Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Willamena]

Of course ideas are something...I never said they weren't.....so where is your proof that you can make an idea become nonexistent?

I have no proof of that.

Gladly.

 

[allfoak]

Of course ideas are something...I never said they weren't.....so where is your proof that you can make an idea become nonexistent?

Ideas come and go in our mind.
From that perspective ideas are not only something but also become non-existent.

If this is something that needs proof, then the plague of the mind is spreading faster than i was aware.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course ideas are something...I never said they weren't.....so where is your proof that you can make an idea become nonexistent?

"I have no idea" or "I have nothing to say."

But represent empty ideas, I think. Maybe they're ideas that don't exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fine....so you are now in agreement with me as I said at the get go that there is no scientist alive who disagrees that the energy and mass of the universe is something and not nothing?

You have consistently claimed in this exchange that the energy and mass of the universe is nothing....you are now changing your position as you find your position untenable....

So you work in neuroscience....and imagine you understand the universe...haha...where in the world did you ever get the idea that universal energy and mass was not something but rather nothing...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ideas come and go in our mind.
From that perspective ideas are not only something but also become non-existent.

If this is something that needs proof, then the plague of the mind is spreading faster than i was aware.

C'mon...be real...you may as well add that the memories of ideas are also not accessible when the person is dead....it doesn't change the fact the the essential energy and mass associated with thought and memory is not taken out of the universe... The concept of nothing in the context of what I am saying is not the relative nothing such as there are no oranges left after they have been eaten.....but absolute nothing as in....no time or space or mass or energy.... got it? I am sorry if you meant you are suffering from dementia...it is a terrible disease...

 

[allfoak]

C'mon...be real...you may as well add that the memories of ideas are also not accessible when the person is dead....it doesn't change the fact the the essential energy and mass associated with thought and memory is not taken out of the universe... The concept of nothing in the context of what I am saying is not the relative nothing such as there are no oranges left after they have been eaten.....but absolute nothing as in....no time or space or mass or energy.... got it? I am sorry if you meant you are suffering from dementia...it is a terrible disease...

non-existent was a poor choice of words to describe what meant apparently.

I have a list of people in my head that i do not engage in conversation, you just made the list.
Congrats!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The word - "organized" - is a terminology that irrelevant in the Big Bang cosmology, because I think it is loaded question.
If I say "yes, organized", then you would attempt to sway me with the notion of the Creator god or Intelligent Designer. Putting a deity or this pseudoscience non-existent designer into the picture, would be exactly the same as having superstitious belief of fairies or demons.
I don't need these superstitions and myths that creationists ignorantly cling on to, to explain a natural phenomena.
If you have a understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis, then you might, you just might understand what the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but I won't be holding my breath that you could, without bringing your superstitions into it.

Well, yes, there is intelligence in organization.
Antony Flew concluded:
DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce, life, that intelligence must have been involved.
Can't there be a start or a beginning of natural phenomena ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

non-existent was a poor choice of words to describe what meant apparently.

I have a list of people in my head that i do not engage in conversation, you just made the list.
Congrats!

I'm famous then.... Seriously though allfoak.....I am sorry to have hurt your feeling....I have no idea how old you are and wanted to make sure... I hope you can take me off your list of bad guys...

 

[allfoak]

I'm famous then.... Seriously though allfoak.....I am sorry to have hurt your feeling....I have no idea how old you are and wanted to make sure... I hope you can take me off your list of bad guys...

I am going to let you continue to enjoy your fame for a while.
If you understood human nature the way i do, you would know that what we say and do reflects who we are.
Your entire post says that you are not to be taken seriously.

You started off with a plea for seriousness, something that was never in question.
You apologized for hurting my feelings rather than for what you actually did , which was to insult me.
You then made an excuse for what you did after you supposedly apologized.
My list of bad guys stands.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am going to let you continue to enjoy your fame for a while.
If you understood human nature the way i do, you would know that what we say and do reflects who we are.
Your entire post says that you are not to be taken seriously.

You started off with a plea for seriousness, something that was never in question.
You apologized for hurting my feelings rather than for what you actually did , which was to insult me.
You then made an excuse for what you did after you supposedly apologized.
My list of bad guys stands.

I will try to be on my bast behavior from this time forth.....people misunderstand me...

 

[allfoak]

I will try to be on my bast behavior from this time forth.....people misunderstand me...

Then i will try harder to understand you.

 

[gnostic]

Well, yes, there is intelligence in organization.
Antony Flew concluded:
DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce, life, that intelligence must have been involved.
Can't there be a start or a beginning of natural phenomena ?

Antony Flew was a long-time atheist before he became a deist.

While I don't in any way object to his change of mind in what he believe in, so that's not my problem. I always believe that anyone can free believe what he or she believe in...so that's not my problem with Flew at all.

My problem with Flew is that he is a philosopher and not a scientist. And the main focus of his philosophy has always being that of religion, not science.

So my question to you, is WHY in bloody seven-hell should I take what he has to say about DNA, when it is obvious he is not a biologist or biochemist????

No matter what type of philosophy followed, if you don't have the education in any one of the scientific fields, don't make a person a scientist.

Even if he remain an atheist for the rest of his life, he is still a philosopher, not a scientist, and he is not a biologist, so anything he has to say about biology, is not worth much because he is not a professionally trained or educated biologist.

Now that's not to say, a person cannot be both a philosopher AND a scientist, there are many who are and who have been both. But clearly from Flew's background, his limited education in science don't make him a biologist.

So what Flew has to say about intelligence being involved in DNA, is only Flew expressing his personal opinion, and not his expertise in biology.

Now everyone are free to express their opinions, you, me and Flew, so I have no objections of anyone expressing their opinions, including you and Flew...but opinions are never facts, if you you don't evidences to support your claim...and Flew didn't have any evidence, so it is just his opinion.

And Intelligent Design is still nothing but creationists trying to fake science with ID (hence, it is pseudoscience).

Perhaps, if you've brought up a person who is actually a biologist, your claim would have more consideration from me.

 

[viole]

I notice in the Hebrew Scriptures at Isaiah 40:22 it says who spreads the heavens......and stretches them.....

Any thoughts about Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8 and Zechariah 12:1 A ?

What does it mean "that spreadeth abroad the earth"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

No-
Thing

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What does it mean "that spreadeth abroad the earth"?
Ciao
- viole

In the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanach) at Isaiah 44:24 reads: Who spread out the heavens by myself, and firmed the earth by my own accord.....
" " " " (Tanach) at Zechariah 12:1 reads: Who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth,......

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Antony Flew was a long-time atheist before he became a deist.
While I don't in any way object to his change of mind in what he believe in, so that's not my problem. I always believe that anyone can free believe what he or she believe in...so that's not my problem with Flew at all.
My problem with Flew is that he is a philosopher and not a scientist. And the main focus of his philosophy has always being that of religion, not science.
So my question to you, is WHY in bloody seven-hell should I take what he has to say about DNA, when it is obvious he is not a biologist or biochemist????
No matter what type of philosophy followed, if you don't have the education in any one of the scientific fields, don't make a person a scientist.
Even if he remain an atheist for the rest of his life, he is still a philosopher, not a scientist, and he is not a biologist, so anything he has to say about biology, is not worth much because he is not a professionally trained or educated biologist.
Now that's not to say, a person cannot be both a philosopher AND a scientist, there are many who are and who have been both. But clearly from Flew's background, his limited education in science don't make him a biologist.
So what Flew has to say about intelligence being involved in DNA, is only Flew expressing his personal opinion, and not his expertise in biology.
Now everyone are free to express their opinions, you, me and Flew, so I have no objections of anyone expressing their opinions, including you and Flew...but opinions are never facts, if you you don't evidences to support your claim...and Flew didn't have any evidence, so it is just his opinion.
And Intelligent Design is still nothing but creationists trying to fake science with ID (hence, it is pseudoscience).
Perhaps, if you've brought up a person who is actually a biologist, your claim would have more consideration from me.

Understand what you said ^ above ^ about Flew, but there are biologists who believe in creation.
Although not a biologist, I do have a clipping handy of a Physicist Wenlong He at Scotland's University of Strathclyde.
Wenlong said a closed system can not become more organized or remain organized unless acted upon by an external agent.
The universe and life on earth are highly ordered, ....must be products of an external agent.
Also,....the universe and earth seem to be specifically designed to support life.
Practically all life on earth depends on energy from the sun......Harmful radiation blocked while allowing other needed radiation to reach the earth's surface.
The atmosphere's special transparency to light can not be a coincidence. Even more remarkable is the tiny amount of ultraviolet light that reaches earth's surface.
Some ultraviolet light is critical. A small amount on skin to produce vitamin D, too much causes cancer and cataracts. In its natural state, the atmosphere allows only a tiny amount of untraviolet radiation to reach earth's surface. For Physicist Wenlong He, that shows that someone designed the earth to sustain life.

I'll see what else I can come across in connection to biologists or biochemists

 

[paarsurrey]

Something and nothing come into existence at the same time.

Where can we find this reality represented by the concept of 'nothing'...and how do we prove it is nothing? ...

Firstly, it's as impossible to prove that something is something as to prove that it is nothing.
And secondly, we find it here and now, in negation.

So science becomes gibberish here. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Understand what you said ^ above ^ about Flew, but there are biologists who believe in creation.

I am sure there are.

But scientists, including biologists, should based their works on VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES, and NOT ON their personal faith and religious belief.

How many times, must I hammered you that EVIDENCES that are verifiable is what count in science?

If scientists cannot verify their works (hypothesis, theory, research) through empirical observation (observation can be test or evidence), then -

1. EITHER their works have been refuted (debunked) and therefore should be discarded,
2. OR his works were not falsifiable in the first place, because it is pseudoscience.

Intelligent Design falls under the later category, because their DESIGNER itself is not falsifiable; "falsifiable" meaning it was never going to be TESTABLE.

Intelligent Design required an enormous amount of circular reasoning, not evidences, to make it so that it would seem somehow reasonable.

Your quote (or your paraphrase) of what Flew say, that the DNA are complex, therefore something or someone must have design them. That's is just a matter of one's opinion, and unsubstantiated one at that. Unless, he can provide some evidences that the Designer is somehow involved, then the claim is nothing more than pseudoscience and personal belief.

Now, I have stated that science require EVIDENCES that will either VERIFY or REFUTE a scientist's work, so his statement(s) and prediction(s) - eg hypothesis or theory.

There are some fields of scientific research are exception to this rule.

There are some theories, like Superstring theory, M-theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Multiverse cosmology - that are untestable through observation, so that there are no evidences to verify these theories are true.

This is where the term PROOF come in science.

In science, as well as in the world of advanced mathematics, PROOF and EVIDENCE are NOT THE SAME THINGS.

PROOF is a mathematical solution, like a mathematical model or mathematical equation. These equations are essentially logical model, with its own language.

When a theory cannot be tested in normal means, like quantifiable and verifiable evidences, they can be tested through mathematical representations, like solving complex equations.

Any field that untestable, but that can be PROVEN through mathematical equations or logical models, like the one I mentioned earlier about string theory, every, etc, fall under the category of THEORETICAL PHYSICS, because of the theory's reliance on mathematical or logical model alone.

So in the world of physics, it can be divided broadly into -

1. Experimental physics, which relied on TESTS and EVIDENCES to "verify" or "refute" a statement (like hypothesis or theory).
2. Theoretical physics, which relies on PROOFS (eg mathematical equations) to "prove" or "disprove" a statement.

Other branches and fields of science, like that of biology followed the same rules as that of physics, in where you rely on (A) evidences or tests, or (B) mathematical proofs.

Do you understand where I am going with this, URAVIP2ME?

Now, you might claim that Intelligent Design is untestable, so it doesn't require evidences, therefore it is "theoretical".

Would you claim this? (I hope not)

If you do, I would say that you are WRONG!

You would be wrong, because of this stupid DESIGNER.

it is not possible to verify the existence of the Designer through evidences and tests; so Intelligent Design is not science. AND you can't prove the existence of the Designer through mathematical equations; so again, it is not (theoretical) science. So if that's the case, then the whole ID is nothing more than baseless assumptions and irrational belief.

I'd say this belief in ID "irrational" because they are nothing more than superstition. The people of Discovery Institute (DI) rely on people's naïve and non-scientific background to fall for their propaganda. And that's the weapons ID advocates have, propaganda and people's naivety who would fall for their ID propaganda.

The best example of propaganda is the Irreducible Complexity (IC) by Michael Behe. Not only Behe cannot supply eicdences for his IC, but the Designer's existence is also unprovable mathematically.

That's why he went to court and resorted to lying to the judges, because he has no credibility in the science community or through reviewed by his peers (biochemists). And his papers were refuted and rejected because he didn't follow the guideline of Scientific Method.

Behe should have integrity to throw his IC in the waste basket, once he was refuted. But he is weak and allowed the people from Discovery Institute to pressure him to go before the high courts, only to embarrass himself in public.

Even his biochemistry department make a disclaimer that though Behe can teach at the university, doesn't mean any biochemist professor accept Behe's refuted paper.

 

[gnostic]

So science becomes gibberish here. Right?
Regards

No, it is just YOU and your lack of education in science.

Don't blame it on science, if you don't understand.

 

[gnostic]

Although not a biologist, I do have a clipping handy of a Physicist Wenlong He at Scotland's University of Strathclyde.
Wenlong said a closed system can not become more organized or remain organized unless acted upon by an external agent.
The universe and life on earth are highly ordered, ....must be products of an external agent.
Also,....the universe and earth seem to be specifically designed to support life.
Practically all life on earth depends on energy from the sun......Harmful radiation blocked while allowing other needed radiation to reach the earth's surface.
The atmosphere's special transparency to light can not be a coincidence. Even more remarkable is the tiny amount of ultraviolet light that reaches earth's surface.
Some ultraviolet light is critical. A small amount on skin to produce vitamin D, too much causes cancer and cataracts. In its natural state, the atmosphere allows only a tiny amount of untraviolet radiation to reach earth's surface. For Physicist Wenlong He, that shows that someone designed the earth to sustain life.

I'll see what else I can come across in connection to biologists or biochemists

Again, you like to rely on people, who cannot provide any evidences for the existence of a Designer, Creator or God being involve in any way with his supposed DESIGN or CREATION...just MORE of circular reasoning and apologetic babbles.

Wenlong He, like Flew, is using circular reasoning and wishful thinking in regarding to the DESIGNER. Wishes and irrational logic are not evidences, URAVIP2ME.

What I am seeing, with your new example, is that Wenlong is making a leap of faith that there might be an "external agent". That's his personal opinion and superstition, not science.

Until you can provide scientists who can actually verifiable and conclusive evidences, your own credibility is waning even more than you last post on Flew.

Why do you on insisting bringing me to attention of people who use wishful thinking and logic fallacies in their arguments?