Before I get negative votes, please consider my argument purely based off of logic. I am not solely arguing for theism with this comment.
These athiests confess to not know how existance (as we perceive it) started. Logically, SOMETHING had to cause it, which they also agreed to. When considering what that something is, we should see that it couldn't be "anything" that is natural because that natural thing would need a creator. SOMETHING "supernatural," infinite, and uncaused, must exist 1st.
By "something" he meant something that can be scientifically proven with more time and study, not some god. The "it looks designed so there must be a designer" argument is so completely destroyed I am shocked every time I hear people still use it. A watch looks designed because it WAS. It does not occur NATURALLY any where. To properly understand what I am saying flip nature and man made around. Imagine walking on a beach MADE of watches and finding a tree in the middle of it. See?
@HDell1994 So the creator of the universe doesn't itself need a creator? This is whats called special pleading, and is a well known logical fallacy, which makes me surprised you say your argument is based on logic. Additionally, natural things do not need a creator, they need a triggering event. "Creator" denotes an intelligence being required, and there is no logical argument for this posit.
@HDell1994 Certainly, SOMETHING caused the Big Bang. There's no rational for that SOMETHING to be INTELLIGENT or DELIBERATE. BTW, "supernatural" is a null word. Everything that exists, exists within nature, regardless of your perception of its "naturalness".
Before I get negative votes, please consider my argument purely based off of logic. I am not solely arguing for theism with this comment.
These athiests confess to not know how existance (as we perceive it) started. Logically, SOMETHING had to cause it, which they also agreed to. When considering what that something is, we should see that it couldn't be "anything" that is natural because that natural thing would need a creator. SOMETHING "supernatural," infinite, and uncaused, must exist 1st.
The point is nobody knows how universe was made. Just live but nothing creates itself. We don't know if its god or not. We're listening to what everybody is writing instead of facing reality and truth.
there can not be "nothing"theres always something... how can something come into nothing if u need a certain point in time for this something to come, and if it comes and expands into nothing, size is nothing... this is a paradox it seems
What if we see us moving from beginning to end but we are actually moving in reverse from end to beginning. The big bang wasn't in the past. It hasn't happened yet. The big bang can't be proven. Talking about the Universe billions of years ago is crazy. We are looking at an illusion. Does an ant know that the Earth is round? Imagine what WE don't know.
If intelligent life such as humans needed an intelligent creator, then an intelligent god must also need an intelligent creator otherwise it's special pleading! Also think about how you came into being! you have parents and you have a brain and other organs inside of you! So basically planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are the organs within the universe and the universe was birthed from another universe! Unfortunately my logic wins!
well if i was in ancient egypt predating judeo-christian, i would have told you"caller" you're wrong, it's Horus who created everything. bottom line belief in any god hinders rational thinking & creates prejudice. analogous: my god is the only way. is like: my candle light is the only way to light the night, well you're wrong!
Very intelligent caller. These two guys are arguing about probabilities and chances. We have to remember that in order to occur, even chance needs a medium. How can chance occur when there is no time, space and matter. You need certain components even for the chance explanation. Yes, good on you caller, "who is flipping the coin". Chances of getting Heads 4 times in a row is only possible when there is Heads and Tails.
"there was no time and space before the big bang"=flawed argument! How do you explain the universe's accelerated expansion rate if it is nothing? The Big Bang itself and what happened before it can be explained by M-theory, a theoretical physics concept!!!! It's still more reasonable than mysticism because it is still physics; it's just an extension of our physics!
I can't agree on natural selection if that was the case wouldn't we have hair all over our bodies to protect us from the sun natural selection explains animals not so much in the human race
@OhioFishingTips apparently you lack critical thinking & don't understand natural selection, or animals. Humans are animals! under phylum mamalia. through natural selection man's brain grew & the smarter one's survive & get to pass on their genetic code hence the smarter brain negates the hair or fur thus invented clothing, umbrella, & eventually sunblock. hey a down jacket is better than body hair, survival of the fittest chances are i'll survive more with down jacket than just body hair.
absolutely nothing??? define nothing. i dont believe there was ever absolutely nothing, for even the possibility of something makes nothing, something. can this dude tell me how he perceives nothing?? show me evidence in the universe where there is absolutely nothing, not even darkness or silence.
@daydodog wow that's pretty complicated for a first life form. If it could feed itself why would it bother to evolve into eating other things. Incidentally autotrophs don't eat energy from the sun. they create their own food using energy from the sum and nutriance from the air and soil. Photosynthesis is what it's called. Plants are autotrophs
The chance of the Universe coming to be the way it is today, by chance and all by itself is IMPOSSIBLE. That's FACT not opinion. No it doesn't matter if you give it a billion years or a trillion years or a billion trillion years. If you look at the probabilities there is absolutely no way. Probability alone is devastating to the Evolutionists world view. Then science is also devastating to an Evolutionists world view. It's utterly ridiculous that people deny an Intelligence behind the Universe.
@guitardrummer321 well, the universe IS here, so there must have been a chance it could happen. Science gets stuck when it asks why the cosmological constants are what they are and not something else. But on the anthropic side, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to ask. What will really do your head in is the idea that there are countless universes all slightly different and mutually exclusive that occupy a neighbourhood called the multiverse. Next door is similar, but down the street is diferent
@guitardrummer321 If the universe did not have these exact specifications then it is true that we would not exist.
However if you take the fact that we evolved from a basic and extremely robust life form able to survive in extremely harsh conditions into more specialized and complex life forms to suit our changing environment instead of the environment changing to suit our current forms then it is far more likely and believable.
The concept that something caused the beginning of existence is ridiculous and self-contradictory. The whole "God as creator" argument is nonsense, right from the start.
I read this plural in the bible, too, and none of my Catholic friends would try to explain it. "God" refers to "himself" in plural many times and it's just weird... really weird. More so, the fear of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that if they eat of that tree AND the tree of life they would become gods themselves??? so God puts a fiery sword to protect that other tree from humans... it's so weird!! and hilarious
My last comment was not meant in any way as a derogatory one , far from it
I did ask my cat , What about infinite regression ? MEEOWW
He climbs the tree because it's there never assuming someone put it there for him to climb ( Bit of a Galilean Cat if you know what I mean Man ! ) .Is or is not "That is the question "(Evidently a Shakespearean Cat also)
But what do we do ? We ask Why questions ? By their very nature presumes intentions of agents acting according a plan
It's funny how they want people to give proof an intelligent being created the universe, but they expect us to believe everything was created by chance from a theoretical big bang that got its matter from nothingness. I'm not religious, but there's way too much detail in this universe that can't be ignored.
I've done both. And you ought to know that the big bang theory is possibly going to be replaced with a different theory that believes that where 2 universes touch is where a big bang will occur, creating another one right? Not sure about the name, it was kinda strange but there you have it. I'll simply agree to disagree.
7:40 - 9:22 : or it was just a poetic plural, which Ovidy used a lot, or a royal plural, like in "we, [general monarch's name] et cetera et cetera,", also used by Ovidy when writing what some gods said. You should always keep in mind that the bible is a work of many poems of different lengths and that such quirks are part of it.
Probability before an event is between 0 and 1. Probability once an event occurs = 1.
What flips the coin? There is no choice, there is only what does happen. Before the event it looks like choice, after the event it is the only way it could have occured.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The universe and earth are not man-made. Atheists and evolutionists shouldn't be asked questions, because essentially: THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYTHING CAME FROM.
@DavidofChrist777 You do have a point, that atheists and evolutionary biologists shouldn't be answering questions about cosmology. Of course, even that's only half-right, considering that an overwhelmingly vast majority of ALL scientists, including cosmologists, are atheists already.
So, some atheists can know more about what they're talking about when it comes to the subject of where the Earth and everything else came from; in the same way that some rectangles are squares.
and maybe you could clear up your logic a bit for us slow-minded atheists. why do you need to know how matter came into being in order to know how matter behaves?
the fact is that particles are popping into and out of existence all around you, billions of times per second. and yet you do not know they are their because their window of existence is so short. with small enough mass and time quantities, the laws of conservation do not hold.
@rysw19 we can calculated back 13.72 billion years exactly what the universe was like until we hit a point at 10^-43 sec where the laws of physics break down, due to the uncertainty principle, which, in quantum physics, sets a wrapper on what is knowable about the universe due to limitations on measurements inherent within the universe itself.
our universe has a sum total of 0 energy, which means it could be created spontaneously, and given the nature of quantum strangeness, it's not at all...
"man did not make create the universe." obviously not. but i'm not the one claiming that it has an intelligent (much like a human) creator, who undergoes human emotions.
@DavidofChrist777 Not a single atheist or "evolutionist" has ever said that the universe and the earth are man-made, which would be a mind bogglingly absurd statement to make.
@DavidofChrist777 The bible is full of shit and science & reality unfortunately refutes the ridiculous claims of the bible. Why don't you believe that three little pigs created the universe? lol. go shove your bible up your ass freak!
That is the problem. I am an engineering graduate student. Whenever I try to explain things to laymen, they just write me off UNLESS it is something so simple it practically renders the aspect I am trying to explain completely meaningless.
@fightinglobo06 I mean people say "dawg" and "cat" ...I think I'm going to start calling people llamas and see what they do. Just walk up to someone and be like "Hey llama! How are you doing?"
Thousands of Gods, thousands of beliefs, thousands of detrimental beliefs in fact, thousands of beliefs made up to defy natural selection, lust, homosexuality, difference of opinion, etc. Thousands of reasons to end this bronzed age fear overseeing thought processes of minds placed here by the origin of life. @danjorgen, correct, via quantum mechanics, you always get something from nothing, the universe is but mathematics!
Even if the Big Bang did say we came from nothing, if that's what the evidence says, then why not accept it? I don't see how "it came from nothing" is any less believable than "God did it", and the Big Bang actually has evidence unlike God.
Actually, the Big Bang does not say that the Big Bang came from "nothing." It states that the universe was an infinitely dense mass of matter that exploded. Where that mass came from, no one knows. Hawking says that to ask what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless, since time and space began with the BB.
@ec5 I agree. Stephen Hawking explains this very thing in his latest book The Grand Design! M-theory/black-hole cosmology is more reasonable than some invisible spaghetti monster. lol.
@ec5 They believe in a savior who turned into a zombie.... and loves you... but he will send you to hell for finite crimes.... So if you think like them, they assume we have to have a leap of faith like they do, because they are scared of the unknown.
I'm not getting angry, just restless and tired of repeating myself. I just don't think we should be making assertions about the possibility of anything; I think that the most intellectually honest view is that of a skeptic but still one who won't assert something that may be a lie. As I've mentioned before, I don't like the word "impossible"; I prefer "probable" and "improbable." When you say something is fact when it may not be, I reach a state of vexation. I apologize if I may seem hostile.
Here's a question for you, SoyYoTaTo: what exists beyond the expanses of our own universe? My answer, which is the most intellectually honest one, is that "I don't know." You'd also have to admit that there could be nothing there, just as the possibility resides that there very well could be something. You're not making any sense when you say that I'm contradicting myself, yet simultaneously agree and disagree with me on the same thing.
well... "what exists beyond the expanses of our own universe?" if you think it that way, my own universe have a few blocks, for me, as an answer, I can tell you that I don´t believe in something beyond the universe, for me, the universe is a synonymous of existence, wich means "everything", becouse it can´t be "nothing", "nothing" can´t even be placed between universes... that would be a thing... can´t be nowhere...
I can concur with the statement that you don't believe in something beyond our known universe. That's the same ideal that I hold onto as an atheist. However, as an agnostic, I must concede that I do not know if anything does exist beyond said universe. However, it's quite thought provoking: the notion that there could be other singularities, or even that the universe we dwell in could have collapsed and expanded innumerably. This is nothing more than conjecture, I freely admit; but Interesting.
greek philosophy, "from nothing can not become anything" that´s the truth, everything transforms, everything´s evolving and it´s infinite. There could be no creation without something before being created that´s a fact, then we can presume many things that could have occupied that place.
I have a problem with your use of the word "creation" and "created," but more so with their contexts. How do you know "there could be no creation without something before being created"? That's conjecture. That is why it's not fact. You stating that it's fact doesn't make it so.
It´s a fact that everything we know came from something... so what´s your point, why should be a conjecture? We can´t even talk about "nothing" becouse "nothing" cannot be in our existence... if so it would have something and it wouldn´t be "nothing", it would be "something"
"Nothing" can be defined. Anything outside of our universe, or any universe if you believe the multiverse theory holds any weight, could be considered "nothing." If it doesn't occupy space; if it doesn't have mass; if it isn't composed of anything tangible = "nothing." Of course, this definition wouldn't encompass concepts that we envisioned ourselves.
At last, "nothing" is a word wich means what it could be something without being. Wich is completly impossible in our world, universe, and existence... FACT.
I wouldn't even know where to begin with this statement. Your first language is obviously not English, but that's okay -- I'm not stating that as if it were a problem. I'm having a hard time comprehending what it is exactly you're trying to convey here with this statement, SoyYoTaTo. I personally prefer "improbable possibility" over "impossible," but you're entitled to your own myopic views.
Infinite. Uh, no. One ending scenario, if we're following the laws of thermodynamics, will eventually leave the universe in a state of maximum entropy. Basically what this means is that if the universe persists, all energy will be evenly distributed throughout it; ergo, heat death. This is an incredibly simplified explanation, but it's the best I can provide on the go.
We use the expresion "nothing" as a mesure, when there´s not something in something... I can´t believe in the multuniverse theory, becouse it is in fact a theory... "there could be no creation without something before being created" ¿How do I know? becouse it is proved, that there cant be created something from "nothing", becouse there is no "nothing" in the existence, it cant be, becouse if it "is", it is not "nothing" is "something"...got me?
Oh, you have proof that the singularity was "created"? Okay. Give it to us. That is, quite possibly, the most important answer to the most important question. I concur with the statement that something can't come from nothing, but to say that it was created is what irks me. How do you know it didn't always exist?
Two more things. I'd like to comment you on your English: it's much better than my Spanish. Lastly; a theory is the highest achievement in science. This title is typically given only to reliably tested and consistently proven laws and/or hypotheses. There's a fundamental difference between the laymen and scientific usage of the word "theory." The laymen usage could be more or less described as a supposition.
You just say it, you can´t talk about "nothing" like a place... becouse it can´t be, you can´t talk about "nothing" like a thing, becouse it is not, in fact, it is not, and if it is not, can´t exist, by consecuence, something that exist can´t become "nothing" as it can´t being created out "nothing", there´s no end for existence, it is ethernal, as you said it fucking wasn´t created, that´s what i am saying, it is infinite, it transforms, no creation,without begin, without end. Nice talk
Demonstrate that it's eternal, that it's infinite, that it didn't have a beginning, and, finally, that it doesn't have an end. You're the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm sorry if you can't conceptualize an absence of matter and energy: an absolute absence of the four fundamental forces and everything that defines our universe. Maybe there isn't such a place. Yes, a place; call it a contradiction, but it's not. Why can't you understand that?
I don't understand how you can't conceive of something that is absent beyond the current expanses of our universe. You're taking this to a more philosophical level when science should be the only factor considered.
"Nothing" can be defined. Anything outside of our universe, or any universe if you believe the multiverse theory holds any weight, could be considered "nothing". When you argument "Anything" about "Nothing" you are making a contradiction.
My first lenguage is spanish, for sure, but, are talking about theories?, i am talking about facts, the fact is that there´s everything in our universe, but there cannot be "nothing" becouse it wouldn´t be posible in the existence!
How am I contradicting myself with that? Let's imagine a place where absolutely nothing exists; a place where substance -- everything -- is absent entirely. We're talking about a place that shouldn't even be called a place because, well, it has absolutely not a single particle, molecule, atom, or whatever within it, nor does it have a "within." Vastly more devoid than a vacuum. Certainly "anything" wouldn't exist in "nothing"; and, if it did, it would cease to be known as "nothing."
It is exactly what I say but in another point of view, Im not saying that it was created... Im saying that "something" can´t be created out of "nothing", that is the fact, proved... there is no creation without something before being created... fact, but that don´t mean it was created... that means that to have something you need something, that´s the fact.
Okay. And if you're saying that it was the singularity that produced (not created) all of the universe we inhabit, then I concur. But if you're saying something else came before even the singularity. Well, you'd have to prove it; you'd then have to demonstrate that the singularity had a cause of its own.
I realize when I describe an absence of matter and energy as a "place" that it may be misconstrued. The truth is that I can't find a word to describe such a "place" where there is an absence of matter, energy, fundamental forces, time, space, et cetera. I actually had a moment of self-reproach when trying to find such a word to describe it: the term "void" was the closest thing I could think of, but it didn't quite describe the intensity of the absolute absence that "nothing" should possess.
"Void" would be perfect if I were describing a vacuum, but I'm not. I'm trying to convey a state of non-existence, and "void" would imply something that's empty rather than that "something" being absent entirely, much less being empty to begin with.
when you say "nothing", the word, the concept, it is right, the concept exist, but "nothing" as a reality can´t be in the existence, in the "be". That is why it can´t be, becouse that is the meaning, "nothing"="not be"
haha no pal, it just can´t be... I could conceive it as a "thing" just like you said, but I can´t conceive it as a reality becouse it can´t be! that is the real meaning of the concept, It is what it could be something without being something. Of course we can Imagine, we can presume, we can say "I don´t know what could be beyond our universe"...
As I've mentioned previously in this discussion: you're taking far too much of a philosophical approach with this rather than a scientific one which doesn't deal in such absolutes. You also appear to be creating a dichotomy with "nothing" on one end of the spectrum and "something" on the other.
of course, I don´t... but anyways we have not found a limit for our universe... so we must say our universe it´s equal to the existence and of things wich has to be infinite, we have not found "nothing" it can´t be found... hahah you got me? the fact is that "nothing" it just can´t be...that is why everything just exist, but "nothing" can´t be in the existence as a reality.
More conjectures, SoyYoTaTo? Now you're asserting that we will never discover "nothing" because, and I quote, "it can't be found." You're also, in the face of the deceased Georges Lemaitre, pissing on the current Big Bang cosmological model. Why are you stating that the universe is "infinite"? Have you ever heard of Hubble's law? It clearly describes the observed expansion of our universe.
Infinite would imply that there was absolutely no end to it, which is somewhat of a contradiction if it's also expanding simultaneously in concordance with aforementioned Hubble's law. On a concluding note: you keep ignoring everything I've been saying thus far. I've demonstrated that your original "Greek Philosophy" bit of "there could be no creation without something before being created" is a fallacy, yet you still choose to argue for an inexplicable reason.
hahahah I think you don´t understand me... let me put it this way, "EVERYTHING"="IS", "NOTHING"="IS NOT", "EVERYTHING"="be", "NOTHING"="not be" so how is that you can think about an ending, when "NOTHING" is "not be", in conecuence, can´t "be".
No, I understand you, I just fail to understand -why- you're trying to use pure philosophical logic in place of a more scientific stance. What puzzles me is why and how you've managed to employ your 'logic' when regarding something with such a tenuous nature as existence.
hahahah you are making a dichotomy between phylosophy and sience now... when it is part of the same questions and answers... the phylosophy is not argue from mistical proves, they make a research about facts.
Uh, I never created a dichotomy with science and philosophy; I never said, "It's either science or philosophy -- not both! There's no other options!" I never even alluded to it. However, what I did say was that you were approaching this argument from a PURE LOGIC perspective -- philosophical -- rather than one that didn't deal with absolutes: science. This particular argument cannot be answered with what little knowledge we, as a species, currently possess. Apparently you're trying to answer it.
ok, scientific stance... this is the mathematyc formula of infinit, (x^2 + y^2)^2 = a^2 (x^2 - y^2) it´s exact in cartesian coordinates, but it infinit in mathematyc sequences becouse it is constant. That still leave you the question, what made this desing and why? It is becouse it is necessary for it self... that have no explanation
I can concur with the expansión theory in some aspects, I concur with the Big Bang in some ascpects too, but a Big Bang, over the same existence, not another existence between "nothing" or "nothing" before the "big bang" becouse somewhere that energy got to be placed, there´s only one existence, and everthing is in there, but "nothing" can´t be...
You're just guilty of a whole hell of a lot of ignorant conjecture, aren't you? There's only "ONE" existence? So, you know this for a fact? This is why I can't take you seriously when you say that you, and I quote, "Concur with the Big Bang in some aspects." I don't know how much you concur with if you're making unsubstantiated assertions like the ones I've pointed out.
first, you can´t separate existence between something or "nothing" becouse "nothing" it is just a concept, and if it were something, it will be over the same existence. There is only one question for me that can´t be resolved, and that question is, why is the existence? No one can answer you this question, becouse it have no answer, questions and answers are human bullshit, the existence is beyond our imagination or consciousness, it is becouse it is necessary for itself as far as we can know.
Questions and answers are human bullshit? Okay. You're done and this is why: you just spent the past four days trying to convince me that your answer, a human one, was the definitive conclusion. You stated everything as if it were fact when it was nothing more than conjecture; and, when you were called on this, you performed Ray Comfortesque topic juggling and spouted lies faster than Glenn Beck could ever manage. You failed to answer ANY question I gave you with honesty.
I never said "nothing" didn't exist as a concept, yet you continued to prattle on as if I said that it was something more than a concept. This argument was started because I was and still am heavily opposed to your "intellectual totalitarianism" mindset creating these asinine dichotomies: "Impossible and possible; something/everything and nothing." Your argument is precisely the same one Sartre provided.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA, OK, first, you tell me "I don´t know if things just can´t dissapear" when I talk about things, i am talking about everything that exist, composed as we know "science" by energy and matter, you have read the premise of the first law of thermodynamics, that says "can´t be destroyed" what does it means that? please I may be wrong tell me your opinion.
Matter and energy can't be destroyed, annihilated, obliterated, extinguished, expunged, or any synonymous word with "destroy" you can conjure. Very simple. Oh, by the way, nice quote mine: I stated that I don't know matter and energy can't disappear because I'm not observing ALL matter and energy simultaneously to account for it all. I don't believe that's the case, but I don't fucking know. Goddamn, dude. Why aren't you understanding this? I thought I made my case clear. I guess not, though.
When you say I argue by the perspectivo of the pure lógic, philosophical, rather than one that didn´t deal with absolutes, well let me tell you, mathematic, pshisics, every "PURE SCIENCE" or maybe "EXACT SCIENCE" are based in logic, you can´t scape from lógic, that have no sense.
, so as "what it is, is" that´s as far as we can know about the existence of things, and of curse im trying to reach this arguement in particular, we "humans" are trying to do this since lot of time, what´s the problem with it?
There's absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. I don't see the harm in asking questions and opening new avenues of investigation. I don't think any conscious being should adhere to anything other than the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual honesty.
hahaha yes I may sound totalitarisim, but what if I create a dichotomy between Something/everything and nothing¿? why you think I am wrong tell me please, this could change my mind...
Questions and answers are human bullshit when we are talking about the reason of the existence, it has no reason, why should have one? do you believe in some consience out there? in the "nothing" maybe? tell me please I want to know your opinion even if you think it can´t be answered, that is the same shit I am telling you...
I don't believe in a consciousness in the "nothing," and the reasoning behind that is the same that I hold toward the claims to deified deus ex machina held by many cultures both extant and extinct. As I've mentioned, I am an atheist. However, as I've also mentioned, I have to conclude through my agnosticism that I do not know. As far as I'm concerned the universe we inhabit is indifferent and, most certainly of all, no more aware of us than a grain of sand is aware of air.
hahah and i am not trying to convince you Im stating my point of view as a totalitiy may be yes, you are stating yours, we are discussing, what´s the problem?, don´t get angry pal you don´t have to defame me as an answer, I would apreciate if you take it slower, read it one and another time, and expose what you believe, becouse I do want to know what is your opinion.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the topic of existentialism is a heavily frequented one. Existentialism itself is contingent on the existence of a self-aware being (i.e.: Homo sapien sapien; humans; us): no conscious being, no need for existentialism. We, as individuals, perceive the world with vastly differing views, so it's rather difficult to come to any kind of consensus regarding a unified view on existentialism.
What does this mean? Well, very simple: philosophy can be wrong. One individual's view on existentialism may very well be wrong: my view that the universe is cold and indifferent, while logical, could be wrong. I don't believe it is and I'm pretty damn certain that it is cold and indifferent, but this still begs the question: "What if I'm wrong?"
When you mentioned that what I say could change your mind, I immediately had a knee jerk reaction. I can't even begin to desire changing your mind when the nagging question of "What if I'm wrong?" still dwells in the recesses of my consciousness. I'm vehemently opposed to individuals misleading anyone with their values and beliefs, or lack thereof, as a stamp of approval or a method of which they can impose their own preconceived notions on others.
Do you know about something that can be created out of nothing? I am saying that to create something you need something. I am not saying that it was created "THE UNIVERSE" on purpose, I am being logical. If you want to think, as a "religious"(I don´t) that it was created, you must know that to create something you got to be conciousness and use things. Where you see the fallacy in "there could be no creation without something before being created"? where in those words it is the fallacy?
The logical fallacy in "there could be no creation without something before being created" is the presupposition that anything was created to begin with, much less even had a beginning beyond the scope of the singularity. Energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, they can only be transformed. That's the basic premise of the first law of thermodynamics. I don't understand the "search for an end" bit, though. Care to elaborate?
fallacy??? That is not a presupposition... that is a fact, that if you want to belive that everything was created (I DON´T...) you need something before being created... not as the bible say that God create the universe from "nothing".... That is the point, im not assuming that the universe or the existence was created, i am saying the fact of a creation as a "thing" it is that can´t be from nowhere or nothing. I concur with the matter and the energy transforming it can´t just dissapear.
"search for an end" that is why I argue that existence is ethernal and it´s only one... becouse things, can´t just dissapear, can´t have an end or a beginin becouse it cant be created or destroyed.., as the premise of the first law of thermodynamics say...
Do I know about something that can be created out of nothing? No, I don't know; and if I did know, the world would no longer need to worry about finite resources. What's "got to be consciousness and use things"? Are you referring to possessing consciousness -- intelligence -- and the ability to use tools and build things? If so, and I'm not saying that's what you meant, but if so you still wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be transforming something from one state to another.
If you believe as me, over the transformation of things, the things can´t just dissapear, are we agree with this? then, how do you explain another existence?... how do you separate one existence over another? if just can´t be nothing between... that would be the same existence...
I don't know if "things" can't just disappear; I'm not tracking every atomic, subatomic, et cetera particle in the entirety of the universe to determine whether or not they remain corporeal. Also, I'm not a physicist; I'm not the guy you need to be asking these sorts of questions to if you're looking for any semblance of a cogent answer.
when you create something, you use the transformation of something, that´s the point... you said, it is not "create" it is "transform", but it is "create" by the "transformacion" but you still can create... if we look it your way, there could be no creation in our lives... that is not true.. we do create by transformacion of things. This is not telling you that the existence or universe it was created on purpose, this is telling you that to create you need something to transform.
Yeah, creation as it's defined by altering the geometry and/or state of something; sure, I can agree with that. But we're not conjuring up the material(s) we wish to use to "create" what we want. If I wanted to, say, make a bong, I'd have to acquire the materials to construct it with. I couldn't just say "Let there be bong!" and have one manifest itself in my hand. I'm sure you can agree with this. I never denied that we could "create" something by altering what we already have.
so, the premise of the first law of thermodynamics tells you that matter and energy can´t be created or destroyed, how you concieve an ending or a begining... the law gives as an ethernal existence. It says that Matter and Energy can´t be destroyed, for consecuence, those are infinite things, INFINITE! as the Existence of it...
We can't say that it's infinite in the sense that it would be truly eternal because we don't know conclusively "when" and/or how the singularity came about. We also don't know precisely how it will all end or, for that matter, if it will end at all. We cannot honestly make any assertion that contains "impossible," which is where one of my contentions with you is. The last time our species touched down on alien terra firma was the Apollo 17 mission in 1972: that was the moon -- our own satellite.
if you know about something that can be created out of nothing... "the world would no longer need to worry about finite resources" sure, if you put it on a humoristic stance. The world I guess would not tolerate such a thing like "nothing" in fact I believe that "nothing" can´t exist. Becouse if it exist, that´s "something"...
Okay. You guess the world wouldn't tolerate it or you wouldn't tolerate it? No, disregard that; don't answer. I can pretty much predict what the answer will be: completely absent.
even Sartre was looking for an explanation to the meaning of "nothing" but he conclude that the only thing that could be "nothing" is our own consience, becouse it can´t be taken as an object, but it still part of the existence, and if is part of the existence, can´t be "nothing" as I said lots of times "nothing" just can´t be as a reality, it is just a concept of what could be something without being something.
So have many philosophers concerned with existentialism. What's your point? Also, citing the name of a 20th century French intellectual will do little to sway me, as arguments from authority hold very little weight in my eyes.
haha Matt gets owned
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago in playlist More videos from 1rishShaman
Is the Darwin fish gettin' busy with the phone?
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago
Before I get negative votes, please consider my argument purely based off of logic. I am not solely arguing for theism with this comment.
These athiests confess to not know how existance (as we perceive it) started. Logically, SOMETHING had to cause it, which they also agreed to. When considering what that something is, we should see that it couldn't be "anything" that is natural because that natural thing would need a creator. SOMETHING "supernatural," infinite, and uncaused, must exist 1st.
HDell1994 5 months ago
@HDell1994
By "something" he meant something that can be scientifically proven with more time and study, not some god. The "it looks designed so there must be a designer" argument is so completely destroyed I am shocked every time I hear people still use it. A watch looks designed because it WAS. It does not occur NATURALLY any where. To properly understand what I am saying flip nature and man made around. Imagine walking on a beach MADE of watches and finding a tree in the middle of it. See?
Marius6696 3 months ago
@HDell1994 So the creator of the universe doesn't itself need a creator? This is whats called special pleading, and is a well known logical fallacy, which makes me surprised you say your argument is based on logic. Additionally, natural things do not need a creator, they need a triggering event. "Creator" denotes an intelligence being required, and there is no logical argument for this posit.
Inclousid 3 months ago
@HDell1994 Certainly, SOMETHING caused the Big Bang. There's no rational for that SOMETHING to be INTELLIGENT or DELIBERATE. BTW, "supernatural" is a null word. Everything that exists, exists within nature, regardless of your perception of its "naturalness".
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago
@HDell1994 What logic leads you to think that something had to 'cause existence'?
Hufflewaffle 2 months ago
Before I get negative votes, please consider my argument purely based off of logic. I am not solely arguing for theism with this comment.
These athiests confess to not know how existance (as we perceive it) started. Logically, SOMETHING had to cause it, which they also agreed to. When considering what that something is, we should see that it couldn't be "anything" that is natural because that natural thing would need a creator. SOMETHING "supernatural," infinite, and uncaused, must exist 1st.
HDell1994 5 months ago
The point is nobody knows how universe was made. Just live but nothing creates itself. We don't know if its god or not. We're listening to what everybody is writing instead of facing reality and truth.
lovergal1984 6 months ago
there can not be "nothing"theres always something... how can something come into nothing if u need a certain point in time for this something to come, and if it comes and expands into nothing, size is nothing... this is a paradox it seems
Spikc12 6 months ago
this caller made some good points, i hope he kept his faith. (catholic)
85nicole07 7 months ago
What if we see us moving from beginning to end but we are actually moving in reverse from end to beginning. The big bang wasn't in the past. It hasn't happened yet. The big bang can't be proven. Talking about the Universe billions of years ago is crazy. We are looking at an illusion. Does an ant know that the Earth is round? Imagine what WE don't know.
rodge2001 7 months ago
Ashley sucks.
KokotTheMonkey 7 months ago
I like this caller. He didn't make a fool of himself. (Christian)
Swiffers 7 months ago
I love it when the callers can be cool and reasonable enough to hold a proper discussion, like in this video. Well done Trey!
RayLiehm 7 months ago
cocaine is a helluva drug
JuanchoMan 8 months ago
If intelligent life such as humans needed an intelligent creator, then an intelligent god must also need an intelligent creator otherwise it's special pleading! Also think about how you came into being! you have parents and you have a brain and other organs inside of you! So basically planets, stars, galaxies, etc. are the organs within the universe and the universe was birthed from another universe! Unfortunately my logic wins!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
well if i was in ancient egypt predating judeo-christian, i would have told you"caller" you're wrong, it's Horus who created everything. bottom line belief in any god hinders rational thinking & creates prejudice. analogous: my god is the only way. is like: my candle light is the only way to light the night, well you're wrong!
ronmac05ad 9 months ago
Very intelligent caller. These two guys are arguing about probabilities and chances. We have to remember that in order to occur, even chance needs a medium. How can chance occur when there is no time, space and matter. You need certain components even for the chance explanation. Yes, good on you caller, "who is flipping the coin". Chances of getting Heads 4 times in a row is only possible when there is Heads and Tails.
ozturkben 9 months ago
I wasn't sure at first, but I'm pretty sure now that this guy rang in another time with the exact same question.
=/
ViewtifulZeke 9 months ago
"there was no time and space before the big bang"=flawed argument! How do you explain the universe's accelerated expansion rate if it is nothing? The Big Bang itself and what happened before it can be explained by M-theory, a theoretical physics concept!!!! It's still more reasonable than mysticism because it is still physics; it's just an extension of our physics!
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
I can't agree on natural selection if that was the case wouldn't we have hair all over our bodies to protect us from the sun natural selection explains animals not so much in the human race
OhioFishingTips 9 months ago
@OhioFishingTips apparently you lack critical thinking & don't understand natural selection, or animals. Humans are animals! under phylum mamalia. through natural selection man's brain grew & the smarter one's survive & get to pass on their genetic code hence the smarter brain negates the hair or fur thus invented clothing, umbrella, & eventually sunblock. hey a down jacket is better than body hair, survival of the fittest chances are i'll survive more with down jacket than just body hair.
ronmac05ad 9 months ago
Wow, a somewhat open minded, understanding Christian caller.
buttface112211 9 months ago
Matt Dillahunty is confusing pattern with design in his china analogy. Something can have a random pattern but it cannot have a random design.
IamGarySimpson 10 months ago
absolutely nothing??? define nothing. i dont believe there was ever absolutely nothing, for even the possibility of something makes nothing, something. can this dude tell me how he perceives nothing?? show me evidence in the universe where there is absolutely nothing, not even darkness or silence.
enfomy 10 months ago
Did Jimi Hendrix just call?
chyeah115 10 months ago
so that random chance first life form had to find something to eat or starve right? What did it eat?
NOMCCBAMA 10 months ago
@NOMCCBAMA well you see, the most primitive life forms are autotrophs, like plants, ie they "eat" energy from the sun.
daydodog 10 months ago
Comment removed
NOMCCBAMA 10 months ago
@daydodog wow that's pretty complicated for a first life form. If it could feed itself why would it bother to evolve into eating other things. Incidentally autotrophs don't eat energy from the sun. they create their own food using energy from the sum and nutriance from the air and soil. Photosynthesis is what it's called. Plants are autotrophs
NOMCCBAMA 10 months ago
The chance of the Universe coming to be the way it is today, by chance and all by itself is IMPOSSIBLE. That's FACT not opinion. No it doesn't matter if you give it a billion years or a trillion years or a billion trillion years. If you look at the probabilities there is absolutely no way. Probability alone is devastating to the Evolutionists world view. Then science is also devastating to an Evolutionists world view. It's utterly ridiculous that people deny an Intelligence behind the Universe.
guitardrummer321 1 year ago
@guitardrummer321 well, the universe IS here, so there must have been a chance it could happen. Science gets stuck when it asks why the cosmological constants are what they are and not something else. But on the anthropic side, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to ask. What will really do your head in is the idea that there are countless universes all slightly different and mutually exclusive that occupy a neighbourhood called the multiverse. Next door is similar, but down the street is diferent
breaneainn 11 months ago
@guitardrummer321 If the universe did not have these exact specifications then it is true that we would not exist.
However if you take the fact that we evolved from a basic and extremely robust life form able to survive in extremely harsh conditions into more specialized and complex life forms to suit our changing environment instead of the environment changing to suit our current forms then it is far more likely and believable.
cpu46 11 months ago
The concept that something caused the beginning of existence is ridiculous and self-contradictory. The whole "God as creator" argument is nonsense, right from the start.
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
Somebody should send this video to Bill O'Reilly.
Diognetus 1 year ago
Christians are idiots. Or Christianity makes people stupid.
truckcompany 1 year ago
The big bang wasn't the beginning, and determinism does not exist.
Donatellangelo 1 year ago
I read this plural in the bible, too, and none of my Catholic friends would try to explain it. "God" refers to "himself" in plural many times and it's just weird... really weird. More so, the fear of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that if they eat of that tree AND the tree of life they would become gods themselves??? so God puts a fiery sword to protect that other tree from humans... it's so weird!! and hilarious
kfetter16 1 year ago
@kfetter16 God is a schizophrenic paranoid delusional who thinks that man is out to get him and doesn't want you to touch his shit?
NOW I know why religious people are always praying for God.... They want to fix his mental illness and insecurity... It all makes sense now!
lotrrocks0 1 year ago
@lotrrocks0 lol!!! love it!!!!!
kfetter16 1 year ago
My last comment was not meant in any way as a derogatory one , far from it
I did ask my cat , What about infinite regression ? MEEOWW
He climbs the tree because it's there never assuming someone put it there for him to climb ( Bit of a Galilean Cat if you know what I mean Man ! ) .Is or is not "That is the question "(Evidently a Shakespearean Cat also)
But what do we do ? We ask Why questions ? By their very nature presumes intentions of agents acting according a plan
So Why do I post this ?
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Radicalindifference maybe we humanity should rally around your cat and have faith once more!
TheWeeaboo 10 months ago
MEEOWW
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
It's funny how they want people to give proof an intelligent being created the universe, but they expect us to believe everything was created by chance from a theoretical big bang that got its matter from nothingness. I'm not religious, but there's way too much detail in this universe that can't be ignored.
codeythesilent 1 year ago
@codeythesilent Please read the highest rated comment on this video and so some research into Big Bang cosmology.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny
I've done both. And you ought to know that the big bang theory is possibly going to be replaced with a different theory that believes that where 2 universes touch is where a big bang will occur, creating another one right? Not sure about the name, it was kinda strange but there you have it. I'll simply agree to disagree.
codeythesilent 1 year ago
Christianities isn't the first religion nor is it the oldest. So move on to other religions.
BaldEagle841 1 year ago
7:40 - 9:22 : or it was just a poetic plural, which Ovidy used a lot, or a royal plural, like in "we, [general monarch's name] et cetera et cetera,", also used by Ovidy when writing what some gods said. You should always keep in mind that the bible is a work of many poems of different lengths and that such quirks are part of it.
Quintinohthree 1 year ago
'Something' must have caused the Universe from out the Void. If the claim is that 'something' was a god, whence this god? From out the Void?
So god from nothing creates a universe. Simpler: From nothing came the universe.
If Reality = (God + Universe)... whence Reality? In particular, whence this creator god?
George4943 1 year ago
An amusing note. The ad YouTube chose to run was for, get this, Christian Mingle!
George4943 1 year ago 2
Can someone translate Jive
MrDanzeman 1 year ago
Wow, a reasonable caller!
ancalites 1 year ago
"You are an intelligent, Caucasian individual." lol
FM897 1 year ago
"I'm a philosophical kind of cat."
Regardless of your arguments, you're AWESOME.
Daruqe 1 year ago
Probability before an event is between 0 and 1. Probability once an event occurs = 1.
What flips the coin? There is no choice, there is only what does happen. Before the event it looks like choice, after the event it is the only way it could have occured.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The universe and earth are not man-made. Atheists and evolutionists shouldn't be asked questions, because essentially: THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYTHING CAME FROM.
DavidofChrist777 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 - Neither does the bible or any other holy text.
1rishShaman 1 year ago 59
@DavidofChrist777 You do have a point, that atheists and evolutionary biologists shouldn't be answering questions about cosmology. Of course, even that's only half-right, considering that an overwhelmingly vast majority of ALL scientists, including cosmologists, are atheists already.
So, some atheists can know more about what they're talking about when it comes to the subject of where the Earth and everything else came from; in the same way that some rectangles are squares.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 And you know where everything comes from?
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 nobody said the universe was manmade.
and maybe you could clear up your logic a bit for us slow-minded atheists. why do you need to know how matter came into being in order to know how matter behaves?
the fact is that particles are popping into and out of existence all around you, billions of times per second. and yet you do not know they are their because their window of existence is so short. with small enough mass and time quantities, the laws of conservation do not hold.
rysw19 1 year ago
@rysw19 we can calculated back 13.72 billion years exactly what the universe was like until we hit a point at 10^-43 sec where the laws of physics break down, due to the uncertainty principle, which, in quantum physics, sets a wrapper on what is knowable about the universe due to limitations on measurements inherent within the universe itself.
our universe has a sum total of 0 energy, which means it could be created spontaneously, and given the nature of quantum strangeness, it's not at all...
rysw19 1 year ago
@rysw19 surprising that it did.
"man did not make create the universe." obviously not. but i'm not the one claiming that it has an intelligent (much like a human) creator, who undergoes human emotions.
rysw19 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 I know that you came from your mother's pussy
RockBanned 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 ya not man made but made by dust and the big bang
l4dlovemaker2000 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777
hay, Dave. Why don't you read a fuckin' text book and stop being such a retard.
douchlin656 10 months ago
@DavidofChrist777 Atleast Atheist dont revert back to chanting "Skydaddy did it!" whenever the question is asked...
ExcaliburClan 9 months ago
@DavidofChrist777 Not a single atheist or "evolutionist" has ever said that the universe and the earth are man-made, which would be a mind bogglingly absurd statement to make.
Kailoa36 9 months ago
@DavidofChrist777 The bible is full of shit and science & reality unfortunately refutes the ridiculous claims of the bible. Why don't you believe that three little pigs created the universe? lol. go shove your bible up your ass freak!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@DavidofChrist777 im pretty sure theres a lot of scienctific evidence pointing to exactly how the earth was made
aikikev 6 months ago 2
@DavidofChrist777 people who study Evolution don't claim to know where everything came from, just what happened to life of earth.
PaintingOfTheMind 6 months ago 5
@DavidofChrist777 If you don't know something isn't asking the very thing you SHOULD be doing?
gleehmee 2 months ago
"have everybody in china flipping...." damn that would make the guinees book of world record for most flipps at the same time.
iamthedarklord1314 1 year ago
I recognize his voice from another call more recently!!! Asking and saying the same things unfortunately :( .
Redbeardian 1 year ago
Huh check that out, nearly out-passed the votebotting on this video.
1rishShaman 1 year ago 13
@danjorgen,
That is the problem. I am an engineering graduate student. Whenever I try to explain things to laymen, they just write me off UNLESS it is something so simple it practically renders the aspect I am trying to explain completely meaningless.
fairguynova 1 year ago
I always like when people call eachother "cat".
fightinglobo06 1 year ago
@fightinglobo06 I mean people say "dawg" and "cat" ...I think I'm going to start calling people llamas and see what they do. Just walk up to someone and be like "Hey llama! How are you doing?"
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
Thousands of Gods, thousands of beliefs, thousands of detrimental beliefs in fact, thousands of beliefs made up to defy natural selection, lust, homosexuality, difference of opinion, etc. Thousands of reasons to end this bronzed age fear overseeing thought processes of minds placed here by the origin of life. @danjorgen, correct, via quantum mechanics, you always get something from nothing, the universe is but mathematics!
strikenetter 1 year ago
That poor " Cat " he doesn't get it !
MrMick73 1 year ago
@MrMick73,
+1
fairguynova 1 year ago
Even if the Big Bang did say we came from nothing, if that's what the evidence says, then why not accept it? I don't see how "it came from nothing" is any less believable than "God did it", and the Big Bang actually has evidence unlike God.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@danjorgen
Actually, the Big Bang does not say that the Big Bang came from "nothing." It states that the universe was an infinitely dense mass of matter that exploded. Where that mass came from, no one knows. Hawking says that to ask what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless, since time and space began with the BB.
Narwal88 2 years ago 2
I never heard of that idea, it's quite extraordinary. I'll check it out, thanks !
ec5 2 years ago
the theory of the big bang does NOT state the universe came fron nothing.
ec5 2 years ago 79
@ec5 I agree. Stephen Hawking explains this very thing in his latest book The Grand Design! M-theory/black-hole cosmology is more reasonable than some invisible spaghetti monster. lol.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@ec5 Ok what did it come from then? be mor specific
jordan7787 6 months ago
@ec5 They believe in a savior who turned into a zombie.... and loves you... but he will send you to hell for finite crimes.... So if you think like them, they assume we have to have a leap of faith like they do, because they are scared of the unknown.
PaintingOfTheMind 6 months ago 2
I'm not getting angry, just restless and tired of repeating myself. I just don't think we should be making assertions about the possibility of anything; I think that the most intellectually honest view is that of a skeptic but still one who won't assert something that may be a lie. As I've mentioned before, I don't like the word "impossible"; I prefer "probable" and "improbable." When you say something is fact when it may not be, I reach a state of vexation. I apologize if I may seem hostile.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Comment removed
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Here's a question for you, SoyYoTaTo: what exists beyond the expanses of our own universe? My answer, which is the most intellectually honest one, is that "I don't know." You'd also have to admit that there could be nothing there, just as the possibility resides that there very well could be something. You're not making any sense when you say that I'm contradicting myself, yet simultaneously agree and disagree with me on the same thing.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
well... "what exists beyond the expanses of our own universe?" if you think it that way, my own universe have a few blocks, for me, as an answer, I can tell you that I don´t believe in something beyond the universe, for me, the universe is a synonymous of existence, wich means "everything", becouse it can´t be "nothing", "nothing" can´t even be placed between universes... that would be a thing... can´t be nowhere...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I can concur with the statement that you don't believe in something beyond our known universe. That's the same ideal that I hold onto as an atheist. However, as an agnostic, I must concede that I do not know if anything does exist beyond said universe. However, it's quite thought provoking: the notion that there could be other singularities, or even that the universe we dwell in could have collapsed and expanded innumerably. This is nothing more than conjecture, I freely admit; but Interesting.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
greek philosophy, "from nothing can not become anything" that´s the truth, everything transforms, everything´s evolving and it´s infinite. There could be no creation without something before being created that´s a fact, then we can presume many things that could have occupied that place.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
No, that's not a fact; that's a conjecture.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
why?
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I have a problem with your use of the word "creation" and "created," but more so with their contexts. How do you know "there could be no creation without something before being created"? That's conjecture. That is why it's not fact. You stating that it's fact doesn't make it so.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago 2
It´s a fact that everything we know came from something... so what´s your point, why should be a conjecture? We can´t even talk about "nothing" becouse "nothing" cannot be in our existence... if so it would have something and it wouldn´t be "nothing", it would be "something"
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
"Nothing" can be defined. Anything outside of our universe, or any universe if you believe the multiverse theory holds any weight, could be considered "nothing." If it doesn't occupy space; if it doesn't have mass; if it isn't composed of anything tangible = "nothing." Of course, this definition wouldn't encompass concepts that we envisioned ourselves.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago 2
At last, "nothing" is a word wich means what it could be something without being. Wich is completly impossible in our world, universe, and existence... FACT.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I wouldn't even know where to begin with this statement. Your first language is obviously not English, but that's okay -- I'm not stating that as if it were a problem. I'm having a hard time comprehending what it is exactly you're trying to convey here with this statement, SoyYoTaTo. I personally prefer "improbable possibility" over "impossible," but you're entitled to your own myopic views.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Infinite. Uh, no. One ending scenario, if we're following the laws of thermodynamics, will eventually leave the universe in a state of maximum entropy. Basically what this means is that if the universe persists, all energy will be evenly distributed throughout it; ergo, heat death. This is an incredibly simplified explanation, but it's the best I can provide on the go.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago 2
We use the expresion "nothing" as a mesure, when there´s not something in something... I can´t believe in the multuniverse theory, becouse it is in fact a theory... "there could be no creation without something before being created" ¿How do I know? becouse it is proved, that there cant be created something from "nothing", becouse there is no "nothing" in the existence, it cant be, becouse if it "is", it is not "nothing" is "something"...got me?
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Oh, you have proof that the singularity was "created"? Okay. Give it to us. That is, quite possibly, the most important answer to the most important question. I concur with the statement that something can't come from nothing, but to say that it was created is what irks me. How do you know it didn't always exist?
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Two more things. I'd like to comment you on your English: it's much better than my Spanish. Lastly; a theory is the highest achievement in science. This title is typically given only to reliably tested and consistently proven laws and/or hypotheses. There's a fundamental difference between the laymen and scientific usage of the word "theory." The laymen usage could be more or less described as a supposition.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
You just say it, you can´t talk about "nothing" like a place... becouse it can´t be, you can´t talk about "nothing" like a thing, becouse it is not, in fact, it is not, and if it is not, can´t exist, by consecuence, something that exist can´t become "nothing" as it can´t being created out "nothing", there´s no end for existence, it is ethernal, as you said it fucking wasn´t created, that´s what i am saying, it is infinite, it transforms, no creation,without begin, without end. Nice talk
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Demonstrate that it's eternal, that it's infinite, that it didn't have a beginning, and, finally, that it doesn't have an end. You're the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is on you. I'm sorry if you can't conceptualize an absence of matter and energy: an absolute absence of the four fundamental forces and everything that defines our universe. Maybe there isn't such a place. Yes, a place; call it a contradiction, but it's not. Why can't you understand that?
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
I don't understand how you can't conceive of something that is absent beyond the current expanses of our universe. You're taking this to a more philosophical level when science should be the only factor considered.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
"Nothing" can be defined. Anything outside of our universe, or any universe if you believe the multiverse theory holds any weight, could be considered "nothing". When you argument "Anything" about "Nothing" you are making a contradiction.
My first lenguage is spanish, for sure, but, are talking about theories?, i am talking about facts, the fact is that there´s everything in our universe, but there cannot be "nothing" becouse it wouldn´t be posible in the existence!
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
How am I contradicting myself with that? Let's imagine a place where absolutely nothing exists; a place where substance -- everything -- is absent entirely. We're talking about a place that shouldn't even be called a place because, well, it has absolutely not a single particle, molecule, atom, or whatever within it, nor does it have a "within." Vastly more devoid than a vacuum. Certainly "anything" wouldn't exist in "nothing"; and, if it did, it would cease to be known as "nothing."
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
It is exactly what I say but in another point of view, Im not saying that it was created... Im saying that "something" can´t be created out of "nothing", that is the fact, proved... there is no creation without something before being created... fact, but that don´t mean it was created... that means that to have something you need something, that´s the fact.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Okay. And if you're saying that it was the singularity that produced (not created) all of the universe we inhabit, then I concur. But if you're saying something else came before even the singularity. Well, you'd have to prove it; you'd then have to demonstrate that the singularity had a cause of its own.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
you are contradicting when you are talking first place about nothing like a place, or like a thing, that is the contradiction...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I realize when I describe an absence of matter and energy as a "place" that it may be misconstrued. The truth is that I can't find a word to describe such a "place" where there is an absence of matter, energy, fundamental forces, time, space, et cetera. I actually had a moment of self-reproach when trying to find such a word to describe it: the term "void" was the closest thing I could think of, but it didn't quite describe the intensity of the absolute absence that "nothing" should possess.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
"Void" would be perfect if I were describing a vacuum, but I'm not. I'm trying to convey a state of non-existence, and "void" would imply something that's empty rather than that "something" being absent entirely, much less being empty to begin with.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
when you say "nothing", the word, the concept, it is right, the concept exist, but "nothing" as a reality can´t be in the existence, in the "be". That is why it can´t be, becouse that is the meaning, "nothing"="not be"
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
it just can´t be. That is why I can´t believe in separated universees between nothing or nothing beyond the universe, becouse it just can´t be...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
It just can't be, or you just can't conceive of such a thing? Be honest. It's okay not to know.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
haha no pal, it just can´t be... I could conceive it as a "thing" just like you said, but I can´t conceive it as a reality becouse it can´t be! that is the real meaning of the concept, It is what it could be something without being something. Of course we can Imagine, we can presume, we can say "I don´t know what could be beyond our universe"...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
As I've mentioned previously in this discussion: you're taking far too much of a philosophical approach with this rather than a scientific one which doesn't deal in such absolutes. You also appear to be creating a dichotomy with "nothing" on one end of the spectrum and "something" on the other.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
of course, I don´t... but anyways we have not found a limit for our universe... so we must say our universe it´s equal to the existence and of things wich has to be infinite, we have not found "nothing" it can´t be found... hahah you got me? the fact is that "nothing" it just can´t be...that is why everything just exist, but "nothing" can´t be in the existence as a reality.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
More conjectures, SoyYoTaTo? Now you're asserting that we will never discover "nothing" because, and I quote, "it can't be found." You're also, in the face of the deceased Georges Lemaitre, pissing on the current Big Bang cosmological model. Why are you stating that the universe is "infinite"? Have you ever heard of Hubble's law? It clearly describes the observed expansion of our universe.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Infinite would imply that there was absolutely no end to it, which is somewhat of a contradiction if it's also expanding simultaneously in concordance with aforementioned Hubble's law. On a concluding note: you keep ignoring everything I've been saying thus far. I've demonstrated that your original "Greek Philosophy" bit of "there could be no creation without something before being created" is a fallacy, yet you still choose to argue for an inexplicable reason.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
hahahah I think you don´t understand me... let me put it this way, "EVERYTHING"="IS", "NOTHING"="IS NOT", "EVERYTHING"="be", "NOTHING"="not be" so how is that you can think about an ending, when "NOTHING" is "not be", in conecuence, can´t "be".
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
No, I understand you, I just fail to understand -why- you're trying to use pure philosophical logic in place of a more scientific stance. What puzzles me is why and how you've managed to employ your 'logic' when regarding something with such a tenuous nature as existence.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
hahahah you are making a dichotomy between phylosophy and sience now... when it is part of the same questions and answers... the phylosophy is not argue from mistical proves, they make a research about facts.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Uh, I never created a dichotomy with science and philosophy; I never said, "It's either science or philosophy -- not both! There's no other options!" I never even alluded to it. However, what I did say was that you were approaching this argument from a PURE LOGIC perspective -- philosophical -- rather than one that didn't deal with absolutes: science. This particular argument cannot be answered with what little knowledge we, as a species, currently possess. Apparently you're trying to answer it.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
ok, scientific stance... this is the mathematyc formula of infinit, (x^2 + y^2)^2 = a^2 (x^2 - y^2) it´s exact in cartesian coordinates, but it infinit in mathematyc sequences becouse it is constant. That still leave you the question, what made this desing and why? It is becouse it is necessary for it self... that have no explanation
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I can concur with the expansión theory in some aspects, I concur with the Big Bang in some ascpects too, but a Big Bang, over the same existence, not another existence between "nothing" or "nothing" before the "big bang" becouse somewhere that energy got to be placed, there´s only one existence, and everthing is in there, but "nothing" can´t be...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
You're just guilty of a whole hell of a lot of ignorant conjecture, aren't you? There's only "ONE" existence? So, you know this for a fact? This is why I can't take you seriously when you say that you, and I quote, "Concur with the Big Bang in some aspects." I don't know how much you concur with if you're making unsubstantiated assertions like the ones I've pointed out.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
first, you can´t separate existence between something or "nothing" becouse "nothing" it is just a concept, and if it were something, it will be over the same existence. There is only one question for me that can´t be resolved, and that question is, why is the existence? No one can answer you this question, becouse it have no answer, questions and answers are human bullshit, the existence is beyond our imagination or consciousness, it is becouse it is necessary for itself as far as we can know.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Questions and answers are human bullshit? Okay. You're done and this is why: you just spent the past four days trying to convince me that your answer, a human one, was the definitive conclusion. You stated everything as if it were fact when it was nothing more than conjecture; and, when you were called on this, you performed Ray Comfortesque topic juggling and spouted lies faster than Glenn Beck could ever manage. You failed to answer ANY question I gave you with honesty.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
I never said "nothing" didn't exist as a concept, yet you continued to prattle on as if I said that it was something more than a concept. This argument was started because I was and still am heavily opposed to your "intellectual totalitarianism" mindset creating these asinine dichotomies: "Impossible and possible; something/everything and nothing." Your argument is precisely the same one Sartre provided.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA, OK, first, you tell me "I don´t know if things just can´t dissapear" when I talk about things, i am talking about everything that exist, composed as we know "science" by energy and matter, you have read the premise of the first law of thermodynamics, that says "can´t be destroyed" what does it means that? please I may be wrong tell me your opinion.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Matter and energy can't be destroyed, annihilated, obliterated, extinguished, expunged, or any synonymous word with "destroy" you can conjure. Very simple. Oh, by the way, nice quote mine: I stated that I don't know matter and energy can't disappear because I'm not observing ALL matter and energy simultaneously to account for it all. I don't believe that's the case, but I don't fucking know. Goddamn, dude. Why aren't you understanding this? I thought I made my case clear. I guess not, though.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
When you say I argue by the perspectivo of the pure lógic, philosophical, rather than one that didn´t deal with absolutes, well let me tell you, mathematic, pshisics, every "PURE SCIENCE" or maybe "EXACT SCIENCE" are based in logic, you can´t scape from lógic, that have no sense.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Comment removed
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
, so as "what it is, is" that´s as far as we can know about the existence of things, and of curse im trying to reach this arguement in particular, we "humans" are trying to do this since lot of time, what´s the problem with it?
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
There's absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. I don't see the harm in asking questions and opening new avenues of investigation. I don't think any conscious being should adhere to anything other than the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual honesty.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
hahaha yes I may sound totalitarisim, but what if I create a dichotomy between Something/everything and nothing¿? why you think I am wrong tell me please, this could change my mind...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Questions and answers are human bullshit when we are talking about the reason of the existence, it has no reason, why should have one? do you believe in some consience out there? in the "nothing" maybe? tell me please I want to know your opinion even if you think it can´t be answered, that is the same shit I am telling you...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I don't believe in a consciousness in the "nothing," and the reasoning behind that is the same that I hold toward the claims to deified deus ex machina held by many cultures both extant and extinct. As I've mentioned, I am an atheist. However, as I've also mentioned, I have to conclude through my agnosticism that I do not know. As far as I'm concerned the universe we inhabit is indifferent and, most certainly of all, no more aware of us than a grain of sand is aware of air.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
hahah and i am not trying to convince you Im stating my point of view as a totalitiy may be yes, you are stating yours, we are discussing, what´s the problem?, don´t get angry pal you don´t have to defame me as an answer, I would apreciate if you take it slower, read it one and another time, and expose what you believe, becouse I do want to know what is your opinion.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
As I'm sure you're well aware, the topic of existentialism is a heavily frequented one. Existentialism itself is contingent on the existence of a self-aware being (i.e.: Homo sapien sapien; humans; us): no conscious being, no need for existentialism. We, as individuals, perceive the world with vastly differing views, so it's rather difficult to come to any kind of consensus regarding a unified view on existentialism.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
What does this mean? Well, very simple: philosophy can be wrong. One individual's view on existentialism may very well be wrong: my view that the universe is cold and indifferent, while logical, could be wrong. I don't believe it is and I'm pretty damn certain that it is cold and indifferent, but this still begs the question: "What if I'm wrong?"
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
When you mentioned that what I say could change your mind, I immediately had a knee jerk reaction. I can't even begin to desire changing your mind when the nagging question of "What if I'm wrong?" still dwells in the recesses of my consciousness. I'm vehemently opposed to individuals misleading anyone with their values and beliefs, or lack thereof, as a stamp of approval or a method of which they can impose their own preconceived notions on others.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Do you know about something that can be created out of nothing? I am saying that to create something you need something. I am not saying that it was created "THE UNIVERSE" on purpose, I am being logical. If you want to think, as a "religious"(I don´t) that it was created, you must know that to create something you got to be conciousness and use things. Where you see the fallacy in "there could be no creation without something before being created"? where in those words it is the fallacy?
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
The logical fallacy in "there could be no creation without something before being created" is the presupposition that anything was created to begin with, much less even had a beginning beyond the scope of the singularity. Energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, they can only be transformed. That's the basic premise of the first law of thermodynamics. I don't understand the "search for an end" bit, though. Care to elaborate?
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
fallacy??? That is not a presupposition... that is a fact, that if you want to belive that everything was created (I DON´T...) you need something before being created... not as the bible say that God create the universe from "nothing".... That is the point, im not assuming that the universe or the existence was created, i am saying the fact of a creation as a "thing" it is that can´t be from nowhere or nothing. I concur with the matter and the energy transforming it can´t just dissapear.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
"search for an end" that is why I argue that existence is ethernal and it´s only one... becouse things, can´t just dissapear, can´t have an end or a beginin becouse it cant be created or destroyed.., as the premise of the first law of thermodynamics say...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Do I know about something that can be created out of nothing? No, I don't know; and if I did know, the world would no longer need to worry about finite resources. What's "got to be consciousness and use things"? Are you referring to possessing consciousness -- intelligence -- and the ability to use tools and build things? If so, and I'm not saying that's what you meant, but if so you still wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be transforming something from one state to another.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
If you believe as me, over the transformation of things, the things can´t just dissapear, are we agree with this? then, how do you explain another existence?... how do you separate one existence over another? if just can´t be nothing between... that would be the same existence...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
I don't know if "things" can't just disappear; I'm not tracking every atomic, subatomic, et cetera particle in the entirety of the universe to determine whether or not they remain corporeal. Also, I'm not a physicist; I'm not the guy you need to be asking these sorts of questions to if you're looking for any semblance of a cogent answer.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
Comment removed
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
when you create something, you use the transformation of something, that´s the point... you said, it is not "create" it is "transform", but it is "create" by the "transformacion" but you still can create... if we look it your way, there could be no creation in our lives... that is not true.. we do create by transformacion of things. This is not telling you that the existence or universe it was created on purpose, this is telling you that to create you need something to transform.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Yeah, creation as it's defined by altering the geometry and/or state of something; sure, I can agree with that. But we're not conjuring up the material(s) we wish to use to "create" what we want. If I wanted to, say, make a bong, I'd have to acquire the materials to construct it with. I couldn't just say "Let there be bong!" and have one manifest itself in my hand. I'm sure you can agree with this. I never denied that we could "create" something by altering what we already have.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
so, the premise of the first law of thermodynamics tells you that matter and energy can´t be created or destroyed, how you concieve an ending or a begining... the law gives as an ethernal existence. It says that Matter and Energy can´t be destroyed, for consecuence, those are infinite things, INFINITE! as the Existence of it...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
We can't say that it's infinite in the sense that it would be truly eternal because we don't know conclusively "when" and/or how the singularity came about. We also don't know precisely how it will all end or, for that matter, if it will end at all. We cannot honestly make any assertion that contains "impossible," which is where one of my contentions with you is. The last time our species touched down on alien terra firma was the Apollo 17 mission in 1972: that was the moon -- our own satellite.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
if you know about something that can be created out of nothing... "the world would no longer need to worry about finite resources" sure, if you put it on a humoristic stance. The world I guess would not tolerate such a thing like "nothing" in fact I believe that "nothing" can´t exist. Becouse if it exist, that´s "something"...
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Okay. You guess the world wouldn't tolerate it or you wouldn't tolerate it? No, disregard that; don't answer. I can pretty much predict what the answer will be: completely absent.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
First Law of thermodynamic, search for an end.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
Everything we know it is part of the existence, it can be as a concept, like "nothing" is, and as a reality, as "something",
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
even Sartre was looking for an explanation to the meaning of "nothing" but he conclude that the only thing that could be "nothing" is our own consience, becouse it can´t be taken as an object, but it still part of the existence, and if is part of the existence, can´t be "nothing" as I said lots of times "nothing" just can´t be as a reality, it is just a concept of what could be something without being something.
SoyYoTaTo 2 years ago
So have many philosophers concerned with existentialism. What's your point? Also, citing the name of a 20th century French intellectual will do little to sway me, as arguments from authority hold very little weight in my eyes.
5i1enc3d 2 years ago
If he says "you cats" one more time...I think I'm going to be violent.
Belloran24 2 years ago 3