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.

[Whateverist]

Your logic above hinges on turning that lack of belief into a positive belief, then attempting to assault that position. But it isn't. Co-incidentally, you don't get to make "nothing can come from nothing" as a law, not unless you can come up with the force which created God

The question, “Who created God?” initiates infinite regressive series of questions about infinite number of gods. That simply means there is no universe and you know that is not true. Because universe exists, therefore, the question “who caused God?” is wrong. God is the uncaused Being Who caused everything else. If human mind do not grasp the idea of timeless God it is because human life is a captive of aging process.

As I recall it wasn't Jacob who initiated the infinite regress. You did that. It is you who are trying to profit here from the question of origins, something about which none of us knows the full and true story.

It is better to say, from our shared ignorance no necessary conclusions may follow. You haven't established a basis for a necessary god and I see no basis for establishing the impossibility of such a thing. Ignorance is ignorance. Lets leave it at that until we actually have something to talk about.

---

If you are convinced that there indeed a necessary thinking being who is the Grand Designer then I would be in position to talk about the known qualities of God.

I thought you said that god's "forever outside observational reach"? How can you be in the position to talk about the known qualities of something which is, by your own definition, fundamentally unknowable?

^This.^

[abaris]

The question, “Who created God?” initiates infinite regressive series of questions about infinite number of gods. That simply means there is no universe and you know that is not true. Because universe exists, therefore, the question “who caused God?” is wrong. God is the uncaused Being Who caused everything else. If human mind do not grasp the idea of timeless God it is because human life is a captive of aging process.

Or it's rather the art of your evasiveness that makes you believe in a timeless god that caused everything. If he caused everything, he basically was sitting in a timeless void before he decided to create something. Sounds pretty boring for starters. And, oh yes, somehow this timeless being in a void has a bodily form, since there's that religious dogma of being created in his image.

[Ravenshire]

Most Harrises are unaware of the popular quarrel between theists and atheists concerning the existence of god.

Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: Prove it.

Usually my response is:
"Evidence or shut the fuck up."

---

Most Harrises are unaware of the popular quarrel between theists and atheists concerning the existence of god.

Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: Prove it.

The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Well, how disingenuous.

You do know that most of us do not make the claim "there is no god." don't you?

---

---

---

Thanks for the video. See how a theist philosopher responded to an atheist physicist who had used metaphysical question “Why there is something rather than nothing” to prove physical world out of nothingness.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing

William Lane Craig?!? Fucking really? That fraud is the best you can counter with? What's his degree in again? Bring an honest to reason theoretical physicist to the table, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm going to just point and laugh.

[Sarcasm]

So i arrived a bit late...but it seems like this whole thread is a continuous circle of comments so far

[Harris]

Why are you quoting the Quran at me? I said if there is "a god", what difference does it make? Are you just switching in your God and hoping I won't notice?

Do you think nature (that originated you in first place) is obliged to provide all conditions for your existence and comfort? Well, congratulations! This is exactly what nature is doing.

Does the nature that gave you the intelligence, not even deserves little bit of your pondering.

Are you indifferent to nature?

Relying on your own efforts is selfishness and arrogance that comes from erroneous views of self. Rather than indulge in egoistic fantasies, you ought to rely on the Mercy, Power, and Grace of God Who has created this nature and fine-tuned it for your conscious existence.

If you think, I had not provided enough logical evidences for the existence of God then try to counter-argue Fine-Tuning argument.

After giving my reasoning when I quote verse/s from Quran, the main purpose is to highlight how simply and concisely Quranic verses deliver profound logical facts.

Secondly, when I quote from Quran that is to show that no attribute of human nature is such that Quran has not encompassed.

Oh! Yeah, you're right, whoops. Is Harris a muslim then? Or is he trying to put me off Islam?

More about "paying gratitude", but no mention of how I actually do that.

I have quoted some verses from Quran especially to demonstration how to pay gratitude to God. But because those verses are from Quran and you think Quran is a fairy tale therefore you had not given any importance to them no matter how profound logical facts those verses manifested.

“Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up by them?”
Muhammad (47)
-Verse 24-

There could be some debate about what is actually effecting reality, the brain vs the mind, but that debate is really besides the point because as I said it isn't just the fact that god would be outside of space and be non physical and effecting physical things it's the concept of him also being outside of time.

True, God is outside of time because He is not the physical stuff.

My mind isn't outside of time and space, it flows through time and my mind reacts with physical things within space like you said, if I drink a bottle of scotch my mind is effected.

What motivates you to think that your mind exists in time and not outside of time? Although, your mind and body coexist and influence each other directly yet they are entirely distinct realms. You cannot define sense by means of physical properties.

To measure time, matter is the crucial part. Whether that matter is quantum particles, pulsars, or your own body, without matter, no one can measure time.

Mind is not matter. You cannot apply physical laws (including time) on something, which has no dimensions and no physical properties.

God is outside of time outside of space and not effected by anything physical yet somehow manages to tell angels to tell a human about some statements he wants him to recite to his friends in order for them to write down.

You are confused because you are treating mind as the function of brain. In other words, you are trying to give physical properties to the mind, which is incorrect. Take a radical approach and think that mind is not the function of brain rather mind use brain to translate interactions between physical body and the physical world into senses and based on those primal senses it generates feelings, knowledge, logic, and emotions.

In my previous response, I made it clear that mind-body relation is not one sided. Physical body also influence immaterial mind. You have wrong impression that human physical deeds have no effect on God. God had given certain level of freedom to us and our actions based on our limited free choices can make God happy or displease.

“If ye reject (Allah), Truly Allah hath no need of you; but He liketh not ingratitude from His servants: if ye are grateful, He is pleased with you. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. In the end, to your Lord is your Return, when He will tell you the truth of all that ye did (in this life) for He knoweth well all that is in (men's) hearts.”
Az-Zumar (39)
-Verse 7-

From Quran it is obvious that how God willed, that way he conveyed His messages to His prophets. To some He gave inspiration, to some He sent angles, and with some, He talked directly.

We have a great example of Prophet Moses with whom Allah talked directly and showed him the real reflection of His Being.

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, he said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe."”
Al A'raf (7)
-Verse 143-

And I don't necessarily think that god is unreal, the only claim I'm making is that I don't understand enough about time and space to make a positive judgement about that topic and using god as a solution to a problem I don't understand seems illogical to me.

The basics of that kind of logic is that there's a process you don't understand so all you have to do to solve that issue is imagine there's a being who can do anything, be anywhere, exist without physically existing, think without having any time to think, exist forever, and that's basically the problem solved.

You should read Quran with an intention to understand it rather than to find faults in it. I am hopeful it will clear your misconceptions about it and after reading it, you will not look at Quran as god of the gaps.

It's basically a more extreme version of how people said aliens built pyramids because of a lack of understanding as to how they were built.

Wishful thinking is a belief of entirely irrational factors. For example, lucky guesses resulting from wishful thinking is not knowledge. All wishful thinking is by its nature illusory. Thus, a central question in epistemology is what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge?

You should make distinction between pure conjecture and an educated guess centred on logically interconnected facts.

Nature and function of the simple concepts serve as the building blocks for the logical construction of true propositions. It is easy to construct ideas and mathematical equations by looking at repeated patterns and harmonized associations between different phenomenon in nature and in universe.

We believe in the existence of black holes and extra dimensions because we have constructed true logical schemes from accessible patterns and sequences in the universe although black holes and extra dimensions are out of our observational reach. With respect to unobservable phenomenon, the intuitive beliefs become prominent from the logical construction of true propositions. Such beliefs then become practical surrogate for knowledge.

Observe the objects and soon it become evident that every existence has a cause. So what is the cause of the universe?

Oops!

Just like there is no practical way to look into Black hole or into extra dimensions, there is no practical way by which anyone can peek beyond Big Bang. This is the point where people start making educated guesses and theories after theories start pouring one after another.

Professor Michio Kaku think that laws of physics did not arrive with the Big Bang. The appearance of matter did not start the clock of time. His interpretation of “nothing” tells, there was in short, “a before.” If he is right then there is an opportunity for a cause to have an effect after all.

There are then

“Inflationary theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
“Brane (membrane) Theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane
“Black hole theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
“Big Bounce theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

All of these ideas stray from the standard model of cosmology, which holds that everything emerged from nothing at the point of the Big Bang. In the last 10 – 15 years, cosmology has experienced a remarkable turnaround. From insisting that there was nothing at all before the Big bang (prof. Penrose), most researchers (including prof. Penrose) now concede that there must have been something. However, understanding what that something was and how it worked means that cosmologists have to give up many of their most priced certainties.

I have tried to make my emphasis on two points:

1. Intuitive Logic has the power to see in the unseen world and calculate things in the inaccessible dimensions with near accuracy
2. As soon as cosmologists find the cause of the universe that immediately opens the door to a new question “What is the cause of the cause of universe.”

How intelligible the universe is and how intelligible our bodies are that leads our thoughts only to one direction:

a. Nothing came out from nothing
b. Chance and accident cannot produce intelligence

No matter how you dislike God but your existence depends on the Will of God.

33: “O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! Not without authority shall ye be able to pass!”

34: Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?

Ar Rahmaan (55)
-Verse 33 – 34

Say I believe there is a god, and I'm thankful. That's enough right? Or do I have to go further and degrade myself by grovelling to him?

Compared to other religions, in Islam saying, “I believe” is not sufficient until your physical actions do not comply with your commitments. Only physical actions can manifest the true intentions of a person.

Belief in God comes from contemplating over nature. Sometime, calamity also helps but contemplation over wonders of the nature is above all.

Only think why we are highly intelligent beings but live for such a short time.

Do they not think deeply (in their ownselves) about themselves (how Allah created them from nothing, and similarly He will resurrect them)? Allah has created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, except with truth and for an appointed term. And indeed many of mankind deny the Meeting with their Lord.
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 8-


“(Here is) a Book (Quran) which We have sent down unto thee, full of blessings, that they may mediate on its Signs, and that men of understanding may receive admonition.”
Shaad (38)
-Verse 29-

I could thank him by leading a good life, but I do try and do that regardless.

First, read Quran and try to understand it with a neutral mind. Keep on reading and contemplating over its verses even if something seems to be unscientific. After sometime, you will feel that God is literally talking with you. Just try it.

If you pay thanks to God for your conscious existence because it was His intent and you try to live a life in accordance to the commandments of God then for sure that behaviour will bring you the benefits.

“Is there any reward for good other than good?”
Ar Rahmaan (55)
-Verse 60-

Just keep in mind that if you earn a mountain of gold you can never purchase ultimate satisfaction, perfect joy, and absolute knowledge with it in this infinitesimal life.

The sense of perfect satisfaction can only evolve by praising and giving thanks to God Who is the Owner of every single gene in your body.

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.

There never was “absolute nothingness” because if there was such a thing then right now you and I were not exchanging our thoughts here. “Absolute nothingness” can produce only nothing.

If you think that quantum vacuum is eternal then you should bring convincing theory to support your idea that conform to the norms of standard conventions in contemporary theoretical science.

Harris Wrote:
Here arises another question:
What is the origin of this ENERGY?

Pocaracas Wrote:
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.

Read the following quotes carefully.

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

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?

Initially, you have stated that “Natural phenomenon is mindless” and this natural phenomenon has constructed the brain and according to you, there resides mind and extremely complex processing (the consciousness).

If you say you are the product of blind, mindless, and unguided process then why should I believe in any of your word or what makes you confident in your own actions.

If I find something mindless, blind, and unguided then my first priority would be to keep myself away from it.

Again... not exactly related to the quote... but heck.
There you go with a why question again...

“Why …?” comes from “who said I’m not aware of what life is?”

Why should we, with our brain capacity not take conscious decisions?

In place of answer, I received a question.

Fortunately, I do not have any problem in making my conscious decisions therefore do not include me in the “we” of your question.

If you have trouble in making conscious decisions then I suggest you should consult a good psychiatrist.

My body remains lively through feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage... and... sleeping

Is life responsible for your feeding and breathing or feeding and breathing keep you alive? If feeding and breathing, keep you alive does that mean with the infinite supplies of food and other necessities you can be immortal!

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

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

Can you define “cessation” and its cause?

Harris Wrote:
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.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Make sense man. What do you mean?

Sense is the relation of experiences to objects, to language and to the perceiving self or subject. In addition to the five types of senses, sense is also identified as “mental perception” (as of pleasures, pains and desires) and apperception (awareness of awareness).

I repeat my question, What is pain. What is Pleasure? What is sadness? What is delight? …“What actually SENSE is?”

-tastings and seeings: sensory input.

I have not asked you about the mechanics of sensory input. I have asked you, “what sense experience is?”

Harris Wrote: -bodily-sensational experiences, such as those of pains, tickles and itches:

Pocaracas Wrote:
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.

I am asking you what is the program that your computer is running, who design that program, how efficient it is and in response, you are trying to explain the mechanical structure of CPU and how it functions.

-imaginative experiences, such as those of one’s own actions or perceptions: Fiction.

Do you really think your actions and perceptions are nothing but Fictions?

Harris Wrote:
- streams of thought, as in the experience of thinking ‘in words’ or ‘in images’:

Pocaracas Wrote:
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.

Brain does not work like your desktop computer. The first step to a more accurate understanding of memory is to realize the following:

There really is no single thing called memory. It is not a thing at all. Remembering is a set of cognitive processes that occur within the biological matter of our brains.

Memory (remembering) is activating anytime some effect of past experience that influence the way you think or behave now or in the future. Memory preserve experiences over time. So remembering systems are the vehicles for transporting the effects of experiences over time.

The function of a neuron is to receive INPUT "information" from neurons, to process that information, then to send "information" as OUTPUT to other neurons. In other words, each neuron has its own mind that analyses the received information, based on that information take certain decision, and fire a unique set of signals to other neurons. In this sense, each neuron is a conscious being.

According to best estimates, there are around 200 billion neurons in the brain alone. And as each of these neurons is connected to between 5,000 and 200,000 other neurons, the number of ways that information flows among neurons in the brain is so large, it is greater than the number stars in the entire universe! Each neuron has power to interpret, decide, and act. Think of it as if 200 billion conscious beings are communicating with each other simultaneously within our brain.

But questions remain unsolved. What is conscious experience itself? Consciousness whether at the level of neuron or at the level of whole brain is a puzzle for philosophers and scientists alike. Not only neurons but also every single blood cell is a conscious being.

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.

Melatonin.

If you think, you know what sleep is then here is a challenge for you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-n...ld-n260021

Harris Wrote:
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).

Pocaracas Wrote:
Like all physical laws...

Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

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

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

So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

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

Pocaracas Wrote:
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!

Krauss is not a philosopher and he may not understand the difference between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter and it is not “Absolute Nothingness”

If Krauss emphasising that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” rather it is eternal then he should not build his conclusions on speculative ideas rather as a physicist he should come up with some elegant scientific theory, which can clearly demonstrate that quantum vacuum is eternal.

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.

I am not the one who is pulling out mystical concepts like “natural selection” which has no foot and no head or quantum this and quantum that. Many scientists are not sure about the accuracy of these theories, including those who have designed them.

“The bottom line is that we have no clear idea how to describe the entire mathematical structure of String Theory or what building blocks, if any, will win the title of “most fundamental.””

“Epilogue”
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind

You guys are pulling out these hazy ideas to confuse the minds of lay people in order to divert their attentions from the concept of God.

I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

As I recall it wasn't Jacob who initiated the infinite regress. You did that. It is you who are trying to profit here from the question of origins, something about which none of us knows the full and true story.

Jacob(smooth) has raised the question:

“…unless you can come up with the force which created God” and in response I started the infinite regress.

It is better to say, from our shared ignorance no necessary conclusions may follow. You haven't established a basis for a necessary god and I see no basis for establishing the impossibility of such a thing. Ignorance is ignorance. Lets leave it at that until we actually have something to talk about.

Did you or anyone has disproved the fine-tuning argument?

“… the special properties of the physical universe are so surprisingly fine-tuned that they demand explanation.”

Preface
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind


“… we really do have a big problem to explain in the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants.”

Page 142
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins


"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Page 125
A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking


Fred Hoyle was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fred Hoyle
"The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,"
Engineering and Science,
November 1981

Or it's rather the art of your evasiveness that makes you believe in a timeless god that caused everything. If he caused everything, he basically was sitting in a timeless void before he decided to create something. Sounds pretty boring for starters.

What do you think whether Time started at the Big Bang or Big Bang happened in time?

And, oh yes, somehow this timeless being in a void has a bodily form, since there's that religious dogma of being created in his image.

Quran is clear about the personality of God:

"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."
Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verse 4-

God is immaterial. Immaterial things cannot have physical properties in any sense.

"When I (Allah) have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him (Adam) of My spirit, fall ye (Angles) down in obeisance unto him."
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 29-

This verse signifies that God has given some of His qualities to man like happiness, anger, etc. “Man is made in the image of God” does not mean that man has the appearance of immaterial God.

You do know that most of us do not make the claim "there is no god." don't you?

If you are not making a claim “there is no god” then what are you claiming as being atheist?

William Lane Craig?!? Fucking really? That fraud is the best you can counter with? What's his degree in again? Bring an honest to reason theoretical physicist to the table, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm going to just point and laugh.

I am not a fan of WLC but in his commentary on the book “A Universe From Nothing,” he has raised some strong logical points and you should listen to that.

I found some contradicting statements in Krauss’ book “A Universe From Nothing.”

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Krauss is not a philosopher and perhaps cannot make distinction between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter yet it has properties.

If Krauss is saying that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” then he is trying to prove, Quantum Vacuum is eternal. If so, did he propose any reasonable theory for that?

[robvalue]

So I should do what it says in a 2000 year old book because you think there's a tiny correlation between that book and reality? Or am I to believe you that it's all true, because you say so?

Why is God suddenly Allah and not any of the other infinity of possible gods? How did you rule out an infinity?

And for the last time...

Being an atheist is (by default) making no claims at all. No claims. Not a single one.

Do you really not know that yet? How long have you been on this forum?

[Mudhammam]

main purpose is to highlight how simply and concisely Quranic verses deliver profound logical facts

Does Harris get paid to write jokes? This stuff is great.

[robvalue]

I can write profound logical facts too.

~(a^b) = (~a)\/(~b)

(pi^2)/6 = sum[n=1 ... Infinity] (1/(n^2))

For all real k there exists r such that Sum[n=1 ... r] (1/n) > k

Robvalue is God



There we go. 3 logical facts way more profound than anything in the quran I think you'll agree. So it must all be true, and I am God.

Do you want my email so you can PayPal me your gratitude for your existence?

[Faith No More]

That gigantic post raped my scrollbar.