₦airaland Forum

MacDaddy01: 1) But Allah came from nothing?


At least the scientist have the proof of quantum physics on their side.

And here, another quote from you, suggesting that the something from nothing idea is proven by quantum physics. I kept asking you how and why that is the case, but you refused to answer my question!

MacDaddy01: Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

Here's your quote son. Your words, not mine.

MacDaddy01: You define empty space as "nothing".

First Lie. I did no do any such thing: YOU DID.And then you turned around to say it is not nothing.

I shall produce your quotes: do not scuttle off to alter them!

Here are my previous comments on the comments of others who relied on Krauss to make ridiculous arguments -

Deep Sight: Now I honestly cannot understand some of the horribly irrational rhetoric being advanced by atheists on this thread. Mostly when I read all this, I am tempted (in the immortal words of Enigma) "not to reply at all", some of it is sickeningingly contradictory and self defeating, but most of it just betrays a basic deficiency in the most elementary logic. You will see, for instance, how Area Boy asserted (in line with the gibberish he read from Krauss) that the total energy of the universe is zero; and that in this circumstance the universe would have popped up unbidden from nothing. You will also see how Wiegraf asserted that all initial energy is nothingness, because it cancels out - lol - and then asserted that we all agree that the self same nothingness does not exist!

It is honestly incredible, how educated persons can arrive at such unspeakably contradictory balderdash. The saddest aspect of all this is that these persons somehow imagine their thinking to be any better than that of the religionist. In some epileptic fit of deluded excitement, they imagine such hopelessly contradictory nonsense to pass for sophistication. It seems to me that the thinking is that anybody who rejects religion has crossed the Rubicon, and achieved philosophical and intellectual Nirvana: this is not so.

Just look at the two eminently ridiculous assertions from Area Boy and Wiegraf which I cited. Notwithstanding that zero refers to nothingness, Area Boy piggy-backs on Krauss to assert that the total energy in the universe is zero: not recognizing that the implication of this would be that the universe does not exist: he then goes further to say that on account of this, the universe pops into existence from nothingness. Now this is a person who will make this kind of nonsensical suggestion and yet presume to laugh at the theist.

Wiegraf, for his part, does worse: he says that everything is nothingness at the start, and then turns about to say that nothingness does not exist - whilst describing the initial state of things as consisting of matter and other elements.

Can any serious thinker take these folk seriously?

Can they take themselves seriously?

Baby thinkers, drunk on the new wine of the new discovery of new atheism.

In a line, the summary of the maxim mentioned by the OP, is that from nothingness comes nothing. From this, we can see that the somethingness that we know, did not come from nothing. We can also see that any other somethingness that preceded this somethingness did not come from nothing. We can thus see that, as Caezar said, if there was nothingness at the beginning, then there would never have been somethingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. We therefore see that there was always somethingness. This is the simple reasoning that evinces that which is eternal and self existent. It seems however, to be beyond some folk, as simple as it is.

Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

MacDaddy01: You define empty space as "nothing". So if you believe that empty space is nothing, then we can say something comes from nothing. I never defended the position that something could come from nothing. Re read my comments again. I was showing you what a scientist says.

We do not have an example for "nothing". So you can even argue anything about "nothing".

My atheist position is about God. There is no evidence for him or her or it. Simple. I am not a scientist and I can not tell you the origin of the world. I can only tell you what scientists say.






Empty space is normal rhetoric. Common use. You are the one that misuses empty space as "nothing". Krauss is showing that theists are wrong if you define empty space as "nothing".

When you have been shouting that something can not come out of nothing, wasnt it empty space you were referring to? Or what was your example of this "nothing"?




I would accept Krauss's argument over a fool's opinion. A fool like you that believes numbers exists.

Krauss is not a quack. For you to even call him a quack shows your foolish arrogance. How can you even call one of the bestb scientists in the West a "quack"? Is everybody seeing this?

You have mental problems, sir!





Stop bowing to authority! Touche!

It is bad that you do not understand the discussion, but it is even worse that you would [a] tell lies and deny your own words and [b]tell lies and claim I said things I never said. I never said that nothingness is empty space: I said that the word nothingness means NO THING at all, period. I also never said that something comes from nothing - YOU did that son. In the next two posts, I will go extract your quotes and show that you are telling stark lies.

But first, I have heard from this Krauss goon before. Sorry, I am no respecter of scientists who I believe to be talking nonsense: no matter how respected they may be: there are a lot of highly respected id.iots in the world - and many celebrated scientists amongst them. I am sorry - I am not one to bury my own brain just because someone is celebrated. Next post, I will extract my past comments on the comments of others like you, who relied on Krauss to assert id.iotically, that the total energy of the universe is zero.

MacDaddy01: Empty space isnt nothing. Empty space is full of particles.

Honestly, i don't know why everyone has to hold your hand and guide you through every piece of simple logic.

1. You contended that something could derive from nothing

2. In support of that, you produce Krauss's lecture

3. The conclusion you draw from it is that empty space is in fact NOT nothing - that it is something ab initio

So why on God's good earth did you cite empty space in the first place, as an example of something deriving from nothing - given that YOU accede that it is NOT nothing in the first place ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are very ignorant! Empty space isnt empty.

Good - - - > And so it is wrong and mis-footed to use "empty" space as an example of nothing - in the way that you referred to Krauss as doing.

This is simple logic, son.

Furthermore, how nice of you to call one of the best scientists in the western world "daf.t".

There are many quacks like him who are celebrated all over the world today. One example is Richard Dawkins, a man of breathtaking theological illiteracy who attempts to discuss theology with disastrous results. Krauss is even worse and more illogical: but as I have said before, it seems to give you guys a sense of self worth to bandy the names of these nincompoops about.

Think for your self. Even Einstein's ideas are up for challenge. Much less this bozo of a non starter.

You are foolish,

That is judicially noticed for a long time already by my learned brothers Enigma and Jayriginal.

thehomer: You really should be careful when you just go spouting off all sorts of allegations. My questions to you are these. Does nothingness exist? Did it ever exist?

NO.

MacDaddy01: And thus, Deep Sight falls into the pit of arrogance, where proud douchebags get humbled.

Do you know who made that quote?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss



Now, on that quote; he was saying that something could come out of nothing. He was correcting the view that empty space is not "nothing". If you refer to empty space as nothing then, something can come out of nothing.

You simply have no grasp of discussions. How can u and ur dear Krauss talk about something coming from noting, and in the same breath admit that the 'empty' space in question is not nothing? ? ?

O, by the way, stop appealing to authourity. Krauss is certified D.AFT.

Now this is intellectual honesty!

jayriginal: I'll continue to call out quacks and charlatans like yourself.

Thank you very much.

You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.




Its not my fault you cannot see the obvious.
I made no hash of anything. If you cannot read, that is not my fault.

If anything, you are the one who is woefully ignorant of what is discussed. The most basic of issues evade your grasp. Critical thinking = 0.

As the old saying goes, "the empty barrel makes the loudest noise".

Lol. In short, as always, you have no answer and nothing to say. It honestly beats me why you bother to post.

You said, that the universe is expanding into already existent space: and this gave away the discussion to my position. When you realized that, you then said that the universe is not expanding into anything observable - after posting a load of contradictory extracts. To turn about and deny same amounts to lying: and as poor as you are at debating, I am shocked that you would resort to outright lies. I had thought you a decent person.

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

Can anybody spot the glaring contradictions between the red, blue and green in the above?

Christ! It beggars belief that supposedly educated persons could write such horrendous gibberish.

Worse: that others could credit such as worth anything. Peeps like learned brother Jayriginal and olodo-boy would rush off to copy and paste such whooping nonsense and sit back and expect to be taken seriously.

I am yet to meet a religionist this da.ft, by the way.

MacDaddy01: But Allah came from nothing? Answer the question.

Well if by "Allah", you refer to God, then I answer that God is not said to "come into existence" at all: whereas the universe evidentially did.

Now, answer: why did you claim that quantum physics "has proof" - exactly in what context did you use the word?

MacDaddy01: But Allah came from nothing? Answer the question.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U




"Nothing" is not exactly easy to define.


http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5418




I am not a scientist but that is the position of a well know scientist using quantom physics

That's a load of escapist gibberish. O, and nothing is not hard to define: for people who are not trying to lie or obsfuscate issues. Nothing simply means what the word says: NO THING at all. Simple.

Ihedinobi: How else are such citations addressed, ehn? Do you simply take one part of a document that's supposed to be logically coherent in its entirety and turn a blind eye to others that question your interpretation of that one part in any intellectual exercise?

I could ask you the exact same question, could I not?

MacDaddy01: 1) But Allah came from nothing?


At least the scientist have the proof of quantum physics on their side.

What proof of what quantum physics shows that something comes from nothing? And yet, you would later say that's not what you are saying? Okay, if that not what you are saying, can you concisely tell me exactly why you have referred to "proof of quantum physics on the side of scientists"?

Please answer.

Ihedinobi: Funny guy, lol. You think I'm refusing to continue arguing with you because I've run out of arguments? Typical of you "humble" professors. Hehehehe

I choose to stop because I know when a venture is fruitless. If I thought it were worth it and godly, I'd settle in to make nonsense of your patently contradictory statements.

Put simply, you guys aren't worth the effort. If you were more honest in your approach to Truth-seeking, I would gladly walk with you, but you're not, so...

So long, Mr Humble Truth-possessor.

Enigma: ^^^ That they cannot deal with the passages from Revelation 22 especially shows that it is not very productive engaging them ---- the only use of the exercise has been to provide the counter points for the benefit of others.

Yada yada yada. . . . .everyone who does not think Jesus is God is being dishonest abi?

As if you chaps have EVER addressed the many verses in scripture which clearly argue against the trinity or the deity of christ.

LOL.

wiegraf: Illustrates your simple and rather dishonest mind. Ignoring the other nonsense, who made the man that made the pink unicorn?

Why dont YOU answer the question ? ? ? ? ? ?

vedaxcool: Since the atheist cannot address the Pink Unicorn argument we are left to draw the following conclusion:

The man who woke one day to meet a Pink Unicorn in front of his house believes logically that someone made the unicorn and someone placed the unicorn front of his house.

That it goes against common sense for anybody to believe that matter can simply appear from nowhere.

Because of the above, We then draw the following:

Something must essentially come from another

Nothing can only produce nothing

The Pink Unicorn could have been formed from random process.

It was formed from clearly defined process.

These simple facts essentially remains the reason why atheism cannot be my style.

You have said it all. If I were you I would not bother to respond to logicboy after such an excellent summary.

Devise a means to make the moderators lock the thread, such as posting pornorgraphic images or some other such sh**t

kola oloye: How and where did you get the data from?

Let me answer this. Well most Christians believe that Jesus is God - Not all. It is a lamentable, pitiful, primitive, ape-like, illiterate, retarded, pagan, id.iotic belief: and it verily reduces every holder of such a belief to a veritable id.iot.

MacDaddy01: There is no evidence for God and therefore no reason to believe in him

What is the universe then, if not evidence of a preceding element?

O, and stop using the word "him".

Enigma: Your siblings and other members of your family that are Christians are, like me, empty pieces of bogey from the anus of a gutter rat and dirty make-believe christians.

Lol. AGBERO. ANSWER THE OP AND FORGET ABOUT GUTTER RATS SUCH AS MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.

As if you ever will.

Or can.

Enigma: Since your siblings and I guess other members of your family are Christians, I'm sure they too are swine; oh and Olodos too.

Lol. You empty piece of bogey from the anus of a gutter rat, feel free to direct your insults at me and not people you don't know, dirty make-believe christian.

Oya, answer the OP. . . . . . as if you ever will. As though Frosbel, the OP, and others who ask these same questions are not christians. Da.ft.

MacDaddy01: Fortunately, that is not the atheist position.

And what is the atheist position?

DO NOT SAY THE ATHEIST POSITION IS "WE DON'T KNOW": THAT IS NOT THE ATHEIST POSITION: THAT IS THE AGNOSTIC POSITION.

So tell me, what is the atheist position? ? ? ? ?

frosbel: Obviously no takers.

Lol, do you really expect intellectual honesty from your targets on this matter?

They will only tell you you are not being honest, in spite of the many pointers in scripture on this matter.

Don'y waste your time joor.

obadiah777: AS I SAID PRIOR, LEAVE YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER WITH TRUSTED MEMBERS OF THE FORUM SUCH AS MYSELF

Da.ft.

MacDaddy01: There is no evidence for God and therefore no reason to believe in him. You dont believe in flying monkeys? Why? Mo evidence!


Show me evidence for god- atheists ask!
However, dumbazzes believe in something that has failed to be proven for about 2000 years now

Dumbazzes believe that entire universes emerge from nothingness.

obadiah777: knock yourself out brah. just remember to leave your bank account number with trusted members of the forum such as myself

Olodo. Who said I'm contemplating such? But there are members of society who legitimately desire such and should not be prevented. One example is the paralyzed man in the UK who finally died some weeks ago. His family had instituted a legal action seeking to permit him to be taken to DIGNITAS in Switzerland, where Euthanasia is legally possible to permit terminally ill people to have a dignified exit from a miserable existence. It's only humane.

No its not. It's my life, i can do with it what I please.

That's one argument. Another argument, for those who believe in an after-life, is simply that death is nothing more than a transition to another realm. So what's wrong with deciding to transit to another realm? Must I wait for an accident or illness or old age to take the decision for me? ? ? ? ?

Where is Enigma? He will either jump on a high horse and ignore this thread, or claim that nobody here is being "intellectually honest"

Olodo of a swine that he is.

jayriginal: Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

. . .

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

My friend, after you were shown up with your horrible contradictions [which showed exactly why you are always frightened of answering questions!] - having made a horrible mess of the first question you attempted to answer - [first saying that the universe is expanding into already existing space, and then contradicting that by claiming that the universe is expanding into nothing observable - and then when ratted out, producing a hash of copy and paste extractions contradicting everything] - - - - - - - > ALL of this lamentably shows your incapacity for independent thought, which is why you only offer to me copy and paste extractions from discussions completely irrelevant to the questions being discussed!

I mean, just look at the ridiculous nonsense contained in the bold above: "empty space" having properties, etc. And then do you think this illiteracy is obviated by name-dropping Einstein? Think for yourself. The above quote shows firmly that true to my conviction, you sir, are absolutely incapable of independent thought.

Worse, you do not recognize the pith of any discussion. And the above quote shows that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

OLODO!

jayriginal: Some people wont shake of their dogma no matter how hard you try.

As is his talent, Deep Sight has made a hash of what was presented to him. Nobody said the Universe was expanding into nothingness; the idea is "nothing observable".

Then he quotes that the loaf is expanding into space without reading what follows (and claims he knows all that )

Here, let me make this clear.



And all this after I have said these analogies are not very accurate. Dont make me have to do a line by line annotation for you.

Na wa.

Here is good advice.

Its amazing that you are not ashamed of the repeated fact that all you ever have to say is that you don't know, and that nobody knows. Fair enough, but I ask you: if that is the case, then why the heck bother posting on this forum or reading anything anybody posts. . . . .since you don't know and nobody knows? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are wasting your time, and everyone else's, with your repeated posts which simply declare that you don't know and nobdy knows. . . . . you bring NOTHING to the table and I have always told people who are trying to make decisions that any decision is better than no decision. As such, I would learn more from any person who proposes ANY idea - - - no matter how right or wrong the idea is, than from someone like you who is incapable of EVER proposing ANY concept whatsoever.

Please stop posting on this board. . . .cos we are bored with your buzz. . . . . that you don't know.

Thanks!

MacDaddy01: Nope. The universe had a beginning.

The universe could have been a happening or an occurrence. Example- An explosion of energy and matter from another universe reduced to a particle. An oscillating universe. There are numerous speculations all without evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model



if even I am to agree with your created universe, how do we know who or what the creator or creators are?

Please stop embarrassing yourself with your repeated failure to read. He said - The universe had a beginning therefore it was caused. At this first premise, he has not said created. He said caused. And it is impossible to accede to a beginning without acceding to a cause. IT IS DISMAL, that you can fail to recognize that all the examples you gave are CAUSES. Even in a cyclic model where the universe arises from another universe - then that is STILL A CAUSE.

As such, once you accede to a beginning, you accede to a cause. The question then remains WHAT is the cause. That is where the discussion now starts from. At this point we will begin to consider the nature of matter and energy and make suggestions that can be queried by logic. It is thus wrong for you to accede to a beginning and deny a cause. Do not assume that when the word "cause" is used in the discussion, we have automatically presumed God.

The cause could validly be held to be a principle, a force, a reaction from somthing else, etc.

However it is in the very cowardly nature of most atheists on this forum, that they would NEVER even permit the discussion to reach this stage where we begin to discuss what the cause could possibly be. Virtually EVERY single discussion I have had with atheists on this forum since i registered in 2009 has be limited to the simple fact that they would very illogically and dishonestly close the conversation at the very early stage by inanely stating and holding that -

- There is no reason to say that the universe had a beginning: [thehomer/ martian/ jayriginal] and they say this even though it contradicts the science of the matter

- There is no reason to say that even if it has a beginning, it has a cause - and they say this even though it contradicts the science of the matter

The very ridiculous amongst them would also go [b]as far as to say that -

- There is no definition of the word God, and so no discussion on the matter can hold AT ALL [Idehn: and he has NEVER discussed beyond this.]

- Time and Space do not exist at all and only exist in the human mind [Idehn again: violently against all science, reason and logic]

- We do not know that anything that begins has a cause [Jayriginal: violently against the science of the matter]

NONE of these people have ever ventured to discuss in substance what could possibly be tenable propositions of the actual cause itself.

For these reasons, I am sorry, but I find it difficult to take anyone of them seriously in the least: because there has never been a time when an articulated discussion of the substance of the issues has even been attempted: not to speak about discussed in-toto.

In short I have never had a serious discussion with any atheist on this forum. It is not serious, when people deny basic reason, and obvious science: to adopt the most ridiculously unscientific positions ever [Kag: things may pop out of nothingness/ Jayriginal: We do not know that movement requires a trigger: this is an assumption and argument from ignorance/ thehomer: Everything is physical and all physical things exist in time, but the singularity is physical and did not, i could go on ad infinitum].

As such, when you see me having a laugh about their very very poor grasp of issues, you should have no wonder about why I tend to view these people as those of whom it may be said: a little learning is a terrible thing indeed. Like village interpreters in colonial times who had a small smatterring of English, they seem to have had a small taste of reading and thus imagine themselves acquainted with certain issues, whilst apparently refusing to use their rational faculties: and in almost all cases, even flinging out the window every slightest scent of logic.

Your case has been far worse than the gentlemen I have mentioned: you have come across, no offence, as clueless toddler with a terrible case of mis-information and even mis-education.

I mean no offence. I speak as I see it.

Thanks.