(February 4, 2012 at 3:18 am)brotherlylove Wrote:

(February 4, 2012 at 3:08 am)Phil Wrote: Define nothing and do not shirk answering by giving some hypothetical concept.

Nothing, as in the absence of something.

That isn't a definition since something isn't defined either.

Define nothing in tangible terms. Keep in mind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as you do otherwise any definition will be trivially easy to disprove if it ignores it. Also when you define nothing to a tangible degree, since you obviously think there is a god that created the cosmos, tell us where it is? If it is within the sphere of what you define as nothing, then there is something there and it isn't a nothing. If god is outside your nothing sphere, then it is nothing either since you just defined something else which means your nothing is again something. To put it quite concisely, nothing isn't stable. Sort of like your personality is right now as you experience the largest and most painful cognitive dissonance you ever have.

But it's OK for this godboy thingy to make the universe out of nothing..eh b/l?

(February 4, 2012 at 2:40 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I'll throw out scientific evidence to start. It is the view of modern science that the Universe had a beginning and that time space matter and energy are in fact finite.

Actually, it is the view of modern science to consider the big-bang as a point of reference from which measurements are made because we have no knowledge of any point of reference prior to that. That does not mean there universe did not exist then in another form.

Further, the finite size of the universe only applies to the "observable" universe. No current scientist would state that the universe is finite for certain.

(February 4, 2012 at 2:40 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Why do you believe this is self-refuting?

It is self-refuting because "beginning" means "The point in time or space at which something starts."

To say that time started within some point in time or that space started within some point in space is ridiculous.

The beginning scientists refer to is not the actual beginning but merely a point of reference.

(February 4, 2012 at 3:28 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: But it's OK for this godboy thingy to make the universe out of nothing..eh b/l?

Guess christoholics that believe that tripe forget if their precious skydaddy were there (in nothing) then it wouldn't be nothing.

---

(February 4, 2012 at 3:28 am)genkaus Wrote: Further, the finite size of the universe only applies to the "observable" universe. No current scientist would state that the universe is finite for certain.

Even more to the point is that if the universe is infinite now so was the initial big bang.

Amazing how many religious people are uneducated in science

(February 4, 2012 at 3:26 am)Phil Wrote: Define nothing in tangible terms. Keep in mind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as you do otherwise any definition will be trivially easy to disprove if it ignores it. Also when you define nothing to a tangible degree, since you obviously think there is a god that created the cosmos, tell us where it is? If it is within the sphere of what you define as nothing, then there is something there and it isn't a nothing. If god is outside your nothing sphere, then it is nothing either since you just defined something else which means your nothing is again something. To put it quite concisely, nothing isn't stable. Sort of like your personality is right now as you experience the largest and most painful cognitive dissonance you ever have.

First, you are the one making the claim that something came from nothing, and brought up a book about it that you've apparently read and deeply understand, so you should be the one defining it. Tell me what you mean by something coming from nothing?

I don't believe that there is any such thing as "nothing". I believe that God is eternal and has always existed, therefore there has always been something.

(February 4, 2012 at 3:38 am)brotherlylove Wrote: First, you are the one making the claim that something came from nothing,

No I didn't. There is no such thing as nothing, It was your characterization of what science says. Now either show me where I said something comes from nothing or as I said before, go fuck off.

(February 4, 2012 at 3:28 am)genkaus Wrote:

(February 4, 2012 at 2:40 am)brotherlylove Wrote: I'll throw out scientific evidence to start. It is the view of modern science that the Universe had a beginning and that time space matter and energy are in fact finite.

Actually, it is the view of modern science to consider the big-bang as a point of reference from which measurements are made because we have no knowledge of any point of reference prior to that. That does not mean there universe did not exist then in another form.

Further, the finite size of the universe only applies to the "observable" universe. No current scientist would state that the universe is finite for certain.

(February 4, 2012 at 2:40 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Why do you believe this is self-refuting?

It is self-refuting because "beginning" means "The point in time or space at which something starts."

To say that time started within some point in time or that space started within some point in space is ridiculous.

The beginning scientists refer to is not the actual beginning but merely a point of reference.

Actually, it also means the beginning of time:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

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. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

Stephan Hawking has said the same. So, you're left with those choices I mentioned before, unless you have a different theory?

---

(February 4, 2012 at 3:44 am)Phil Wrote:

(February 4, 2012 at 3:38 am)brotherlylove Wrote: First, you are the one making the claim that something came from nothing,

No I didn't. There is no such thing as nothing, It was your characterization of what science says. Now either show me where I said something comes from nothing or as I said before, go fuck off.

Your appeal to authority to claim I am ignorant (without actually disproving my argument) certainly implied it. What is your view then? If there is no such thing as nothing then we are talking about an eternal something.

---

(February 4, 2012 at 3:28 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: But it's OK for this godboy thingy to make the universe out of nothing..eh b/l?

Who said God created it out of nothing? I certainly didn't. He didn't work with prior material, He simply created the material by His own power.

(February 4, 2012 at 3:47 am)brotherlylove Wrote: In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

Damn boy, how the hell do you remember to breath? Are you really so stupid you think no better understanding has been understood since 1983? That is back when I was an undergrad, lots has changed in my life (mosly older, fatter and uglier) and lots of thing in science are much better understood now. For example, the dreck you cite as scientific truth claims the universe (as was understood in 1983) was 16.5 billion years ago. That value is reduced but derived from the Hubble constant (which itself gives a 20 billion year value). Data (from WIMP) now conclusively shows that the 16.5 billion year value is in error by almost 3 billion years. The currently accepted value (accepted since 2003 although you think 1983 is gospel truth) is 13.72 Billion years. Please pay attention to the EXTRA significant digit. This is what real science tells us not what some goatherder book says.

---

(February 4, 2012 at 3:47 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Your appeal to authority to claim I am ignorant (without actually disproving my argument) certainly implied it.

A list of books is not an appeal to authority? Are you actually an adult?

Quote: What is your view then?

Meaning what "banged"? Best as can be said is that the big bang arose out of quantum fluctuations. As I said before (which you apparently didn't read) - NOTHING IS UNSTABLE.

If you think that last statement is wrong. Show why?

(February 4, 2012 at 3:58 am)Phil Wrote: Damn boy, how the hell do you remember to breath? Are you really so stupid you think no better understanding has been understood since 1983? That is back when I was an undergrad, lots has changed in my life (mosly older, fatter and uglier) and lots of thing in science are much better understood now. For example, the dreck you cite as scientific truth claims the universe (as was understood in 1983) was 16.5 billion years ago. That value is reduced but derived from the Hubble constant (which itself gives a 20 billion year value). Data (from WIMP) now conclusively shows that the 16.5 billion year value is in error by almost 3 billion years. The currently accepted value (accepted since 2003 although you think 1983 is gospel truth) is 13.72 Billion years. Please pay attention to the EXTRA significant digit. This is what real science tells us not what some goatherder book says.

---

Modern cosmology is well acquainted with time having a finite beginning. The Hartle–Hawking initial state proposes a finite beginning prior to the planck epoch.

(February 4, 2012 at 3:58 am)Phil Wrote: A list of books is not an appeal to authority? Are you actually an adult?

It's an appeal to an authority when you don't address the argument but rather say "if only BL read these books then he would understand why his arguments are wrong"

(February 4, 2012 at 3:58 am)Phil Wrote: Meaning what "banged"? Best as can be said is that the big bang arose out of quantum fluctuations. As I said before (which you apparently didn't read) - NOTHING IS UNSTABLE.

If you think that last statement is wrong. Show why?

Nothing isn't anything, it is no thing. It has no properties. Nothing does not exist. Again, you are talking about something eternal if you say there is no such thing as nothing. So what are you proposing? What caused the quantum fluctuations? What caused the thing that caused that? Are you claiming an infinite regress of causes? Where does the buck stop?