Total Posts:108|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Ex nihilo nihil fit

 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:28:52 PMPosted: 7 years agoBreak the law,From nothingness comes something, impossible.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 3,667 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PMPosted: 7 years agoOkay, now prove it.
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:38:33 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:Okay, now prove it.Something of no quality, that lacks identity or properties that create results, nothingness, can produce nothing.0 will always be 0If x = y, and y is a real number other than 0, x cannot be 0 regardless of anything according to metaphysical law.Defy the rule.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 3,667 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:46:27 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:38:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:Okay, now prove it.Something of no quality, that lacks identity or properties that create results, nothingness, can produce nothing.0 will always be 0If x = y, and y is a real number other than 0, x cannot be 0 regardless of anything according to metaphysical law.No, it's something comes from nothing, not something equals nothing. It's more like x -> y where x is 0 and y is any real number.
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:47:59 PMPosted: 7 years agoTo defy this rule(it has been done, ergo vos) one must need something that exists outside this law to crate anything that isn t nil/nothing.The true question one ought to ask is: what do you suppose this something is?'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:49:07 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:46:27 PM, Kinesis wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:38:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:Okay, now prove it.Something of no quality, that lacks identity or properties that create results, nothingness, can produce nothing.0 will always be 0If x = y, and y is a real number other than 0, x cannot be 0 regardless of anything according to metaphysical law.No, it's something comes from nothing, not something equals nothing. It's more like x -> y where x is 0 and y is any real number.Yes, you're right, '=' is identity, thank you.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 5,466 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:52:34 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:38:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:Okay, now prove it.Something of no quality, that lacks identity or properties that create results, nothingness, can produce nothing.0 will always be 0If x = y, and y is a real number other than 0, x cannot be 0 regardless of anything according to metaphysical law.Defy the rule.0 = 00 = 5 + -5I have created something, and an anti-something out of nothing.
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 1:58:16 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:52:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:38:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:29:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:Okay, now prove it.Something of no quality, that lacks identity or properties that create results, nothingness, can produce nothing.0 will always be 0If x = y, and y is a real number other than 0, x cannot be 0 regardless of anything according to metaphysical law.Defy the rule.0 = 00 = 5 + -5I have created something, and an anti-something out of nothing.See above. Also, the terms '5' and '-5' are only theoretical, the possible subtraction of matter has been only been in particle decay in hadrons and such.(I think)'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 5,044 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:01:26 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:47:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:To defy this rule(it has been done, ergo vos) one must need something that exists outside this law to crate anything that isn t nil/nothing.How do you know that this MUST be true? Prove it.The true question one ought to ask is: what do you suppose this something is?Youve yet to prove that it is impossible to create something from nothing.
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:06:16 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 2:01:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:47:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:To defy this rule(it has been done, ergo vos) one must need something that exists outside this law to crate anything that isn t nil/nothing.How do you know that this MUST be true? Prove it.Defy it, it's scientific fact and tested by the scientific method.The true question one ought to ask is: what do you suppose this something is?Youve yet to prove that it is impossible to create something from nothing.The argument of what? is "god did it" vs cosmology and quantum mechanics.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 5,466 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:09:58 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 2:06:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 2:01:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:47:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:To defy this rule(it has been done, ergo vos) one must need something that exists outside this law to crate anything that isn t nil/nothing.How do you know that this MUST be true? Prove it.Defy it, it's scientific fact and tested by the scientific method.Didn't you dismiss my argument by virtue of the fact that "5" and "-5" are theoretical? You can't chop-and-change your argument when it's expedient.Moreover the scientific "fact" and "method" have also shown that particles spring into, and out of existenceThe true question one ought to ask is: what do you suppose this something is?Youve yet to prove that it is impossible to create something from nothing.The argument of what? is "god did it" vs cosmology and quantum mechanics.What makes you think that something needs to come from nothing for cosmology and quantumn mechanics?
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:25:08 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 2:09:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 9/8/2010 2:06:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:At 9/8/2010 2:01:26 PM, tkubok wrote:At 9/8/2010 1:47:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:To defy this rule(it has been done, ergo vos) one must need something that exists outside this law to crate anything that isn t nil/nothing.How do you know that this MUST be true? Prove it.Defy it, it's scientific fact and tested by the scientific method.Didn't you dismiss my argument by virtue of the fact that "5" and "-5" are theoretical? You can't chop-and-change your argument when it's expedient.0 is 5 subtract 5, you're right. I meant 0 progressing or changing to anything other than itself. See above meant see what I told Kinesis.Moreover the scientific "fact" and "method" have also shown that particles spring into, and out of existence.From starting conditions which are not nothing.The true question one ought to ask is: what do you suppose this something is?Youve yet to prove that it is impossible to create something from nothing.The argument of what? is "god did it" vs cosmology and quantum mechanics.What makes you think that something needs to come from nothing for cosmology and quantumn mechanics?Evidence.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 4,933 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:30:14 PMPosted: 7 years agoEven in quantum field theory or any other part of quantum mechanics(id est Free particles) have staring conditions in which they do what they do.'sup DDO -- july 2013
 Posts: 5,466 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:38:32 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 2:25:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:0 is 5 subtract 5, you're right. I meant 0 progressing or changing to anything other than itself. See above meant see what I told Kinesis.Now your drawing an artificial line; 5 is something, -5 is something; 0 can, at any point change into both -5, and +5; but still be 0. They are two somethings that are equivalent to nothing!You need to back up the statement that "nothing progresses or changes into something other than itself that is not nothing," because there is no evidence to suggest that this is a limitation of the universe; as with virtual particles; a something, and an anti-something can be created from nothing; but still be nothing.Moreover the scientific "fact" and "method" have also shown that particles spring into, and out of existence.From starting conditions which are not nothing.From a vacumn; which is nothing. Unless you count time and space as something; in which case your argument, which by using terms such as "spring", "created", "into" and "out of", implies a time transition; in that "there is a point in time in which there was nothing, and a second point in time at which there was something." This would be completely nonsensical argument if "time" is not a property of your nothing.What makes you think that something needs to come from nothing forcosmology and quantumn mechanics?Evidence.As eluded to in the previous paragraph; the universe can be eternal; in that there is no point in time in which the universe does not exist, yet finite; in that there is a definite point of time before which you cannot go.The way to think about it, is to think about time as latitude on a sphere. The sphere has a very definite length from the north to south pole; and a distinct point at which latitude = 0; but you cannot point to any unique point on the surface at which "latitude is comes from nothing," as there are no edges.
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 2:57:30 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 1:28:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:Break the law,From nothingness comes something, impossible.If by nothingness you mean the absence of all things and all properties, then I totally agree. This is because that type of "nothing" is a contradiction and something physically cannot come from a contradiction as contradictions do not exist physically.In this case, it is very different from the "nothing" that does exist, i.e. singularity. The number 0 represents such things; a blank (white) canvas; space; etc. These are real "nothings" and not the paradoxical concept above.WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 2,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 5:20:36 PMPosted: 7 years agoTheory of inflation, please.According to the uncertainty principle, something can come from nothing.Little vacuum fluctuations appear and disappear within a fraction of a second. They are extremely, extremely small. Usually, these packets of energy disappear, unless they contain a form of energy called a scalar field, which is happens extremely rarely. However, since time always existed, there is bound to be a packet of energy containing a scalar field. Anyways, this scalar fields acts like antigravity, and then expands this packet of energy to the size of a grapefruit almost instantaneously. Then, this superheated grape fruit started expanding more slowly.Welcome to the Big Bang. The rest is just physics.Anyways, that was probably a very basic description of the Inflation theory, but there you go.Also, that little packet of energy moved faster than the speed of light. It was space-time, at that moment, so that's why it was able to.;DI miss the old members.
 Posts: 2,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 5:26:24 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 5:20:36 PM, Atheism wrote:Theory of inflation, please.According to the uncertainty principle, something can come from nothing.Little vacuum fluctuations appear and disappear within a fraction of a second. They are extremely, extremely small. Usually, these packets of energy disappear, unless they contain a form of energy called a scalar field, which is happens extremely rarely. However, since time always existed, there is bound to be a packet of energy containing a scalar field. Anyways, this scalar fields acts like antigravity, and then expands this packet of energy to the size of a grapefruit almost instantaneously. Then, this superheated grape fruit started expanding more slowly.Welcome to the Big Bang. The rest is just physics.Anyways, that was probably a very basic description of the Inflation theory, but there you go.Also, that little packet of energy moved faster than the speed of light. It was space-time, at that moment, so that's why it was able to.;DSource:http://en.wikipedia.org...30-Second Theories, editor Paul Parsons.I miss the old members.
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 5:41:05 PMPosted: 7 years agoI agree that the inherent in the concepts of Something.. Nothing... and Causal relations....is the idea that Something can only COME from something...there's a series of events that connect the two... the nature of the first leads to the second..."Nothing" = no nature...... so not leading ANYWHERE...nothing comes from nothing.I think it's pretty clear that there never was Nothing in the first place...also... being that times an illusion and all...Existence EXISTS!... how do I know?... THROUGH THIS!!"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 5:51:05 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 5:20:36 PM, Atheism wrote:Theory of inflation, please.According to the uncertainty principle, something can come from nothing.If nothing does not exist, how can something come from nothing? Unless this nothing is a singularity, which of course is not nothing in that sense.Little vacuum fluctuations appear and disappear within a fraction of a second. They are extremely, extremely small. Usually, these packets of energy disappear, unless they contain a form of energy called a scalar field, which is happens extremely rarely.However, since time always existed, there is bound to be a packet of energy containing a scalar field. Anyways, this scalar fields acts like antigravity, and then expands this packet of energy to the size of a grapefruit almost instantaneously. Then, this superheated grape fruit started expanding more slowly.All wonderful speculation & conjecture without even a hint of empirical evidence!Welcome to the Big Bang. The rest is just physics.Anyways, that was probably a very basic description of the Inflation theory, but there you go.Also, that little packet of energy moved faster than the speed of light. It was space-time, at that moment, so that's why it was able to.;DWOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 15,699 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 5:56:17 PMPosted: 7 years agoIs this some kind of topic about the Big Bang? If so, I always have found it odd how everything could have supposably come from nothing.
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:02:44 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 5:56:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Is this some kind of topic about the Big Bang? If so, I always have found it odd how everything could have supposably come from nothing.To my knowledge... the Big Bang theory doesn't say it came from nothing...it doesn't talk about how/why the "singularity" existed... it just says it did."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 15,699 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:06:04 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:02:44 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 9/8/2010 5:56:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Is this some kind of topic about the Big Bang? If so, I always have found it odd how everything could have supposably come from nothing.To my knowledge... the Big Bang theory doesn't say it came from nothing...it doesn't talk about how/why the "singularity" existed... it just says it did.Yes, "says it did" without even having an explanation, not very convincing.
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:11:25 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:06:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Yes, "says it did" without even having an explanationyes... it JUST explains that all things apparently came from a small point a long long time ago....it doesn't explain WHY that happened... it's just saying that that's apparently what happened."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 15,699 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:20:48 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:11:25 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 9/8/2010 6:06:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Yes, "says it did" without even having an explanationyes... it JUST explains that all things apparently came from a small point a long long time ago....it doesn't explain WHY that happened... it's just saying that that's apparently what happened.Which makes it not a very convincing theory on its own. There must be something else behind it.
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:23:53 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 5:56:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Is this some kind of topic about the Big Bang? If so, I always have found it odd how everything could have supposably come from nothing.That's because it didn't. Everything coming from nothing is an absurdity.At 9/8/2010 6:02:44 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:To my knowledge... the Big Bang theory doesn't say it came from nothing...True, some "flavors" of the Big Bang do hint at it though.it doesn't talk about how/why the "singularity" existed... it just says it did.Some theories do, however.At 9/8/2010 6:06:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Yes, "says it did" without even having an explanation, not very convincing.Actually, some theories do speculate about this. After t = 0, the Big Bang begins, time begins. At t = 0, is the singularity that is the initial uncaused state that existed timelessly.And there you go!WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:37:39 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:20:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:At 9/8/2010 6:11:25 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:At 9/8/2010 6:06:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Yes, "says it did" without even having an explanationyes... it JUST explains that all things apparently came from a small point a long long time ago....it doesn't explain WHY that happened... it's just saying that that's apparently what happened.Which makes it not a very convincing theory on its own. There must be something else behind it.sure... just like there's something behind electrons... and neutrons... and quarks.But I dunno what.... I have a feeling if you COULD discover what was "behind" it... you'd STILL believe there must be something behind the next thing...like how "quarks" don't satisfy for explaining matter... and the Next small thing won't either.Matter is slow energy!...but WTF IS ENERGY!!! @&@%^!&^%----...and BTW... there's no good reason to believe in "God" :PWhy's God exist? lol... He just does! lol...Double Standards are GR8!!!---My understanding is that my understanding is limited... and Perspective bound... and it would seem Simply cannot fully/ABSOLUTELY grasp the underlying Reality. (there's always more "why's")Existence Exists!... but my ability to have a conceptual understanding of it's nature appears limited... such that it seems I cannot get any absolute/full understanding of it... but only come to limited understandings of it which appear to be useful...I naturally discriminate "things" and "relations between things" out of it... and naturally come to care about many of those "things" which I discriminate... But even these Natural discriminations can't be claimed to be absolute...Existence Exists... I accept it as it seemingly "comes" through "time" and "space"... AND I accept it as it seemingly comes from the "Big Bang"...I don't Know WHY existence exists... It just does."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 6:40:13 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:37:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:I don't Know WHY existence exists... It just does.there is no why.you'd agree with God...IT JUST DOES."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 7:36:50 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 6:37:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:My understanding is that my understanding is limited... and Perspective bound... and it would seem Simply cannot fully/ABSOLUTELY grasp the underlying Reality. (there's always more "why's")Underlying reality? If it's "perspective bound" then there can be no way to show that there is an underlying reality...unless I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.Existence Exists!... but my ability to have a conceptual understanding of it's nature appears limited... such that it seems I cannot get any absolute/full understanding of it... but only come to limited understandings of it which appear to be useful...Sure, what's wrong with that?I naturally discriminate "things" and "relations between things" out of it... and naturally come to care about many of those "things" which I discriminate... But even these Natural discriminations can't be claimed to be absolute...Some things can, somethings can't.Existence Exists... I accept it as it seemingly "comes" through "time" and "space"... AND I accept it as it seemingly comes from the "Big Bang"...It is so even without time or the Big Bang.I don't Know WHY existence exists... It just does.I just told you why: there is no other alternative because non-existence does not exist! It is the default state.WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 8:19:57 PMPosted: 7 years agoI think we agree.At 9/8/2010 7:36:50 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 9/8/2010 6:37:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:My understanding is that my understanding is limited... and Perspective bound... and it would seem Simply cannot fully/ABSOLUTELY grasp the underlying Reality. (there's always more "why's")Underlying reality? If it's "perspective bound" then there can be no way to show that there is an underlying reality...unless I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.Quite clearly something exists.... whether or not MY conception captures something particularly representative of that "reality".... it's there.the fact that I'm saying your conceptions of things is perspective bound Doesn't mean your deduction that existence exists is bad... for it's purdy clear things/something exists.... even if our conceptions aren't really representative of the Actual/absolute nature of things....Existence Exists!... but my ability to have a conceptual understanding of it's nature appears limited... such that it seems I cannot get any absolute/full understanding of it... but only come to limited understandings of it which appear to be useful...Sure, what's wrong with that?Nada.I naturally discriminate "things" and "relations between things" out of it... and naturally come to care about many of those "things" which I discriminate... But even these Natural discriminations can't be claimed to be absolute...Some things can,like what? Math... logic... and the like?You naturally assume them... and it seems as though they hold... but who's to say they actually reflect the Nature of Reality... Rather than just reflect the manner in which you can think of it.And... if you can't absolutely know the Nature of Reality... you also can't absolutely know your own Nature.... so you ALSO can't say Math/Logic are NECESSARILLY the only way you can think of things.... as you can't absolutely know your own nature.... how it seems now could plausibly change! :)somethings can't.Existence Exists... I accept it as it seemingly "comes" through "time" and "space"... AND I accept it as it seemingly comes from the "Big Bang"...It is so even without time or the Big Bang.I don't Know WHY existence exists... It just does.I just told you why: there is no other alternative because non-existence does not exist!.lol... I said that plenty.It is the default statethere's no reason for something rather than Nothing that I know of... other than the fact that there's something. ;)it's only "default" b/c there's something...there's no particular reason why there Must be something rather than nothing... OTHER than that that's just the way it is."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 8,150 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/8/2010 8:22:46 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 9/8/2010 5:20:36 PM, Atheism wrote:According to the uncertainty principle, something can come from nothing.No, not really. These virtual particles come out of fields in a vacuum.At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote: BLACK LIVES MATTER!