PastorAIO:
Is it possible for something to become nothing? For example, if an electron and a positron collide what will happen to the electron?
What if that process were reversed?

If an electron and a positron collide, both the electron and positron will cease to exist, but their energy must be conserved. As such, they will most likely emit electromagnetic energy (photons) which will exist indefinitely unless absorbed by another system, in which case, it will simply be converted to another form of energy.

The reverse process is trickier! It's not so easy to covert a single photon into an electron-positron pair (massive matter) since the electron and positron will have to go in different directions to exist (change in momentum from the original photon). For this to happen, the photon must collide with something (typically an atomic nucleus). However, multiple photons can be converted to massive matter and still conserve energy and momentum (since massive matter can have zero momentum).

In all cases, something keeps converting to something else. There is no conceivable scenario in which something pops out of nothing, or for that matter, no conceivable scenario in which nothing exists!

AgentOfAllah:


If an electron and a positron collide, both the electron and positron will cease to exist, but their energy must be conserved. As such, they will most likely emit electromagnetic energy (photons) which will exist indefinitely unless absorbed by another system, in which case, it will simply be converted to another form of energy.

The reverse process is trickier! It's not so easy to covert a single photon into an electron-positron pair (massive matter) since the electron and positron will have to go in different directions to exist (change in momentum from the original photon). For this to happen, the photon must collide with something (typically an atomic nucleus). However, multiple photons can be converted to massive matter and still conserve energy and momentum (since massive matter can have zero momentum).

In all cases, something keeps converting to something else. There is no conceivable scenario in which something pops out of nothing, or for that matter, no conceivable scenario in which nothing exists!

Thanks for that.

I think that your last statement would depend on how you define Nothing. For instance would an empty vacuum be classified as nothing. Or would Nothing involve also the non existence of Space and Time.

PastorAIO:


Thanks for that.

I think that your last statement would depend on how you define Nothing. For instance would an empty vacuum be classified as nothing. Or would Nothing involve also the non existence of Space and Time.

Even if we presuppose the existence of absolute vacuum, it would just be the absence of matter in general. Since matter isn't everything, it would not necessarily be nothing. In fact, vacuum is known to possess quanta of energy known as zero point energy, which, when summed up in all of space, amounts to something quite significant.

On the other hand, the non-existence of space and time is something quite speculative. In the best case scenario, we can shrink the known universe to the diameter of a Planck's length by going back in time. Below this, we know the universe existed in some sort of singularity, but we don't quite know for how long it remained in that state. Additionally, the nature of singularity is so nebulous as to defy conceptualisation. How then does one begin to understand nothingness when we are still unable to see beyond something?

Who qualifies who in this world of freedom of speech?

AgentOfAllah:


Even if we presuppose the existence of absolute vacuum, it would just be the absence of matter in general. Since matter isn't everything, it would not necessarily be nothing. In fact, vacuum is known to possess quanta of energy known as zero point energy, which, when summed up in all of space, amounts to something quite significant.

On the other hand, the non-existence of space and time is something quite speculative. In the best case scenario, we can shrink the known universe to the diameter of a Planck's length by going back in time. Below this, we know the universe existed in some sort of singularity, but we don't quite know for how long it remained in that state. Additionally, the nature of singularity is so nebulous as to defy conceptualisation. How then does one begin to understand nothingness when we are still unable to see beyond something?

Hmmm this is absolutely fascinating. So basically we are dealing with nebulous poorly defined terms when we say things like 'the universe came out of nothing'. Or rather when Olaadegbu says, ' the universe came out of nothing'.
It seems that this isn't really the position of most contemporary scientists and would in fact reduce this thread to one big massive straw man argument. But what a poorly strawman, the straw is not well bound and there are tufts of straw falling all over the place. sigh.

Martinez19:
olodo . 'Nearly nothing' is not the same as 'literally nothing'. 'Nearly nothing' is also not the same as 'nothing'. It is you who need to look at the picture. Damn you theists are not intelligent.

Here is what Hypatia used to define what we human beings term as nothing.

Doctufos: Hypatia 2:3-7

3. And I said that nothingness is something beyond human comprehension. For that which is nothing to us is something to those in other realms of realities. And it is possible for future people to study Nothing.
4. How do you prove that Nothing does not exist? We see the actions of nothing in the things which get our food spoilt.
5. To me, I can say that Nothing is the thing which our eyes cannot see and our brain cannot make sense of. But it is something beyond us. It is so little to us such that we call it nothing. We cannot quantify it, but it can actually be quantified by the beings who can see it.
6. But if the people of higher wisdom can give their time to the study of this Nothing, then our world can have more meaning.
7. The expansion of Nothing gives birth to the visible things. And a multitude of nothing is what becomes visible to us. And if Nothing can be well studied, then it is possible to get closer to the true nature of the Creator God.

Hypatia existed around the fourth and fifth century AD when micro-organisms were not yet discovered and it could be well said those days that it was 'nothing' that was responsible for the spoilage of their food(germs), formation of things seen with naked eyes(atoms)etc. But Hypatia believed that such 'nothing' were actually something which they might not know at that time. Now scientists have discovered that those nothings were actually germs which get food spoilt.
So IMO, continuous study of the universe will explain the near-nothing of Richard Dawkins to these religious people. I call that near-nothing the first cause. Even vacuums are not nothing, but something.

AgentOfAllah:


Even if we presuppose the existence of absolute vacuum, it would just be the absence of matter in general. Since matter isn't everything, it would not necessarily be nothing. In fact, vacuum is known to possess quanta of energy known as zero point energy, which, when summed up in all of space, amounts to something quite significant.

On the other hand, the non-existence of space and time is something quite speculative. In the best case scenario, we can shrink the known universe to the diameter of a Planck's length by going back in time. Below this, we know the universe existed in some sort of singularity, but we don't quite know for how long it remained in that state. Additionally, the nature of singularity is so nebulous as to defy conceptualisation. How then does one begin to understand nothingness when we are still unable to see beyond something?

You never seize to amaze me my dear comrade. Your thesis is a direct answer to questions about existence...You are so so close, in fact,you're sitting on it...How are you? Leaving social media, time to take our private experiments to the field.

PastorAIO:


Hmmm this is absolutely fascinating. So basically we are dealing with nebulous poorly defined terms when we say things like 'the universe came out of nothing'. Or rather when Olaadegbu says, ' the universe came out of nothing'.
It seems that this isn't really the position of most contemporary scientists and would in fact reduce this thread to one big massive straw man argument. But what a poorly strawman, the straw is not well bound and there are tufts of straw falling all over the place. sigh.

Precisely! Nevertheless one cannot blame a goat that loves its straw.

Jupxter:



You never seize to amaze me my dear comrade. Your thesis is a direct answer to questions about existence...You are so so close, in fact,you're sitting on it...How are you? Leaving social media, time to take our private experiments to the field.

I'm cool You?

In fact, the study of our physical universe always makes one feel so close to the answers, yet, so far! Although, I'm very comfortable without answers too. Answers collapse the imaginative field within which questions naturally thrive, thus killing all the fun in possibilities.

PastorAIO:


I didn't ask you about science degree, but thank you for informing us that you don't think a science degree is required to practice science. It's obvious now why we have so many half baked semiqualified professionals in nigeria today.

Deliberately you refuse to understand his statement

Martinez19:
it take an enormous amount of faith to believe that there is a God, that God is yahweh(how come? Why not allah), and that God wasn't created but has been there from the beginning.

It also take ignorance of to believe that we scientist think that the universe came out of nothing.

GOD EXISTED BEFORE *THE BEGINNING*

GoodMuyis:


Deliberately you refuse to understand his statement

Kindly explain. What did he means when he said that you didn't need a science degree? Can the bible teach your surgeon how to conduct surgery? Can it inform you on how to build a car? What did he mean by saying that you didn't need a science degree but rather the bible? Abegi explain am to me o.

Martinez19:


nonsense, using Bible to prove Bible. You might as well use spider man comic books to prove spider man exists. Did God tell you he is Jesus's father yahweh? The universe has always been from the very beginning.

'Using the Bible to prove Bible' is perfectly in order. Will it make sense to you if I say the best way to prove that President Donald Trump lives in the White House is by looking into the White house?

HeyCorleone:



That is a very illogical comparison.

Rather it's like a man who has sufficiently read everything concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics with vast knowledge in it (but isn't referred to as a Professor for very obvious reasons) but doesn't agree with it explaining to a Prof.

It doesn't make sense to argue from a position of ignorance. If he is sure that he knows more than the Professor let him get some qualifications to that effect. You don't even have to be a rocket scientist to differentiate between evolution and science. Evolution is the religion of atheists but they pretend that it is science and the wise knows the difference.

PastorAIO:


But you don't need a science qualification to consider yourself a scientist, ba?

You don't need a science qualification to discern the lie of evolution being dressed up as 'science.'

Martinez19:


Liar. Show me where Richard Dawkins said "literally nothing". I have not seen any scientist that said the world came out of nothing. Look at you trying to lie and twist things. Mteww.

Have you now discovered that you are the one who has swallowed the lies of evolution hook, line and stinker?

Martinez19:


My bad, I didn't read further. Nevertheless, it's still held by scientists that the universe has always been in existed. Given that the universe has always existed ie. It wasn't created but has always been existing then you can say it evolve out of nothing since something that has always existed could not have evolved. Hope you get Dawkins concept.

To say that the universe was never existing in the beginning and at a particular point in time it stated existing out of nothing is erroneous.

Hope you get it.

Typical of atheists. When would you realise that the belief in 'evolution' does not make you a scientist?

Martinez19:
nonsense, using Bible to prove Bible. You might as well use spider man comic books to prove spider man exists. Did God tell you he is Jesus's father yahweh? The universe has always been from the very beginning.

if the univers has always been from the beginning,don't you think there must be a stater? or do you want to go against reason?

OLAADEGBU:


It doesn't make sense to argue from a position of ignorance. If he is sure that he knows more than the Professor let him get some qualifications to that effect. You don't even have to be a rocket scientist to differentiate between evolution and science. Evolution is the religion of atheists but they pretend that it is science and the wise knows the difference.

You don't understand the harsh realities of the academic world. Simply disagreeing with a theory or rule can deny you opportunities and positions, even what you have much knowledge.

In the case of the atheist, he doesn't want any qualification. He's just intent in knowing, and disagreeing. C'mon now they are many things you have knowledge in but disagree with but does that make you less knowledgeable in that area?

OLAADEGBU:


You don't need a science qualification to discern the lie of evolution being dressed up as 'science.'

Creationism dressed up as science nko? Abi you want to deny that? What is your motivation for that?

HeyCorleone:


You don't understand the harsh realities of the academic world. Simply disagreeing with a theory or rule can deny you opportunities and positions, even what you have much knowledge.

I understand that you have to subscribe to the lies of evolution before you can pass, teach or practice science.

HeyCorleone:


In the case of the atheist, he doesn't want any qualification. He's just intent in knowing, and disagreeing. C'mon now they are many things you have knowledge in but disagree with but does that make you less knowledgeable in that area?

It is a matter of imposing the religion of evolution on everyone from kindergarten to tertiary institutions and also in employment. The liberal Government would not even allow 'evolution' to be debated neither would they permit creation science to be taught in schools.

PastorAIO:


Creationism dressed up as science nko? Abi you want to deny that? What is your motivation for that?

Creationism is different from Creation science just as Evolution is different from True science.

AgentOfAllah:


Precisely! Nevertheless one cannot blame a goat that loves its straw.

The straw that the sheep gave the goat to eat?

OLAADEGBU:


Creationism is different from Creation science just as Evolution is different from True science.

explain the difference, please.

PastorAIO:


explain the difference, please.

isms are ideologies not science. Creation science is true science. Evolution is based on blind faith while Creation is based on faith in God. Faith in God is not blind faith, it is based on the fact of God's existence seen clearly through creation.

OLAADEGBU:


isms are ideologies not science. Creation science is true science. Evolution is based on blind faith while Creation is based on faith in God. Faith in God is not blind faith, it is based on the fact of God's existence seen clearly through creation.

Where did you see -ism in Evolution?

OLAADEGBU:


The straw that the sheep gave the goat to eat?

Maybe! The goat knows best. Although, some stubborn goats also have an appetite for regurgitated straw, while others can shi.t out so much straw men in an astonishing fit of direct arse-to-keyboard diarrhea.

AgentOfAllah:


Maybe! The goat knows best. Although, some stubborn goats also have an appetite for regurgitated straw, while others can shi.t out so much straw men in an astonishing fit of direct arse-to-keyboard diarrhea.

The sheep is big enough to share their straw with goats but that doesn't mean that the goats should now take over the barn as if they own it.

PastorAIO:


Where did you see -ism in Evolution?

Evolution is an ideology just like Islamism is an ideology.

OLAADEGBU:


Evolution is an ideology just like Islamism is an ideology.

Let's just strike all that please and go back to the 'Creation Science' part.

What is Creation Science? And how is it different from Creationism?

@op,

You are not qualified to speak on Evolution because:....................

1.You do not know what it means!!! You even think it has something to do with the origin of life!!! This is imbeclic!!!

2.You do not even understand what it tries to explain!!! Evolution predicts that at one time, toads and frogs shared a common ancestor!!! For you to claim that Evolution is not real, you are indirectly(and foolishly) implying that frogs came from planet Kermit, while toads came from the buttocks of Mr Snufflelufagus!!!

OLAADEGBU:


Facts like something came from nothing?

Didn't your God also come from nothing?