(August 19, 2014 at 4:56 am)Esquilax Wrote: If we're sitting in an eternity right now, that doesn't mean there was literally an infinite length of time in the past.

If you propose an eternity in the past then you would have had an eternity to come into being before now.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:01 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:56 am)Esquilax Wrote: If we're sitting in an eternity right now, that doesn't mean there was literally an infinite length of time in the past.

If you want to propose an infinite time of the universe then by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now.

And what about my second paragraph, where I explain to you that I'm proposing the opposite of that?

(August 19, 2014 at 4:56 am)Esquilax Wrote: the universe has always existed in that its beginning heralded the "start" of time

The time starting universe is the attribute of God who started time. Then compare which is the correct time starter. God created time as part of creation. We don't know why your universe started time.

Part of creation are people with self-consciousness like God has, but nature doesn't have, so how can the lesser be greater?

(August 19, 2014 at 5:06 am)revivin Wrote: The time starting universe is the attribute of God who started time. Then compare which is the correct time starter. God created time as part of creation. We don't know why your universe started time.

Since when does "we don't know" automatically mean "god did it"?

Quote: If you propose an eternity in the past then you would have had an eternity to come into being before now.

And on second thoughts, can I just ask you what the hell you mean by this? This is only an issue if you equate me as being some inevitability that was fated to happen, and not just something that happened eventually due to genetic chance. But to be clear, something being bound to happen because there's sufficient time for all eventualities, including it, to take place, does not mean that that thing must already have happened, and I don't know why you think it does.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:10 am)Esquilax Wrote: there's sufficient time for all eventualities

But if there was this alleged eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:06 am)revivin Wrote: The time starting universe is the attribute of God who started time. Then compare which is the correct time starter. God created time as part of creation. We don't know why your universe started time.

Argument from ignorance. Do you believe in ignorance? What we'd all like to see is evidence.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:13 am)stonedape Wrote: Argument from ignorance.

The evidence is we observe trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence of something from nothing. So it would be like you playing the lottery with odds less than 1 in a trillion.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:15 am)revivin Wrote: The evidence is we observe trillions of causes in nature and no hard evidence of something from nothing. So it would be like you playing the lottery with odds less than 1 in a trillion.

I understand that. But the likely hood of aliens existing is not proof that aliens exist.

(August 19, 2014 at 5:18 am)stonedape Wrote: I understand that. But the likely hood of aliens existing is not proof that aliens exist.

By my calculation there is 0% chance of aliens existing based on the evidence.

(August 19, 2014 at 1:07 am)revivin Wrote: An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.

Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.

The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to be explained because nothingness has no mechanics. If non-existence has no mechanics then it would be illogical to insist upon knowing the non-existent mechanics of nothingness. That would be like asking what is color of that distance?

This little exercise, if nothing else, shows the desperation of atheists by their twists and turns, but still remain delusional. Let me reiterate we have trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing. The atheist is hostile to God so it tries to circumvent this evidence.

Nothingness is a difficult concept for most people to grasp. The closest we have ever got to nothingness is the creation of what is called a quantum vacuum.

The quantum vacuum contains nothing but quantum particles popping in and out of existence, which seems to be the default state of nothingness (at least inside our Universe). But even if we set aside those quantum events nothingness still has properties, so it does have 'rules'.

Here's a little thought experiment to demonstrate what that means. Imagine a cube of nothingness 200 miles wide/long/high. Place yourself in the dead centre of that cube, what do you see - nothingness. So, you move 100 miles in any direction, what do you see now - nothingness. This demonstrates that nothingness has something we call translational symmetry (or invariance) in space.

OK, let's do something else. You decide this time not to move but to wait, so you wait 10 years, what do you see - nothingness. This demonstrates that nothingness has what we call translational symmetry (or invariance) in time.

Now you are back on Earth and you decide to conduct a desktop experiment, let's say you drop a lead weight and time its fall. If you conduct this experiment in London it will give you exactly the same results as if you did it in New York, so the laws of physics have translational symmetry in space - cool. You conduct your experiment again only this time you wait 10 years and unsurprisingly the results are the same, so the laws of physics have translational symmetry in time.

What you have just demonstrated is that nothingness has exactly the same fundamental properties as the laws of physics that apply to a material Universe. In essence, there needs to be no change in the laws of physics to get from a Universe full of nothingness to a Universe full of matter.

Amazing.

There is a lot more detailed I can go into in support of this, but suffice it to say, it does seem that theoretically, a Universe full of nothingness can give rise to a Universe full of matter without any changes to the fundamental 'rules' that underpin the Universe.

MM