I'll reverse the question: why shouldn't something come from nothing?
Night, day, spring, summer...
All artificial.
Damn those ancient peoples.
Strawman.
As far as we know rocks have no concept of anything.
What is the strongest atheist argument?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
All artificial.
Damn those ancient peoples.
As far as we know rocks have no concept of anything.
Semantics...That im not going to bother explaining in this thread... Rocks age time effects everything.
Yet again time does not need the human mind to exist. We may quantify it but it exists despite our existence. In your argument we cant say what distance, mass and inertia are "is".
once again your inability to understand the concept of time is the problem. There was no before, only in your imagination. Say the universe is 15B years old, it is easy to imagine the seconds before, yet without time there was no seconds before.
Quantum physics is a classic example where common sense fails. Though not fully understood it is this undefinable reality that rules the universe. The computer you use does not use common sense, its real but only mathematics can understand it. Not your day to day experience..
Don't try to make your perception cloud your judgment of what is real for it is incapable.
A note of condescension ?
Since you mention semantics you are surely aware that "exist" means to come from or out of. I'll stipulate that time exists. You tell me where it came from.
I understand time quite well. And yes, you can imagine the seconds before, after all they are imaginary.
That is an understatement. Quantum physics is miles away from even a rudimentary understanding of what is going on. No offense to those who pursue such, but quantum physics is mostly supposition piled upon conjecture.
So then something that we can not define is really running the show? I agree.
Isn't it convenient that mathematics is so orderly? I wonder how that happened in a random universe.
Thanks for the advice. But I notice that no one has essayed to tell me how everything came from nothing which was my original point.
Doesn't follow.
Really.
Nope, things change, and this change occurs in a dimension that we call time.
Regardless of whether its "correct" name is time, fnurgle or bananas it happens.
It's the equivalent of here or there - present or past (or future, whichever).
The difference happens.
the_reason_the_universe_exists_is_because_it_caused_itself_to_exist.
Sure. Now perhaps you might give a mechanism to explain how something that does not exist--by definition is nothing can exert the volition to come into existence all by itself.
The theists made the claim, the theists challenge my beliefs, the theists need to prove it. The burden of proof lies on them. I argue every point they make. The strongest argument is that you cannot prove it to ME. You cannot, therefore I am right because the burden of proof lies on you.
Old Man said:
Really. The logic is impeccable. Or are you willing to claim that creation ex nihilo is the norm?
I am not disputing what we, by long convention, call time. I am asking where time came from. Did it spontaneously pop into existence when the universe did, from nothing, out of nothing? If so how?
Did you read it? (Only a yes or no answer needed)
We can move on once you have read it and understood it but if you're just going to ignore it, we're not going to get anywhere.
The problem is with your usage of 'nothing'. You're probably one of those people that has difficulty with the idea that the universe is expanding, ("What's it expanding into? There must be something there.. right?").
The best method is one step at a time.. I hope you can understand that and agree with it.
Regards,
Yes.
We can move on once you have read it and understood it but if you're just going to ignore it, we're not going to get anywhere.
No. I am not here concerned with where the universe is going. Only where it came from.
I agree, and await your comments.
Only under the current rules: science has already stated that they didn't hold at/"prior" to the big bang.
The logic falls down.
The fundamental constants are all over the place, some like PI are irrational. I see no order in it.
Rudimentary???? you have got to kidding. It represents the most fundamental aspects of the universe.
Not running it, it is the show, your implying an outside influence is needed to make quantum physics work. Well this is the flaw you religious types all fall upon. You don't understand, so you make up some "God" you give it human attributes and now you can relate to the universe..
So if there is a god, it must be something, must be made of something as obviously god could not be made of nothing. That stuff that makes up god must have some rules, what govern's the rules that "runs" the stuff that makes up god...
Oldman you cant use tense when discussing the origins of time.
Old man:
Where did God come from? Not from nothing, obviously, by your own argument. So, where?
Maybe you're going to say God always existed. But then, why not simply say that the universe always existed and cut out the middle man?
Lots of things in science strain credulity. The notion that atoms are mostly "empty space". The notion that electrons have no effective size. The problems that the theory of evolution causes with Creationists. The weird rules of quantum physics. Plate tectonics. That the energy in your average thunderstorm is equivalent to more than 10 Hiroshima atomic bombs.
Straining credulity doesn't stop any of these things from being true nonetheless.
Actually, if quantum field theories are correct, it happens all the time. "Empty" space is teeming with "virtual" particles spontaneously popping into and out of existence. These are known as quantum fluctuations of the vacuum due to "zero-point energy".
How did God exist before he created the universe, then? Where did he exist? By your own argument, there was no place for him to exist in.
What makes you think volition is necessary for something to exist?
Where did God come from? Not from nothing, obviously, by your own argument. So, where?
Maybe you're going to say God always existed. But then, why not simply say that the universe always existed and cut out the middle man?
Lots of things in science strain credulity. The notion that atoms are mostly "empty space". The notion that electrons have no effective size. The problems that the theory of evolution causes with Creationists. The weird rules of quantum physics. Plate tectonics. That the energy in your average thunderstorm is equivalent to more than 10 Hiroshima atomic bombs.
Straining credulity doesn't stop any of these things from being true nonetheless.
Actually, if quantum field theories are correct, it happens all the time. "Empty" space is teeming with "virtual" particles spontaneously popping into and out of existence. These are known as quantum fluctuations of the vacuum due to "zero-point energy".
How did God exist before he created the universe, then? Where did he exist? By your own argument, there was no place for him to exist in.
What makes you think volition is necessary for something to exist?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So then it's either nothing ever existed or the universe always was, pick one.
I quote: " The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe."
The claim here is that at the very beginning (t=0) something already exists. In other words some material thing existed before anything existed. Patently impossible.
The issue is not my understanding of it, it is your understanding of it. Understanding "nothing" does not require advanced degrees or special knowledge. It means what it says: nothing = nothing. I have read that science claims to have identified several types of nothing. What nonsense.
And right here might be a good place to mention that there has been a fair amount of effort expended to not answer my original question, but instead to run all over the place with misdirection, equivocation, and sophomoric logic (not from you).
I believe I said that I am not concerned with where the universe is going, only where it came from. Let's stick to beginnings for now. Endings can come later.