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.

 

Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamnotadoctor
 


Buddhists don't concern themselves with the bow from which the poison arrow was shot either, just the poison infecting them from the arrow of life itself.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I apologize, misread your post.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 





The universe is mental. That is all it is. We can not reach it;s presence and we can not help it. It just is. Now why is it impossible? What exactly is impossible inside of the mind? The only impossible thing is to think it's impossible.


Now, where in this mind is memory stored? Where is the ability to reason kept? Where are the connections to allow for quick access to thoughts? We can't say that 'thought' occurs without some sort of physical attributes because if this mind existed in an infinite void, then one bit of information would be over there, another back there, up there...with no way to reach and access them.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





The other issue you should have is: Is a vacuum created inside a chaimber the same as a open vacuum in space. In space vacuum is surrounding matter. In a vacuum chaimber, matter surround the vacuum. If you put something inside the vacuum in the vacuum chaimber, you would create a even bigger difference.


Good thinking. I also have to ponder why the universe is in a vacuum in the first place. Nobody stood outside of the universe with a vacuum to pump out...?...whatever turned this space into a vacuum. If the universe had an explosive beginning it would have ADDED pressure, not removed pressure.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to OP
 

What I said on HarryTZ's thread largely applies here, too. It is no more possible to prove logically the nonexistence of an intelligent first cause than it is to prove that such a thing does exist.

God is, and must forever be, a matter of opinion.


Well, I agree. God is an illogical opinion, but no less an opinion.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj


Now, imagine that I popped into a realm of absolute nothing. When I try to move my hand I am going to have a serious problem. I can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.

So, if I were to pop into a realm of nothing I would be totally stuck and couldn't move. But, the truth of the matter is that I wouldn't even be able to pop into a realm of nothing. What in that nothing realm would move aside to allow my body to exist there? NOTHING can't move aside. NOTHING has no qualities that can be manipulated.

If there was ever a time of nothingness, there would still be nothing because this state wouldn't have the qualities necessary to move aside to allow the universe to fill it in.



What you are describing is a vacuum, a place that is filled with nothing. I don't understand why you think a place filled with nothing means you cant move, movement isn't dictated by matter (unless that matter is large enough to impede movement) its executed through the use of energy. If I'm not able to move that means something is stopping my movement, which means I can't be in a place filled with nothing because theirs something there stopping me.

By putting yourself into a "realm"of nothing you just turned yourself into that realms "god" you have supplied that place of nothing with matter. Now whether you have the ability to manufacture matter from your own body, which is the only way the christian God could create the universe.. Or your a "seed" god meaning when you die your body decomposes (Bangs) and creates usable matter for that realm to create new material with your original matter.

I can see where you were trying to go with your theory, but there were just some holes in it. The idea that nothingness is void of matter, has nothing to do with movement or the amount of space inside of a area.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


That's just a rehash of one of the Abrahamic gods names "I Am"

Exodus 3

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bigcountry08
 





What you are describing is a vacuum, a place that is filled with nothing. I don't understand why you think a place filled with nothing means you cant move, movement isn't dictated by matter (unless that matter is large enough to impede movement) its executed through the use of energy. If I'm not able to move that means something is stopping my movement, which means I can't be in a place filled with nothing because theirs something there stopping me. By putting yourself into a "realm"of nothing you just turned yourself into that realms "god" you have supplied that place of nothing with matter. Now whether you have the ability to manufacture matter from your own body, which is the only way the christian God could create the universe.. Or your a "seed" god meaning when you die your body decomposes (Bangs) and creates usable matter for that realm to create new material with your original matter. I can see where you were trying to go with your theory, but there were just some holes in it. The idea that nothingness is void of matter, has nothing to do with movement or the amount of space inside of a area.


Then answer the question of what fills in the space behind you as you move through this absolute nothingness? If you dig a hole in the ground, aren't you actually replacing that dirt with air? One scoop of dirt comes out, one scoop of air goes in. If you could try this same exercise in a realm of absolute nothing, if you tried digging a hole, it would be One scoop of dirt comes out and One scoop of WHAT goes in?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The question asked was " What fills in the space behind you"?

The answer to me is quite obvious: Space

A definition of space: A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied: "he backed out of the parking space".

Here's an example in figure one I have a solid box. In figure two I take and cut another box out of the bigger box, imagine that I was able to cut that smaller box out so they were perfectly fitted together and no air could pass through as I pull them apart. Now when I pull the smaller box out of the bigger box what is in that space? Nothing its a vacuum.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
 





The other issue you should have is: Is a vacuum created inside a chaimber the same as a open vacuum in space. In space vacuum is surrounding matter. In a vacuum chaimber, matter surround the vacuum. If you put something inside the vacuum in the vacuum chaimber, you would create a even bigger difference.


Good thinking. I also have to ponder why the universe is in a vacuum in the first place. Nobody stood outside of the universe with a vacuum to pump out...?...whatever turned this space into a vacuum. If the universe had an explosive beginning it would have ADDED pressure, not removed pressure.


You have to remember that the vacuum surrounding matter is neutral. It is the matter within this vacuum that measure negative presure.
We measure space surrounding earths atmosphere as being negative "a vacuum" compared to earth atmosphere.
If we leave space and enter earth atmosphere we encounter friction "presure".

The outer rim of our universe would be the same. We would measure a greater negative presure beoynd it. "A vacuum greater than the vacuum within the space of our universe". Because our universe is filed with particles/dark matter. That is why space within our universe is not a absolute vacuum.

If the very first space was a absolute infinite vacuum " A absolute constant" A absolute neutral space. There would never be a random explotion "Big Bang" or a implosion. Or a black hole or anything like that. Because a absolute vacuum is a absolute constant. And nothing random would take place in a absolute infinite empty space.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerjI can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.


What you have described is exactly what you would expect.

You cant moving something thats not there.

If you put something there to move and move it, there's something there. Well yes of course there is somthing there, because you just put it there.

Whats the problem?

Also, when the big bang happened or God turned the lights on, the nothing ness was there first, this nothingness is actually the rules that anything inside must abide by. So when there is no particles in a region of space, there are still the rules in place ready to make the particles conform to.

A region of space that has no rules, is not part of our universe, technically speaking a true "nothingness"
edit on 30-5-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


which would mean either something (A god) would have always had to have existed, or something opened the lid of our vacuum tube and jumped in.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
reply to post by spy66
 


which would mean either something (A god) would have always had to have existed, or something opened the lid of our vacuum tube and jumped in.


Yes. The infinite empty dimension must have a intelligence to be able to create a change, when its dimension/body/space is a absolute constant.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by jiggerjI can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.


What you have described is exactly what you would expect.

You cant moving something thats not there.

If you put something there to move and move it, there's something there. Well yes of course there is somthing there, because you just put it there.

Whats the problem?

Also, when the big bang happened or God turned the lights on, the nothing ness was there first, this nothingness is actually the rules that anything inside must abide by. So when there is no particles in a region of space, there are still the rules in place ready to make the particles conform to.

A region of space that has no rules, is not part of our universe, technically speaking a true "nothingness"
edit on 30-5-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)


If you move your hand back and forth in a absolute empty space. You move your hand back and forth through the the absolute empty space. The absolute empty space would be surrounding your hand.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There seems to be some illusion that nothing, because it has a name, is something.

Zero is a word and a number, but it describes an amount that is neither positive or negative. It exists because we wanted to describe that situation.

Im not sure why this thread exists, just a lot of talk about nothing



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HarryTZ
 

The spacetime continuum is not 'nothing'. It has energy – both the dark and conventional kinds. It expands. Virtual particles emerge from it, and if they do not immediately self-annihilate, become real.

The idea that matter emerges from quantum fluctuations in spacetime is not new. String theory predicts it, and string theory is about fifty years old. Even people who don't like string theory, such as Lee Smolin, agree that matter emerges from spacetime.

Two years before that New Scientist article you posted, an ATS ex-member who is also a physicist, Neon Haze, posted a thread announcing the publication of Smolin's contribution to quantum-gravity physics, the concept of spacetime braids.

There is not, and has never been, any such thing as 'nothing'.



You're simply ignoring the evidence I placed in front of you. What is energy? It's not just whisps on translucent color... it's a code-word for something we don't really understand. That is because it is nothing.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to OP
 

What I said on HarryTZ's thread largely applies here, too. It is no more possible to prove logically the nonexistence of an intelligent first cause than it is to prove that such a thing does exist.

God is, and must forever be, a matter of opinion.


Or direct experience, beyond the mere senses, as many of us on ATS have had.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


By the way Jigger top notch thread, really got a lot of people thinking on this one. plus you've managed to create a thread about origins that is basically on neutral ground. These are the little nuggest of gold that make ATS. great. S&F.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Interesting post. I do not believe this is all an accident, and yes i do believe SOMETHING needs to exist to allow another SOMETHING to come in to existence.

I believe in God, i do. But am i nowhere near narrow minded enough to not allow other trains of thought. For example, in the comments someone mentioned this being a simulation. Although scary, i feel the idea itself is a probability. Look at this example.

Have you ever heard of something you didn't know about before... You go home and you hear about that previously unknown "thing" on the news, internet, newspaper.. wherever! All of a sudden your newly learnt piece of info is mentioned here there and everywhere. How did you miss it before? Is it just a coincidence? For me, that would give credence to the "simulation" idea. Or perhaps the idea that we're in someone imagination. That it's a train of thought process that we are playing out.

We hear new info (perhaps a thought of the person? thing's? imagination we are part of) and all of a sudden we see it everywhere because the "brain" is thinking about it.

If you're lost at my post i 100% understand. I just blurted out my ideas without any thought... Haha



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bigcountry08
 





The answer to me is quite obvious: Space


Space cannot fill in anything, only what is IN that space can fill in anything.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join