Common Sense Deactivated?

[Polymath257]

A claim that 'something cannot come from nothing' is actually a type of conservation law: that the amount of some type of thing can't be zero at one time and non-zero at another time.

So, for example, there is no conservation law for entropy. In fact, quite the opposite: in any spontaneous reaction, the overall entropy will increase.

On the other hand momentum is conserved: in any reaction the total momentum before and the total momentum after will be the same. In a certain sense, we cannot get momentum from no momentum.

There are many conservation laws in science: momentum, angular momentum, charge, baryon number, etc.

But ALL of the conservation laws have ways that different aspects can cancel each other. So for example, two equal masses going in exactly opposite directions at the same speed will each have a non-zero momentum, but *together* the total momentum will be zero. So it is possible to start with a situation with zero momentum and end with a situation with two things lie this *because* their momenta cancel each other to give zero,

Now, when people say you can't get something from nothing, they usually are intuiting some for of conservation of matter. But, we *know* that matter is no conserved. The main way to measure the amount of matter is through the concept of mass and nuclear reactions do change the amount of mass in a system. They do so by converting mass to energy or vice versa.

Now, you can ask for conservation of mass-energy and that *is* a valid conservation law, at least locally. If you include mass in your energy calculation (using E=mc&2), then the total energy is conserved. Fair enough.

But, and this is crucial, gravity has energy. And the energy of gravity is opposite that of mass and energy. The two cancel! Gravitational energy is *negative* energy.

The upshot is that you *can* get 'something from nothing' as long as whenever you made mass and energy, there is enough negative gravitational energy to cancel them in the conservation law.That requires a very high degree of curvature and is *exactly* what is produced in certain types of quantum 'bubbles'.

So, the intuition that something can't come from nothing, while one that works in everyday life with low gravitational curvatures, isn't something that is universal. And, in fact, at least theoretically, it is possile our whole universe can out of such a bubble and the total energy of our universe *exactly* balances to zero! In other words, we still have 'nothing'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't help it if you can't read and conveniently took it out in your post. That's disingenuous.

I can definitely read, thank you. What is it that you think I took out in my post?

Just stating something is cosmological and therefore proves God doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, the Kalam Cosmological argument is not a proof for god, nor an argument for god. It's an argument for a cause to the universe. It doesn't get you to god(s) and it definitely doesn't get you to a Christian god.

Well, you should care as it will become important after you die.

I'll believe that when someone can actually demonstrate it to me. I could be meeting the great juju at the bottom of the sea when I die, for all I know. Or I could be meeting nothingness, whatever that is.

Is it really that hard for you to put 2 + 2 together?
And you're asking your question to wrong person in regards to something is greater than nothing. My side is the something side. Why don't you write Stephen Hawking and ask him what the nothing is?

Is it really that hard for you to answer a question? You said something can't come from nothing. So I ask you again to define nothing. I'm asking the right person. Stephen Hawking is not here,
but he can articulate himself far better than you seem to be able to do.

This also points out that you have "nothing" on the brain ha ha.

Good one.

 

[Polymath257]

I can definitely read, thank you. What is it that you think I took out in my post?

Just stating something is cosmological and therefore proves God doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, the Kalam Cosmological argument is not a proof for god, nor an argument for god. It's an argument for a cause to the universe. It doesn't get you to god(s) and it definitely doesn't get you to a Christian god.

Actually, it isn't even an argument for the cause of the universe. It is an argument that there is at least one uncaused cause. The argument does NOT show there is only one or even that it is the cause of the universe.

 

[james bond]

I can definitely read, thank you. What is it that you think I took out in my post?

Just stating something is cosmological and therefore proves God doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, the Kalam Cosmological argument is not a proof for god, nor an argument for god. It's an argument for a cause to the universe. It doesn't get you to god(s) and it definitely doesn't get you to a Christian god.

No, KCA does not get one to a Christian God, but it's a good argument for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial God. The logic is sound. We agree there is a cause for the universe. However, the non-believers want a timeless, spaceless, immaterial atheist scientific cause from nothing. And I'm telling you there is no such thing. Why? Because something is greater than nothing. If nothing was greater, then we'd be seeing other things pop into existence from nothing. I want a bottle of Coke from Mexico on my desk and presto, it appears. We can have multiverses. You're asking me to explain what nothing is and how it works. Well, you're asking the wrong person. It's not a simple answer, but a complex one.

I told you that I'm on the something side. Fill in the blank -- God, the creator, aliens, panspermia, white hole cosmology, bounded universe and more. This is where I get the Christian God. The Bible fills in the answer and explains it the best. I can't help it if atheist scientists disregard it due to religion. God is part of religion, but he's part of science, too, except not in atheist science. Creation scientists have used quantum mechanics theories and found a theory that fits with a God existing.

I'll believe that when someone can actually demonstrate it to me. I could be meeting the great juju at the bottom of the sea when I die, for all I know. Or I could be meeting nothingness, whatever that is.

Part of this is the internet atheist answer. You don't believe something unless someone can demonstrate it to you. Well, that experiment hasn't been found yet. What has been found is that something is greater than nothing. I think they're still trying to get to nothing producing the universe.

Is it really that hard for you to answer a question? You said something can't come from nothing. So I ask you again to define nothing. I'm asking the right person. Stephen Hawking is not here,
but he can articulate himself far better than you seem to be able to do.

I think you should find the answer for yourself since you're on the nothing side. I should be asking you what is nothing and I have of others. They told me it was due to -- quantum fluctuations and singularity -- whatever that means. Today, theoretical physicists are trying to explain the BBT and how it worked. Tomorrow, their answer may be wormholes, string theory, superstring theory or M-theory. Maybe they'll accept creation science's white hole cosmology one day. Maybe that's a start for your search for the answer.

 

[Milton Platt]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1163450647090949

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

Demonstrate that said the intelligence actually exists.

 

[Milton Platt]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1163450647090949

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

I do not see what the convincing argument is..............

 

[Deeje]

Demonstrate that said the intelligence actually exists.

Demonstrate that he doesn't. Give us the facts of science that proves that it is an impossibility for such an intelligence to exist.....

I do not see what the convincing argument is..............

Blind people have difficulty 'seeing' anything. Its a special kind of blindness that is described in the Bible...( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I can give you all the convincing arguments in the world but as they say....."none so blind as he who will not see".

 

[Milton Platt]

Demonstrate that he doesn't. Give us the facts of science that proves that it is an impossibility for such an intelligence to exist.....



Blind people have difficulty 'seeing' anything. Its a special kind of blindness that is described in the Bible...( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I can give you all the convincing arguments in the world but as they say....."none so blind as he who will not see".

You only have to give me one convincing one. Ray Comfort does not seem to have any. His film was all smoke and mirrors for the people who already think like he does.
But to the point, what is the "convincing argument" you think he made?

 

[Deeje]

You only have to give me one convincing one. Ray Comfort does not seem to have any. His film was all smoke and mirrors for the people who already think like he does.
But to the point, what is the "convincing argument" you think he made?

Perhaps it was the fact that 'nothing produces nothing'....only 'something can produce something'. Logical, isn't it? That "something" could be an intelligence that science has not yet discovered....

If science already knows from all its own experiments that 'life can only come from pre-existing life', then how can they claim that life just popped up out of nowhere, for no apparent reason one day, and then taught itself how to morph into dinosaurs and all the other myriad lifeforms there are on this planet? Because there is no Creator, it just happened, right?

If a book on nature needed someone to produce it, then the "book of life" that contains all the information that makes up the human genome, didn't just materialize all by itself surely. Can you produce a book that was authored by no one.....edited by no one...was printed by no one....with beautiful full page glossy photos, that were taken by no one? Yet that book would pale into insignificance when compared to the complex information contained in a book that details our DNA.....can you really believe the notion that all this life just happened as a series of fortunate accidents, on a planet that is placed in exactly the right position from the sun, which is just the right size, shape and the speed of its rotation on its axis makes it possible to host all these lifeforms....who have just the right mixture of gases to breathe and all have just the right food to eat, which was here before they were, and they can reproduce copies of themselves perpetually....none of that needed organization or planning? What bubble do you live in....?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Demonstrate that he doesn't. Give us the facts of science that proves that it is an impossibility for such an intelligence to exist.....

Sorry Deeje, the burden of proof is upon the person making the affirmative claim. By your standards if you can't prove that universe farting fairies were not the cause then that must be the cause.

Blind people have difficulty 'seeing' anything. Its a special kind of blindness that is described in the Bible...( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I can give you all the convincing arguments in the world but as they say....."none so blind as he who will not see".

Please, no nonsense. If you can't support your claims the odds are that they are not true, remember the pixies.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

I'm more concerned whether nothing can practically exist at all, can nothing exist?

 

[Deeje]

Sorry Deeje, the burden of proof is upon the person making the affirmative claim. By your standards if you can't prove that universe farting fairies were not the cause then that must be the cause.

What fairies caused life to spring into existence in your scenario? If the law of cause and effect mean that for every effect there must be a cause....your version is as fanciful as you believe mine is. I have a cause...you don't.

Please, no nonsense. If you can't support your claims the odds are that they are not true, remember the pixies.

Nonsense? Please.....your nonsense against my nonsense?......you cannot support your own claims...so by your own reasoning they are not true.
I believe mine is more believable. Life came from pre-existing life....that is what science can prove. That is what the Bible supports.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What fairies caused life to spring into existence in your scenario? If the law of cause and effect mean that for every effect there must be a cause....your version is as fanciful as you believe mine is. I have a cause...you don't.

It was an example to show your poor reasoning. That was all. By your standards, not mine, you need to accept universe farting pixies if you can't prove them wrong. And no, you have no more cause than was given in my example. This is rather basic logic that you are failing at right now.

Nonsense? Please.....your nonsense against my nonsense?......you cannot support your own claims...so by your own reasoning they are not true.
I believe mine is more believable. Life came from pre-existing life....that is what science can prove. That is what the Bible supports.

I am not the one that believes in nonsense. You are. I used nonsense to refute your nonsense. Again, you need to work on your logic skills. And no, science does not support your claim. Science supports that at one point there was an abiogenesis event. You believe in magic, and I believe that it was natural causes.

 

[Deeje]

I'm more concerned whether nothing can practically exist at all, can nothing exist?

According to WIKI....Vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space.

What if free space was "nothing" before God filled it up with matter?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ray Comfort single handedly is killing Christianity. He by far very bad at making simple arguments and I do not believe he even cares.

Theism is a very logical position for me and it is something I have battled with for years as I hated the notion deep down because of my upbringing and disdain toward people in general. But just because of my emotional insecurities would I let it affect what is or is not truthful and Ray Comfort seems to embed this exact same disdain for life as a whole. He is truly enamored with the sound of his own words and the rejection of his failings. He is a human unable to accept the limits of his mortal flesh.

If he truly believed in a god he would know that god made us to die and wither, he did not make us to find peace or love but merely because we just so happen to be a natural extension in the grandness of what can be conceived. It is scary that people think religion is a clutch, it never was and never will be unless intended to fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to WIKI....Vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space.

What if free space was "nothing" before God filled it up with matter?

Then by that definition something can come from nothing. It is both predicted by quantum mechanics and can be observed. One example is the Casimir Effect:

Casimir effect - Wikipedia


By the way, you need to learn when you can claim "God" in a debate. Until you find valid evidence for a god there is not valid reason to claim that one exists. You have just gotten rid of the need of a god with your definition of "nothing" congratulations.

 

[Deeje]

Ray Comfort single handedly is killing Christianity. He by far very bad at making simple arguments and I do not believe he even cares.

Theism is a very logical position for me and it is something I have battled with for years as I hated the notion deep down because of my upbringing and disdain toward people in general. But just because of my emotional insecurities would I let it affect what is or is not truthful and Ray Comfort seems to embed this exact same disdain for life as a whole. He is truly enamored with the sound of his own words and the rejection of his failings. He is a human unable to accept the limits of his mortal flesh.

If you had read the responses here you would see that I am not endorsing Ray Comfort as a person, but merely using his questions to facilitate dialogue about the argument that something can come from nothing. Can nothing produce anything? Science believes that nothing created everything. Is that a logical position?

If he truly believed in a god he would know that god made us to die and wither, he did not make us to find peace or love but merely because we just so happen to be a natural extension in the grandness of what can be conceived. It is scary that people think religion is a clutch, it never was and never will be unless intended to fail.

If God created us to die and wither then he should have made that feel natural. I don’t think it feels natural at all. If we find peace and love to be desirable then if God never intended for us to find it, then why create us with a need for it?

If none of what we desire can ever be achieved, then what is the purpose of our existence? Is God just a cruel prankster?

I believe that there is way more to life than this poor excuse for an existence. There are reasons for everything....all we have to do is look for them. “Seek and you will find” is not just empty words.

What are we seeking?....that is the question.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you had read the responses here you would see that I am not endorsing Ray Comfort as a person, but merely using his questions to facilitate dialogue about the argument that something can come from nothing.

I know you are not endorsing him . Most people nowadays regardless of religiosity endorse him strongly.

I just like rambling, it is about 99.99% of what I do here .

Can nothing produce anything? Science believes that nothing created everything. Is that a logical position?

I would strongly say object to the notion that something arises from nothing but you can always say that something is reshaped by something else. Science does not believe that nothing gave forth creation. It simply has not found a solution and only knows what occurred up to a set point.

If God created us to die and wither then he should have made that feel natural. I don’t think it feels natural at all. If we find peace and love to be desirable then if God never intended for us to find it, then why create us with a need for it?

But it does feel natural, our lack of constant effort will lead to quick deaths for humanity in the scope of the matter. We must fight to survive even though nowadays it is done by somebody else usually.

I am also not stating that peace and love is not something gods do not want us to have I am merely stating that it is no incumbent upon any god to provide it, at least taking monotheism into account.

We must force peace to occur and must force such things to happen with our own effort. I have no reason to think any single one god who cares about us truly wants us to find happiness.

If none of what we desire can ever be achieved, then what is the purpose of our existence? Is God just a cruel prankster?

Why does our existence need to have a purpose that benefits us? That is truly what you are asking.

What if the purpose a god has for us is not a purpose we will like or enjoy? Muslims seem to have their priorities straight when given this answer as they leave such things as a matter to Allah and never upon reflecting their selfish desires for grandeur upon the each other.

I also did not say that nothing of what we desire can be achieved, I just do not believe we hold the same intention as a god would want. It is even hard discussing this as I am a polytheist and not a monotheist.

I believe that there is way more to life than this poor excuse for an existence. There are reasons for everything....all we have to do is look for them. “Seek and you will find” is not just empty words.

What are we seeking?....that is the question.

Nothing about this life is poor. It is a bountiful and splendid life that enriches me and others who seek to endure it and find its mysteries. I just simply do not think that a god has destined all of this for me, I view myself as merely an insignificant speck of dust that can be blown away at a power far greater than my own. I'd best leave such matter for gods and not for my own life.

 

[Polymath257]

According to WIKI....Vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space.

What if free space was "nothing" before God filled it up with matter?

What if there wan't even space?

 

[Deeje]

What if there wan't even space?

What if God created space to put matter into? What was before space?

Nothing comes from nothing.....so how do evolutionists account for matter of the magnitude that would have been required for the BB to occur? If there was not even space....where did everything come from?

Life appeared somehow....but even a simple cell is not simple, so complexity has been with us from creation's beginning. Can complexity just happen? If something simple can't work without the correct assembly, then how does science explain the obvious intelligence that is seen in the incredibly complex designs observed in nature? You say they are all the product on a monumental fluke? No intelligence directing any of it...? And you think our version is far fetched?

Like the man asking the questions in the OP said.....would the pages of a book just appear with ink, seemingly from nowhere, magically forming words and sentences and glossy photographs? Could any intelligent person see how that is possible?

If our DNA is a written code...then who wrote it? Who gave humans the intelligence to crack that code and explain some of how the information contained in it operates? Science calls it "the book of life".......its a book with no author.....but it has a human publisher.
Go figure...