A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

The problem is that thief has very basic, but very flawed understanding of physics.

His physics required the superstitious belief of "being" (god, spirit, creator or designer) doing supernatural magic and poofing.

He doesn't understand physics or even science, because he has already buried his head, ten feet deep, believing that wishful thinking or fantasies to be true.

People have been trying to teaching him science for the last 7 to 8 years, but you cannot teach someone who is not willing to learn and understand science.

I'm new here, a topix expat but i am already seeing exactly what you mean. I've trawled a few threads and really some of the concepts that Theif has put forward are nothing short of outlandish science fiction humour plots

 

[ChristineM]

no
let there be light......would be the first creation
that substance had to gel before it took hold......

doesn't mean you got it right

Ok so you deny what you actually said +and had Ben quoted), then moved the goalposts to cover you obvious and embarrassing error. So manly of you.

 

[Thief]

I'm new here, a topix expat but i am already seeing exactly what you mean. I've trawled a few threads and really some of the concepts that Theif has put forward are nothing short of outlandish science fiction humour plots

and yet.....
i find no discussion to set mine aside

care to go for it?

 

[ChristineM]

no
let there be light......would be the first creation
that substance had to gel before it took hold......

doesn't mean you got it right

It's not me who got it right, it's the world's leading experts in the field of cosmology

 

[Thief]

It's not me who got it right, it's the world's leading experts in the field of cosmology

and if you quote them well enough....I'm sure they won't mind

so .....substance first?
as if substance could be 'SELF' creating?........on a universal scale?
and the elements understand how each one is to behave?......all by themselves?
and substance can 'SELF' motivate?......without CAUSE?!!!!!!!

go for it
show me your equation

 

[ChristineM]

and yet.....
i find no discussion to set mine aside

care to go for it?

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

[0809.3623] Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse

The Origin of the Universe

The early universe | CERN

 

[ChristineM]

and if you quote them well enough....I'm sure they won't mind

so .....substance first?
as if substance could be 'SELF' creating?........on a universal scale?
and the elements understand how each one is to behave?......all by themselves?
and substance can 'SELF' motivate?......without CAUSE?!!!!!!!

go for it
show me your equation

Show me your god first... Humanity has been waiting over 10,000 years with no show. On the other hand my previous post will provide several equations along with known, measured data that would interest those willing to learn. I don't hold out any hope that you will even look at them.

You make the same mistake as all creationists, you make assumptions to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. One of those gaps is the fact that the laws of thermodynamics did not coelesce until AFTER the beginning of the universe, that just happens to include causality. Therefore you claim of not being able to self create is irrelevant.

 

[Thief]

Show me your god first... Humanity has been waiting over 10,000 years with no show. On the other hand my previous post will provide several equations along with known, measured data that would interest those willing to learn. I don't hold out any hope that you will even look at them.

You make the same mistake as all creationists, you make assumptions to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. One of those gaps is the fact that the laws of thermodynamics did not coelesce until AFTER the beginning of the universe, that just happens to include causality. Therefore you claim of not being able to self create is irrelevant.

and you (like soooo many others)...
jump to what we can claim to be sure of
all the while ....NO.....you cannot be sure

there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

all you can do is think about it

so.....are you wanting to say no....to science?

science will take you as far as the 'point' of singularity
it stops there
it can not proceed

it's all up to you
can substance JUMP of it's own SELF?

answer me true

 

[Polymath257]

you're not good at being evasive....

But you are?

 

[Thief]

But you are?

no need for evasion.....I do believe Spirit first

 

[Polymath257]

no need for evasion.....I do believe Spirit first

And yet you have still not defined what the words 'spirit', 'substance' and 'force' mean. You are evading the issues.

 

[Polymath257]

The only reason you can calculate energy is to the mass of the object (be they matters or particles).

Not strictly true. For example, photons are massless, but they still have energy. The energy is solely kinetic.

Ask yourself this, Ben. Why is it that whenever you do calculations of energy, that it most often required knowing the presence of mass of object?

Usually, the mass is used to determine the amount of the material involved. Then, a separate energy calculation per particle is done.

Here, let me give you a clue. You go to the shop, you look at the package of food, where it break down the food into various components, like sugar, sodium, protein, fat, etc. Why is for each of these components that it contained the measurements of "mass" (measured in milligrams) and calculations of "energy" (in joules)???

Here, the chemical energy for a given amount is determined through calorimetry. It isn't directly associated with mass, but rather with the number of moles of the material.

Your understanding of physics is very limited.

Yes, ben's understanding of physics is quite narrow. It would be good for him to work through a number of calculus based physics texts. But I imagine that won't happen.

 

[Thief]

And yet you have still not defined what the words 'spirit', 'substance' and 'force' mean. You are evading the issues.

you don 't need definition for the list of items you have made

and if you do.....you are not up for this discussion

Spirit first?

 

[Polymath257]

you don 't need definition for the list of items you have made

and if you do.....you are not up for this discussion

Spirit first?

On the contrary, I have found that most people that use these terms tend to come from an Aristotelian background and are, thereby, unable to enter into a serious discussion. Their ancient and outmoded viewpoint makes it impossible to discuss phenomena that are basic in a modern context.

 

[ChristineM]

and you (like soooo many others)...
jump to what we can claim to be sure of
all the while ....NO.....you cannot be sure

there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

all you can do is think about it

so.....are you wanting to say no....to science?

science will take you as far as the 'point' of singularity
it stops there
it can not proceed

it's all up to you
can substance JUMP of it's own SELF?

answer me true

There is far more evidence to temper my opinion than there is for god magic

So tell me why do you put your faith in ignorance and guesswork?

 

[ChristineM]

and you (like soooo many others)...
jump to what we can claim to be sure of
all the while ....NO.....you cannot be sure

there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

all you can do is think about it

so.....are you wanting to say no....to science?

science will take you as far as the 'point' of singularity
it stops there
it can not proceed

it's all up to you
can substance JUMP of it's own SELF?

answer me true

And i was right on the money, you have not bothered even looking at my links,. There is much discussion about before the bb event and the video is actually entitled "what happened before the big bang?". Interesting that you missed that.

 

[Thief]

There is far more evidence to temper my opinion than there is for god magic

So tell me why do you put your faith in ignorance and guesswork?

I'm not guessing
and I will not be allowed a plea of ignorance.....as I stand before God and heaven

 

[Thief]

On the contrary, I have found that most people that use these terms tend to come from an Aristotelian background and are, thereby, unable to enter into a serious discussion. Their ancient and outmoded viewpoint makes it impossible to discuss phenomena that are basic in a modern context.

choose your def as you please.....state that def....and then decide

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Thief]

And i was right on the money, you have not bothered even looking at my links,. There is much discussion about before the bb event and the video is actually entitled "what happened before the big bang?". Interesting that you missed that.

didn't miss it

 

[Polymath257]

choose your def as you please.....state that def....and then decide

Spirit first?
or substance?

I choose not to use the words at all. They are too vague to be useful.

But *you* do use the words, so I ask you once again what *your* definition is for these words.

Once again, you evade rather than explain.