A Universe from Nothing?

[Darkstorn]

and making assumption of what I read and didn't read......makes you a simpleton
on a grander scale

No it doesn't. You openly admit to assuming that the text says something it doesn't say. My assessment that you didn't read it is rational and based on your own words.

I need not accept a text that admits to it's own lack of......rigorous proof

It doesn't admit to it. I mean, it doesn't admit to its OWN lack of rigorous proof. Had you read the text, it would be obvious that it's not a self-reference. Therefore, i assume you didn't read the text.

 

[Thief]

No it doesn't. You openly admit to assuming that the text says something it doesn't say. My assessment that you didn't read it is rational and based on your own words.



It doesn't admit to it. I mean, it doesn't admit to its OWN lack of rigorous proof. Had you read the text, it would be obvious that it's not a self-reference. Therefore, i assume you didn't read the text.

i got it.....I really did

and where you refuse a notion without proof......
so will I

 

[Darkstorn]

i got it.....I really did

You haven't shown this statement to be true. The proof in your posts indicates otherwise.

And where you refuse a notion without proof......
so will I

What notion have i refused without proof, hm?

 

[Thief]

What notion have i refused without proof, hm?

God as Creator

 

[Darkstorn]

God as Creator

I haven't refused that at all. You've affirmed it. You're making an assumption about my beliefs. It's folly and you've guessed wrong.

My point is: I would never argue either for or against the existence of gods. You're missing the point why i'm arguing with you: I'm trying to make it apparent to you that your points are too weak to support your claims, and you aren't even capable of arguing them. You just assert.

I'm arguing that YOUR claims are weak and not convincing. I'm not arguing for or against gods, only against people.

 

[ChristineM]

There is only one universe, the prefix uni means one. The next question is to ask is, is it possible universal existence extends infinitely, and I say yes. If there is one infinite eternal existence, then the principle of manifested aggregations such as planetary systems which exist in stellar systems, which exist in galactic systems, may continue in ever larger aggregations going on infinitely. Sure, individual aggregations have births and deaths. but the whole is always in existence.

Old definition with no evidence to back up its claim , science / cosmology has progressed considerable since the definition was coined. The word multiverse is now commonly understood to be valid based on observation.

I have a already stated, by your limited requirement of denying a multiverse that it is impossible for this universe to be eternal. It was born 13.8 bn years ago, 13.8 is not eternal.

 

[ChristineM]

....a shallow assumption on your part
and to offer a report to support your discussion....and that report begins by saying....

no rigorous proof

was a grave error on your part.

back to the beginning
where all we get to do is ...choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

Like no rigorous proof of god, yet you spit rather than provide substance

If all you can do is cherry pick the few words you want from the reality of an entire peer reviewed paper that both mathematically and physically discredits your nonsense then you are done as a waste of my time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Old definition with no evidence to back up its claim , science / cosmology has progressed considerable since the definition was coined. The word multiverse is now commonly understood to be valid based on observation.

I have a already stated, by your limited requirement of denying a multiverse that it is impossible for this universe to be eternal. It was born 13.8 bn years ago, 13.8 is not eternal.

Yes, I understand language evolves, but regardless of the present term 'multiverse', there is still an underlying unity to existence so the multiverse would still be the universe, albeit meaning something different to what it presently refers to. I do not know what you mean I have no evidence to back it up? Back what up? Do you mean that the term universe does not imply a unity?

So far as the essence of the presently known universe, it could only have been born 13.8 bn years ago if it came from nothing, and there is no proof of that, so you can not rule out that the sum total of its essential mass and energy is eternal.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I understand language evolves, but regardless of the present term 'multiverse', there is still an underlying unity to existence so the multiverse would still be the universe, albeit meaning something different to what it presently refers to. I do not know what you mean I have no evidence to back it up? Back what up? Do you mean that the term universe does not imply a unity?

So far as the essence of the presently known universe, it could only have been born 13.8 bn years ago if it came from nothing, and there is no proof of that, so you can not rule out that the sum total of its essential mass and energy is eternal.

Meaning different = different word, hence multiverse.

No matter where it came from, nothing, quantum collision, spawned from other universes, expelled from some spaceman's nostril. It is still only 13.8 billion years old

There is also no proof of god ... Yet you have no trouble accepting gods existence under your own terms

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Meaning different = different word, hence multiverse.

No matter where it came from, nothing, quantum collision, spawned from other universes, expelled from some spaceman's nostril. It is still only 13.8 billion years old

There is also no proof of god ... Yet you have no trouble accepting gods existence under your own terms

The term multiverse is referenced to the idea that the known universe was the extent of existence. and 'multi' implies there may be more than one of these bb universes. But I still do not know what you want me to back up?

Listen to yourself, if the sum total of this universe's essential mass and energy came from other preexisting universe, then it was not born 13.8 bn years ago, it already existed. Hence you can not rule out that it is eternal.

Haha...what a feeble strsawman to bring at this time, why do you raise the issue of the proof of God?

 

[Thief]

I haven't refused that at all. You've affirmed it. You're making an assumption about my beliefs. It's folly and you've guessed wrong.

My point is: I would never argue either for or against the existence of gods. You're missing the point why i'm arguing with you: I'm trying to make it apparent to you that your points are too weak to support your claims, and you aren't even capable of arguing them. You just assert.

I'm arguing that YOUR claims are weak and not convincing. I'm not arguing for or against gods, only against people.

and you are waiting for proof?......still?

we covered that

 

[Thief]

Like no rigorous proof of god, yet you spit rather than provide substance

If all you can do is cherry pick the few words you want from the reality of an entire peer reviewed paper that both mathematically and physically discredits your nonsense then you are done as a waste of my time.

then choose.....

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Darkstorn]

and you are waiting for proof?......still?

we covered that

No. I'm waiting for you to make a convincing argument for your own case, and to support your so far empty and unsubstantiated claims. I find i have been reasonable in my conduct with you so far, and i feel like you're using maybe one tenth of the effort others seem to give in answering to you.

Furthermore, you are constantly moving the goalposts. My post was addressing you misquoting a piece text, and openly admitting to making an assumption without reading the text in question. And now you're trying to shift my issue into being one about creators, or proof(you still don't know what this word means, seeing as your CLAIMS have been proven wrong) about them. I was not arguing about that, why are you quoting me and trying to make it into a discussion about evidence(this is the word you're looking for) for or against a god?

I was ONLY refuting your post. I was proving that your case was weak, because you quoted a single part of the text without reading the rest, and somehow used that as evidence for the text being wrong... Question: Why would an article refute itself in the opening paragraph? Probably to make a point LATER ON. I feel explaining this to you is starting to be an exercise in futility. You don't seem to understand very simple, general concepts...

Here it is again, simplified: I accused you of making an assumption on an article based on a single sentence. You admitted to it. You are now trying to shift attention away from this fact, because you couldn't reasonably argue a defence against that claim.

then choose.....

Spirit first?
or substance?

What do you mean by spirit? What do you mean by substance? Again: Substance can mean "essence" or even "reality." You don't find spirit essential? You don't find it reality? If it's real, existent, essential, tangible, non-imaginary, then by the definition of the word substance, spirit is substance. There is no evidence for your simplistic premise of course, BUT: Assuming your claim was true, then spirit is substance by definition. To argue against this is to argue against word definitions.

Notice: That was an answer to the question, reluctantly. I've already done it at least twice. What answer are you looking for you to give this question a rest? Why not try something actually thought-provoking instead of this useless drivel?

Also: You keep asking that same question in every single topic you take part in basically. How do you think it relates to all those topics? How is it not off-topic? Are you wishing that if you do it in a hundred different threads, it's bound to hit the mark at least once?

I'm starting to get tired of you spamming it over and over again as if it was a deep, satisfying, or convincing end-of-all-questions type of resolution. I don't think you have considered the possible answer, or the question itself with as much rigorous thought than most of your opponents have. Trust me.

 

[Thief]

What do you mean by spirit? What do you mean by substance? Again: Substance can mean "essence" or even "reality." You don't find spirit essential? You don't find it reality? If it's real, existent, essential, tangible, non-imaginary, then by the definition of the word substance, spirit is substance. There is no evidence for your simplistic premise of course, BUT: Assuming your claim was true, then spirit is substance by definition. To argue against this is to argue against word definitions.

you don't seem able to answer the question
and have confused yourself

obviously Spirit and substance are not the same item

when you get it right the answer will be easier

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Darkstorn]

you don't seem able to answer the question

I just answered it. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted. You wanted me to say substance. I said: "Assuming your claim was true, then spirit is substance by definition."

As in, if your claims are correct, then spirit is substance. If they're not, then spirit is just imaginary.

and have confused yourself

You haven't shown this accusation to be true.

obviously Spirit and substance are not the same item

Define them then. Substance can mean anything from "thing" to "reality" and everything in between. That you've actually already categorized them as different "items" would already point out to me that your definitions differ from mine. So explain them. I already answered your question. You just didn't like it.

You say "obviously." Yet you are incapable of understanding that it's not obvious to everyone. You haven't shown rationally how your stance is obvious. You just assert that it is.

when you get it right the answer will be easier

Oh, so there is a right answer just like i thought there would be? And in your view i answered wrong. Okay. Show me your criteria. What answer is the right one, and can you prove your claim to be correct?

Spirit first?
or substance?

I think i've proven with enough certainty that the question is more than empty: It's nonsensical. Spirit by definition is substance, if we use language the way everyone uses it and not just how you use it. For you to understand this kind of false-dichotomy you're making, you would first need to understand that spirit is a word like substance is a word. Then you would need to understand the meanings of the words. Then you would have to show how they relate to each other.

In the end, they are just words and your argument is mostly semantics based. But semantics doesn't actually prove your case: You have to show it somehow to be true. For example, with evidence. But even making a SINGLE logical post that could somehow prove its own statement would be a start... And i don't think your logic is sound. You jump to conclusions way too hard to be considered logical.

I don't wish to insult your intelligence. So please, for once, understand what i'm writing, please. You've already managed to derail the thread further: My original claim was only that you quoted a piece of text and ignored the rest, which you admitted to. I think you're using distraction to hide this fact.

I was not arguing for the existence or non-existence of gods.

I think you've intentionally ignored SO many questions in this thread it's unfair and naive for you to think we owe you answers to your silly inane question. I've even answered it, it wasn't good enough. You've ONLY answered to questions by posing more questions, or even more often, the same question over again. How about you answer to questions before expecting others to answer to you?

I mean seriously, i made the claim that you use one tenth of the effort others have to use when arguing with you. I think it still stands. Your level of effort is downright insulting.

 

[Thief]

here you go......
gotta drag you along like you can find a dictionary.......

the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:
(Bing search)

 

[Darkstorn]

here you go......
gotta drag you along like you can find a dictionary.......

the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:
(Bing search)

I knew that. But can you now show the definition of substance?

(I like how you ignored 99% of my post. I did make the claim that you use less effort than others in arguing with you. You're showing this to be true. I made a long post after all, and you didn't answer to ANY of it pretty much.)

/E: I also wouldn't mind evidence for "nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul."

I'm pretty sure all available evidence actually points out that the seat of emotions definitely is physical... And your character is defined by your actions... And yours is not much to talk about.

 

[Thief]

I knew that. But can you now show the definition of substance?

(I like how you ignored 99% of my post. I did make the claim that you use less effort than others in arguing with you. You're showing this to be true. I made a long post after all, and you didn't answer to ANY of it pretty much.)

most discussions are a lot of type (hype)

and substance would be that stuff NOT spirit

think you might conjure a notion?
which came first?

 

[Darkstorn]

most discussions are a lot of type (hype)

and substance would be that stuff NOT spirit

This is false. Substance, according to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SUBSTANCE

1.

a : essential nature : essence

b : a fundamental or characteristic part or quality

c : Christian Science : god

...

think you might conjure a notion?
which came first?

If spirit exists, it is by definition of substance. Problem: You haven't shown that it does exist, and it's still up to you to do that before your question can be elevated from silly subjective conjecture to something people might actually form serious thoughts about. Right now it'd be easiest to just ignore it if you didn't keep spamming it everywhere and pestering people about it.

Here's the thing. I actually bothered to answer your question. Then you started arguing about my answers. You are derailing the thread. This thread isn't about your question. If you really ONLY wish to argue about your silly question, then make your own thread. You are literally trying to make this thread about you and your question, and you do it in other threads too. You don't seem to care what the topic is ACTUALLY about. Plus:

I only addressed the fact that you openly misquoted a piece of text without reading said text and made assumptions about it, which you admitted in the very same post.

If you keep quoting me:

A. Stop moving the goal posts.

B. Stop changing the subject.

C. Address all the claims i made if you expect me to address all of yours.

I feel like a parrot for repeating this: You use less effort than others in a debate. MUCH less. You expect people to take you seriously, answer your question when the thread isn't even about it, and not ignore a SINGLE letter of your claims or you yourself start making empty claims about people misquoting you when they've done nothing of the sort. Then you just ignore just about EVERYTHING THROWN AT YOU.

This is an exercise in futility, and you are intentionally wanting people to lower the standard of discussion so you can keep up... But this isn't about you. It's not even about me. So, unless you have something to defend any of your claims with, or answer any of my points, don't bother expecting any more answers. I don't want to derail this thread myself.

I already answered your question twice in this thread. Stop asking it from me again. Or at least explain how my answers are wrong with SOME effort. Seriously. I used rational arguments to form my statements. You just ignore it with "nuh-uh." How fair is that?

 

[Thief]

This is false. Substance, according to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SUBSTANCE

1.

a : essential nature : essence

b : a fundamental or characteristic part or quality

c : Christian Science : god

...



If spirit exists, it is by definition of substance. Problem: You haven't shown that it does exist, and it's still up to you to do that before your question can be elevated from silly subjective conjecture to something people might actually form serious thoughts about. Right now it'd be easiest to just ignore it if you didn't keep spamming it everywhere and pestering people about it.

Here's the thing. I actually bothered to answer your question. Then you started arguing about my answers. You are derailing the thread. This thread isn't about your question. If you really ONLY wish to argue about your silly question, then make your own thread. You are literally trying to make this thread about you and your question, and you do it in other threads too. You don't seem to care what the topic is ACTUALLY about. Plus:

I only addressed the fact that you openly misquoted a piece of text without reading said text and made assumptions about it, which you admitted in the very same post.

If you keep quoting me:

A. Stop moving the goal posts.

B. Stop changing the subject.

C. Address all the claims i made if you expect me to address all of yours.

I feel like a parrot for repeating this: You use less effort than others in a debate. MUCH less. You expect people to take you seriously, answer your question when the thread isn't even about it, and not ignore a SINGLE letter of your claims or you yourself start making empty claims about people misquoting you when they've done nothing of the sort. Then you just ignore just about EVERYTHING THROWN AT YOU.

This is an exercise in futility, and you are intentionally wanting people to lower the standard of discussion so you can keep up... But this isn't about you. It's not even about me. So, unless you have something to defend any of your claims with, or answer any of my points, don't bother expecting any more answers. I don't want to derail this thread myself.

I already answered your question twice in this thread. Stop asking it from me again. Or at least explain how my answers are wrong with SOME effort. Seriously. I used rational arguments to form my statements. You just ignore it with "nuh-uh." How fair is that?

so....you can't grasp the differene between spirit and substance

not my problem

Spirit first?
or substance?

it's one OR the other

by a man about it

Choose