MacDaddy01:

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.

No, theists do not subscribe to the idea of something from nothing: they rather have always subscribed to the idea of an eternal and permanent something.

Additionally, if he accedes that "empty" space is something, then what he saying about something from nothing? CAN you now see why I say its a non starter?

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.

This is because nothingness by definition is NO THING: i.e: it does not exist: as such this is where your Krauss goofs when he attempts to discuss something from nothing: there is nothing like nothingness in the first place - and it is worse that he does this by attempting to propose the evidentially false notion that the total energy in the universe is zero. He shoots himself in the foot by his description of "empty" space already - i.e: it is not empty.

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

Haba this one na lie o: my approach to everyone is generally the same, save some tin gods who I revere and prostrate for.

Deep Sight:

No, theists do not subscribe to the idea of something from nothing: they rather have always subscribed to the idea of an eternal and permanent something.

Additionally, if he accedes that "empty" space is something, then what he saying about something from nothing? CAN you now see why I say its a non starter?



This is because nothingness by definition is NO THING: i.e: it does not exist: as such this is where your Krauss goofs when he attempts to discuss something from nothing: there is nothing like nothingness in the first place - and it is worse that he does this by attempting to propose the evidentially false notion that the total energy in the universe is zero. He shoots himself in the foot by his description of "empty" space already - i.e: it is not empty.



Haba this one na lie o: my approach to everyone is generally the same, save some tin gods who I revere and prostrate for.

Theists do not suscribe to something from nothing but that is their argument against atheists. Unfortunately, their gods are said to come from nothing. Krauss is saying that since you guys call space "nothing", then something can come from nothing. Simples



The truth is that we have no example of "nothing". You can only describe nothing in a way you can describe a 7feet midget.

Nothing is "no thing"...absence of anything.

A 7ft midget is a midget that is 7 feet.


You are just repeating a literal meaning of something that has no basis in relaity.


Give me an example of nothing since space itself is something



BTW, even 2 people have openly said that you have taken a dislike towards me.


Did I do something wrong? Some religionists here hate my swag n guts

Perhaps you shouldn't bother with eternal boogie-nesses because.. Nobody knows. The same with the retard ops conclusions, he could settle on not knowing, then setting out to find out how the unicorn showed up. He comes up with something testable/verifiable/logical, then we're all happy. Either ways this has nothing to do with atheism, and it's disingenuous to suggest so.
Atheist positions...

Deep Sight:

NO.

Then has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe you're both using different definitions of nothing? If nothingness never existed, then why is God needed for there to be something?

Deep Sight:

No, theists do not subscribe to the idea of something from nothing: they rather have always subscribed to the idea of an eternal and permanent something.

The question becomes what do we mean by nothing? According to theists, the presence of God is something, the presence of the universe in some form is something and nothingness cannot exist. This makes the statement of something from nothing, pointless.

Deep Sight:
Additionally, if he accedes that "empty" space is something, then what he saying about something from nothing? CAN you now see why I say its a non starter?

He means in the usual conception of nothing e.g a vacuum.

Deep Sight:
This is because nothingness by definition is NO THING: i.e: it does not exist: as such this is where your Krauss goofs when he attempts to discuss something from nothing: there is nothing like nothingness in the first place - and it is worse that he does this by attempting to propose the evidentially false notion that the total energy in the universe is zero. He shoots himself in the foot by his description of "empty" space already - i.e: it is not empty.

If nothingness cannot exist, then why should positing a God be a good idea?

You need to look into what he says when he talks about the total energy of the universe being zero because it looks as if you don't understand what he's saying there.

Deep Sight:
Haba this one na lie o: my approach to everyone is generally the same, save some tin gods who I revere and prostrate for.

On a side note, why prostrate to tin gods? Revering them doesn't do them any favours. I'd rather mock them when I encounter them online.

wiegraf: Perhaps you shouldn't bother with eternal boogie-nesses because.. Nobody knows. The same with the retard ops conclusions, he could settle on not knowing, then setting out to find out how the unicorn showed up. He comes up with something testable/verifiable/logical, then we're all happy. Either ways this has nothing to do with atheism, and it's disingenuous to suggest so.
Atheist positions...

Inchoherency!

Dude deserves pity, he does not even know whether he is an atheist or agnostic? Atleast let those who KNOW to discuss . . . You know the way out

vedaxcool:

Inchoherency!

Dude deserves pity, he does not even know whether he is an atheist or agnostic? Atleast let those who KNOW to discuss . . . You know the way out

I knew you would be stupid enough not to see that one can be both (atheist/agnostic)


But you wouldnt know since you have very limited knowledge outside the Quran.

MacDaddy01:


Theists do not suscribe to something from nothing but that is their argument against atheists.

And a good argument it is too: for it discloses an important fact in their favour: namely that something permanent and eternal necessarily exists.

Unfortunately, their gods are said to come from nothing.

I am tired of teaching you: NO theist says this. Theists speak of a permanent something that is eternal and has always existed. Please go and read up the fundamental distinctions between necessary and contingent elements: not to sound offensive, but you are sounding very ignorant of these precepts.

Krauss is saying that since you guys call space "nothing", then something can come from nothing. Simples

Theists do not call space nothing. If anything, they generally refer to space as part of the creation of God. As such, Krauss, [IF this was his intention,] is still woefully wrong on that excuse.

Might I add that he in fact set out to PROVE that something may emerge from NOTHING as a way to debunk the existence of God. That is exactly what he did. I will show you the quote in my next post.

The reason why this fails is the simple fact that the "nothing" he starts out from, as we have all agreed, is NOT nothing - it is something.

As such, you must agree with me that Krauss goofed.

Period.

The truth is that we have no example of "nothing". You can only describe nothing in a way you can describe a 7feet midget.

Nothing is "no thing"...absence of anything.

A 7ft midget is a midget that is 7 feet.

Or a square cube. The same thing. Point remains that as I said, just like a square cube, or a 7 ft midget, nothingness does not exist. You cannot ask me for examples of what I have already said DOES NOT exist, can you?

You are just repeating a literal meaning of something that has no basis in relaity.

Exactly: and since it does not exist and has no basis in reality, then Krauss cannot and should not speak of something from nothing!

BTW, even 2 people have openly said that you have taken a dislike towards me.

Not at all: I actually amuse myself with your congenital st.upidity.

Did I do something wrong? Some religionists here hate my swag n guts

I have no doubt that anyone who is bothered about your "swag" must be about 12 years old.

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can’t even measure them. Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. God just isn’t necessary.

And here, for the UMPTEENTH time, is the quote from your Krauss and co, which SHOWS that contrary to what you are saying, he was in fact seeking to show that God is not necessary and something may emerge from nothing - (in spite of the fact that there is no nothing!).

I particularly underline the portion underlined for you to see that he actually asserts that something may come from nothing. He the asserts that the total energy of everything is zero. He is an illiterate bozo: don't buy the hype!

Now, tell me, what were you saying about how brilliant and celebrated he is? Do you now see why I cannot respect such nonsense.

For God's sake, dolts such as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ARE also celebrated!

Now secondly, as final and major proof that I am right about what he was saying, his entire argument was centred around the id.iotic proposition that the total energy of the universe is zero. How about that? Do you buy that as well?[b][/b]

thehomer:

Then has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe you're both using different definitions of nothing?

Of course we are: but the point remains that in terms of the theological question of "something from nothing" there is ONLY one correct definition of nothing: NO THING. It is fraudulent, and even obtuse, to refer to energy particles as nothingness - and then use this to say that something which emerges from such EXISTENT PARTICLES proves that somethingness may emerge from nothingness.

In fact, it is illiterate.

If nothingness never existed, then why is God needed for there to be something?

No one said that "God was needed" for there to be something. We rather assert that God IS THAT permanent primordial something.

thehomer:

The question becomes what do we mean by nothing? According to theists, the presence of God is something, the presence of the universe in some form is something and nothingness cannot exist. This makes the statement of something from nothing, pointless.

Good, and as such you concede that Krauss was speaking gibberish.

He means in the usual conception of nothing e.g a vacuum.

You know very well that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere: and as such, a vacuum cannot be used in place of "nothingness" when we are having a discussion of something arising ex nihilo.

If nothingness cannot exist, then why should positing a God be a good idea?

Because it shows that a permanent somethingness rather exists: this is what is referred to as God.

You need to look into what he says when he talks about the total energy of the universe being zero because it looks as if you don't understand what he's saying there.

I have looked at it and it IS quackery of the highest order: the greatest psuedo science ever celebrated in the world.

If you think otherwise, please educate me on exactly why the total energy of the universe is zero: and let's discuss it!

Kindly remember, as you do so: what zero refers to: nothingness - - - > especially because he is proceeding from a tangent which seeks to show something from nothing: and as such you cannot argue that it refers to a mathematical point only: as such would not be nothing.

On a side note, why prostrate to tin gods? Revering them doesn't do them any favours. I'd rather mock them when I encounter them online.

Well, just to be open, by tin gods, I am referring to M Nwankwo, Justcool, Purist, MyJoe, Pastor AIO, Prizm, and their ilk.

I just fondly deployed the term "tin" because its not as if I worship them as gods o.

I do not agree with many of their views, but one must necessarily get serious when they speak: for they often speak intense sense: even where one disagrees.

As such, the general absence of these folk on the board, as you will notice, has reduced me gradually to a vulgar, low, logic-boy-yabbing anarchist.

vedaxcool:

Inchoherency!

Dude deserves pity, he does not even know whether he is an atheist or agnostic? Atleast let those who KNOW to discuss . . . You know the way out

You've been wanting to use the word incoherent against me, haven't you? This is poor timing though.
What's even more ridiculous is you imply you know. The sheer hubris. No offense to the reasonable religious out there, but religion seems to churn out a lot of proud, ignorant, buf.oons like you.

It is possible for me to not know, yet know you are wrong. It happens all the time. Simple reasoning. For instance, I know there are no invisible men working in my tv. I know many, many things that work, but I don't know how they work. I am very sure there are no little men in my tv, that is a risible notion, demonstrably false with no evidence to support it (except maybe some quotes from the koran). I am also very sure there are no gods as well. That is all that is required to be an atheist; disbelief in gods. I don't even like the word 'disbelief', but it will have to do for now. How does all this cosmological stuff work? Meh. I'll let the scientific method objectively figure that out eventually. I won't make $hit up then comically pretend to know.

Deep Sight:

And a good argument it is too: for it discloses an important fact in their favour: namely that something permanent and eternal necessarily exists.

No, its a failed argument based on something that does not exist in reality- nothingness.

Deep Sight:
I am tired of teaching you: NO theist says this. Theists speak of a permanent something that is eternal and has always existed. Please go and read up the fundamental distinctions between necessary and contingent elements: not to sound offensive, but you are sounding very ignorant of these precepts.

You fail again.

1) Atheists' stance is that there is no evidence for God. The theist counter that the evidence is the creation of the universe and that there is no way way that it can come from nothing. Their argument fails because we have no example for "nothing". Secondly, where does their god come from? They cant answer. Nonsense.


2) Eternity is an infinite. Infinites do not exist.

3) Where did this your pernanent something come from? It always existed?? Fairytales!

Deep Sight:
Theists do not call space nothing. If anything, they generally refer to space as part of the creation of God. As such, Krauss, [IF this was his intention,] is still woefully wrong on that excuse.

Lies. Lies. They call it nothing.

I have never seen any holy book say that god created space.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."


Space being something is still a relatively new concept even to scientists, so stop lying.

Deep Sight:

Might I add that he in fact set out to PROVE that something may emerge from NOTHING as a way to debunk the existence of God. That is exactly what he did. I will show you the quote in my next post.

The reason why this fails is the simple fact that the "nothing" he starts out from, as we have all agreed, is NOT nothing - it is something.

As such, you must agree with me that Krauss goofed.

Period.

Wow, you are being so shallow. A physicist like Krauss already knows that space is something. He is onyl using your arguments against you.

How hard is this to understand? Jeez!

Deep Sight:
Or a square cube. The same thing. Point remains that as I said, just like a square cube, or a 7 ft midget, nothingness does not exist. You cannot ask me for examples of what I have already said DOES NOT exist, can you?

Seen

Deep Sight:
Exactly: and since it does not exist and has no basis in reality, then Krauss cannot and should not speak of something from nothing!

Just shut up

Deep Sight:
Not at all: I actually amuse myself with your congenital st.upidity.



I have no doubt that anyone who is bothered about your "swag" must be about 12 years old.

Why the beef? All I ever wanted was your approval of my epicness!

wiegraf:

You've been wanting to use the word incoherent against me, haven't you? This is poor timing though.
What's even more ridiculous is you imply you know. The sheer hubris. No offense to the reasonable religious out there, but religion seems to churn out a lot of proud, ignorant, buf.oons like you.

It is possible for me to not know, yet know you are wrong. It happens all the time. Simple reasoning. For instance, I know there are no invisible men working in my tv. I know many, many things that work, but I don't know how they work. I am very sure there are no little men in my tv, that is a risible notion, demonstrably false with no evidence to support it (except maybe some quotes from the koran). I am also very sure there are no gods as well. That is all that is required to be an atheist; disbelief in gods. I don't even like the word 'disbelief', but it will have to do for now. How does all this cosmological stuff work? Meh. I'll let the scientific method objectively figure that out eventually. I won't make $hit up then comically pretend to know.

INCHOHERENCY!!! We all know never in your life have you ever taken out a research of scientific nature or do you think boiling water to take your bath can be considered scientific research? Cretins like you always make being an atheist comical and at best a desperate attempt to pass yourself as being intelligent! I just dey laugh

vedaxcool:


INCHOHERENCY!!! We all know never in your life have you ever taken out a research of scientific nature or do you think boiling to take your bath can be considered scientific research? Cretins like you always make being an atheist comical and at best a desperate attempt to pass yourself as being intelligent! I just dey laugh

Are you capable of logical thinking at all?
Trolling your thread, is a sign of logical inefficiency.

MacDaddy01:


I knew you would be stupid enough not to see that one can be both (atheist/agnostic)


But you wouldnt know since you have very limited knowledge outside the Quran.

I see a pink unicorn pain here

Reyginus: Are you capable of logical thinking?
You trolling your thread, is a sign of logical inefficiency.

ONE WORD GENETIC INCOMPETENCE, actually it is TWO words after all buhahaaha

vedaxcool:


I see a pink unicorn pain here

lol.....you are going full retardeen

vedaxcool:


ONE WORD GENETIC INCOMPETENCE, actually it is TWO words after all buhahaaha

Am serious.
Trolling is the opium of the poor in reasoning.
Argue wisely.

vedaxcool:


INCHOHERENCY!!! We all know never in your life have you ever taken out a research of scientific nature or do you think boiling to take your bath can be considered scientific research? Cretins like you always make being an atheist comical and at best a desperate attempt to pass yourself as being intelligent! I just dey laugh

Did I say I was a scientist? Did I even imply that? Which kind thread be dis where you open sef? You have such a simple
way of thinking I'm almost jealous. I'm pretty sure little fazes you as you'd be too stoopid to become embarrassed.

MacDaddy01:



lol.....you are going full retardeen

What was that word DEEP Sight used? . . . Congenital stupid1ty, . . . I feel bad and "sorry" that you have to suffer pink unicornosis . . . Just get some rest and you would get well hahhahaha

Reyginus: Am serious.
Trolling is the opium of the poor in reasoning.
Argue wisely.

Four words Acquired Immune Genetic Incompetence ( AIGI)

vedaxcool:

Four words Acquired Immune Genetic Incompetence ( AIGI)

vedaxcool:

What was that word DEEP Sight used? . . . Congenital stupid1ty, . . . I feel bad and "sorry" that you have to suffer pink unicornosis . . . Just get some rest and you would get well hahhahaha

Trolling again, Vedaxfool?


Post traumatic troll disorder

wiegraf:

Did I say I was a scientist? Did I even imply that? Which kind thread be dis where you open sef? You have such a simple
way of thinking I'm almost jealous. I'm pretty sure little fazes you as you'd be too stoopid to become embarrassed.

. . . What? You are not scientist? You must be a WURU WURU SCIENTIST that does NOT KNOW. And WANTS OTHERS to believe He knows, OK YOU Know, . . . I hope it boast your SELF ESTEEM buhahaha

vedaxcool:

. . . What? You are not scientist? You must be a WURU WURU SCIENTIST that does NOT KNOW. And WANTS OTHERS to believe He knows, OK YOU Know, . . . I hope it boast your SELF ESTEEM buhahaha

It's boost, and also incoherent, not inchoherent. Your delirium may be getting worse, have you had your medication?

buhahaha

^
No one believes that you actually laughed when you wrote the above

vedaxcool: ^
No one believes that you actually laughed when you wrote to the above

Ok

Deep Sight:

Of course we are: but the point remains that in terms of the theological question of "something from nothing" there is ONLY one correct definition of nothing: NO THING. It is fraudulent, and even obtuse, to refer to energy particles as nothingness - and then use this to say that something which emerges from such EXISTENT PARTICLES proves that somethingness may emerge from nothingness.

In fact, it is illiterate.

Actually you're failing to consider the fact that the idea of nothing that you're using is actually quite recent. i.e until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles.

Deep Sight:
No one said that "God was needed" for there to be something. We rather assert that God IS THAT permanent primordial something.

So we have this universe, theists say God was there before it while non-theists range from we don't know to postulating mindless mechanisms.

One problem with the theists idea is to explain how something physical comes from something non-physical.

Deep Sight:

Good, and as such you concede that Krauss was speaking gibberish.

I do no such thing. What I would show is that the concept of "nothing" has changed due to the advances of modern science.

Deep Sight:
You know very well that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum observed anywhere: and as such, a vacuum cannot be used in place of "nothingness" when we are having a discussion of something arising ex nihilo.

We relatively only figured that out recently.

Deep Sight:
Because it shows that a permanent somethingness rather exists: this is what is referred to as God.

And there we disagree unless you're willing to extend the idea of a God being a physical process or mechanism.

Deep Sight:
I have looked at it and it IS quackery of the highest order: the greatest psuedo science ever celebrated in the world.

If you think otherwise, please educate me on exactly why the total energy of the universe is zero: and let's discuss it!

Kindly remember, as you do so: what zero refers to: nothingness - - - > especially because he is proceeding from a tangent which seeks to show something from nothing: and as such you cannot argue that it refers to a mathematical point only: as such would not be nothing.

Here you go. I don't think that we're even qualified to discuss it. Or do you understand the advanced calculations necessary to show it?

Deep Sight:
Well, just to be open, by tin gods, I am referring to M Nwankwo, Justcool, Purist, MyJoe, Pastor AIO, Prizm, and their ilk.

I just fondly deployed the term "tin" because its not as if I worship them as gods o.

I do not agree with many of their views, but one must necessarily get serious when they speak: for they often speak intense sense: even where one disagrees.

As such, the general absence of these folk on the board, as you will notice, has reduced me gradually to a vulgar, low, logic-boy-yabbing anarchist.

Okay.

thehomer:
One problem with the theists idea is to explain how something physical comes from something non-physical.

I'd put it slightly differently.

I'd ask if it is possible for the non physical to affect the physical.

jayriginal:

I'd put it slightly differently.

I'd ask if it is possible for the non physical to affect the physical.

Yes. I think your presentation would better agree with what I'm trying to say.

thehomer:

Actually you're failing to consider the fact that the idea of nothing that you're using is actually quite recent. i.e until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles.

Please stop being ridiculous. Its really shocking the illogicalities and even outright falsities that you people are willing to spew forth simply in a bid to deny the existence of God.

The idea of nothingness has been the same from the dawn of time. How you can shamelessly attempt to claim that until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles - is completely beqond me.

"Nothingness" has never "comprised" anything whatsoever: the word refers to what it indicates: i.e: no thing. Simple.

Only extreme dishonestly can push you to claim otherwise.

So we have this universe, theists say God was there before it while non-theists range from we don't know to postulating mindless mechanisms.

One problem with the theists idea is to explain how something physical comes from something non-physical.

We are able to infer things even where a full understanding of their mechanisms may be beyond us. A full understanding of the human brain does not exist, and yet we can infer many things about it from observation and reason. We can infer that the frontal lobe originates thought, even when we cannot tell exactly by what mechanisms or exactly how. Just as a rough example. If I were to try another example, I would say that from observation we can infer that there was a big b@ng, even when none of us ever observed it. Nor do we know how or why it happened. But reason can lead us to infer that it happened. The point I am trying to make is that the fact that we do not see or understand certain things does not mean that some basic logical inferences cannot be made.

As such, we can logically infer that the physical arose from the non physical on account of these premises:

1. The premise of the big b@ng - i.e: that there was a beginning

2. The premise that a beginning requires a cause

3. The premise that anything that begins cannot be said to be eternal in the past

4. The premise that matter is therefore not eternal in the past

5. The premise that matter is therefore caused

6. The premise that nothing finite can be its own cause: thus matter cannot be caused by matter

7. The logical conclusive inference is that matter must be caused by something that is not matter: i.e: immaterial.