"We had to come from somewhere."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 02:20 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 12:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ...you are believing in a thing which has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Your belief is simply a matter of faith.

Its not Faith, its agreeing with the current best guess.

Here is where we came from as far as science can tell.

top left corner, before that is still guess work NOT FAITH !!
[Image: periodic-table.jpg]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sporehux's post
07-12-2013, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 02:47 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 02:11 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 01:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nothingness consists of no space, no time, no particles, no fields, no force, no laws of nature, no laws of physics, no logic, no mathematical entities, and no consciousness. Nothingness isn't anything....not even a noun. Nothingness is complete negation of existence.

Your definition coincides with that of Lawrance Krauss' in

- no space
- no time
- no particles
- no fields
- no force
- no laws of nature/no laws of physics/mathematical entities
- opposite of something/existence

Krauss did not see it necessary to say nothingness is no logic and no consciousness. Also, he didn't claim that nothingness isn't even a noun/word. That's solely your ridiculous claim right now...

Because my definition doesn't agree with Krauss's that makes it ridiculous?

pfft....

Anyways a noun is a person, place, or thing....Nothingness is none of those. It perfectly acceptable to say nothingness is not a noun. Where my definition of nothingness substantially differs from Krauss's is that his definition doesn't exclude a framework in which quantum mechanics can operate. His definition isn't total and complete negation of existence. His "nothing" is dynamic.....it is changeable....it is something. His nothingness can be described by what it is, my nothingness can only be described by what it isn't.

Whose definition is really more ridiculous?

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 02:20 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ...you are believing in a thing which has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Your belief is simply a matter of faith.

Its not Faith, its agreeing with the current best guess.

Here is where we came from as far as science can tell.

top left corner, before that is still guess work NOT FAITH !!
[Image: periodic-table.jpg]

You're conflating hydrogen with the magical singularity.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 12:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:20 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Ok, so the big bang theory basically says that there was a singularity where all matter was on top of itself with infinite density from which the big bang occurred. Within the singularity, the laws of physics would have broken down such that everything in the universe resulting from the big bang would not have been directly caused by anything pre-big bang. Therefore, time and space (for this universe) are said (by some) to have started with the big bang.

Personally, I think it stands to reason that the singularity wasn't necessarily the first thing in existence anywhere, although many disagree with me. So, to the question, what existed before the big bang, I would say "we don't know" and I'm satisfied with that answer until more information comes along.

Ummm....sorry but big bang theory doesn't say anything like that. Big Bang theory basically says the universe was hotter and more dense in the past and has since expanded. It doesn't say anything about what banged or why it banged.

"Singularity" is just a made up term to act as a place holder for ignorance. If you believe in some primordial singularity exploding into the universe today....you are believing in a thing which has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Your belief is simply a matter of faith.
Speaking of ignorance... Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 02:42 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 02:11 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Your definition coincides with that of Lawrance Krauss' in

- no space
- no time
- no particles
- no fields
- no force
- no laws of nature/no laws of physics/mathematical entities
- opposite of something/existence

Krauss did not see it necessary to say nothingness is no logic and no consciousness. Also, he didn't claim that nothingness isn't even a noun/word. That's solely your ridiculous claim right now...

Because my definition doesn't agree with Krauss's that makes it ridiculous?

pfft....

Anyways a noun is a person, place, or thing....Nothingness is none of those. It perfectly acceptable to say nothingness is not a noun. Where my definition of nothingness substantially differs from Krauss's is that his definition doesn't exclude a framework in which quantum mechanics can operate. His definition isn't total and complete negation of existence. His "nothing" is dynamic.....it is changeable....it is something. His nothingness can be described by what it is, my nothingness can only be described by what it isn't.

Whose definition is really more ridiculous?

I understand what youre saying. My understanding of particles being spontaneously created from "nothing" is something that happens within dimensions of the universe, and from borrowed energy... Two things required for it to work... So yeah, not "nothing". Of course, I dont know a lot about quantum physics, so maybe the maths do allow for something from absolutely nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 01:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Speaking of ignorance... Drinking Beverage

I found this short video from minute physics for you.




Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 01:05 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 01:58 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I understand what youre saying. My understanding of particles being spontaneously created from "nothing" is something that happens within dimensions of the universe, and from borrowed energy... Two things required for it to work... So yeah, not "nothing". Of course, I dont know a lot about quantum physics, so maybe the maths do allow for something from absolutely nothing.

That is the big difference between you and H J. Even though I saw your sophisticated contributions in this and other topics and therefore assume that you have competence in these questions, you are still humble enough to admit that this is to the best of your knowledge. Unlike H J...

This is the reason I stopped commenting on his ridiculous claims like nothingness isn't even a noun... Nothing to be gained there. But my initial point wasn't to prove that this theory has merit anyway. I would like to redirect you to my initial point I was trying to make.

Especially:
Quote:People shouldn't assume to have or to seek absolute knowledge in complicated questions like this.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(08-12-2013 01:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  This is the reason I stopped commenting on his ridiculous claims like nothingness isn't even a noun... Nothing to be gained there. But my initial point wasn't to prove that this theory has merit anyway. I would like to redirect you to my initial point I was trying to make.

Especially:
Quote:People shouldn't assume to have or to seek absolute knowledge in complicated questions like this.

I explained what I meant by nothingness is not a noun. A noun is a person, place, or thing. Nothingness is not one of those.

Your initial point is subjective...people can seek absolute knowledge if they wish. I like to seek absolute knowledge about some things knowing I will never find it, but nevertheless I always seem to find something.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(08-12-2013 02:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I like to seek absolute knowledge about some things knowing I will never find it, but nevertheless I always seem to find something.

Well, then you are either arrogant, delusional or both, because there is no such thing as absolute knowledge... Drinking Beverage

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(08-12-2013 02:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 01:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  This is the reason I stopped commenting on his ridiculous claims like nothingness isn't even a noun... Nothing to be gained there. But my initial point wasn't to prove that this theory has merit anyway. I would like to redirect you to my initial point I was trying to make.

Especially:

I explained what I meant by nothingness is not a noun. A noun is a person, place, or thing. Nothingness is not one of those.

Your initial point is subjective...people can seek absolute knowledge if they wish. I like to seek absolute knowledge about some things knowing I will never find it, but nevertheless I always seem to find something.

Nouns are words used to identify people, places, things, and ideas. It is a grammatical class.

You can't just redefine words to suit yourself. Oh, wait. You do it all the time. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: