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.
Originally posted by Omniscient
Who says that the universe can't have existed forever? I'm open to the idea; but I MUST say; our brains are not at all adapted to contemplate the idea of infinity
Who says that the universe can't have existed forever?
It's basically a way of science saying that everything happens because something else made it happen, correct?
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
The truths add together and make a conclusion.
1. Infinities in time cannot be transversed.
2. Therefore, time began somewhere.
3. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.
Conclusion: A necessary and infinate being has to be present that isn't constrained by our reality and universe.
1. Infinities in time cannot be transversed.
2. Therefore, time began somewhere.
3. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.
Originally posted by johnsky
Exactly
This is what we are currently arguing.
If you were to ask me I would have wrote :
1. Infinities in time can be traversed.
2. Time has always existed.
3. Something can come from nothing if the inverse exists to balance it.
so long as you also draw from nothing the exact inverse of the matter extracted.
Those aren't "truths," merely assumptions based upon concepts that are poorly defined and limited. Also, is your notion of "something" limited only to apparently physical objects, or does it also include thought or intention?
2. Time has always existed space hasnt.
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
2. Time has always existed space hasnt.
There's nothing rational that would lead me to agree with you on any level. No offence, please, I'm just saying that it's not a given fact to be accepted in discussion.
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
so long as you also draw from nothing the exact inverse of the matter extracted.
It doesn't work. The inverse is something, thereby not making it 'nothing'. I'd have to ask you where that very inverse came from.
Ryan
Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
Those aren't "truths," merely assumptions based upon concepts that are poorly defined and limited. Also, is your notion of "something" limited only to apparently physical objects, or does it also include thought or intention?
How are they poorly defined and limited..? I'm using the most basic and clear of language I can put together. I don't agree at all that they are not truths. They simply are...
It is limited to that which is tangible. I was trying to avoid the mind/body problem and things similar to it, because it distracts at this point.
In addition, I also have the opinion that if you believe thoughts to be intangible things, you're leaning towards theism, or at least agnosticism.
[edit on 4/26/2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]
Okay, I'll explain this again. You start with nothing, and draw say, 25 tonnes of matter from it... at the same time, drawing 25 tonnes of negative matter.
-25 + 25 = 0
0 = -x + x
Where is the confusion?
Originally posted by d60944
Aside from that question. Who starts with nothing, and what draws 25 tonnes of matter and 25 tonnes of negative matter? I don't want to anthropomorphise the "who" and the "what", so let me ask.... given your initial state of affairs of "you start with nothing", how can a mechanism arise to allow for the creation of these two sorts of borrowing of mass/energy from the zero state? If there is a mechanism for the spontaneous generation of these balancing events, then the presence of that mechanism means that we do not in fact "start with nothing".
Rob.