Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? (13349 Views)
Those Doubting The Existence Of God,what Is The Source Of Supernatural Powers / REVEALED: Popular Celebrities Who Dont Believe In The Existence Of God (PHOTOS) / Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 10:38am On Jul 26, 2012 |
As a diehard atheist, the existence of God has been consistently refuted as null and void. Ex nihilo nihil fit(from nothing comes nothing) is a philosophical creed first credited to the famous Greek philosopher, Parmenides, who argued that there is never a time when a world didn't exist, since it couldn't have been created out of nothing in the first place. The Greeks were largely of the belief that things cannot disappear into nothing, just as they can't be created from nothing. In other words, to say from nothing comes nothing is to say that for something to exist, it must emerge from something. It is noteworthy that this parlance(ex nihilo nihil fit) does not only refute the existence of a supreme deity, or the possibility of something emerging from nothing, but also leads to an infinite question of what creates what?! Now, most theists, based on the principle of universal causation, do subconsciously argue that things don't just exist without a cause. And as such, for the world or anything to exist, there must be a force behind it, which is called God, who is acclaimed to be revelling in heaven, in his sacred haven, amid hordes of angelic 'body-guards', while pleasurably abandoning us here on earth to suffer. The question: 1. Can we extrapolate this expression(ex nihilo nihil fit) to validly affirm that for God to exist, he couldn't have emerged from nothing, which ultimately nullifies the existence of a God? 2. How far can we refute the validity of this expression,i.e.can we prove that somethings can actually come out of nothing, which may then validate the existence of God? I await intelligent argument void of fallacies and biblical and mythical innuendoes. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Areaboy2(m): 10:50am On Jul 26, 2012 |
I will like to add to what you've said and will start off with the false assertion of "cause and effect" theists use to defend themselves. Cause and effect is what our brain can observe in the world we have right in front of us and can only be used as such. Using cause and effect when the universe didn't exist is a mistake. Problem with that is while saying there must be a force behind creating our universe, we can also imply that there must be a force behind that force and another behind that and that string can extend to infinity (big problem). One of the books by Professor Laurence Krauss "A universe from nothing", Explains how we have a "flat" universe and with that the total energy of a flat universe is zero. with zero total energy, we can easily see how d universe can pop into existence without any cause. Very similar to how particles in a proton pop in and out of existence so fast that we cannot see them but can prove that they pop in and out with mass change in the proton. Very interesting topic to research further 2 Likes |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 11:43am On Jul 26, 2012 |
Lord Babs: In other words, to say from nothing comes nothing is to say that for something to exist, it must emerge from something. Exactly. Which is why God exists. It is noteworthy that this parlance(ex nihilo nihil fit) does not only refute the existence of a supreme deity, It does not refute the existence of a supreme deity. On the contrary, it affirms it. or the possibility of something emerging from nothing, but also leads to an infinite question of what creates what?! For any thing to exist, something or the other must be self existent. As such, that which is self existent must be the cause of that which is not. Now, most theists, based on the principle of universal causation, do subconsciously argue that things don't just exist without a cause. And as such, for the world or anything to exist, there must be a force behind it, which is called God, who is acclaimed to be revelling in heaven, in his sacred haven, amid hordes of angelic 'body-guards', while pleasurably abandoning us here on earth to suffer. Please if you want to strictly theological and philosophical discussion on the existence of God, then leave religious notions out of the discussion. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 12:04pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
Nice tip there Area boy. I believe, we indeed need to identify the complexities of existence beyond the universal causation, bearing in mind the wisdom of nature's origin, if there is at all. Lucretius, in his first book, 'De Rerum Natura'( On The Nature of Things), posits: 'Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.' meaning: 'But only nature's aspect and her law, which, teaching us, hath this exordium, nothing from nothing ever yet was born.' He opines that matter is required to make matter, and that objects can't just spring forth without a reasonable cause. He further puts: 'Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret. E mare primum homines, eterra posset oriri squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo.' meaning: 'suppose all sprang from all things: any kind might take its origin from anything, no fixed seed required. Men from the sea might rise and from the land the scaly breed and fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky.' Hence, the need to resolve the quagmire of this infinite causation or otherwise use it against the infinite idea of a God. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 12:15pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: .really? Your parents practically caused you to exist, does that make them self-existent? If they are, then how were they caused? Second, what rule determines your idea of 'self-existence'. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by caezar: 1:02pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
Lord Babs: really? Your parents practically caused you to exist, does that make them self-existent? If they are, then how were they caused? Second, what rule determines your idea of 'self-existence'. The principle of self-existence is self-evident. This is an existential problem, it has nothing, in and of itself, to do with God. The argument arises between atheists and theist because it becomes self-evident that in order to resolve this existential problem there must perforce be a God. Your analogy is a little silly, not least because you deliberately arrive at the wrong conclusion. If parents cause a child to exist, then it follows that the parents exist, not that they are self-existent. However, at some point the infinite loop has to be resolved by self-existent entities wherein we arrive at God... I really do not get how you can possibly arrive at the very opposite conclusion from this same premise  1 Like |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Enigma(m): 1:16pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
^^^ Necessary being on the one hand and contingent being[i]s[/i] on the other.  |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 1:46pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
caezar:o.k, i'll make it simple 4 u. would you thereupon choose to invalidate, by this same principle of self-existence(which is presumably fraudulent in the first place), that nothing comes from nothing, which equally means saying OUT OF NOTHING COMES SOMETHING? 1 Like |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 2:23pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
Enigma: ^^^ Necessary being on the one hand and contingent being[i]s[/i] on the other.meaning? |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Enigma(m): 2:25pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
^^^ Please look it up (e.g. on google) and, I assure you, you will see how it relates to the point being made in the post immediately preceding mine about the arguments earlier on the thread. Best wishes.  |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 2:34pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight:you still don't get it, do you? The existence of a supreme deity, otherwise called God, is known to be characterised by its ability of having not emerged from something, which is contrary to ex nihilo nihil fit. So, how does the expression affirms its existence? |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by jayriginal: 7:25pm On Jul 26, 2012 |
^^ There are many claims regarding "god". Not everyone claims "god" created ex nihilo so you need to address that separately. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 10:37am On Jul 27, 2012 |
Area_boy: I will like to add to what you've said and will start off with the false assertion of "cause and effect" theists use to defend themselves. How on earth is "cause and effect" a false assertion? ? ? ? ? ? ? Is there no such thing as the law of cause and effect? Is every single event or phenomenon that is observed not preceded by a cause? Have YOU ever seen any uncaused thing in your life? Cause and effect is what our brain can observe in the world we have right in front of us and can only be used as such. Is there anything that we know in science that does not come from what our brains observe? Using cause and effect when the universe didn't exist is a mistake. On the contrary it is most apt: for if you say that there was anytime when the universe did not exist, then you will be faced with the conundrum of HOW, WHY, AND FROM WHAT did it spring into existence. The truth is that it is the atheist that thereby subscribes to voodooistic fantasy in seeking to deny the very obvious fact of causality. Problem with that is while saying there must be a force behind creating our universe, we can also imply that there must be a force behind that force and another behind that and that string can extend to infinity (big problem). No: because it is simple reasoning to see that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self existent as we know nothing comes from nothing. Matter is not self existent as it is mutable: as such something immaterial must be self existent, thus removing the problem of the infinite regress. One of the books by Professor Laurence Krauss "A universe from nothing", Explains how we have a "flat" universe and with that the total energy of a flat universe is zero. I don't know what he means by the word zero here, but if he uses that word in its dictionary sense, then he was quite frankly high on the cheapest village ethanol while writing. with zero total energy, we can easily see how d universe can pop into existence without any cause. Da.mn! This, my friend, is nonsensical in the extreme. And far worse than the magic you folk accuse religionists of believing in. Very similar to how particles in a proton pop in and out of existence so fast that we cannot see them but can prove that they pop in and out with mass change in the proton. People who use this as an argument are ignorant of the facts. 2 Likes |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 1:42pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Before the big bang there wasn't time. Why should casuality work intuitively in such conditions? |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 3:32pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Lord Babs: really? Your parents practically caused you to exist, does that make them self-existent? If they are, then how were they caused? Second, what rule determines your idea of 'self-existence'. This terrible example simply show's that you have a lot of reading to do on this subject. How could you do this? |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 3:35pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
wiegraf: Before the big bang there wasn't time. Why should casuality work intuitively in such conditions? O, no time, no space. . . . nothingness. And then suddenly an entire universe slams into existence, without any cause or impetus. Do you really believe such nonsense? Honestly I have heard religious people speak nonsense, but I have never heard greater nonsensical foolishness than when atheists try to render the universe uncaused. It is the height of foolishness honestly. To be more precise, d.aft s.tupudity. To be even more precise, dense. 2 Likes |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 3:52pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
THE BOOK BY PROFESSOR KRAUSS IS NOTHING BUT TRASH. I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT FOLK GET THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE SUCH BALOONEY AND SUCH OBVIOUS QUACKERY, SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF AN ANTI-GOD BIAS. READ! - [AND PLEASE NOTE THE BOLDED] Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.” A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing By Lawrence M. Krauss Illustrated. 202 pp. Free Press. $24.99. Related Times Topic: Science and Technology Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete. Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like? Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all. The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story. What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing. [b]But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.[/b] Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise. And I guess it ought to be mentioned, quite apart from the question of whether anything Krauss says turns out to be true or false, that the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong — or it does, at any rate, to me. When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for everything essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb. David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 3:54pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
This topic and the claims of Krauss just remind me of some other such scientific quack, much idolized by atheist dolts, who even went so far as to prescribe the properties of "nothingness" and ascribe to it a certain size and even a mathematical ratio, or some other such nonsense. These things are frankly illiterate. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 4:21pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I didn't say there was no cause. I suggested casuality may not have to work intuitively under certain conditions. Any physicists here? There is no time for massless particles, they could travel across the galaxy wearing a magical watch and not a second would have passed to them locally, yes? So, even if casuality is ppossible under such conditions, why do you expect it to work intuitvely. There's some theist online who points out supposing some item had existed forever and said item causes a permament effect, that effect too must have existed forever too. There you go, casuality with a twist.(and I personally can't really see anything that could have existed forever, concepts like numbers I agree with, nothing else has been around forever imo, except if the concept of numbers has some physical effect then...) And I don't think the nothing theory is nonsense. Matter comes into existense and annihilates itself all the time, even in 'nothing'. One of these collisons resulted in the big bang, or at least that is one of the viable theories. Then again, there might be diffrent 'nothing'. Again, physicists? Was all the stu.pid, daf.t part necessary? Meh |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by DeepSight(m): 4:40pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
wiegraf: I hear you on this. With reference to the bolded, yes, some things may have existed forever, but this universe demonstrably has not. As such, this specific universe cannot be said to be a permanent effect. And I don't think the nothing theory is nonsense. Matter comes into existense and annihilates itself all the time, even in 'nothing'. One of these collisons resulted in the big bang, or at least that is one of the viable theories. Then again, there might be diffrent 'nothing'. Again, physicists? Its nonsense. None of this deals with the proper definition of NOTHING: which evisages total nothingness. Such total nothingness could not deliver any somethingness. Please read again the bolded paragraph of the article i posted above. Was all the stu.pid, daf.t part necessary? Meh Those ideas are indeed st.upid and d.aft, apologies to whoever holds such notions. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Joagbaje(m): 5:23pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Lord Babs: As a diehard atheist, the existence of God has been consistently refuted as null and void. Ex nihilo nihil fit(from nothing comes nothing) is a philosophical creed first credited to the famous Greek philosopher, Parmenides, who argued that there is never a time when a world didn't exist, since it couldn't have been created out of nothing in the first place. The Greeks were largely of the belief that things cannot disappear into nothing, just as they can't be created from nothing. In other words, to say from nothing comes nothing is to say that for something to exist, it must emerge from something. It is noteworthy that this parlance(ex nihilo nihil fit) does not only refute the existence of a supreme deity, or the possibility of something emerging from nothing, but also leads to an infinite question of what creates what?! Now, most theists, based on the principle of universal causation, do subconsciously argue that things don't just exist without a cause. And as such, for the world or anything to exist, there must be a force behind it, which is called God, who is acclaimed to be revelling in heaven, in his sacred haven, amid hordes of angelic 'body-guards', while pleasurably abandoning us here on earth to suffer. study the account of creation in the Bible 1 Like |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 5:47pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Joagbaje:This isn't a church, where myths are served with unsavoury and sardonic tales-by-moonlight. Desist! |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 5:56pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight:argumentum ad hominem! Desist! |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by LordBabs(m): 5:59pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight: This topic and the claims of Krauss just remind me of some other such scientific quack, much idolized by atheist dolts, who even went so far as to prescribe the properties of "nothingness" and ascribe to it a certain size and even a mathematical ratio, or some other such nonsense.stop pandering to more fallacies(red herring)! Ain't you better than this? The cardinal question remains unanswered! Your so-called 'self-existent' matter is assumed to be independent of itself, would you therefore conclude that a matter can emerge from sheer nothingness, thereby invalidating the dictum 'ex nihilo nihil fit'? |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by wiegraf: 6:22pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight: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. Experimentally tested solutions should be given precedence, no? You 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?) Deep Sight: 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) |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by MyJoe: 8:17pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Area_boy:  |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Areaboy2(m): 9:41pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight: 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. 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. 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" 2) exactly y you cant use your brain to try to understand the universe before it existed. you are actually saying the same thing as myself 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. 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* 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. 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. If you then don't believe the maths, you might as well get off your computer now cause maths brought you that too. 6)It is saddening that you term this nonsensical even when there is hard evidence for it, yet you believe in something with ABSOLUTELY no evidence for!!!!! so much for objectivity. For goodness sake! 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. 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 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. 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. 1 Like |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 11:59pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
. . . |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 11:59pm On Jul 27, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Everything is self existent in essence. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 12:09am On Jul 28, 2012 |
Enigma: ^^^ Please look it up (e.g. on google) and, I assure you, you will see how it relates to the point being made in the post immediately preceding mine about the arguments earlier on the thread. That is still lost to universal causation. |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 12:18am On Jul 28, 2012 |
wiegraf: Matter and antimatter collide and release energy |
| Re: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Refutes The Existence Of God? by Kay17: 12:22am On Jul 28, 2012 |
Joagbaje: *dusting off my Bible* Surprisingly, the biblical account presumes the existence of material prior to the actualization of God's mind. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
Why Do Christians Bow To Armed Robbers? / Uyi Iredia Sees The Light! Denies the love of Yahweh!! / Submit Your 2013 Prayer Request To TB Joshua Via Facebook!!!
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 162 |