This is a follow-up to https://www.nairaland.com/2844591/there-ever-nothing-1#41684736

If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls -- no matter how much time passes -- cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.

Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.

So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could -- though it seems absurd -- change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.

So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else -- out of nothing -- requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing -- which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2 -- enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.

What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but -- no matter what -- Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.

wanna explore more about the eternal something?, go here; https://www.nairaland.com/2844622/there-ever-nothing-3#41685324


source; www.everystudent.com

Am kinda lazy lately when trying to type

SuperCollider

Don't you think ? If you made an example with a super collider in reference to atoms in motion in other to create another (if possible) , making use of balls don't you think the ball 1# should be in motion ?

If the ball 1# isn't in motion ,how did it create ball 2# ? Where did it get its energy from ? Your assumption of a self sufficient power to create for ball 1# isn't in line with the balls you had talked about.

Why do you think of a self sufficient ball ?

I can also infer that the universe is self sufficient.

Your explanation is in the sense of matter . If a thing gives out energy , the total amount of its initial energy is less than its final energy.

If your ball 1# creates ball 2# then its total energy is not the same . It reduces and then to a point when it is even with ball 2# it may not be able to transfer more energy . It may at a point cease to posses energy as it may transfer it to the neighboring surrounding.

It is difficult to think of a ball existing just like that or a ball existing of its own .

Let me see plaetton try to refute this.

TheAgba:
SuperCollider

Don't you think ? If you made an example with a super collider in reference to atoms in motion in other to create another (if possible) , making use of balls don't you think the ball 1# should be in motion ?

If the ball 1# isn't in motion ,how did it create ball 2# ? Where did it get its energy from ? Your assumption of a self sufficient power to create for ball 1# isn't in line with the balls you had talked about.

Why do you think of a self sufficient ball ?

I can also infer that the universe is self sufficient.

Your explanation is in the sense of matter . If a thing gives out energy , the total amount of its initial energy is less than its final energy.

If your ball 1# creates ball 2# then its total energy is not the same . It reduces and then to a point when it is even with ball 2# it may not be able to transfer more energy . It may at a point cease to posses energy as it may transfer it to the neighboring surrounding.

It is difficult to think of a ball existing just like that or a ball existing of its own .

Lol.

You Think he is capable of reasoning to this level?

The thread, with it's pedestrian logic, was meant for his Sunday school brethren.

timonski:
Let me see plaetton try to refute this.

There is actually nothing to refute here.

The reasoning is way too childish and pedestrian.

At best, it only hilariously exposes the half-think syndrome that is common among homo religilous Nigeriana.

It is food for the Sunday school crowd.

winner01:
This is a follow-up to https://www.nairaland.com/2844591/there-ever-nothing-1#41684736

If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls -- no matter how much time passes -- cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.

Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.

So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could -- though it seems absurd -- change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.

So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else -- out of nothing -- requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing -- which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2 -- enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.

What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but -- no matter what -- Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.

wanna explore more about the eternal something?, go here; https://www.nairaland.com/2844622/there-ever-nothing-3#41685324


source; www.everystudent.com

Have you noticed that you pulled " The Eternal Something " from right out of your asxxs?
Magic and magical thinking 101. , pull stuff from your arxx to account for whatever you're confused about.

Now, in case you skipped elementary school science class, let me introduce you to something called Energy.
It is the one intangible that we can safely say is self-existent.

You can thank me later.

TheAgba:
SuperCollider

Don't you think ? If you made an example with a super collider in reference to atoms in motion in other to create another (if possible) , making use of balls don't you think the ball 1# should be in motion ?

If the ball 1# isn't in motion ,how did it create ball 2# ? Where did it get its energy from ? Your assumption of a self sufficient power to create for ball 1# isn't in line with the balls you had talked about.

Why do you think of a self sufficient ball ?

I can also infer that the universe is self sufficient.

Your explanation is in the sense of matter . If a thing gives out energy , the total amount of its initial energy is less than its final energy.

If your ball 1# creates ball 2# then its total energy is not the same . It reduces and then to a point when it is even with ball 2# it may not be able to transfer more energy . It may at a point cease to posses energy as it may transfer it to the neighboring surrounding.

It is difficult to think of a ball existing just like that or a ball existing of its own .

Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations. Particles appear and disappear in a vacuum that has absolutely nothing.

urahara:



Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations. Particles appear and disappear in a vacuum that has absolutely nothing.

They just appear and disappear ?

I can agree with you for minutes/seconds time fluctuations. And also , the energy is not conserved within the vacuum . Aside that , I think of a conservative process to explain such .

Moreover , I responded to the OP based on his write ups. He didn't really employed physics so my response was still in line with his topic .

I didn't even know of the fluctuation stuff ,just the uncertainty principle . Thanks

winner01:
This is a follow-up to https://www.nairaland.com/2844591/there-ever-nothing-1#41684736

If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls -- no matter how much time passes -- cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.

Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.

So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could -- though it seems absurd -- change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.

So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else -- out of nothing -- requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing -- which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2 -- enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.

What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but -- no matter what -- Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.

wanna explore more about the eternal something?, go here; https://www.nairaland.com/2844622/there-ever-nothing-3#41685324


source; www.everystudent.com

You are contradicting your first premise. Why can't the first cause be the big bang. Why can't the first cause be the flying Sphagetti monster. Why is God exempted from having a cause

plaetton:


Have you noticed that you pulled " The Eternal Something " from right out of your asxxs?
Magic and magical thinking 101. , pull stuff from to account for whatever you're confused about.

Now, in case you skipped elementary school science class, let me introduce you to something called Energy.
It is the one intangible that we can safely say is self-existent.

You can thank me later.

Energy is not self existent . You are the only one with that theory .

KingEbukasBlog:


Energy is not self existent . You are the only one with that theory .

When was the last time you created or destroyed energy?

Think before you write.

urahara:



You are contradicting your first premise. Why can't the first cause be the big bang. Why can't the first cause be the flying Sphagetti monster. Why is God exempted from having a cause

The big bang is an effect, not a cause.
The first cause cant be a flying sphagetti monster simply because thats exactly what you want it to be.
I believe your last question has been answered here. https://www.nairaland.com/2816262/god-created-everything-created-god

KingEbukasBlog:


Energy is not self existent . You are the only one with that theory .

plaetton is a lonely and confused relevance-seeker. He has proved that over time with his unintelligent posts. I suggest you just let him be.

plaetton:


When was the last time you created or destroyed energy?

Think before you write.

You are trying to avoid the need for a creator that's why you assert the self existence of energy . Its a mere assumption without any proof . Can you post articles to buttress your claim

winner01:
plaetton is a lonely and confused relevance-seeker. He has proved that over time with his unintelligent posts. I suggest you just let him be.

True . Mr. P created his own theory to accommodate his unbelief - now that's one ludicrous move

KingEbukasBlog:


You are trying to avoid the need for a creator that's why you assert the self existence of energy . Its a mere assumption without any proof . Can you post articles to buttress your claim

You're right on this one.
Indeed, I am trying to avoid the need for magica fairy.

Now, please be honest with me and yourself.

What is another name, a synonym for a magical being who creates things from nothing ?

Hint hint: it starts with an F, has tiny wings, and carries a magical wand.

urahara:



You are contradicting your first premise. Why can't the first cause be the big bang. Why can't the first cause be the flying Sphagetti monster. Why is God exempted from having a cause

God is uncaused - one of His many attributes that science has failed to grasp . I've watched many Youtube videos that have asked what if there is nothing beyond our universe - that's BS science trying to avoid a conscious uncaused cause .

And please the flying spaghetti monster joke (if that's what you guys call a joke ) is dumb and overused . Your attempts to always exempt God in developing theories will always be futile , accept the truth and deal with it

plaetton:

You're right on this one.
Indeed, I am trying to avoid the need for magica fairy.

Now, please be honest with me and yourself.

What is another name, a synonym for a magical being who created things ?

Hint hint: it starts with an F, has tiny wings, and carries a magical wand.

Lol

What is another name for emptiness that derived the propensity to create everything ?

Hint : Its starts with a V , and its one lonely formless nigga !

KingEbukasBlog:


God is uncaused - one of His many attributes that science has failed to grasp . I've watched many Youtube videos that have asked what if there is nothing beyond our universe - that's BS science trying to avoid a conscious uncaused cause .

And please the flying spaghetti monster joke (if that's what you guys call a joke ) is dumb and overused . Your attempts to always exempt God in developing theories will always be futile , accept the truth and deal with it

You say God is un caused because your ridiculous ancient book tells you so.

urahara:



You say God is un caused because your ridiculous ancient book tells you so.

Quotes and works of ancient men are also contained in ancient books .

KingEbukasBlog:


Quotes and works of ancient men are also contained in ancient books .

JUST EPIC!!!!!

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol

What is another name for emptiness that derived the propensity to create everything ?

Hint : Its starts with a V , and its one lonely formless nigga !

Lol
Its more like an uncaused conscious creative nothing, willing to create something if it likes.

I heard its called void,

winner01:
Lol
Its more like an uncaused conscious creative nothing, willing to create something if it likes.

I heard its called void,

Lol

You even have a better description

Plaetton , winner don give you expo .

Its more like an uncaused conscious creative nothing, willing to create something if it likes.
I heard its called void

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol

You even have a better description

Plaetton , winner don give you expo .

Naaaahh, it takes time for plaetton to grab things.

I dont think he'll get the expo at once.

KingEbukasBlog:


Quotes and works of ancient men are also contained in ancient books .

I said ridiculous ancient book which is the bible. The most stupidest book of all times

plaetton:

You're right on this one.
Indeed, I am trying to avoid the need for magica fairy.

Now, please be honest with me and yourself.

What is another name, a synonym for a magical being who creates things from nothing ?

Hint hint: it starts with an F, has tiny wings, and carries a magical wand.

Is is is...........tinkerbell!!!!!!!!!

urahara:


I said ridiculous ancient book which is the bible. The most stupidest book of all times

Then I wonder why it's the most studied book of all time and why the Messiah it predicted is the most influential man to ever live.

Best selling doesn't imply most studied. It's the best-selling not because people want to read it but because it gets pushed on them. In hotels . Churches. Schools. Etc.

It also has no single prophecy about Jesus ( or anything else) and about you saying that he is the most influential man that is just messed up as there is actually very little historical evidence of his existence.

Best selling doesn't imply most studied. It's the best-selling not because people want to read it but because it gets pushed on them. In hotels . Churches. Schools. Etc.

It also has no single prophecy about Jesus and about you saying that he is the most influential man that is just messed up as there is actually very little historical evidence of his existence.

urahara:
Best selling doesn't imply most studied. It's the best-selling not because people want to read it but because it gets pushed on them. In hotels . Churches. Schools. Etc.

Plz name me a book more studied than the bible.

urahara:

It also has no single prophecy about Jesus ( or anything else) and about you saying that he is the most influential man that is just messed up as there is actually very little historical evidence of his existence.

Guy there are hundreds of prophecies of the Messiah in the old testament, put them all together and u will see only Jesus matches the prophecies.

And what makes u conclude he didn't exist?

I'm very sure u not reading what the historians are saying, cut if u were u would recognize that Jesus existence is accepted by practically every historian today.

urahara:



Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations. Particles appear and disappear in a vacuum that has absolutely nothing.

Subatomic particles do not literally come from nothing they come from energy.