442 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

You just described something that does not exist, in other words "nothing."  Then what you just described, you claim is not a valid concept!!!  I think you got it right and you were not talking gobbligoop.  It is a valid concept and the reason you could describe it proves it. 

 

The real issue is whether a becoming physical world can explain itself or if it needs a cause.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 November 2014 - 11:10 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Forget science. Forget God. This is the ultimate question: What if Everything had Forever been Nothing? Not just emptiness, not just blankness, but not even the existence of emptiness, not even the meaning of blankness, and no Forever. If you don't get dizzy, you really don't get it.  For some they simply don 't get it.  There has to be something that isn't becoming???  What is it?

[serp777]

You just described something that does not exist, in other words "nothing."  Then what you just described, you claim is not a valid concept!!!  I think you got it right and you were not talking gobbligoop.  It is a valid concept and the reason you could describe it proves it. 

 

The real issue is whether a becoming physical world can explain itself or if it needs a cause.

Well it's not my position that true nothing actually exists or is a valid concept, so of course I can describe it to point out a contradiction/paradoxes that show it to simply be the imagining of philosophers. Simply describing the contradictory nature of true nothing is hardly inconsistent with the fact that i've claimed it's an invalid concept.

 

Let me repeat: absolute nothing in the traditional sense is physical because of its quantifiable nature--NUMBER OF THINGS = 0. But if it has zero things then how can it have the property of having no things? And if you say it doesn't have the property that number of things = 0, then you're implying that it's unknown how many things it has. Unknown by itself is again another property however, thus making nothing = something, and therefore contradiction. 

 

In conclusion, an absolute nothing that is abstract and without properties is invalid since it leads into contradiction. 

 

Furthermore if nothing isn't a valid concept or possible reality that is feasible within nature, then there is no need for a cause  to explain why there is something rather than nothing--it would be like asking why is a square a square rather than a circle. It simply makes no sense.

[shadowhawk]

So is "0" nothing or physical something?  If it is physical how then is it nothing?  If nothing how then is it physical?

[serp777]

And now you're understanding why absolute nothing is inherently contradictory. The absence of things, or number of things = 0 is technically a physical somethingand therefore still something. It's a contradiction because what is described as nothing turns out to be something. It's a bad concept.

 

It is however a useful inaccurate shorthand. When you say there's nothing in the refrigerator, you really mean that the amount of food in the fridge = 0. It's a physical, quantifiable measurement that you make by using your eyes. That is something.

[shadowhawk]

0 is not a physical nothing.  No thing is not physical.  Out of nothing, nothing comes.  I did not say nothing is contradictory.  The absence of everything is not something physical.  Non existence is not existence of anything.

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 December 2014 - 09:30 PM.

[serp777]

0 is not a physical nothing.  No thing is not physical.  Out of nothing, nothing comes.  I did not say nothing is contradictory.  The absence of everything is not something physical.  Non existence is not existence of anything.

 

0 is indeed often a physical concept. A superconductor has 0 resistivity. That means there is no resistance of electrons travel through the material. I can name a hundred other qunatities that 0 can be used a physical description.

 

"The absence of everything is not something physical."

 

Again that's like saying the absence of resistance in a superconductor is not something physical. That would be wrong of course.

 

"Out of nothing, nothing comes"

This doesn't even make sense.

 

"Non existence is not existence of anything."

That's not my argument. Absolute non existence doesn't exist and is a flawed concept in my submission

[shadowhawk]

Absolute non existence is a rational concept unless you are doing what you are doing, insisting it has to be physical and something.  Tell me what is the problem with physical non existence?  I know why an atheist needs something physical to be there and call it nothing.  Why do you need to redefine nothing as something physical?

 

Nothing produces nothing but it has to for an atheist.  It can't really be nothing.  Physical existence changes, that is a characteristic.  Physical existence begins but there is something it comes from and that is not nothing. Nothing produces nothing.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 December 2014 - 02:28 AM.

[serp777]

Actually God also requires nothing to be physical, and therefore contradictory. You;re still left with the question of "Why is there God instead of nothing"

 

Religion doesn't solve this question at all. Arguing that nothing is an irrational philosophical imagining is most consistent with reality and the best explanation for why there is something instead of nothing.

 

"Physical existence begins"

Not if it's something thats physical and eternal, like the infinite multiverse with infinite inflation.

 

Or a dimension that doesn't depend on time is also eternal and doesn't begin to exist because there was no causation because no time existed. Either way you need to prove this statement that something physical has to begin.

Edited by serp777, 09 December 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You are bringing religion into the question.  Nothing is a question about the physical.

[serp777]

You are bringing religion into the question.  Nothing is a question about the physical.

 

Lol wow hypocrisy. I only brought up God because you said "An athiest needs nothing to be physical."

 

So I simply implied that a theist needs it just as much.

[shadowhawk]

HARDLY.  Nothing is nothing physical.  Nothing is something "physical," as you have said many times. 

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, you should have been a boxer.  You have an uncanny ability to side-step, dodge, and duck.

Quite simply:  Where did your god come from?  If there truly was absolute nothingness at one time (no space, no time, no energy, no laws of nature), then how could a god arise?

[shadowhawk]

When  you ask the question where did your God come from you are asking a physical question. Anything of a physical nature is caused, or begins to exist.  It comes from someplace.  Space. time energy ect. are all contingent on something else.  God did not arise or begin.  But we are off subject I suspect and someone might complain.

[serp777]

When  you ask the question where did your God come from you are asking a physical question. Anything of a physical nature is caused, or begins to exist.  It comes from someplace.  Space. time energy ect. are all contingent on something else.  God did not arise or begin.  But we are off subject I suspect and someone might complain.

 

So the the point is that nothing didn't and couldn't exist because God would always be there. So you're basically giving my argument, which is that the question of why there would be God instead of nothing is a bad question and purely a philosophical imagining. Similarly the question of why there would be something instead of nothing is an equally bad question.

 

Also you're the one who initially brought up God by referring to athiests.

 

". Anything of a physical nature is caused, or begins to exist.  It comes from someplace.  Space. time energy ect."

 

An ultra mega assertion of the highest kind. Perhaps you have some proof or experiment that can demonstrate this? This would require you to know everything of a physical nature. You would also have to disprove the possibility of an eternal multiverse that is timeless.

Edited by serp777, 10 December 2014 - 08:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It is not a bad question because everything physical which is not nothing, becomes or begins.  Why?  We are not talkikng about God which some people seem not able to handle.  The multiverse does not answer the question either.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 December 2014 - 09:08 PM.

[serp777]

It is not a bad question because everything physical which is not nothing, becomes or begins.  Why?  We are not talkikng about God which some people seem not able to handle.  The multiverse does not answer the question either.

 

"everything physical which is not nothing, becomes or begins.  Why?"

 

No it doesn't. You've made an assertion without evidence. Please prove that everything physical becomes or begins. I'm waiting for the math or the physics or the experiment.

 

If there is an eternal multiverse then it was always in existence, so it answers the question perfectly- the eternal universe has no cause and never began.

 

"We are not talkikng about God which some people seem not able to handle."

Then why did you bring up atheists?

Edited by serp777, 10 December 2014 - 09:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Because

1.  Things that begin, are caused.

2.  The cosmos begin.

3.  The cosmos is caused.

[serp777]

Because

1.  Things that begin, are caused.

2.  The cosmos begin.

3.  The cosmos is caused.

 

Easily countered
1. Things that don't begin are not caused.

2. Somethings don't begin.

3. Something aren't caused.

 

The multiverse also =/= the cosmos. Your argument is certainly not proof that everything physical needs to begin. I asked for proof that all things need to begin or to be caused.

Edited by serp777, 10 December 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Mu argument is that everything physical is caused and does begun.  Name me something physical that does not begin.  You are partly right but lets not get religious as you are doing.

1.  Things that don't begin are not caused.

2.  Some non physical things don't begin

3   Somethings are not caused.

 

So what do you think you have shown.

By the way, proof that if there is a multiverse, it is not caused.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 December 2014 - 10:45 PM.

[serp777]

Mu argument is that everything physical is caused and does begun.  Name me something physical that does not begin.  You are partly right but lets not get religious as you are doing.

1.  Things that don't begin are not caused.

2.  Some non physical things don't begin

3   Somethings are not caused.

 

So what do you think you have shown.

By the way, proof that if there is a multiverse, it is not caused.

"Mu argument is that everything physical is caused and does begun."

My argument is that you need proof of this.

I'm not the one making the claim--you're saying that there aren't any physical things that don't begin to exist and have no cause. I do not accept your assertion.

 

Its hardly religious, this is a scientific perspective. you made a claim about all things, and you have the burden of proof, which requires a mathematical conjecture or for you to be able to know what all things are. There are hypothetical objects which do not begin and are physical. You have, however, not shown they do not exist.

 

 

"Name me something physical that does not begin"

Well it depends on your definition of physical and begin, and your perspective. Photons of light do not experience time from their perspective according to relativity, and yet they do have a cause. They never began--they always were in their perspective. Yes you might think its confusing but that's how the universe work--often things in the universe don't make sense. Also it's possible that the laws of quantum mechanics don't begin if there is an eternal multiverse. 

 

"Just think about that idea. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either."

http://www.universet...xperience-time/

[shadowhawk]

The proof is everything you know of that is physical is caused and not self explanatory.   You have a fairy tale like this.

 

"Once upon a super-super long time ago, there was nothing. Not no-thing-nothing, but we'll say "nothing" as if it changes what that word has meant for millennia. Whatever it was, or wasn't, it was definitely not God. Certainly not God. This something-nothing huffed and puffed and blew the universe into existence! Out of not-nothing-but-not-God poofed an entire...something...from a not-nothing nothing. Or was that a something-not...Never mind.

Anyway…

So, the not-God-not-nothing-nothing exploded a universe that was super-perfect for life — like us — to exist. Even the teeniest, tiniest little change would mean no planets, no elements, no us! We're hoping...we mean, guessing...this was just good luck on the part of the nothing-something-blowing-in-ago-ness, but definitely not on purpose. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. Life is possible only by luck!

And then, another amazing thing happened. This universe "evolved" which, like "nothing" is a word we'll use to mean pretty much anything whether it makes any sense or not. Even more amazingly, this change had nothing controlling or guiding it! By, "nothing," this time, we mean a complex series of consistent, independent, inexplicable and finely tuned rules. So, not nothing-nothing, but more of that something-nothing. You know, I mean, rules-from-nowhere-for-no-reason. Except the rule about things getting less ordered over time...forget that one for now. It all came together to make galaxies and stars and planets. We don't know why or how, but we know it was definitely not designed. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. The not-guided-except-by-something-not-God-stuff self-made itself. Or was not-self-made...not into anything. Something? Never mind.

Anyway…

One little planet was not too far from a star, not too close to a star, but juuuust right so that complicated molecules could jiggle around and become even more complicated molecules and become reproducing organisms. We have no clue how this actually happened, but that doesn't stop us from being definitely, totally sure it involved absolutely no intelligence or design at all. We have fai— (ahem), confidence...confidence this moment or process or whatever was definitely not creation. Certainly not creation. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God.

Eventually, those organisms travelled through a magical journey of change and self-discovery to become...us! All without any meaning, purpose, reason, or guidance of any kind whatsoever! Which means you are...or, well...actually, it means you're just mindless matter reacting to physics, and everything you are or will be is going to come crashing down in obscurity and futility when the universe collapses. We know for sure, for sure that there is definitely no meaning to the universe. Certainly not meaning. Certainly not creation. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. But we can make our own meaning, whatever that means.

And that's the moral of the story! This magical tale, about which we actually know almost nothing, and can prove exactly nothing, explains everything — everything — I SAID EVERYTHING! about life and our universe. "

 

Proof that is all there is to it.

[serp777]

The proof is everything you know of that is physical is caused and not self explanatory.   You have a fairy tale like this.

 

"Once upon a super-super long time ago, there was nothing. Not no-thing-nothing, but we'll say "nothing" as if it changes what that word has meant for millennia. Whatever it was, or wasn't, it was definitely not God. Certainly not God. This something-nothing huffed and puffed and blew the universe into existence! Out of not-nothing-but-not-God poofed an entire...something...from a not-nothing nothing. Or was that a something-not...Never mind.

Anyway…

So, the not-God-not-nothing-nothing exploded a universe that was super-perfect for life — like us — to exist. Even the teeniest, tiniest little change would mean no planets, no elements, no us! We're hoping...we mean, guessing...this was just good luck on the part of the nothing-something-blowing-in-ago-ness, but definitely not on purpose. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. Life is possible only by luck!

And then, another amazing thing happened. This universe "evolved" which, like "nothing" is a word we'll use to mean pretty much anything whether it makes any sense or not. Even more amazingly, this change had nothing controlling or guiding it! By, "nothing," this time, we mean a complex series of consistent, independent, inexplicable and finely tuned rules. So, not nothing-nothing, but more of that something-nothing. You know, I mean, rules-from-nowhere-for-no-reason. Except the rule about things getting less ordered over time...forget that one for now. It all came together to make galaxies and stars and planets. We don't know why or how, but we know it was definitely not designed. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. The not-guided-except-by-something-not-God-stuff self-made itself. Or was not-self-made...not into anything. Something? Never mind.

Anyway…

One little planet was not too far from a star, not too close to a star, but juuuust right so that complicated molecules could jiggle around and become even more complicated molecules and become reproducing organisms. We have no clue how this actually happened, but that doesn't stop us from being definitely, totally sure it involved absolutely no intelligence or design at all. We have fai— (ahem), confidence...confidence this moment or process or whatever was definitely not creation. Certainly not creation. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God.

Eventually, those organisms travelled through a magical journey of change and self-discovery to become...us! All without any meaning, purpose, reason, or guidance of any kind whatsoever! Which means you are...or, well...actually, it means you're just mindless matter reacting to physics, and everything you are or will be is going to come crashing down in obscurity and futility when the universe collapses. We know for sure, for sure that there is definitely no meaning to the universe. Certainly not meaning. Certainly not creation. Certainly not designed. Certainly not on purpose. Certainly not God. But we can make our own meaning, whatever that means.

And that's the moral of the story! This magical tale, about which we actually know almost nothing, and can prove exactly nothing, explains everything — everything — I SAID EVERYTHING! about life and our universe. "

 

Proof that is all there is to it.

 

I have a title for your story: the Strawman.

 

The simplifications and condescending language fail to address even the tip of the ice berg. And since you brought up God, which you were just complaining about earlier I might add, postulating a magical invisible infinite sky fairy ironically seems like far more of a fairy tale. God has always been and always is. At some point he decided to magically pop a universe into existence, and wave his wand to create life and us for absolutely no reason other than the fact that he was bored.

 

"Once upon a super-super long time ago, there was nothing."

False. My position has been that nothing has never existed and that is a philosophical imagining that is fundamentally flawed and contradictory.

 

 

"So, the not-God-not-nothing-nothing exploded a universe that was super-perfect for life "

Another oversimplification. The universe is far from perfect for life. In fact almost all of it isn't perfect for life. Constants and other universe could be more suitable for life. And a multiverse would have an infinite number of universes with different combinations. We exist in this universe because we could only exist in this particular universe. Many similar universes would exist with slightly different constants and initial conditions. The anthropic principle, nothing magical.

 

"One little planet was not too far from a star, not too close to a star, but juuuust right so that complicated molecules could jiggle around and become even more complicated molecules and become reproducing organisms."

 

With trillions and trillions of planets, at least a few of them were bound to be in the correct spot. It's unlikely for molecules to start self replicating, but given enough time and enough atoms in the universe its within the realm of possibility. It can happen by itself. Its within the laws of physics.

 

"Eventually, those organisms travelled through a magical journey of change and self-discovery to become...us! All without any meaning, purpose, reason, or guidance of any kind whatsoever!"

What is so great about purpose or guidance or meaning anyways? Overrated.

 

"We know for sure, for sure that there is definitely no meaning to the universe."

No one said this. We don't have evidence going either way, but there's no apparent meaning . The universe doesn't need meaning.

 

"Which means you are...or, well...actually, it means you're just mindless matter reacting to physics, and everything you are or will be is going to come crashing down in obscurity and futility when the universe collapses."

Which will happen with or without God.

 

"This magical tale, about which we actually know almost nothing, and can prove exactly nothing, explains everything — everything — I SAID EVERYTHING! about life and our universe."

And the same thing could be said about God.
 

"Proof that is all there is to it."

This barely addresses any of my points. This is quite possibly the poorest written and least logical piece of emotional pathos rhetoric ever produced.

[cats_lover]

Physics is a science based on evidence, this means that we build physics observing reality.

In other words, with physics we describe rules of reality according to our observations.

So we can not use physics to explain why these rules are as they are and not different, because physics is what we can observer; no explanations, only rules.
 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Physics is a science based on evidence, this means that we build physics observing reality.

In other words, with physics we describe rules of reality according to our observations.

So we can not use physics to explain why these rules are as they are and not different, because physics is what we can observer; no explanations, only rules.
 

 

True and that is one reason we can't use physics alone to answer our question. 
 

[shadowhawk]

serp777: This barely addresses any of my points. This is quite possibly the poorest written and least logical piece of emotional pathos rhetoric ever produced. 

Yes. the entire fairy tale is quite vacant of evidence as is your attempt to create your own fairy tale as if you somehow have proof.  By the way since we are using English, what is "proof?"  What is evidence?

[shadowhawk]

Why did things become?

 

 

 

 

 

[serp777]

 

serp777: This barely addresses any of my points. This is quite possibly the poorest written and least logical piece of emotional pathos rhetoric ever produced. 

Yes. the entire fairy tale is quite vacant of evidence as is your attempt to create your own fairy tale as if you somehow have proof.  By the way since we are using English, what is "proof?"  What is evidence?

 

 

SH you ignored all of my arguments as per usual. Shouldn't have bothered posting because when you see a difficult point you just ignore it. Part of my argument created a counter fairy tale to show you why your straw man story was such an absurdity. My counter story had nothing to do with providing evidence, but i'm glad you agree that you've utterly failed to provide any.

[shadowhawk]

You mean decelerations rather than arguments.  I KNOW you concocted a fairy tale almost like the first one and you think you made an argument!  As I clearly said, "no evidence."  What do you want me to argue against? 

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 December 2014 - 11:13 PM.