Strictly, the 'nothing' referred in QM to is a kind of empty 'void', not the abstract idea of the complete absence of anything that it's often misinterpreted to be.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Strictly, the 'nothing' referred in QM to is a kind of empty 'void', not the abstract idea of the complete absence of anything that it's often misinterpreted to be.I stand corrected - in the Quantum world "something from nothing" is possible,
"Something from nothing is a quantum possibility"
Something from nothing is a quantum possibility
Not that I profess to understand Quantum physics, but there you are, it is theoretically possible.
Three things on this:
1. I would clarify my comment about common sense related to faith based discussions - there is no common sense in using fairy tales and myths in a discussion which relates to science, the two are entirely separate. There is no common sense to be had in discussing religious beliefs, they require faith alone.
2. I have no idea how the universe started, how it was formed and how it came into existence. The big bang theory doesn't either, the Big Bang theory describes how the universe evolved from very shortly after it formed, when it was apparently about the size of a peach. I'm quoting here from a science blog for you to understand what scientists say
"We've all heard of the Big Bang theory (I'm talking about the cosmological model, not the TV show), but it's important to understand what that theory is and what it's not. Let me take this opportunity to be precisely, abundantly, emphatically, ridiculously, fantastically clear: The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe. Full stop. Done. Call it. Burn that sentence into your brain. Say it before you go to sleep, and first thing when you wake up."
What Atheists say, by and large, is that some of the questions in the universe are unanswered, some may never be answered, but they are unlikely to be answered by introducing a mystical being which can't be seen, heard, felt, measured or detected.
3. I don't think any scientist say you get something from nothing, I believe physics says it is unable to state with any certainty how the universe started, it is undiscovered. It is not rational to believe it was somehow "made" by god/ gods/ a creator who cannot be seen, heard, felt, detected and who exists in a mythical realm no one has ever seen. That is completely irrational and flies in the face of common sense, it has no place in a scientific discussion.
How can you say that "something from nothing" is absurd yet believe in the biggest something from nothing in history - a mysterious god/gods "made" the entire universe from nothing just by thinking it into existence, nothing made this god, it just "is" and has been for ever. That is absurd. Science being unable to explain everything is not absurd, it's actually far more sensible to acknowledge we don't know everything than to pretend we do by invoking an invisible god/s.
Well done.
Regardless of what you believe.. the fairy tales/Myths some present as explanation for the beginning are viable? something from nothing is beyond myth/fairy tale..it's preposterous. at least the God "fairy tale" makes some sense. But I'm repeating myself, that is simply something factual some refuse to see, oh well.
No, the Big Bang Theory starts from that preposterous nothing...hello? Hence it's ridiculous to even go there for a beginning. IOW, it is a fact, you still have nowhere to start.
Darn right it's not....it's not anything as I have, and with much frustration tried to explain.
Of course it's complicated, that's precisely how the impossible is made to be believable...to some, to those who choose to believe it. Did you notice, a few posts back, how a poster tried to complicate a clear and simple science experiment that "proves" into something that wasn't even science, much less that it didn't prove what it did? He failed miserably but there are always those that want to buy certain explanations for their own reason and they will, no matter how ludicrous.
That's not what they used to say. However, they finally realized how ridiculous some of those "theories" were, so ridiculous they had to back off...the only real move they could make. And again with the fairy tales/mystical? "Detect" the Big Bang for instance, see it, feel it, measure it? Need I say more?
It's less rational to believe it came from nothing, and then sit there and say no scientist believes it came from nothing. A creator has it all over that unbelievable wishy washy mess.
I already mentioned that several time but then people actually had the audacity to try to convince themselves, common sense has no place in this fight, lol. Why? Because they know common sense prevails here so they must get rid of it. A trick the opposition tries to pull often. What tickles me is that some people actually believe some of these clearly ridiculous tricks, and again because they want to, it helps to perpetuate the illusion.
How do you explain the video linked below? A guy puts his finger in fire, gets it all over his hand and he isn't burnt. Is it a miracle? Or do you accept that you really didn't prove that "fire burns fingers"?Anyone can see it was an experiment that proves, and you can talk/say I have to do this or that to make it true till the cows come home but all you efforts will get you nowhere.
Regardless of what you believe.. the fairy tales/Myths some present as explanation for the beginning are viable? something from nothing is beyond myth/fairy tale..it's preposterous. at least the God "fairy tale" makes some sense. But I'm repeating myself, that is simply something factual some refuse to see, oh well.
No, the Big Bang Theory starts from that preposterous nothing...hello? Hence it's ridiculous to even go there for a beginning. IOW, it is a fact, you still have nowhere to start.
Darn right it's not....it's not anything as I have, and with much frustration tried to explain.
Of course it's complicated, that's precisely how the impossible is made to be believable...to some, to those who choose to believe it. Did you notice, a few posts back, how a poster tried to complicate a clear and simple science experiment that "proves" into something that wasn't even science, much less that it didn't prove what it did? He failed miserably but there are always those that want to buy certain explanations for their own reason and they will, no matter how ludicrous.
That's not what they used to say. However, they finally realized how ridiculous some of those "theories" were, so ridiculous they had to back off...the only real move they could make. And again with the fairy tales/mystical? "Detect" the Big Bang for instance, see it, feel it, measure it? Need I say more?
It's less rational to believe it came from nothing, and then sit there and say no scientist believes it came from nothing. A creator has it all over that unbelievable wishy washy mess.
I already mentioned that several time but then people actually had the audacity to try to convince themselves, common sense has no place in this fight, lol. Why? Because they know common sense prevails here so they must get rid of it. A trick the opposition tries to pull often. What tickles me is that some people actually believe some of these clearly ridiculous tricks, and again because they want to, it helps to perpetuate the illusion.
Not only did I ignore it, but I didn't even read it, your posts are a waste of time
. and I already explained in part, why....discount it if you like, but be prepared to accept I'm not going to waste time reading your posts as long as they are say, well, like this one.
Sure, you clearly explained, but didn't I tell you, you had no proof whatsoever your explanation/rules apply, and what I presented was not science. Show me the rule that says the simple experiment I did was not science that "proves", or stop making baseless claims.
Well, if you are simply going to continue not reading the explanations that you yourself are asking for, then obviously you will never learn anything and by extension never be convinced of anything that you don't already believe.So stick your own head in the sand, and try to complicate/confuse a simple truth if you like, and you might even get someone to buy that mine was not a science experiment that showed proof, but me? I'm still laughing that you'd even dare trying to convince me otherwise....that's never going to happen.
It's a wonder I even read this post.
And you? not so much.
Now would you care to touch on the details/reasoning of the post, or just make baseless claims.
Yours in summary is (sigh) “I don’t understand science, it’s beyond my capacity to understand, therefore it must be god”
How do you explain the video linked below? A guy puts his finger in fire, gets it all over his hand and he isn't burnt. Is it a miracle? Or do you accept that you really didn't prove that "fire burns fingers"?
That might explain why you keep repeating the same false accusations, the same falsehoods and don't seem to be learning anything.
How dishonest can you get....
Explain where the creator came from and how it (or they) just "think" things into existence and you have grounds for a COMMON SENSE debate, but there can be zero common sense involved in "it was god". Evidence, proof, experimentation and review, that would help.
I stopped reading there.
You got a sensible reply to your post
and you can't deal with it
, so then, out of desperation, come the lies
, and what's worse, it's a tired favorite here...you guys really do need to get some original/new material.
"How dishonest can you get" or "That Christian sure is dishonest"
Any of you ever notice how that tired old comment is usually directed at a Christian from and Atheist?
Your recent posts are what is referred to as no more than "argumentative"
In this case, you refer to me as dishonest, making mistakes, and only because I won't let you have your way in trying to convince me
, a simple experiment that is clearly science, and clearly "proves" is not that at all.
Sorry, you're just wasting yours and my time both with wordy posts that don't disprove the obvious.
Actually it's more your time you're wasting at this point.
Go ask a native from say a remote village with no modern technology whatsoever beyond a wooden/stone bowl exists, exactly how a micro processor works?
If my point needs further explanation, just ask.
Those natives wouldn't even know what a micro processor is and not a single one of them would be claiming that there are such things.
Think about that for a second.
No no. Just "how dishonest can you get".
Your claim was that if a man puts his finger in a fire it gets burnt. I provided evidence that this is not always the case. So rather than admitting that you were wrong, you ask me if I'm sure about what I'm demonstrating. Well yes, I am sure. I provided evidence which refutes your claim.I'm going to hold off on my usual "snarky" reply to something so ridiculous, I almost can't, and give you a minute to rethink what your presenting here.
Is it really only what you claim? Or is it such a desperate attempt to disprove the Christian that you got carried away and didn't think it out? Seriously, you speak as if you really believe you've disproved what I said. If you still don't get it, just ask again, and I'll try to help you.
I get it. You now want to pretend that your claim wasn't that fire burns fingers, it was that a certain type of fire burns fingers, right? Either way, we're still back to square one and you haven't provided an explanation for why one type of fire burns fingers and the other doesn't.Hint, A proper science experiment, in this case, keeps all conditions the same within reason.
Whooosh!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?