Dangerous Philosophy: Something Can Come From Nothing

vind21

I think your logic is wrong here.....


Firstly, before www.abovetopseceret.com existed, it was a potential domain name, to be assigned to a potential IP adress.

That server was original part of the earth, the metals is contains were mined and transformed.

ATS always existed, since the beginning of time everything that makes up this site has always been, it has just been transformed into what it is now.

Anytime you precieve something coming from nothing YOU are wrong and your definition of NOTHING is incorrect.


Nothing is a matter of perception, if you stuck me in an empty room I may say there is nothing in there, but that statement would be wrong on so many levels.

Space is full of charged particles, it is likely NOTHING has never existed and all that we see has always been in one form or another whether we can detect, preceive, or understand what it was.

edit on 20-11-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

You are right that my logic is wrong, but that is precisely what I am trying to do. Logic is built on the idea that something can't come from nothing, and my claim is the opposite: something can come from nothing. The point of my claim is that it takes the foundations of logic from underneath itself.

Now think about this for me. The dominant theory in science right now is that our universe is expanding. What is our universe expanding into?

maybe our understanding of the univese is expanding? lol

Maybe we are gaining a wider feild of view and thus, the universe expands.

Is the universe gaining momentium for creating stars and planets?

That's like saying within the time frame the human race has existed. The universe just randomly decides to go into hyper creation mode.

What exactly are you stating here?

That matter is transitioning faster than it is being contained?
If that were so, We would all be dead. Swiling in gas clouds and other random formations of clusters of physical matter.

How can we make a claim that the universe is expanding when we can't even see what's beyond our feild of view? Do they mean that the universe is expanding metaphysically as human scientists discover more stars and galaxies? Or perhapse more birthing places for stars and planets?

Where does this expanding idea come from, the theory of the big bang? But such a theory is only localized.

It does not explain the already existant galaxies many many leagues away.
Are they viewing into distant galaxies and making assumptions they were just created? When we know that many of the lights from distant suns are already dead, and all we are reciving is the returning light of dead stars? Yet to finish projecting its protons?

Maybe it was unprecidented when Einstein invented the theory of the big bang.
That it might only be subjective to its area of effect? Say if our galaxy imploded and recreated itself.

It would be * a big bang* but it is NOT the big bang of which everyone else hypothisies creating THE UNIVERSE.

That's a pretty ballsy statement. I mean... just look at the a fraction of our feild of view just for a second.



What scientists are suggesting is that ONE bang, made all of this?
And i guess they suppose that for paradox invoking reasons, that somehow.

All of these galaxies are going to overpower the cosmic winds ( that hold them in such vast distances between each other) is just going to randomly 'fail' and defy the laws of matter and energy and just clump together.... from the vast reaches of the unknown beyond our feild of view... over unimaginably large spaces with resistances. Are just going to randomly come to 1 single point ( which is proven impossible so far as matter can only be crushed so small it does not just span infinitely into a tiny point... that's like saying a sun should just increase in size forever just because, you can't have a contradicting parallell it does not work)

reply to post by Wang Tang

The number 0 is simply a placeholder for Nothingness, but it misleads us into thinking 0 as a number represents something just like all other numbers do. This is wrong, there is no "something" that we can define as nothing.

I found no reason to read on because this just isn't true.
The word ZERO and number O have never represented " something".

They've always represented[ ]to me.