Why is there something and not nothing

[IamJoseph]

Tautologies always do.


Nope.


Nope.


Nope.


Nope.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761

But keep waffling.

Nope is not nope unless it defines its antithesis: where is your YES? I accept the duality factor as the original, primal base - there is no + without a -, no positive w/o a negative. I noticed that almost all the verses in Genesis' creation chapter contains a duality: heaven & earth, formless & formed, light and darkness, water & land, day & night, male & female. This is appropriate for all generation's understanding - though it can appear as waffling to some.

Agree with it or not - at least it makes a conclusive statement without violating any scientific premises. Does the premise of evolution explain the origins of things better - have you really tracked everything down to ONE - and if not, why is that - one reason is that there is no ONE and all started with a duality? Can a red marble emerge from a green marble - and does that not mean the green had to contain some red - especially so if the green marble is the first entity? If you answer yes - this says the original green was not ONE.

Nope?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Nope is not nope unless it defines its antithesis

And this is a response to...?

there is no + without a -, no positive w/o a negative.

Supposition.

I noticed that almost all the verses in Genesis' creation chapter contains a duality: heaven & earth, formless & formed, light and darkness, water & land, day & night, male & female. This is appropriate for all generation's understanding - though it can appear as waffling to some.

Correct. It's waffling.

Agree with it or not - at least it makes a conclusive statement without violating any scientific premises.

Really?
How about gravity? That's always a "positive" i.e. it works only one way.

Does the premise of evolution explain the origins of things better

Evolution isn't meant to explain the origins. It's an explanation of the process once started.

and does that not mean the green had to contain some red - especially so if the green marble is the first entity? If you answer yes - this says the original red was not ONE.

And if I say "no"? Where does that leave your "argument"?
Oh, don't tell me, you presupposed the answer based on your own leanings.

Edit: I just realised your point. You're claiming that "god" isn't, and never was, one.

 

[IamJoseph]

Nothingness is a negation that cannot be discribed period.

Agreed. We cannot describe a pre-universe scenario - and that is what we are talking about here, because the universe in no place displays nothingness - unless we have necks long enough to reach outside the universe.

Nor am I making any absolutes - that we don't know is the given. What I am saying is that the science displayed in Genesis is immense and more satisfactory when correctly deciphered, and without today's trendy notion of discarding all religious writings in one green bag. Genesis is the only ancient scripture which even deals with the universe and its origins - rendering all of today's science pitted against it - with no positive conclusion on science's side That is a big feat.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What I am saying is that the science displayed in Genesis is immense

The science displayed in Genesis is zero.

Genesis is the only ancient scripture which even deals with the universe and its origins

Bull.

rendering all of today's science pitted against it - with no positive conclusion on science's side That is a big feat.

The only possible way to arrive at that conclusion is through ignorance and indoctrination. Congratulations.

 

[IamJoseph]

The science displayed in Genesis is zero.

I don't think so.

Evolution itself comes from Genesis, even stated by Darwin himself. Where do you see the first grouping of life forms other than Genesis - and in their correct protocol: immobile vegetation, sea borne, transit mamals, creepy crawley [insects], swarms [unseen by the naked eye], air born fowl, land based animals, speech endowed humans? Can you fault anything in Genesis' version of evolution - an open challenge?

How can you say 'zero' of the document which introduced humanity to:

The universe being finite, the first alphabetical books, the oldest and most active calendar, all the world's accepted laws, the first scientific cencus - in the millions, the history of a host of nations the world would otherwise not even know ever existed - and Monotheism?

Nope - not zero.

 

[IamJoseph]

The only possible way to arrive at that conclusion is through ignorance and indoctrination. Congratulations.

OK, the Nobels listing is a book for ignorants - because it is dominated by Jews to a margin which none can catch up to. Happy?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't think so.

Then you're not thinking.
Genesis makes statements. Whether they are correct or not (and Genesis is largely incorrect) statements are not science.

Evolution itself comes from Genesis, even stated by Darwin himself.

Link please.
Otherwise I call bull.

Where do you see the first grouping of life forms other than Genesis - and in their correct protocol: immobile vegetation, sea borne, transit mamals, creepy crawley [insects], swarms [unseen by the naked eye], air born fowl, land based animals, speech endowed humans? Can you fault anything in Genesis' version of evolution - an open challenge?

Genesis says nothing about evolution it claims things were created.

How can you say 'zero' of the document which introduced humanity to:
The universe being finite, the first alphabetical books, the oldest and most active calendar, all the world's accepted laws, the first scientific cencus - in the millions, the history of a host of nations the world would otherwise not even know ever existed - and Monotheism?
Nope - not zero.

It's quite simple.
It did none of those things.
And you're claiming monotheism is science?
You're further gone than I thought.

 

[IamJoseph]

Really?
How about gravity? That's always a "positive" i.e. it works only one way.

Nope. Otherwise the moon could not be in a stable orbit but fly into the planet or sun. Only a dual gravity impact can stablise one position. There is also anti-gravity.

Evolution isn't meant to explain the origins. It's an explanation of the process once started.

Correct. But this conclusion is derived from Genesis, which correctly places evolution as a process - after the introduction of the universe constructs. Even then your statement is not correct - while ToE presents itself as a process, its definitions allow no other reading than that the origins also work by those factors - which is incorrect.

Edit: I just realised your point. You're claiming that "god" isn't, and never was, one.

I am saying there is no ONE in the universe, and nothing in the universe can perform an action by the power of one. This says there needs be a minimum of two entities for any action. This makes Genesis correct, IMHO.

 

[IamJoseph]

Then you're not thinking.
Genesis makes statements. Whether they are correct or not (and Genesis is largely incorrect) statements are not science.

Yes, it makes statements - like there was a beginning for the universe. These statements form equations, and when we elevate our knowledge, they become vindicated. Genesis cannot be expected to describe the workings of all things: this would be trillions of pages long, condescending, and would not be understood my all generations of mankind.

Link please.
Otherwise I call bull.

Bull: not knowing the most basic and known writings in existance. R U serious?

Genesis says nothing about evolution it claims things were created.

Everything that refers to evolution is contained only in Genesis. I will take this up with you of it is not seen as deflecting the thread.

It's quite simple.
It did none of those things.
And you're claiming monotheism is science?
You're further gone than I thought.

Yes, Monotheism is science and math - and there is no scientific alternative to it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Nope. Otherwise the moon could not be in a stable orbit but fly into the planet or sun. Only a dual gravity impact can stablise one position.

Crap. Go away and learn science.

There is also anti-gravity.

Where?

Correct. But this conclusion is derived from Genesis

Wrong.
The conclusion arrives from observation.

which correctly places evolution as a process

Nope. Genesis does NOT describe a process.

Even then your statement is not correct - while ToE presents itself as a process, its definitions allow no other reading than that the origins also work by those factors - which is incorrect.

Er, wrong.

I am saying there is no ONE in the universe, and nothing in the universe can perform an action by the power of one. This says there needs be a minimum of two entities for any action. This makes Genesis correct, IMHO.

So it was God and Mrs god?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, it makes statements - like there was a beginning for the universe. These statements form equations

Wrong. Where are the equations in Genesis?

Bull: not knowing the most basic and known writings in existance. R U serious?

So you can't provide a link? Thought so.

Everything that refers to evolution is contained only in Genesis. I will take this up with you of it is not seen as deflecting the thread.

Bull. Again.

Yes, Monotheism is science and math - and there is no scientific alternative to it.

Monotheism is superstition and supposition. There is neither science nor mathematics involved.

 

[IamJoseph]

Wrong.
The conclusion arrives from observation.

Better, Genesis is vindicated by observation.

Nope. Genesis does NOT describe a process.

A life following its own kind and being able to pass on this trait to its offspring - is a description of a process. Evolution, in comparison, is a new term less than 200 years old - and it says that once we know how something works, as in a car manual - it is proof there is no car maker. Really - I see the exact reverse applying!

Er, wrong.


So it was God and Mrs god?

If you focus correctly you won't make those statements. Note that before the duality in creation began, the text says there was the Creator [God], and that God is ONE and that there is no other [Monotheism?]. My statement was that there is no ONE in this here universe.

 

[IamJoseph]

Wrong. Where are the equations in Genesis?

The universe had a beginning.

Light preceded sunlight.

Seperations of the earthly elements occured in anticipation of life.

The DAY and the WEEK was introduced here.

A SEED derived from a male and female shall follow its own kind [species], and pass on this trait to its offspring.

Originally, a life form emerged in a male-female duality, then seperated into male and female.

Create is different from FORMED.






So you can't provide a link? Thought so.


Bull. Again.


Monotheism is superstition and supposition. There is neither science nor mathematics involved.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dywyddyr]

Better, Genesis is vindicated by observation.

Nonsense.

A life following its own kind and being able to pass on this trait to its offspring - is a description of a process.

Wrong. Genesis claims creation. Not evolution.

If you focus correctly you won't make those statements. Note that before the duality in creation began, the text says there was the Creator [God], and that God is ONE and that there is no other [Monotheism?]. My statement was that there is no ONE in this here universe.

So why do you exclude "god" from this "rule"? Lack of thought perhaps? Blind faith? Because some book says so?

The universe had a beginning.
Light preceded sunlight.
Seperations of the earthly elements occured in anticipation of life.
The DAY and the WEEK was introduced here.
A SEED derived from a male and female shall follow its own kind [species], and pass on this trait to its offspring.
Originally, a life form emerged in a male-female duality, then seperated into male and female.
Create is different from FORMED.

I think I'll ask again.
Where are the equations in Genesis?
(Clue: there are none).
So you can't provide a link?
(Clue: there are none).
Where is there "antigravity"?
(Clue: there isn't any).

 

[IamJoseph]

Nonsense.

But why - its a forum debate, remember?

Wrong. Genesis claims creation. Not evolution.

Did we not agree evolution is an after the fact process? Genesis places this process after the universe and life was already created.

So why do you exclude "god" from this "rule"? Lack of thought perhaps? Blind faith? Because some book says so?

???

I think I'll ask again.
Where are the equations in Genesis?
So you can't provide a link?
Where is there "antigravity"?

[/quote]

An equation is a proclamation which can be borne out in repeated experiments, as in a command or advocation which is correct and vindicated. I gave you numerous examples. There are equations in science, math, history, judiciary laws, etc.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But why - its a forum debate, remember?

Yep. For which you have to provide something substantial to discuss. We no observation that vindicates Genesis (which claims things were "created").

Did we not agree evolution is an after the fact process? Genesis places this process after the universe and life was already created.

So? genesis says NOTHING about evolution.

???

Your "reason" that god can be one is that he is, somehow, excluded from your other "rule" that there is no such thing as "one". I'm asking for your "reasoning" on this.

An equation is a proclamation which can be borne out in repeated experiments, as in a command or advocation which is correct and vindicated. I gave you numerous examples. There are equations in science, math, history, judiciary laws, etc.

No.

1. The act or process of equating or of being equated.
2. The state of being equal.
3. Mathematics A statement asserting the equality of two expressions, usually written as a linear array of symbols that are separated into left and right sides and joined by an equal sign.
4. Chemistry A representation of a chemical reaction, usually written as a linear array in which the symbols and quantities of the reactants are separated from those of the products by an equal sign, an arrow, or a set of opposing arrows.
5. A complex of variable elements or factors: "The world was full of equations . . . there must be an answer for everything, if only you knew how to set forth the questions" (Anne Tyler).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equation.
Apart from simple statements of what has been observed Genesis contains no equations.
I could, on that basis, claim that "the sun is shining" is an equation.

And again:
Link please for your contention that

Evolution itself comes from Genesis, even stated by Darwin himself.

Link please for "antigravity".

 

[IamJoseph]

Yep. For which you have to provide something substantial to discuss. We no observation that vindicates Genesis (which claims things were "created").


So? genesis says NOTHING about evolution.

And I contend it says everything about evolution, and more correctly than ToE. Also, that this premise was introduced in Genesis.

Your "reason" that god can be one is that he is, somehow, excluded from your other "rule" that there is no such thing as "one". I'm asking for your "reasoning" on this.

I already answered, adequately. The ONE not being possible only applies to the universe.

Apart from simple statements of what has been observed Genesis contains no equations.
I could, on that basis, claim that "the sun is shining" is an equation.

Its not simple - one must not be confused by simple sounding texts. There is no obvious statement like the sun shines or fire is hot. The statements in genesis are first time proclamations not known before. I gave several examples. Please show us where else can we find that the universe is finite, that light is a promodial entity, or that life forms are divided into groups by their most fundamental traits, such as immobile, water or land based?

And again:
Link please for your contention that

Link please for "antigravity".

Do you think I made this term up? In any case, there is no need to deliberate that a positive and negative applies to all things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

 

[IamJoseph]

Yep. For which you have to provide something substantial to discuss. We no observation that vindicates Genesis (which claims things were "created").

You are again incorrect. That the universe was created does not conflict with any sciences, nor does it impact on processes that are factored in that creation. IOW, stars and life forms could have been created, as well as a means of their sustainence processes included. If a car maker makes a car, he will cater to its on-going utilities, no?

 

[Dywyddyr]

And I contend it says everything about evolution, and more correctly than ToE. Also, that this premise was introduced in Genesis.

You can "contend" all you like. It's as useful, and as accurate, as me contending that the sun is 3 miles across and is made of yoghurt.

I already answered, adequately. The ONE not being possible only applies to the universe.

That's what I thought you'd said. Yet you decided to reply with "???"...

Its not simple - one must not be confused by simple sounding texts. There is no obvious statement like the sun shines or fire is hot. The statements in genesis are first time proclamations not known before.

You mean "the first time that you know of where they're written down". You think no-one had accepted that a week is seven days before Genesis was written down? So nobody had week days, or thought the universe has a beginning or any of the other things you claim, UNTIL ~500 BC? Wow.

Do you think I made this term up?

No, but I DO think you claimed that it exists. Which is NOT supported by your link.

anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity

In any case, there is no need to deliberate that a positive and negative applies to all things.

Yet you stated it as if it were an incontrovertible fact. Which I have shown to be untrue.

And, once again: link for this, please.

Evolution itself comes from Genesis, even stated by Darwin himself.

Or do you wish to retract this lie?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are again incorrect. That the universe was created does not conflict with any sciences

Apart from the small problem of science not having any evidence of a creator, nor accepting the idea of one.