A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

my advice is ......come prepared for the talk
you don't need definition
supposedly...you have a brain

Spirit first?
or substance?

No definitions, no debate:

Preparation involves understanding
Understanding involves communication
Communication involves shared concepts.
So concepts need to be defined.

 

[Thief]

No definitions, no debate:

Preparation involves understanding
Understanding involves communication
Communication involves shared concepts.
So concepts need to be defined.

action is more important as the topic is focused on creation

you already have concept
use them

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Polymath257]

action is more important as the topic is focused on creation

you already have concept
use them

Spirit first?
or substance?

Spirit is non-existence.
Substance is meaningless.
Concepts need definitions.

 

[Thief]

Spirit is non-existence.
Substance is meaningless.
Concepts need definitions.

if substance has no meaning for you.....neither will this debate

you have already lost

 

[Polymath257]

if substance has no meaning for you.....neither will this debate

you have already lost

You haven't even started.

There hasn't been debate because there are no shared concepts.
To share concepts requires definition.

 

[Thief]

You haven't even started.

There hasn't been debate because there are no shared concepts.
To share concepts requires definition.

you're stalling

in the debate of creation....it's one or the other

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Polymath257]

First ignored poster.

 

[ChristineM]

First ignored poster.

You are a wise man.

 

[gnostic]

my advice is ......come prepared for the talk
you don't need definition
supposedly...you have a brain

Spirit first?
or substance?

you're stalling

in the debate of creation....it's one or the other

Spirit first?
or substance?

No, Thief. You are the one stalling.

People asking and requesting for definition, showed they want clarification from you.

You refusing to give them, show that you are stalling, so we are not getting anywhere.

This stalling is evasive move, and in debates, that's considered stalling and stalling because you are a dishonest person.

 

[gnostic]

I believe that darkstorn is right about you, Thief. You are proselytizing.

None of your replies (concerning these spirit and substance) are debate, because you refused to answer direct questions or requests for clarification.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Apparently he hopes you will die in order to avoid facing his own reality.

Do you really think he wishes another poster to die, that's a serious accusation?

 

[Thief]

No, Thief. You are the one stalling.

People asking and requesting for definition, showed they want clarification from you.

You refusing to give them, show that you are stalling, so we are not getting anywhere.

This stalling is evasive move, and in debates, that's considered stalling and stalling because you are a dishonest person.

and the people asking are hoping for a loophole

there is none

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[gnostic]

and the people asking are hoping for a loophole

there is none

Spirit first?
or substance?

No, you are stalling, you hypocrite.

All you have to answer the questions, by providing explanation as to why your usages to spirit and substance in respective dictionary definitions.

What do you mean by spirit?
​

Spirit can many different meanings. So I would like something more specific.

What do you mean by substance?​

Substance is rather vague word to use, because it could mean any number of things, and it is not very useful in science.

Can you be more specific as to what this substance you are talking about?​

 

[gnostic]

Do you really think he wishes another poster to die, that's a serious accusation?

What do you think of a person, who keep evading direct requests for clarification to what Thief have been posting?

Thief has been dodging since he began his meaningless "Spirit first" or "Spirit before substance", some years back.

For many us, evading direct questions are considered stalling tactics, which revealed his dishonest nature.

Clearly, he is stalling, hoping that we will forget his meaningless claims, so that he can begin anew.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What do you think of a person, who keep evading direct requests for clarification to what Thief have been posting?

Thief has been dodging since he began his meaningless "Spirit first" or "Spirit before substance", some years back.

For many us, evading direct questions are considered stalling tactics, which revealed his dishonest nature.

Clearly, he is stalling, hoping that we will forget his meaningless claims, so that he can begin anew.

Ironically. I have argued with him on this point as it is similar to those like Christine and others who believe there was probably nothing in existence before the universe. and similarly frustrating that instead of God (spirit) being antecedent to the creation of the universe (substance) from nothing, mathematical possibilities of there being a nothing in existence are given as the antecedent. So both Thief and the relevant big bang believers claim there was nothing before something.

In any case, despite any frustration on either side, to suggest one party wants the other dead is over the top.

 

[ChristineM]

Ironically. I have argued with him on this point as it is similar to those like Christine and others who believe there was probably nothing in existence before the universe. and similarly frustrating that instead of God (spirit) being antecedent to the creation of the universe (substance) from nothing, mathematical possibilities of there being a nothing in existence are given as the antecedent. So both Thief and the relevant big bang believers claim there was nothing before something.

In any case, despite any frustration on either side, to suggest one party wants the other dead is over the top.

Why do you need to lie. I have never said there was nothing before the universe. I have however stated in opposition to your incredulity that a universe from nothing is a possibility in the quantum realm, and explained to you the folly of making assumptions about what is unknown.

That you refuse to even consider the science behind it and several other possibilities is more down to your own narrow mind than anything else

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you need to lie. I have never said there was nothing before the universe. I have however stated in opposition to your incredulity that a universe from nothing is a possibility in the quantum realm, and explained to you the folly of making assumptions about what is unknown.

That you refuse to even consider the science behind it and several other possibilities is more down to your own narrow mind than anything else

You claim I lie yet in the next sentence admit to a belief in the possibility of s universe from nothing. A mathematical model of a hypothetical nothing is not proof of a real nothing, the total absence of evidence of a real nothing is where the science is at.

 

[gnostic]

Ironically. I have argued with him on this point as it is similar to those like Christine and others who believe there was probably nothing in existence before the universe.

Why do you need to lie. I have never said there was nothing before the universe. I have however stated in opposition to your incredulity that a universe from nothing is a possibility in the quantum realm, and explained to you the folly of making assumptions about what is unknown.

You claim I lie yet in the next sentence admit to a belief in the possibility of s universe from nothing. A mathematical model of a hypothetical nothing is not proof of a real nothing, the total absence of evidence of a real nothing is where the science is at.

Actually, Christine didn't lie.

You have always complained about my grasp for the English grammar and syntax - which i won't deny being true, my English is below average - but here it is you who fail to understand Christine.

She stated that it might be possible, by using the word,"possibility"; you are overlooking that possibility is actually expressing neutrality, that it "might be" or it "might be not", which I view to a level of uncertainty, in this case, about the universe's origin.

You are wrongly presuming she is making "positive claim"; she isn't. Possibility could go either ways, so it is neither positive, nor negative.

I don't think we have enough evidences to the universe came from nothing or that the universe have always existed as it now or that it existed in a different and more primal form.

I doubting the probability of the universe came into existence from nothing. There are no evidences for such a model.

But there are also no evidences for eternal universe, or for the multiverse model, because it is still largely theoretical and hypothetical.

The current Big Bang model doesn't say it come from nothing, because the singularity is not nothing.

As I have stated many time before, we are currently stuck at the Recombination epoch, our current science and technology cannot penetrate and observed beyond the start of the Recombination epoch. The oldest observable, detectable and measurable light, is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was emitted in this Recombination epoch (started 377,000 years after the Big Bang).

Earlier epochs to the Big Bang, the universe was opaque, because even older light (eg Cosmic Neutrino Background (CvB) radiation) were absorbed by plasma state of the universe.

If we cannot see beyond the CMBR and the Recombination epoch (RE), then everything before RE have not been detected and verified. That being the case, we cannot possibly know (with certainty) that the universe is eternal, oscillating (between expansion and contraction, or cycle of Bang and Crunch) or was nothing. Any of these scenarios could be possible, but we don't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, Christine didn't lie.

You have always complained about my grasp for the English grammar and syntax - which i won't deny being true, my English is below average - but here it is you who fail to understand Christine.

She stated that it might be possible, by using the word,"possibility"; you are overlooking that possibility is actually expressing neutrality, that it "might be" or it "might be not", which I view to a level of uncertainty, in this case, about the universe's origin.

You are wrongly presuming she is making "positive claim"; she isn't. Possibility could go either ways, so it is neither positive, nor negative.

I don't think we have enough evidences to the universe came from nothing or that the universe have always existed as it now or that it existed in a different and more primal form.

I doubting the probability of the universe came into existence from nothing. There are no evidences for such a model.

But there are also no evidences for eternal universe, or for the multiverse model, because it is still largely theoretical and hypothetical.

The current Big Bang model doesn't say it come from nothing, because the singularity is not nothing.

As I have stated many time before, we are currently stuck at the Recombination epoch, our current science and technology cannot penetrate and observed beyond the start of the Recombination epoch. The oldest observable, detectable and measurable light, is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was emitted in this Recombination epoch (started 377,000 years after the Big Bang).

Earlier epochs to the Big Bang, the universe was opaque, because even older light (eg Cosmic Neutrino Background (CvB) radiation) were absorbed by plasma state of the universe.

If we cannot see beyond the CMBR and the Recombination epoch (RE), then everything before RE have not been detected and verified. That being the case, we cannot possibly know (with certainty) that the universe is eternal, oscillating (between expansion and contraction, or cycle of Bang and Crunch) or was nothing. Any of these scenarios could be possible, but we don't know.

Sorry pal, but your reading comprehension lets you down as usual. Show me where I ever said the Christine lied, it never happened? To the contrary it was Christine who said I lied.

And then you go off on a misunderstanding of the precise words that you quoted, for if you go back and read the quote again, it says..."like Christine and others who believe there was probably nothing in existence before the universe." Now in English, the word 'probably' does not denote a positive, it mean a possibility. So you see, my statement was not a lie, it was Christine who claimed it was.

As to the rest, we can agree that there is no evidence for a model that the universe came into existence from nothing. But the difference is it seems that you agree with Christine who says that "with the new mathematics that marries quantum theories and classical physics along with the recent detection of gravitational waves make the theory of a universe from nothing a more attractive idea." Post #3653

Lastly, the irony I referred to is that those who believe in the probability of a universe from nothing are, as far as my understanding of an eternal universe goes, about as credible as a universe created from nothing by God which Thief believes. The difference between you is that Thief believes he knows the cause and you others don't know the cause.

 

[gnostic]

Lastly, the irony I referred to is that those who believe in the probability of a universe from nothing are, as far as my understanding of an eternal universe, about as credible as a universe created from nothing by God which Thief believes. The difference between you is that Thief knows the cause and you others don't know the cause.

Actually thief knows nothing; he believe what he what believe without any verifiable evidences; that's called faith. Both faith and belief together are nothing more than very subjective opinion, and opinions that are devoid of all logic.

Knowing and believing are two different things.

That thief keep refusing to answer very legitimate and reasonable questions, with stalling and evasive tactics, only demonstrated his lack of integrity on the matters.

Your own belief in the eternal universe, also has no evidences, based on belief and faith, which are no better than thief's claim. Belief without evidences are merely faith.

Both of you only have faith, and blind ones at that.