Crystyano:


I never said the universe is ageless....


That something is what you're yet to distinguish....


Didn't you discover what you were able to identify by chance


Didn't you say there was nothing before you discovered those things

Where did i say there was nothing before we discovered those things?
I said it's possible that the universe can come from nothing.

And you claim to know the definition of nothing better than physicists so I want us to analyze this based on your definition of nothing.
What is that something that the physicist didn't account for in their definition of nothing?

Workch:
You don’t know anything, most laws of physics that lay people like you know breaks down in the quantum world.
We don’t even know if Energy is conserved in the quantum world, we understand it poorly, some speculate that Heisenberg uncertainty principle enforces conservation while others think the spooky action (quantum entanglement) will account for conservation but we are still not sure that energy is conserved in the quantum field. To an observer, Energy is not conserved in the quantum world, maybe in the future we might understand it better and find out that it’s conserved.
Until tomorrow, no one understand quantum physics, it surprises us everyday. Imagine not being able to account for energy conservation. Even the Newton’s law of motion you are always quoting doesn’t work there.

So stop all this your old-fashioned physics and read more

Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

LordReed:


So do you agree your will is influenced by those external sources?

Of cause, the Will is influenced (but ) NOT determined by every external source.

Every Temptation is a force that influences my will, I determine whether to yield or NOT to the temptation.

I have once fought with a boy who was obviously bigger and older than me. But I took a stand even though I was convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he could effortlessly beat me up. The question is: why did I CHOOSE not to chicken out of the fight in the face of the obvious?

That is why the definition of FREEWILL is not complete without mentioning the effect of EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS and INFLUENCES.

Check the Definition from our previous post

TenQ:

No one caused your will: you did.

Check the definition again
Freewill:
A man's Freedom to exercise his power to choose his cause of action within available options and its associated external constraints.
If your definition of freewill is different from this, then you use a wrong yardstick to judge what you probably do not understand.

Any WILL that is CAUSED by someone else is never FREE
Something cannot cause someones will because something is NOT ALIVE

Guns don't kill people, People do!

TenQ:

Of cause, is influenced NOT determined by every external source.

Every Temptation is a force that influences my will, I determine whether to yield or NOT to the temptation.

I have once fought with a boy who was obviously bigger and older than me. But I took a stand even though I was convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he could effortlessly beat me up. The question is: why did I CHOOSE not to chicken out of the fight in the face of the obvious?

That is why the definition of FREEWILL is not complete without mentioning the effect of EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS and INFLUENCES.

You sound more like a compatibilist.

TenQ:

Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

LordReed:


You sound more like a compatibilist.

I doubt if I want to give myself any label with respect to Freewill and Determinism.
But within the limit of my knowledge and understanding, I have stated (and I think CONSISTENTLY) what Freewill is.

In this world, many things are DETERMINED eg Day and Night, Life and Death, Need to Eat, etc
BUT
So many other things are NOT determined. Disasters, Election Results, Epidemic, Accidents.

Your Freewill Operates irrespective of whether events around you are determined or not determined.

Workch:
Where did i say there was nothing before we discovered those things?
I said it's possible that the universe can come from nothing.

And you claim to know the definition of nothing better than physicists so I want us to analyze this based on your definition of nothing.
What is that something that the physicist didn't account for in their definition of nothing?

What I'm saying is nothing shouldn't really have any definition whatsoever

Good Question. God is Everything. The Determined Cause of Everything is God. The Light of God in us is our Free Will and Conscience. The Spirit to Dominate The Free Will of others is Autocracy not Democracy.

Good Question. God is Everything. The Determined Cause of Everything is God. The Light of God in us is our Free Will and Conscience. The Spirit to Dominate The Free Will of others is Autocracy not Democracy.

Just two case study:-

1; The use of RIFA-RUGA, ISLAMISATION, FULANISATION AND ANARCHY POLICY by The Federal Government vitiates The Free Will of The various State Governments. THAT IS AUTOCRACY.

2, The Approval of "Paying Banking System" to MTN & AIRTEL BY CBN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF NASS IS FRAUDULENT AND AN OPEN LICENCE TO MONEY LAUNDRY UNLIMITED.

FROM ORISA37

BUHARI IS THE DETERMINED CAUSE OF NIGERIA'S PRESENT BOKONOMICS BUT THAT SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE FREE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS NIGERIANS.

TenQ:

Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

Shut up and stick to what we know. Don’t try to make things up.
That’s what religion does with god, making jargons up because we don’t know yet.

It’s better not to know that to assume nonsense. What’s difficult in waiting until we find out before making stuffs up

TenQ:

Now because you are NOT sure if ENERGY is CONSERVED in quantum spaces, therefore it is NOT conserved (and I should go and read my old fashioned physics)? Is the First law of thermodynamics a Newton's law?

The first law of thermodynamics seems to be the most basic of all Physics laws and in your wise ignorance, hiding under some vague quantum physics, you claim it has been violated?!!!

Even Dark Matters obey this basic law.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Your eminence just said that the First law of thermodynamics is NOT valid!? You see why I question your comprehension of simple physics!?

You act just like my dictionary vocabulary school mate who always try to use big English to impress everyone yet Goofing in simple grammar!

This is what you've said in simple terms
ME: Is 3 +4 equal 7?
YOU: No, we cannot be sure because in quantum physics, every known law break down so that 3+4 is not 7

illiterate, dark matter and energy doesn’t obey basic laws.
We are yet to understand them perfectly as well.

Stop making stuffs up, how can you say dark matter that is an antigravity obeys basics laws.

Stop talking science, just stop talking science. Everytime to try to talk science, you make a mistake

He is coming back soon to REBUILD NIGERIA.

Crystyano:



What I'm saying is nothing shouldn't really have any definition whatsoever

So what level of research have you done to conclude a physics definition is wrong?
I really want to know how many particles and part of the universe you have observed and experimented on as a person to have the boldness to say a physics definition is all wrong.

The Devil determinedly caused The Temptation to turn Stones into BREAD but His Free Will remains SUPREME.

Workch:
illiterate, dark matter and energy doesn’t obey basic laws.
We are yet to understand them perfectly as well.

Stop making stuffs up, how can you say dark matter that is an antigravity obeys basics laws.

Stop talking science, just stop talking science. Everytime to try to talk science, you make a mistake

Your seem like a master of lies!
Twisting the truth like your father satan!!!
And I am not surprised, like father like son!

Just like I said in my previous post, you can forever silence falsehood by just Quoting me.
You are trying to hide your lack of comprehension of basic physics with blatant lies!!!!!! ??

Let me test your comprehension of simple physics:
Does Dark Matter disobey the law of Thermodynamics?

TenQ:

Your seem like a master of lies!
Twisting the truth like your father satan!!!
And I am not surprised, like father like son!

Just like I said in my previous post, you can forever silence falsehood by just Quoting me.
You are trying to hide your lack of comprehension of basic physics with blatant lies!!!!!! ??

Let me test your comprehension of simple physics:
Does Dark Matter disobey the law of Thermodynamics?

we don’t understand dark matter yet.

Wait and don’t make stuffs up.

Law of thermodynamics in the quantum world is tricky, an observer doesn’t see them obeyed.

This is basic quantum physics and it’s not my problem if you are stuck in 1900 physics

Workch:
Shut up and stick to what we know. Don’t try to make things up.
That’s what religion does with god, making jargons up because we don’t know yet.

It’s better not to know that to assume nonsense. What’s difficult in waiting until we find out before making stuffs up

Common sense tells us to tread with CAUTION with respect to warnings when you are not sure UNTIL adequate evidence show the contrary

Example:'
Don't put your hand into that hole, a snake is inside
Response 1:
No one has seen any snake, therefore we should stick our hands inside
Response 2:
Even though no one has seen the snake, it may or may not be there lets not just stick our hands inside

What you really don't know yet is Physics check your quote below and not about God

Workch:
You don’t know anything, most laws of physics that lay people like you know breaks down in the quantum world.
We don’t even know if Energy is conserved in the quantum world, we understand it poorly, some speculate that Heisenberg uncertainty principle enforces conservation while others think the spooky action (quantum entanglement) will account for conservation but we are still not sure that energy is conserved in the quantum field. To an observer, Energy is not conserved in the quantum world, maybe in the future we might understand it better and find out that it’s conserved.
Until tomorrow, no one understand quantum physics, it surprises us everyday. Imagine not being able to account for energy conservation. Even the Newton’s law of motion you are always quoting doesn’t work there.

So stop all this your old-fashioned physics and read more

Yours is a REJECTION of God and His Light

LordReed:
This question is for the theists who say everything has a cause and also believe they have free will. Can you explain how everything having a cause does not lead to determinism, a situation where everything is already determined by what came before it. As opposed to your belief that we have freewill. How can we have freewill if whatever we do had a cause and that cause also had a cause which also had a cause and so on?

Modifying the OP with some clarifications to help understand the question better:

So another way to put the question will be how do you know your will is not being affected by the chain of events that led to your existence?

You probably have particular foods you like eating and when faced with a choice would more likely pick them over other foods. To you you are freely making that choice however my question is asking, if your ability to choose is part of a causal chain you had no hand in bringing about how do you know you are freely choosing those foods? How do you know that your predilection for those foods is not a result of the causal chain? How do you know that your choice at any given moment was not influenced by the causal chain of events that brought about the situation in which you find yourself having to make a choice?

Do you disagree that man has freewill?
Cos that rather seems obvious.
Yes we are all products of cause and effect.
Creation happened and now we are all here.
Our parents copulated and produced us.
The choices of those who raised us (our parents or guardians) together with ours shapes us to a certain age. After which we become the masters of our own universe.
From a certain age, you certainly hold the power of your own choices and invariably your own cause.
The effect of which are often unpredictable.

Freewill does not mean you're immune from a cause. There's no ultimate immunity from cause.

Freewill simply means that you have the power and prerogative to make your own choice.

You're faced with two or more options, you have the power to decide which option to choose.
That is what I believe Freewill is.

Workch:
Where did i say there was nothing before we discovered those things?
I said it's possible that the universe can come from nothing.

And you claim to know the definition of nothing better than physicists so I want us to analyze this based on your definition of nothing.
What is that something that the physicist didn't account for in their definition of nothing?

A true vacuum doesn't exist in reality. Have you come across one?

The universe can be self-created or can come from an earlier one existing beyond space and time (beyond the Big Bang) that's self-created.

That's my own position.

I think the notion of philosophies such as Hermetic, Otemic, or Thoth as regards the origin of the universe is the correct one. But with time, science will shed light on the issue.

Nothing doesn't exist in nature as there's no vacuum that's 100% lacking in matter. When physicists use the term vacuum or free space, you need to note it's an ideal (not a real) term.

There are different examples of such ideal terms in (Theoretical) Physics such as ideal gas, absolute zero temperature, a black body (an ideal radiator).

None of these exist in reality. But they're important for modeling and development of hypotheses and theories.

Idealization in Physics has its roots in the Platonic world of mathematical forms. This is purely abstract and has a form of existence different from the physical kind.

Workch:
we don’t understand dark matter yet.

Wait and don’t make stuffs up.

Law of thermodynamics in the quantum world is tricky, an observer doesn’t see them obeyed.

This is basic quantum physics and it’s not my problem if you are stuck in 1900 physics

I am not asking you to repeat meaningless rhetorics on top of LIES
I asked you a basic Question

Let me test your comprehension of simple physics:
Does Dark Matter disobey the law of Thermodynamics?

Workch:
So what level of research have you done to conclude a physics definition is wrong?
I really want to know how many particles and part of the universe you have observed and experimented on as a person to have the boldness to say a physics definition is all wrong.

It's not about how many particles I have observed...


It's about the fact that you have limits..

Crystyano:



It's not about how many particles I have observed...


It's about the fact that you have limits..

How did you reach your definition of nothing that proves physics wrong.

I’m curious to know that

A001:

A true vacuum doesn't exist in reality. Have you come across one?

The universe can be self-created or can come from an earlier one existing beyond space and time (beyond the Big Bang) that's self-created.

That's my own position.

I think the notion of philosophies such as Hermetic, Otemic, or Thoth as regards the origin of the universe is the correct one. But with time, science will shed light on the issue.

Nothing doesn't exist in nature as there's no vacuum that's 100% lacking in matter. When physicists use the term vacuum or free space, you need to note it's an ideal (not a real) term.

There are different examples of such ideal terms in (Theoretical) Physics such as ideal gas, absolute zero temperature, a black body (an ideal radiator).

None of these exist in reality. But they're important for modeling and development of hypotheses and theories.

Idealization in Physics has its roots in the Platonic world of mathematical forms. This is purely abstract and has a form of existence different from the physical kind.

The philosophical approach to this doesn’t have evidence.
I’m an empiricist and I really do not take philosophical rationalization seriously because it’s always tinted with uncertainties unless of course those that has been backed the evidence.

I am not arguing about whether there’s a true vacuum or not, my argument is that there’s a definition for nothing in physics.
Nothing doesn’t mean that it’s an absolute vacuum, that’s why even this nothing will weigh something.
I hope you get it

TenQ:

Common sense tells us to tread with CAUTION with respect to warnings when you are not sure UNTIL adequate evidence show the contrary

Example:'
Don't put your hand into that hole, a snake is inside
Response 1:
No one has seen any snake, therefore we should stick our hands inside
Response 2:
Even though no one has seen the snake, it may or may not be there lets not just stick our hands inside

What you really don't know yet is Physics check your quote below and not about God


Yours is a REJECTION of God and His Light

No evidence that god exist.

It’s fact

Workch:
How did you reach your definition of nothing that proves physics wrong.

I’m curious to know that

I don't think nothing should really have a definition because the limits of a scientist or the limits of the technology of a scientist doesn't mean there's nothing.

Workch:
No evidence that god exist.

It’s fact

Did any Christian describe God in terms of matter/materials?
How do you intend to scientifically detect and quantify God?
Have you built such a machine yet to detect God?

You sound like Aristotle or Socrates arguing that Virus and Bacterias don't exist because no one has seen one!

Where is your evidence that the God we describe doesn't exist.

I can bet it with you that one day, the truth will dawn on you but I hope the god of science will be strong enough to bail you out.

TenQ:

Did any Christian describe God in terms of matter/materials?
How do you intend to scientifically detect and quantify God?
Have you built such a machine yet to detect God?

You sound like Aristotle or Socrates arguing that Virus and Bacterias don't exist because no one has seen one!

Where is your evidence that the God we describe doesn't exist.

I can bet it with you that one day, the truth will dawn on you but I hope the god of science will be strong enough to bail you out.

you also sound like a pastafarian arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist because we have not tested it

Crystyano:



I don't think nothing should really have a definition because the limits of a scientist or the limits of the technology of a scientist doesn't mean there's nothing.

do you understand how Occasm’s razor works?

Workch:
The philosophical approach to this doesn’t have evidence.
I’m an empiricist and I really do not take philosophical rationalization seriously because it’s always tinted with uncertainties unless of course those that has been backed the evidence.

I am not arguing about whether there’s a true vacuum or not, my argument is that there’s a definition for nothing in physics.
Nothing doesn’t mean that it’s an absolute vacuum, that’s why even this nothing will weigh something.
I hope you get it

Okay

Workch:
do you understand how Occasm’s razor works?

How is that related to my reply?

Workch:
you also sound like a pastafarian arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist because we have not tested it

FSM is well described and is not anywhere near what the Jehovah Creator of the Universe is.

Spaghetti is made from ground wheat isn't it? It's like food...and it is a monster!?