Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Nothingness

ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?
These are not the droids you're looking for.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:03:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

No, there can never be 'nothing'. Nothing can't be.

It would be better to say there wasn't anything, but that's just symantics, I mean Norton, I mean semantics.

It's like asking if shadows exist... they only exist in that we have named a lack of light.

This is not the answer you are looking for.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:14:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 5:03:58 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

No, there can never be 'nothing'. Nothing can't be.

It would be better to say there wasn't anything, but that's just symantics, I mean Norton, I mean semantics.

It's like asking if shadows exist... they only exist in that we have named a lack of light.

This is not the answer you are looking for.

This is one Hell of a post. I'm glad I wasn't looking for it, it made it that much easier to find. ^^
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?

Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:29:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

"∞" = http://images.wikia.com...

lol
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:58:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.
That is correct.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
No. Just like there can never be a square circle or a colorless color. This type of nothing (as opposed to zero which is the lack of some thing or things) is a contradiction because there cannot BE the lack ALL things.

And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
It would be a something and therefore NOT a nothing.

And what was there before everything?
The above is actually not a question because it is a contradiction! Let's break down what you are asking:
= "What was there before everything?"
= "What was/existed there before everything (existed)?"
= "What existed there before everything existed?"
= "What existed before existed?"

I think you can see the contradiction much more clearly now. I think it's very clear but perhaps the last step might be a bit ambiguous. In this step I removed "there" and "everything" because "there" IS part of "everything". Why? Because if not, then it ISN'T everything!

Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?
Yes: existence not contingent upon anything but itself. It is timeless, it IS.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:19:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

If there was nothing there, how did the "Big Bang" happen? Nothing doesnt contain the chemical composition to explode, does it?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 1:36:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:25:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

It's also a sideways 8! OooOOooOOooOoooOooOOOooOoO

This mystery is increasing exponentially!

http://26.media.tumblr.com...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:36:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:25:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

It's also a sideways 8! OooOOooOOooOoooOooOOOooOoO

This mystery is increasing exponentially!

http://26.media.tumblr.com...

Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 11:28:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:36:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:25:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

It's also a sideways 8! OooOOooOOooOoooOooOOOooOoO

This mystery is increasing exponentially!

http://26.media.tumblr.com...

Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

No, it was meant for this thread.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force. So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time. Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:51:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force. So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time. Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.

Didn't Stephen Hawking present that at a conference in Europe to (at least theoretically) resolved the paradox that he 'identified' which turned theoretical physics inside out?
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:00:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

The Fool: NO credable scientist will say that. That is Theologins who are trying to muck up information. The big bang never said anything about there being nothing. People are intentionally creating confusion. Its just dihonestly.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:36:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:25:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '∞' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

It's also a sideways 8! OooOOooOOooOoooOooOOOooOoO

This mystery is increasing exponentially!

http://26.media.tumblr.com...

Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force.
1) Doesn't vacuum energy opposes gravity?
2) Are you saying that the law of conservation of energy is being violated?

So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time.
And so does not exist, right? If nothing = the absence of everything that exists, then nothing does not exist.

Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
Equations working not equal to them being represented in reality. There is ZERO empirical evidence for higher dimensions and many other things necessary for M-Theory.

**********************************

At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Don't know what you are talking about. Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you. You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do. He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 7:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 2:51:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force.
1) Doesn't vacuum energy opposes gravity?
2) Are you saying that the law of conservation of energy is being violated?

So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time.
And so does not exist, right? If nothing = the absence of everything that exists, then nothing does not exist.

Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
Equations working not equal to them being represented in reality. There is ZERO empirical evidence for higher dimensions and many other things necessary for M-Theory.

**********************************

At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Don't know what you are talking about. Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you. You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do. He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

The Fool: If there is such think as infinite knowledge then you know Nothing tBoonePickens. But as a Fool I don't what infinity is. <(XD)
And as for you humility, I AM NOT PART OF YOUR RELIGIION.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:42:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

I think this is just a matter of semantics, probably comes down to how you define "nothing" and "existence".

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

There's the Big Bang theory and there are Steady State theories, the Big Bang theory says there was a beginning, the various Steady State theories say there wasn't.

According to the General Theory of Relativity, matter, energy, time and space are relationships, and if there is no matter and energy, there is no time and space. Consequently, if you ascribe to the Big Bang theory, then the most common belief is that matter, energy, time and space came into existence at moment zero of the Big Bang. If time came into existence along with everything, then the question of "what was there before everything" has no meaning, there just wasn't a before.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force. So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time. Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.

What theory are you talking about, M-Theory perhaps?

If so, you were misinformed, the equations don't work, the logic doesn't either, it's nothing but a trendy special kind of nonsense.

I've been waiting for a M-Theorist to show up in here so I can land on him with both feet, if you see one wandering around, please let me know :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:54:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 1:19:28 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

If there was nothing there, how did the "Big Bang" happen? Nothing doesnt contain the chemical composition to explode, does it?

Well, as long as the nothing is infinitely hot and infinitely dense, then apparently it can.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:57:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:00:39 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:
There seems to be an idea among a lot of people that before the universe there was nothing. But 'nothing' is just a label that we put on things when we perceive an absence of anything, or perceive something that we don't have a label for.

Therefore can there ever be nothing?
And if there was such thing as nothing, then what is it?
And what was there before everything? Or is the concept of beginnings wrong and everything always is and always will be?

The Fool: NO credable scientist will say that. That is Theologins who are trying to muck up information. The big bang never said anything about there being nothing. People are intentionally creating confusion. Its just dihonestly.

How could you possibly turn that post into a rant against theologians?

Just more illogical trolling?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:02:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:36:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/17/2012 1:25:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/16/2012 4:27:57 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 8/15/2012 4:53:12 AM, ObiWan wrote:

Therefore can there ever be nothing?


Peculiar, how this symbol '&#8734;' is simply this symbol '0' twisted.

I wonder what else they have in common...

It's also a sideways 8! OooOOooOOooOoooOooOOOooOoO

This mystery is increasing exponentially!

http://26.media.tumblr.com...

Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Sorry Trollboy, but you're full of crap again, other than the Bible I've never interpreted anything here Biblically.

The simple fact is that you are a liar, you are uninformed, illogical, irrational, and you've got nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks.

Troll.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:06:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 7:03:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 2:51:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force.
1) Doesn't vacuum energy opposes gravity?
2) Are you saying that the law of conservation of energy is being violated?

So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time.
And so does not exist, right? If nothing = the absence of everything that exists, then nothing does not exist.

Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
Equations working not equal to them being represented in reality. There is ZERO empirical evidence for higher dimensions and many other things necessary for M-Theory.

**********************************

At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Don't know what you are talking about. Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you. You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do. He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

The Fool: If there is such think as infinite knowledge then you know Nothing tBoonePickens. But as a Fool I don't what infinity is. <(XD)

Cretinous spelling and grammar fallacy.

And as for you humility, I AM NOT PART OF YOUR RELIGIION.

Non Sequitur fallacy.

Troll.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 9:27:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:06:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:03:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 2:51:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force.
1) Doesn't vacuum energy opposes gravity?
2) Are you saying that the law of conservation of energy is being violated?

So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time.
And so does not exist, right? If nothing = the absence of everything that exists, then nothing does not exist.

Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
Equations working not equal to them being represented in reality. There is ZERO empirical evidence for higher dimensions and many other things necessary for M-Theory.

**********************************

At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Don't know what you are talking about. Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you. You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do. He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

The Fool: If there is such think as infinite knowledge then you know Nothing tBoonePickens. But as a Fool I don't what infinity is so I could never know that I know nothing. <(XD)

And as for you humility, I AM NOT PART OF YOUR RELIGIION.

Non Sequitur fallacy.

The Fool: What I mean by that is that claims of arrogence are of subjective option, thus of no rational content related to any form of reason.(arrogence would not even be an ad hominin.) Thus I could think of no possible reason why he constently brings it up instead of Religious reasons.

<Sidewalkers shamefull remarks on this thread so far:
Sorry Trollboy, but you're full of crap again, other than the Bible I've never interpreted anything here Biblically.

The simple fact is that you are a liar, you are uninformed, illogical, irrational, and you've got nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks.

Troll.

-Cretinous spelling and grammar fallacy.

Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.

-You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.

-He also has humility;

-that's something you know nothing of.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 1:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:27:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: What I mean by that is that claims of arrogence are of subjective option, thus of no rational content related to any form of reason.(arrogence would not even be an ad hominin.) Thus I could think of no possible reason why he constently brings it up instead of Religious reasons.
Option? The only thing shameful here is your butchering of the English language.

Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, because when someone writes illegible sentences it's shameful to retort "Don't know what you are talking about" Right.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.
If facts shame you, then do something about it and get informed. But instead you choose to bury your head in the sand. Shameful indeed.

-You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.

-He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.
Thanks for proving these time an again!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 9:27:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/22/2012 9:06:16 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/22/2012 7:03:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/20/2012 2:51:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:48:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
As the universe expands, brand new vacuum is created. Vacuum, apparently, has energy and that exerts gravitational force.
1) Doesn't vacuum energy opposes gravity?
2) Are you saying that the law of conservation of energy is being violated?

So "nothing" is less than a vacuum -- no matter, no energy. no space, no time.
And so does not exist, right? If nothing = the absence of everything that exists, then nothing does not exist.

Theory is that our universe is like a bubble in the multiverse that contains other universes. It defies common sense, but the equations seem to work, or so I'm told.
Equations working not equal to them being represented in reality. There is ZERO empirical evidence for higher dimensions and many other things necessary for M-Theory.

**********************************

At 8/19/2012 1:04:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:55:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is it me or doesn't this belong in another thread? Namely: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: Its people like that Sidewalker guy. They go around spreading bullsh!t. Intentionally to confusing people with nonsense. Biblical interpretions of every possible thing.

Don't know what you are talking about. Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you. You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do. He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

The Fool: If there is such think as infinite knowledge then you know Nothing tBoonePickens. But as a Fool I don't what infinity is so I could never know that I know nothing. <(XD)

And as for you humility, I AM NOT PART OF YOUR RELIGIION.

Non Sequitur fallacy.

The Fool: What I mean by that is that claims of arrogence are of subjective option, thus of no rational content related to any form of reason.(arrogence would not even be an ad hominin.) Thus I could think of no possible reason why he constently brings it up instead of Religious reasons.



<Sidewalkers shamefull remarks on this thread so far:
Sorry Trollboy, but you're full of crap again, other than the Bible I've never interpreted anything here Biblically.

The simple fact is that you are a liar, you are uninformed, illogical, irrational, and you've got nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks.

Troll.

-Cretinous spelling and grammar fallacy.

Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.

-You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.

-He also has humility;

-He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

-Thanks for proving these time an again!

-that's something you know nothing of.

-Option? The only thing shameful here is your butchering of the English language.

Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.

-Yes, because when someone writes illegible sentences it's shameful to retort "Don't know what you are talking about" Right.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.

-If facts shame you, then do something about it and get informed.

-But instead you choose to bury your head in the sand. Shameful indeed.

--You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:37:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:00:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.

-You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.

-He also has humility;

-He also has humility; that's something you know nothing of.

-Thanks for proving these time an again!

-that's something you know nothing of.

-Option? The only thing shameful here is your butchering of the English language.

Brilliant! Repeat and do not respond. Because repeating something and not responding is a great way to communicate.

Tboone shamefull statments so far:
-Don't know what you are talking about.
-Yes, because when someone writes illegible sentences it's shameful to retort "Don't know what you are talking about" Right.
No response.

-Sidewalker has an INFINITELY more knowledgeable grasp of science than you.
-If facts shame you, then do something about it and get informed.
Again, no response.

-But instead you choose to bury your head in the sand. Shameful indeed.
Thanks for proving my point again.

--You probably don't like the fact that he doesn't put up with your BS like others do.
And again!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.