The universe is proof of god!

[Rhea]

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.

QED

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Some answers would be appreciated.

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

Rubbishy joke - I'm not here for jokes.

Pops.

 

[skepticalbip]

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 - - -



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.

I gave you an example of something that doesn't exist spontaneously coming into existence. The fact that I (or anyone else) don't know how this process occurs does not detract from the fact that it does happen. In fact, it can be observed by anyone who has the desire and equipment to verify it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Rubbishy joke - I'm not here for jokes.

Pops.

good thing, too.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Originally Posted by Random Person

Originally Posted by skepticalbip
. . .
I just happened to remember that there is a book written by a noted cosmologist on this subject. The book is titled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss that you may want to read if you are really interested in this idea.
. . .

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

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.

With still no response, I'm beginning to think that the answer must NO, which means it's probably untrue. AFAIK Krauss has backed away from nothing in his book.

Pops.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Rubbishy joke - I'm not here for jokes.

Pops.

good thing, too.

Still a rubbishy joke, ass hole §

Pops.

§ that's a joke too

 

[bilby]

Some answers would be appreciated.

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

Rubbishy joke - I'm not here for jokes.

Pops.

That's interesting. I'm only here for the jokes. For all values of 'here'.

 

[Random Person]

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 - - -



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.

I gave you an example of something that doesn't exist spontaneously coming into existence. The fact that I (or anyone else) don't know how this process occurs does not detract from the fact that it does happen. In fact, it can be observed by anyone who has the desire and equipment to verify it.

Correction: I would love to hear someone relate how nothing brings itself into existence.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gave you an example of something that doesn't exist spontaneously coming into existence. The fact that I (or anyone else) don't know how this process occurs does not detract from the fact that it does happen. In fact, it can be observed by anyone who has the desire and equipment to verify it.

Correction: I would love to hear someone relate how nothing brings itself into existence.

So you are resorting to word games? In the example I offered, there was nothing then there was spontaneously something. Something from nothing - the thing you originally claimed was impossible.

 

[Random Person]

Originally Posted by Random Person

Originally Posted by skepticalbip
. . .
I just happened to remember that there is a book written by a noted cosmologist on this subject. The book is titled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss that you may want to read if you are really interested in this idea.
. . .

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

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.

With still no response, I'm beginning to think that the answer must NO, which means it's probably untrue. AFAIK Krauss has backed away from nothing in his book.

Pops.

Here's a couple of sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/


Oddly no thread has ever been started here about A Universe From Nothing. The book had no impact because it was ridiculous but there have been threads suggesting a farting goat created the universe, leading me to speculate the latter is more accepted here in OZ.

Krauss never published a peer reviewed paper advancing his universe from nothing nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

I gave you an example of something that doesn't exist spontaneously coming into existence. The fact that I (or anyone else) don't know how this process occurs does not detract from the fact that it does happen. In fact, it can be observed by anyone who has the desire and equipment to verify it.

Correction: I would love to hear someone relate how nothing brings itself into existence.

So you are resorting to word games? In the example I offered, there was nothing then there was spontaneously something. Something from nothing - the thing you originally claimed was impossible.

I'm not playing word games. Something from nothing isn't possible.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gave you an example of something that doesn't exist spontaneously coming into existence. The fact that I (or anyone else) don't know how this process occurs does not detract from the fact that it does happen. In fact, it can be observed by anyone who has the desire and equipment to verify it.

Correction: I would love to hear someone relate how nothing brings itself into existence.

So you are resorting to word games? In the example I offered, there was nothing then there was spontaneously something. Something from nothing - the thing you originally claimed was impossible.

I'm not playing word games. Something from nothing isn't possible.

That is real cute but denial does not trump measurement.

 

[Learner]

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.

QED

How about there also being two possibilties; Either the physical universe was extremely lucky to come into existence - continually maintaining its existence through much more lucky moves ...OR ... the universe came into existence by the purposely alternative?

Isn't this just as valid as the two possibilies in the top quote?

 

[Random Person]

I thought George F. R. Ellis made insightful criticisms of Krauss' book:

Horgan: Lawrence Krauss, in A Universe from Nothing, claims that physics has basically solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing. Do you agree?

Ellis: Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions.

It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy. It seems that science education should include some basic modules on Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and the other great philosophers, as well as writings of more recent philosophers such as Tim Maudlin and David Albert.

 

[Random Person]

Correction: I would love to hear someone relate how nothing brings itself into existence.

So you are resorting to word games? In the example I offered, there was nothing then there was spontaneously something. Something from nothing - the thing you originally claimed was impossible.

I'm not playing word games. Something from nothing isn't possible.

That is real cute but denial does not trump measurement.

What measurement? Could you pluck out whatever it is you are referring to from your posts.

 

[Random Person]

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.

An eternal universe has been rejected by even Krauss and Hawking.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

An eternal universe has been rejected by even Krauss and Hawking.

There is absolutely no cosmological model (and there are quite a few of them) that is not rejected by some noted scientists. The fact that "the Big Band plus inflation" is currently the most popular model is no indication that it is valid or that it will be the most popular in ten years.

ETA:
But, since you seem to believe that some scientists rejecting a model means that it absolutely proves the model wrong, then you should note that you would be damned hard pressed to find cosmologists who don't reject the "goddidit" theory for the universe.

 

[Random Person]

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.

An eternal universe has been rejected by even Krauss and Hawking.

There is absolutely no cosmological model (and there are quite a few of them) that is not rejected by some noted scientists. The fact that "the Big Band plus inflation" is currently the most popular model is no indication that it is valid or that it will be the most popular in ten years.

ETA:
But, since you seem to believe that some scientists rejecting a model means that it absolutely proves the model wrong, then you should note that you would be damned hard pressed to find cosmologists who don't reject the "goddidit" theory for the universe.

You're hilarious man. Goddidit is your baggage not mine.

Are you backing away from measurement assertion?

 

[Juma]

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.

QED

How about there also being two possibilties; Either the physical universe was extremely lucky to come into existence - continually maintaining its existence through much more lucky moves ...OR ... the universe came into existence by the purposely alternative?

Isn't this just as valid as the two possibilies in the top quote?

Or farted out by a goat?
Or brought to form on the anvil by the great smith?

Your examples are just blabbering BS. (As was mine)

They dont tells us anything about how the universe works.

 

[Juma]

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.

So where is this ”not anything”?
It sounds like a joke but is perfectly true: there is no ”not anything”.
It is something we humans has dreamed up: it is the result of applaying philosophy without empirical evidens.
Reason without reality.

 

[Random Person]

"Not anything" would be a better match.

So where is this ”not anything”?
It sounds like a joke but is perfectly true: there is no ”not anything”.
It is something we humans has dreamed up: it is the result of applaying philosophy without empirical evidens.
Reason without reality.

"Not anything" = "Nothing". Asking where is this "not anything" is kind of obvious isn't it? It's not anywhere.