A Universe from Nothing?

[Darkstorn]

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

So, you have trouble reading?

not my problem

Yeah, unless it's literally you not reading something and making assumptions. You've done it again. You didn't even read the post. You couldn't have in that time.

I find your ability to ignore stuff quite commendable. The sad fact is, you seem to also think other people will not catch you doing that... I mean, it's pretty obvious that you ignored most of what i said. You didn't even try to address any of it.

Spirit first?
or substance?

it's one OR the other

If spirit exists, it's substance. You haven't shown that it exists though, so it remains imaginary.

by a man about it

Be a man and stop ignoring ALL the points i'm making. Address my claims. If you really want to talk about being a man that is.

Choose

Spirit and substance are by definition not contradictory. I am not required to choose one or the other. I can choose both. The fact that you can't see this is sad.

 

[Thief]

So, you have trouble reading?



Yeah, unless it's literally you not reading something and making assumptions. You've done it again. You didn't even read the post. You couldn't have in that time.

I find your ability to ignore stuff quite commendable. The sad fact is, you seem to also think other people will not catch you doing that... I mean, it's pretty obvious that you ignored most of what i said. You didn't even try to address any of it.



If spirit exists, it's substance. You haven't shown that it exists though, so it remains imaginary.



Be a man and stop ignoring ALL the points i'm making. Address my claims. If you really want to talk about being a man that is.



Spirit and substance are by definition not contradictory. I am not required to choose one or the other. I can choose both. The fact that you can't see this is sad.

if you insist.....now here comes the consequence

your spirit......is substance
your last breath is pending

when the chemistry fails......you......your spirit.....and your substance goes in the box
the box goes in the ground

your opinion goes with you

and no one.....of spirit.....will ever hear from you again

enjoy

 

[Darkstorn]

if you insist.....now here comes the consequence

I literally asked you to read my post and address it. You can't say "if you insist" and then posit something completely different. Now you're just saying, "instead of reading i'm going to proselytize a bit."

your spirit......is substance
your last breath is pending

when the chemistry fails......you......your spirit.....and your substance goes in the box
the box goes in the ground

your opinion goes with you

and no one.....of spirit.....will ever hear from you again

enjoy

So, i do get it now. Your definition of substance is different from everyone else's. For others it can even mean god. To you it only means: Something non-spiritual.

Oh well. Anyway, this "argument" seems to be quite offensive considering you are making assumptions about my belief without even truly understanding them. Then you are making assumptions as to what will happen to me based upon my beliefs. Which you don't even know...

You judged me and everyone else before anyone ever replied to you. This is what this amounts to: You don't know my beliefs yet you're trying to argue them.

Why are you considering those who argue with you godless atheist evolutionists just because they don't agree with your unsupported claims? I'm pretty certain your debating style just isn't very convincing no matter your beliefs.

/E: Your argument hinges on you using different definitions to everyone else. Therefore, your argument is not about god; it's about language. And you are arguing against everyone else.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

Multiverse : hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one.

Back up your claim this universe is eternal

You have no idea ( nor has any one else) how this universe was conceived... None

Because you are continually insisting i provide proof.

 

[ChristineM]

then choose.....

Spirit first?
or substance?

I choose to ignore the spitter with no substance

 

[Thief]

I literally asked you to read my post and address it. You can't say "if you insist" and then posit something completely different. Now you're just saying, "instead of reading i'm going to proselytize a bit."



So, i do get it now. Your definition of substance is different from everyone else's. For others it can even mean god. To you it only means: Something non-spiritual.

Oh well. Anyway, this "argument" seems to be quite offensive considering you are making assumptions about my belief without even truly understanding them. Then you are making assumptions as to what will happen to me based upon my beliefs. Which you don't even know...

You judged me and everyone else before anyone ever replied to you. This is what this amounts to: You don't know my beliefs yet you're trying to argue them.

Why are you considering those who argue with you godless atheist evolutionists just because they don't agree with your unsupported claims? I'm pretty certain your debating style just isn't very convincing no matter your beliefs.

/E: Your argument hinges on you using different definitions to everyone else. Therefore, your argument is not about god; it's about language. And you are arguing against everyone else.

nay......I grew up with all kinds of people who believe in Spirit
and that Spirit is not of substance

 

[Darkstorn]

nay......I grew up with all kinds of people who believe in Spirit
and that Spirit is not of substance

Yes, but those people also don't believe in accepted word definitions.

"Spirit is not of substance" is synonymous with "spirit is not real." That's the problem here. Substance can mean "god." It can also mean essence, significance, "realness."

IF spirit exist, it MUST by definition be of substance: ANYTHING that exists is of substance. By definition.

I simply think that those people who believe in spirit but don't think it of substance aren't very smart. They are making the claim that they believe in something that cannot be real. It's not logical, and definitely not reasonable.

I've only ever seen one people believe that. You.

/E: I also think your question fails because you tried to make it "sound" mysterious. It sounds better than corporeal or non-corporeal. But it's also factually weak: Substance doesn't just mean corporeal. But spirit refers to non-corporeal... They aren't contradictory at all.

 

[Thief]

Multiverse : hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one.

Back up your claim this universe is eternal

You have no idea ( nor has any one else) how this universe was conceived... None

Because you are continually insisting i provide proof.

ok then.......

the initial......I AM!......is a mystery
I would agree to that

Someone had to be first

not sure how He did that

we get to ask Him when we get 'there'

 

[Thief]

Yes, but those people also don't believe in accepted word definitions.

"Spirit is not of substance" is synonymous with "spirit is not real." That's the problem here. Substance can mean "god." It can also mean essence, significance, "realness."

IF spirit exist, it MUST by definition be of substance: ANYTHING that exists is of substance. By definition.

I simply think that those people who believe in spirit but don't think it of substance aren't very smart. They are making the claim that they believe in something that cannot be real. It's not logical, and definitely not reasonable.

I've only ever seen one people believe that. You.

/E: I also think your question fails because you tried to make it "sound" mysterious. It sounds better than corporeal or non-corporeal. But it's also factually weak: Substance doesn't just mean corporeal. But spirit refers to non-corporeal... They aren't contradictory at all.

so now you assume what others believe?

atta boy

 

[Darkstorn]

so now you assume what others believe?

atta boy

No? I was just listening to what you said and i didn't question it.

So i'm assuming what others believe by listening to you?

Logical arguments from now on, please. You are making a fool of yourself.

/E: In a language you can understand: The only assumption i made was that you might be speaking the truth. Guess not.

 

[Thief]

No? I was just listening to what you said and i didn't question it.

So i'm assuming what others believe by listening to you?

Logical arguments from now on, please. You are making a fool of yourself.

/E: In a language you can understand: The only assumption i made was that you might be speaking the truth. Guess not.

proof read your postwork

then choose....
Spirit first?
or substance?

it's one or the other

 

[Darkstorn]

proof read your postwork

Again, i merely agreed with what you were saying. That means you made assumptions about people's beliefs, and i merely acknowledged it. Again, the only assumption i made was that you might be speaking the truth.

You made the claim that there are "people who believe in Spirit and that Spirit is not of substance."

Word definitions are not be about belief. You have changed the definition of the word "substance" to suit your needs, ignoring its actual meaning. What do you mean when you say substance? I already gave you dictionary examples as to what it means.

IF spirit exists, as per your claim, then it is by DEFINITION substance. You cannot argue against this unless you feel like doing something futile. If it doesn't exist, then it isn't of substance, or even real(which substance refers to.) If it's real, or existing, then it by definition is of substance.

You are arguing about language, not for the existence of gods. You must understand this. That's why your question is inane: It doesn't ask what you think it does.

Again, i repeat MY question: What do you mean by substance? Obviously, as per your words, you do NOT agree to the accepted definitions.

I mean seriously: I gave you a rational explanation as to why spirit is substance if it exists. You refuse to even elaborate on what substance is. I gave you an answer to your question, and i also gave it more thought than you did. Then you just repeat the question.

This is STILL ignoring the fact that i ONLY REPLIED TO YOU because you were quoting a part of text, without reading the rest, and making an assumption about the text, to which you admitted to in the same post you quoted it in. Why are you still trying to change the subject from this?

You talk about proof but you barely use any effort in your replies: There is proof that your claims are empty. People have argued you using logic and you barely use any time and effort to come back with a retort... That often doesn't even have anything to do with the original claim.

You are going to ignore this wall of text like you did all the others. It'll prove your dishonesty. I'd be surprised if you actually answered a single question posed by me.

then choose....
Spirit first?
or substance?

it's one or the other

It's both, and entirely dependent on definitions(you've chosen your own and are refusing to elaborate.) I've already answered this question at least three times. How many times do you need for you to stop polluting the thread with it? Specifically: Why are you asking it from me? I already answered it. As honestly, and as rationally as one could hope to.

You are looking for an irrational answer. And you can't even use logic to defend your position rationally... You don't ever actually consider how futile it is to enter debate forums with:

A. No experience of debating.

B. No debates.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't bring me into it, I have no belief or faith in the possibility of a universe coming from nothing, it is only you, Thief, Christine, Polymath, and others who believe it may be possible.

Why do you believe that it is impossible? How did you rule it out?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there is no reason a scientist can't be religious and likewise no reason a religious soul can't be a scientist.

But for the scientist to do science, he needs to keep his faith based beliefs out of his work (compartmentalize). His work needs to be something that an atheistic scientist could endorse.

Newton was a faith based thinker and a scientist. His work that survives - work on calculus, gravity, optics, and mechanics - contains no faith based assumptions. He was chose to compartmentalize when doing that.

That which is faith based, such as his alchemy, is useless.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Multiverse : hypothetical space or realm consisting of a number of universes, of which our own universe is only one.

Back up your claim this universe is eternal

You have no idea ( nor has any one else) how this universe was conceived... None

Because you are continually insisting i provide proof.

I accept that to your anthropogenic mind, the eternal universe is just an idea, but you have already shown us that you have not ruled out that possibility when you accept that the sum total of mass and energy of the universe may have preexisted the manifestation of the existing known universe.

 

[ChristineM]

I accept that to your anthropogenic mind, the eternal universe is just an idea, but you have already shown us that you have not ruled out that possibility when you accept that the sum total of mass and energy of the universe may have preexisted the manifestation of the existing known universe.

Your hyperbolic insult is ignored on grounds of thread etiquette

And in the same way your ignorance of quantum physics limits your opinion to magic

Interestingly i just read an article posted by sayak83
that explained all that was needed to drive this universe to inflate in the first fraction of a second was a total mass of 26 g in a vacuum bubble

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your hyperbolic insult is ignored on grounds of thread etiquette

And in the same way your ignorance of quantum physics limits your opinion to magic

Interestingly i just read an article posted by sayak83
that explained all that was needed to drive this universe to inflate in the first fraction of a second was a total mass of 26 g in a vacuum bubble

No insult involved, I don't have a problem with what you said about this universe's preexisting mass and energy, so why would you see it as an insult?

So where is the inflating energy coming from? Is it coming into existence from nothing, or from a leftover singularity from some earlier universe or some such?

 

[Thief]

Again, i merely agreed with what you were saying. That means you made assumptions about people's beliefs, and i merely acknowledged it. Again, the only assumption i made was that you might be speaking the truth.

You made the claim that there are "people who believe in Spirit and that Spirit is not of substance."

Word definitions are not be about belief. You have changed the definition of the word "substance" to suit your needs, ignoring its actual meaning. What do you mean when you say substance? I already gave you dictionary examples as to what it means.

IF spirit exists, as per your claim, then it is by DEFINITION substance. You cannot argue against this unless you feel like doing something futile. If it doesn't exist, then it isn't of substance, or even real(which substance refers to.) If it's real, or existing, then it by definition is of substance.

You are arguing about language, not for the existence of gods. You must understand this. That's why your question is inane: It doesn't ask what you think it does.

Again, i repeat MY question: What do you mean by substance? Obviously, as per your words, you do NOT agree to the accepted definitions.

I mean seriously: I gave you a rational explanation as to why spirit is substance if it exists. You refuse to even elaborate on what substance is. I gave you an answer to your question, and i also gave it more thought than you did. Then you just repeat the question.

This is STILL ignoring the fact that i ONLY REPLIED TO YOU because you were quoting a part of text, without reading the rest, and making an assumption about the text, to which you admitted to in the same post you quoted it in. Why are you still trying to change the subject from this?

You talk about proof but you barely use any effort in your replies: There is proof that your claims are empty. People have argued you using logic and you barely use any time and effort to come back with a retort... That often doesn't even have anything to do with the original claim.

You are going to ignore this wall of text like you did all the others. It'll prove your dishonesty. I'd be surprised if you actually answered a single question posed by me.



It's both, and entirely dependent on definitions(you've chosen your own and are refusing to elaborate.) I've already answered this question at least three times. How many times do you need for you to stop polluting the thread with it? Specifically: Why are you asking it from me? I already answered it. As honestly, and as rationally as one could hope to.

You are looking for an irrational answer. And you can't even use logic to defend your position rationally... You don't ever actually consider how futile it is to enter debate forums with:

A. No experience of debating.

B. No debates.

you're making post to avoid the issue

the debate begins at the beginning

Spirit first?
or substance?

shall we begin?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you believe that it is impossible? How did you rule it out?

Because of logic and science my friend. Logically something that does not exist can't somehow magically suddenly exist. Science says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be change from one form to another. The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But for the scientist to do science, he needs to keep his faith based beliefs out of his work (compartmentalize). His work needs to be something that an atheistic scientist could endorse.

Newton was a faith based thinker and a scientist. His work that survives - work on calculus, gravity, optics, and mechanics - contains no faith based assumptions. He was chose to compartmentalize when doing that.

That which is faith based, such as his alchemy, is useless.

Nothing you said appears to refute anything in my quoted comment? If you disagree, please quote my precise words that you disagree with and provide your reason?