₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Fairly straightforward logic good sir: and in this I draw from the premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Not only is this intuitively true, it is also self evidently true. A thing which commences, or begins, necessarily is prompted or triggered. And it could not be so prompted or triggered by itself: hence we deduce that it is so prompted or triggered by something beyond itself.

This is all that transcendence here refers to. Something beyond the thing which commences or begins.

And what if the cause is another natural process so the natural process is transcendental?

LordReed:
And what if the cause is another natural process so the natural process is transcendental?

I should point out that I refer to what may be described as the ultimate or first cause in relation to the existence of all universes/ realms/ dimensions. Such will naturally have to be beyond :or (transcend) all realms/ universes/ dimensions.

A001:
It's expanding into nothing, just as the expansion started from nothing.-

There is nothing like nothing.
By definition, nothingness does not exist and as such cannot be the recipient of any material expansion.

Space and time are mental constructs and don't exist in reality.

Then it is contradictory to say that the expansion of space is a proven scientific fact.

DeepSight:
There is nothing like nothing.
By definition, nothingness does not exist and as such cannot be the recipient of any material expansion.

By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes.

If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent?

We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing.

DeepSight:
Then it is contradictory to say that the expansion of space is a proven scientific fact.

It's not contradictory if you understand existence, as distinct from reality, has various forms or types with the physical type only one of them.

DeepSight:
I should point out that I refer to what may be described as the ultimate or first cause in relation to the existence of all universes/ realms/ dimensions. Such will naturally have to be beyond :or (transcend) all realms/ universes/ dimensions.

What if the first cause is a natural process?

DeepSight:
Fairly straightforward logic good sir: and in this I draw from the premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Not only is this intuitively true, it is also self evidently true. A thing which commences, or begins, necessarily is prompted or triggered. And it could not be so prompted or triggered by itself: hence we deduce that it is so prompted or triggered by something beyond itself.

This is all that transcendence here refers to. Something beyond the thing which commences or begins.

You my friend is engaging in what is called Fallacy of False Cause. We don't know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Even in our real everyday world, we don't know what causes an atom to disintegrate. We don't know what causes the half life of a radioactive element to remain constant. We also don't know what causes a particular atom to decide to disintegrate out of the other billions of atoms.

We don't know the beginning of existence. Scientist have been able to speculate the beginning of this universe, but we have no way of speculating the beginning of everything. The same scientists tell us that this present universe might be just one of a continuous cycle of big bangs and big crunches. And there might even a multiverse (many other universeses)

So your assumption that whatever begins to exist has a cause is pure speculation and might not be true. Therefore your conclusion based on that assumption also might not be true.

wirinet:
You my friend is engaging in what is called Fallacy of False Cause. We don't know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Even in our real everyday world, we don't know what causes an atom to disintegrate. We don't know what causes the half life of a radioactive element to remain constant. We also don't know what causes a particular atom to decide to disintegrate out of the other billions of atoms.

Saying that we do not know the cause of something is different from saying that therefore, things may be causeless.

There are indeed "things" that are causeless, but those are infinite and eternal "things." Self-existent "things." They are immaterial "things." They are not the "things" of this finite material realm.

We don't know the beginning of existence.

Hence I have striven in this thread to advocate agnosticism. I don't know if you have been following the thread: but I came in at at point where a poster was stridently criticizing the agnostic position which simply declares " I don't know." I have been striving in this thread to justify that position as the most honest position we can take. That poster, on the contrary, seeks to assert that while we can be agnostic on existence generally, once it comes to God or gods, we must be positively certain that they do not and cannot exist. I am simply telling him that we must remain agnostic on that too. I have allowed the exception that some religious notions of God can be discountenanced as they are ontologically contradictory.

Scientist have been able to speculate the beginning of this universe, but we have no way of speculating the beginning of everything. The same scientists tell us that this present universe might be just one of a continuous cycle of big bangs and big crunches. And there might even a multiverse (many other universeses)

All this is speculation - and speculation without any grounds for that matter.

So your assumption that whatever begins to exist has a cause is pure speculation and might not be true. Therefore your conclusion based on that assumption also might not be true.

That whatever begins to exist has a cause (or trigger) only stands to reason. Anything else will amount to advocating magic.

LordReed:
What if the first cause is a natural process?

It could only be natural, my friend.

You see, the problem rests with the distinction people have made between the natural and the supposed "supernatural." When people dont understand a thing, they call it supernatural. However all things are natural.

This takes nothing away from the transcendence of a thing. Transcendence here, as I have repeatedly said, simply refers to the quality of being beyond this realm. Standing beyond it. Therefore transcending it. This does not mean that such a thing is not natural. In truth, all things that exist are only natural.

PS: Let me hasten to be clear however, that this is only one sense of the word "natural." I do not here use the word in the sense in which people use it when they distinguish between a natural or unnatural act - e.g: Someone might say that Heterosexuality is natural and Homosexuality is unnatural. That is a value based and potentially moral assessment, whereas I use the word in an existential sense - not natural vs unnatural, but natural vs supernatural: whereat I say that all existent things can only be natural. I hope this comes across.

DeepSight:
It could only be natural, my friend.

You see, the problem rests with the distinction people have made between the natural and the supposed "supernatural." When people dont understand a thing, they call it supernatural. However all things are natural.

This takes nothing away from the transcendence of a thing. Transcendence here, as I have repeatedly said, simply refers to the quality of being beyond this realm. Standing beyond it. Therefore transcending it. This does not mean that such a thing is not natural. In truth, all things that exist are only natural.

PS: Let me hasten to be clear however, that this is only one sense of the word "natural." I do not here use the word in the sense in which people use it when they distinguish between a natural or unnatural act - e.g: Someone might say that Heterosexuality is natural and Homosexuality is unnatural. That is a value based and potentially moral assessment, whereas I use the word in an existential sense - not natural vs unnatural, but natural vs supernatural: whereat I say that all existent things can only be natural. I hope this comes across.

In agreement so far. Does this transcendent natural something have a mind, is it a being?

DeepSight:
Saying that we do not know the cause of something is different from saying that therefore, things may be causeless.

I believe that on a more fundamental level, saying a thing is causeless and saying we don't know the cause of a thing means practically the same thing. Because on a fundamental level we don't know the cause of anything. For example we don't know the true nature of the 4 fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong force, before we even start talking of what caused them.

There are indeed "things" that are causeless, but those are infinite and eternal "things." Self-existent "things." They are immaterial "things." They are not the "things" of this finite material realm.

The difference between material things and immaterial things is our perception. Things we can perceive with our senses and instruments, we term material, things we cannot we term immaterial. But then ability to measure starts getting complicated on a fundamental level.

Hence I have striven in this thread to advocate agnosticism. I don't know if you have been following the thread: but I came in at at point where a poster was stridently criticizing the agnostic position which simply declares " I don't know." I have been striving in this thread to justify that position as the most honest position we can take. That poster, on the contrary, seeks to assert that while we can be agnostic on existence generally, once it comes to God or gods, we must be positively certain that they do not and cannot exist. I am simply telling him that we must remain agnostic on that too. I have allowed the exception that some religious notions of God can be discountenanced as they are ontologically contradictory.

there is little difference between the agnostic and the atheist. A theist makes the proposition that his God - Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, olodumare, etc is the one true God and creator of the universe. The atheist say it's not possible for any of them to the the creator of the immense universe. The agnostic say he does not know whether any of them is the creator of the whole universe. Some theist argue that one of them or something must have created the universe because the universe can't cause itself. Atheist respond that the first cause must have caused itself. And the argument goes round and round in circles.

Note that the theist God's are always created in the image of it's creator's. Jewish people create Jewish looking gids, Greek people create Greek Gods and Yoruba people create Yoruba Gods. If Dogs were to believe in God, that God will be in the image (and language) of of the breed of Dog that created it.

All this is speculation - and speculation without any grounds for that matter.

Everyone is speculating. We don't know the true nature of matter or the universe. We can only speculate. We don't actually know what gravity is, what electricity is, what electron is, etc. I was surprised just recently to learn that the energy that lights up your light bulb or drive your appliances don't flow inside the wire but in a field perpendicular to the wires.

That whatever begins to exist has a cause (or trigger) only stands to reason. Anything else will amount to advocating magic.

Existence itself is magic

wirinet:
I believe that on a more fundamental level, saying a thing is causeless and saying we don't know the cause of a thing means practically the same thing. Because on a fundamental level we don't know the cause of anything. For example we don't know the true nature of the 4 fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong force, before we even start talking of what caused them.

This still does not justify equating ignorance of a cause to causelessness. Consider and reflect: at some point in our development, the causes of natural phenomena like thunder and lightening were not known. Would that have justified a conclusion that such things were evidence that things may "happen" without cause? That would be absurd.

This is no different from all the examples you cite: including the famous example of virtual particles cited by many. They are simply examples of things the causes of which we either do not know yet or do not understand properly. None represents justification for the position that things may "begin" or "happen" without cause.

The difference between material things and immaterial things is our perception. Things we can perceive with our senses and instruments, we term material, things we cannot we term immaterial.

If you insist on this, then we might as well class perception as the determinant of everything - and on a certain level perhaps it is, to be fair. But on closer consideration what really are we talking about here? Is it not only natural that matter can perceive only matter? Your physical senses are made of matter, so whats the problem if they only perceive matter? This does nothing to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. Many things which evidently exist and are part of our reality are immaterial. Time is immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. Dreams are immaterial. The past is immaterial. Things like Hope and Faith are immaterial. Information is immaterial. There are too many interjections of immaterial things in our daily existence for the immaterial to be denied.

Many of us even experience the immaterial via astral travel and cosmic projection, even if this is a private and subjective thing.

there is little difference between the agnostic and the atheist.

Indeed there ought to be little difference but for the modern aggressive specie of atheist who positively asserts that there is no God or gods and that there never has been and never will be and indeed there cannot be. This is a statement of positive knowledge and the agnostic distances himself from any such positive knowledge.

A theist makes the proposition that his God - Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, olodumare, etc is the one true God and creator of the universe.

It amounts to making a caricature of all Theism if you claim that Theists always assert one particular God to be the only true God. Many theists believe that while God exists, the different names and characteristics attributed to God are strands of culture only. Furthermore, there are polytheists, deists, autotheists, dystheists, maltheists and many more.

Note that the theist God's are always created in the image of it's creator's. Jewish people create Jewish looking gids, Greek people create Greek Gods and Yoruba people create Yoruba Gods. If Dogs were to believe in God, that God will be in the image (and language) of of the breed of Dog that created it.

Generally, but not always true: Jews for example insist on the invisibility and ineffability of God so much that they even strive not to mention his name. Muslims similarly ban any imagery of God.

Everyone is speculating. We don't know the true nature of matter or the universe. We can only speculate. We don't actually know what gravity is, what electricity is, what electron is, etc. I was surprised just recently to learn that the energy that lights up your light bulb or drive your appliances don't flow inside the wire but in a field perpendicular to the wires.

This just justifies agnosticism further.

Existence itself is magic

Touché.

wirinet:
I believe that on a more fundamental level, saying a thing is causeless and saying we don't know the cause of a thing means practically the same thing. Because on a fundamental level we don't know the cause of anything. For example we don't know the true nature of the 4 fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong force, before we even start talking of what caused them.


The difference between material things and immaterial things is our perception. Things we can perceive with our senses and instruments, we term material, things we cannot we term immaterial. But then ability to measure starts getting complicated on a fundamental level.

there is little difference between the agnostic and the atheist. A theist makes the proposition that his God - Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, olodumare, etc is the one true God and creator of the universe. The atheist say it's not possible for any of them to the the creator of the immense universe. The agnostic say he does not know whether any of them is the creator of the whole universe. Some theist argue that one of them or something must have created the universe because the universe can't cause itself. Atheist respond that the first cause must have caused itself. And the argument goes round and round in circles.

Note that the theist God's are always created in the image of it's creator's. Jewish people create Jewish looking gids, Greek people create Greek Gods and Yoruba people create Yoruba Gods. If Dogs were to believe in God, that God will be in the image (and language) of of the breed of Dog that created it.


Everyone is speculating. We don't know the true nature of matter or the universe. We can only speculate. We don't actually know what gravity is, what electricity is, what electron is, etc. I was surprised just recently to learn that the energy that lights up your light bulb or drive your appliances don't flow inside the wire but in a field perpendicular to the wires.



Existence itself is magic

You were also surprised to learn what you just discovered as false concerning the electric bulb...


What was true is now false to you..


Besides,if you don't really know what an electron is,you shouldn't use the word at all...


If you are not sure of the nature of anything,then you shouldn't say anything at all....


But I will leave that to you....



I seriously need your financial assistance...... you can ask questions ........ it's do or die...... basically...

DeepSight:
This still does not justify equating ignorance of a cause to causelessness. Consider and reflect: at some point in our development, the causes of natural phenomena like thunder and lightening were not known. Would that have justified a conclusion that such things were evidence that things may "happen" without cause? That would be absurd.

This is no different from all the examples you cite: including the famous example of virtual particles cited by many. They are simply examples of things the causes of which we either do not know yet or do not understand properly. None represents justification for the position that things may "begin" or "happen" without cause.



If you insist on this, then we might as well class perception as the determinant of everything - and on a certain level perhaps it is, to be fair. But on closer consideration what really are we talking about here? Is it not only natural that matter can perceive only matter? Your physical senses are made of matter, so whats the problem if they only perceive matter? This does nothing to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. Many things which evidently exist and are part of our reality are immaterial. Time is immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. Dreams are immaterial. The past is immaterial. Things like Hope and Faith are immaterial. Information is immaterial. There are too many interjections of immaterial things in our daily existence for the immaterial to be denied.

Many of us even experience the immaterial via astral travel and cosmic projection, even if this is a private and subjective thing.



Indeed there ought to be little difference but for the modern aggressive specie of atheist who positively asserts that there is no God or gods and that there never has been and never will be and indeed there cannot be. This is a statement of positive knowledge and the agnostic distances himself from any such positive knowledge.



It amounts to making a caricature of all Theism if you claim that Theists always assert one particular God to be the only true God. Many theists believe that while God exists, the different names and characteristics attributed to God are strands of culture only. Furthermore, there are polytheists, deists, autotheists, dystheists, maltheists and many more.



Generally, but not always true: Jews for example insist on the invisibility and ineffability of God so much that they even strive not to mention his name. Muslims similarly ban any imagery of God.



This just justifies agnosticism further.





Touché.

The material things without a cause have no beginning...... Actually ,for the things with a cause to exist,..there must be things without a cause...
The material things including the universe with a cause are arrangements of the material things without a cause...


The only immaterial thing without a cause is existence itself...



Existence is beyond your existence.....


Existence is the property of something (unspecific) to exist...,.

There's no limit to the property of something (unspecific) to exist....

There's no limit to things(specific) that exist.....



Anyway, I seriously need your financial assistance..... you can ask any question about my situation..... I need it urgently and seriously...... thanks...

DeepSight:
This still does not justify equating ignorance of a cause to causelessness. Consider and reflect: at some point in our development, the causes of natural phenomena like thunder and lightening were not known. Would that have justified a conclusion that such things were evidence that things may "happen" without cause? That would be absurd.

This is no different from all the examples you cite: including the famous example of virtual particles cited by many. They are simply examples of things the causes of which we either do not know yet or do not understand properly. None represents justification for the position that things may "begin" or "happen" without cause.



If you insist on this, then we might as well class perception as the determinant of everything - and on a certain level perhaps it is, to be fair. But on closer consideration what really are we talking about here? Is it not only natural that matter can perceive only matter? Your physical senses are made of matter, so whats the problem if they only perceive matter? This does nothing to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. Many things which evidently exist and are part of our reality are immaterial. Time is immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. Dreams are immaterial. The past is immaterial. Things like Hope and Faith are immaterial. Information is immaterial. There are too many interjections of immaterial things in our daily existence for the immaterial to be denied.

Many of us even experience the immaterial via astral travel and cosmic projection, even if this is a private and subjective thing.



Indeed there ought to be little difference but for the modern aggressive specie of atheist who positively asserts that there is no God or gods and that there never has been and never will be and indeed there cannot be. This is a statement of positive knowledge and the agnostic distances himself from any such positive knowledge.



It amounts to making a caricature of all Theism if you claim that Theists always assert one particular God to be the only true God. Many theists believe that while God exists, the different names and characteristics attributed to God are strands of culture only. Furthermore, there are polytheists, deists, autotheists, dystheists, maltheists and many more.



Generally, but not always true: Jews for example insist on the invisibility and ineffability of God so much that they even strive not to mention his name. Muslims similarly ban any imagery of God.



This just justifies agnosticism further.



Touché.

The cause of the universe is the movement of certain things that preceded the universe....

LordReed:
In agreement so far. Does this transcendent natural something have a mind, is it a being?

I have to be agnostic as to this. Anything further will amount to presumption.

I can however say that I lean in the direction of the origin of all things being something akin to what I call an infinite field of potentialities. The way I conceive of this, is not as a conscious being, even if it may birth conscious beings.

Such an infinite field of potentialities may, in this remit, hypothetically or theoretically spawn any number of beings, dimensions, universes, realms or realities.

It is not impossible however, to my mind, that this universe is the product or work of a mind or a being or a group or set of beings. One day, at a sufficiently advanced stage of development, even humans may create universes.

DeepSight:
I have to be agnostic as to this. Anything further will amount to presumption.

I can however say that I lean in the direction of the origin of all things being something akin to what I call an infinite field of potentialities. The way I conceive of this, is not as a conscious being, even if it may birth conscious beings.

Such an infinite field of potentialities may, in this remit, hypothetically or theoretically spawn any number of beings, dimensions, universes, realms or realities.

It is not impossible however, to my mind, that this universe is the product or work of a mind or a being or a group or set of beings. One day, at a sufficiently advanced stage of development, even humans may create universes.

Interesting.

Crystyano:
The material things without a cause have no beginning...... Actually ,for the things with a cause to exist,..there must be things without a cause...

The material things including the universe with a cause are arrangements of the material things without a cause...


The only immaterial thing without a cause is existence itself...



Existence is beyond your existence.....


Existence is the property of something (unspecific) to exist...,.

There's no limit to the property of something (unspecific) to exist....

There's no limit to things(specific) that exist.....



Anyway, I seriously need your financial assistance..... you can ask any question about my situation..... I need it urgently and seriously...... thanks...

Interesting speculations. I am trying to wrap my head around it.

Sorry, I can't be of assistance right now. I am neck deep, in fact drowning in obligations right now. I have loads of family - both nuclear and extended family obligations.
I also have loads of end of year obligations to staff and clients. You know how it is by this time of the year. I don't even know how I will cope yet. Money don't seem to have any value anymore

I need to add one more stream of income next year to be able to cope. At the moment, I am studying forex trading.

Crystyano:
You were also surprised to learn what you just discovered as false concerning the electric bulb...

I don't understand what you mean. But I learnt that the energy propagated by an electric wire or an electric charge is in the electric field at right angle to the wire and not through the wires itself

What was true is now false to you..

Not necessarily. My understanding of cause and effect changed. Just like my perception of the cause and effects of gravity changed from secondary school to university.

Besides,if you don't really know what an electron is,you shouldn't use the word at all...

Even though we don't know what an electron really is, we can see and measure it's effects, we can see it's interactions with other fundamental particles. We have a string theory among other theories that tries to accurately describe the electron along with other fundamental particles.

If you are not sure of the nature of anything,then you shouldn't say anything at all....

As I said, we perceive and interact with nature. The problem is attempting to understand the nature of what we perceive and interact with.

But I will leave that to you....



I seriously need your financial assistance...... you can ask questions ........ it's do or die...... basically...

Once again. Sorry can't help now.

LordReed:
Interesting.

Any more questions


I am tired of certain things...

wirinet:
Interesting speculations. I am trying to wrap my head around it.

Sorry, I can't be of assistance right now. I am neck deep, in fact drowning in obligations right now. I have loads of family - both nuclear and extended family obligations.
I also have loads of end of year obligations to staff and clients. You know how it is by this time of the year. I don't even know how I will cope yet. Money don't seem to have any value anymore

I need to add one more stream of income next year to be able to cope. At the moment, I am studying forex trading.

Ok.

DeepSight:
I have to be agnostic as to this. Anything further will amount to presumption.

I can however say that I lean in the direction of the origin of all things being something akin to what I call an infinite field of potentialities. The way I conceive of this, is not as a conscious being, even if it may birth conscious beings.

Such an infinite field of potentialities may, in this remit, hypothetically or theoretically spawn any number of beings, dimensions, universes, realms or realities.

It is not impossible however, to my mind, that this universe is the product or work of a mind or a being or a group or set of beings. One day, at a sufficiently advanced stage of development, even humans may create universes.

A mind cannot be so disorganized towards making something as twisted as the universe...



The universe is just another thing.. but it's too twisted to be the work of a mind.

HellVictorinho3:
A mind cannot be so disorganized towards making something as twisted as the universe...



The universe is just another thing.. but it's too twisted to be the work of a mind.

That's true. The universe is a very disorganized, chaotic and wasteful place. I still fail to understand the purpose. Imagine billions and billions of desolate planets with only one or a few with life. And even the few with life always at the risk of annihilation from cosmic debris. The earth has been lucky in that even thought it is always under constant threat, no collision has at yet wiped out all of life.

wirinet:
I don't understand what you mean. But I learnt that the energy propagated by an electric wire or an electric charge is in the electric field at right angle to the wire and not through the wires itself


Not necessarily. My understanding of cause and effect changed. Just like my perception of the cause and effects of gravity changed from secondary school to university.


Even though we don't know what an electron really is, we can see and measure it's effects, we can see it's interactions with other fundamental particles. We have a string theory among other theories that tries to accurately describe the electron along with other fundamental particles.



As I said, we perceive and interact with nature. The problem is attempting to understand the nature of what we perceive and interact with.


Once again. Sorry can't help now.

The energy released/propagated doesn't pass through the wire...
So, the wire is not a passage...it is a source..


If you want to define something or state what it is, just consider what distinguishes it ..... determine the limits.


What is the essence of interacting and perceiving when you can't determine how XYZ is?


I can certainly tell you that reality is something that's being displayed anyhow.....

It's a randomly occurring situation.... that has no beginning/end....



There's no limit to the things that exist or the things that are real..


Reality is being demonstrated...


There's no limit to how reality exists....


So, trying to determine the nature of reality is futile.


Reality doesn't have any specific nature.


Reality is being demonstrated in ways to which there's no limit.



What does it mean to demonstrate reality?


It just means to exist.



There's no limit to how something can exist..

wirinet:
That's true. The universe is a very disorganized, chaotic and wasteful place. I still fail to understand the purpose. Imagine billions and billions of desolate planets with only one or a few with life. And even the few with life always at the risk of annihilation from cosmic debris. The earth has been lucky in that even thought it is always under constant threat, no collision has at yet wiped out all of life.

The universe has no purpose...

A001:
By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes.

If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent?

We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing.


It's not contradictory if you understand existence, as distinct from reality, has various forms or types with the physical type only one of them.

Existence is the same as reality.


Since you know what you call nothing is actually something, don't insist that it's nothing.

A001:
It's expanding into nothing, just as the expansion started from nothing.

Space and time are mental constnructs and don't exist in reality.

There's nothing to understand here.


Failure to understand is different from an understanding of failure.


The universe just exists...


It's just another way something can exist.....


For as long as the properties that keep it the universe remain, the universe also remains..

It's actually the result of sudden movements..


It can only cease to exist as a result of sudden movements too.

wirinet:
That's true. The universe is a very disorganized, chaotic and wasteful place. I still fail to understand the purpose. Imagine billions and billions of desolate planets with only one or a few with life. And even the few with life always at the risk of annihilation from cosmic debris. The earth has been lucky in that even thought it is always under constant threat, no collision has at yet wiped out all of life.

The universe is not nearly as disorganized as you are passing it out to be, not even remotely.

There is a pattern, there is an order, that is why humans can study the universe and can predict its future. You cannot predict or study randomness, the universe on the other hand is far from being disorganized. It is actually a very ordered place.

Your statement that only a few planets contain life is a very bold one for someone who is a member of a specie that cannot even leave their solar system yet.

And about the earth under constant threat but not yet destroyed, even that is not an accident. The solar system is pretty much stabilized as opposed to its otherwise chaotic past, much like an iron cast cools and stabilizes. Presently, most meteor that make it into the system are pulled in by the gravitational influence of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn keeping the interior planets relatively free of meteors, not to talk of life ending collisions.

HellVictorinho3:
Existence is the same as reality.

Check the meaning of each of those words in bold in a dictionary and spot their difference. Something can be existing but is not real to you.

Before microscopes were invented in the last century or thereabouts, micro-organisms had been existing, but they became real to humans with the aid of microscopes.

Before the invention of telescopes by Hans Lippershey and Galileo Galilee a couple of centuries ago, planets other than Earth and stars other than the Sun had been existing, but they became real to us with the aid of the telescopes.

Those examples show how existence is distinct from reality. There are countless other examples as well.

HellVictorinho3:
Since you know what you call nothing is actually something, don't insist that it's nothing.

I prefer to use the term nothing because I don't regard existence or the Universe as having a beginning and an end.

HellVictorinho3:
There's nothing to understand here.


Failure to understand is different from an understanding of failure.


The universe just exists...


It's just another way something can exist.....


For as long as the properties that keep it the universe remain, the universe also remains..

It's actually the result of sudden movements..


It can only cease to exist as a result of sudden movements too.

Nothing concrete here. It's all vague.

HellVictorinho3:
The universe has no purpose...

How would you know its purpose if there were one?

wirinet:
That's true. The universe is a very disorganized, chaotic and wasteful place. I still fail to understand the purpose. Imagine billions and billions of desolate planets with only one or a few with life. And even the few with life always at the risk of annihilation from cosmic debris. The earth has been lucky in that even thought it is always under constant threat, no collision has at yet wiped out all of life.

You would only think this way when your opposition to the idea of God derives from the fraudulent idea of religionists that whatever entity instigated this universe or life on Earth must be benevolent or perfect. That idea has no basis in any rational thought whatsoever, and, therefore, should not form competent grounds to repudiate the rational concept of causality as a precept of creationism.

I, who believe that there is some sort of mind behind the universe, often envision that mind as being that of a prankster or even an outrightly sadistic mind.

You will find in Greek mythology, that the gods were constantly described as being involved in a great many pranks, acts of mischief, and even acts of grave wickedness.

johnydon22:
And about the earth under constant threat but not yet destroyed, even that is not an accident. The solar system is pretty much stabilized as opposed to its otherwise chaotic past, much like an iron cast cools and stabilizes. Presently, most meteor that make it into the system are pulled in by the gravitational influence of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn keeping the interior planets relatively free of meteors, not to talk of life ending collisions.

Whilst this is true, you will find that there is much on the Earth that strongly suggests many human civilizations have been wiped out in the past - and likely in several instances by natural or cosmic events. Mainstream history as currently taught leaves much to be desired.

Recorded history which does not reach beyond 6 - 10 thousand years is as a nano second in the spectrum of the total lost history of mankind.