Nothing should exist.

[Ben K.]

go back read it helps when trying to make an argument.

God can create time first and then add the rest into it.

Time has a begining point almost all scientists agree on this. time has never just always existed.
Everyone from Einstein to hawkings has calculated that time has a beginning.

So did God create time before or after it existed?

 

[grip]

So did God create time before or after it existed?

As far as scientists can theorize, time and space came into existence simultaneously. An instant before the singularity that formed and expanded there supposedly was 'nothing'. An absence of all time, space, matter and energy.

 

[Ben K.]

As far as scientists can theorize, time and space came into existence simultaneously. An instant before the singularity that formed and expanded there supposedly was 'nothing'. An absence of all time, space, matter and energy.

How does a concept like "before" work without time?

 

[grip]

How does a concept like "before" work without time?

Time is a 'starting point' of creation or cause and effect. Movement is the result, so before there was space expansion there was no movement or time. Something at complete rest would be said to be timeless.

 

[Ben K.]

Time is a 'starting point' of creation or cause and effect. Movement is the result, so before there was space expansion there was no movement or time. Something at complete rest would be said to be timeless.

What I'm getting at is that term bolded isn't particularly meaningful without time.

Maybe this wiki link is a better explanation for my position.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space

Hartle

There is no before the Big Bang.

 

[grip]

What I'm getting at is that term bolded isn't particularly meaningful without time.

Maybe this wiki link is a better explanation for my position.



Hartle

This is both true and incorrect. The universe has an age, which means it had a beginning of sorts. But it's beginning preceded the physical laws of nature that are now considered constants.

The universe also has no center or boundaries and is quite the enigma in where all the space and dark energy are coming from. I assume, like many scientists there is another unseen dimension that is hidden from our perception that may be boundless and feeding this universe the necessary energy to exist. Though anything infinite would probably be imperceptible to the senses or even to instrumentation, because it's very existence would be beyond the limited (us) to comprehend.

 

[Ben K.]

This is both true and incorrect. The universe has an age, which means it had a beginning of sorts. But it's beginning preceded the physical laws of nature that are now considered constants.

The universe also has no center or boundaries and is quite the enigma in where all the space and dark energy are coming from. I assume, like many scientists there is another unseen dimension that is hidden from our perception that may be boundless and feeding this universe the necessary energy to exist. Though anything infinite would probably be imperceptible to the senses or even to instrumentation, because it's very existence would be beyond the limited (us) to comprehend.

I understand all this, and while I'm a scientist (and a materialist) to the core, you're missing the philosophical point being made. If the universe (therefore time) were exactly 13.8 billion years old then what happened 13.81 billion years ago? The question is meaningless without time.

 

[grip]

I understand all this, and while I'm a scientist (and a materialist) to the core, you're missing the philosophical point being made. If the universe (therefore time) were exactly 13.8 billion years old then what happened 13.81 billion years ago? The question is meaningless without time.

If there's another unobserved dimension that is omnipotent, timeless, spaceless, infinite , interconnected and responsible for the observable one, then we're only getting part of the information about our own universe's true nature. Maybe it always existed at rest, without cause and effect, until it transformed into what we now perceive 13.8 billion years ago. What happened 13.81 billion years ago is beyond our purview or calculations, without a frame of reference.

So, I actually agree with you about the energy source prior to time being something that was unimaginable. It both existed everywhere and nowhere... being an endless ocean of static, unchanging force.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Right... so where did that energy come from?

I think there was originally just a few basic elements like carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. If you take two tons of play doh, one ton is red, the other ton is white, you could make millions of shades of pink by mixing different white/red ratios.

Theoritically these few basically elements kept on merging into different combinations to create the world that we know today. We can't be sure where these basic elements originated. Oxygen and hydrogen never disappear they only reorganize. This must mean that these elements are eternal and exempt from the constraints of time. Who really knows? and what does it really matter?

 

[grip]

Right... so where did that energy come from?

I believe that the energy preexisted indefinitely in a different form. Even in our own universe energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Now, what would an infinite ocean of pure energy appear as to an observer, either as nothing in concept- having no form, or it would absorb you back into its essence, since it is everything and cannot be observed by the limited, only experienced by being immersed as one.

 

[mbig]

The OP is Willam Lane Craig's/others argument for god's existence: Something from Nothing.
I call it God's last stand.

Tens of thousands of other 'gods' with the Same rationale: explanations for a natural phenomenon people don't understand, have gone by the wayside. (Fire, Rain, Fertility, Sun, etc)
So now god/gods has been whittled down a life and universe creation god.
I suspect we'll figure out the 'life' puzzle either in a laboratory here or perhaps extra-earth, which will still leave the Universe one.

The issue/fallacy I wish to point out though, is god/gods have always been used as an easy and Incorrect substitute for "We don't know"/"We don't know yet".
The Universe the same.
It's not logical to infer a god from that any more than it was for Fire. A god, btw, who would also just be 'something from nothing'.

 

[laska]

Random Chance = Inevitable combinations over extreme time frames.


There has never been any evidence for a creator, and never can be. There are many books and hypothesis developed by mankind to postulate on the creation idea, but none have been in any way shown accurate in regard to the creator.

There is ample evidence pointing to the universe, planets, suns, and even life coming about due to the natural properties of matter and energy...and these are actually used to debunk a creation myth quite handily. There is a reason "Secular" scientists do not use God in their research, it is not useful when pursuing verifiable data.

Debunking false creation myths like 6000 year old earth is easy. That in no way debunks the truth of a Supreme Creator. The word in Genesis for "day" in Hebrew can mean an epoch, age, or period of time of any duration. So atheists and religious people who want to interpret scriptures poorly, yeah it is easy to debunk it with known facts but to carry that to no Creator is strawman logic.

It is silly to think if you find a corvette in the desert that it was random chance that created it. Given the choice that intelligence created the corvette or non intelligence, the smart sane person would think intelligence. Yet the earth and everything in it is far more complex set of creations than the corvette. As the prophet Alma responds in the Book of Mormon to a man named Korihor who held the same belief that there is no evidence for a Creator: "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."-Alma 30:44

Who writes the laws of matter/energy to make it behave the way it does. In the D&C:

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

There is a light in all space that comes from God that gives laws for how how matter/energy behave. To think just like magic that lifeless matter/energy behaves in a way to create everything is a MUCH greater leap of faith.

 

[laska]

Which is more likely to exist:

A residual population of Gigantipithicus that continued to evolve in isolation.

~OR~

An omnipotent invisible entity that does not care to show itself in any way.

First, I believe in evolution and the age of the earth by geologists. BYU teaches evolution and the age of the earth by modern day geology. There is no conflict between evolution and a Supreme Creator. So I have no problem with Gigantipithicus evolving in isolation. I've posted this video a number of times. I share Sal's views that evolution is consistent with a more elegant designer:



As far as Creator not showing Himself, you have to ignore the testimony of a lot of people, and not be able to see the forest for the trees of the creations all around you. This life is a test of faith. We existed and knew God, our Heavenly Father, before this life, and will return to Him at the separation of the spirit from the body at mortal death. He has given us the scriptures and the gospel. Many remember and recognize God's voice in the scriptures, and feel and recognize God's spirit/light, a pure love and peace. This is the type of evidence that faith is developed. After acting on this faith comes revelation and knowledge. Not before or it undermines the purpose of this life.

 

[laska]

Random would imply that the outcome is random, which its not. The lifeforms with the highest level of adaptability to their environment statistically win out in the longer term.

The fact that you think evolution happens by random chance shows that you have absolutely no idea what evolution is or how it works.

Second, you said you have no evidence in "the secular sense ", which is basically a wank term for "I just believe it and I have no evidence".

You're more than welcome to believe that 6,000 years ago a wizard created the universe and everything in it, but there is irrefutable evidence that this simply isn't the case.

All your points are moot as I believe in evolution and what geologists say is the age of the earth and see no conflict with these and the LDS views on Creation. BYU teaches evolution and the age of the earth of modern geology. You also missed the mark by a wide margin on my comments on secular evidence.

 

[mbig]

Debunking false creation myths like 6000 year old earth is easy. That in no way debunks the truth of a Supreme Creator. The word in Genesis for "day" in Hebrew can mean an epoch, age, or period of time of any duration. So atheists and religious people who want to interpret scriptures poorly, yeah it is easy to debunk it with known facts but to carry that to no Creator is strawman logic.

It is silly to think if you find a corvette in the desert that it was random chance that created it. Given the choice that intelligence created the corvette or non intelligence, the smart sane person would think intelligence. Yet the earth and everything in it is far more complex set of creations than the corvette.

[Deleted Gobbledeegook]

.

In one breath you say you believe in evolution, in the next breath, all forms of Evolved life are [complex] "Corvettes in the Middle of the Desert".
If you truly believe in/Understand evolution you couldn't say that.
There are no 'corvettes' in the Inanimate universe either. Just Chaos, Collision, destruction, star rebirth.
The same Universe that is 99.999999999999999999999% Hostile to human life. (gods ostensible ultimate creation)

The rest of your post is Bizarro indoctrination with 'Alma' et al.
Absolute Horse Crap that belongs in the CT section.
Your creation MYTH is no more credible than that of Any of thousands of other cultures. 'Baal this' and 'Voodoo that'.
I suggest Doctrinal Detox.
Good luck with that at BYU!

 

[laska]

In one breath you say you believe in evolution, in the next breath, all forms of Evolved life are [complex] "Corvettes in the Middle of the Desert".
If you truly believe in/Understand evolution you couldn't say that.
There are no 'corvettes' in the Inanimate universe either. Just Chaos, Collision, destruction, star rebirth.
The same Universe that is 99.999999999999999999999% Hostile to human life. (gods ostensible ultimate creation)

The rest of your post is Bizarro indoctrination with 'Alma' et al.
Absolute Horse Crap that belongs in the CT section.
Your creation MYTH is no more credible than that of Any of thousands of other cultures. 'Baal this' and 'Voodoo that'.
I suggest Doctrinal Detox.
Good luck with that at BYU!

Try getting reading comprehension. Where did I say ALL forms of evolved life. It may be bizarre to you, but that says more about you who arrogantly dismiss something before even understanding it. You have to use a stupid strawman to dismiss my arguments. Typical.

 

[mbig]

Try getting reading comprehension. Where did I say ALL forms of evolved life. It may be bizarre to you, but that says more about you who arrogantly dismiss something before even understanding it. You have to use a stupid strawman to dismiss my arguments. Typical.

er...
then WHAT is "the Corvette in the Desert"?
ALL complex Life evolved from Previous forms of life.
It can be traced through an extensive fossil record...
and many species, including US, have [inelegant] anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.

There was NO "Corvette" without the "Model T" before it (and combustion engine); and Horse-and-buggy previous to that... and so on.
And NO humans without prior Primates/Hominids.

And where did you get that bizarro set of Fabricated characters like 'Alma'?
The youtube is also Ridiculous with it's colored words like 'elegant ideas' and 'profound' AS IF there is a god/ID even though he Lies that he's taking no position the issue.

 

[laska]

er...
then WHAT is "the Corvette in the Desert"?
ALL complex Life evolved from Previous forms of life.
It can be traced by an extensive fossil record...
and many species, including US, have anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.

There was NO "Corvette" without the "Model T" before it (and combustion engine); and Horse-and-buggy previous to that... and so on.
And NO humans without prior Hominids/Primates.

And where did you get that bizarro set of Fabricated characters like 'Alma'?

I was quoting from the Book of Mormon in regards to Alma. Did you watch the video by Sal Khan of Khan Academy that I posted? You are missing the points of the analogy.

 

[mbig]

I was quoting from the Book of Mormon in regards to Alma. Did you watch the video by Sal Khan of Khan Academy that I posted?

WHOAAAH
and you're not going to answer the MEAT!
How FRAUDULENT.

The "Corvette in the desert"/your whole theme, proof/evidence for god... just Vanished.
Gone Atheist?
The once wordy laska of 3 consecutive posts and youtube... now down to one sentence on 'Alma'.

 

[laska]

WHOAAAH
and you're not going to answer the MEAT!

How FRAUDULENT!

The "Corvette in the desert"/your whole theme... just Vanished!
(It must be god)

You are missing everything. Did you watch the video?

 

[mbig]

You are missing everything. Did you watch the video?

You are NOT CONVERSANT on this topic.
ALL Your posts are one-line NON-answers.
Now even LESS than one-line, referring me to a ridiculous youtube I have already commented on.

If there is any SPECIFIC point from the 11 min youtube you would like to discuss and are vaguely capable of isolating/excerpting (LOL), I would be glad to debate/Shatter it again. It is piss-poor non-debate to say "watch a youtube".
WTF! (Did I tell you to "read Origin of the Species"?)

In the meantime you were UNABLE to comment on all the Meat I posted destroying your "Corvettte in the Desert".
So, do you have ANY answer to the FACT that Complex Life, Including US, has a chain of Fossils leading up to it.
YES or NO?


AGAIN

er...
then WHAT is "the Corvette in the Desert"?
ALL complex Life evolved from Previous forms of life.
It can be traced through an extensive fossil record...
and many species, including US, have [inelegant] anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.

There was NO "Corvette" without the "Model T" before it (and combustion engine); and Horse-and-buggy previous to that... and so on.
And NO humans without prior Primates/Hominids.

And where did you get that bizarro set of Fabricated characters like 'Alma'?
The youtube is also Ridiculous with it's colored words like 'elegant ideas' and 'profound' AS IF there is a god/ID even though he Lies that he's taking no position the issue.

 

[laska]

You are NOT CONVERSANT on this topic.
ALL Your posts are one-line NON-answers.
Now even LESS than one-line, referring me to a ridiculous youtube I have already commented on.

If there is any SPECIFIC point from the 11 min youtube you would like to discuss and are vaguely capable of isolating/excerpting (LOL), I would be glad to debate/Shatter it again. It is piss-poor non-debate to say "watch a youtube".
WTF! (Did I tell you to "read Origin of the Species"?)

In the meantime you were UNABLE to comment on all the Meat I posted destroying your "Corvettte in the Desert".
So, do you have ANY answer to the FACT that Complex Life, Including US, has a chain of Fossils leading up to it.
YES or NO?


AGAIN

You are arrogant and cannot even comprehend the simple analogy I gave. You've already stated you know my creation views are "no more credible than that of Any of thousands of other cultures" even though I know you are clueless about my views and doubt you're knowledgeable about "1000's" of others. So I'm not going to waste my time. Most readers will get my points.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Again, it's not that "nothing happened to nothing". This is a misunderstanding.

That nothing was actually a very condensed form of energy. It was a whole bunch of energy, basically all the energy that is in the entire universe that we know of and beyond, condensed very very tightly, like 100 fatmen in a clown car. and when the car exploded under the pressure of the fatmen, the fatmen spread out over a larger area then they had previously occupied. That form of energy, that very condensed form of energy was both the car and the fatmen and it blew up and spread out over a large area of space. Basically forming space. And forming time. Because it takes time for fatman A to get to a point that is farther as he rolls on and on until further away.

Energy is SOMETHING.

Where did that energy come from?

 

[mbig]

You are arrogant and cannot even comprehend the simple analogy I gave. You've already stated you know my creation views are "no more credible than that of Any of thousands of other cultures" even though I know you are clueless about my views and doubt you're knowledgeable about "1000's" of others. So I'm not going to waste my time. Most readers will get my points.

Another NON-ANSWER.
Your posts are Juvenile Avoidances for Two pages now.
Every one a dodge or a reason you won't answer.
The actual reason?
You have NO Answers to my busting your Nonsensical assertions such as a "Corvette in the Desert".
Your posts, expressing your baseLess/laughable religious beliefs, are 100% FRAUD.
NO one "gets your points". You have None.
None of your last 5! have any content whatsoever.. just avoidances including why you wont (read CAN'T) answer.

I even offered to discuss ANY part of your youtube. You couldn't even cite a point from it TO debate!
Ridiculous and 100% Avoidant and Empty last-wording

 

[CLAX1911]

Think about that for a brief moment. NOTHING SHOULD EXIST. Everything, came from nothing.

That, imho, is the most mind blowing, most anti-science reality of everything. It should NOT BE.

It's honestly, irreconcilable with all known science. From the lowliest quark to massive galactic clusters, none of it should be. Reality shouldn't be. Nothingness should have been.

yet we are here.