A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

ok....and was it substance ?
or Spirit

if you choose substance then all of life was begotten by something dead
including that First Guy

which is ridiculous
God formed of substance?
the creation forms it's own Creator?

putting the cart in front of the horse.....does not work
.

To what are you referring here? You asked what it means to begin. I gave an answer. You then asked about an 'it'. Do you mean the thing that begins?
If so, please define what it means to be a 'substance' and the specific thing that begins and I can tell you (maybe).

Ok, polymath.

Meet thief, and I can you from a great deal of experiences, that's not going to work - asking him direct questions and expecting him to give some direct answers.

Thief is definitely going to disappoint you.

When you debate anything with thief, things are fine until he lure you in his trap, with his infamous variations of the same motto:

"Substance or Spirit? Spirit, first."

Sometimes, he will simply just use:

"Spirit, first."

He seriously think that this is a logical and well-reasoned argument-ending finishing touch. You are supposed to fall on your knees, and be awe-inspired and enlightened by thief's towering intellect.

That is...until you ask him to explain himself...especially when you ask him to define what he mean by "spirit" and by "substance".

Several things may happen:

1. He will fall completely silent, by ignoring your question, because in his delusion, he think won the argument with his lame motto: "Spirit, first".
2. He will evade and dodge your requests for clarification with his ranting hoping (A) to sidetrack you or (B) to confuse you more.

Do you not see, polymath? He has already deflected your question after your following reply with this:

so there is no life beyond the physical?

there's your problem

you're here in a religious forum hoping to support a lack of belief

not likely

He has basically turn your question into his own question, without ever answering your request for clarification on his usage of "substances".

Now he will always ask you for evidences or proofs from you and from others, but when you do provide him evidences, he will blindly say you didn't provide any. That's a very typical response from all creationists, so thief is nothing special.

But if you were to ask him for his evidences for this "Spirit", his most usual response will be:

"God... (or the "Creator" or "Spirit") "...cannot be photographed, fingerprinted, or put on Petri-dish."

The irony is that (A) your evidences are ignored as being nonexistent, so you lose and he won the argument; and (B) he present no evidences himself, but you still loses and he still wins the argument.

He claimed that he has much higher IQ than average, but clearly he is not showing this intellect of his...or he is simply lying about his high IQ.

So you have been warned, polymath. You may not get straight answers from thief, especially when he gabbing about his favourite spirit-and-substance nonsense.

Talking to thief is like talking to a dodgy used-car salesman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But this is the *standard* mode for General relativity. It isn't just a hypothetical. It is one of the possibilities we have to consider because it may well be reality.

But I have considered it, and while it has helped humanity develop a deeper understanding of the universe, there is more to it, so I treat it as a working hypothesis. I am 100% certain that the universe could not have had a beginning for the reasons I've given, and so I expect that those scientists who see some evidence in the data for a multiverse or a repetitive expansion - contracting universe, or a combination of both will be the way out of the conundrum of needing an absolute first beginning of the universe.

Oh, and I also understand that there is natural inertia in academia and research areas, I mean the teaching professors and researchers of today can only work forward from what they learned and has been applied, and so orthodoxy prevails.

It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions. - T.H. Huxley

 

[Thief]

Ok, polymath.

Meet thief, and I can you from a great deal of experiences, that's not going to work - asking him direct questions and expecting him to give some direct answers.

Thief is definitely going to disappoint you.

When you debate anything with thief, things are fine until he lure you in his trap, with his infamous variations of the same motto:


Sometimes, he will simply just use:

He seriously think that this is a logical and well-reasoned argument-ending finishing touch. You are supposed to fall on your knees, and be awe-inspired and enlightened by thief's towering intellect.

That is...until you ask him to explain himself...especially when you ask him to define what he mean by "spirit" and by "substance".

Several things may happen:

1. He will fall completely silent, by ignoring your question, because in his delusion, he think won the argument with his lame motto: "Spirit, first".
2. He will evade and dodge your requests for clarification with his ranting hoping (A) to sidetrack you or (B) to confuse you more.

Do you not see, polymath? He has already deflected your question after your following reply with this:

He has basically turn your question into his own question, without ever answering your request for clarification on his usage of "substances".

Now he will always ask you for evidences or proofs from you and from others, but when you do provide him evidences, he will blindly say you didn't provide any. That's a very typical response from all creationists, so thief is nothing special.

But if you were to ask him for his evidences for this "Spirit", his most usual response will be:



The irony is that (A) your evidences are ignored as being nonexistent, so you lose and he won the argument; and (B) he present no evidences himself, but you still loses and he still wins the argument.

He claimed that he has much higher IQ than average, but clearly he is not showing this intellect of his...or he is simply lying about his high IQ.

So you have been warned, polymath. You may not get straight answers from thief, especially when he gabbing about his favourite spirit-and-substance nonsense.

Talking to thief is like talking to a dodgy used-car salesman.

well.....seems you DO understand the scheme of things and simply refuse to accept it

so...Spirit first ?
or substance?

and let's drop the pretending that no one knows the difference

 

[gnostic]

As to entropy, it is as you merely a human conceptual made to distinguish different theoretical/observed states of the universe existence, it says nothing about the cessation of the universal existence.

Sorry, but in science, I need to point out that the "states" are "observed", then they are no longer "theoretical".

"Observed" is associated with empirical science or experimental science, so observed mean anything that quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, testable, etc, like (A) "evidences" or (B) rigorous and repeated experiments that have been successful and conclusive.

"Theoretical" is purely logical or very abstract, based on mathematical equations or mathematical models (which is another word for mathematical "proof"), but are untestable.

Theoretical physics, like today's M-theory, the various Superstring theory and the various Multiverse models, are all very abstract and logical that can be "proven" by complex mathematical equations, but are (currently) untestable.

The M-theory, is about 11-dimension String theory, that posited the existence of multiple alternate realities , but there are no ways to test out such theory, and no evidences to support M-theory. That's what makes M-theory - "theoretical". It works on papers or on whiteboards, but not in real life.

It is the same with different versions of multiverse theory. It work mathematically, but it is not possible to get real-world evidences from another universe.

These theoretical physics appeared to work in sci-fi novels, movies and TV shows, but not in real life.

That's why I don't accept any of the theoretical science to be "true", unless they can test it, rigorously and repeatedly.

Some theories in theoretical physics have become testable over time, like the Big Bang theory. The works of Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have independently posited in their hypotheses the same things, expanding universe, and they were originally deemed to be "theoretical", until -

(A) Edwin Hubble (1929) was able to measure galaxies moving away from each other as sign of the universe expanding, known as "redshifting";

...and (B) Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964, but that was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.​

These evidences also verified that General Relativity (GR) is no longer "theoretical", because the framework in understanding the Big Bang relied heavily on understanding GR.

Evolution has never been theoretical, because it relied on observation. Before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, recorded in his journal during his voyage in the 1930s, of his findings in various places, including on Galápagos Islands. Plus, he worked at the British Museum, where there are number of fossil evidences.

When there are evidences, regardless of you not accepting it, the theory is not "theoretical". The facts are already there for natural selection, we just need someone to explain it and to test it.

There used to be two different models about the planetary motions:

1. Heliocentric model, first posited by Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in 3rd century BCE.
2. Geocentric model, first explained in details by Claudius Ptolemy, a 2nd century CE Greek mathematician and astronomer from Alexandria, Egypt.

The fact already existed for the heliocentric model, where the planets, including Earth, orbited around the Sun, was true.

But geocentric model, where the planets and the Sun orbited around the Earth, became the most popular model for centuries, especially the Roman Catholic Church, until it was challenged again by heliocentric model, through Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler.

The heliocentric model has always been true and factual, but it was only verified and validated as true, through the invention of the telescope.

So for over a thousand years, heliocentric was "theoretical", until Galileo "discovered" it through the telescope.

But some theoretical science remains theoretical, abstract, or just numbers.

 

[Thief]

all observations are subject to interpretation

 

[Thief]

and we cannot observe the beginning of all things

all we can do is think about it

 

[gnostic]

well.....seems you DO understand the scheme of things and simply refuse to accept it

so...Spirit first ?
or substance?

and let's drop the pretending that no one knows the difference

I know that you are still evading answering polymath's questions about your substance and spirit nonsense.

"Spirit, first" or "spirit before substance" are not an explanation and not factual. They are just your meaningless gibberish superstition, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Thief]

I know that you are still evading answering polymath's questions about your substance and spirit nonsense.

"Spirit, first" or "spirit before substance" are not an explanation and not factual. They are just your meaningless gibberish superstition, nothing more, nothing less.

none the less.....the scheme of things cannot be set aside
It's one or the other

 

[gnostic]

all observations are subject to interpretation

All beliefs and faiths are subjected to interpretation and to wild but delusional imagination.

 

[Thief]

All beliefs and faiths are subjected to interpretation and to wild but delusional imagination.

I have my imagination well under control

it is your denial that needs curtailed


Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[gnostic]

none the less.....the scheme of things cannot be set aside
It's one or the other

Then show me your evidences that "spirit" are real and true?

But you can't, can you?

Because you can't photograph God, you can't fingerprint God, you can't put God on petri-dish...in another word, there are no evidences to support this existence of your Spirit, God, Creator or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Do you know what it is call when you accept or believe in something that you cannot test or observe?

It's called BLIND FAITH. And that's what you have, thief. Just blind faith and hearsay.

 

[Thief]

Then show me your evidences that "spirit" are real and true?

But you can't, can you?

Because you can't photograph God, you can't fingerprint God, you can't put God on petri-dish...in another word, there are no evidences to support this existence of your Spirit, God, Creator or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Do you know what it is call when you accept or believe in something that you cannot test or observe?

It's called BLIND FAITH. And that's what you have, thief. Just blind faith and hearsay.

I have already stated....you have to think about it
denial of that is futile
and immature

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[gnostic]

As to piece of crap:

Spirit first?
or substance?

I will go for "nature" without the need for this supernatural spirit-crap or god-crap.

 

[Thief]

As to piece of crap:


I will go for "nature" without the need for this supernatural spirit-crap or god-crap.

it is natural to die....
you then follow the body into the box....into the ground...into eternal darkness

no form of light follows anyone into the grave
it's real

 

[Thief]

7billion copies of a learning device.....and it all ends in dust?

I think the odds are favorable.....judgment awaits
and they who are able will continue

they of denial can lay in their graves and dream

 

[gnostic]

it is natural to die....
you then follow the body into the box....into the ground...into eternal darkness

no form of light follows anyone into the grave
it's real

So what.

I comfortable with the natural ending of my life. I am comfortable with there being no afterlife, resurrection or reincarnation. And if there is an afterlife, I would be comfortable with that too.

To me, it is irrelevant if I should believe in one or not.

But I don't really care one way or another, "to live forever". That's your fantasy, not mind. To me, one life time is more than enough, I don't see the importance of living a second life after this one, and it has never been my desire to live forever.

I may have wanted to go to heaven, when I was younger, and thinking of joining my sister's church. But I have given up those fantasies, because they have no substance, and as far as I can tell, not real.

The whole Jesus, the awaiting judgement, the reward in heaven and eternal torment in hell are nothing more than primitive superstitions of man's fearing death and find comfort that there might be another world where they can live forever. That's wishful thinking, and it is nothing more than that.

Are you trying to converting me, by scaring me with this whole "eternal darkness" crap? Do you really think it bother me, being put in coffin with no heaven?

It doesn't bother me at all.

I am being realistic. You are the one running scare and hiding behind this delusion of wanting to live forever.

You wrote this earlier:

I have my imagination well under control

it is your denial that needs curtailed

I think the exact opposites are true. You are the one in denial...and you are not in control of your imagination...or delusion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but in science, I need to point out that the "states" are "observed", then they are no longer "theoretical".

"Observed" is associated with empirical science or experimental science, so observed mean anything that quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, testable, etc, like (A) "evidences" or (B) rigorous and repeated experiments that have been successful and conclusive.

"Theoretical" is purely logical or very abstract, based on mathematical equations or mathematical models (which is another word for mathematical "proof"), but are untestable.

Theoretical physics, like today's M-theory, the various Superstring theory and the various Multiverse models, are all very abstract and logical that can be "proven" by complex mathematical equations, but are (currently) untestable.

The M-theory, is about 11-dimension String theory, that posited the existence of multiple alternate realities , but there are no ways to test out such theory, and no evidences to support M-theory. That's what makes M-theory - "theoretical". It works on papers or on whiteboards, but not in real life.

It is the same with different versions of multiverse theory. It work mathematically, but it is not possible to get real-world evidences from another universe.

These theoretical physics appeared to work in sci-fi novels, movies and TV shows, but not in real life.

That's why I don't accept any of the theoretical science to be "true", unless they can test it, rigorously and repeatedly.

Some theories in theoretical physics have become testable over time, like the Big Bang theory. The works of Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have independently posited in their hypotheses the same things, expanding universe, and they were originally deemed to be "theoretical", until -

(A) Edwin Hubble (1929) was able to measure galaxies moving away from each other as sign of the universe expanding, known as "redshifting";

...and (B) Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964, but that was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.​

These evidences also verified that General Relativity (GR) is no longer "theoretical", because the framework in understanding the Big Bang relied heavily on understanding GR.

Evolution has never been theoretical, because it relied on observation. Before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, recorded in his journal during his voyage in the 1930s, of his findings in various places, including on Galápagos Islands. Plus, he worked at the British Museum, where there are number of fossil evidences.

When there are evidences, regardless of you not accepting it, the theory is not "theoretical". The facts are already there for natural selection, we just need someone to explain it and to test it.

There used to be two different models about the planetary motions:

1. Heliocentric model, first posited by Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in 3rd century BCE.
2. Geocentric model, first explained in details by Claudius Ptolemy, a 2nd century CE Greek mathematician and astronomer from Alexandria, Egypt.

The fact already existed for the heliocentric model, where the planets, including Earth, orbited around the Sun, was true.

But geocentric model, where the planets and the Sun orbited around the Earth, became the most popular model for centuries, especially the Roman Catholic Church, until it was challenged again by heliocentric model, through Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler.

The heliocentric model has always been true and factual, but it was only verified and validated as true, through the invention of the telescope.

So for over a thousand years, heliocentric was "theoretical", until Galileo "discovered" it through the telescope.

But some theoretical science remains theoretical, abstract, or just numbers.

Sorry gnostic mate, but again I must draw attention to your deficiency wrt correctly understanding the written English language. It is irrelevant as to whether the conceptual distinction being made is based on theory or observation, the point is that conceptual distinctions of any and all kinds are an artifact of the human mind, for the universe is an indivisible eternal one.

 

[gnostic]

There are no evidences that there is any such thing as spirit or god, so how could it possibly come "first" in anything.

All evidences point to that man created god or gods, not the other way around.

 

[Polymath257]

But I have considered it, and while it has helped humanity develop a deeper understanding of the universe, there is more to it, so I treat it as a working hypothesis. I am 100% certain that the universe could not have had a beginning for the reasons I've given, and so I expect that those scientists who see some evidence in the data for a multiverse or a repetitive expansion - contracting universe, or a combination of both will be the way out of the conundrum of needing an absolute first beginning of the universe.

Oh, and I also understand that there is natural inertia in academia and research areas, I mean the teaching professors and researchers of today can only work forward from what they learned and has been applied, and so orthodoxy prevails.

It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions. - T.H. Huxley

The difficulty here is that before General relativity appeared on the scene, it was your viewpoint that was standard. So, the inertia to be overcome is the inertia represented by your view that time must be infinite.

Second, the reasons you give for your position are not even close to being sufficient. In fact, they miss the basic point if, in fact, General relativity is correct.

Third, it is very, very dangerous to think you know how the universe 'must be' if you have no actual evidence for your position. Your claim that you are confident that a way out will be found is faith based on no evidence. You may be lucky and be correct, but you may also be unlucky and be wrong.

And fourth, general relativity is not to be summarily dismissed. It has passed all the tests it has been subjected to so far. That carries more weight than your philosophical arguments, no matter how definitive you think they are.

Fifth, studies into quantum gravity are part of the current orthodoxy. String theory, Loop quantum gravity, and other possibilities are being very actively pursued. At this point, NONE of the different alternatives has been able to make a testable prediction. Well, string theory predicts the existence of gravity. So *all* of them have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

And finally, the *only* way out of the finiteness of time is if quantum effects overwhelm the general relativistic effects. Even with quantum gravity it is possible for time to be finite into the past. So to have confidence of the sort you have seems to be a HUGE over-reach of your reasoning.

I would suggest you might want to reconsider your dismissal of the possibility of finite time and ask why it follows so naturally from what we do know.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry gnostic mate, but again I must draw attention to your deficiency wrt correctly understanding the written English language. It is irrelevant as to whether the conceptual distinction being made is based on theory or observation, the point is that conceptual distinctions of any and all kinds are an artifact of the human mind, for the universe is an indivisible eternal one.

And yet, movement happens inside the universe. Repetition happens, and provides a basis for time. This is a part of how the universe is.