Creation and so forth

[Grumblenuts]

Does time even really exist? Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations work equally well in reverse as they do going forward in time. Yet we have never witnessed time moving backwards. I think the most we can say about time is that it is a convenient was to mark the expansion of the universe.

As I said "time is space's simplest and most logical method of measuring A to B over vast distances." So yes, it's clearly just a human concocted abstraction among others. But also the smartest choice when considering things like "expansion of the universe", deep space travel, the size of distant galaxies relative to ours..

 

[Grumblenuts]

If 2 quantum entangled objects are a full light year away from each other, and one is turned over at 1 location it is also instantaneously turned over in the other location. The information had to travel from place one to place 2 or else there would be no way for the 2nd object to figuratively “know” that object 1 had flipped.

and it would have to travel a boat load faster than the speed of light.

There's no reason to believe the Aether couldn't support instantaneous information travel longitudinally, rendering "quantum entanglement" superfluous and silly. Quantum mechanics is intellectually insulting bullshit. A longitudinal wave transmitter / receiver (even our brains possibly) could instantly transmit some messages to / from similarly tuned individuals or animals, regardless of distance.

 

[BackAgain]

"Magical!" -- Yours Truly

Funny since I've clearly stated the opposite at least once here while you've been the one busy promoting nothing but the usual steaming pile of preloaded magical hogwash. You have to work at forgetting all that crap, open your mind, and above all actually want to listen and try to understand some things you've clearly never considered. However, you've now succeeded in convincing me that that will never happen. Oh well. Your loss.

No, idiot, the egg really did precede the chicken.

Magical!

Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith. If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.

I have, by stark contrast, been the one who asks questions. I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.

Your mindless repetition of your baseless and truly stupid claim doesn’t change anything. Since you are accepting stuff you are told but don’t understand, you are the one between the two of us engaged in magical thinking. Not me. At least when I come to even a tentative conclusion, I acknowledge that this doesn’t suffice to make it true. You? Not so much.

You may be all full of yourself, but nobody else is obliged to share that view of you. Sadly, you offer little of value to this discussion. I therefore dismiss you as being merely a troll.

 

[Ringtone]

Hey. I’m not debating that. I have no actual knowledge.

I am curious though. “Eternal” as In “never ending?” Or, “eternal” “as without beginning or ending.” If the latter, the concept of existence without need of creation eludes me.

It looks like either Matter/energy/space/time all came into existence without causation OR God did.

Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, not what exists, and logic resolves that issue.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing!
2. Hence, something has always existed.
3. Because an infinite regression of causation (or an actual infinite) is an absurdity and nonexistence is an absurdity, that which has always existed cannot be the spacetime continuum of matter and energy.
4 Hence, the necessary eternal existent is immaterial mind, namely, God.

 

[Hollie]

Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, not what exists, and logic resolves that issue.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing!
2. Hence, something has always existed.
3. Because an infinite regression of causation (or an actual infinite) is an absurdity and nonexistence is an absurdity, that which has always existed cannot be the spacetime continuum of matter and energy.
4 Hence, the necessary eternal existent is immaterial mind, namely, God.

Such silly circular references.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith. If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.

I have, by stark contrast, been the one who asks questions. I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.

Your mindless repetition of your baseless and truly stupid claim doesn’t change anything. Since you are accepting stuff you are told but don’t understand, you are the one between the two of us engaged in magical thinking. Not me. At least when I come to even a tentative conclusion, I acknowledge that this doesn’t suffice to make it true. You? Not so much.

You may be all full of yourself, but nobody else is obliged to share that view of you. Sadly, you offer little of value to this discussion. I therefore dismiss you as being merely a troll.

Wow, I hope you feel better.

I have come to no firm conclusions and realize I lack information necessary to reach a firm conclusion.

A man's got to know his limitations. Well do ya, punk? Just listen to yourself:

Science posits some things we now take for granted. For example, nothing can exist prior to itself.

(Again, "Science" actually posits nothing, people do, and here it's all you)

We call it “quantum” physics and make reference to how the normal scientific laws are suspended at such a point.

No, "We" don't. Not all of us. But you do -- just did, typical establishment apologist.

It is LITERALLY super-natural. (Not in the sense of the “divine” or “magic” necessarily; just in the sense of requiring explanation that is above and beyond our understanding of scientific “laws”.).

No, it is literally magic. Same thing. Instead of proposing such trash as though factual, try at least consulting a dictionary once in a while.
magic (from Oxford Languages/Google):

adjective

1. 1.
   used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers.
   "a magic wand"

.......

Actually, your mind is welded shut. You don’t grasp science. You accept it on faith. If some scientists claim that the entire universe and everything in it was as small as a proton (or smaller) and rapidly expanded into the Big Bnag, you don’t question anything. You accept in on blind faith and are too dull-witted to ask any questions at all.

Project much? You know you do. Boy do you wish you could be hot like me, LOL!!


Bubbye!

 

[BackAgain]

Existence, in and of itself, is the issue, not what exists, and logic resolves that issue.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing!
2. Hence, something has always existed.
3. Because an infinite regression of causation (or an actual infinite) is an absurdity and nonexistence is an absurdity, that which has always existed cannot be the spacetime continuum of matter and energy.
4 Hence, the necessary eternal existent is immaterial mind, namely, God.

1 & 2 are not “true” necessarily. Something does exist NOW. BUT the very question is “where did it come from?” To observe that something exists NOW does not entail that it always existed.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, I hope you feel better.

A man's got to know his limitations. Well do ya, punk? Just listen to yourself:

(Again, "Science" actually posits nothing, people do, and here it's all you)

No, "We" don't. Not all of us. But you do -- just did, typical establishment apologist.

No, it is literally magic. Same thing. Instead of proposing such trash as though factual, try at least consulting a dictionary once in a while.
magic (from Oxford Languages/Google):

.......

Project much? You know you do. Boy do you wish you could be hot like me, LOL!!


Bubbye!

I saw that it was you who was putting up a wall of words. So, I didn’t bother to read any further. You remain an absolute void.

 

[Ringtone]

1 & 2 are not “true” necessarily. Something does exist NOW. BUT the very question is “where did it come from?” To observe that something exists NOW does not entail that it always existed.

You're not thinking clearly.

You're literally claiming that nonexistence is possible. That's absurd.

 

[BackAgain]

You're not thinking clearly.

You're literally claiming that nonexistence is possible. That's absurd.

I didn’t exist for at least billions of years before I got created.

 

[Ringtone]

I didn’t exist for at least billions of years before I got created.

The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
Existence arose from nonexistence?! Please explain.
crickets chirping

 

[BackAgain]

The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
Existence arose from nonexistence?! Please explain.
crickets chirping

You have misunderstood most of what I’ve said.

Let’s take a step back. For the most part, I have been asking questions, not making many assertions.

That aside, my point is more fundamental. Before there was a freakin’ thing. No electrons. No protons. No energy. No matter.

Your proposition is that there never was a “before.” All this “stuff” always existed. And my QUESTION is “where did the matter (or the energy) come from?” You really can’t just say, “it was always there” because then what you’re doing is saying that something can exist without being created. And that’s not possible according to our understanding of science. The question is “what created the stuff that exists?”

By the way, I’m also not saying that you “are” wrong. Again, I’m asking questions. Perhaps nothing can exist without being created, so all the “stuff” in the universe did come into being by virtue of the Big Bang. My problem with that is that it just takes the question back one further step: “where did this infinitesimally small ‘point’ of stuff come from?”

Some smart people (even on this thread) have discussed the possibility that there is a quantum state of probabilities from which existence can “pop up” spontaneously. I have effectively no handle on that at all. (The fact that I can’t grasp it doesn’t make it incorrect; it just means that I may never find an answer that makes sense to me.)

 

[Grumblenuts]

The logical implications of what you're saying are flying right over your head.
Existence arose from nonexistence?! Please explain.
crickets chirping

He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?

 

[Ringtone]

You have misunderstood most of what I’ve said.

Let’s take a step back. For the most part, I have been asking questions, not making many assertions.

That aside, my point is more fundamental. Before there was a freakin’ thing. No electrons. No protons. No energy. No matter.

Your proposition is that there never was a “before.” All this “stuff” always existed. And my QUESTION is “where did the matter (or the energy) come from?” You really can’t just say, “it was always there” because then what you’re doing is saying that something can exist without being created. And that’s not possible according to our understanding of science. The question is “what created the stuff that exists?”

By the way, I’m also not saying that you “are” wrong. Again, I’m asking questions. Perhaps nothing can exist without being created, so all the “stuff” in the universe did come into being by virtue of the Big Bang. My problem with that is that it just takes the question back one further step: “where did this infinitesimally small ‘point’ of stuff come from?”

Some smart people (even on this thread) have discussed the possibility that there is a quantum state of probabilities from which existence can “pop up” spontaneously. I have effectively no handle on that at all. (The fact that I can’t grasp it doesn’t make it incorrect; it just means that I may never find an answer that makes sense to me.)

Wrong. I understand you perfectly. It's you who is missing the fundamental, ontological imperative of existence in and of itself. The problem of existence is not scientific at all. It's a metaphysical, mathematical and logical problem.

Material existence—i.e., the spacetime continuum of matter and energy—cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. Logic tells us that the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past; hence, the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence that created everything else that exists is necessarily an immaterial existent.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong. I understand you perfectly. It's you who is missing the fundamental, ontological imperative of existence in and of itself. The problem of existence is not scientific at all. It's a metaphysical, mathematical and logical problem.

Material existence—i.e., the spacetime continuum of matter and energy—cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. Logic tells us that the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past; hence, the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence that created everything else that exists is necessarily an immaterial existent.

That’s gibberish. You seriously don’t grasp the import of what you’re attempting to say.

You don’t seem to grasp even the fact that you contradict yourself,

On the one hand you posit that existence traces back to a finite point. Maybe. But on the other hand you posit that matter and energy always existed. You then seem to simply recognize the inherent contradiction by arguing that initial point pre-existing “existence” was immaterial.

I have to guess that you are attempting to discuss a state prior to the existence of matter. Ok. But that means that in your view, Matter had to have been created.

Sorry, but in the science we know, Matter can’t be created or destroyed. Although it can change its state (for example it can be converted into energy), it cannot just otherwise simply cease to exist.

You are so confused you resort to silly sound bites reflecting that you don’t understand what you’re saying.

 

[Ringtone]

He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?

Well, I don't want to be too critical. Some folks simply haven't put the necessary thought into the matter and don't know the pertinent cosmological science. Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe. He's fallaciously asserting that in order for something to exist, it must necessarily be created, must necessarily have a beginning to its existence.

False. Ludicrous. Absurdity.

Something does exist rather than nothing; hence, there necessarily exists an eternally self-subsistent, uncreated ground of reality.

 

[Ringtone]

That’s gibberish. You seriously don’t grasp the import of what you’re attempting to say.

You don’t seem to grasp even the fact that you contradict yourself,

On the one hand you posit that existence traces back to a finite point. Maybe. But on the other hand you posit that matter and energy always existed. You then seem to simply recognize the inherent contradiction by arguing that initial point pre-existing “existence” was immaterial.

I have to guess that you are attempting to discuss a state prior to the existence of matter. Ok. But that means that in your view, Matter had to have been created.

Sorry, but in the science we know, Matter can’t be created or destroyed. Although it can change its state (for example it can be converted into energy), it cannot just otherwise simply cease to exist.

You are so confused you resort to silly sound bites reflecting that you don’t understand what your saying.

Clearly, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent cosmology or physics. There's nothing you can teach me about the laws of thermodynamics and the inherent law of conservation. They strictly pertain to the physics of prevailing material reality, not to the ontological problem of their origin or existence. You're very confused.

 

[Ringtone]

He first lacks the critical thinking ability to comprehend the difference between posing a fallaciously loaded question and honestly asking one. Then, while pleading innocent victim, if he doesn't ignore their points altogether, he misrepresents, attacks, and presumes to school those daring to respond. The exception being ding's tiresome spam fest, of course! We've heard this skipping record how many times now?

I take it all back. You're right. The dude's an idiot.

 

[BackAgain]

Well, I don't want to be too critical. Some folks simply haven't put the necessary thought into the matter and don't know the pertinent cosmological science. Ultimately, he's confounding the problem of existence, in and of itself, with the existence of the universe. He's fallaciously asserting that in order for something to exist, it must necessarily be created, must necessarily have a beginning to its existence.

False. Ludicrous. Absurdity.

Something does exist rather than nothing; hence, there necessarily exists an eternally self-subsistent, uncreated ground of reality.

No. You are fallaciously attempting to distinguish “existence” into constructs that aren’t actually different.

I understand crumblenutzhas no grasp on anything he pretends to be discussing. That’s not surprising anymore. Old crumble is neither particularly intelligent nor honest.

I have a different conclusion as to ringtone. His ignorance is his failure to understand that words have meaning. Unlike crumblednuts, ringtone may be honest. That he is honestly confused shouldn’t dissuade him from trying harder.

He is confused about the notions of existence. Therefore he labels as “ludicrous” the questions he can’t fathom. Because of his underlying confusion, he can’t handle a proposition such as “nothing can exist prior to itself.”

From that logical premise (accepted by Aquinas), he derived that God necessarily exists. I don’t know about that. But I do accept the premise as true. In order for a thing to exist it had to have been created. I believe (but don’t pretend to know for sure) that there has to be an exception. For either God created everything in the Universe or the Unjverse came into existence without causation. (If it was created by God, then presumably God came into being without being created.). One way or the other, something had to come first and whichever came first appears to violate the initial premise.

 

[BackAgain]

Clearly, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent cosmology or physics. There's nothing you can teach me about the laws of thermodynamics and the inherent law of conservation. They strictly pertain to the physics of prevailing material reality, not to the ontological problem of their origin or existence. You're very confused.

No. What’s clear is that you have come to a conclusion and beyond that your mind is shut.