(May 6, 2013 at 9:35 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Harris Wrote: Is there any learned atheist here with whom I can have Literary discussion or this site is ruled by bunch of naughty teenagers only?

Do you think that a learned and literate person would want to have a polite discussion with you after your opening salvo? If so, I'm of the opinion that either your judgement or social skills are defective.

Well, since my social skills are crap, I didn't feel anything negative towards the OP... it was just an observation... not a very accurate one, but there are some threads where it fits quite nicely.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 12:05 am)Dragonetti Wrote: FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS! Fuck the most useful word in the English Dictionary!

Harris, I'm still waiting for your reply to my (I hope) courteous answer to the OP.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I'm a bit late on this thread as I don't post here very often. But I'll try to give you a picture of where physics stands on this issue.

You are right on the target and catch my idea exactly. For me space is not NOTHINGNESS. It has properties and if something has properties it is counted as an existing object. Have look on few quotes below.


Kant, Science, and Human Nature
By Robert Hanna

Chapter 3
Manifest Realism I: A Critique of Scientific Essentialism
Page 141
(1) Some knowable things (whether individual material entities, natural kinds, events, processes, or forces) exist in objectively real physical space and not merely in consciousness.

The Philosophy of Vacuum
Edited by:
Simon Saunders and Harvey R. Brown

Page 1 Introduction by Simon Saunders
As for space, Aristotle used the word topos, ‘place’ or ‘container’ – a continuous, finite receptacle which persists through change and which is ‘separable’ from matter.


Page 13 On the Ether by Albert Einstein
Instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well speak of physical qualities of space.


Page 23 The Mass of the Classical Vacuum
By: R. Penrose
Think now of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field. As Maxwell himself clearly pointed out (1865, 1873), this fieldcarriesenergy. Thus, by E=MC2, the field must also have mass. Thus, Maxwell’s field is also matter! ----- If there are many continuous media present (e.g. quantum field descriptions of particles), then we have an energy density, and hence a corresponding tensor, for each one.


Page 221
Descartes, for example, reminded us that in common speech ‘the term empty usually means, not a place where there is no object at all but simply a place where there is no object such we think there outhgt to be’. He gives the example of a water jug which is called empty if it contains no water; but, of course, it doescontain air. He goes on to remind us ‘that a space containing nothing sensible is ‘empty’ even if it is full of created and self-subsistent matter’. Maxwell (1954) sums up this positoin rather aptly: ‘the vacuum is that which is left in a vessel after we have removed everything which we can remove from it’ (see smart 1964).


Kant gives the example of a body. If we remove the colour, hardness, softness, weight, impenetrability and so on, there still, according to Kant, remains the space which the body ‘now entirely vanished’ occupied. It is this space which is a priori; we cannot be rid of it. In this sense, every experience will ‘force concepts of permanence upon us’.


All above quotes, (I can give many others); I gave to support my idea that Space-Vacuum is not “Nothingness” rather it is “Emptyness” that has attributes and these attributes we use for its identification.
There another riddle hidden in origin of universe as well:

1. Does Big Bang happened in space or
2. Space originated inside Big Bang[/quote]

Anyway, right now this is not the topic of my question.

So, after proving that space is not “NOTHINGNESS” now the question remains unanswered, what exactly is nothingness?

NOTHINGNESS is an identity just like SPACE is an identity. However, to what this NOTHINGNESS is pointing. If this NOTHINGNESS has existence, at least in form of word/language, it should points to something or some idea. Would you like to put some light over NOTHINGNESS. This is an interesting point that I am keen to learn from you. You are an atheist who doesn’t believe in the existence of God. In your opinion, what can be the substitution of God? If there is no God then there should be NOTHINGNESS. So what do you think of this NOTHINGNESS?

Kayenneh, could you or one of the mods fix Harris' quote tags please?


Or better still Harris can you please learn to use the quote tags?

(May 7, 2013 at 6:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Kayenneh, could you or one of the mods fix Harris' quote tags please?

Anything for you, love!

Quote:Or better still Harris can you please learn to use the quote tags?

I did, twice, and he's doing a lot better already. Just give him some time

---

(May 7, 2013 at 6:43 am)Harris Wrote: Anyway, right now this is not the topic of my question.

So, after proving that space is not “NOTHINGNESS” now the question remains unanswered, what exactly is nothingness?

NOTHINGNESS is an identity just like SPACE is an identity. However, to what this NOTHINGNESS is pointing. If this NOTHINGNESS has existence, at least in form of word/language, it should points to something or some idea. Would you like to put some light over NOTHINGNESS. This is an interesting point that I am keen to learn from you. You are an atheist who doesn’t believe in the existence of God. In your opinion, what can be the substitution of God? If there is no God then there should be NOTHINGNESS. So what do you think of this NOTHINGNESS?

Caps lock is not your friend.

To further the discussion, you might want to try to define your own concepts, so that it will be easier for anyone willing to answer, to know what you're going after. Just a thought.

(May 7, 2013 at 6:49 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 6:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Kayenneh, could you or one of the mods fix Harris' quote tags please?

Anything for you, love!

Quote:Or better still Harris can you please learn to use the quote tags?

I did, twice, and he's doing a lot better already. Just give him some time

You are an angel! Thank you; it still will need some deciphering but is much easier to read now.

(May 7, 2013 at 6:43 am)Harris Wrote: Page 23 The Mass of the Classical Vacuum
By: R. Penrose
Think now of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field. As Maxwell himself clearly pointed out (1865, 1873), this fieldcarriesenergy. Thus, by E=MC2, the field must also have mass. Thus, Maxwell’s field is also matter! ----- If there are many continuous media present (e.g. quantum field descriptions of particles), then we have an energy density, and hence a corresponding tensor, for each one.

Had to stop reading here....
E = mc^2
That 'm' in the formula is a very special 'm'.
It is the relativistic mass, which can be written as:
m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

and m0 is the mass at rest, v is the present velocity of said mass and c is the speed of light in vacuum.
When v = c, as is the case of an electromagnetic wave, you get something nasty....m = m0 / 0 -> ∞

So saying that light has mass is just showing that you don't understand the basics of special relativity.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Observation: the Universe is spreading more or less homogeneously (That means at the same speed in every direction).
Since it is spreading, then, if we turn the clock backwards, it will come together.... closer and closer until it is at one single point in the space-time continuum.
What happens after that one point? we don't know. No one knows. We may speculate, the human mind is great at speculating...

.One option is an entity from some different dimensionality, that simply created a 3+1D drawing.
.Another option is that the space-time continuum is infinite and present zero average energy, but some quantum fluctuations bring forth a few virtual particles here and there and, on occasion, these come together and generate real particles. For each particle, a suitable anti-particle is generated also, so the net energy content is ZERO. The infinity of space-time makes it possible that a location exists where too many of these real particles are generated, thus yielding a Universe.
.Another option is.... lots of Universes.
.Another option is... we're inside the matrix.
.
.
.

Any guess is as good as any other, as long as we're aware that they're only guesses.

The trouble starts when some people claim they have the answer, but have nothing to support it, and push that answer onto other people as if it was the magic bullet. And harm those people who do not accept that answer.

I respect your Sentiments and trust me I am not here to push you or anyone to a magic bullet. I have many debates with theist minded people (I am one of them) and heard their ideas on different topics. Atheist minds I have not touched yet and it is my curiosity to learn how their minds work without the support of God idea.

Coming to your explanation, the options that you have proposed are somewhat irrelevant to my question. I agree that no one knows what happened before Big Bang in terms of science but my questioned about NOTHINGNESS is about rational understanding rather empirical kind.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 4:26 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Harris/ Poe or what ever you think you are.

You have been given multiple answers to research regarding the current hypotheses concerning the beginning of the universe as we know it. It is up to you to research that information for yourself and realise that you would have to have the understanding of a Physics Phd to get anything like a "complete" hypothesis.

You obviously did not do any research prior to posting on this forum as evidenced by your OP and continual derision of the members here.

No you are a Poe or a troll and I am doubting very much that you are muslim.

You have your answers.... now goodbye

I am not expecting a lecture on physics here. For that, I have much better resources then this forum. On the forums as I understand, people only communicate their ideas and they say their opinions only. I have entered into this forum with this kind of understanding. Anyway, it’s a very unique experience I am getting from you guys and I think I won’t get this kind of experience anywhere in the world and for that I value this forum. I am surprised you think I am not a Muslim.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 2:05 am)apophenia Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Harris Wrote: Honestly, with the possible exception of Rayaan, I've yet to meet a single Muslim on this forum who wasn't a complete and total fucktard. These Muslims make Christians like GC look like Rhodes scholars.

And for what it's worth, I didn't feel humiliated by your OP, I felt insulted and offended, and a bit outraged. You're just another culturally insensitive bigot, here to tell us how your bigotry is justified and well-founded. That's certainly something we've never seen before. I think you caught us by surprise on that one.

Look at my post and responses open-minded. Don’t be conservative. Its not me who had showed extreme attitude so far. Because you guys have a formula “look at Muslim not as man but animal” and this hinders you to look what is correct and what is wrong. I ask you to go all over my responses with a cool mind and try to analyse how I have responded to all of yours attacks.

---

You haven't proven yourself worthy of anything more than ridicule and dismissal. Try being decent and maybe you will receive a more positive response. And clearly, you don't know what abuse is.
[/quote]


To be Frank with you I am not trying to prove anything and I am not begging respect from you and I am not in a mood to teach you what is respect. After receiving tons of abuses I know exactly what is an abuse that is originated for the purpose of fun making. You have the wrong idea about me.

(May 7, 2013 at 6:16 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 9:35 pm)apophenia Wrote: Do you think that a learned and literate person would want to have a polite discussion with you after your opening salvo? If so, I'm of the opinion that either your judgement or social skills are defective.

Well, since my social skills are crap, I didn't feel anything negative towards the OP... it was just an observation... not a very accurate one, but there are some threads where it fits quite nicely.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 12:05 am)Dragonetti Wrote: FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS! Fuck the most useful word in the English Dictionary!

How I can talk with you when you don't know anything other than FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS! Fuck the most useful word in the English Dictionary

---

(May 7, 2013 at 5:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Harris Wrote:Is there any atheist in the world who can explain what exactly is “NOTHINGNESS or NIHILISM?”

If it could be explained and given a certain portrait, then it would cease to be "nothingness" and start being *something*.

Can I take your words for NOTHINGNESS don't exist?

---

(May 7, 2013 at 5:34 am)Ryantology Wrote: Atheists may have a tendency to use colorful profanity when we disagree with others. Muslim havr a tendency to use homemade explosives when they disagree with others, in accordance with Muslim teaching. I am not sure what makes us worse.r

I do not believe the universe came from nothing. I think i don't know what started it. I am sure you don't know any more about it than I do. I am just not stupid enough to think that ancient books inspired by the mad and superstitious ramblings of illiterate ignorants is where the answers to such profound questions lie.

Did I say you are worse than others? Why you are conscious for that? If you think you are not worse then why bother about this.

Make idea of my question was NOTHINGNESS and not the beginning of universe. You are correct I also don't know much about the beginning of universe.

(May 7, 2013 at 8:27 am)Harris Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 6:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Well, since my social skills are crap, I didn't feel anything negative towards the OP... it was just an observation... not a very accurate one, but there are some threads where it fits quite nicely.

---

How I can talk with you when you don't know anything other than FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS! Fuck the most useful word in the English Dictionary

---

If it could be explained and given a certain portrait, then it would cease to be "nothingness" and start being *something*.

Can I take your words for NOTHINGNESS don't exist?

You apparently only focus on those words. This is the freedom of expression. You are too conservtitive to notice anything else.

Empty space is quiet complex and has properties of itself. Nothingness you are proclaiming does not exist. Read some Lawrence Krauss or Steven Hawking for answer. This is an atheist forum, not a physics forum.

Since you just focus on what you consider valguar words, is sad. Remember you started being offensive and valguar at the beignning.

(May 6, 2013 at 11:51 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm)Harris Wrote: 3. Disrespect is what atheism is all about

Humanity as a whole is about disrespect. Respect should never be freely given, but conscientiously earned. With an obviously disrespectful first original post as one's first post on this forum, you do not deserve respect from anyone here, Harris.

I think respect starts from home among the beloved ones. Then it spread among friends and relatives whom we love. Then it is spread among social community members. If in the foundation of respect there is some problem say you don't want to respect someone but you want respect from everyone of course in that case you are 100% correct in what you have stated above.