Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something from nothing / cause and effect

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:19:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do the two have to do with each other exactly? The first law of thermodynamics tells use that energy cannot begin to exist, and that causes can only change it's form or rearrange it.

How do theists link "something from nothing" to "cause and effect" when discussing the premise "everything that begins to exist, has a cause"?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
;) sounds familar.
"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
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 7:19:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do the two have to do with each other exactly? The first law of thermodynamics tells use that energy cannot begin to exist, and that causes can only change it's form or rearrange it.

How do theists link "something from nothing" to "cause and effect" when discussing the premise "everything that begins to exist, has a cause"?

"The first law of thermodynamics may be expressed by several forms of the fundamental thermodynamic relation for a closed system:"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So are you saying the universe as a whole is a closed system? In any case the principle that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a metaphysical principle.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 7:29:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:19:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do the two have to do with each other exactly? The first law of thermodynamics tells use that energy cannot begin to exist, and that causes can only change it's form or rearrange it.

How do theists link "something from nothing" to "cause and effect" when discussing the premise "everything that begins to exist, has a cause"?

"The first law of thermodynamics may be expressed by several forms of the fundamental thermodynamic relation for a closed system:"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So are you saying the universe as a whole is a closed system? In any case the principle that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a metaphysical principle.

I'll concede the point on thermodynamics, however the main point is, I don't how "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" makes any sense. I also don't see how one could time "something from nothing" with cause and effect. We have no examples of things beginning to exist, only examples of pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.
"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
3/8/2012 7:45:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:15:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

No. An empty box is still a box. If I don't have a box, I don't have an empty box. Non-existing box =/= empty box. Nonexsistent universe =/= empty universe. Nonexistence =/= empty.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hume's response is the best.

(Modernised version)evert

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

P1 - everything inside the universe that began to exist has a cause
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - therefore, the universe has a cause.

In other words:

P1 - Everything inside set {...} has characteristic X
P2 - Set {...} is the universe
C - Therefore the universe has characteristic X.

Which is fallacy of composition.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:25:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:15:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

No. An empty box is still a box. If I don't have a box, I don't have an empty box. Non-existing box =/= empty box. Nonexsistent universe =/= empty universe. Nonexistence =/= empty.

Oh, are we referring to the plane in which everything exists as "the Universe" (the 3rd or 4th dimension, depending on your perspective)?

Dimension =/= Universe.

The Universe is self-contained, is expanding, and has a margin. Accordingly, inasmuch as it holds existence, it also exists, meaning that it had an origin (which we currently accept was the Big Bang). As far as we know, it also has an end, which we figure is a return to singularity. What will be left? Dark matter? No. There will be no matter. Loose particles? No. There will be no matter.

This dimension will be left, raw, and uncompromised. I'm not sure I can imagine that, and that is part of the point.

The Universe works in mysterious ways, and inasmuch as you may not like the limitations of your comprehension, it's the truth.

As for this Universe, we don't know. To assert blindly that it didn't have an origin is myopic.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

This is a part of a (very drawn-out) conversation I had with another member.

(Modernised version)evert

No such thing.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 12:31:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

Wait, how is that false? Our collective knowledge has to do with things within this universe.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 12:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

Yes, I am well aware of that, and Hume's discussions used many examples of "truths" from science that we k now know are false. Socrates wanted a caste system slave Spartan society, and Kant said opera music was pointless. Doesn't mean anything.

(Modernised version)

No such thing.

...Yes, there is. Other examples:
Craig's Kalam argument is a modernised version of the Kalam Argument of Al-Ghazali (if I got my muslims right)
Preference Utilitarianism is a modernised version of utilitarianism.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

Name one thing (other than God, which the argument is trying to prove to begin with) that we know empirically exists outside of the universe that began.

I'd also like to point out that modern science claims time is inside the universe, so this is going to be awkward...

So, the rest is irrelevant.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 3:05:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 12:31:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

Wait, how is that false? Our collective knowledge has to do with things within this universe.

I already explained that. "The Universe" is the name for everything that we know of. "This dimension" is the name we've given the plane in which everything we know of exists. Therefore, "the universe" exists within "this dimension," meaning that it is possible that something exists outside of this universe. Therefore, to state that something cannot exist outside of our universe is fallacious, what we've personally witnessed notwithstanding (which would be less than 1 percent of the Universe as we know it, btw.)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 3:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

This is a part of a (very drawn-out) conversation I had with another member.

(Modernised version)evert

No such thing.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

like just look .. honestly you are in denial. Secondly singularity doesn say anyhing about non-existent. Nor can we show that space never exist. where are you getting such garbage knowledge. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:04:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 3:05:17 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 12:31:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

Wait, how is that false? Our collective knowledge has to do with things within this universe.

I already explained that. "The Universe" is the name for everything that we know of. "This dimension" is the name we've given the plane in which everything we know of exists. Therefore, "the universe" exists within "this dimension," meaning that it is possible that something exists outside of this universe. Therefore, to state that something cannot exist outside of our universe is fallacious, what we've personally witnessed notwithstanding (which would be less than 1 percent of the Universe as we know it, btw.)

No one is saying that there cannot possibly be anything that exists outside this universe.

You specifically objected to the claim that "Everything we know of that began is inside this universe". Nowhere in Stephen_hawkings arguments excludes the possibility of things existing outside this universe. His argument was specifically regarding the fact that the attributes you give to individual components of a set cannot necessarily be applied to the set as a whole.

Much like my body is made up entirely of individual cells, and concluding that therefore i myself am a cell. However, my question, or objection, is that, yes, everything we know of, that has a beginning, exists within this universe, and therefore your objection to that specific sentence, fails.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:20:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.

Non-existence = nothing. Nothing at all, no space, no states, no anything...That's non existence.

A "state" is existence.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 3:08:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

This is a part of a (very drawn-out) conversation I had with another member.

(Modernised version)evert

No such thing.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

like just look .. honestly you are in denial. Secondly singularity doesn say anyhing about non-existent. Nor can we show that space never exist. where are you getting such garbage knowledge. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lmfao, yeah, me, the scientific community and scholars at MIT are all just throwing around "garbage knowledge."

http://web.mit.edu...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:25:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:20:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.

Non-existence = nothing. Nothing at all, no space, no states, no anything...That's non existence.

A "state" is existence.

No. A "state" is not "existence." Want to know why? "Nonexistence" is a state. :\
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.

When something is in a state, it exists. Antimatter exists as well. Your argument makes no sense.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:33:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:24:23 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:08:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

This is a part of a (very drawn-out) conversation I had with another member.

(Modernised version)evert

No such thing.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

like just look .. honestly you are in denial. Secondly singularity doesn say anyhing about non-existent. Nor can we show that space never exist. where are you getting such garbage knowledge. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lmfao, yeah, me, the scientific community and scholars at MIT are all just throwing around "garbage knowledge."

http://web.mit.edu...

A definitive answer is impossible, since we have no way of directly studying other universes. But cosmologists speculate that a multitude of other universes exist, each with its own laws of physics.


http://web.mit.edu...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:33:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:04:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

No one is saying that there cannot possibly be anything that exists outside this universe.

You specifically objected to the claim that "Everything we know of that began is inside this universe". Nowhere in Stephen_hawkings arguments excludes the possibility of things existing outside this universe.

What I'm asserting is that we don't know. Very many things could have very well originated outside of our universe.

His argument was specifically regarding the fact that the attributes you give to individual components of a set cannot necessarily be applied to the set as a whole.

?

Much like my body is made up entirely of individual cells, and concluding that therefore i myself am a cell. However, my question, or objection, is that, yes, everything we know of, that has a beginning, exists within this universe, and therefore your objection to that specific sentence, fails.

Lol, waitwait, you might be right, let me check. xD

Sigh.

Dammit, you're right.

Everything that we know if that began is in this Universe.

I read:

"Everything that we know of began in this Universe."

Tardulous, I know.

So, the rest is relevant. Sorry.

P1 - everything inside the universe that began to exist has a cause
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Universe isn't inside of the Universe.

In other words:

P1 - Everything inside set {...} has characteristic X
P2 - Set {...} is the universe
C - Therefore the universe has characteristic X.

Which is fallacy of composition.

Agreed... however, you could logically extrapolate that the Universe has a cause as a valid conclusion. Observe:

The Universe, rather than existing as an entity it's own, is as we know it rather, a concept to refer to the aggregate of all physical matter that we've discovered. Therefore, as all things that we know of have an origin, then the first of those to appear (whether individually or simultaneously) share their origin with the Universe itself.

That is what we know of as the Big Bang.

Same page now?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:25:07 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:20:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.

Non-existence = nothing. Nothing at all, no space, no states, no anything...That's non existence.

A "state" is existence.

No. A "state" is not "existence." Want to know why? "Nonexistence" is a state. :\

Singularity is not non-existance. So in the context that we are talking about? Nope.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:34:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:33:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:24:23 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:08:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:26:37 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:20:00 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Hume's response is the best.

I'm sure you would figure that, as physics wasn't even a competency we'd discovered while Hume was alive.

This is a part of a (very drawn-out) conversation I had with another member.

(Modernised version)evert

No such thing.

As everything we know of that began is inside the universe, P1 of the argument should be:

False.

So, the rest is irrelevant.

like just look .. honestly you are in denial. Secondly singularity doesn say anyhing about non-existent. Nor can we show that space never exist. where are you getting such garbage knowledge. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lmfao, yeah, me, the scientific community and scholars at MIT are all just throwing around "garbage knowledge."

http://web.mit.edu...

A definitive answer is impossible, since we have no way of directly studying other universes. But cosmologists speculate that a multitude of other universes exist, each with its own laws of physics.


http://web.mit.edu...

Lol, on one hand, I never asserted it as fact.

On the other, they're not just rendering blind speculations for fun. There is clearly a reason why this is being studied; trust me.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 5:35:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 5:34:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:25:07 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:20:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 5:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 3/9/2012 3:17:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/9/2012 11:12:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:43:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 7:32:44 PM, Ren wrote:
You suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics contradict the Big Bang theory?

The big bang theory doesn say anything about and empty universe. This is theological strawman of the big bang theory. Its say that matter was at one point densly packed not non-existence.

Yes. Yes, it does.

The Big Bang theory asserts that at first, everything was in a state of singularity, which means that everything existed in the same place at the same time at one point. That would include both matter and antimatter. That means that singularity = nonexistence = an empty universe.

That made no sense. Either the singularity existed or it didn't, if it did then it can't = non existence lol

Singularity is a state. It does not indicate "existence."

Look up antimatter.

Non-existence = nothing. Nothing at all, no space, no states, no anything...That's non existence.

A "state" is existence.

No. A "state" is not "existence." Want to know why? "Nonexistence" is a state. :\

Singularity is not non-existance. So in the context that we are talking about? Nope.

Yes, I'd say that singularity is nonexistence. Care to refute it?

Go ahead. :)