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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I can't watch videos at work. But regardless of the video and who says what in the video. I want to see the text of whatever theory that edmc^2 is saying that something came from nothing. I don't care about what Richard Dawkins has to say on the matter no matter how intelligent he is. I want to see the theory. People's opinions are irrelevant to a rational discussion.




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

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.



The laws of physics? Which ones?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And what position are you saying I have attributed to the OP?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Looks to me like like Krazysh0t was talking about OP, not you.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I can't watch videos at work. But regardless of the video and who says what in the video. I want to see the text of whatever theory that edmc^2 is saying that something came from nothing. I don't care about what Richard Dawkins has to say on the matter no matter how intelligent he is. I want to see the theory. People's opinions are irrelevant to a rational discussion.


True. He didn't exactly provide documented sources and peer-reviewed research. He just kind of threw it out there and expected everyone to accept it by virtue of his credentials. I think it would have been somewhat more helpful to provide the major sources for his statements. After all, bibliography is very important in any presentation.
edit on 12-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I was a bit confused on the wording.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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



Great Video BTW. But I think you need to watch it again closely. They are very clear about the fact that they are NOT claiming something from nothing. As for Evolution, they say it's not about origins and to push back farther than Evolutionary theory you have to go to Chemistry. Before chemistry you got to physics.

Then talking about Physics they claim is that the idea of "Something from Nothing" is simply being understood as a possible or even plausible truth, but as of yet is not provable, but is more and more plausible the more we learn. However, and this is the most important part. They explain that "Nothing" in Physics isn't the same definition as it is in "Philosophy and Theology". Meaning that when a physicist uses the term "Nothing" it doesn't mean the same as how it's used by others.

I think that is where you're getting confused. It comes down to semantics and how we define certain words.

I see it similar to how many people claim some Eastern Philosophies don't make sense claiming that Everything came from Nothing too when they say that everything came from the "Void". The problem comes from not understanding what is meant by "Void". The best way I've come to in translating the difference between "Void" and "Nothing" to make it understandable from Eastern ideas to Western is by using the word "Potential". Potential isn't anything but it can be. (Notice already how the language becomes a type of paradox.) The Void/Nothing isn't anything but it can be. It is Potentially Anything however once it is something it's not a void either. I hope this helps.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I found this description of 'nothing':


In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether postulated as the transmission medium for propagating light waves (whose existence has been disproven in the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment).


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

That makes a good example of what I'm saying. It makes a great example to the fact that when using terms like God, Infinity, Nothing, Everything, etc. You have to be very careful in defining those things so that everyone uses them in the same way and understanding. Nothing to Theological or Philosophical conversations isn't the same to Physicists because often these terms are much more Conceptual and Abstract than they are real. This allows them to stray from specific meaning in subtle ways which aren't always easy to notice.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AfterInfinity

That makes a good example of what I'm saying. It makes a great example to the fact that when using terms like God, Infinity, Nothing, Everything, etc. You have to be very careful in defining those things so that everyone uses them in the same way and understanding. Nothing to Theological or Philosophical conversations isn't the same to Physicists because often these terms are much more Conceptual and Abstract than they are real. This allows them to stray from specific meaning in subtle ways which aren't always easy to notice.


It also makes it painfully obvious that Edmc isn't quite as knowledgeable as he claims. Which is okay, as long as he puts some time and effort into correcting his misinformation. I guess we'll find out...if and when he responds again.
edit on 12-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lol, did you use the phrase "painfully obvious" intentionally??? Either way it got a chuckle out of me.

I look forward to his answer as well. It shows just how much effort must be used to simply get a straight answer to a question it is sometimes. Like catching a greased pig, you have to chase it down, then get it cornered and still just when you think you've got it, somehow it slips through. In the same way, watching you try and lock him down to just answer that one specific question has taken multiple tries and repeatedly cornering little by little until he's got no way of avoiding it. Hopefully that is. Somehow bad reasoning always gives an out, regardless of how hard you try to avoid it. As I know you've experienced before, you might have to simply give up trying to reason with him, since, for a lack of a better phrase "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
edit on 12-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: flyingfish
In terms of understanding our existence, physics has left pure ontology so far behind that reading such nonsense is like listening to children's playground chatter.

What the OP is doing is the same as concluding that water finds itself designed specifically to fit in a glass.
The universe is not fine tuned for us but rather we are fine tuned by billions of years of evolution to survive this tiny, tiny speck of dust we find ourselves on.
The overwhelmingly vastness of the universe is so inhospitable to life it's absurd to believe it was designed for us alone.


Funny, I don't even remember saying the universe "was designed for us alone."

Where did you get this?

As for fine tuning - whether the universe is or us is fine tuned, what difference does it make?

It goes both ways isn't it?

Works the same, but really, what does the following fundamental forces for if not for the FINE TUNING of the universe.

ELECTROMAGNETISM
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
GRAVITY
WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE

As for water designed for glass, why limit it there?

Good for pretty much everything - even in its different state.

Liquid to solid to gas...

Heck, without it there will be no life here on earth.






If not for us, why was it designed?

Painting the bull's eye around the arrow does not indicate accuracy.
Look at this puddle..

The edges of the hole lines up with edge of the water perfectly. According to your argument, that would indicate that the pothole was deliberately made to line up with the water.

Since we know that this is BS, we can deduce that the claim that fine tuning indicates deliberation is incorrect. We already know that complexity, and precision, do not necessarily indicate design in nature.

I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different.
But..I cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants.
Anyone who insists that our form of life is designed is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory what so ever.

For me 'fine-tuning' is still firmly in the realm of philosophers on several counts, and is fallacious by application of Occam's razor with a side order of waffle. I can safely say, I would alter my view if appropriate new evidence / argument appeared, but you have shown no such thing.
edit on fThursday141665f161605 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




"That is, other than God (which I think you won't accept), there's no other way of explaining our existence or for that matter the existence of the universe in a logical, mathematical even scientific way other than the concept if INFINITY."

You can't come to a valid conclusion by deduction unless you know all the parameters. So using logic wouldn't your conclusion be illogical, unless you know all the inner workings of everything?




"Try if you may, but you will only find yourself creating more questions, with no clear answer. "
Ofcourse that is what happens when you don't know all the answers and only have pieces of the puzzle if any.

"On the other hand, you might just admit that you don't know. Of course nothing wrong with that but it's an unsatisfactory answer to a simple question where the answer is really not that hard to figure out."


It is an unsatisfactory answer and that is why we are in search of the answer. However unsatisfactory it may be , its the only logical truth that we can conclude with the information and tools that we have available to us.




"There must be something that is already there or to be precise (in my case), there was already SOMEONE there before the "Big Bang". "


Is that something an Alien, are we a Computer program, are we virtual entities in a virtual world? Or perhaps our understanding of the world and physics doesn't hold true in another universe? Furthermore, using your logic what was there before that SOMEONE or did he come from nothing?

edit on 22630America/ChicagoThu, 12 Jun 2014 17:22:16 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I did. Because it is.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

It could actually be argued that the universe we currently exist in is very much imperfect, and similarly to the water in the pothole, the cosmos are (from our perspective) ssssllloooowwwwwwwwwwlllyyyyyyyyyy shifting into a more stable arrangement. One that completely changes everything we know about the universe. Or...

Perhaps the universe is a time bomb, and a few hundred billion years from now, it will collapse into singularity.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Yes, absolutely..and our universe could be destroyed in some other dimension, in an experiment inside an alien super collider. Or from my chair, the excitations of the fields that make up what we label as stuff and matter in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that you and the whole universe and God are all just in my conscious thoughts.
If physics has taught us anything, it is that reality is no longer about stuff. It is all about symmetry, consistency, and relationship....otherwise known as mathematics.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good question. Which one????????



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Yes, absolutely..and our universe could be destroyed in some other dimension, in an experiment inside an alien super collider. Or from my chair, the excitations of the fields that make up what we label as stuff and matter in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that you and the whole universe and God are all just in my conscious thoughts.
If physics has taught us anything, it is that reality is no longer about stuff. It is all about symmetry, consistency, and relationship....otherwise known as mathematics.



In other words, everything is defined by everything else. The theory of...dare I say it? Relativity.

...Geddit? Fine, I'll shut up.

edit on 12-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Also, he answered the question. Not that it helped at all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

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.


back....needed to take care of something.

pulled this one from my vid archives:

Here let me help you further - this one fully expalins it with "data"

Again you can watch the whole or jump to time stamp 33:00

Like I said - the claim that Something from nothing is due Physical Laws - or laws of Physics.



enjoy.

Now if you believe what he's saying then good luck proving it because the opposite is quite provable.

Something produces something.

In fact - the "nothing" Prof - Kruass is using in this analogy IS not actually nothing because he also stated that "empty space" has ENERGY.

That is still "something" since E = m c 2.



.. need to split again...dang interruptions.
edit on 12-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: ciao



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join