Uyi Iredia:

There are. Read books like The Necessity Of Atheism and educate yourself. There are atheist positions on the universe. How can you say infinity doesn't exist when numbers & shapes are infinite ? You must be stup1d.

There is no atheist position on the beginning of the universe. Atheism is not science neither is it a religion. It is a stance on the evidence for God- nothing and therefore no reason to believe

^^^
I tire...

It has nothing to do with first causing eternal nothingness beginning everythingness infinity blah blah blah-ness. There were no gods involved in writing this post (especially the personal ones). Same thing with big b@ng etc. Same thing with everything. However, whatever the process, there were no gods involved. That is all atheism is, a rejection of the existence of gods. Provide evidence, then we can talk.

Random: You could even go further and say that if a hypothesis becomes testable, then by definition, it is now science. God thunders in? It is now in the domain of science, in a manner of speak. (edit: for instance quantum mechanics is science, it is some very weird $hit, but it is testable. Conclusions as to what really is happening vary, but it's still science as its effects are observable). Whatever you call god becomes testable? It likely isn't a god anymore.

Kay 17:

Such a process could be "hijacked" by an intelligent agent.

The Universe is a large container of bubbling entities, particles, energy interacting, forming up larger bodies which interact with other large bodies.

So without an intelligent agent, the Universe will still exist.

And all these bubbles simply just appeared from nowhere like the pink unicorn? truly you description is quite off mark.

^^

For the fact that nothing comes out of nowhere, is enough reason to justify the ever existence.

If you take out all that is in existence, there will be nothing left.

MacDaddy01:


There is no atheist position on the beginning of the universe. Atheism is not science neither is it a religion. It is a stance on the evidence for God- nothing and therefore no reason to believe

There are atheist positions on the beginning of the universe. Remember, atheism is a philosophy (and as I always say a religion) and therefor it has always enunciated its position on the beginning of the universe through the mouth of atheists. Most atheists in the past befor e the acceptance of the Big Bang believed that the universe was infinite. With the Big Bang now accepted that position has been modified though not altogether ended.

Kay 17:

This is not helpful and could mislead one to think you are ignorant. The change from the common ancestor among apes to human is said to have taken over a million years, being aware of that fact; wouldn't it be disingenious to expect a scientist to directly observe such a change within his life time!?!

It took place in a time-period in the past which no one has ever witnessed. So, how can you accept such a stup1d hypothesis when there's no evidence and there can never be evidence that it happened. The so-called fossils which are touted as evidence are a non-sequitur since better hypothesis which can be verified real time such as the fossils are relatives of animals living today have not yet been tried out. I think it's disingenuous to postulate something which can't actually be verified real-time.

wiegraf:

Calm down bros, why so mad? Stoopid is curable, sometimes...

Who is mad ? If you act like a fool it's my responsibility to tell you.

Kay 17:

Such alternate explanations are individual positions not general nor necessary.

But they are widespread which is my point.

MacDaddy01:



And thus, Deep Sight falls into the pit of arrogance, where proud douchebags get humbled.

Do you know who made that quote?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss



Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

You simply have no grasp of discussions. How can u and ur dear Krauss talk about something coming from noting, and in the same breath admit that the 'empty' space in question is not nothing? ? ?

O, by the way, stop appealing to authourity. Krauss is certified D.AFT.

thehomer:

You really should be careful when you just go spouting off all sorts of allegations. My questions to you are these. Does nothingness exist? Did it ever exist?

NO.

Uyi Iredia:

Who is mad ? If you act like a fool it's my responsibility to tell you.

You still mad?

Edit: I see you still stoopid as well..

Uyi Iredia:

It took place in a time-period in the past which no one has ever witnessed. So, how can you accept such a stup1d hypothesis when there's no evidence and there can never be evidence that it happened. The so-called fossils which are touted as evidence are a non-sequitur since better hypothesis which can be verified real time such as the fossils are relatives of animals living today have not yet been tried out. I think it's disingenuous to postulate something which can't actually be verified real-time.

Are you implying that Science is restricted to direct observation? That Science isn't entitled to predict natural outcomes or make inferences? That fields of archaeology, cosmological physics, quantum physics, microbiology have breached the valid borders of Science?

Uyi Iredia:

But they are widespread which is my point.

I agree with you, but still not a necessary conclusion for an atheist.

Deep Sight:

You simply have no grasp of discussions. How can u and ur dear Krauss talk about something coming from noting, and in the same breath admit that the 'empty' space in question is not nothing? ? ?

O, by the way, stop appealing to authourity. Krauss is certified D.AFT.

Empty space isnt nothing. Empty space is full of particles. You are very ignorant! Empty space isnt empty.


Furthermore, how nice of you to call one of the best scientists in the western world "daf.t".


You are foolish,

Uyi Iredia:

There are atheist positions on the beginning of the universe. Remember, atheism is a philosophy (and as I always say a religion) and therefor it has always enunciated its position on the beginning of the universe through the mouth of atheists. Most atheists in the past befor e the acceptance of the Big Bang believed that the universe was infinite. With the Big Bang now accepted that position has been modified though not altogether ended.

Atheism is not a philosophy but there is atheistic philosophy. Just as christianity itself is not aplogetics but there is christian apologetics.


Atheism is only a theological stance.


Why are you foolish?

MacDaddy01:


Empty space isnt nothing. Empty space is full of particles.

Honestly, i don't know why everyone has to hold your hand and guide you through every piece of simple logic.

1. You contended that something could derive from nothing

2. In support of that, you produce Krauss's lecture

3. The conclusion you draw from it is that empty space is in fact NOT nothing - that it is something ab initio

So why on God's good earth did you cite empty space in the first place, as an example of something deriving from nothing - given that YOU accede that it is NOT nothing in the first place ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are very ignorant! Empty space isnt empty.

Good - - - > And so it is wrong and mis-footed to use "empty" space as an example of nothing - in the way that you referred to Krauss as doing.

This is simple logic, son.

Furthermore, how nice of you to call one of the best scientists in the western world "daf.t".

There are many quacks like him who are celebrated all over the world today. One example is Richard Dawkins, a man of breathtaking theological illiteracy who attempts to discuss theology with disastrous results. Krauss is even worse and more illogical: but as I have said before, it seems to give you guys a sense of self worth to bandy the names of these nincompoops about.

Think for your self. Even Einstein's ideas are up for challenge. Much less this bozo of a non starter.

You are foolish,

That is judicially noticed for a long time already by my learned brothers Enigma and Jayriginal.

Deep Sight:

Honestly, i don't know why everyone has to hold your hand and guide you through every piece of simple logic.

1. You contended that something could derive from nothing

2. In support of that, you produce Krauss's lecture

3. The conclusion you draw from it is that empty space is in fact NOT nothing - that it is something ab initio

So why on God's good earth did you cite empty space in the first place, as an example of something deriving from nothing - given that YOU accede that it is NOT nothing in the first place ? ? ? ? ? ?

You define empty space as "nothing". So if you believe that empty space is nothing, then we can say something comes from nothing. I never defended the position that something could come from nothing. Re read my comments again. I was showing you what a scientist says.

We do not have an example for "nothing". So you can even argue anything about "nothing".

My atheist position is about God. There is no evidence for him or her or it. Simple. I am not a scientist and I can not tell you the origin of the world. I can only tell you what scientists say.

Deep Sight:
Good - - - > And so it is wrong and mis-footed to use "empty" space as an example of nothing - in the way that you referred to Krauss as doing.

This is simple logic, son.

Empty space is normal rhetoric. Common use. You are the one that misuses empty space as "nothing". Krauss is showing that theists are wrong if you define empty space as "nothing".

When you have been shouting that something can not come out of nothing, wasnt it empty space you were referring to? Or what was your example of this "nothing"?

Deep Sight:

There are many quacks like him who are celebrated all over the world today. One example is Richard Dawkins, a man of breathtaking theological illiteracy who attempts to discuss theology with disastrous results. Krauss is even worse and more illogical: but as I have said before, it seems to give you guys a sense of self worth to bandy the names of these nincompoops about.

Think for your self. Even Einstein's ideas are up for challenge. Much less this bozo of a non starter.

I would accept Krauss's argument over a fool's opinion. A fool like you that believes numbers exists.

Krauss is not a quack. For you to even call him a quack shows your foolish arrogance. How can you even call one of the bestb scientists in the West a "quack"? Is everybody seeing this?

You have mental problems, sir!

Deep Sight:
That is judicially noticed for a long time already by my learned brothers Enigma and Jayriginal.

Stop bowing to authority! Touche!

^^
Take an hypothetical "space" with nothing, no particles, no energy, no space, no pigments not even black, not even God, an absolute void.

Then proceed to ponder what could arise from it.

Here is another way of seeing it, define Nothing as the absence of anything. Therefore to contemplate something arising from "absence of anything" will lead to a contradiction.

MacDaddy01:

You define empty space as "nothing". So if you believe that empty space is nothing, then we can say something comes from nothing. I never defended the position that something could come from nothing. Re read my comments again. I was showing you what a scientist says.

We do not have an example for "nothing". So you can even argue anything about "nothing".

My atheist position is about God. There is no evidence for him or her or it. Simple. I am not a scientist and I can not tell you the origin of the world. I can only tell you what scientists say.






Empty space is normal rhetoric. Common use. You are the one that misuses empty space as "nothing". Krauss is showing that theists are wrong if you define empty space as "nothing".

When you have been shouting that something can not come out of nothing, wasnt it empty space you were referring to? Or what was your example of this "nothing"?




I would accept Krauss's argument over a fool's opinion. A fool like you that believes numbers exists.

Krauss is not a quack. For you to even call him a quack shows your foolish arrogance. How can you even call one of the bestb scientists in the West a "quack"? Is everybody seeing this?

You have mental problems, sir!





Stop bowing to authority! Touche!

It is bad that you do not understand the discussion, but it is even worse that you would [a] tell lies and deny your own words and [b]tell lies and claim I said things I never said. I never said that nothingness is empty space: I said that the word nothingness means NO THING at all, period. I also never said that something comes from nothing - YOU did that son. In the next two posts, I will go extract your quotes and show that you are telling stark lies.

But first, I have heard from this Krauss goon before. Sorry, I am no respecter of scientists who I believe to be talking nonsense: no matter how respected they may be: there are a lot of highly respected id.iots in the world - and many celebrated scientists amongst them. I am sorry - I am not one to bury my own brain just because someone is celebrated. Next post, I will extract my past comments on the comments of others like you, who relied on Krauss to assert id.iotically, that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Here are my previous comments on the comments of others who relied on Krauss to make ridiculous arguments -

Deep Sight: Now I honestly cannot understand some of the horribly irrational rhetoric being advanced by atheists on this thread. Mostly when I read all this, I am tempted (in the immortal words of Enigma) "not to reply at all", some of it is sickeningingly contradictory and self defeating, but most of it just betrays a basic deficiency in the most elementary logic. You will see, for instance, how Area Boy asserted (in line with the gibberish he read from Krauss) that the total energy of the universe is zero; and that in this circumstance the universe would have popped up unbidden from nothing. You will also see how Wiegraf asserted that all initial energy is nothingness, because it cancels out - lol - and then asserted that we all agree that the self same nothingness does not exist!

It is honestly incredible, how educated persons can arrive at such unspeakably contradictory balderdash. The saddest aspect of all this is that these persons somehow imagine their thinking to be any better than that of the religionist. In some epileptic fit of deluded excitement, they imagine such hopelessly contradictory nonsense to pass for sophistication. It seems to me that the thinking is that anybody who rejects religion has crossed the Rubicon, and achieved philosophical and intellectual Nirvana: this is not so.

Just look at the two eminently ridiculous assertions from Area Boy and Wiegraf which I cited. Notwithstanding that zero refers to nothingness, Area Boy piggy-backs on Krauss to assert that the total energy in the universe is zero: not recognizing that the implication of this would be that the universe does not exist: he then goes further to say that on account of this, the universe pops into existence from nothingness. Now this is a person who will make this kind of nonsensical suggestion and yet presume to laugh at the theist.

Wiegraf, for his part, does worse: he says that everything is nothingness at the start, and then turns about to say that nothingness does not exist - whilst describing the initial state of things as consisting of matter and other elements.

Can any serious thinker take these folk seriously?

Can they take themselves seriously?

Baby thinkers, drunk on the new wine of the new discovery of new atheism.

In a line, the summary of the maxim mentioned by the OP, is that from nothingness comes nothing. From this, we can see that the somethingness that we know, did not come from nothing. We can also see that any other somethingness that preceded this somethingness did not come from nothing. We can thus see that, as Caezar said, if there was nothingness at the beginning, then there would never have been somethingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. We therefore see that there was always somethingness. This is the simple reasoning that evinces that which is eternal and self existent. It seems however, to be beyond some folk, as simple as it is.

Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

Kay 17: ^^
Take an hypothetical "space" with nothing, no particles, no energy, no space, no pigments not even black, not even God, an absolute void.

Then proceed to ponder what could arise from it.

Here is another way of seeing it, define Nothing as the absence of anything. Therefore to contemplate something arising from "absence of anything" will lead to a contradiction.

Why hypothetical? Hypothetical space?


Where does that exist? Hmmm?

"space" itself is something.

MacDaddy01:

You define empty space as "nothing".

First Lie. I did no do any such thing: YOU DID.And then you turned around to say it is not nothing.

I shall produce your quotes: do not scuttle off to alter them!

MacDaddy01:

Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

Here's your quote son. Your words, not mine.

Deep Sight:

Here's your quote son. Your words, not mine.

"If you"




You win the Dumbazz award

MacDaddy01:


1) But Allah came from nothing?


At least the scientist have the proof of quantum physics on their side.

And here, another quote from you, suggesting that the something from nothing idea is proven by quantum physics. I kept asking you how and why that is the case, but you refused to answer my question!

Deep Sight:

First Lie. I did no do any such thing: YOU DID.And then you turned around to say it is not nothing.

I shall produce your quotes: do not scuttle off to alter them!

Please try again. You have already failed once

Deep Sight:

And here, another quote from you, suggesting that the something from nothing idea is proven by quantum physics. I kept asking you how and why that is the case, but you refused to answer my question!

Stop trying.


Please put a quote where really supported something coming from nothing.


All I did in what you quoted was to make fun of the hypocrisy of complaining about "nothing" when your god is from "nothing" according to you/the Allah believer.

MacDaddy01:


"If you"




You win the Dumbazz award

You don't get it do you? THAT was the basis of your reference to Krauss and praise of Krauss, no?

Can I ask you WHAT he refers to as nothing, when he speaks about something from nothing?

Be concise please.

Now secondly, please note your other statement. I will highlight words so you appreciate the import of what you wrote -

Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was CORRECTING the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

Can you look at the blue bold and tell me what "He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". means?

Please kindly note the bold word "not" in the context of your sentence and refer to what view he is "correcting".

Your sentence simply accedes that whereas empty space is not nothing, Krauss is "correcting" that view, and saying that its nothing.

Finally, you made your take obvious by stating that the scientists have "proof of quantum physics" on their side in this assertion.

As such, you cannot now duck: its obvious you have endorsed this position, not only by appealing to authority, but also stating explicitly that scientists have proof for their statements in this regard.

Care to make sense out of all this confusion you have made?

Deep Sight:

You don't get it do you? THAT was the basis of your reference to Krauss and praise of Krauss, no?

Can I ask you WHAT he refers to as nothing, when he speaks about something from nothing?

Be concise please.

Now secondly, please note your other statement. I will highlight words so you appreciate the import of what you wrote -



Can you look at the blue bold and tell me what "He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". means?

Please kindly note the bold word "not" in the context of your sentence and refer to what view he is "correcting".

Your sentence simply accedes that whereas empty space is not nothing, Krauss is "correcting" that view, and saying that its nothing.

Finally, you made your take obvious by stating that the scientists have "proof of quantum physics" on their side in this assertion.

As such, you cannot now duck: its obvious you have endorsed this position, not only by appealing to authority, but also stating explicitly that scientists have proof for their statements in this regard.

Care to make sense out of all this confusion you have made?

Yawn. The only thing I admit to is mistyping. I should have written "the view that empty space is "nothing"."


Is it clear now?

MacDaddy01:



Yawn. The only thing I admit to is mistyping. I should have written "the view that empty space is "nothing"."


Is it clear now?

Well even if that's your take, it does nothing for your hero, Krauss: because if he is CORRECTING the view that empty space is nothing, then his correction is that it is in fact something.

And this completely destroys any reference he can then make about something from nothing!

And mind you, your exact words were that the scientists have the proof for their assertions in this regard!

Hope clear now ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Well even if that's your take, it does nothing for your hero, Krauss: because if he is CORRECTING the view that empty space is nothing, then his correction is that it is in fact something.

And this completely destroys any reference he can then make about something from nothing!

And mind you, your exact words were that the scientists have the proof for their assertions in this regard!

Hope clear now ? ? ?

Yes, he is saying that it (space) is something made up of particles. However, since most theists shout "something" from "nothing, he was using your assertions to explain how that can be.


When you and theists claim that something can not come from nothing, you forget that there is no example of "nothing" that we know of. ou know nothing about "nothing" yet you make claims about it.



Clear enough?




BTW Deepsight, what have I done to you that you have been attacking me so heavily these past few months? Serioulsy!

MacDaddy01:


Why hypothetical? Hypothetical space?


Where does that exist? Hmmm?

"space" itself is something.

Therefore the " " cos I wasn't refering to the spacetime we are used to.