Kay 17:

Matter and antimatter collide and release energy

Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

^^^
How? thats not true. please explain

wiegraf:

Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

Think of it like this. Blackholes have no space, time, or matter. It is basically a hole in our known space time dependent universe. So a universe before anything may actually be a blackhole.

Speaking of dark mater, it makes up over 70% of our observable universe. they know it is there (or probably a new entity to physics) beacause when they weigh the universe, it gives astronomically high numbers way more than all the particles that exist(all 10^118. Of them). Most of the universe is still a mystery and too vast/pointless for a "god" to make

Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

wiegraf:

Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

There alawys has to be a potential to release a tremendous world, the problem with the arena of nothing is that it is a total lack/absence of thing, even potential.

To prove the existence of God, one must prove his existence is necessary.

Joagbaje: ^^^
How? thats not true. please explain

Which part is not true? The nothing bit? I already posted a link. Also, look up virtual particles and the casimir effect ( though appearently some its effects could be explained by other means, but most accept it). That 'nothing' is not really nothing in this universe's spacetime is pretty much a fact. Don't take my word for it though, look it up

@area_boy science is some crazy, crazy stuff. Some have models which have us being in a black hole atm, along with other black holes being capable of having their own universes (and probably having said universes). My favorite out there hypothesis (I don't think its even that, they were just playing around with ideas and did some of the math) is the single electron one, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe , it sounds busy. And 'many worlds' looking viable. there's this bit of absolute madness as well http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment and many other things. Its enough to make you pull out all your while screaming 'we're all gonna die!!'. Not sure why you need religion to be inspired with awe, but off topic.

Lord Babs: Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

SPOT ON!!! I couldn't have said it better myself

I just wish creationist can see this point of view. One thing they should realise is that we are only coming up with possible answers as to where the universe came from but they are very sure god did it and that's game, set, match.

For me I feel that's the easiest answer. If everyone thought like that we would have no advancement today. example, when they believed lighting was a force of god. Until someone (Benjamin Franklin) said hang on I don't think so Let me investigate further and see what I get.
Same with virus and bacteria causing illness. Usually believed to be the wrath of god until someone said hang on i think there is something more fundamental than that causing illness. Hence all our advancement in medicine came from kicking the "god" explanation out.

My suggestion is simple: extend that trend to the origin of the universe. Kick "god" out and let us all think, research and investigate. see what we get

Kay 17:

There alawys has to be a potential to release a tremendous world, the problem with the arena of nothing is that it is a total lack/absence of thing, even potential.

Your terse responses leave me puzzled most of time. Do ppl mistake you for a robot and misunderstand you all the time? I have that problem sometimes

Ooh, cogito ergo sum. Are you saying the fact you exist implies there is no such thing as an absolute nothing? After all, something must have been involved in the creation of energy. It's an interesting thought. I think numbers (or mathmatical 'truth') will eventually come across it, and of course it will be some sort of logical paradox. Well, actually, I think that's sort of what I've been implying.

Cue religious using 'god'. Turtles are also an excellent explanation.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Causality is quality dependent on existence. Therefore its not applied indiscriminately.

Lord Babs: Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

I am glad you said this. I was all about wading into this debate this morning to show the necessity of self-existent entities when I saw your comments above.

Nonetheless, the above is not complete. You have come to the realisation that the infinite regress that results from seeking the cause of every effect can only be resolved if you start somewhere, say Point A (or as science likes to say Time t=0), and assume that it is not logically possible to recede beyond Point A or t=0. The problem is you have not come to the realisation that all that exists at Point A or t=0 must perforce be self-existent. This is the underlying premise on which ANY argument about the origin of the universe must be based in order to be coherent and cohesive.

Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

This, in and of itself, should give you a fair understanding of the problem of existence. I know of no other way to resolve the premise of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and the fact of my own existence. I challenge anyone out there to provide a better resolution.

caezar:

I am glad you said this. I was all about wading into this debate this morning to show the necessity of self-existent entities when I saw your comments above.

Nonetheless, the above is not complete. You have come to the realisation that the infinite regress that results from seeking the cause of every effect can only be resolved if you start somewhere, say Point A (or as science likes to say Time t=0), and assume that it is not logically possible to recede beyond Point A or t=0. The problem is you have not come to the realisation that all that exists at Point A or t=0 must perforce be self-existent. This is the underlying premise on which ANY argument about the origin of the universe must be based in order to be coherent and cohesive.

Put in other words, you cannot make a coherent argument on the first premise that nothing existed in the beginning, and the second premise that nothing comes out of nothing. If nothing comes out of nothing and we start with nothing, then you cannot possibly make the argument as you could not possibly exist to make an argument as nothing would ever exist. But if you accept that nothing comes from nothing but something always existed then you could exist as offshoot of that something that always existed.

This, in and of itself, should give you a fair understanding of the problem of existence. I know of no other way to resolve the premise of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and the fact of my own existence. I challenge anyone out there to provide a better resolution.

I think we should look deeper. Even if i prima facie agree with you that there must be a grund norm existentiality(i.e.a self-existent force), we may have to differ, based on the logical surrounding of that self-existent entity. Why?
1. That entity was not created. In other words:
2. It has no origin. Meaning that:
3. It is strictly undefined, uncertain and unspecified .
By these, I can posit that although this grund norm assumes to be 'something' only hypothetically, the circumstances surrounding that 'force' doesn't provide a substantial evidence to disprove that it is practically 'nothing'. Because, come to think of it, how can a matter that lacks origin & source be claimed to be SOMETHING. I may think that self-existent thing exists only circumstantially and mere 'nothing' in disguise. And this is why to unravel the mystery surrounding the identity of this 'force' has everly been pragmatically difficult, even for its subscribers.

Lord Babs: I think we should look deeper. Even if i prima facie agree with you that there must be a grund norm existentiality(i.e.a self-existent force), we may have to differ, based on the logical surrounding of that self-existent entity. Why?
1. That entity was not created. In other words:
2. It has no origin. Meaning that:
3. It is strictly undefined, uncertain and unspecified .

Statements 1 and 2 are given by the very nature of a self-existent entity. However, how you arrive at 3 beats me. Why would you need to know the origin or creator or cause of a thing to define, ascertain or specify it? Is it not sufficient to do so by studying its effects? You would find it very difficult, scientifically, to tackle things like dark matter, anti-matter, photons, the Higgs boson, black holes etc if you hold all entities to such exacting standards. For that matter, this measure throws the big bang singularity out of the water.

Lord Babs:
By these, I can posit that although this grund norm assumes to be 'something' only hypothetically, the circumstances surrounding that 'force' doesn't provide a substantial evidence to disprove that it is practically 'nothing'.

Again, I do not get your logic. Even assuming your very questionable measure above, the inability to define, ascertain or specify a thing does not make it nothing. Furthermore, by declaring it to be nothing (and by 'it' I refer to what existed at Point A or t=0), you are disintegrating the very notion of existence because you are now reverting to the claim that this nothing is the foremost progenitor of a something that is you.

Lord Babs:
Because, come to think of it, how can a matter that lacks origin & source be claimed to be SOMETHING. I may think that self-existent thing exists only circumstantially and mere 'nothing' in disguise. And this is why to unravel the mystery surrounding the identity of this 'force' has everly been pragmatically difficult, even for its subscribers.

You are running around in circles and discarding the very premises on which you began your thought process. You exist. You cannot exist from nothing. Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.
The fact that you cannot ascribe characteristics to this something is a personal failing and does not invalidate your own existence. Others have already proposed tangible and credible descriptions of what this something was or is.

caezar:
You are running around in circles and discarding the very premises on which you began your thought process. [size=16pt]You exist. You cannot exist from nothing. Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.

The fact that you cannot ascribe characteristics to this something is a personal failing and does not invalidate your own existence. Others have already proposed tangible and credible descriptions of what this something was or is.[/size]

GBAM ! ! !

After the bolded in red, I doubt I ever need to make any further argument for the existence of God in my LIFE again!

Are you thinking of god as a personal god, or some sort of sentient being? If so, (textbook and ridiculously easy to predict) god of the gap much? Explain what this 'god' is, if you will

caezar: Therefore, something existed, prior to you, to have caused you. Nothing that existed prior to you could have existed from nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.

We shouldn't muddle up issues here. In a nutshell, based on the premise of your above rebuttal, you did conclude that it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing. If that is the case, then you must be contradicting yourself, by still saying, in your words 'Therefore, from the very beginning, something must have always existed.' In other words, by your above statement, you are equally saying ex nihilo nihil fit. And to now cap it up, you still say, that self-existent entity, which is something to you doesn't emerge from something, rather from nothing, which invariably disputes your first premise. How fraudulent! Verily verily I say unto you, except you put out that mathematical balderdash of Point '0', point this, point that, and face the logical reality of this phenomena, you may be just doddering & tottering abut ginormous untruth! Tell me again that it is worthy for a thing that lacks origin, creator beginning & destination, to be called something? You can't just infer that such thing can be ascertained by its effects, because what you called effect can turn out to be the cause. E.g.the sun could be the cause of all creation, as well as the jupiter or even the universe itself. That scientists have not proven so to your knowledge doesn't refute its possibility. Hence, you need to validly prove that it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, which will in turn validate ex nihilo nihil fit and which invariably question and invalidate the idea of a God, since that force is also within the ambit of existentiality.

Deep Sight:

GBAM ! ! !

After the bolded in red, I doubt I ever need to make any further argument for the existence of God in my LIFE again!

stop doing follow follow, it will only consolidate your poverty of imagination. Think man! What you probably don't know is that even if you disprove that something can emerge from nothing, it will ultimately invalidate the existence of God, since it must also have emerged from something. And if you succeed in proving that something can come out of nothing, you'll also be faced with another difficulty of identifying that something void of causality, which renders weak the argument for the existence of your so-called self-existent God.

caezar:
Therefore, from the very beginning, .

caezar:
Therefore, from the very beginning, .

caezar:
Therefore, from the very beginning, .

very beginning? Does an independent entity have a beginning? If it has a beginning, then it can't be self-existent, because everything that has a beginning must have a cause! If it has no beginning, then what VERY BEGINNING are you hinging on?

wiegraf: Are you thinking of god as a personal god, or some sort of sentient being? If so, (textbook and ridiculously easy to predict) god of the gap much? Explain what this 'god' is, if you will

When we say 'God', some theists literally think we are talking of their so-called heavenly God. Whereas, what we meant by God is the 'First Cause'(if there is any CONCRETE first cause). But the idea that this First Cause can't be nothing based on ex nihilo nihil fit credo, practically defeats and gainsays the self-existence of that same First Cause, since it had earlier been premised that for something to exist, it must come from something. Now, to further adumbrate on the status quo, i'll give some helpful lexical deductions:
When we say a thing has no origin and creator, we mean that such thing is created and originated by NOTHING(i.e.a non-existent source). But, if a thing is said to be something(unspecified or unknown thing), then it must have an origin, which may though be unspecified; and a creator, which perhaps is unknown.
By the above, ipso facto, if this self-existent entity is something, then it must have an origin, otherwise it is nothing worth calling something. If it has an origin, it means it has a beginning and therefore is caused(by another thing).
Here is my theory: sometime you see a ray of the sunlight blurring your visual, your immediate response will be most likely thrown at the sun, and not the rays. But although the sun(which is farther from you) is a substantive matter(cause), the ray is nothing but mere an illumined effect of the sunlight. This shows that even a thing that is considered something might not be concretely something, but a mere nothing in disguise. After all, it is often said that there is 'sense' in 'nonsense' as there is 'problem' in 'no problem, just as there is 'thing' in 'nothing'. Theoretically, everything that exists is nothing. This is proven by the inevitability of death, which eventually swallows up existing things into nothingness. Plants die, properties die, organisms die, humans die. The whole of existence is but a make-belief something but absolutely nothing in disguise! I wish I could express my thoughts clearer than this.

Area_boy:

I'll go thru them one after the other. have been under the weather lately so haven't had the time or energy to look up NL.

I certainly wish you a speedy return to speed.

The first problem you have made is reading my post as one part in another. It is important you read it as I have written it and not break it up into bite-size pieces to affirm your ideas.

Oh really? I don't believe I have done so: I have merely shown the incoherence and inconsistency of the notions you bandied about. I should warn you to try not to be as dogmatic about the writings of any scientist in the same way as I warn religious folk not to be dogmatic about their scripture. The simple fact is that not all postulations by all scientists are always right. And in this matter, most postulations so far are outrightly ridiculous and laughable. Some are even frankly illiterate.

I have read a few of your posts about this forum and you come across as quite intelligent. It therefore shocks me that you could have bandied about some of the nonsense that you did in earlier posts on this thread. You should look for a post by MyJoe earlier in this thread where he wrote nothing but simply posted a smiley under a quote from you. THAT quote was as laughable as it gets, mate.

The sad thing is that many people these days imagine that tailing the ideas of every scientist makes them "modern" and "aware" and "intellectually sophisticated". My friend, the only thing that makes anyone intellectually sophisticated is having the guts, originality, brilliance and simplicity to think for himself. Period.

Now let us think for our selves.

1) cause and effect. I explained clearly why I believe this is a false assertion but you rather break it down to meaningless chunks. Again you are making the same mistake I clearly pointed out by asking me if I have ever seen something that happens without a cause?. Its just like creationist asking "well if evolution happened, why isn't it happening today"

No this is not the case because the very fabric of our reality is hardwired in causality. If you would think about it you would see how terribly irrational what you are suggesting is. The laws of motion are very clear and adamant in this respect. We do not see anything that moves that has no impetus. That is as far as it obtains in this physical reality. The universe is physical. It began to expand from a point. Ergo, there was some impetus for that. To suggest that it began to move without impetus or cause, is not only illogical and unscientific, it is outright voodoo.

It amazes me how people who pander to science are willing to abandon plain and simple science in pursuit of dogma.

3) Same problem with not reading my post until the end before making a comment because the reason for this claim is in my post as well. you seem to dodge the direct question of who created the creator when you tackled that section.

I have not dodged the question of who created a creator. I explained in very simple terms that the creator is not said to have a beginning: and as such did not require being created. This is very simple when one follows the reasoning as follows:

1. We know that from nothingness comes nothing

2. We know that things exist

3. As such, for things to exist, something or the other must have always existed.

That is what we refer to as a self-existent thing. In philosophy such are also referred to as necessary as opposed to contingent things. A necessary thing self-exists. I am assuming you are well acquainted with the distinctions here. Necessary or self-existent things are also non-material.

This resolves the problem of the infinite regress which you keep raising. That problem, as far as I am concerned, is only pondered by philosophical babies.

4a) your 4th point puts your "god" in problem, "nothing comes from nothing" think carefully about what you are trying to say here.
4b) *still saying the same thing in another way*

No, as I have explained, there was never any such thing as "nothing". By the very definition of the word, nothing is nothing: it does not exist and has never existed. There has only ever been a permanent self-existent "something."

5) This part is very important because you accept not to know what he means by zero here. I have explained the idea of a flat universe on another post which is by the way the agreed model of our universe. Physicist agree that the total energy of a flat universe is zero. this simply means that all positive forces subtracted from all negative forces will give zero. Acceleration of the universe, energy contained in dark matter (which is what 70% or more of our universe is made of), Gravity and basically every manifestation of energy in the universe neatly cancels out. I really do advice you to read about this yourself and don't take my word for it. Read about the "boomerang project" carried out in Antarctica to prove that our universe is indeed flat.

The overall shape of the universe being flat in no way suggests that its total energy is zero. Nor does the mathematical act of cancelling positive energies against negative negative energies suggest that either. You really even have to ask yourself what negative energy is and see if it has anything whatsoever to do with the precepts at play here.

You and your friends are toying around with nonsensical voodoo. It is nonsensical to suggest that the total energy of the universe is zero: at least not in the dictionary meaning of the word "zero". Used as a specially defined mathematical concept (which has nothing to do with true zero), you can have a field day for all I care: but you must be aware that this has nothing to do with the true meaning of the word zero. The true meaning of the word zero is nothing - and so long as the universe is something, its total energy can never be said to equate true zero.

In fact, as I explained earlier, true zero, being the equivalent of nothingness, does not exist.

So there is no such thing as true zero, ab initio,

Therefore you cannot equate the universe's energy with true zero, because no such thing exists. Zero is nothing.

Just before I leave this point let me just give you food for thought on the idea of the universe being flat. What is flatness really?

Consider these two against one another: Is a sheet of paper flat? Is a mattress flat? When you reflect carefully on these two, you will revise your idea of flatness - especially as regards the idea of flatness as against zero energy.

so when you ask "why is there something rather than nothing" (or however you wana twist that question), Just remember that in quantum mechanics you can always have something from nothing. This is not magic or science fiction it is mathematically proven time after time.

My dear, no such thing has ever been proven anywhere. There are idle and frankly id.oitic speculations by some people intent on proving the nonsensical: and these have NEVER been proven anywhere: nor will ever.

As such, people went to the nonsensical extreme of stating that virtual particles emerge from nothingness in a quantum vacuum. I am a lawyer, and not a physicist, and yet, it took me only the slightest reading to see how nonsensically false that is for it is established that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere; these quantum vacuums we speak of actually contain low gaseous pressure, and as such the particles observed do NOT emerge from "nothing".

I advise you to be rigorous if you seek to use these ideas in your discourses. You might impress the feeble, but you certainly won't impress me with less.

6)It is saddening that you term this nonsensical even when there is hard evidence for it,

Please don't tell outright lies. Where is the hard evidence for the universe popping into existence from nothingness?

It's depressing that you cannot see what a silly statement that even is. Nothingness is nothingness: it does not exist ab initio. And yet YOU then claim that the people who make the more sensible claim founded on commonsensical causality - are the ones who are deluded? Whereas you are here advocating pure voodooistic fantasy.

7) I never used particles popping in and out of existence as evidence of anything. Again you break my post down and take them out of context.

Really. Don't lie again. Why on earth did you bring it up then?

when you have problems with your car, you go to the mechanic?
when you are ill, you go to your doctor
when you need legal aid, you go to a lawyer.

Professionals in science/technology are there for a reason. If you wana take what you want a drop what you don't want then be my guest. All i can say is that's no way for progress.

I will be careful not to go to a quack lawyer or mechanic, just as you should be wary of unscientific and dogmatic "scientists".

I just typed in google "boomerang project Antarctica" and this nasa website popped out
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast27apr_1/

have a look yourself before you term it magic or hogwash.

I have not bothered to look. The premises themselves, even if true, do not bear out any of the illogical conclusions you have tried to arrive at.

Again i've been down with a bad cold n will prolly not be on NL for bit. so I can hardly put up a decent reply. I guess this will do for now.

Take it easy man.

Lord Babs:
stop doing follow follow, it will only consolidate your poverty of imagination. Think man! What you probably don't know is that even if you disprove that something can emerge from nothing, it will ultimately invalidate the existence of God, since it must also have emerged from something. And if you succeed in proving that something can come out of nothing, you'll also be faced with another difficulty of identifying that something void of causality, which renders weak the argument for the existence of your so-called self-existent God.

I think you have to sit down and actually study the concepts at play here. So far it's obvious you have no grasp of them.

A little understanding is very dangerous you know.

Deep Sight:

I think you have to sit down and actually study the concepts at play here. So far it's obvious you have no grasp of them.

A little understanding is very dangerous you know.

I think you are the one losing grasp of the fulcrum of this argument. The problem you're having is this stereotyped scientific hogwash you're enmeshed. My advice: You'd better start thinking in the direction of others, if you want to be near the truth. I'm going to reiterate my position on the status quo. Ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God, as long as you admit that this 'God' is SOMETHING. On the other hand, we may assume that ex nihilo nihil fit is metaphoric to mean that whatever exists now is nothing because it was conceived by a partial no-thing, which perhaps might eventually lead to nothingness(perhaps an allusion to the End of World, when the universe and its particles will melt into sublime nothingness). And which if another eternal world emerges, it MUST be borne out of a substantive source that can be called SOMETHING: and this would ultimately invalidate ex nihilo nihil fit. But a healthy argument cannot be premised on such hunches or some 'outsourced' prophecies. Hence, based on the available evidence I have here, ex nihilo nihil fit validly refutes the existence of God, except we can admit that this God is NOTHING, which in turn still invalidates the existence of God! Am I screeching?

wiegraf:
Aren't we discussing conditions before the big b.ang, where most physicists fear to thread? Some think its pointless because of time/casuality issue (like hawking appearently), others because of the math or etc. Bottom line, no one knows what conditions where, if there where conditions (or if they could even be called conditions at that point). So why is out of place for something to have existed forever when the rules are so counter-ntuitive (there's no time, or at least no proof of time existing before big ba.ng, so how long was forever?). As we cannot go back beyond big ba.ng we are left with maths/theories and hopefully eventual experimental validation, if it's even possible.

You bold out krauss admiting he doesn't know some of the details. There is no shame in not knowing. It is by far more dangerous to claim you have the answers when you don't. And even if you do establish laws and whatnot, should something come and prove you wrong, you adjust and change the law. It is by far more dangerous to claim you have the answers when you don't. And even if you do establish laws and whatnot, should something come and prove yYou solve no pproblems by dreaming up a magical solution. But I shouldn't be explaining the scientific method to you, should I? You are at least that erudite. Anyways my whole point was that even if I cannot think up anything atm, casuality need not work as expected in a universe that has drastically diffrent rules, such as pre- big ban.g (even in this universe at a quantum level it does some very strange sh.it, abi?)



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations
I don't have the time atm, but yes I agree what 'nothing' is/was pre-big ban.g is an unknown, and that is key to this discussion (I've been assuming we all agree there was a big bang). In our current universe though, as the link above illustrates (if its english), nothing is not really nothing. Particles seem to be constantly borrowing energy and paying it back to invisible sources, annahilating themselves with their anti-matter twins, etc (or that's my limited understanding, where nl work-dodging ppprocastinating physicists to explain, can't they procastinate here?).

Sorry I don't have plenty time, I'll read the full thing and give a proper reply. But why z hate on krauss, he's a bad guy string theorist who doesn't afraid anything (iirc actually, I might be mixing them up)

This is just beautiful.

@ Deepsight, let me rehash once again.

1. There is no shame in not knowing
2.It is by far more dangerous to claim you have the answers when you don't.
3.Experimentally tested solutions should be given precedence over subjective or so-called intuitive knowledge.
4.You solve no pproblems by dreaming up a magical solution like the so-called self-existent god.

Self-existent god is, in real terms, an oxymoron, similar in absurdity to the notion of an infallible pope.
The motive for the notion of an infallible pope was to render him the final arbiter in the formation and interpretation of doctrine. In other words, the last bust stop.
Similarly the notion of a self-existent god is also meant to serves as an imaginary the final bus stop on the question of origin.
It is not answer. It is, in my mind,a convenient copout.

@Deepsight:

Few questions for you.

1. What is your definition of energy?

2. Do you think energy transcends or is just confined within the physical universe?

3. Would you consider energy as self existent or is energy a creation just like the universe? In other words, since our physical universe began with the big bang, was there energy before the big bang?

4.Like lord Babs said above, if god exists, then god is something, right? If god is something, then is god particle(substance) or wave (energy), or some other unknown ?

Lord Babs: Impressive contributions. Really enjoying this. Albeit I'm not of much a science pupil in school, but a simple logic could save the course. If we say some 'self-existent' matter exist before creation and out of nothingness, then we are saying something can emerge from nothing, which could as well be the universe or the so-called 'Big-bang'! or any other thing. In my opinion, the idea of a self-existent entity imagined by some philosophers is just borne out of the idleness of the mind to think further and further. Besides, by virtue of the principle of universal causation, it will still be asked: why is the creator(god) not caused? Can't we as well as put that the universe is not caused?

The question: Is there any scientific theory that explains how something(a matter) can be created from nothingness?

These are the same arguments I have been making to these creationist.
If god can be self-created and self-existent, then why can't the universe also be self-created and self-existent?

plaetton:

These are the same arguments I have been making to these creationist.
If god can be self-created and self-existent, then why can't the universe also be self-created and self-existent?

Because, for the umpteenth time, the universe is physical and mutable and mutable things cannot logically be self-existent!

How many times do I have to scream this on this forum for it to be grasped by ANYBODY? ? ? ? ? ?

plaetton:

Self-existent god is, in real terms, an oxymoron, similar in absurdity to the notion of an infallible pope.
The motive for the notion of an infallible pope was to render him the final arbiter in the formation and interpretation of doctrine. In other words, the last bust stop.
Similarly the notion of a self-existent god is also meant to serves as an imaginary the final bus stop on the question of origin.
It is not answer. It is, in my mind,a convenient copout.

Oh LAWD.

There is neither oxymoron nor cop out. Settle down and listen:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

But isn't it just too convenient to credit the creation of the physical, mutable universe to a non-physical, immutable god, without any remotely traceable trail or evidence ?

Lord Babs: I think you are the one losing grasp of the fulcrum of this argument. The problem you're having is this stereotyped scientific hogwash you're enmeshed. My advice: You'd better start thinking in the direction of others, if you want to be near the truth. I'm going to reiterate my position on the status quo. Ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God, as long as you admit that this 'God' is SOMETHING. On the other hand, we may assume that ex nihilo nihil fit is metaphoric to mean that whatever exists now is nothing because it was conceived by a partial no-thing, which perhaps might eventually lead to nothingness(perhaps an allusion to the End of World, when the universe and its particles will melt into sublime nothingness). And which if another eternal world emerges, it MUST be borne out of a substantive source that can be called SOMETHING: and this would ultimately invalidate ex nihilo nihil fit. But a healthy argument cannot be premised on such hunches or some 'outsourced' prophecies. Hence, based on the available evidence I have here, ex nihilo nihil fit validly refutes the existence of God, except we can admit that this God is NOTHING, which in turn still invalidates the existence of God! Am I screeching?

I was going to respond to this but i honestly can't. It's just plain gibberish. The bolded is just ridiculous. I'M not sure I can sensibly interact with you.

Deep Sight:

Oh LAWD.

The is neither oxymoron nor cop out. Settle down and listen:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

Simple and logical to you because you have reached your final bus stop. Clearly not to me.
Lets start with no. 5.
What is eternal and how do come to the conclusion that something is eternal? Be honest, isn't the idea of something being eternal just a leap of imagination? Leaving your imagination aside, how can you demonstrate that something is eternal and permanent?

What are self-existent things that you speak about? Pls name a few.

Again leaving your imagination behind, what is that you know for sure that preceded all things?

plaetton: But isn't it just too convenient to credit the creation of the physical, mutable universe to a non-physical, immutable god, without any remotely traceable trail or evidence ?

It is logical rather than convenient, given the reasoning 1 - 11 in my penultimate post.

Remember also that there are different kinds of evidence. Deductive and Inductive reasoning also form logical patterns that are evidence. The existence of God is evident by sequential reasoning from the very premise that from nothing comes nothing.

Aside from this, there are zillions of everyday pointers to the glaring fact of super-dimensional energy and intelligence, and it is amazing how foolishly the atheist blinds himself to these.

Lord Babs: I think you are the one losing grasp of the fulcrum of this argument. The problem you're having is this stereotyped scientific hogwash you're enmeshed. My advice: You'd better start thinking in the direction of others, if you want to be near the truth. I'm going to reiterate my position on the status quo. Ex nihilo nihil fit refutes the existence of God, as long as you admit that this 'God' is SOMETHING. On the other hand, we may assume that ex nihilo nihil fit is metaphoric to mean that whatever exists now is nothing because it was conceived by a partial no-thing, which perhaps might eventually lead to nothingness(perhaps an allusion to the End of World, when the universe and its particles will melt into sublime nothingness). And which if another eternal world emerges, it MUST be borne out of a substantive source that can be called SOMETHING: and this would ultimately invalidate ex nihilo nihil fit. But a healthy argument cannot be premised on such hunches or some 'outsourced' prophecies. Hence, based on the available evidence I have here, ex nihilo nihil fit validly refutes the existence of God, except we can admit that this God is NOTHING, which in turn still invalidates the existence of God! Am I screeching?

@Deepsight.

The above cannot be gibberish. It goes to the core of the issue. If god exists, then god is something, and if god is something then something cannot come out of nothing, unless god is nothing, in which case, god does not exist.