why is there something rather then nothing?

[Damaged Eagle]

Well, I gotta hand it to you: your flame out this time took a little longer than usual.

No one's flaming out here. I'm mocking your inability to understand the subject matter.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 574901

No one's flaming out here. I'm mocking your inability to understand the subject matter.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh yes, you definitely flamed out. Again. You ran into a brick wall when you realized you were just making up false things as you go. Once removed from your comfortable arguments that are based on false premises, you quickly got lost and flamed out. Again.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Not at all. The material did not move through space. Space itself expanded. You just made a common error people make when they don't understand inflation.

The only inability I see is your belief that something was in one state then suddenly it decides to change its state.

It would appear that you believe in miracles and are unwilling to admit your inadequacy.

Did the great spaghetti monster come along and set the universe in motion thus creating your Big Bang?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only inability I see is your belief that something was in one state then suddenly it decides to change its state.

That is not a coherent sentence, and it does not make sense.

I already told you we have no reason to believe it was static. Please pay attention.

Furthermore, what you are doing is attempting to insert a "first mover". For a pantheist, you sure do cling to all of the lame theist talking points.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

That is not a coherent sentence, and it does not make sense.

I already told you we have no reason to believe it was static. Please pay attention.

Furthermore, what you are doing is attempting to insert a "first mover". For a pantheist, you sure do cling to all of the lame theist talking points.

It makes sense to someone that has the ability to comprehend what they read and have a basic understanding of physics.

For someone who thinks they understand science you sure do cling to the comparatively similar belief that has religious connotations that one should have faith in everything about science.

Did you say your morning abolitions to the great spaghetti monster as you regurgitate what you've ingested without questioning the nature of your beliefs?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It makes sense to someone that has the ability to comprehend what they read and have a basic understanding of physics.

False. It is not a coherent sentence and makes no sense. Do better.

For someone who thinks they understand science you sure do cling to the comparatively similar belief that has religious connotations that one should have faith in everything about science.

Vapid whining, unsupported claim. I don't know how the universe came to be. You claim to know by saying your special magical God did it. Which is just a fancy way of saying you don't know, either.

Dressing that up with your magical nonsense is a bit childish.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

False. It is not a coherent sentence and makes no sense. Do better.

I agree. What you say makes no sense.

Vapid whining, unsupported claim. I don't know how the universe came to be. You claim to know by saying your special magical God did it. Which is just a fancy way of saying you don't know, either.

Dressing that up with your magical nonsense is a bit childish.

I know you're whining that's why you're finally admitting you have no clue and pray to the great spaghetti monster for guidance when you demand people have faith in your beliefs while offering no proof that your word is any better than others as you kneel at the great alter of scientific consensus.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[zaangalewa]

Right,

You totally ignored what I said!

since clear back when we knew nothing about anything

What a nonsense. We know we exist - we don't know why anything exists at all.

and thought demons caused disease and storms meant the sky gods were angry. That's not a good endorsement.

I don't have any idea what to do with such a totally stupid "answer" which preposes you are intelligent while all others are idiots and that should be the reason why you are right with something what you are on the other side not able to articulate clearly.

 

[zaangalewa]

If you cannot reason out values and morality on your own

?

without having them dictated to you by an iron age book of mythology, that's your problem.

Could be interesting to know what you read from me what has something to do with "moral".

Of course that's false anyway,

Nihilism and Darwinism are "false"? ?¿? How?

and your morality comes almost entirely from where and when you were born.

Or with other words: Every human being needs enculturation, socialisation and education. Our nature is it to bear culture.

Your iron age book of magic has very little to do with any of that.

The books in the bible which my Jewish and Christian ancestors wrote tell a story which is a little older than you. Do you think everyone who is older than you is wrong?

 

[ding]

How do you know there was nothing? Maybe there has always been something.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[ding]

There may be universes where an ultimate cold void exists. There may be universes that are singularities of infinite heat. Either one would not have life that would evolve to ask "why". On an infinite continuum every combination of natural laws would exist. The ones with intelligent life would wonder why things are set up so perfectly for them when really they are just a product of random chance in the multi-verse.

You would have been better off arguing that there may be other universes where the electron and proton did not have the exact opposite charge (workable universe without life) or that the distance between electrons and the nucleus were different (workable universe without life).

Where did you get the idea of that there may be universes where an ultimate cold void exists or universes that are singularities of infinite heat. What is that based upon?

Because the very fabric of matter is tuned for life to exist.

 

[ding]

But there was God, and God isn't nothing.

Matter and energy are things. I believe God is beyond matter and energy. I believe that God is no thing.

 

[ding]

The cold temperature of space in our universe is massively hot compared to the space of our outside universe that hosts the multiverse. Heat and density are the same thing, the universe probably has a super structure in its middle that provides the density and heat for space. Do you understand that heat can exist at a standstill and isn't always radiating?

Do you have any links for that?

 

[ding]

Right. The only people who insist otherwise do so on a religious basis.

Incorrect.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator...

arxiv.org

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[ding]

Right. The only people who insist otherwise do so on a religious basis. Which is ironic, as they are basically saying nothing can be eternal...

...except their sky daddy.

And nothing can come from nothing...

....except their sky daddy.

So in insisting nothing is eternal and that nothing can come from nothing, they present their evidence as something that is eternal and came from nothing.

Good luck making sense of it.

Incorrect.

The "sky daddy" as you mockingly name the source of existence is no thing.

 

[ding]

Right, since clear back when we knew nothing about anything and thought demons caused disease and storms meant the sky gods were angry. That's not a good endorsement.

Sounds like you are discussing the beliefs of polytheists and superimposing those beliefs on monotheists. Monotheists believe in a Creator God who does not control the affairs of nature or men. He merely created existence and put the ball in motion.

 

[ding]

If you cannot reason out values and morality on your own without having them dictated to you by an iron age book of mythology, that's your problem.

Of course that's false anyway, and your morality comes almost entirely from where and when you were born. Your iron age book of magic has very little to do with any of that.

Incorrect.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

View attachment 574861

How do you know neither of those universes would have life?

*****SMILE*****

That's a great question.

My question is what physics would those other universes be based upon and why would we expect them to be any different. It's almost like he took the multiverse theory to mean all those universes popping into existence could have different rules which seems unfounded to me. Start from what you know and move forward from there. So if there are other universes, I would expect them to be created in the exact same way and for matter and energy to be exactly the same as here.

There is one thing however that tends to make me believe the other universes would only contain radiation and no matter. The basis for the universe being created from nothing is paired production. When particles pop into existence they do so in perfectly symmetrical pairs. There seems to have been a mistake made in our universe. There are about one billion photons of cosmic background radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life. So it seems that unless the same "mistake" were made in other universes, those other universes would only contain radiation. So it seems to me that our universe was intentionally created. That the mistake wasn't a mistake at all, but intentionally done.

 

[ding]

Any universe where the rate of entropy is the same everywhere has no capacity for increasing complexity anywhere.

Why is that?

Creating order from disorder results in an increase in entropy as work is required to create complexity. There are no perfectly efficient processes so usable energy would have been lost in creating order from disorder, thus resulting in an increase in entropy.

 

[ding]

I would not say that, because that is not what the big bang theory really is anymore.

First, no, not all scientists believe the universe came from nothing. In fact, I bet close to 0% of them would assert that with any confidence.

Second, the Big Bang Theory's purview has shrunk. Now it strictly describes how a rapid inflationary period produced our universe from an earlier, dense state. A singularity is not required.

Incorrect.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org