Proof of God

[pocaracas]

What if nothing has a beginning?
You ever thought of that?

We cannot reason inductively about nothingness since we have no instances with which to start.

Yeah... it's so great when I get misunderstood... -.-'

I didn't ask if whatever you want "nothing" to be had a beginning.... I asked if nothing of what exists ever had a beginning. As in.... was always there, but just got transformed into different things.

Me... I'm a high-level object made of of many low-level objects. Sadly, the way they assemble to make me is ephemeral.

And no, matter is not eternal... but energy is... apparently.

Like Lavoisier said "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed".
Quantum vacuum does break this nice rule once in a while, though...

Quantum Field Theory
In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible ENERGY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Quantum Fluctuation
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of ENERGY in a point in space as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Thanks to E = MC^2 that has provided us a profound understanding that without ENERGY there would not be any matter in the universe.

I do not think ENERGY is equal to NOTHINGNESS and I do not think that any scientist think that ENERGY is NOTHINGNESS.

Here arises another question:

What is the origin of this ENERGY?

Maybe it was always there...
Maybe, as Krauss claims, the sum total of energy in the whole Universe is ZERO.... hence, there is no energy, on the whole.... but we do get positive and negative energy locally.

Harris Wrote:
You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!

Pocaracas Wrote:
Amusing how you cannot grasp the notion that highly complex high-level processing is what you call consciousness...

And it all goes on your brain.

Consciousness is:

a. Knowledge in general,
b. intentionality,
c. Introspection (and the knowledge it specifically generates) and
d. Phenomenal experience.

Which one of these topics has the element of mindlessness?

I fail to see how that follows from what you quoted me saying... but fine...
As far as I'm aware, you need a brain to have a mind and consciousness.
If consciousness requires a mind, then how can mindlessness be an element in consciousness?

1. who said I'm not aware of what life is?

Why we take conscious decisions? What keeps our bodies lively?

Again... not exactly related to the quote... but heck.
There you go with a why question again... why should we, with our brain capacity not take conscious decisions?
My body remains lively through feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage... and... sleeping

2. Who said I'm not aware of what death is?

Only dead can tell what death is and I think you are still alive.

Be not so sure...
Death is, to put it simply, the cessation of an individual's life.

3. I know very well what a sensory input is.

Perhaps you know the mechanics of sensory system and I do not argue on that but can you or anyone interpret what actually SENSE is.

Make sense man. What do you mean?

4. I'm quite aware of what consciousness is.

Wow! I am keen to hear about that.

Please explain what experiences are, such as tastings and seeing; bodily-sensational experiences, such as those of pains, tickles and itches; imaginative experiences, such as those of one’s own actions or perceptions; and streams of thought, as in the experience of thinking ‘in words’ or ‘in images’.

-tastings and seeings: sensory input.
-bodily-sensational experiences, such as those of pains, tickles and itches: unconscious reaction to particular types of sensory input. Pain can represent damage on your body; tickles seem related to erogenous zones; itches are a mild form of pain.
-imaginative experiences, such as those of one’s own actions or perceptions: Fiction.
- streams of thought, as in the experience of thinking ‘in words’ or ‘in images’: recollection, mix and match of different memories forming those streams....
If you want an account of how single neurons connected to other neurons in some particular pattern... contemplating millions and millions of neurons working in tandem... give rise to those thoughts... then I cannot give you that... it's way too complex.

5. I know why I sleep... if you don't know why you sleep, then maybe you should try sleep deprivation for a week or two.

Science has no definition for sleep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/s...leep.shtml

Melatonin.

6. Gravity is a force exerted on all matter and by all matter, proportional to the amount of matter and inversely proportional to the distance between the two pieces of matter.

Do not overlook the fact that the law of gravity is based only on experience.

“Gravity must be Caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to the consideration of my readers”
(Newton’s Letter to Bentley 25 February 1692).

Like all physical laws...

7. The known universe is finite. The unknown universe could be many things and infinite is one of them... who knows?

My question was “Is the universe finite or infinite?” and
Your answer is “Who knows?”

Do you know?
Do you know of anyone who knows?
I don't know and I fail to realize how anyone could know.

Harris Wrote:
You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

pocaracas Wrote:
Why do you was a "why" question?
Don't you think you're intentionally poisoning the well?

"Why" presupposes some sort of reasoning behind the fact. If the chain of events leading to there being matter was mindless, then no reason can be invoked and the "why" becomes moot...

I admit it's common for human language to ask a "why" question when they mean to ask a "how" question... is this what you're doing?

The "how" refers you back to the present state-of-the-art theory on this: quantum vacuum. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it needs a lot of tweaking to be right, maybe it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by something far better... But, nowadays, it's the best we have.

Let us first analyse “present state-of-the-art theory: the fabulous Quantum Vacuum.”

If you bring Quantum Vacuum to describe origin of universe out of nothing then you or anyone who supports this idea is a deluded person.

Quantum Vacuum has PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and so it is not NOTHINGNESS.

No way!!!!!
Krauss' nothing is not really nothing?!!?
No shit, Sherlock!?!!

That's the whole basis of the thing: the nothing you want to be prior to some god's creation of everything... that nothing was never there.... according to the theory.
The vacuum that has always been and is commonly thought of as nothing is, in fact, something.
That's the whole point and Krauss was pulling your leg when he called it nothing.. very well aware of all the crap that would flow from it!

Now come to the “Why” and “How” problem.

G.W.F. Leibniz rightly asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This question is rather an expression of wonderment that there is a world in the first place, when there could presumably quite easily have been nothing.

Leibniz’s question is based on the principle of sufficient reason:

“No fact can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence.”

No one lives as if the principle of sufficient reason is false. The principle presupposes the existence of reason. When one argues against the principle, he/she begins to question the existence of reason itself. The conundrum of using reason to argue against the existence of reason appears odd if not self-defeating. The intelligibility of physical reality appears to require the principle of sufficient reason.

If I were to tell you that if you walk in a straight line always forward, you'll come to the same point where you started, would you believe me?
A thousand years ago, you'd find it very hard, huh?
Today, you can even accept gravitational lensing effects where the fabric of space-time itself can get bent and moving in a straight line (like light would do) means moving in a curved line.
Physical reality isn't particularly simple, at it's core. And if even physicists find it difficult to wrap their minds around the theories, then how do you think lay-people will (and do) wrap their head around them? They can't, you can't. So don't misrepresent them with whatever is your god-biased version of the theory.