What did it all started with?

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you enjoy repeating yourself?
Lol, I attacked what? I didn't attack anything.
I'm sure this technology is inevitable, but I don't have to like it.
But hey, it let's you be a keyboard warrior, so I can see why you like it.
I'm sure it's not only my opinion; using technological progress in the form of being able to construct and transmit a post world wide which attacks technological progress is a stunning example of hypocrisy .
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,854
3,889
✟273,845.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you enjoy repeating yourself?
Lol, I attacked what? I didn't attack anything.
I'm sure this technology is inevitable, but I don't have to like it.
But hey, it let's you be a keyboard warrior, so I can see why you like it.

Let me remind you this is what you wrote;
Another thing to hate about "progress." Thanks.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word hate.
Hate is not an endearing word nor is it neutral.
It conveys hostility, aggression, malice, anger to name a few.

Since you loathe technological progress which another definition, I suggest for consistency you submit your posts on scraps of paper and sent by carrier pigeon.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,653
11,693
54
USA
✟294,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What it clearly is, is a universe created by an intelligent being. Proposing that it has no beginning is as messed up as flat earth, at least. Everything points to a beginning and an eventual end of this planet.

All of existance, even our mere Universe are *just* a little bit bigger than this planet.

Of course the Earth had a beginning, it's only 4.5 Gyr old. Much younger than the Universe.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All of existance, even our mere Universe are *just* a little bit bigger than this planet.

Of course the Earth had a beginning, it's only 4.5 Gyr old. Much younger than the Universe.
To propose the universe has existed forever, you have to ignore that it's expanding or explain how it could expand forever without having a point to expand from.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,653
11,693
54
USA
✟294,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To propose the universe has existed forever, you have to ignore that it's expanding or explain how it could expand forever without having a point to expand from.

Is anyone actually proposing that *our* Universe (you know, the expanding one) has been around "forever"?

I fear a looseness of terminology has crept in.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is anyone actually proposing that *our* Universe (you know, the expanding one) has been around "forever"?

I fear a looseness of terminology has crept in.
Yes, that's exactly what they are proposing. Even if you propose this universe is one of many, where does that get you? Universes magically spawning other universes into eternity past is no more scientific than just saying that God did it.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,653
11,693
54
USA
✟294,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that's exactly what they are proposing. Even if you propose this universe is one of many, where does that get you? Universes magically spawning other universes into eternity past is no more scientific than just saying that God did it.

Who exactly is making that claim? In this thread? Cited references?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,854
3,889
✟273,845.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Abra-ca-dapra! Magic universe makes itself from nothing!
As expected my explanation of 'nothing' was way beyond your paygrade to understand.
In a nutshell it explained there is always a 'something' in 'nothing' which is the vacuum energy of a field.
This has been confirmed by experiments such as virtual particles popping out of 'nothing' and exerting pressure on parallel plates in a vacuum which is the Casimir force.

Here is another example.
A free neutron (n) decays to a proton (p) according to the reaction.
n → p + e⁻ + ῡₑ where e⁻ and ῡₑ are the electron and antineutrino respectively.
This is a straightforward reaction where energy is conserved.

When we look at the reaction at a more fundamental level using a Feynman diagram things look decidedly weird.

beta.png


In the diagram the W⁻ boson which is the carrier for the weak force pops into and out of existence when a neutron decays into a proton and hangs around with a half life of Δt ≈ 3 x 10⁻²⁵ s.
Since its half life is so short, using the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, its mass is around 80X greater than the neutron which has been confirmed by experiment.
So where did the mass of the W⁻ boson come from; certainly not from the neutron but from the (Higgs) vacuum energy of the field.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,653
11,693
54
USA
✟294,104.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
post
#70
Eternal matter.

You'd said that the laws of physics couldn't pop out of nothing, and in response post #70 says that *THE LAWS OF PHYSICS* could have always existed. That is not the same as an eternal universe or matter.
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
56
Center
✟58,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can't have scientific laws without someONE creating those laws. Without a first cause, nothing would exist.
Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities.

As far as existence needing a cause, this statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The principle of causality presupposes something that acts. In order for something to act it must first exist. Therefore as soon as you propose a cause you are proposing existence. In other words, causality presupposes existence and not the other way around.

The type of action a thing can perform is determined by the nature or identity of the thing that acts. Therefore the first cause is existence itself since existence and identity are one and the same. To exist is to be something specific, to have an identity and to have an identity is to exist. You could never say that something exists but it has no identity and you could never say that something has identity but it doesn't exist. There is a 100% concurrence of identity and existence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities.
So again we have eternal matter. Which is no different than believing in an eternal being.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,787.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but they can be interchangeable, and can switch or change forms, and it can be compacted and/or expanded, etc, so maybe the universe came from what is already here, etc, but then, if that is the case, then how did it come to be there/here in the first place, etc...?

Anyway...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
56
Center
✟58,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So then if it's no different, we don't need to posit a creator since we know that matter and energy exist and can be eternal. God is just an extra, unwarranted step.

Existence is a primary, irreducible fact. What some call a brute fact. That means it can't be analyzed or explained in terms of antecedent facts. It just is. You either accept that fact or you don't. Because knowledge is heirarchical, it means that it has a starting point. That starting point can only be existence.

The only alternative is to start with non-existence, which is what you do when you seek a cause for existence. This is such simple logic that I wonder that this question of the origins of existence persists.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,787.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
So then if it's no different, we don't need to posit a creator since we know that matter and energy exist and can be eternal. God is just an extra, unwarranted step.

Existence is a primary, irreducible fact. What some call a brute fact. That means it can't be analyzed or explained in terms of antecedent facts. It just is. You either accept that fact or you don't. Because knowledge is heirarchical, it means that it has a starting point. That starting point can only be existence.

The only alternative is to start with non-existence, which is what you do when you seek a cause for existence. This is such simple logic that I wonder that this question of the origins of existence persists.
But that's just the thing, we don't think anything (existence) can come from non-existence, etc...?

So we wonder why some of your's "denial" persists, etc...?

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,787.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
So then if it's no different, we don't need to posit a creator since we know that matter and energy exist and can be eternal. God is just an extra, unwarranted step.

Existence is a primary, irreducible fact. What some call a brute fact. That means it can't be analyzed or explained in terms of antecedent facts. It just is. You either accept that fact or you don't. Because knowledge is heirarchical, it means that it has a starting point. That starting point can only be existence.

The only alternative is to start with non-existence, which is what you do when you seek a cause for existence. This is such simple logic that I wonder that this question of the origins of existence persists.
Oh, and BTW, you kind of just now said that anything that exists has to come from something that either does or did (always) exist...?

Don't know if you caught that or fully realized that, etc...?

And we 100% completely agree with you, etc...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0