Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

 

The thing is i dont take all science for being the absolute fact. The fact is that we cant produce a absolute empty space. And the scientists also explain why. Dont use this as your argument.

Science have a value set for their absolute vacuum. And it is agreed upon within the scientific comunity.
Dont use this as your argument.

Science can not observe the outher rimes of the space of our universe. They can only speculate.

Within the space of our universe you will never be able to find a absolute empty space. I have said this more than once. The reason is: the space within our universe is made up of matter, particles/dark matter. But there is no way in hell science can state that all space byond the space of our universe is filled with matter, particles or dark matter. They can only speculate.

I enjoyed what you wrote here. For some reason it made me think of a question: Let's say we took a completely deflated balloon and a bicycle-type pump into a realm of absolute nothing. We hook up the balloon to the pump and start pumping. Would the nothingness inflate the balloon? I don't think so. Pretty sure it can't. So, if the nothingness can't fill a balloon, then how could the big bang fill a space of nothing???

Note: Just got home from work and I'm exhausted, so the question above isn't as clear as I wanted it to be. If nothingness can't fill a balloon to make room for anything that we might put in it, then how could the nothingness expand to allow for the big bang to put anything into it?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

 

The thing is i dont take all science for being the absolute fact. The fact is that we cant produce a absolute empty space. And the scientists also explain why. Dont use this as your argument.

Science have a value set for their absolute vacuum. And it is agreed upon within the scientific comunity.
Dont use this as your argument.

Science can not observe the outher rimes of the space of our universe. They can only speculate.

Within the space of our universe you will never be able to find a absolute empty space. I have said this more than once. The reason is: the space within our universe is made up of matter, particles/dark matter. But there is no way in hell science can state that all space byond the space of our universe is filled with matter, particles or dark matter. They can only speculate.

I enjoyed what you wrote here.

For some reason it made me think of a question: Let's say we took a completely deflated balloon and a bicycle-type pump into a realm of absolute nothing. We hook up the balloon to the pump and start pumping. Would the nothingness inflate the balloon? I don't think so. Pretty sure it can't. So, if the nothingness can't fill a balloon, then how could the big bang fill a space of nothing???

Note: Just got home from work and I'm exhausted, so the question above isn't as clear as I wanted it to be. If nothingness can't fill a balloon to make room for anything that we might put in it, then how could the nothingness expand to allow for the big bang to put anything into it?

edit on 6/3/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

I think you just might have disproved the big bang theory. well done The more i think about the big bang and the concept of nothingless, im more and more in the belief that was no start to the universe, no creation, its just always been here. Does it have to have a creator, can it just be the one exception to the rule. It makes more sense than something coming from nowhere.

reply to post by jiggerj

I enjoyed what you wrote here. For some reason it made me think of a question: Let's say we took a completely deflated balloon and a bicycle-type pump into a realm of absolute nothing. We hook up the balloon to the pump and start pumping. Would the nothingness inflate the balloon? I don't think so. Pretty sure it can't. So, if the nothingness can't fill a balloon, then how could the big bang fill a space of nothing???

Note: Just got home from work and I'm exhausted, so the question above isn't as clear as I wanted it to be. If nothingness can't fill a balloon to make room for anything that we might put in it, then how could the nothingness expand to allow for the big bang to put anything into it?

Since the absolute empty infinite space is absolute neutral "Absolutely empty" The space can only be filled right? The space can not be more empty than the absolute, right. So the absolute empty infinite space must be filled.

Since this absolut empty space is a physical space. It must exist. This space must exist physically for there to be physical finite matter and particles. It must exist for finite to have time "to expand" move around and do what it does.

Since the absolute infinite empty space can only be filled there is only one way it can do so. And that is be a compression.

A absolute infinite empty space is not really absolutely empty. It is just empty of matter and aprticles. The absolute consists of just one sigle infinite energy source. With its own time frame. Time must pass by for the absolute as well because it is a physical space. Its just that the absolute time is, absolute constant. Finite time is not.
The absolute infinite empty space consists of just one infinite energy source. Now keep in mind that a absolute empty space can only be filled up. It can not be more empty than it is. This single infinite energy source must compress its energy and form finite physical particles into a solid mass. Since the solid mass is a compressed matter of particles and the space surounding this compressed mass is absolutely neutral. The mass will, expand.


If you compare this to your ballon question. Your ballon would be filled with a solid substance of particles compressed into matter "a solid". And as finite time goes by the solid compressed matter would start to inflate the ballon as it expands. Since the matter inside the ballon is compressed and the surrounding space is absolutely neutral, the ballon will expand.

Does this answer your question?

Weather ballons works by the same prisiple. They fill it with a compressed gass. And as the ballon climbes into a thinner atmosphere. The ballon expands.

reply to post by spy66

If you compare this to your ballon question. Your ballon would be filled with a solid substance of particles compressed into matter "a solid". And as time goes by the solid compressed matter would start to inflate the ballon as it expands. Since the matter inside the ballon is compressed and the surrounding space is absolutely neutral, the ballon will expand. Does this answer your question?

Ehhh, I think my brain just fell out. Yup, pretty sure.

reply to post by jiggerj


I know it is not easy to get. It takes time to grasp it. Or i am just not good enough to explain it easy enough. Sorry.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I know it is not easy to get. It takes time to grasp it. Or i am just not good enough to explain it easy enough. Sorry.

Again, an absolute vacuum is a contruct - not an observable phenomenon. I offer a definition from the Physics Department of the University of Illinois:

Q:
What is a vacuum in physics? Does it have a temperature?
- Anonymous
A:
Well, our idea of a vacuum is a bit of space with nothing in it. We don’t know of any examples of a perfect vacuum, but know some bits of space that get pretty close. Space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a bad approximation to a vacuum, but it is filled with solar wind particles, light from the sun, cosmic rays and cosmic microwave background radiation. It’s probably also filled with dark matter which doesn’t interact with other stuff (except gravitationally, and possibly only through the feeble weak interaction), as well as neutrinos.

If you manage to pump all the air out of a steel can, for example, you will have a vacuum in there, but there will be photons constantly radiated off of the walls and re-absorbed by them. This soup of photons will be in thermal equilibrium with the walls, and therefore will have a defined "temperature".

An approximation is not an absolute. Note that the answer say "we don't know of any....". And smarter people than you and me are looking.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Well it its only describing the possible space within our universe. The other part is the vacuum inside a chaimber. I have stated it a hundred times already that we can never create a absolute empty space within a vacuum chaimber.

A vacuum chaimber can not be assosieted with a open vacuum. In a open vacuum space the vacuum surounds matter. In a vacuum chaimber the matter suround s the vacuum. I have stated this about 10 times in this topic already.

I am trying to describe what the infinite space must have been before particles and matter appeared. All you guyes are talking about is a space filled with particles and matter and getting nowhere.

You gyes are talking about a space filled with matter and particles. But dont care much for the space.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I know it is not easy to get. It takes time to grasp it. Or i am just not good enough to explain it easy enough. Sorry.

Nah, it's me. I just can't go deep anymore.

If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.

Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )

Originally posted by honested3
If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.

Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )

If something popped into the absolute empty space , You would have a infinite empty space filled With that something.
EDIT: if you pay attention to what People say when they talk science. They always talk about a space filled With particles and matter.

Something can not just popp into existen randomly in a absolute empty space. Because the absolute empty space is a absolute constant. "Time is also a absolute constant".
In a finite system time is not a constant. Time is constantly changing. Randomness comes from these changes. because we never know what these changes are going to do or cause.

Randomness is not really a true cause. Nothing happends randomly in a finite system. Randomness is Our Scientific lack of understanding and explaining finite causes. If you argue a random cause With a person. He will always ask you to explain it With Scientific proof.

To many People this topic is about randomness. Because they are talking about Things they dont understand. That is why randomess is often used to argue against a intelligent first cause.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by spy66

 

No I say god doesn't exist, never has existed and never will, outside of fantasy... and in those wishing to control the masses, with fear of some everlasting damnation waiting and lurking so ya better be good, except when killing and maiming in this made up beings name; as justification for all horrible actions against humanity. Many people are fine and do good on their own; without all the judgement of each other, because of their separate chosen spiritual paths or choice of none at all.

If a god is what you need and like to believe in; and it helps you through life... have at it. Personal belief structures do not concern me at all.

Only to you will God not exist. To me God exists, and always have and always will. You have no right to state the non-existence of God when there is no way you can porve it. I wont take yours or science word for it until you or they can prove it without doubt.

The misuse of religion is a human idea, It has nothing to do with God. God doesn't want us to misuse religion. Only people can missuse religion, and they do. People misuse science as well. Moste people have moral and ethical weaknesses.
Why blame religion for the crap we do with it. You dont even have to be religious to misuse religion. You can be a non believer and do just has much harm.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you're silly one aren't you? You cannot prove any existence of some god yet you wanna run around like you have some right saying those that don't believe in the nonsense have no right to say non existence... that is exactly what is wrong with religion. I say hey if you believe in it and it helps you get through life have at it; yet you will not afford someone else the same courtesy of rights to not believe in your fairy tales ... this is exactly why it is poison, and absolutely useless.

It's a basis to stand and discriminate and hate people that actually exist over some made up nonsense of a supernatural being to control. Yet you turn around say blah blah blah they are not obeying what god wants bleh bleh bleh. Then turn around and do the exact same thing thinking only you have a right to believe in something which has no scientific or any proof at all otherwise, when science can explain all of it, your ears fall off science can grow a new ones for you. Through what? Natural processes... not wave a magical god wand and poof here's your new ear.

Please... save the hypocrisy for when you go to repent instead of changing your destructive behavior, religion is an excuse for weak minded people that need a scape goat from human responsibility to their fellow man, it is a reason to kill and then go pray to a made up nothing to feel better about the horrible atrocities they do to real living breathing human beings and other creatures.

Have fun with your free pass to hurt maim kill and destroy the beauty and life on this planet because you have the authority to given by a made up nothing because you have a made up paradise waiting for all the "good" deeds done. The absolute gall of it makes me so sick to my stomach I actually have to throw up.

I still say you have a right to believe in the nonsense even though it is one of the most damaging notions of belief that has ever existed on the planet to the whole earth and all that inhabit it.

I will ask you one thing; what exactly can the belief in the existence of a god do for you that you cannot do for yourself?

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Wow, you're silly one aren't you? You cannot prove any existence of some god yet you wanna run around like you have some right saying those that don't believe in the nonsense have no right to say non existence... that is exactly what is wrong with religion. I say hey if you believe in it and it helps you get through life have at it; yet you will not afford someone else the same courtesy of rights to not believe in your fairy tales ... this is exactly why it is poison, and absolutely useless.

The thing is, i have proven Gods existence to my self. Like you have proven to Your self that God does not exist.
The Scientific community has not proven to the Public or to it self the non existence of God. There exists no scientific document that explicit state that God does not exist.

What i dont understand is how you came to your conclusion, when science havent reached the same conclusion as you have. You state that God does not exist based on Your Scientific knowledge. But science does not conclude the same thing as you do based on their knowledge.

You are stating something that is not true at this point in time. I am stating something that is still up to debate in this point in time.

Let me flip things around a bit...

So you're saying, the Big Bang is impossible if we assume it came from nothing. So it must've had to come from something. So, there was something that's eternal, right? What if intelligence is the only thing that has always existed?

Originally posted by honested3
If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.

Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )

LOL I'm claiming there is no such thing as nothing. The somethingness wasn't created. It was always here.

Originally posted by spy66

I am trying to describe what the infinite space must have been before particles and matter appeared. All you guyes are talking about is a space filled with particles and matter and getting nowhere.

You gyes are talking about a space filled with matter and particles. But dont care much for the space.

It seems the confusion (as I see it) comes about as you seem to be implying that space was originally an absolute vacuum? Yet everything that exists, also came into existence with space itself (though not in the form we see now).

Or are you proposing a completely hypothetical vacuum that exists outside of existence (that we know of)? This is where god usually falls down in these type of debates IMO. He can never be observed inside of existence, was there and continues to dwell in "non existence". In other words, he seems to be a hypothetical construct that is completely consistent with something that doesn't exist and never has. If that's god, I can agree.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by honested3
If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.

Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )

LOL I'm claiming there is no such thing as nothing. The somethingness wasn't created. It was always here.

www.newscientist.com...

'Vacuum fluctuations' is just another word for nothingness, wouldn't you agree? So now, even 'somethingsness' is nothingness!

Originally posted by jiggerj

Seeing as the universe exists, it proves that a realm of nothingness has never existed. There had to have always been something. So, that something (quantum particles, waves, or even something before that we don't know about yet) was not created and has always existed.

The problem is you can't comprehend that something can come out of nothing... quantum particles have proved that they can be created from nothingness. It is not the universe fault that humans can not rap their minds just yet around this.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by jiggerj

Seeing as the universe exists, it proves that a realm of nothingness has never existed. There had to have always been something. So, that something (quantum particles, waves, or even something before that we don't know about yet) was not created and has always existed.

The problem is you can't comprehend that something can come out of nothing... quantum particles have proved that they can be created from nothingness. It is not the universe fault that humans can not rap their minds just yet around this.

Nah, If something came from nothing, then what was called 'nothing' in that scenario was not nothing. The term 'nothing' is an abstract word invented by man to describe a concept that has never been proved to exist in reality.

Everything that we know of existing is "somethingness"... energy/matter. It is all in constant motion, in different directions, in different groupings, at different velocities. When we have measuring apparatus' pointed at an area you or a scientist would refer to as nothing; I am certain there is a causal, physical, explanation as to why particles/energy/matter is detected.

reply to post by Xtrozero

quantum particles have proved that they can be created from nothingness.

They did? Thought they formed from waves?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

quantum particles have proved that they can be created from nothingness.

They did? Thought they formed from waves?

Particles are basically waves too. The question is just what is matter...we really do not know. We also don't know what is outside our universe, so when I say nothingness I'm talking more about a quantum vacuum, but there is a problem with that too since it holds way too much energy then it should to be true nothingness. The key is Conservation Laws can not be violated and this allows partials to pop in and out of existence as energy is converted to matter and vice versa.