Can Nothing Exist?

quote:

---

But you wouldn't. If you removed ABSOLUTELY everything you would have removed space as well as time. You can't have a cubic foot of space if you have removed the space. Space is something. It seems you are talking more about removing all matter but that still leaves you with space-time and energy which is not nothing.

---

Why can't you understand that all I am trying to do is answer the question posed for the thread, "Does nothing exist?"My statements have implied that it's impossible to have "nothing" in the visible universe where light rays and such exist, but that if it could be accomplished what it would be? If you remove everything from a box, it would correctly said that there was nothing in the box but the box still exists. So with space. If you could, I repeat, if you could remove absolutely everything from a cubic foot of space, including light rays, the area/space which the things occupy would still exist.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-14-2003]

According to quantum theory, there can be no such thing as empty space. All of space is a seething cauldron of virtual particles flitting in and out of existence.You can speculate about other possibilities, but it wouldn't mean much because quantum theory is strongly supported by evidence. In the case of empty space not really being empty, the evidence comes to us via experiments. One famous experiment proved the existence of virtual particles by the increased attraction between narrowly separated charged plates, known today as the Casimir effect. I found a webpage describing it, look for "casimir effect": --Percy

Is this the best we have to talk about today? Whether or not nothing is something? This reminds me of a dialogue in my college newspaper entitled "Things Vs. Stuff". It was about as insightful as you can probably imagine.Doesn't anybody want to tell me that I'll go to hell unless I believe in their bible? Doesn't anybody want to share their latest, most damning evidence against the lie of evolution?

About as bad as "Can aliens be Christians"...

Don't feel bad, Mike, I'm getting a headache, too.

quote:

---

What's the chance of it raining today? Will rain come into existence, or will it remain nothing?

---

But the rain wasn't "nothing" before it was rain. The rain was water vapor held in the atmosphere before it was rain.

Quoting myself:

quote:

---

I note you use the philosophical term "naturalism" instead of "evolution". Care to comment?

​

This forum is to debate evolution vs. creationism. Naturalism vs. creationism is some sort of side issue.

​

So, what exactly are these "massive undertones"?

---

I still think this topics is a very esoteric detail in the big picture.Also, in my "semi-admin" comments above, I know realize that I may have caused a bit of confussion. In that case, my use of "This forum" was intended to refer to as a whole, and not the specific "Big Bang.." forum.(Ad)minnemooseus

quote:

---

Nosy, why is it that you think you need to mother me as where to post and what to say and believe? Why don't you stick to refuting specific statements with which you desagree and get off you're high horsey attitude toward those who don't think exactly like you?

---

Well, I can't speak for Ned, but I think the inclination to tell you what arguments you can and cannot address comes from your dogged insistance on ignoring the information and corrections people who are more informed on a subject than you are, provide for you. This tends to reinforce the idea that you pull a lot of what you say straight out of your backside.Of course, you seem to have that disease of not being able to admit that you don't know something or are wrong, no matter how much evidence or logic is stacked against your views.I may be completely off base, but I have this image of you, Buz, as the self-righteous patriarch of your family, ruling supreme, almost nobody in your clan contradicting anything you say. At least they don't bother trying to disagree with you anymore (even though some tried from time to time), because they know that you will never admit to not being right about averything, nor will you admit to not knowing something. I also imagine you as looking down your nose at advanced "book learning", and if anyone in your family went on to get a higher education, you regularly grumble about it if what they learned was contrary to anything you have decided is true.Do I have that about right, or am I completely wrong?

Maybe I'm just being 'otherwise' but when I read 'absolutely everything' I take that to include absolutely everything. I do however understand what you are trying to get at.I still content that the question has no meaning. Nothing, by definition, can not exist.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Buz, you couldn't handle the issues around volume, density and area when disussing the problem of the ability of the atmosphere to hold water as a gas. Those are very simple. You haven't dealt with that.Given that, why do you think you can understand something that, in fact, not that many people in the whole world have the mathematical background for and which is well outside of what our everyday experience prepares us for. Buz, like it or not there are smarter people than you and I. A whole lot smarter.Sometimes you just have to listen and think about something. Sometimes what you think or believe just isn't worth a damm. We all have to recognize that to have an opinion on a topic we need to have done some work if we want the opinion to be of any value to anyone. Some things take a lot of work. You haven't done the work.

quote:

---

Do I have that about right, or am I completely wrong?

---

The topic of this thread is not buzz. Why don't you all just get off your egukated high horses, get back on topic and stick to responding to my individual statements which btw are on topic. Specifically what have I said (cut and paste please) that is incorrect and specifically why?

Actually, Buz, maybe I owe you an apology. The statements about nothing you've been making are mostly as good as anyone else's. The comment about black in the daytime is a bit silly but then that's in line with the topic since most of the statements are a bit silly.But you might to well to finish up with the other threads that you've sort of left hanging instead of indulging in time wasting here.

quote:

---

Actually, Buz, maybe I owe you an apology. The statements about nothing you've been making are mostly as good as anyone else's. The comment about black in the daytime is a bit silly but then that's in line with the topic since most of the statements are a bit silly.
But you might to well to finish up with the other threads that you've sort of left hanging instead of indulging in time wasting here.

---

Thanks very much, Ned. You're a good example of the quality of people here in this town, generally. Most of you are dogmatic evos, but decent folks to debate, cuss n discuss the issues with.
1. IF it were possible that everything were taken from my imaginary model block, wouldn't it have to be black, with the absence of light rays when viewed in daylight from outside the block?2. I "left hanging?" The thread was closed and when others opened new threads alluding to the closed thread, I've been here to respond. As I've stated before, I have a full time business and other activities which limit my time here, so I have to do this when I can get to it. Bear with me and I'll do the best I can when I can.

Q. Where is Stevo?A. Snickering his lurking butt off.{EDITORAL COMMENT - This being the goofy topic it is, I'm not sure if the above is or isn't called for. Stevo last appeared in this topic on the evening of friday the 13th. Maybe he took the weekend off, and will be back this evening - Adminnemooseus (being or not being biased against someone who may or may not have a position in the evolution/creationism debate}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-16-2003]I will withdraw all charges if Stevo shows up! [This message has been edited by Geno, 06-16-2003]

quote:

---

Most of you are dogmatic evos, but decent folks to debate, cuss n discuss the issues with.

---

Well, thanks. You are actually rather pleasant compared to many Creationists. For example, you haven't condemned any of us to eternal hellfire yet, so that's good. I do object to the term "dogmatic", though. I do not accept the evidence for the ToE dogmatically; in other words, just because someone told me I had to believe it.It's true that I have several biology courses under my belt, a pretty strong background in philosophy of science, and about 20 years of independent study on the subject, including having read what is supposed to be the best Creationist evidence out there from numerous sources.I accept that the idea of descent with modification is extremely well-supported and is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that we have come up with so far. This is similar to other major theories of science, such as the Heliocentric Solar System and the Germ Theory of Disease.Some evidence could come forth to suggest that the planets do not, in fact, revolve around the sun, but for now, it seems like the ciurrent model explains things pretty well. The ToE works exactly the same way.If other, better, more compelling evidence came to light, I would certainly be willing to replace the ToE with it. So far, this hasn't happened.This makes me scientific, not dogmatic. Religion is dogmatic, because one belives it no matter what evidence is out there which contradicts it.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."