Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Trading one illogical premise for another illogical premise is not a logical premise.

Where is my logic flawed?

1) Something cannot come from nothing
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, since 'Something' exists, and it could not have come from nothing, Something must have always existed.

This primordial unbegotten "Something" would inherently be the source of all things.

Scientists don't agree that the concept of "nothing" even exists:

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate
By Clara Moskowitz March 22, 2013

www.livescience.com...

The "existence" of something is a matter of perspective. In another dimension, that "existence" may not exist at all.

Your logic is faulty because you can't prove that "nothing" actually exists. Therefore, you don't know whether something came from nothing or is objectively infinite.

The concept of "nothing" is an unknowable.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Scientists don't agree that the concept of "nothing" even exists:

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate
By Clara Moskowitz March 22, 2013

www.livescience.com...

The "existence" of something is a matter of perspective. In another dimension, that "existence" may not exist at all.

Your logic is faulty because you can't prove that "nothing" actually exists. Therefore, you don't know whether something came from nothing or is objectively infinite.

The concept of "nothing" is an unknowable.

Well if something always existed, then that implies there never was nothing.

Can the universe always exist?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Scientists don't agree that the concept of "nothing" even exists:

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate
By Clara Moskowitz March 22, 2013

www.livescience.com...

The "existence" of something is a matter of perspective. In another dimension, that "existence" may not exist at all.

Your logic is faulty because you can't prove that "nothing" actually exists. Therefore, you don't know whether something came from nothing or is objectively infinite.

The concept of "nothing" is an unknowable.

Well if something always existed, then that implies there never was nothing.

We don't know if something always existed or whether absolute "nothing" ever existed. Therefore, you can't make statements about either condition as fact because we don't know. You're certainly free to believe your god always existed, but it's not a scientific fact.

originally posted by: Phantom423

We don't know if something always existed or whether absolute "nothing" ever existed. Therefore, you can't make statements about either condition as fact because we don't know. You're certainly free to believe your god always existed, but it's not a scientific fact.

It's a law of physics that something cannot come from nothing. So it is logical to suppose that there was never nothing. If nothing was all there was, then something could have never emerged from it.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Can the universe always exist?

Something will always exist, according to our current physical laws.

Everything within the universe is subject to its laws (as far as we know). The universe itself is not subject to those same laws, which is why it can expand faster than light and possibly always exist.

The universe seems to be much like your god; it imposes its laws on its subjects but is not bound by them itself.

a reply to: cooperton

It's a law of physics that something cannot come from nothing

Which law would that be?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


"It's a law of physics that something cannot come from nothing"

Which law would that be?

The law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Everything within the universe is subject to its laws (as far as we know). The universe itself is not subject to those same laws, which is why it can expand faster than light and possibly always exist.

The universe seems to be much like your god; it imposes its laws on its subjects but is not bound by them itself.

Yeah imagine limitations that a shadow would have. It can only inhabit 2D spaces. You can set a whole list of laws that apply to 2-dimensional objects, but these laws and limitations are transcended when you add the 3rd dimension. Timeless beings would be extra-dimensional beings which are not limited to 3-dimensional constraints like we are.

Nothing to ponder. The first Chapter of Genetics....Genesis explains it all.
"In the beginning..."

If they can't believe that?.. They will create something to "believe" or have "faith" in.

Oddly enough? Even "Scientists", take/have "Christmas" off, from work. .... But it's "for the children".

Strangely enough? Everyone believes in "baby Jesus" around "Christmas" time.... Going to be some good "lawyer talk" going on, .. on "judgment day".

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Direne

If humans were initially designed to be gardeners, to maintain and nurture the garden of Eden, and they failed... how is that their fault? How do you blame a mechanical apparatus for malfunctioning? At what point was that apparatus directly responsible for its own engineering?

free will?

we are not machines, even you.

[yvid]KEwhLvIQrk




besides, even if it was 6000 years til now it could have been worse than it is now. at 14 billion yrs we'd been long gone.


like the other anti God/Creator civilizations

a reply to: cooperton

The law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The law of conservation, the first law of thermodynamics, doesn't say something can or can't come from nothing. It's a statement of energy conservation - the total energy remains the same. Try again.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The law of conservation, the first law of thermodynamics, doesn't say something can or can't come from nothing. It's a statement of energy conservation - the total energy remains the same. Try again.

Energy cannot be created, meaning it cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be destroyed, meaning it cannot become nothing.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

The law of conservation, the first law of thermodynamics, doesn't say something can or can't come from nothing. It's a statement of energy conservation - the total energy remains the same. Try again.

Energy cannot be created, meaning it cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be destroyed, meaning it cannot become nothing.

A complete misinterpretation to suit your agenda. Define "nothing".

originally posted by: Phantom423

A complete misinterpretation to suit your agenda. Define "nothing".

No its not. The whole point of that law is that energy doesn't just return to nothing, neither can energy come from nothing. Energy can only be transferred from one form to another

"The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another."

Therefore energy will always exist, because it cannot be destroyed. But I'm sure you're gonna try to obfuscate the laws of physics to avoid being wrong

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

A complete misinterpretation to suit your agenda. Define "nothing".

No its not. The whole point of that law is that energy doesn't just return to nothing, neither can energy come from nothing. Energy can only be transferred from one form to another

"The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another."

Therefore energy will always exist, because it cannot be destroyed. But I'm sure you're gonna try to obfuscate the laws of physics to avoid being wrong

The point of the law is the unchanging totality of energy in this universe. The law says nothing about energy being created from nothing. That's your guy in the sky theory.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The law says nothing about energy being created from nothing.

It literally says energy cannot be created (from something that isn't energy). In lay-mans's terms this means it cannot come from nothing

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
The law says nothing about energy being created from nothing.

It literally says energy cannot be created (from something that isn't energy). In lay-mans's terms this means it cannot come from nothing

You're wrong. It's the totality of energy in the universe which stays the same. You still didn't define "nothing". How does your guy in the sky fit in with that?

originally posted by: Phantom423
It's the totality of energy in the universe which stays the same.

...due to the fact that it cannot come from nothing or return to nothing. "Nothing" meaning 'no energy'. Energy cannot become not energy, and not energy cannot become energy. Energy can only change forms. Since energy exists, there will always be energy, according to the laws of physics.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
It's the totality of energy in the universe which stays the same.

...due to the fact that it cannot come from nothing or return to nothing. "Nothing" meaning 'no energy'. Energy cannot become not energy, and not energy cannot become energy. Energy can only change forms. Since energy exists, there will always be energy, according to the laws of physics.

And once again the first law of thermodynamics states that the totality of energy remains the same. It says nothing about energy/matter forming from nothing or being depleted into nothing. The first law does not state anyth ing about the concept of "nothing". That makes your original statement wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And once again the first law of thermodynamics states that the totality of energy remains the same. It says nothing about energy/matter forming from nothing or being depleted into nothing.

Lol you're patently wrong. "Nothing" I will define as 0 Joules.

"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed."

So yes it explicitly states matter cannot be created or destroyed. This means energy cannot become non-energy, which energetically speaking is 0 Joules, or in lay-man's terms "nothing".

Any objective scientist would know this is common sense. You're only arguing it because you want to argue everything I say. Energy cannot emerge from nothing, nor can energy become nothing, it can only be transferred to one state or another.