Serious question for atheists.

[ding]

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

 

[ding]

Again, no link. Fuck you, idiot.

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

No need to watch, unless you want details . The speaker says it is possible that the universe came from nothibg, contrary to ding's lies and misrepresentations of his own linked material. Oh, and the whole point is to explain how this is possible without any help from magical sky daddies. It's an odd choice of video for Dithering Ding to post, as it contradicts his bullshit on literally every single level.

Possible?

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

 

[Taz]

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

It’s his theory not proof. Now shaddap!

 

[Taz]

How many times does this make, Taz?

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

No need to watch, unless you want details . The speaker says it is possible that the universe came from nothibg, contrary to ding's lies and misrepresentations of his own linked material. Oh, and the whole point is to explain how this is possible without any help from magical sky daddies. It's an odd choice of video for Dithering Ding to post, as it contradicts his bullshit on literally every single level.

Possible?

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

Uh-oh, here we go...

 

[ding]

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

It’s his theory not proof. Now shaddap!

You misspelled generally accepted theory.

Who knew the universe being created from nothing would drive you this batshit crazy?

 

[ding]

At what time in the video does he prove quantum tunnelling shows that we came from nothing?

Did you watch the video?

Point me to the relevant part first.

No need to watch, unless you want details . The speaker says it is possible that the universe came from nothibg, contrary to ding's lies and misrepresentations of his own linked material. Oh, and the whole point is to explain how this is possible without any help from magical sky daddies. It's an odd choice of video for Dithering Ding to post, as it contradicts his bullshit on literally every single level.

Possible?

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

Uh-oh, here we go...

It’s crazy the universe was created from nothing, isn’t it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

100% false. You literallyy just made that up, and youre wrong. For one, Hawking came up with a very simple and elegant solution, involving imaginary time. Second, at the core of every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution to that. Ding, you really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And you are really trying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's pretty amazing that it is completely possible that our univerae arose spontaneously from nothing.

By the way, "nothing" includes "not gods" and "not fairies" and "not unicorns" and "not magical voodoo spirits".

 

[Taz]

Point me to the relevant part first.

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

It’s his theory not proof. Now shaddap!

You misspelled generally accepted theory.

Who knew the universe being created from nothing would drive you this batshit crazy?

So you admit that it’s a theory. I win.

 

[badger2]

Hawking's imaginary time seems a dubious concept. Both space and time have always existed. It is impossible for both of them to begin.

 

[ding]

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

100% false. You literallyy just made that up, and youre wrong. For one, Hawking came up with a very simple and elegant solution, involving imaginary time. Second, at the core of every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution to that. Ding, you really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And you are really trying.

And it’s not cyclical.

Or produces a flat universe.

 

[ding]

The whole 3 minutes and 16 seconds he explains quantum tunneling. What do you think inflation theory is based upon?

So here is a cosmologist explaining how the universe was created from nothing in 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

It’s his theory not proof. Now shaddap!

You misspelled generally accepted theory.

Who knew the universe being created from nothing would drive you this batshit crazy?

So you admit that it’s a theory. I win.

Aren’t you glad you finally found the proof of God you were looking for?

 

[ding]

There’s no other solution that doesn’t violate the SLoT.

100% false. You literallyy just made that up, and youre wrong. For one, Hawking came up with a very simple and elegant solution, involving imaginary time. Second, at the core of every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution to that. Ding, you really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And you are really trying.

From the guy who can’t produce a link.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hawking's imaginary time seems a dubious concept.

Its not "his". It is a well founded, useful concept in physics. And while it may be true that time and space have "always been", to claim it true without a shred of evidence or consistent theory is much more "dubious", really.

 

[badger2]

It makes better sense in both of these speculations (1. Hawking's "imaginary," and 2. "always been") to regard them both as being construed from thinking DNA, which thinking DNA is not all that unique. But Derrida's notion in Of Grammatology, that writing creates space, is just as good as a physicist's idea. The very notion that there is no evidence should prompt the less pompous to accept that any creation by a creator would have to take place outside of space and time, which is also impossible (Haegglund, Radical Atheism). That both space and time cannot be created seems to make a more rational argument for 2. than 1. If not mistaken, Slavoj Zizek also takes on the "something from nothing" debate in Parallax View.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That both space and time cannot be created

Gotcha, but this is where you lost me. We don't really know the truth of that. Saying so is just an equivalent reiteration of the claim that time and space have alwats been. Thats what you are trying to argue. You don't get to assume it as true in order to argue for itself.

But, again, maybe you are right.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You throw out a link to CERN and expect me to see if there's anything there that's relevant to the discussion. It's up to YOU to lay out your argument with links to the proper spot of the website after you've quoted the relevant passage. Proof of the BB coming from nothing isn't a general link to CERN, do you get that?

I've already provided the link and pointed you to the section that explains how we know the universe had a beginning.

I am now asking you very specifically what evidence you reject.

Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.

We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?

.

put all the matter and energy into a tiny space

- the "tinny space" of, the moment of singularity - had no matter.

singularity was the moment of final transition from one state to another - compressed matter to energy - energy to matter - as a cyclical event.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

Not to mention cyclical universes violate the SLoT.

.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

under compression matter reverts to energy - when there is no matter remaining the cyclical event reverts freed sub atomic energy back to matter. BB.

 

[ding]

I've already provided the link and pointed you to the section that explains how we know the universe had a beginning.

I am now asking you very specifically what evidence you reject.

Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?

I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.

We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?

.

put all the matter and energy into a tiny space

- the "tinny space" of, the moment of singularity - had no matter.

singularity was the moment of final transition from one state to another - compressed matter to energy - energy to matter - as a cyclical event.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

Not to mention cyclical universes violate the SLoT.

.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

under compression matter reverts to energy - when there is no matter remaining the cyclical event reverts freed sub atomic energy back to matter. BB.

Link?

 

[Taz]

So he’s explaining his theory. Talking isn’t empirical proof.

Yes, that’s how people explain things. They talk.

It’s his theory not proof. Now shaddap!

You misspelled generally accepted theory.

Who knew the universe being created from nothing would drive you this batshit crazy?

So you admit that it’s a theory. I win.

Aren’t you glad you finally found the proof of God you were looking for?

A theory isn't proof. Man are you ever a dumbass.

 

[Taz]

I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.

We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?

.

put all the matter and energy into a tiny space

- the "tinny space" of, the moment of singularity - had no matter.

singularity was the moment of final transition from one state to another - compressed matter to energy - energy to matter - as a cyclical event.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

Not to mention cyclical universes violate the SLoT.

.

Matter is composed of energy. It all started as sub atomic particles.

It can’t be cyclical because the same force that compressed the universe would have kept it compressed.

under compression matter reverts to energy - when there is no matter remaining the cyclical event reverts freed sub atomic energy back to matter. BB.

Link?