Atheists don't believe in God or gods but they have no alternative theories that make sense...

[edthecynic]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

Energy cannot be created therefore you cannot create equal amounts of energy, or unequal amounts of energy for that matter!

Sure you can, when the result is still zero energy. You just create energy and negative energy, in equal parts.

But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing".

Which is to say it is not nothing right now. So, precisely the opposite of what you claim i implied. You aren't even following my posts well, much less this complicated topic.

No, to say "spring from nothing" means it was nothing BEFORE right now.
Just like you are not following what science says, you are not even following what YOU yourself post!!!!!

That doesn’t even make any sense. Do you have a link where someone makes this claim?

Nothing you post makes any sense, but you are the one claiming everything "sprang from nothing."

There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

 

[edthecynic]

He doesn’t understand that it is not possible for energy and matter to have existed forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

He doesn’t understand that if that matter and energy came from somewhere else and had existed forever that it would be the exact same situation as if it had existed forever here.

Therefore, the only way we can honor all laws is for energy to have a beginning. There is no other option.

Again, thermal equilibrium in the real physical universe is impossible as long as there is motion, and there is no real world temperature at which all motion stops, that is the TLoT.

Energy having a beginning violates the FLoT.

Ed, you are talking about atomic motion or the vibrations of the atoms which will cease at absolute zero which is impossible to be achieved because before that occurs all heat transfer ceases because objects will reach a uniform temperature at some temperature above absolute zero.

The motion of objects will cease before the temperature of the universe reaches absolute zero. The vibration of atoms will not cease but no work can be done because no useable energy remains.

The motion of objects does not depend heat transfer, and atoms have more motion than just vibration. Those pesky little electrons are in constant motion around the nucleus of an atom without any heat transfer, and there is no denying that electrons can do work.

 

[edthecynic]

Furthermore, as energy and matter convert from one form to another usable energy is lost. This does not mean it was destroyed. It still exists in the mass balance to maintain a net energy of zero. What it does mean is that the universe is equilibrating it’s temperature.

The energy lost is converted to heat, heat has no mass therefore it cannot contribute to the offsetting gravitational energy you speak of. Heat does accelerate motion and kinetic energy, the energy of motion, can and does do work and therefore IS usable energy.

Exactly, energy which is not useable - which is heat that is lost in the conversation of energy to work - has no mass which is why there is no change in gravitational energy and is why there is no change in the net energy of the universe which is zero. It is worth stating that useable energy has no mass either, Ed.

Potential, Kinetic, Free, and Activation Energy | Boundless Biology

From your own link:
"work: A measure of energy expended by moving an object, usually considered to be force times distance. No work is done if the object does not move."

 

[edthecynic]

So as energy was created through a quantum tunneling event the gravity was exactly balancing it such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Yes, after the quantum tunneling event which created space and time. But during the quantum tunneling event the net energy of the universe was zero because the positive energy of the matter was balanced by the negative energy of the gravity created by the matter. Effectively the universe is a free body diagram where the sum of the forces equals zero.

The SUM of the forces means the forces already exist to be summed and therefore were not created out of nothing.
Thank you for finally admitting it, even if you did so unwittingly.

 

[Karl Rand]

Nothing you post makes any sense, but you are the one claiming everything "sprang from nothing."

There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

Strangely we’re left with a question that’s more psychological than cosmological.
Why are so many obsessed with this idea there had to be a beginning?
Some kind of twisted anthropomorphism reinforced by the myth of Genesis fed to them at an early and vulnerable age?

 

[Karl Rand]

There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

Quantum physics is a young science but we don’t really need it to tell us there’s no such thing as nothing. If the is such a thing as nothing how would we detect it?
The only way I can see any of this open to question comes via some parts of string theory and the idea of multiple universes which then opens an whole can of worm holes I don’t want to dive down. In fact claims have been made communication of any kind between such universes isn’t possible. It all just gets messier and messier so why don’t we just stop trying to answer unanswerable questions and concentrate on the survival of our species otherwise there’ll be nobody left to ask silly questions?

 

[edthecynic]

There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

Quantum physics is a young science but we don’t really need it to tell us there’s no such thing as nothing. If the is such a thing as nothing how would we detect it?
The only way I can see any of this open to question comes via some parts of string theory and the idea of multiple universes which then opens an whole can of worm holes I don’t want to dive down. In fact claims have been made communication of any kind between such universes isn’t possible. It all just gets messier and messier so why don’t we just stop trying to answer unanswerable questions and concentrate on the survival of our species otherwise there’ll be nobody left to ask silly questions?

Actually we are not that far away from understanding it, all we need is a quantum theory of gravity. Gravity is a very interesting force, it is not very strong, a simple refrigerator magnet can overcome it and lift a paper clip off of a table, but at the same time it is everywhere in the universe. once we have a quantum theory of gravity we might be able to use gravity to explore the multiverse.

 

[Karl Rand]

There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

Quantum physics is a young science but we don’t really need it to tell us there’s no such thing as nothing. If the is such a thing as nothing how would we detect it?
The only way I can see any of this open to question comes via some parts of string theory and the idea of multiple universes which then opens an whole can of worm holes I don’t want to dive down. In fact claims have been made communication of any kind between such universes isn’t possible. It all just gets messier and messier so why don’t we just stop trying to answer unanswerable questions and concentrate on the survival of our species otherwise there’ll be nobody left to ask silly questions?

Actually we are not that far away from understanding it, all we need is a quantum theory of gravity. Gravity is a very interesting force, it is not very strong, a simple refrigerator magnet can overcome it and lift a paper clip off of a table, but at the same time it is everywhere in the universe. once we have a quantum theory of gravity we might be able to use gravity to explore the multiverse.

But will you survive to come back and tell us what nothing looks like?

 

[cnm]

Gravity is a very interesting force, it is not very strong,

I can see you haven't played many gravity games.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it’s ignorant with regard to those free from religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

No, it’s proof of your ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.

Again, your thread premise fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy – that the origins of the universe may not be known doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the answer.

 

[edthecynic]

Gravity is a very interesting force, it is not very strong,

I can see you haven't played many gravity games.

The gravitational constant G is a fantastically tiny number – roughly 0.0000000000667 cubic meters per kilogram per square second.

 

[Karl Rand]

As unpopluar as the original topic of this thread is I feel a peculiar urge to return to it.
The actual term ‘atheism’ covers a multitude of sins. It may help if we manage to return discussion to the central question (whatever it means) and deliniate the many approaches to the denial of the existence of a God/Godess/Creator etc.
1. Knowledge Difference.
Gnostic atheists not only believe there are no gods, they also claim to know there are no gods.
Agnostic atheists dont believe in gods, but dont claim to know there are no gods.
2. Affirmation Difference.
A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.
A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.
3. ScopeDifference
A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.
A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Why this view is termed ’Narrow’ I can’t figure)
4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.
(I’m unsure what’s so significant in such a ‘belief’ or if using a term such as ‘belief’ is appropriate.
An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.
A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.
( I fail to see you these fine distinctions, if that’s what they are, assist us at all)
5. Difference in Openness
A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.
(Too many of these around !)
An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
6. Difference in Action
A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism. (coward!)
An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.
An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.
A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)
7. Difference in Religiosity
A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.
(I don’t get this one)
A non-religious atheist does not practice religion. ( big surprise!)

Extracted from a web site I’ve lost the link to. . . . .sorry.

 

[cnm]

The gravitational constant G is a fantastically tiny number – roughly 0.0000000000667 cubic meters per kilogram per square second.

I understand on earth that equates to a gravitational acceleration of 32ft/sec/sec. I calculate that would give a body a 5.2 sec quarter mile without air resistance. I don't think you've played many gravity games.

 

[Karl Rand]

The gravitational constant G is a fantastically tiny number – roughly 0.0000000000667 cubic meters per kilogram per square second.

I understand on earth that equates to a gravitational acceleration of 32ft/sec/sec. I calculate that would give a body a 5.2 sec quarter mile without air resistance. I don't think you've played many gravity games.

Odd how we can provide all those figures yet still really don’t know what it is we’re talking about.

 

[Karl Rand]

 

[cnm]

Odd how we can provide all those figures yet still really don’t know what it is we’re talking about.

I'm not sure about that. After all the subtext of this thread is WE DON'T KNOW.

 

[cnm]

The gravitational constant G is a fantastically tiny number – roughly 0.0000000000667 cubic meters per kilogram per square second.

Anyway, cubic metres?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, to say "spring from nothing" means it was nothing BEFORE right now.

But not right now, contrary to the claim you think I made.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Energy having a beginning violates the FLoT.

Wrong, as long as negative energy is also created.