Question

[juvenissun]

A weakness of your reasoning.
The last two sentences here are questions. But you already assume that you know my answers, and proclaim them a "weakness".

Not a good way to start a conversation that is to be about not-nonsense.

But to answer your questions: no. Usually, I do not even engage in scientific arguments... while I have a rather good education in the natural sciences, I am no expert in any field.
And, to follow that up: yes, I always examine the "non-science part" of their, ehm, "wonderful" arguments... and I usually find them quite lacking, based on the other part of my rather good education: the humanities, philosophy, logic and mathematics.

Shouldn't I rather focus in the non-scientific part of your wonderful arguments?

But, of course, if you have something to offer, perhaps even something new that I haven't heard before... bring it on!

OK, I see your point.
If so, what is the non-sense you talked about? What non-sense evidences (not related to science) are Christians usually give?

 

[-57]

And another of the things I mentioned earlier.

See, the point it that you have not shown there is a need for a God. It is not that I simply "disagree". I explained why. But instead of responding to my argument, you ignored it and tried to move on to something different.

Unreason. Bad logic. Handwaving, belittling, insulting. Each time you have to resort to such methods, you strengthen my doubt.

Answer this.....If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today? You keep doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe dance around that question.

 

[bhsmte]

Answer this.....If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today? You keep doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe dance around that question.

Can you define "nothing"?

 

[-57]

Can you define "nothing"?

I see you have now put on Mr. Bojangles shoes and have joined the dance. I think the definition of nothing is pretty self explanatory.

 

[bhsmte]

I see you have now put on Mr. Bojangles shoes and have joined the dance. I think the definition of nothing is pretty self explanatory.

A definition would help though, if you are able to offer one.

How exactly do you discover "nothing" and how do you know "nothing" is really present?

 

[HitchSlap]

Information is the code...the instruction...in the DNA.

There is no "instruction," only chemistry.

 

[-57]

There is no "instruction," only chemistry.

That's like telling me your computer contains no instruction but magnetic states representing 1's and 0's.

 

[-57]

A definition would help though, if you are able to offer one.

How exactly do you discover "nothing" and how do you know "nothing" is really present?

Nothing is void of everything. Complete and utter emptiness. Non-existent.
Now, if there was something from which all "stuff' was derived...what was it and where did it come from?

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing is void of everything. Complete and utter emptiness. Non-existent.
Now, if there was something from which all "stuff' was derived...what was it and where did it come from?

So how do you test if nothing is present?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Answer this.....If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today?

The most parsimonious logical answer would be that stuff has always existed.

In one interpretation, since spacetime is an expression of the dependence of time on space and vice-versa, it would also be logical to say that spacetime always has been, since there can be nothing before spacetime, any more than there can be anything north of the North Pole. I believe Stephen Hawking once derived the physics of such a 'closed spacetime' in mathematical form.

 

[-57]

The most parsimonious logical answer would be that stuff has always existed.

In one interpretation, since spacetime is an expression of the dependence of time on space and vice-versa, it would also be logical to say that spacetime always has been, since there can be nothing before spacetime, any more than there can be anything north of the North Pole. I believe Stephen Hawking once derived the physics of such a 'closed spacetime' in mathematical form.

You said "it would also be logical to say that spacetime always has been"

That theory opens open a problem for you. Considering eternity future will never get here....it stands to reason if space/time eternity has a past the here and now would never get here operating inside of space time. Now you will have to argue that it would get to the here and now. This creates yet a second problem. If all the stuff in the universe always existed in the form of energy, matter, whatever....from the time it takes to get from eternity past to the here and now...it would have exhausted itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing is void of everything. Complete and utter emptiness. Non-existent.
Now, if there was something from which all "stuff' was derived...what was it and where did it come from?

This seems to be a problem for the God hypothesis; one wonders how a non-existent God can create anything. And if we grant the ultimate special pleading that a God could somehow exist despite the complete absence of anything, then to make progress with the God hypothesis, we must accept additional special pleading that this God can somehow make something from nothing. It would be simpler to say it's just 'magic'...

I also think 'emptiness' is not a useful description of 'nothing', as it implies a volume - a container without material content (e.g. 'empty' spacetime). A box that truly has nothing in it must be squashed flat, so there is literally nothing, not even spacetime between its inner sides. This tells us something - that 'nothing' is an abstract concept of negation, it can't actually exist (and, of course, there wouldn't be anything for it to exist in).

So, in one sense or other, there must always be or have been stuff; what we don't know is what stuff was like before the big bang, or if it makes sense to ask if there was a before the big bang - for example, if spacetime is closed at the big bang, our view of it as the 'start' of time is an artefact of our particular time-bound causal perspective.

 

[-57]

This seems to be a problem for the God hypothesis; one wonders how a non-existent God can create anything. And if we grant the ultimate special pleading that a God could somehow exist despite the complete absence of anything, then to make progress with the God hypothesis, we must accept additional special pleading that this God can somehow make something from nothing. It would be simpler to say it's just 'magic'...

I also think 'emptiness' is not a useful description of 'nothing', as it implies a volume - a container without material content (e.g. 'empty' spacetime). A box that truly has nothing in it must be squashed flat, so there is literally nothing, not even spacetime between its inner sides. This tells us something - that 'nothing' is an abstract concept of negation, it can't actually exist (and, of course, there wouldn't be anything for it to exist in).

So, in one sense or other, there must always be or have been stuff; what we don't know is what stuff was like before the big bang, or if it makes sense to ask if there was a before the big bang - for example, if spacetime is closed at the big bang, our view of it as the 'start' of time is an artefact of our particular time-bound causal perspective.

You seem to forget...God exist outside of space time. In fact God had to speak the 'emptiness' into existence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...it stands to reason if space/time eternity has a past the here and now would never get here operating inside of space time. Now you will have to argue that it would get to the here and now.

You first - how does your God hypothesis deal with this problem? I'm guessing more special pleading, yes?

This creates yet a second problem. If all the stuff in the universe always existed in the form of energy, matter, whatever....from the time it takes to get from eternity past to the here and now...it would have exhausted itself.

You first - how does your God hypothesis deal with this problem? I'm guessing more special pleading, yes?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to forget...God exist outside of space time. In fact God had to speak the 'emptiness' into existence.

That's the special pleading I'm talking about. To suggest something can exist outside what doesn't exist is a logically incoherent concept - doubly incoherent if what doesn't exist is that which is itself necessary for existence to have meaning. To further suggest that the absence of anything can be 'spoken' into something, in the absence of time in which to do anything, is just absurd.

There's plenty of stuff we don't understand, but that's no excuse.

 

[-57]

That's the special pleading I'm talking about. To suggest something can exist outside what doesn't exist is a logically incoherent concept - doubly incoherent if what doesn't exist is that which is itself necessary for existence to have meaning. To further suggest that the absence of anything can be 'spoken' into something, in the absence of time in which to do anything, is just absurd.

There's plenty of stuff we don't understand, but that's no excuse.

To think all that is came about by itself is absurd. To think energy/matter can self create is even more absurd. Then again the guy on "flatland" would think the 3rd dimension is absurd.

 

[quatona]

You seem to forget...God exist outside of space time. In fact God had to speak the 'emptiness' into existence.

Hey, weren´t you the guy who said "Let´s start with common sense"?
And aren´t you the very guy who asserts that something "exists out of time" and that the universe was "spoken into existence"?
Irony alert.

 

[quatona]

To think all that is came about by itself is absurd. To think energy/matter can self create is even more absurd. Then again the guy on "flatland" would think the 3rd dimension is absurd.

But to think that energy/matter was "spoken into existence" isn´t absurd?

 

[-57]

Hey, weren´t you the guy who said "Let´s start with common sense"?
And aren´t you the very guy who asserts that something "exists out of time" and that the universe was "spoken into existence"?
Irony alert.

That is common sense. Your problem is you can't see that it is.

 

[SteveB28]

No.

There are no gods.

Only human inventions.