The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[outhouse]

I asked thief about what kinda species was Adam before he was selected.

He was some good ole #7 black ink that hit papyrus if I am not mistaken.

 

[Bunyip]

Close enough.
After the alteration in the garden event....Adam would be...'something different'.

Adam and Eve is a parable, not a historical account. Surely you do not seriously consider that they actually existed? That seems astonishing to me - especially given that the story itself makes direct reference to the fact that Adam and Eve were not the only humans. Cain's wife for example and the populations of the land of Nod and the city of Enoch.

 

[Thief]

Adam and Eve is a parable, not a historical account. Surely you do not seriously consider that they actually existed? That seems astonishing to me - especially given that the story itself makes direct reference to the fact that Adam and Eve were not the only humans. Cain's wife for example and the populations of the land of Nod and the city of Enoch.

Someone had to be first....in mind and heart....as we know Man to be.

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be first....in mind and heart....as we know Man to be.

You keep making this claim but have not shown it to be the fact you present it to be.

 

[Bunyip]

Someone had to be first....in mind and heart....as we know Man to be.

Well no, that is not what the evidence demonstrates - humans did not emerge from a single specimen. There was no Adam and Eve.

 

[gnostic]

No volume?.....good for my viewpoint.
Not for yours.

Volume is a measure of space.
A measure.

Measure is created by Man.

Most BB cosmologists, hypothese that the singularity (that's pre-BB universe) :

• was very small (hence, if there are size, no matter how large or tiny, then the singularity has volume),
• was super-dense (hence, have both volume and mass),
• and was super-hot (again, hence has mass).

If you have forgotten your physics class, (that if you ever taken physics classes in your life) the measurement of density (&#961 is calculated by -

ρ = m / V​

Though, volumes are measurement used in astronomy and cosmology, volumes are the least important measurements in those 2 fields.

In the world of modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, volumes play very little parts. The measurements that have more meaning to astronomers are MASSES.

There can't be density without either volume or mass.

If you have two objects, both of them have the same amount of masses, but one object is the twice the size, as in volume, then the smaller object would have density than the larger-size object. Gravity is also determined by its density; the more denser is the object, the greater is the gravity. Density and mass go hand-in-hand.

The density of the smaller object is twice the density of the larger object that have the same masses.

1. It is mass that allowed scientists to determine the gravitational force between celestial bodies.
2. It is mass that help the rotational spins, orbits of planetary systems or stellar objects.
3. It is mass that help scientists to determine the fate of a star (white dwarf, supernova, neutron star, blackhole, etc).

Both (stellar) blackholes and the pre-BB universe have singularity.

We know precisely what a blackhole is. It is a very massive core of the dead star, which have higher than usual gravitational forces, that anything entering the event horizon can't escape, even light (or photons). The singularity of the pre-BB universe is harder to determine what matters exist within the singularity, but something do exist, otherwise there wouldn't any mass or density.

 

[outhouse]

We know precisely what a blackhole is


.

IN your context reported yes.

But we know nothing really about what a black hole is exactly.


We have no idea about the gravity strength, nor what exactly the atomic structure is, we are clueless.

 

[gnostic]

IN your context reported yes.

But we know nothing really about what a black hole is exactly.


We have no idea about the gravity strength, nor what exactly the atomic structure is, we are clueless.

I did write or say "precisely", not "exactly".

Do not get the 2 words mix up.

But I do get your points.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Close enough.
After the alteration in the garden event....Adam would be...'something different'.

But you said man so Adam wasn't part of Homo sapiens. What about Neanderthals? And the species that existed on the islands and in Asia? What were they?

 

[Thief]

Most BB cosmologists, hypothese that the singularity (that's pre-BB universe) :

• was very small (hence, if there are size, no matter how large or tiny, then the singularity has volume),
• was super-dense (hence, have both volume and mass),
• and was super-hot (again, hence has mass).

If you have forgotten your physics class, (that if you ever taken physics classes in your life) the measurement of density (&#961 is calculated by -

ρ = m / V​

Though, volumes are measurement used in astronomy and cosmology, volumes are the least important measurements in those 2 fields.

In the world of modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, volumes play very little parts. The measurements that have more meaning to astronomers are MASSES.

There can't be density without either volume or mass.

If you have two objects, both of them have the same amount of masses, but one object is the twice the size, as in volume, then the smaller object would have density than the larger-size object. Gravity is also determined by its density; the more denser is the object, the greater is the gravity. Density and mass go hand-in-hand.

The density of the smaller object is twice the density of the larger object that have the same masses.

1. It is mass that allowed scientists to determine the gravitational force between celestial bodies.
2. It is mass that help the rotational spins, orbits of planetary systems or stellar objects.
3. It is mass that help scientists to determine the fate of a star (white dwarf, supernova, neutron star, blackhole, etc).

Both (stellar) blackholes and the pre-BB universe have singularity.

We know precisely what a blackhole is. It is a very massive core of the dead star, which have higher than usual gravitational forces, that anything entering the event horizon can't escape, even light (or photons). The singularity of the pre-BB universe is harder to determine what matters exist within the singularity, but something do exist, otherwise there wouldn't any mass or density.

Sorry Dude....I'm blowing off the whole thing.
For the singularity to be singular.....no secondary point is allowed.
Therefore no dimensional quality.
No number system.

And to say that light cannot escape would be incorrect.

"Let there be light!"

 

[Thief]

Well no, that is not what the evidence demonstrates - humans did not emerge from a single specimen. There was no Adam and Eve.

No really....in the scheme of regression...Someone had to be first.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry Dude....I'm blowing off the whole thing.
For the singularity to be singular.....no secondary point is allowed.
Therefore no dimensional quality.
No number system.

And to say that light cannot escape would be incorrect.

"Let there be light!"

A singularity is a locations it's a point. It isn't called so because it was singular. For all we know other singularities existed that created their own universes.

 

[metis]

No really....in the scheme of regression...Someone had to be first.

"First" is where one may draw a line, which can be quite variable from person to person, but the reality appears to be that there truly is no "first" but just a constant continuation from the past to the present to the future.

 

[Thief]

"First" is where one may draw a line, which can be quite variable from person to person, but the reality appears to be that there truly is no "first" but just a constant continuation from the past to the present to the future.

If you were God.....you would have been, are now, and shall always be.
So I've heard about, God.

As for everyone else.....
Someone had to be first in mind, heart, AND body.

 

[Thief]

A singularity is a locations it's a point. It isn't called so because it was singular. For all we know other singularities existed that created their own universes.

Multi-verse?...I've heard of it.

Theoretical physics leans that way to explain some of the difficult 'points' when the numbers can't go far enough.

 

[metis]

If you were God.....you would have been, are now, and shall always be.
So I've heard about, God.

As for everyone else.....
Someone had to be first in mind, heart, AND body.

But all things appear to change over time, thus why would anyone assume that God hasn't changed? What evidence could they go by? And it's because of this constant change that we experience whereas no one had to be first.

Let me give an example. Let's say you and I were talking and suddenly the lights went on. If I said, "Look, it's a miracle and God did it!", what would you think of me? Wouldn't you instead try and figure out why the lights went on, thus cause and effect?

Again, to be clear, I am not saying there is no God, but merely that I think that the typical depiction of God tends to be very anthropomorphic and not really very logical based on what we now know and the patterns we experience.

 

[gnostic]

Theoretical physics leans that way to explain some of the difficult 'points' when the numbers can't go far enough.

Then you really don't understand "theoretical physics", because numbers, mathematical statements and mathematical models are the only solutions that theoretical physicists can offer. The thing is, that the maths (or the "numbers") don't always match up with evidences or with the reality.

 

[Bunyip]

No really....in the scheme of regression...Someone had to be first.

No, not really. Evolution happens to species and not individuals, the first humans would have been in their tens of thousands at least. There is no deliniator between species, they transition over time and as a species, not an individual.

 

[Thief]

No, not really. Evolution happens to species and not individuals, the first humans would have been in their tens of thousands at least. There is no deliniator between species, they transition over time and as a species, not an individual.

The garden event would not be evolution.
It would be manipulation.

 

[Thief]

Then you really don't understand "theoretical physics", because numbers, mathematical statements and mathematical models are the only solutions that theoretical physicists can offer. The thing is, that the maths (or the "numbers") don't always match up with evidences or with the reality.

No match up?.....room to doubt numbers?......yep.