If God doesn't exist, no one will challenge Him.

I waited a while for you to correct the mistake therein

davien:
Logic isn't all there is to science..

science leads to discoveries and invention. Logic leads to invention and efficiency. All these concepts need to be mastered in order to be labeled as a good scientist, as discovery, observation, questioning, and experimenting is the way of science.

In fact, our ideas we like to infer as logically sound without evidence are more often plain wrong. Like the logic that a melon and an egg falling from the same height, the melon with more mass should fall first if we are to follow the experiment logically but it doesn't.. and a myriad of logically dependent points are proven counter intuitive,like light from a moving object not having an increment in speed and moving at the same speed as one emanating from a stationary one..

l think you need a little understanding of ( epistemology) logic isn't about truth, logic is about validity, Science on the other hand is about truth(that is even subjected to rechecking and updating )But science often uses logic, because, if you start from true premises and make valid arguments you reach true conclusions. But even if you start from true premises, if you make invalid arguments, you can't tell if your conclusions will be true or not. Logic is restrained to philosophical reasoning and not used as proofs themselves. Logic is more fundamental than science. logic symbolically manipulate statements - the most useful logic family that we all use is one that classifies statements as true and false and find out relationships between statements’ truths..

Let's examine those points... We know from observing the universe gradual red shifting of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, distribution of elements like deuterium(an isotope of hydrogen) and lithium, and others, that the universe as we know it had a finite beginning(13.8 billion years ago), so the universe didn't always exist.

let me push you a little hard into logic. what do you mean by existence? What do you mean by begining?

But let me demonstrate quantum mechanics to you. I saw a lot of it in this postulation. In space , all the time new Universes are being created and old Universes are collapsing. As Energy is neither created nor destroyed, this could be termed as “Steady State” This means, that the mega Universe set up always existed. Big Bang theory applies to each individual Universe only, and not the entire system. In a simili, it is like stars exploding in the sky.

And due to the restraints of the finite feature of light, nothing can be inferred before its emergence, so we are left to build models that predict a universe emerging from the lowest level of existence.. A vacuum.

Not really , the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum, for example , How is it possible that a black hole appears to emit particles when we know that nothing can escape from within its event horizon? Scratch that....

We know that vacuums are governed by quantum fluctuations as everything else in the universe and quantum functions do enable the emergence of complex structures, mostly virtual particles, and in an unknown period, complexity arrives without the presence of any verifiable beings.

Not really, According to the uncertainty principle, the more precisely you know a quantum field's value, the less precisely you would know it's rate of change. This means that for any region of space, if you know it is totally empty, then you would know that the value of a field in that location would also be zero. Hence, you won't know the rate of change of the field, which is why the next moment, there would be a non-zero value of the field there and the region of space won't be a vacuum. So space isn't vacuum.

Not talking about complexity here but the source of the universe which has never been vaccum.

So if we are to infer a nothing as your question poses, what would it be and what features would enable a something(which we do know) to emerge from it? Is something coming out of a nothing a viable question without a nothing to examine it's properties... Because in a universe that sums up as a something and everything in it being everything, what room was there ever for a nothing to exist and what would that nothing be?

i do not really understand the question here, but if i can understand , do you mean what are the properties of something that birth the universe or what? Cus i can remmeber postulating this universe come from nothing.

And if something does exist infinitely as an inherent property, why give it any credence without evidence or even worship it without evidence of sentience, intent or will? Faith?

None of my postulation suggest this ...i don't know where you get this from.


Try to evalute and redefine your work, even if it is copied somewhere.

orunto27:
If God doesn't exist, no one will challenge Him.

it is good to be skeptical. Challenging the existence of God is a way of reasoning out of our usual dogma.

vaxx:
I waited a whie for you to correct the mistake therein science leads to discoveries and invention. Logic leads to invention and efficiency. All these concepts need to be mastered in order to be labeled as a good scientist, as discovery, observation, questioning, and experimenting is the way of science.

l think you need a little understanding of ( epistemology) logic isn't about truth, logic is about validity, Science on the other hand is about truth(that is even subjected to rechecking and updating )But science often uses logic, because, if you start from true premises and make valid arguments you reach true conclusions. But even if you start from true premises, if you make invalid arguments, you can't tell if your conclusions will be true or not. Logic is restrained to philosophical reasoning and not used as proofs themselves. Logic is more fundamental than science. logic symbolically manipulate statements - the most useful logic family that we all use is one that classifies statements as true and false and find out relationships between statements’ truths..

This is a rehash of my statements.. Focus on the topics you raised.

let me push you a little hard into logic. what do you mean by existence? What do you mean by begining?

Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable.

But let me demonstrate quantum mechanics to you. I saw a lot of it in this postulation. In space , all the time new Universes are being created and old Universes are collapsing.

You aren't making any sense... When are new universes created in the vacuum of space or collapse? Clarify this statement.

As Energy is neither created nor destroyed, this could be termed as “Steady State” This means, that the mega Universe set up always existed.

If you've passed through tertiary education with even the slightest attention to sciences, you'd be aware that entropy rids the universe of work(useful energy) and it being incorporated into thermodynamics implies that all closed systems gradually lose energy to their surroundings, this is observable throughout the universe, we aren't in a steady state universe that always existed.

Big Bang theory applies to each individual Universe only, and not the entire system.

This statement is nonsense.. The big bang theory applies to our universe because it accounts for its properties..
In fact, the curvature of the universe plotted from the cosmic microwave background of say 4000k implies the universe having a beginning and an end.

In a simili, it is like stars exploding in the sky.

Not really , the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum, for example , How is it possible that a black hole appears to emit particles when we know that nothing can escape from within its event horizon? Scratch that....

I can confidently say you know nothing about the subject, the uncertainty principle applies to the ability to measure or pinpoint the exact locations of tiny particles like electrons, it says nothing about the universe..
And black holes emit hawking radiation which is perfectly permissible by all laws of energy..

Not really, According to the uncertainty principle, the more precisely you know a quantum field's value, the less precisely you would know it's rate of change. This means that for any region of space, if you know it is totally empty, then you would know that the value of a field in that location would also be zero. Hence, you won't know the rate of change of the field, which is why the next moment, there would be a non-zero value of the field there and the region of space won't be a vacuum. So space isn't vacuum.

I've addressed all these above. It's laughable that you are arguing against space being a vacuum.. Are you in jss2?

Not talking about complexity here but the source of the universe which has never been vaccum.

I didn't imply a vacuum being the source of the universe, I merely extrapolated that if we consider your question for a universe arising from nothing, we don't have or know anything like nothing in of itself to observe anything arising from it, everything is a something and the closest thing to a nothing is a vacuum which cannot be reduced to anything else... In fact to reduce a vacuum you actually have to add energy.. Whereas vacuums have vacuum energy on their own which obey the laws of the quantum realm.

i do not really understand the question here, but if i can understand , do you mean what are the properties of something that birth the universe or what? Cus i can remmeber postulating this universe come from nothing.

Addressed above.

None of my postulation suggest this ...i don't know where you get this from.


Try to evalute and redefine your work, even if it is copied somewhere.

You don't know anything about what you're defending.

davien:
This is a rehash of my statements.. Focus on the topics you raised.

Not true, you were of the opinion, that logic can be wrong in the demonstration of science, ( you sighted evidence as an example) in which i quote out your fallacy that isn't true. Infact you were graping at Strawman.

I hope we can have a meaningful dialogue pls

Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable.

flawed, this why i initially said, you need a basic understanding of epistemology. Existence is the product of the mind, and they are called abstractions. If you’re a programmer then creating them is part of your job description. There is also a shorter less technical name for them which we are all familiar with. They are words. Words are the names we give abstractions. And if we can narrow in on some specific something and recall it consistently, we can then give that something a name. We give it a word. And from then on, we recall it with one word. Our entire collection of words make up our language.

Words are our interface to all that exists. Some existences are so obvious and common that we award them one word. But for the rest, we articulate existences using sentences and metaphors and stories, which is what I am doing here.

You aren't making any sense... When are new universes created in the vacuum of space or collapse? Clarify this statement.

All evidence indicates that our universe is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious energy that we do not fully understand (hence named “dark energy”), that is pushing things further apart. Our latest understanding is that the universe will ultimately become a cold, dark, infinitely vast expanse of space. There will be no other galaxies visible in the night sky because they will have drifted infinitely far apart from each other. The only stars visible will be of your own local galaxy. Thinking of this fate ending up alone in your little galaxy unable to see the beauty of the vast cosmos, the birthing of new stars in distant galaxies, makes one kind of sad.


In terms of birthing a new universe a popular theory often speculated in the scientific community is that black holes could possibly spawn a new universe inside them. Perhaps our universe itself could have birthed inside a super-massive blackhole of another universe? There could be many parallel universes like ours existing inside each black hole of each universe (and more universes inside the black holes of those universes…

you've passed through tertiary education with even the slightest attention to sciences, you'd be aware that entropy rids the universe of work(useful energy) and it being incorporated into thermodynamics implies that all closed systems gradually lose energy to their surroundings, this is observable throughout the universe, we aren't in a steady state universe that always existed.
This statement is nonsense.. The big bang theory applies to our universe because it accounts for its properties..
In fact, the curvature of the universe plotted from the cosmic microwave background of say 4000k implies the universe having a beginning and an end.

lol. What are you saying?, this is not science, this is some kind of caricature . No i am primary school pupil, seeking for enlightenment. But you suck at it being a PHD holder. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe contributes into creating more and more microstates. This is almost equivalent to saying that entropy increases (because S=kBS=kBln(Ω)(Ω)). We cannot be sure that the law of entropy applies to the whole universe (There is debate if the universe is a closed system or not, if its infinite or finite, etc..) but from what we know the disorder of the universe is increasing due to this large number of microstates increasing with time, leading to the disorder of the universe increasing.

Please ensure you understand what you are debating.

i can confidently say you know nothing about the subject, the uncertainty principle applies to the ability to measure or pinpoint the exact locations of tiny particles like electrons, it says nothing about the universe..
And black holes emit hawking radiation which is perfectly permissible by all laws of energy

lol. Another hogwash again... let see who is debating with sense here, let me educate you pls, , the particles is having an observable wavelength as well (ie) small mass like that of electron can't be traced precisely both velocity-wise and position-wise simultaneously, this is the Uncertainty Principle. The fact to be noted here is that it is not the lack of technology, this imprecision will always be there in future (unless a new principle is developed).

Now coming back to the answer this is a principle not a law because a law is supposed to be a staement with mathematical proof which can further be manipulated to predict future results without any exception like Newton's Law, Law of Conservation of energy E=mc^2 etc.

But a principle is the explanation of an specific event and may not hold true for other cases. Uncertainty principle is not applicable for macroscopic particles.

I've addressed all these above. It's laughable that you are arguing against space being a vacuum.. Are you in jss2?

No, i am writting my common entrance exam to juniour high school, while i see you hold a phd.but permit me sir, you suck.

I didn't imply a vacuum being the source of the universe, I merely extrapolated that if we consider your question for a universe arising from nothing, we don't have or know anything like nothing in of itself to observe anything arising from it, everything is a something and the closest thing to a nothing is a vacuum which cannot be reduced to anything else... In fact to reduce a vacuum you actually have to add energy.. [b]Whereas vacuums have vacuum energy [/b]on their own which obey the laws of the quantum realm.

Then , you are not speaking science; We can’t answer it definitly because we have detected forms of energy which are not realisabel for us. But we can measure them : f. Black Holes, Black Energy or Black Matter. What is even a vacuum? Vacuum simply is a portion of space where there are no particles, i.e. no excitations of a certain field. However, fields are still present, like the electromagnetic (photon) field, the electron field, various quark fields, etc.

All these fields have a ground state and that is a minimum allowed energy… which is what people call “vacuum energy not necessarily empty.

Addressed above.

You don't know anything about what you're defending.

when you have better things to discuss from what you have learn let me know. Go and learn

vaxx:
Not true, you were of the opinion, that logic can be wrong in the demonstration of science, in which i quote out your fallacy that isn't true. Infact you were graping at Strawman.

This is pathetic, why not brush up on learning these things before coming online to embarrass yourself.. What straw man did I use when I answered your points?

I hope we can have a meaningful dialogue pls

You already showed me your knowledge by applying heisenbergs' uncertainty principle to the whole universe..
Whereas in reality it is a physics principle that states sub-atomic particles can't be measured exactly.

flawed, this why i initially said, you need a basic understanding of epistemology. Existence is the product of the mind, and they are called abstractions.

1.How can my answer to your question which was what do you mean by existence?" be "flawed" when it is a descriptive question of which I answered "Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable."
Do you understand English and comprehension? Or is this another bait and switch to cover your a$s?

2. Apart from what I just said and before I take you on your "existence is the product of the mind" statement take note that you are to provide us with why you think existence is the product of the mind since you're making a positive claim of it..

If you’re a programmer then creating them is part of your job description. There is also a shorter less technical name for them which we are all familiar with. They are words. Words are the names we give abstractions. And if we can narrow in on some specific something and recall it consistently, we can then give that something a name. We give it a word. And from then on, we recall it with one word. Our entire collection of words make up our language.

I can't help myself but to laugh here and rightfully call you a dummy, you aren't making a sliver of sense.. Again clarify.

Words are our interface to all that exists. Some existences are so obvious and common that we award them one word. But for the rest, we articulate existences using sentences and metaphors and stories, which is what I am doing here.

Words have usages, simple.. Unless you provide examples of what you imply I can't go deep into what you're saying here.

All evidence indicates that our universe is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious energy that we do not fully understand (hence named “dark energy”), that is pushing things further apart.

Didn't you claim the universe is in a steady state? It's good though, we are getting somewhere.

Our latest understanding is that the universe will ultimately become a cold, dark, infinitely vast expanse of space. There will be no other galaxies visible in the night sky because they will have drifted infinitely far apart from each other. The only stars visible will be of your own local galaxy. Thinking of this fate ending up alone in your little galaxy unable to see the beauty of the vast cosmos, the birthing of new stars in distant galaxies, makes one kind of sad.

The things we call precious, cherish and appreciate are those that don't last forever.. Life and the universe are finite, enjoy it..

In terms of birthing a new universe a popular theory often speculated in the scientific community is that black holes could possibly spawn a new universe inside them. Perhaps our universe itself could have birthed inside a super-massive blackhole of another universe? There could be many parallel universes like ours existing inside each black hole of each universe (and more universes inside the black holes of those universes… think “Inception.

lol. What are you saying, this bot science, this some kind of caricature . No i am primary school pupil, seeking for enlightenment. But you suck at it. As far as I know, the expansion of the universe contributes into creating more and more microstates. This is almost equivalent to saying that entropy increases (because S=kBS=kBln(Ω)(Ω)). We cannot be sure that the law of entropy applies to the whole universe (There is debate if the universe is a closed system or not, if its infinite or finite, etc..) but from what we know the disorder of the universe is increasing due to this large number of microstates increasing with time, leading to the disorder of the universe increasing.

@bolded and excluding the off point gibberish, we do know the law of entropy applies throughout, it's called, as I've stated a lot of times here, the cosmic microwave background which gives a descriptive uniform temperature of the universe from its early onset.

Please ensure you understand what you are debating.

Quoting my advice back to me isn't going to impress me.

lol. Another hogwash again... let see who is debating with sense here, let me educate you pls, , the particles having is having an observable wavelength as well (ie) small mass like that of electron can't be traced precisely both velocity-wise and position-wise simultaneously, this is the Uncertainty Principle. The fact to be noted here is that it is not the lack of technology, this imprecision will always be there in future (unless a new principle is developed).

Gibberish, rearrange your words and make it comprehensive.
You can't pinpoint where in an atom an electron resides out of its electron cloud with 100% accuracy, that's the uncertainty principle explained in easy terms for you.. No need rushing to get your textbook.

Now coming back to the answer this is a principle not a law because a law is supposed to be a staement with mathematical proof which can further be manipulated to predict future results without any exception like Newton's Law, Law of Conservation of energy E=mc^2 etc.

But a principle is the explanation of an specific event and may not hold true for other cases. Uncertainty principle is not applicable for macroscopic particles.

You are not that bright are you? Because if you were you wouldn't have just contradicted yourself here...
So since that you've Googled and figured out that the uncertainty principle can't be used for macroscopic particles why did you now initially claim "the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum" Applying it to freaking space.. Lol

No, i am writting my common entrance, why i see you hold a phd.but permit sir, you suck.

Then , you are not speaking science; We can’t answer it definitly because we have detected forms of energy which are not realisabel for us. But we can measure them : f. Black Holes, Black Energy or Black Matter. Whatnis even a vacuum? Vacuum simply is a portion of space where there are no particles, i.e. no excitations of a certain field. However, fields are still present, like the electromagnetic (photon) field, the electron field, various quark fields, etc.

All these fields have a ground state and that is a minimum allowed energy… which is what people call “vacuum energy not necessarily empty.

when you have better things to discuss let me know. Go and learn

Have a blast lad, you have nothing intellectual to offer to this thread you created, so far I've seen 0 points made towards the question what created god.

Lets continue.....

To my fellow believer, things you must know a little bit about....


1 You must know a liitle bit about law

2 You must know a little bit about medicine

3 You must know a little bit about architecture

4 You must know a little bit about engineering

5 You must know a little bit about administration

6 You must know a little bit about accounting

7 You must know a little bit about computing

8 You must know a little bit about politics

9 You must know a little bit about protocol

10 You must know a little bit about music, history , sex and philosophy of life.

Knowing a little bit about everything is to have the spirit of knowledge, The spirit of wisdom, and the spirit of understanding.


Do not let the unbeliever label you as ignorant.


Steve job of Apple company is a trainned marketer, yet he was successful in technology. Read up about his achievement in technology ..

davien:
This is pathetic, why not brush up on learning these things before coming online to embarrass yourself.. What straw man did I use when I answered your points?

Ok, You want to say something but i am not hearing?.maybe inability to confirm the mess you make, let see maybe we can tolerate your below mess.

You already showed me your knowledge by applying heisenbergs' uncertainty principle to the whole universe..
Whereas in reality it is a physics principle that states sub-atomic particles can't be measured exactly.

flawed as usual, what are you saying? It seems you dont even know what it means (jumping from one discussion to another without understanding what the former says) anyway i will dine along with you. They are two strategies that are commonly used in particle physics:Behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields. And energy charged equation.

Behavorial of charged particules in magnetic field. It is known velocity and introduce it into a known magnetic field, you can easily determine the mass of the proton by careful measurement of the trajectory. Charged particles move in circles when moving perpendicular to a magnetic field, with radius given by.

The formulai is this.........

r=mvqBr=mvqB

Alternatively, these charged particles travel in circles at a frequency known as the cyclotron frequency, given by

f=qB2πmf=qB2πm

Measuring either the radius of curvature or the cyclotron frequency will give the mass. The current best measurement of the proton mass is really a glorified version of this . While the second is ""Einstein's energy equation"". This is used very frequently in particle detectors at modern accelerators. When a particle is produced in an accelerator, it quickly decays into other particles that are then picked up by the particle detector. The detector measures all the momenta and energy of the decay products. By summing up the momenta and energy from the decay products, and using the following relation from Special Relativity,

E2=p2c2+m2c4E2=p2c2+m2c4

How can my answer to your question which was what do you mean by existence?" be "flawed" when it is a descriptive question of which I answered "Existence which we should be in agreement on is to inhabit the universe in some way that is detectable and/or knowable."
Do you understand English and comprehension? Or is this another bait and switch to cover your a$s?

lol,i will dance along with you just to pass away time and space.! What we know and detectable scientifically is based on measurements, can you demonstrate existence? How do we know universe exists scientifically?


.

Apart from what I just said and before I take you on your "existence is the product of the mind" statement take note that you are to provide us with why you think existence is the product of the mind since you're making a positive claim of it..

existence is human language that was develop out of the curiosity of the mind, logically it is only human that called it existence, maybe other creature called it hologram, there was a topic on the religious section now where the op called the universe simulation .

i can't help myself but to laugh here and rightfully call you a dummy, you aren't making a sliver of sense.. Again clarify.

lollll.lukewarm .what is there to clarify? Or perharps tell me to explain what you don't understand.

Words have usages, simple.. Unless you provide examples of what you imply I can't go deep into what you're saying here.

You aren't sounding like a learn figure, perhaps one of the few here that shows he knows less of what he is saying or copy. Not impressive.

Didn't you claim the universe is in a steady state? It's good though, we are getting somewhere.
The things we call precious, cherish and appreciate are those that don't last forever.. Life and the universe are finite, enjoy it.

This is what your mind dictate and not not what what the universe envisaged. .

@bolded and excluding the off point gibberish, we do know the law of entropy applies throughout, it's called, as I've stated a lot of times here, the cosmic microwave background which gives a descriptive uniform temperature of the universe from its early onset.

opps, i am taking to a lukewarm, first before i educate you, what is entropy?. Well, Entropy is a rather complicated concept that you don't understand and have no feeling for. Quantum mechanics shows us that particles often do things we do not expect based on classical observations. For instance, particles can tunnel through infinite energy barriers. It's impossible to contain them in a box, perhaps this implies that the whole idea of a closed system is flawed?
Relativity (or rather, Hubble) shows us that the universe is expanding. Can an ever expanding universe be considered as closed? We know that Conservation of Energy stops working in curved space/expanding universe and the original derivation of that uses a closed system too. So where do you get the idea that the entropy cover the whole universe. Link me to a verified study that proof it? Waiting.

Quoting my advice back to me isn't going to impress me.

This doesn't make sense . You know.

Gibberish, rearrange your words and make it comprehensive.
You can't pinpoint where in an atom an electron resides out of its electron cloud with 100% accuracy, that's the uncertainty principle explained in easy terms for you.. No need rushing to get your textbook.

wouldn't spoonfeeed You again, Read up. But this time around slowly with cross and checking for errors.


[

b] You are not that bright are you? [/b] Because if you were you wouldn't have just contradicted yourself here...
So since that you've Googled and figured out that the uncertainty principle can't be used for macroscopic particles why did you now initially claim "the uncertainty principle does not allow space to be a vaccum" Applying it to freaking space.. Lol

lol...goggled keh? YOU aren't forcing me to such extent, you easily can be handle. I know what you are doing but i will not expose you so that we can have a meaniful discusstion. I was correcting your notion of vacuum and telling you such a state does not literarilly exist. Space is a functional entity, envisaged by rational beings, whenever they think of real entity. It is an imaginary container without form, structure or physical properties. For space to come into existence, it is essential for rational beings to think about a real entity. All real entities are made of matter. Therefore, without matter, space has no existemce.

Have a blast lad, you have nothing intellectual to offer to this thread you created, so far I've seen 0 points made towards the question what created god.

You couldn't even add something meaningful, and yet you do not want to learn. That is an act of intentional ignorance . Go and learn as i said earlier.

For those interested in these interesting topics, here's a primer to understanding them;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-cosmic-microw/

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

To the lay man out there, read them and compare the contents to what the op has been spouting boldly.

vaxx:
it is good to be skeptical. Challenging the existence of God is a way of reasoning out of our usual dogma.

.



No dogma in the Spirit world.

orunto27:
.



No dogma in the Spirit world.

You can be Dogmatic with just about anything. Sometimes this is a good thing..

Atheists, and believer alike are capable of healthy practice and unhealthy dogma. What important is keeping up with healthy dogma and as much as possible to swerve with unhealthy dogma

davien:
For those interested in these interesting topics, here's a primer to understanding them;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-cosmic-microw/

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

To the lay man out there, read them and compare the contents to what the op has been spouting boldly.

i belt it with my balls, You don't read what is therein, but anyway you have challenged interested readers to go ahead and read themselves. Hopefully they will be geniue to check your response in the light of mine.

If our understanding of the Big Bang theory is correct (the current scientific consensus on the start of the universe) no mainstream scientific theory on the origins of the universe posits that everything came out of nothing.

The 'Big Bang' was all of the 'stuff' of the universe being packed in a very small space which expanded rapidly, and is still expanding. There is evidence (background radiation) that allows us to measure the time and details of the expansion with a high degree of precision.



We talk more about quantum mechanics later, i can see some of this proponent theorist of nothingness in nairailand. Especially with the link above.

vaxx:
You can be Dogmatic with just about anything. Sometimes this is a good thing..

Atheists, and believer alike are capable of healthy practice and unhealthy dogma. What important is keeping up with healthy dogma and as much as possible to swerve with unhealthy dogma

.



No. The Spirit is not and can never be dogmatic. It's decisive, discerning and judgemental.

象形字

orunto27:
.



No. The Spirit is not and can never be dogmatic. It's decisive, discerning and judgemental.

i dont know what you are saying,

I’m very dogmatic about not putting sharp objects in my face. I’m also dogmatic abou people not using seatbelts. Thank god for that. I

Ayobami7:
象形字

lol. is that Cantonese or mandarine?

Because you are human and not Spirit, the one who provides Security, Safety and Success and prevent that sharp object from piercing through your eyes is The SPIRIT.
Spirits don't use Seatbelts. They use whatever is appropriate for the atmosphere in which they operate.

Generally speaking, some were of the opinion that space is nothingness because vaccum occupy space And hence come up with notion that universe was generated from nothingness.

But in actuality, Space isn’t really nothing, as it has dimensions. You can measure the distance between objects in space, or the time it takes to move from one location to another in space.

Space is created by the matter around it even if not in it. Without the matter nearby, space has no dimensions and does not exist. “Space” exists. “Nothing” does not


I will be supporting this evidence with fact based scienctifc theory.

First of all, let me bust your bubble.

science do not know whether the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, or not( somhow science succumb to philosophy here)

Warm-up: Laws of nature have their limit

""Newton’s law of motion (F=ma) is OK as long as you don’t go “too fast”. What does “too fast” mean here? It means slower than the speed of light. So as long as you want to compute what happens to your car, this plane or this train, no problem, Newton is good. High speed trains in Spain run a best at 0.000028% of the speed of light. So yes, it’s slower.

But when you play with things approaching the speed of light, Newton progressively gets it wrong. In the equation “F=ma”, Special Relativity multiplies the mass “m” by a term which is 1 for small velocities, but progressively goes to infinity as you approach c (“c” is the symbol for the speed of light). No wonder its changes the math.

We know this thanks to Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, and to the zillions of experiments which proved it right since 1905. In plasma physics for example, my field of research, there’s no way you can understand nowadays intense laser-plasma experiments, without Special Relativity.



Newton’s law of gravity also has allergies. It’s when the gravitational field becomes “too strong”. It wants it “low”. Here, “low” means you’re much farther from the central mass than its “Schwarzschild radius”. Important detail: this Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the central mass. It grows with that mass.

This radius is usually so small that it fits way inside the mass itself. For example, the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun is only 3 km. But if you’re close enough to the Sun, like Mercury, you can detect tiny, tiny, deviations from Newton’s law of gravitation. Einstein’s “General Relativity” (GR) solved this""

The bottom line? Every physical theory we know has its limits. Newton doesn’t like too fast a motion, or too close to the Sun. Maxwell’s equations also have their limits, etc. And GR Relativity, does it have limits? Yes. A little Thought experiment shows it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Maxwell_equations_as_the_classical_limit_of_QED.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

To close further this case with this text from Avi Loeb, who teaches cosmology at Harvard, and Paul Steinhard who does the same thing at Princeton. Toward the end, i find this sentence,

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html

“Although most cosmologists assume a bang, there is currently no evidence—zero—to say whether the event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago was a bang or a bounce”

Finally, those who worry about entropy can rest assure that Alan Guth, Avi Loeb, Neil Turok or Paul Steinhard, to name a few, also know about it and for example, read this.

The current scientific answer to the question “did the universe had a beginning?” is therefore simple, and for simple reasons.

Current science simply doesn’t know

If you can also afford the book "" back to the beginning of quantum space time"" it is a good read.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1916

There is no such thing as “nothing” in physics or science. Not even the vacuum of space is nothing.

vaxx:
lol. is that Cantonese or mandarine?

Chinese pictogram or pictograph
Its Chinese equivalent of hieroglyph

MuttleyLaff:
Chinese pictogram or pictograph
Its Chinese equivalent of hieroglyph

oh thanks, like calligraphy

vaxx:

2 ....Not all knowledge has being justify.....

is god an idea,abstract concept please clarify. God created the universe you say, which means he influced certain parameter probably unknown to man. this parameters should be physical. After all we live in a physical universe. God is not knowledge. it or he is an entity that exist outside time and space,or so they say

But to make it more interesting, we all agreed that physical universe must have been a product of some energy transformation...which means the transformation itself is a process..

The question here is what causes the process of the transformation of the energy into the big bang that created the process...,?

the best answer would be; we dont know yet.

with this acceptance. Nothing comes from nothing.. Therefore the process that spark the transformations of the energy must have been spark by another process...with this we could enter into long chain of infinite process.

Good. then where did come from? surely he must have existed in some dimension of some sort.

So what if i say God is this process and it is this process that birth everything but known and unknown elements ...

It seems you want to hold a physical grip of God.

what then cause God to initiate the creation process.

[quote author=kkins25 post=73172724][/quote]quote me very well..

vaxx:
quote me very well..

hahahha. Ah common you knw this mistakes happen. Now you reapond to me very well sir. Lovely morning. How's your bf budaatum.

kkins25:
hahahha. Ah common you knw this mistakes happen. Now you reapond to me very well sir. Lovely morning. How's your bf budaatum.

No, my girlfriend, and my beautiful feline for that matter. Hopefully she is doing very well.

I have seen your post for a very long time , do you take some adventure trip to venus?. We reply you at my free period.

By Ro babaji. ( i think i agree with him )

“For more than 200 years, materialists have promised that science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Believers are sustained by the faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance ‘promissory materialism’ because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, materialism is now facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the 20th century.” – Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (scientist for more than 40 years, having studied at Cambridge and Harvard)

“The human consciousness is a great puzzle….The origin of the Universe is another mystery, but physicists are working on it. Maybe one day we’ll understand it…” – Richard Dawkins

Science is the pursuit of the truth. But science doesn’t (yet) understand the connection between the Universal Consciousness and our physical Universe. Science without universal spirituality is only half-truth.

kkins25:

is god an idea,abstract concept please clarify. God created the universe you say, which means he influced certain parameter probably unknown to man. this parameters should be physical. After all we live in a physical universe. God is not knowledge. it or he is an entity that exist outside time and space,or so they say

By the standard, modern definition, God created all things, is the source of all things, and provides life and energy to all things. So God is beyond the ideas of any particular form, while still encompassing them all as various means of expression. It's kind of like asking if the form of an atom is matter or energy. Well it's both and can be represented as either or both depending on the circumstances, just like God. So God is physical because we see a physical world represented that He created.

the best answer would be; we dont know yet.

Sure. Who knows? So many physicists on the cutting edge of quantum physics became religious from the work they did. It is an act of ignorance that will make one to discredit a belief system that has existed since the beginning of Homo Sapiens, and probably before. What do we know, other than the fact that we don’t know much of anything - especially about the beginnings of reality? That is a complete mystery and any opinion or theory is just as valid as any other

Good, then where did come from? surely he must have existed in some dimension of some sort.

This is not a scienctifc question. But giving it a shoot; ,He would have to come from reproduceable anti-entropy. Same as everything else.

what then cause God to initiate the creation process.

Another unscientific questions. It is like asking what causes bang or bounce? Science don't know, when does it started? Science don't know either, the explanation given so far is That the Big Bang is the moment that space and time (or ‘space-time’) came into existence. At point in time when their was no space or time. So, it is actually meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang to happen. Same to God, how can we know what instigate God to caused the process when we have not fully Understand this process itself.


I guess nobody knows it. It does not even belong to science.

What a society