The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Twilight Hue]

The single cause or singularity in my opinion is long gone, so there is nothing to trace to any original cause of which to identify. The only recourse is to learn from the smallest components and determine if in fact things really reach a finite point or is infinite which of course in that case, makes it impossible to determine either at all.

 

[Thief]

What exactly are you talking about here? The concept of the Big Bang, or the notion that we are expected to deal with it as if it were some sort of final answer?

The first is understandable and fair. The second, not so much - and not something I can easily believe was presented as being "what science says".




Nope, pal. Your claims, your burden of proof.

And the years tick by and I keep saying it over and over.....
No photo, no equation, no fingerprint, no repeatable experiments.....
no proof.

You just have to think about it.

Regression is not a difficult practice.
Someone had to be first in mind and heart.
I call Him....the Almighty.....the Creator....

I believe in Spirit before substance.
I believe as does science....there is a 'point' of 'origin'.
A singularity.

In the beginning...........

 

[Thief]

Light, the spectrum we see, and matter didnt form until the universe had been existence for hundreds of thousands of years. If you want to use Genesis with what science says then god evolved to the point of "let there be light". Whatever the case, sounded like a long day when the very light needed for a day to exist was barely becoming.

I suspect the 'bang' was silent....and very quick.

The first day was likely to have been of great length.
I don't think of God as subject to time.

In fact, I don't believe in time as force or substance.

 

[McBell]

However you look at it.....there had to be a beginning.

So let us skip all the "goddidit" crap and discuss the beginning of god.
Cause the second you make god an exception to your "There had to be a beginning" claim, you completely destroy that claim.

How about it; you up to supporting your claim or are you =, like so many before you, going to make your chosen deity the exception that destroys your claim?

 

[idav]

In fact, I don't believe in time as force or substance.

Science has disagreed ever since einstein blew everyone away with special relativity. Time isnt just about busting out a ruler and counting. Time is very real.

 

[idav]

See, your argument that God created everything cannot, in my opinion, work unless you are advocating the "something actually came from nothing."

God used itself to bring about existence, whether it was god from nothing or god eternal, works either way.

 

[Thief]

So let us skip all the "goddidit" crap and discuss the beginning of god.
Cause the second you make god an exception to your "There had to be a beginning" claim, you completely destroy that claim.

How about it; you up to supporting your claim or are you =, like so many before you, going to make your chosen deity the exception that destroys your claim?

So...in the scheme of a linear existence......no beginning?

But God which I believe to be Spirit....might not be shackled to the physical demand.

Was...is....and shall always be....
That's the way I've always heard it.
But you would be spirit, to participate in that existence.
And without a physical form the physical law would not apply.

So...in the scheme of regression....Someone had to be First.
I would call Him...God.
I believe Spirit before substance....therfore God as Creator....and in control.
Hence the notion....'firmament'.

What's so hard about that?

 

[Thief]

Science has disagreed ever since einstein blew everyone away with special relativity. Time isnt just about busting out a ruler and counting. Time is very real.

Time is a quotient....a means of measurment.
A cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.
It is not a force or a substance.

In the scheme of cause and effect....it is neither.

 

[ruffen]

Time is a quotient....a means of measurment.
A cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.
It is not a force or a substance.

In the scheme of cause and effect....it is neither.

If time is not objectively real, how do muons created in our upper atmosphere know whether or not they should reach the ground before decaying?

 

[Thief]

Movement...including decay.....is real.
Motion is real.

Time is a quotient on a blackboard.
The equations we do help us to comprehend.

(we actually can't)

Time is a collection of numbers to assist in what we otherwise, cannot 'see'.

 

[idav]

Movement...including decay.....is real.
Motion is real.

Time is a quotient on a blackboard.
The equations we do help us to comprehend.

(we actually can't)

Time is a collection of numbers to assist in what we otherwise, cannot 'see'.

The intensity of time and decay is relative to velocity and mass. Decay does slow down with enough velocity and/or mass, relative to an object with a slower velocity and less mass.

The way gravity works is it bends spacetime so time is even more real than gravity. We don't fall because of gravity per se, we fall because of spacetime is being bent.

Einstein saw a beautiful idea in his notion of curved space and time. He saw that the falling astronaut wasn't being pulled or pushed by anything, but just moving along a straight line (a geodesic) through curved spacetime. He realized that gravity could be reinterpreted, not as a force pulling on objects, but as a curvature of spacetime.
black-holes.org: Gravity and Warped Spacetime

 

[Thief]

The intensity of time and decay is relative to velocity and mass. Decay does slow down with enough velocity and/or mass, relative to an object with a slower velocity and less mass.

The way gravity works is it bends spacetime so time is even more real than gravity. We don't fall because of gravity per se, we fall because of spacetime is being bent.

Yeah...I know the drill....

Velocity is that number which Alfred chose to fix as best he could.
The speed of light is close to 'constant' as anything can be.
Using a measure of something in motion as a yard stick was novel.
Yard stick used to be just that.....a fixed length.
The constant of a motion opened a whole new can of worms.

But nonetheless, time is not a force.
It causes nothing.
It is only the yard stick....in motion....so to speak.

(we don't fall because the motion....speed....is sufficient.
(slow down and you drop like a rock)

 

[idav]

Yeah...I know the drill....

Velocity is that number which Alfred chose to fix as best he could.
The speed of light is close to 'constant' as anything can be.
Using a measure of something in motion as a yard stick was novel.
Yard stick used to be just that.....a fixed length.
The constant of a motion opened a whole new can of worms.

But nonetheless, time is not a force.
It causes nothing.
It is only the yard stick....in motion....so to speak.

(we don't fall because the motion....speed....is sufficient.
(slow down and you drop like a rock)

So how do you measure decay with a yardstick? How can decaying slow down and even stand still if it isn't a force of various intensity? If anything gravity it is gravity that isn't a force. Time is a force that effects us but does not effect god and then there is everything in between. You think eternal life is real, well then eternity would have to be real, a real effect on us at gods discretion.

 

[Thief]

So how do you measure decay with a yardstick? How can decaying slow down and even stand still if it isn't a force of various intensity? If anything gravity it is gravity that isn't a force. Time is a force that effects us but does not effect god and then there is everything in between. You think eternal life is real, well then eternity would have to be real, a real effect on us at gods discretion.

Decay is measured by the second....last I heard.
And yeah that clock on the wall doesn't generate time.
The metering 'stick' was simply rebuilt to go about in a circle.
(it's the battery that makes it work)

We speak of time as something we can run out of....and we will.
But that's a play on words.
We actually run out of useful chemistry.
Our bodies are reactions that have a 'length' of 'time'.
We take it personally....of course we do.
But it's not the measurement that does us in.

God?....not having a physical form...doesn't 'move' (like we do).
Time cannot be applied.
We often say of Him....was....is....and shall always be....

Decay is a matter of motion losing it's ability to go on.
We can measure the event.
The measure is in our heads.
No where else.

 

[idav]

Decay is measured by the second....last I heard.
And yeah that clock on the wall doesn't generate time.
The metering 'stick' was simply rebuilt to go about in a circle.
(it's the battery that makes it work)

We speak of time as something we can run out of....and we will.
But that's a play on words.
We actually run out of useful chemistry.
Our bodies are reactions that have a 'length' of 'time'.
We take it personally....of course we do.
But it's not the measurement that does us in.

God?....not having a physical form...doesn't 'move' (like we do).
Time cannot be applied.
We often say of Him....was....is....and shall always be....

I still haven't seen you explain why time dilation is simply an illusion. Its relative so if you want time to be a constant you'd have to use different size yard sticks relative to velocity and mass so that you can keep your constant non-real time.

And it isn't about the measuring of the round clock GPS has to account for all this to with digital clocks.

Feel free to explain time dilation in a way that makes time not a force.

 

[Thief]

I still haven't seen you explain why time dilation is simply an illusion. Its relative so if you want time to be a constant you'd have to use different size yard sticks relative to velocity and mass so that you can keep your constant non-real time.

And it isn't about the measuring of the round clock GPS has to account for all this to with digital clocks.

Feel free to explain time dilation in a way that makes it not a force.

Let's see....
Time in a bottle?....as a substance?......nope.
Time as a force that can be generated?......nope.....can't make time for you!

The physical 'shift' as your speed increases can be measured.
If the numbers are right, your mass is affected by your speed.

But that will happen whether you take the measurement or not.

Experiencing the event, the phenomenon is one thing.
Describing it with an equation will have no effect on the event.

There are four basic forces that I know of.
The weak and the strong, dealing with substance and it's decay.
The electromagnetic and gravity.

Motion seems to 'shift' some of the 'feel'.
That will happen with or without your clock.

 

[idav]

There are four basic forces that I know of.
The weak and the strong, dealing with substance and it's decay.
The electromagnetic and gravity.

Motion seems to 'shift' some of the 'feel'.
That will happen with or without your clock.

The universe is made of matter and spacetime.

Motion and mass shift spacetime so that the object is no longer "in" spacetime which is the same moment time would slow down to a standstill.

How are you equating "feel" with spacetime? Or... How do you figure shifting spacetime shifts our "feel" of reality.

Simply put, spacetime is the reason matter is not eternal, we simply don't have enough energy or power to be a timeless entity but in theory, increases in energy get us closer to that point, not that our physical form could actually survive it anyway.

 

[Thief]

Darn....hate to point to science fiction......but.....

If you could do the warp.....you would survive?

Fact is 18g's is fairly stiff lift off leaving Earth.
You need 44g's to leave the solar system.
And to get anywhere at all.....you need to exceed the speed of light.

Your fragile little body can't do that.

But say Star Trek can happen.
Something about the movement would be needed to keep you from going over the scale.

So much energy to move so fast.
As you move faster your mass increases.
Need more energy.
More mass results.
Ooops!

I've seen only one science documentary speak of leaving our bodies behind.
We must travel as if we are made of light.

Now THERE'S something to think about.

 

[idav]

Darn....hate to point to science fiction......but.....

If you could do the warp.....you would survive?

Fact is 18g's is fairly stiff lift off leaving Earth.
You need 44g's to leave the solar system.
And to get anywhere at all.....you need to exceed the speed of light.

Your fragile little body can't do that.

But say Star Trek can happen.
Something about the movement would be needed to keep you from going over the scale.

So much energy to move so fast.
As you move faster your mass increases.
Need more energy.
More mass results.
Ooops!

I've seen only one science documentary speak of leaving our bodies behind.
We must travel as if we are made of light.

Now THERE'S something to think about.

There is some confusion here. Mass does not increase with increase in speed. Thinking in terms of rest mass everything always weighs the same, the problem lies with inertial resistance so what increases is the power needed to keep approaching the speed of light. Technically it is inertial mass which increases which I understand as the increasing force on an accelerating objecting.

That being said, changing mass is the other way to accomplish the time dilation. When mass increases the gravity increases further distorting spacetime to the point of time dilation, and with that velocity need not be a factor, see black holes and time dilation.

 

[shawn001]

If a ship could warp, it doesn't move itself, it warp's spacetime around it to bend space and go from point A to point B.

NASA Scientist Says Warp Drive is Doable

[youtube]uwZt1Yh4-1U[/youtube]
NASA Scientist Says Warp Drive is Doable - YouTube

This won't be happening soon however. But maybe in the future.