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.
There is an element of pushing way unwelcome ideas in the two previous posts, but they do have a point.
It is certainly no news to me that something came out of nothing - which means effectively that nothing under physical laws acted as though it was something.
But then "Who made dem laws, anyway?" It's valid question. and the question ..rather than When' ..what initiated the coming of something out of nothing?
I can already see possible answers which don't involve a thinking entity with power of decision and planning, but "I just come up with the ideas" as they say. "It's up to the experts to make them work."
"Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time. That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as well.”
Oh yes, God is still lurking there in his gap, but it is shrinking all the time.
Bah humbug, Arequipa. Nothing shrinking.
There is only one instance where creation is said to have happened "ex nihilo" and this is in the good book itself. It's science fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and that creation cannot result without a cause. To say otherwise makes you a Bad Scientist. Now there is something that makes scientific and logical sense. See if you can figure it out. Matter can not be created or destroyed but...
Give up? Matter can be reworked. An object that was once something small can space itself out all through the universe.
Does that also include you? You're making quite a few statements that you're assuming to be true.
Like what?
Quote:
He made a pretty good case for it. Did you read the link? He explains....the laws of logic are conceptual because they are not physical. They do not depend on time, location, etc.
That would be another logical fallacy - false dichotomy.
Conceptual vs not physical is not a true dichotomy.
Conceptual vs not conceptual is.
It runs contrary to logic to propose philosophical arguments about nothing when the context of that "nothing" is science. The thread is about a science video for the universe's origin.
So, don't propose philosophical arguments when philosophy is hopelessly outdated relative to science.
I'm not lecturing you. I'm reminding the rules of the game, so to speak.
They've been around for at least 2500 years.
If these rules are not to your liking because they make it hard for you to win - tough.
You can always play with yourself, though
Quote:
So give a third alternative.
This is not my job to set up your argument.
The fact that you can not imagine a third alternative does not give you a right to use a false dichotomy.
I'm not lecturing you. I'm reminding the rules of the game, so to speak.
They've been around for at least 2500 years.
If these rules are not to your liking because they make it hard for you to win - tough.
You can always play with yourself, though
Oh. OK.
Quote:
This is not my job to set up your argument.
The fact that you can not imagine a third alternative does not give you a right to use a false dichotomy.
You're the one making the assertion that it's a false dichotomy. I'm only asking you to back up the statement. If you're not able to, or don't care to participate, then fine. But that doesn't mean the argument is not valid.
You're the one making the assertion that it's a false dichotomy. I'm only asking you to back up the statement. If you're not able to, or don't care to participate, then fine. But that doesn't mean the argument is not valid.
Let me get it straight.
Are you saying that it is only my claim that conceptual vs physical is not a true dichotomy?
So, as you understand logic, it is a true dichotomy?
I see you harping on a minor detail because I doubt you have the ability to argue the larger point.
What do you mean "minor detail"?
When it comes to argumentation it is as major as it gets!
Making one logic error in an argument is enough to make the whole argument completely invalid.
So far I found 2! Thats it. There is no argument anymore. There is no larger point.
The whole thing is nonsense now
What do you mean "minor detail"?
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.
There is an element of pushing way unwelcome ideas in the two previous posts, but they do have a point. 
It's valid question. and the question ..rather than When' ..what initiated the coming of something out of nothing? 
