact that nothing produces nothing? Or that there must always be a pre-existing something or someone to produce something? Where's the gap? I fail to see it.

Kindly enlighten my ignorance?

Kindly answer my question: if something cannot come from nothing, then where did this "God" come from?

Why do you keep ignoring my question? Is it because you're aware of the huge gaping hole in your theory? Guess I'll keep pointing it out until you give me an answer, then.

a reply to: edmc^2

I'd like to know, at which point, do you think that scientists of the non-christian variety are saying that something came from nothing? Because I certainly don't see that claim made ANYWHERE in science in ANY field of study.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

--> Agree, that's why we call it infinity because we can't assign any value to it. And since we can't assign any value, thus its "unknown" or "unknowable". Unless of course IT or He lets us KNOW who or what it / He is.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.

--> Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.

--> Not logical for how can an infinite being exist if his place or plane of existence is not?

3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.

--> Illogical because it's meaningless as it will make our existence or for that matter space itself locked in to something limited - confined/bounded. Hence, an expanding Universe is just an illusion as is the law that govern it.

4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.

--> Illogical as it creates an unending question of who then is the Ultimate Creator of God?

5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.

--> Illogical as it will render our existence or for that matter the universe and space a product of what?
Absolute nothing - an unimaginable emptiness.

6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.

--> This then makes "chance event" the PRIME Mover and the Creator of the universe. It doesn't make logical sense as it makes a non-intelligent thing creating an intelligent mind and order through an undirected chance event.

7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.

--> Yet God Himself tells us that He is not unknowable. In fact He already provided information of how to KNOW him. Hence to know him is to have a "glimpse" of infinity or to be exact - eternity.

8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

--> Hence the existence of the Holy Scriptures. And through logic coupled with observation - everyday experience, we can prove that space is infinite otherwise the alternative is to accept and believe that we're living in an "egg shell", where again begs the question, what's outside the "shell" and on and on.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

--> No, not questions but the OBVIOUS and the logical!

That is, God exist for ORDER to exist. And since order exists thus we can OBSERVE its cause and effect.

In fact, to quote one of my favorite scriptures, it bluntly tells us:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [Rom 1:19 ESV]

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." [Rom 1:20 ESV]

As to infinity - whether you believe the Scriptures or not, it tells us the profound and logical truth:

Here are just but a few of the many truth about God.

"Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable." [Psa 145:3 ASV]

"Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" [Job 26:14 ASV]

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!" [Rom 11:33 ASV]

"I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with." [Ecc 3:10 ESV]

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11 ESV]

just my 2c.

thanks for the enjoyable post.

Why are you using scriptures in a scientific discussion? I don't recall scriptures having anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics or entropy. Or did you give up on that?

Part of the argument since God is part of the discussion and text cited have bearing to the question of KNOWING God.

In fact during my studies, I've discovered that the principle of thermodynamics are in there. Of course I have to cite the text again as proof.

I don't care about what the Bible says regarding thermodynamics and entropy. I want an answer to my question.

"if something cannot come from nothing, then where did this "God" come from?"

^^^ this question right here. Answer it, please. I've posted it 9 or 10 times now, not counting other members who have also posted this question in this exact thread, and you keep ignoring it. I think it's because that's where your whole theory falls apart, but I'm inviting you to prove me wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I asked the same question on page one I also asked the same question as AI about where did the god come from. I can only conclude the OP has no intention of answering or having an honest discussion now that I think about it that would be par for the course pertaining to his other threads.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

In mathematics infinity is an abstract concept. Whether the universe or whatever is actually infinite is unknown and may be unknowable.

--> Agree, that's why we call it infinity because we can't assign any value to it. And since we can't assign any value, thus its "unknown" or "unknowable". Unless of course IT or He lets us KNOW who or what it / He is.

So you have several possibilities here:

1. God exists and is infinite. Therefore, because God is infinite, so is space.

--> Makes logical sense otherwise what holds the infinite?

2. God exists and is infinite. But space is not infinite.

--> Not logical for how can an infinite being exist if his place or plane of existence is not?

3. God exists but is not infinite. Therefore, nothing can be infinite.

--> Illogical because it's meaningless as it will make our existence or for that matter space itself locked in to something limited - confined/bounded. Hence, an expanding Universe is just an illusion as is the law that govern it.

4. God exists but is not infinite. But space is infinite.

--> Illogical as it creates an unending question of who then is the Ultimate Creator of God?

5. God does not exist. Therefore, there can be no infinity.

--> Illogical as it will render our existence or for that matter the universe and space a product of what?
Absolute nothing - an unimaginable emptiness.

6. God does not exist. But space is infinite.

--> This then makes "chance event" the PRIME Mover and the Creator of the universe. It doesn't make logical sense as it makes a non-intelligent thing creating an intelligent mind and order through an undirected chance event.

7. God is unknowable. Therefore, we can never prove infinity.

--> Yet God Himself tells us that He is not unknowable. In fact He already provided information of how to KNOW him. Hence to know him is to have a "glimpse" of infinity or to be exact - eternity.

8. God is unknowable. But we can prove that space is either infinite or it isn't through observation.

--> Hence the existence of the Holy Scriptures. And through logic coupled with observation - everyday experience, we can prove that space is infinite otherwise the alternative is to accept and believe that we're living in an "egg shell", where again begs the question, what's outside the "shell" and on and on.

In each of the possibilities above, you have to be able to prove one part of the statement.
Number 8 is the only one you may be able to prove.

Where I disagree with you is that you are using deductive reasoning (the top-down approach) to come to a conclusion. And that's fine. The problem is that when you reach a conclusion, or a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove it in some way. You can't just leave it hanging out there with no validation.

You asked "what are you left with?" What you're left with are questions that are unanswerable because there's nothing to observe. You can't observe God. You can't measure God. You can't compare God to space. Space, or infinity as you put it, may be measurable at some point in time. But right now, it's an unknown.

--> No, not questions but the OBVIOUS and the logical!

That is, God exist for ORDER to exist. And since order exists thus we can OBSERVE its cause and effect.

In fact, to quote one of my favorite scriptures, it bluntly tells us:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [Rom 1:19 ESV]

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." [Rom 1:20 ESV]

As to infinity - whether you believe the Scriptures or not, it tells us the profound and logical truth:

Here are just but a few of the many truth about God.

"Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised; And his greatness is unsearchable." [Psa 145:3 ASV]

"Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?" [Job 26:14 ASV]

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!" [Rom 11:33 ASV]

"I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with." [Ecc 3:10 ESV]

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:11 ESV]

just my 2c.

thanks for the enjoyable post.

Why are you using scriptures in a scientific discussion? I don't recall scriptures having anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics or entropy. Or did you give up on that?

Part of the argument since God is part of the discussion and text cited have bearing to the question of KNOWING God.

In fact during my studies, I've discovered that the principle of thermodynamics are in there. Of course I have to cite the text again as proof.

I don't care about what the Bible says regarding thermodynamics and entropy. I want an answer to my question.

"if something cannot come from nothing, then where did this "God" come from?"

^^^ this question right here. Answer it, please. I've posted it 9 or 10 times now, and you keep ignoring it. I think it's because that's where your whole theory falls apart, but I'm inviting you to prove me wrong.

But i did gave a logical answer to your question. It's just that you're not listening or seeing it.

Simply put - when something is uncreated it means that it always existed.

What else to say?

It's like saying that space was created when it was always there.

It can't be. It's either was created or always existed.

It can't be anymore simpler than that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I'd really like to know how you can consider yourself to have a logical and rational argument/debate with someone if you literally make up your opponent's position for them. Aren't you supposed to argue against what the person actually believes and not what you THINK they believe? The OP wants a logical and rational debate, but I fail to see that occurring. All I see is just the same Creationist word games cleverly disguised under the label "rational debate".

a reply to: edmc^2

But i did gave a logical answer to your question. It's just that you're not listening or seeing it.

Simply put - when something is uncreated it means that it always existed.

What else to say?

Thank you for answering my question.

What else to say? Only that your argument for the universe having apparently been created includes an exception for the person who created it. Interestingly enough, this exception is the only reason your theory comes anywhere close to being somewhat plausible. Which, as pointed out before, is the definition of special pleading.

Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

It's like saying that space was created when it was always there.

It can't be. It's either was created or always existed.

It can't be anymore simpler than that.

So it's impossible for the universe to have "always existed", but it's perfectly rational to assume that God has. Hold on, I think I hear the musical tinkle of logic crashing out the win dow...

Stupid ATS filter. Panes of glass provided for viewing pleasure are NOT against T&C. Grrr...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

I'd like to know, at which point, do you think that scientists of the non-christian variety are saying that something came from nothing? Because I certainly don't see that claim made ANYWHERE in science in ANY field of study.

Well I hope you have time but here one from my two favorite atheist scientist. Long vid but they delved into it much deeper as to why "Something comes from nothing."

Nvm.

a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not going to sit and watch a two hour video to find out the answer to my question. I don't even have the capability to watch that video right now. You know what is simpler? You just answer the question for me. It should be easy enough. Just point me to the text in the theory that says that something came from nothing.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I want an answer to my question.

I've posted my questions twice now so I wouldn't expect an answer any time soon. Looks like OP is pulling the old "make a bunch of claims, assert them as fact then run away" approach to debating.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not going to sit and watch a two hour video to find out the answer to my question. I don't even have the capability to watch that video right now. You know what is simpler? You just answer the question for me. It should be easy enough. Just point me to the text in the theory that says that something came from nothing.

^^ what this guy said. C'mon, Edmc, give us a break. You've strung us along more than enough to toss us a straight answer right now.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I want an answer to my question.

I've posted my questions twice now so I wouldn't expect an answer any time soon. Looks like OP is pulling the old "make a bunch of claims, assert them as fact then run away" approach to debating.

No, he finally answered.

But i did gave a logical answer to your question. It's just that you're not listening or seeing it.

Simply put - when something is uncreated it means that it always existed.

What else to say?

That was his answer. And yes, I know, it flies in the face of everything he has posted up to this point. I'm in the process of explaining that to him. It might take a while.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not going to sit and watch a two hour video to find out the answer to my question. I don't even have the capability to watch that video right now. You know what is simpler? You just answer the question for me. It should be easy enough. Just point me to the text in the theory that says that something came from nothing.

Well in a nutshell what basically they said is that the laws of physics is what created something from nothing.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not going to sit and watch a two hour video to find out the answer to my question. I don't even have the capability to watch that video right now. You know what is simpler? You just answer the question for me. It should be easy enough. Just point me to the text in the theory that says that something came from nothing.

Well in a nutshell what basically they said is that the laws of physics is what created something from nothing.

And naturally, we're supposed to take your word for it. Sorry, no, not happening.

Please point out the exact spot in the video where they said that. Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll have to prove it some other way.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not going to sit and watch a two hour video to find out the answer to my question. I don't even have the capability to watch that video right now. You know what is simpler? You just answer the question for me. It should be easy enough. Just point me to the text in the theory that says that something came from nothing.

Thanks to JehovahsWitness.net, I was referred to the exact point in which this "something from nothing" is supposed to happen. Go to the 47 minute mark on the video.