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.
And what do you think they mean when they use that word?
What it means,
Creation = It was not and then it was.
I thought the word implied an agent doing the creating, hence the back-and-forth between us.
Created Things can't create themselves
The Universe Was Created, and couldn't Create Itself.
Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes.
OK.
Assertion. It is not a consequence of Big Bang Theory that the Big Bang occurred ex nihilo. I explain this possibility in the OP:
The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
Again, the above is just one of four possibilities in a godless universe scenario.
Nonsensical/contradictory. You are saying that in a state where there is nothing, there exists a rule such that nothing can come about. If there truly was nothingness, there would be no such rule. Hence, when there is nothing, anything is possible.
Membranes matterless, energyless, timeless, spaceles... That sounds quite like Spirit.
What can nothing make? Nothing.
Because if Nothing Makes something, then it wouldn't be nothing but something.
(Any possibility of something) Multiplied by Cero Equals Cero.
Out of nothing nothing comes.
So then you are saying that spiritual things manifest in reality?
Confusing zero with nothing and then going on to restate your previous assertions while ignoring my responses that I already provided is satisfactory demonstration for me that you don't know what you're talking about and also that you have conceded the matter.
Do membranes manifest in reality? ¿where are they?
now, on the Zero, well though zero in not nothing is the must close mathematical approach.
Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes.
Created Things can't create themselves
The Universe Was Created
No they don't manifest in reality. If they did, then their existence would not be theoretical.
Zero is the additive identity and as such is vital to a ring or a field, such as Z or Q respectively, and so to call it nothing is beyond absurd.
Right, According to Michio Kaku Father of the Theory of membrane, In his theory of the membranes there is room for God. He said it. Not me.
Now, Multiplying by Zero, leads always to Zero, Adding zero to zero, always result in zero, subtracting zero from zero always results in zero, dividing zero above anything is always zero. Zero is the closest thing to Nothingness and in mathematics zero means nothing.
God is unfalsifiable so of course there will always be the possibility that he exists.
You don't know what you're talking about. I already proved you wrong. Go look up what a ring or a field is.
Out of nothing, nothing is created.
One creates by transforming materials into a finished product, e.g., a factory may create a car from car-parts. "Nothing" isn't a raw material that can be transformed or assembled into something else.
Us taking pre-existing materials and modifying and arranging them is not analogous to the universe coming into being ex nihilo so comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
This is where the atheist's smoke screen of intellectual misgivings falls before the always verified and never falsified causal principle, so he backtracks and says something like "there were eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial membranes from which the universe sprang.
These membranes, (for which there exists no shred of evidence) are far more preferable a hypothesis than a conscious, moral agent who creates us and to whom we are accountable
I'm fully aware of that. But if nothing comes out of nothing, speaking of creation ex nihilo is meaningless babble. It is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
While I'm not a fan of string theory and membranes myself, it is far more preferable because the mathematics at least has something to do with observations of modern physics. God is just pulled out of mythology.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I'm fully aware of that. But if nothing comes out of nothing, speaking of creation ex nihilo is meaningless babble. It is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, like the smoke screen of an eternally existing, timeless, spaceless, immaterial God. Smoke screens like that.
While I'm not a fan of string theory and membranes myself, it is far more preferable because the mathematics at least has something to do with observations of modern physics. God is just pulled out of mythology.
eudaimonia,
Mark
You just defended Materialistic deffinitions, but that doesn't change history nor philosophy.
Ok, So the Big bang happened by Pure Chance?
Hey you are right, somehow all nations in the earth are atheist and lost tribe in inaccessible geographies are not believers... ....Wait.
Right, That is why Scientific Atheism is not any longer necessary and can't make any negative assessment on God.
This was not always that way.
As I said, Now at the edges of knowledge whoch atheist tried to destroy for centuries, atheist are willing to believe whatever thing except God. But atheist who denied any origin of the Word tried to abolish whatever possibility of a Created Universe happening.
Things change.
Like Multiverses?
again definitions, ¿What would be an intelligently made thing?
Hey that makes sense, since we know everything there is to know, then we can deny that something we don't know means it doesn't exists... ...Wait.
the atheistic Uncreated Universe happened to be created.
Milk Cartoon Genius of your fridge ¿Needs milk, cartoon and Fridge to exist? ¿Yes? then he is not eternal. ¿No? so perhaps he is God and you don't know it.
Somehow The pure act of existence needs an explanation.
How can you deny the other events as not to be in fact acts of the genie?
how can you deny that the pure act of existence is not an Act of free will?
If they want to hear the answer and see a materialization, they would hardly have it. But somehow their perseverance in Prayer will take them to the conviction of being heard, and yes, God does answer through his word that is why we call it The Sacres Scripture. not because of infallibility of the semantics or because we believe that those are inventory acts of events, but because we know that the Spirit of the teaching is divine.
However no one of the scriptures can be interpreted alone, it needs to be studied and learned in community, in an assembly, in the Church.
No, in fact Michio Kaku, Father of the Theory of Strings/Membranes, says that his Membranes can need intelligent vibrations, which he would see as Einstein's God of beauty and order.
Zero is mathematically Nothing. sorry but it is so. You can say that "0" stills being something and I agree, but for mathematical purposes Zero equals nothing,
1) Overall, you are appealing to a non-materialistic interpretation of reality, which is problematic because it's not a reality we observe.
Thus, if we don't observe that reality, it's very easy to squeeze in just about anything into that "unobservable realm" without any need to justify it, and then scream "Materialist" every time one asks for some evidence for what you are postulating.
Again, you seem to misunderstand provisional methodological materialism. It doesn't postulate that nothing other than the observable matter exists. This methodology is based on observation and making least assumptions when it comes to explaining any given phenomenon. Hence, we begin with where we find ourselves in - in material reality. If there is a good evidence for non-material reality, then it would follow that such explanation is viable. If we don't find any evidence, then it can be a useful explanation, but it has not definitive ways as to how we can tell any difference.
You have been shown evidence that there exists an immaterial efficient cause of the universe. This conclusion is problematic for you because you are victim of the naturalistic/materialistic presupposition which holds that the only things that exist are the kinds of things you can observe, i.e. material entities that endure through time and space.
If begging the question is not too high a price to pay, then you can retain your views. If you are in search of truth, then you will have to abandon your view for one that at minimum, does not require you to commit an informal logical fallacy.
If someone makes a claim without offering justification for it, then do whatever you please with the claim. Proponents of the Kalam offer justification for both premises of the argument and justification for thinking the cause of the universe is a personal agent. So such an objection is misdirected if aimed at such a proponent who offers good reasons and evidence for their claims.
I agree with this. However, it seems when it comes to explanations with theological implications, many people are reluctant to consider them and will go one step further and prefer explanations that are actually logically impossible, like saying the universe created itself for example.
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?