The universe is proof of god!

[Poppa Popobawa]

. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

You may be a contender for the "Equivocation of the Month" award.

Random Person, do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation.

Pops.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation.

That's just what an equivocationist would say...

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation.

That's just what an equivocationist would say...

I presume that that is a bad thing, so can you help me, and explain specifically what I've done wrong, (if anything) ?

Thanks,

Pops.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I presume that that is a bad thing, .

Tough room...

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Originally Posted by Poppa Popobawa

Originally Posted by Random Person

Originally Posted by Random Person
. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

Originally Posted by Poppa Popobawa
To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

You may be a contender for the "Equivocation of the Month" award.

Random Person, do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation.

Pops.

Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation.

That's just what an equivocationist would say...

I presume that that is a bad thing, so can you help me, and explain specifically what I've done wrong, (if anything) ?

Thanks,

Pops.

Tough room...

Three times now, I have made requests for information and got no answers :-

1. To Random Person, ". . . do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it" ?"
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

2. To Random Person, ". . . could you please expand on where there was equivocation. "
Also could you please expand on where there was equivocation. I don't accept that there was equivocation, because created is a loaded word, implying that there was some pre-planned, intelligentcreation going on.
To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", the answer can be neither YES nor NO, if the universe was not created.

The question is badly phrased, (at least for me it is). To answer the question, it needs to be clarified, so as to not include the idea of "creation" in any Yes or No answer. That's not equivocation- quite the opposite - it's an attempt to avoid confusion, or making an unintended implication. Surely the author would not want his/her readers to be confused by the meaning of the question, or the implication of replying in the affirmative or negative ???

3. To Keith&Co.: ""I presume that that is a bad thing, so can you help me, and explain specifically what I've done wrong, (if anything) ?", {Referring to that same claim of equivocation}.

Some answers would be appreciated.
Thanks, Pops.

 

[fromderinside]

What is that saying? Yoiu know the one "Reading is funde ...." Well one of the posters which you list mentioned something about Kraus treating space as nothing not being nothing referring to space which actually is not empty, er, nothing.

 A Universe from Nothing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277850083_Universe_from_Nothing (an essay on the book.)

But, hey, you've got your blinkered point to make. Oops. I should't have written blinkered just because you ignored the comment. That's something as well. ...and why should anyone explain anything to you who is unable ore unwilling to read the texts his own darn self.

Feigned indignity maybe .....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some answers would be appreciated.

I'm sure they would. But if you have to explain the joke, it's no longer a joke.

 

[Juma]

The problem with Krause is that he uses language in a sloppy fashion. He uses the word "nothing" when referring to the false vacuum which is not nothing.

what else would match ”nothing” better than vacuum?

 

[Random Person]

The problem with Krause is that he uses language in a sloppy fashion. He uses the word "nothing" when referring to the false vacuum which is not nothing.

what else would match ”nothing” better than vacuum?

A quantum vacuum isn't a nothing.

 

[Juma]

The problem with Krause is that he uses language in a sloppy fashion. He uses the word "nothing" when referring to the false vacuum which is not nothing.

what else would match ”nothing” better than vacuum?

A quantum vacuum isn't a nothing.

There isnt anything such ”a nothing”. If you remove everything you still got the vacuum. You cannot remove the vacuum.

so what would match ”nothing” better than vacuum?

 

[Lion IRC]

That is a good point.
Change the definition of nothing to "quantum vacuum"

Now, lets get back to the definition of that invisible cause of things coming into existence.

In the beginning there was a quantum vacuum - formless, void etc etc

 

[Random Person]

A quantum vacuum isn't a nothing.

There isnt anything such ”a nothing”. If you remove everything you still got the vacuum. You cannot remove the vacuum.

so what would match ”nothing” better than vacuum?

"Not anything" would be a better match.

 

[Rhea]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

Prove to me that it didn't.

 

[Random Person]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

Prove to me that it didn't.

In context, I was asking the other poster if they believed the universe created itself based on their comments.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

Prove to me that it didn't.

OK
Premise - Things which don't exist aren't doing anything.
Premise - the verb "to create" is a transitive verb.

 

[Rhea]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

Prove to me that it didn't.

OK
Premise - Things which don't exist aren't doing anything.
Premise - the verb "to create" is a transitive verb.

non sequitur. Just words.

You have no proof that the universe didn't create itself. Nor do you have proof that things that don't exist aren't doing anything.
Personally, I believe it's a mobius strip.

- - - Updated - - -

In context, I was asking the other poster if they believed the universe created itself based on their comments.

would it be a problem if their answer was yes?

 

[Random Person]

OK
Premise - Things which don't exist aren't doing anything.
Premise - the verb "to create" is a transitive verb.

non sequitur. Just words.

You have no proof that the universe didn't create itself. Nor do you have proof that things that don't exist aren't doing anything.
Personally, I believe it's a mobius strip.

- - - Updated - - -

In context, I was asking the other poster if they believed the universe created itself based on their comments.

would it be a problem if their answer was yes?

No problem at all! I would love to hear someone relate how something that doesn't exist brings itself into existence.

 

[Rhea]

No problem at all! I would love to hear someone relate how something that doesn't exist brings itself into existence.

I have no idea how it could do it, I just figger we have no proof that it can't.
So we should remain open.
You know.

 

[Random Person]

No problem at all! I would love to hear someone relate how something that doesn't exist brings itself into existence.

I have no idea how it could do it, I just figger we have no proof that it can't.
So we should remain open.
You know.

You are remarkably open minded.

 

[bilby]

There are only two possibilities; either there has always been something that exists, or something started to exist from nothing.

Adding or subtracting gods from the above does three eighths of fuck all to help decide which is correct.

The Big Bang theory doesn't help either - it says that something small, dense, and with very low entropy existed at the Planck epoch, but says nothing about what happened before that.

We don't know which is correct; I lean towards the 'something always existed' side, but that's just a hunch and quite likely wrong.

As adding gods doesn't help resolve the question, and just adds another unevidenced and needless entity, I reject doing that as un-parsimonious and valueless nonsense.

That lots of people imagine that adding a god and exempting that god from the original question is somehow a solution, is merely an indication of how disinclined humans can be to thinking when they have decided that they like a particular answer. Special pleading remains a fallacy even if you really really want it to be allowed.