Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As soon as you show me where I said the universe came from nothing and as soon as you show proof any god exists, we can proceed, until then it's pretty clear you are as competent as a bucket of hair.
I'm sorry, I thought it was you who said....
"Still waiting for YOUR PROOF your god, or any god exists. The only person here, saying something came from nothing, is YOU. The only ones dancing the 2 step, are you and your strawman. PROVE GOD. Oh you can't, take off YOUR god blinders and realize god is just a stain on your lenses.
"In the beginning (of god), man created god, and he said, "now this is something I can use to explain things without using an ounce of cranial effort, research, nor facts, and then claim to be the superior intellect."
I gave the proof. I CLEARLY had to put it in BASIC science and you all just not only ignore it, you keep on lying that I never gave it, on top of I misrepresented it when I have yet to be shown I have in what I GAVE.
Moderator cut: Inappropriate
"The only person here, saying something came from nothing, is YOU."
If you followed along and were honest, which you've done neither, you'd see my first post was about the previous one how they were giving thanks to the incredible odds how we got all this. I came in saying it is impossible how we got all this naturally. I added that....Look at the so-called science that is brought up showing creation happened naturally, it starts with something there already. That's how this got going.
Here's a bit more from my FIRST comment:
-----"We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . ."
How did she know that? I've NEVER seen anything Carl or Ann gave to know that.
Go ahead, clue me in. Just don't start with something and then bash me for not knowing what I'm talking about. Actually start with truly nothing and how it created naturally.-----
badander wrote..."Read Lawrence Krause book The Universe from Nothing if you actually want to find out what is meant by nothing."
Oh, but no one is saying it came from nothing and no one is proving it can come from nothing?
Harry wrote when I put real science says nothing does nothing...."No it does not. Real science says absolute nothing would be unstable."
But to you..."The only person here, saying something came from nothing, is YOU."
May I give some quotes to further back me up since as soon as I came on, the warning signs came out? Can you do some research rather than habitually lying to me?
Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super*naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is *devastating.”
Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says."
Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the origin of the universe: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time.
“But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe – so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013)
“We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011)
Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
"In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both." Edward P. Tryon, 'What Made the World?" New Scientist
"It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." Alan Guth, Scientific American, 1996
‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’ Paul Davies
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 06-25-2022 at 08:10 AM..
‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’ Paul Davies
Not exactly. Think of math: The math says we never reach our destination if we go only half the distance every time. Try that while running towards a door.
Most, in fact I don't remember seeing one, theories I remember showed it did not come from absolutely nothing. The QM stuff I remember, and its been a while so I may be wrong, was a QM foam. The foam is something. Kras's something from nothing was most certainly totaling to zero from something.
be that as it may, the two choices are "from nothing" and "from something".
As an atheist, all i say is that "Just because we probably came from something it doesn't mean it has to be a deity type god of the big religions." It can be a host of other things.
Of course, I also do not go in the other direction either. I don't ignore everything just to promote anti-god either. Deity and anti-god just seem to similar in how they special plead to maintain a faith.
"You did not give any science, you misrepresented it."
Isn't it just horrible how I put nothing will do nothing. I mean every atheistic type knows nothing can do something like create the universe but you're all just lacking how to back that up.
"If your version of 2Lot was true"
In your haste to do the typical two-step around what I gave, what happened to the 1LT? You just said I misrepresented science, but you just skipped how we got all this in the first place. Did you think that would not be noticed? Now I will get in trouble with the moderator because I'm calling you liars again and I'm not allowed to state the obvious. Seeing the warning below only seemed to have come up when I entered this forum and I am the one that was misrepresented and was going along with the post already that was somehow off topic but watch how I will get blamed.
Let it be NOTED you accused me AGAIN of something YOU can't back up. You now just threw out the 1LT.
"If your version of 2Lot was true"
I put...The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.
Do show the 2LT does NOT show the universe is winding down. Do show that usable energy is NOT becoming less usable. I'd be happy to touch upon what you gave but YOU are ignoring what I gave. How the moderator let you all on with your attacks that are always ignoring what I gave but now when I just start on this forum the warning sign comes out. Gee, I just wonder if the moderator is biased for atheistic types. You think?
Now you tell me how I misrepresented science in what I gave rather than continually lying and not dealing with what I actually wrote.
Hey moderator, get a load of this..."Do you see the universally large flaw in your ignorance yet?"
Moderator, do you see how I am treated unfairly as I've have shown I have.
Moderator, look at the irony here...dishonesty and use of ad hominems does you no credit, it just proves how dishonest theists have to be."
Will you kick off such members who continually lie about what I gave? Or, will I be the one that suffers?
Instead of misrepresenting what I wrote, we can explain the science you are ignorant about in the science forum.
And you are forgetting it was you who accused others of lying first.
If you followed me, meaning you have not, I showed that you all start with something there already and never start with no space, matter, and time. You can look that up. Then if you followed before accusing me with your lies, just yesterday I posted some BASIC science you atheistic two-step dancers never want to touch. As I also showed, lying is typical with atheistic types. You're so typical of it.
Liar, see my reply just from yesterday. Happy lying.
Me yesterday....
---What don't I understand? Are you telling me there is a possible way I'm not aware of that nothing can create the universe? Interesting you don't supply that. Actually, it's VERY common for your side.
Now this shows how low you all go. It's 2022 and we're actually asking for proof that nothing cannot create by natural means. For sane people like me, I about have to pinch myself that this is an argument to atheistic types.
So, let me teach you some BASIC science since your common sense doesn't kick in.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all (the 1LT and 2LT) points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them.
Hope you learned something. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to give such an explanation to adults.
So can someone let me know what month or year someone thought this through that can explain with proof that something can come from nothing...no space, matter, and time?
Since you tell us you are preaching science, perhaps you should share with us what your science expertise is. For example, do you have any degrees in science.
As an atheist, all i say is that "Just because we probably came from something it doesn't mean it has to be a deity type god of the big religions." It can be a host of other things.
Ok, the laws of nature I gave obviously pertain to nature. Those laws show 100% creation can't happen naturally. We only have one choice left, supernaturally. Starting with something there already with no explanation how it's there and then calling it nothing, then on top of that saying it is the reason we have space, matter, and time is....call it what you may. That has been my 'thing' from the start.
Regarding the polling, here in the USA, it appears to be rather correct depending upon how it's asked.
If you asked those who don't believe in God how did we get all this, do you think any of them would start with no space, matter, and time and have science to back it up? Or would that not matter to them and just start with space, matter, and time already there? Or even, would they say we just don't know yet as they ignore all we know now? Would they give thanks to the incredible odds they are here? Would they do what so many do, rather than give science for their unbelief, would they just say there can't be a God because of all the evil in this world?
The bit I looked, I can't find polling on such questions.
And here's some 'irony' about myself. I haven't been to churches in many years. I don't even belong to any 'believers' organization. I don't even want to label myself as a Christian because when I have showed them things they believe in not to be true, like the Trinity, hell, blind faith, God is in control, God gives us suffering to teach us lessons, God is all powerful, God loves everyone, we're all God's children, etc, and I mean etc,..they don't care, they'll believe it anyway. This is with my family and relatives. Silly me, way back about 50 years ago I was into politics and health. Such other matters were just not on my radar much. I got out of the Catholic religion in my teens and kind of just moved on. Then for some reason that really bugged me about not knowing other things and I told myself I will only go with what I have sufficient evidence for with no bias. It was anything but being glorious. It was painful to get rid of beliefs I had. People you knew well rejected you like you were some sort of person from the devil or something. I can really see why people would want to stay out of churches. That being said, there are a lot of fantastic people there. This one atheist that he wanted me to paint his whole ranch that he had in CA many years ago, I got to know him well. Despite his severe back pain from having a horse fall on him, he was as kind and honest about as they come. Uncanny honest.
Anyway, just some stuff added to put people to sleep.
Since you tell us you are preaching science, perhaps you should share with us what your science expertise is. For example, do you have any degrees in science.
Well, I made it to the 3rd grade. I got kicked out of school for fighting so much because others made fun of my buck teeth. From there I made a living in the circus with people paying to look at my teeth under the banner, "Believe it or not." It was heart-breaking work but it fed me and gave me some spare money. So that was it.
Now, being at the low level I have in education, what is your excuse for not knowing the basic science I gave? What is your excuse to be unable to get around it?
To not be blamed for not following the guidelines of the topic, it should be noted that it is you that is bringing up my education. If it were so bad, how bad are others when others can't defeat it?
Now following the polling as the topic, as I just wrote in another post, it seems to be correct, depending upon how it was asked. I also added...
---If you asked those who don't believe in God how did we get all this, do you think any of them would start with no space, matter, and time and have science to back it up? Or would that not matter to them and just start with space, matter, and time already there? Or even, would they say we just don't know yet as they ignore all we know now? Would they give thanks to the incredible odds they are here? Would they do what so many do, rather than give science for their unbelief, would they just say there can't be a God because of all the evil in this world?---
Following the polling topic, what would be your reason(s)?
Well, I made it to the 3rd grade. I got kicked out of school for fighting so much because others made fun of my buck teeth. From there I made a living in the circus with people paying to look at my teeth under the banner, "Believe it or not." It was heart-breaking work but it fed me and gave me some spare money. So that was it.
Now, being at the low level I have in education, what is your excuse for not knowing the basic science I gave? What is your excuse to be unable to get around it?
To not be blamed for not following the guidelines of the topic, it should be noted that it is you that is bringing up my education. If it were so bad, how bad are others when others can't defeat it?
Now following the polling as the topic, as I just wrote in another post, it seems to be correct, depending upon how it was asked. I also added...
---If you asked those who don't believe in God how did we get all this, do you think any of them would start with no space, matter, and time and have science to back it up? Or would that not matter to them and just start with space, matter, and time already there? Or even, would they say we just don't know yet as they ignore all we know now? Would they give thanks to the incredible odds they are here? Would they do what so many do, rather than give science for their unbelief, would they just say there can't be a God because of all the evil in this world?---
Following the polling topic, what would be your reason(s)?
I'm not going to debate 'your science' since you have no qualifications to do so. And because I don't think you're intent on having a serious discussion. People on this forum who want to have serious discussions don't call other posters "liars". To say a particular post is dishonest...okay. To call other posters a liar, and repeatedly...that's not what this forum is about.
Ok, the laws of nature I gave obviously pertain to nature. Those laws show 100% creation can't happen naturally. We only have one choice left, supernaturally. Starting with something there already with no explanation how it's there and then calling it nothing, then on top of that saying it is the reason we have space, matter, and time is....call it what you may. That has been my 'thing' from the start.
Nipped for space ...
Anyway, just some stuff added to put people to sleep.
The bolded part is a flawed base axiom. Its not true enough to base your line of logic off of.
If you knew everything that man knows about the universe and took a test on the all the universe you get a 5%. That 5/100. And you would be the smartest person on the planet for all of history. (about the universe anyway).
The laws actually show that the universe probably started by the natural laws. We just don't know them all yet. It could very be that the god some people believe in was born and it is this universe also. They may be the same thing.
That's why we can't talk about it in this forum, because the anti-godders can't fight that using evidence, commonsense, logic so like all believing sites they run away and hide (kill if they can) from things their faith doesn't like.
The best we can do is compare what we don't know, to things we do know to try and explain things. With the understanding we can our minds based on new information.
A deity like in the bible just doesn't fit. Its just isn't the best we can do. Even with the limited understanding we have.
So when I go into the Christianity subform I am expected to talk to them as if God exists. I don't have a problem following that rule. What would be off topic is the atheism subform? Seriously, I don't believe the claims of a deity. Am I saying I understand the true nature of the cosmos or how it came into being? Atheism isn't a thing. It's simply a conclusion based on how my mind processes information. I will say this about God tho, He is as real as the color green.
Well, I made it to the 3rd grade. I got kicked out of school for fighting so much because others made fun of my buck teeth. From there I made a living in the circus with people paying to look at my teeth under the banner, "Believe it or not." It was heart-breaking work but it fed me and gave me some spare money. So that was it.
Now, being at the low level I have in education, what is your excuse for not knowing the basic science I gave? What is your excuse to be unable to get around it?
To not be blamed for not following the guidelines of the topic, it should be noted that it is you that is bringing up my education. If it were so bad, how bad are others when others can't defeat it?
Now following the polling as the topic, as I just wrote in another post, it seems to be correct, depending upon how it was asked. I also added...
---If you asked those who don't believe in God how did we get all this, do you think any of them would start with no space, matter, and time and have science to back it up? Or would that not matter to them and just start with space, matter, and time already there? Or even, would they say we just don't know yet as they ignore all we know now? Would they give thanks to the incredible odds they are here? Would they do what so many do, rather than give science for their unbelief, would they just say there can't be a God because of all the evil in this world?---
Following the polling topic, what would be your reason(s)?
I will give you a simple "I don't know.". I don't even understand all the science that is available let alone have the ability to project it out into the unknown. This I know. Do you? How can you be so confident in your ability that you use phrases such as 100%? I guess I am supposed to just believe that you are because you say you can? What's your point anyway?
I think what we have is more of a difference on how much ambiguity is tolerable. I not only tolerate it well but kinda prefer it. To some people they have to have answers and don't even care if they are well reasoned. It's hard to try and explain to people that claim to know that there are things outside of their awareness. How can I convince you there is likely moving parts outside of your consciousness if you don't even see moving parts within your own, very limited worldview?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
