Rosement:


We cannot exclude Option B anymore because Workch explained that it is scientifically possible

Workch is wrong. There is no scientific evidence that something may emerge from nothing.
See my response to him above.

Secondly, the concept of "nothing" is inherently problematic.
That which the so called scientists (such as the famed iidiot, Lawrence Krauss) refer to as "nothing" is in fact "something."

davien:
So what created the creator?

Any serious approach to this question must incline towards the existence of self-existent things.

LordReed:


There is nothing like mind of your own, we are products of those that came before us.

Whaaaaaaat? ? ?
Do my eyes deceive me or you just said this?
Reference our discussion on matter and mind.

This surely negates personal responsibility and also embraces determinism.
It also walks right into the position (which I contest) that matter (such as DNA) determines all . . .

Workch:
I am philosophically telling that religion is a fallacy of ad ignoratiam (appealing to ignorance). I have not even brought science here.

Religion peddles the premise: since we can't explain this hence God. It's a fallacy in philosophy, because we don't know yet doesn't mean that a god is responsible.
I'm not telling you now to appeal to ignorance but if you get to a renowned logical class, you will realize that "God did it" is fallacious. Religion is "God of the gaps" fallacy and that's why it doesn't require sound logic for you to uphold religion. You only need faith because relgion defies logic and reason.

You have to understand that everybody's philosophy differs and philosophy can only provide questions but it cannot provide definite answers. Since, we cannot wait forever, we can think of a logical answer ourselves. Yes, I believe God did it, can my belief hurt a fly. God is the source of my happiness, what is wrong with being happy? Do what makes you happy and stop trying to put sand in my own food.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge or information. If I am still waiting for philosophy or science to conclude, it means I am ignorant. I am wise enough to know that science and philosophy will never provide the answer so why will I keep waiting forever. A lot of my ancestors met philosophy and science but still today, they have not concluded. I don't even expect anybody to be ignorant in this area, our common sense is meant to allow us ​know that they will never conclude. Only an ignorant person will still wait on philosophy or science for an answer.

DeepSight:


Whaaaaaaat? ? ?
Do my eyes deceive me or you just said this?
Reference our discussion on matter and mind.

This surely negates personal responsibility and also embraces determinism.
It also walks right into the position (which I contest) that matter (such as DNA) determines all . . .

Facepalm.

You are just so determined to read meaning into everything. I was referring to our thoughts, we have absorbed the thoughts of others in one form or another and it shapes our thoughts now. It in no way indicates determinism nor does it absolve anyone of personal responsibility, you are still the decider of your own actions.

Rosement:

You have to understand that everybody's philosophy differs and philosophy can only provide the questions but it cannot provide a definite answer.

Philosophy can infact provide definite answers,when said answers are proven to be true.

Since, we cannot wait forever, we can think of a logical answer ourselves. Yes, I believe God did it, can my belief hurt a fly. God is the source of my happiness, what is wrong with being happy? Do what makes you happy and stop trying to put sand in my own food.

I totally understand where these sentiments are coming from and I'm liberal minded enough to agree with some points made here. There is however a major flaw in this perspective. There is currently objectively no problem,until proven otherwise,in believing the universe has a creator in order to make sense of the reality you find yourself in but when this belief gets mixed up with religion and human influence, it morphs (with pros and cons) significantly and can evidently create chaos much greater than just "hurting a fly". So if your belief is a source of happiness for you but also chaotic and problematic,then it is valid to question it's utility to the collective. It is also valid to question and point out it's flaws. There shouldn't be absolutes except empirically proven and stands the test of time. So because it makes you happy or it's appealing to you subjectively doesn't make it objectively true.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge or information. If I still wait on science or philosophy, it means I am ignorant. I am wise enough to know that science and philosophy will never provide the answer so why will I keeping forever. A lot of my ancestors met philosophy and science but still today, they have not concluded.

So here's the thing, science isn't perfect or absolute. Philosophy doesn't claim to have all the answers. They both provide existentially fundamental tools by which humans or conscious beings can navigate,control and understand the universe and everything within it. Just because we don't know it all now doesn't mean we won't. I totally understand your frustration and it's fine if you have little faith in them for reasons which I may or may not be aware of but the bottomline is that regardless of how seemingly inconclusive the answers they provide are currently(to certain questions), it doesn't mean they are not pretty much the most objectively pragmatic methods to figuring everything out especially Science when used in principle.

LordReed:


Facepalm.

You are just so determined to read meaning into everything. I was referring to our thoughts, we have absorbed the thoughts of others in one form or another and it shapes our thoughts now. It in no way indicates determinism nor does it absolve anyone of personal responsibility, you are still the decider of your own actions.

I think you should dwell on it some more still.
For we are influenced - and even railroaded - by a great many factors.
And in this, DNA, for instance, counts big.

Genetic predisposition is a big point in the argument re: free will v determinism.

And one can trace genetic predisposition a long and deep way down an almost inexhaustible rabbit-hole - probably all the way to the beginning of the universe and potentially beyond.

DeepSight:


I think you should dwell on it some more still.
For we are influenced - and even railroaded - by a great many factors.
And in this, DNA, for instance, counts big.

Genetic predisposition is a big point in the argument re: free will v determinism.

And one can trace genetic predisposition a long and deep way down an almost inexhaustible rabbit-hole - probably all the way to the beginning of the universe and potentially beyond.

Please where did I mention genetic predisposition?

davien:
So what created the creator?

Every scientific theory about the creation of the universe is still a mystery, why can't you solve those mysteries before asking this type of question. Why is it only the existence of the creator(God) that you are querying? Next time, do your findings properly before typing anything.

If you believe the creator has a creator, then the creator of the creator has to have a creator, stop deceiving yourself, we cannot fathom this. All I know is there have to be a first, there is nothing that does not have a first and without a first a second cannot exist. God is the first. He is eternal, He does not have a beginning or an end because He has always existed.

LordReed:


Please where did I mention genetic predisposition?

Here, good sir -

LordReed:


There is nothing like mind of your own, we are products of those that came before us.

I would recommend a strong coffee to wake you up.

.

DeepSight:


Here, good sir -



I would recommend a strong coffee to wake you up.

.

And I told you it had nothing to do with DNA or genetic disposition and only to do with thoughts. Look at the context of my interaction with the OP to get a better understanding. I repeat it has NOTHING to do with DNA.

LordReed:


Please where did I mention genetic predisposition?

No worries my man. Taken.
The thing is that even if that's not what you meant, even for a non-determinist, genetic predisposition remains something to reflect upon in the discussion.

I await you on the other thread.

EmperorHarry:
Philosophy can infact provide definite answers,when said answers are proven to be true.
I totally understand where these sentiments are coming from and I'm liberal minded enough to agree with some points made here. There is however a major flaw in this perspective. There is currently objectively no problem,until proven otherwise,in believing the universe has a creator in order to make sense of the reality you find yourself in but when this belief gets mixed up with religion and human influence, it morphs (with pros and cons) significantly and can evidently create chaos much greater than just "hurting a fly". So if your belief is a source of happiness for you but also chaotic and problematic,then it is valid to question it's utility to the collective. It is also valid to question and point out it's flaws. There shouldn't be absolutes except empirically proven and stands the test of time. So because it makes you happy or it's appealing to you subjectively doesn't make it objectively true.

So here's the thing, science isn't perfect or absolute. Philosophy doesn't claim to have all the answers. They both provide existentially fundamental tools by which humans or conscious beings can navigate,control and understand the universe and everything within it. Just because we don't know it all now doesn't mean we won't. I totally understand your frustration and it's fine if you have little faith in them for reasons which I may or may not be aware of but the bottomline is that regardless of how seemingly inconclusive the answers they provide are currently(to certain questions), it doesn't mean they are not pretty much the most objectively pragmatic methods to figuring everything out especially Science when used in principle.

Only few people do harm in the name of religion but several people do good in the name of religion. Without religion will conflicts not still exist in the world or is it only religious conflict that we have? What about political, ethnic, cultural and social conflicts?

Religion cannot create chaos, even without religion people will still disagree because we think differently and our opinions differ. We all have our beliefs so almost everybody is religious including you because you have a belief, you believe in the belief that there is no God.

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

DeepSight:


Workch is wrong. There is no scientific evidence that something may emerge from nothing.
See my response to him above.

Secondly, the concept of "nothing" is inherently problematic.
That which the so called scientists (such as the famed iidiot, Lawrence Krauss) refer to as "nothing" is in fact "something."

By definition, nothing means without mass, radiation or any detected force.

Something with mass and force has come out of that definition of nothing in quantum physics.

Rosement:

You have to understand that everybody's philosophy differs and philosophy can only provide questions but it cannot provide definite answers. Since, we cannot wait forever, we can think of a logical answer ourselves. Yes, I believe God did it, can my belief hurt a fly. God is the source of my happiness, what is wrong with being happy? Do what makes you happy and stop trying to put sand in my own food.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge or information. If I am still waiting for philosophy or science to conclude, it means I am ignorant. I am wise enough to know that science and philosophy will never provide the answer so why will I keep waiting forever. A lot of my ancestors met philosophy and science but still today, they have not concluded. I don't even expect anybody to be ignorant in this area, our common sense is meant to allow us ​know that they will never conclude. Only an ignorant person will still wait on philosophy or science for an answer.

Nope, if your different philosophy is fallacious, we have to state it that it's fallacious. Religion by default is a fallacy.

Specifically, God of the gaps fallacy. You have to acknowledge that.

DeepSight:


This is also false. There is no such evidence in quantum physics (not to speak of "tonnes of evidence" ) because the prime example which is used to defend this assumption is that of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

It is false, and fails because there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere and the said vacuums contain law gaseous pressure, thus it is wrong to say that the so called virtual particles emerge from "nothing."

The reason we say there's no perfect vacuum is because of virtual particles. Virtual particles are credence to the fact that something can come from nothing.

The fact that virtual particles pops out of no where and even dispperas randomly in the quantum world is why something comes from nothing. Hope you get that.

You are eager to point out mistake without getting the point hence you make mistakes yourself

DeepSight:


This is false.

Many ancients knew the Earth was a sphere
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Achimedes, all taught that the Earth was a sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#History.

https://www.olivehackney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Year-5-Science-Spherical-Bodies-Shape-of-the-Earth-Evidence-Cards.pdf

It was so well known that even the Bible alludes to it.



All logic must have a reference point. There is no logic in a vacuum.

none of them figured the earth is sphere. They were arguing baselessly on it.
The first person to actually test it is copernicus and then Galileo and that gives credence to the fact that logic without evidence is useless.

None of the great philosophers could prove spherical earth, none of them. It's more reason logic alone is not enough for me and for any reasonable person.

Calm down, don't be in a haste to find virtual mistakes, get the pioints first

Workch:
By definition, nothing means without mass, radiation or any detected force.

Nonsense. The so called vacuums as I said contain low gaseous pressure. That knocks out your claim here.

Something with mass and force has come out of that definition of nothing in quantum physics.

What is a virtual particle if not a mere fluctuation?
You are talking bunkum.

Workch:
none of them figured the earth is sphere. They were arguing baselessly on it.
The first person to actually test it is copernicus and then Galileo and that gives credence to the fact that logic without evidence is useless.

None of the great philosophers could prove spherical earth, none of them. It's more reason logic alone is not enough for me and for any reasonable person.

Calm down, don't be in a haste to find virtual mistakes, get the pioints first

This is all false. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere. This is a fact.
As I said, this fact is even alluded to in the Bible.
You simply dont know the facts.

We know atheism is simply a fad for some of you, but please try not to make a mess of your pitiful ignorance so publicly, while speaking nonsense so majestically.

DeepSight:


Nonsense. The so called vacuums as I said contain low gaseous pressure. That knocks out your claim here.



What is a virtual particle if not a mere fluctuation?
You are talking bunkum.

virtual particles do not have measurable mass, that's why we say no perfect vacuum.
We have simulated mass less vacuums, what makes them not perfect vacuums is virtual particles.

Yes, if it doesn't have measurable mass then it's nothing, virtual particles pops out of nothing.

We have studied a phenomena where virtual particles created measurable radiations.

DeepSight:


This is all false. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere. This is a fact.
As I said, this fact is even alluded to in the Bible.
You simply dont know the facts.

We know atheism is simply a fad for some of you, but please try not to make a mess of your pitiful ignorance so publicly, while speaking nonsense so majestically.

nonsense, none of them proved anything with logic until scientific methods started popping.

Logic alone is flawed without evidence.

Whether or not you want to argue all night, it's stupid to rely on pure logic to make accurate conclusions and that's why your so called philosophers argue about jargons every now and then.
There is usually no evidence to close the case. It's the same reason none of them could prove spheriod earth until we found evidence

DeepSight:


Nonsense. The so called vacuums as I said contain low gaseous pressure. That knocks out your claim here.



What is a virtual particle if not a mere fluctuation?
You are talking bunkum.

You must be stuck in stone age.

You stopped making sense when you said "low gas pressure in a vacuum".

Does that make any scientific sense to you?

You should read up on what gas pressures are and then relate it to the defitnion of a vacuum

Workch:
nonsense, none of them proved anything with logic until scientific methods started popping.

Logic alone is flawed without evidence.

Whether or not you want to argue all night, it's stupid to rely on pure logic to make accurate conclusions and that's why your so called philosophers argue about jargons every now and then.
There is usually no evidence to close the case. It's the same reason none of them could prove spheriod earth until we found evidence

I have told you all logic must have reference points. If you didnt understand that, thats your cup of tea.
And yes, there were reference points for the conclusion of the ancient Greeks that the Earth was a sphere.
I provided some to you via the links I showed you.

Workch:
You must be stuck in stone age.

You stopped making sense when you said "low gas pressure in a vacuum".

Does that make any scientific sense to you?

You should read up on what gas pressures are and then relate it to the defitnion of a vacuum

No, you go and read up.
There is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere, and there never has been.

"Nothingness" by definition does not exist, has never been observed (nor can nothingness be observed) much less experimented with.

DeepSight:


I have told you all logic must have reference points. If you didnt understand that, thats your cup of tea.
And yes, there were reference points for the conclusion of the ancient Greeks that the Earth was flat.
I provided some to you via the links I showed you.

Your links where argument made, same argument they always make.
None provided evidence for spherical earth.

I can go on and show you ridiculous conclusions of this so called philosophers. That in anyway doesn't undermine their contributions but they were so handicapped until science start with empirical evidence to help our logical reaosning.

Workch:
Your links where argument made, same argument they always make.
None provided evidence for spherical earth.

Thats false, you simply didnt read them.

DeepSight:


No, you go and read up.
There is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere, and there never has been.

"Nothingness" by definition does not exist, has never been observed (nor can nothingness be observed) much less experimented with.

If you remove all gazes from a vacuum, you cannot have any pressure. Don't even talk about gaseous pressure in an a vaccum, it only works in a partial vacuum.

It's basic science for god sake.

Why talk about gaseous low pressure when you already remove all gases. Doesn't make any sense

There's no perfect vacuum yes, and the reason is because something always come from nothing called "virtual particles". This makes it impossible for us to have a perfect vacuum. Something must come from nothing. This gives credence to my initisl argument with evidence from quantum physics that something comes from nothing in vacuums hence we cannot overrule the universe coming from nothing like virtual particles.

Educate yourself dude and stop looking for virtual errors.

Workch:
Nope, if your different philosophy is fallacious, we have to state it that it's fallacious. Religion by default is a fallacy.

Specifically, God of the gaps fallacy. You have to acknowledge that.

You are only talking out of ignorance but anyway, you are feel to believe whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Rosement:

You are only talking out of ignorance but anyway, you are feel to believe whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Yes, I am ignorant of how the universe started, I'm not going to created a God to fill that gap without evidence like you want to

DeepSight:


Thats false, you simply didnt read them.

Trust I did.

Copernicus was the first person to prove spherical earth and heliocentric solar system.
All the philosophers were just arguing.

I mean, every newbie in science knows about Copernicus and his works

Workch:
If you remove all gazes from a vacuum, you cannot have any pressure. Don't even talk about gaseous pressure in an a vaccum, it only works in a partial vacuum.

It's basic science for god sake.

Why talk about gaseous low pressure when you already remove all gases. Doesn't make any sense

There's no perfect vacuum yes, and the reason is because something always come from nothing called "virtual particles". This makes it impossible for us to have a perfect vacuum. Something must come from nothing. This gives credence to my initisl argument with evidence from quantum physics that something comes from nothing in vacuums hence we cannot overrule the universe coming from nothing like virtual particles.

Educate yourself dude and stop looking for virtual errors.

You are simply contradicting yourself (and embarrassing yourself).
There is nothing like a perfect vacuum anywhere - fact.
And that is basic science.

The virtual particles you speak of are fluctuations observed in a space that is not nothing. That space contains minimal gas and energy too. Its never a perfect vacuum, this is elementary. And no, its not the fluctuations alone which make it an imperfect vacuum.

DeepSight:


You are simply contradicting yourself (and embarrassing yourself).
There is nothing like a perfect vacuum anywhere - fact.
And that is basic science.

The virtual particles you speak of are fluctuations observed in a space that is not nothing. That space contains minimal gas and energy too. Its never a perfect vacuum, this is elementary. And no, its not the fluctuations alone which make it an imperfect vacuum.

You don't even know the difintion of a vaccum dude.
A vacuum cannot contain a gas, even in minimal quantity unless it's partial vacuum.

You don't know what a vacuum is and you don't want to leant it. Thete are no gas molecules in vacuum, no pressure. All your gaseous pressure statement is junk science

First go read carefully about vacuums, I cannot keep repeating something to a Sciolist.

I don't even know where I inferred that we have a perfect vacuum.