Something from Nothing! Considerations...

[DogmaHunter]

Since there's nothing outside it, then God/Energy has nothing to worry about.

So I guess you took a trip "outside" of the universe (whatever that means) and observed "nothing" there?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So for you God is just a material thing? Equal to or less than the Universe?

You are confusing Energy with material things.

Material things are made from Energy and Energy is also within them. But material things themselves are not Energy.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but has just always been. Material things can be created and destroyed, but the Energy that makes them up will go back to God, which is Energy/Mind.

Your consciousness is housed in your material body, but your body is not your thoughts. Mind is the image we were made in, not a physical form.

It was when Adam and Eve knew both good and evil that they became like God, (they have become like one of Us.... knowing....) , before knowing only good. The first image of the knowledge of good only. God just knew we couldn’t handle the knowledge of evil without His help.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So I guess you took a trip "outside" of the universe (whatever that means) and observed "nothing" there?

If there’s anything outside, it certainly can’t destroy God, which was the point of my response to the poster.

Unless you feel God isn’t all powerful?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If there’s anything outside, it certainly can’t destroy God

Invoking the unknown to make a bare assertion about the unsupportable.

Awesome.

Unless you feel God isn’t all powerful?

Let's first determine this God actually exists, before talking about its properties and attributes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Invoking the unknown to make a bare assertion about the unsupportable.

Awesome.

Is that like invoking unknown Dark Matter and Energy in modern astronomy?

Let's first determine this God actually exists, before talking about its properties and attributes.

Well when we finally understand the things made, those excuses will evaporate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is that like invoking unknown Dark Matter and Energy in modern astronomy?

No. Those models are actually based on real measurements and measureable manifestations in the real world.
Not on dreams, visions and revelations.

Well when we finally understand the things made, those excuses will evaporate.

That makes zero sense as a reply to the statement that you quoted.
Random sentence, seems random.

Also, there was no "excuse" in the statement. There was simply the fact that perhaps you should first demonstrate the entity exists before discussing wheter or not it has some specific property.

Without access to said entity, discussing what properties it has or doesn't have, seems rather pointless and silly.

You say it's X. Another says it's Y.
How are you going to find out who's correct, without access to the thing that's supposedly X or Y? You can't even show there actually exists such a thing that can be X or Y.

Pretty meaningless...

It's like trying to debate about what kind of technology is employed in an alien interstellar space ship's engine, without first establishing that such ships actually exist and ... you know.... actually having access to it one way or the other so that you actually have something to investigate and label.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. Those models are actually based on real measurements and measureable manifestations in the real world.
Not on dreams, visions and revelations.

No they’re not. You got not one spec of supporting evidence. Dark matter has been searched for for over 80 years and zilch, zero, nadda.

What you mean to say is they are using the physics for solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses, which are 99.9% accurate in the solar system. Then apply that physics to a universe 99.9% plasma (ionized matter), get the wrong answers to the theory that was just 99.9% correct, and instead of using the correct physics (plasma physics) insert Fairie Dust to correct for using the wrong physics.

What is Dark matter or energy? You haven’t a clue, can’t tell me in the slightest and think it’s scientific. Laughable.

Also, there was no "excuse" in the statement. There was simply the fact that perhaps you should first demonstrate the entity exists before discussing wheter or not it has some specific property.

Without access to said entity, discussing what properties it has or doesn't have, seems rather pointless and silly.

Agreed, discussing dark matter or dark energy without access to said entity and discussing its properties seems rather pointless and silly.

You say it's X. Another says it's Y.
How are you going to find out who's correct, without access to the thing that's supposedly X or Y? You can't even show there actually exists such a thing that can be X or Y.

Pretty meaningless...

Agreed, you say dark matter and Energy, but without being able to show there actually exists any such thing....

Pretty meaningless....

It's like trying to debate about what kind of technology is employed in an alien interstellar space ship's engine, without first establishing that such ships actually exist and ... you know.... actually having access to it one way or the other so that you actually have something to investigate and label.

Agreed, just like not having any dark matter or dark energy to actually have something to investigate and label. Just having Fairie Dust doesn’t cut it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No they’re not. You got not one spec of supporting evidence. Dark matter has been searched for for over 80 years and zilch, zero, nadda.

What you mean to say is they are using the physics for solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses, which are 99.9% accurate in the solar system. Then apply that physics to a universe 99.9% plasma (ionized matter), get the wrong answers to the theory that was just 99.9% correct, and instead of using the correct physics (plasma physics) insert Fairie Dust to correct for using the wrong physics.

What is Dark matter or energy? You haven’t a clue, can’t tell me in the slightest and think it’s scientific. Laughable.



Agreed, discussing dark matter or dark energy without access to said entity and discussing its properties seems rather pointless and silly.


Agreed, you say dark matter and Energy, but without being able to show there actually exists any such thing....

Pretty meaningless....


Agreed, just like not having any dark matter or dark energy to actually have something to investigate and label. Just having Fairie Dust doesn’t cut it.

Ow right, I forgot... You're one of those plasma folks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Invoking the unknown to make a bare assertion about the unsupportable.

Awesome.

Miraculous.

Let's first determine this God actually exists, before talking about its properties and attributes.

"Its"?

You have no idea what to look for, do you?

Science is myopic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ow right, I forgot... You're one of those plasma folks.

Considering plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe, I'd suggest you actually learn something about the subject you claim to understand.... Apparently you don't, since you probably were not even aware that the universe is 99.9% plasma. You might study up on it since it makes up so much of the entire universe. Just a suggestion.... But I take that as a compliment, since the universe is 99.9% plasma, that puts me ahead of those that don't have a clue about it.

But you'd probably think going to a geologist when you broke your leg was fine too.

Good try avoiding the subject of your non-existent items while trying to apply the same reasoning to something else, then refusing to accept your own reasoning when applied to something you believe in.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you'd probably think going to a geologist when you broke your leg was fine too.

Not really, that's why I'll go with what the actual concensus of physicists is concerning the nature of the cosmos, instead of few random creationist-like types on the interwebs.

Good try avoiding the subject of your non-existent items while trying to apply the same reasoning to something else, then refusing to accept your own reasoning when applied to something you believe in.....

I'm not trying to.
I'm actively and succesfully avoiding getting caught in your web of conspiracy theories and pretending to know better then actual physicists.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not really, that's why I'll go with what the actual concensus of physicists is concerning the nature of the cosmos, instead of few random creationist-like types on the intetwebs.

No your not. If you really went to the experts you would be going to the plasma physicists since 99.9% of the universe is plasma. And the top plasma physicists disagree with your hacks that know nothing about plasma.

I'm not trying to.
I'm actively and succesfully avoiding getting caught in your web of conspiracy theories and pretending to know better then actual physicists.

That’s just it, I don’t pretend to know better than actual plasma physicists, just those that keep using the wrong physics for the state of Matter we are discussing. Now if you want to discuss non-plasma (planetary systems) I’ll defer to the non-plasma physicists.

So you still think going to a geologist when you break your leg instead of a doctor is ok by your answer, as you seem to avoid the real experts opinion when discussing a universe 99.9% plasma. Even your hacks admit that much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No your not.

Yes, I am.

If you really went to the experts you would be going to the plasma physicists since 99.9% of the universe is plasma. And the top plasma physicists disagree with your hacks that know nothing about plasma.

lol!

That’s just it, I don’t pretend to know better than actual plasma physicists, just those that keep using the wrong physics for the state of Matter we are discussing. Now if you want to discuss non-plasma (planetary systems) I’ll defer to the non-plasma physicists.

So you still think going to a geologist when you break your leg instead of a doctor is ok by your answer, as you seem to avoid the real experts opinion when discussing a universe 99.9% plasma. Even your hacks admit that much.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, I am.



lol!



Whatever makes you sleep at night.

No, it’s whatever let’s you sleep at night knowing your using the wrong physics for a universe 99.9% plasma. That’s why you got no actual science to present to defend your stance. All you got is 96% Fairie Dust.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it’s whatever let’s you sleep at night knowing your using the wrong physics for a universe 99.9% plasma. That’s why you got no actual science to present to defend your stance. All you got is 96% Fairie Dust.....

Physics doesn't keep me away at night, one way or the other.
I also don't have any physics stance to "defend", because I have no particular stance. If I wish to learn about physics, I'll go ask the actual experts.

It's YOU who has a stance to defend, since it disagrees with the mainstream. You're the one saying that they are all wrong and that you are correct.

I'm not that arrogant.

I just find it funny when I see creationist-type folks on the interwebs that feel like they can argue against scientific consensus - implying that they know better.

I think it's quite hilarious.
But no, I feel no need to engage you on this. First because the subject doesn't interest me much and second because I don't feel like I know enough about physics to do so - I'm bound to say things that are wrong or to bump into stuff I don't know enough about. See that's how I approach subjects: when I feel like I don't know enough about it - I just shut up.
Some others here should try that sometimes.

Perhaps you can go create a thread and discuss it with Michael.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Physics doesn't keep me away at night, one way or the other.
I also don't have any physics stance to "defend", because I have no particular stance. If I wish to learn about physics, I'll go ask the actual experts.

It's YOU who has a stance to defend, since it disagrees with the mainstream. You're the one saying that they are all wrong and that you are correct.

I'm not that arrogant.

I just find it funny when I see creationist-type folks on the interwebs that feel like they can argue against scientific consensus - implying that they know better.

I think it's quite hilarious.
But no, I feel no need to engage you on this.

Perhaps you can go create a thread and discuss it with Michael.

No, what is arrogant is to deny your own physicists when they tell you 99.9% of the universe is plasma, then ignore plasma physics.... now that’s arrogance....

 

[Ophiolite]

What you mean to say is they are using the physics for solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses, which are 99.9% accurate in the solar system. Then apply that physics to a universe 99.9% plasma (ionized matter), get the wrong answers to the theory that was just 99.9% correct, and instead of using the correct physics (plasma physics) insert Fairie Dust to correct for using the wrong physics.

Something to ponder there surely. Two questions for you:
1. How much of the mass of the solar system is represented by the sun?
2. How much of the sun is plasma?

If you get the questions correct, perhaps you can then explain what you think is the difference between the solar system and the rest of the universe given the practical identity of plasma percentages in each.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Something to ponder there surely. Two questions for you:
1. How much of the mass of the solar system is represented by the sun?
2. How much of the sun is plasma?

If you get the questions correct, perhaps you can then explain what you think is the difference between the solar system and the rest of the universe given the practical identity of plasma percentages in each.

99.9% of the solar system is plasma.

But what you are forgetting is it’s the orbits of the planets (non-plasma) that is accurately described. It’s the orbit of the sun (plasma) that the same physics fails to describe and where they have to insert Fairie Dust to make their numbers add up from using the wrong physics.

Something for you to think about indeed. The physics for the behavior of the planets is 99.9% correct. It’s when you try to apply that same physics to the behavior of the sun is when you got to use ad-hoc theory to what was just shown to be 99.9% accurate without it.

Something for you to think about indeed. I’ve thought about it, apparently it’s you that never really has thought about it. In reality you just confirmed everything I said thinking you were disproving it. The sun is plasma, and it’s the sun that refuses to orbit according to their calculations. So much so they have to add that magical Fairie Dust to make it work when it’s already been shown to be 99.9% accurate without it.

So that's what I think is different between the solar system and the rest of the universe. The rest of the universe is 99.9% plasma and the physics for non-ionized matter fails by 96% when applied to that universe of 99.9% plasma, just as it fails to accurately portray the suns behavior....

I know its not your fault they use the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter, but you cant support that Fairie Dust just because non-plasma experts tell you to trust them. The plasma experts are telling you they are wrong.... And since the subject is a universe 99.9% plasma, you go to the experts on that state of matter, not the ones for planetary systems.... which is a measly .1% of the whole.

 

[Ophiolite]

99.9% of the solar system is plasma.

But what you are forgetting is it’s the orbits of the planets (non-plasma) that is accurately described. It’s the orbit of the sun (plasma) that the same physics fails to describe and where they have to insert Fairie Dust to make their numbers add up from using the wrong physics.

Something for you to think about indeed. The physics for the behavior of the planets is 99.9% correct. It’s when you try to apply that same physics to the behavior of the sun is when you got to use ad-hoc theory to what was just shown to be 99.9% accurate without it.

Something for you to think about indeed. I’ve thought about it, apparently it’s you that never really has thought about it. In reality you just confirmed everything I said thinking you were disproving it. The sun is plasma, and it’s the sun that refuses to orbit according to their calculations. So much so they have to add that magical Fairie Dust to make it work when it’s already been shown to be 99.9% accurate without it.

So that's what I think is different between the solar system and the rest of the universe. The rest of the universe is 99.9% plasma and the physics for non-ionized matter fails by 96% when applied to that universe of 99.9% plasma, just as it fails to accurately portray the suns behavior....

I know its not your fault they use the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter, but you cant support that Fairie Dust just because non-plasma experts tell you to trust them. The plasma experts are telling you they are wrong.... And since the subject is a universe 99.9% plasma, you go to the experts on that state of matter, not the ones for planetary systems.... which is a measly .1% of the whole.

When you are prepared to eliminate the following from your posts I shall be happy to engage you in a serious discussion on this and other matters:

• Soap box rhetoric
• Agenda driven, unsupported assertions
• Snide, snearing phraseology
• Arrogant presumptions

In short, stop acting like a clump of chaotic plasma and behave like that portion of the universe which has a degree of order and coherence. Your message is drowned by your emotional invective.

Edit: corrected bizarre spelling of "happy".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you are prepared to eliminate the following from your posts I shall be hah=ppy to engage you in a serious discussion on this and other matters:

• Soap box rhetoric
• Agenda driven, unsupported assertions
• Snide, snearing phraseology
• Arrogant presumptions

In short, stop acting like a clump of chaotic plasma and behave like that portion of the universe which has a degree of order and coherence. Your message is drowned by your emotional invective.

NO, you’re right. I get used to debating with people like dogmahunter who only engage in that and it tends to carry over. My apologies.

I’d be happy to carry on a civilized debate, I just wasn’t aware any on here were civilized.

As for agenda driven, all sides are, one way or another. Mine is simply to get you to understand plasma does not behave like non-ionized matter, and so the physics for non-ionized matter fails when applied to it.