|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
So then, why are you still replying to my posts braying like a jackass? Not to respond for cavediver, but for me...in the Free For All forum, we can get away with showing the lurkers exactly how absurd, stupid, ignorant, and stubborn you and your crackpot ideas actually are. Besides, it's hard to let a crank like you just spout off nonsense like your circular "existence caused everything that exists to come into existence" without mocking you at a minimum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Son,
Son writes: However time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past, thus the universe hasn't existed "forever". How do you know time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past? What is time anyway and how do we determine time?
Son writes: This conception of time may seem conter-intuitive but nonetheless the theory of the Big-Bang that explains it has predictions that so far have been verified Everybody is not as sure about the ability of the BBT as you are. Here is a list of problems with the BBT.
quote:Source So all is not as perfect as preached at EvC.
Son writes: If your explanation can make those kind of predictions, we could consider it but as you're presenting it, it's worthless. I attempted to start a thread where I would have presented my creationist hypothesis of the beginning but was denied promotion. So here I am argueing that existence has existed for eternity in the past and will extend into the future for eternity. In other words existence is eternal as claimed for God in the text presented in the OP. If there is no eternal existence my argument will fail. So prove me wrong by presenting the mechanism that can cause energy and matter to begin to exist where there is an absolute existence of no thing. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: And I don;t dispute that. But you did dispute that Stephen Hawking wrote what I quoted.
Rahvin writes: Your concept of the Universe seems to be that the Universe is a collection of "stuff" inside of a container of space and time. That's absolutely false. No. My concept of the Universe is that the universe is an entity that is composed of many parts that is held together by a super energy in existence which has existed for eternity. Is this the only universe, maybe, but maybe not. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: nonsense like your circular "existence caused everything that exists to come into existence" without mocking you at a minimum. You can mock and make as much fun as you desire too. Just don't get in a huff if I from time to time push back and deliver the same. Now if you really want to show me up present a mechanism by which existence could begin to exist. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
ICANT writes:
How do you know time doesn't extend indefinitely in the past?
I'm not 100% it's the case but what I was actually explaining you is the POSITION the current theory has. I did it so you would understand there's not only two possibilities:-the universe always existed -the universe was created by a previous existance There's also the current theory that is separate from the two options you have proposed. ICANT writes:
So prove me wrong by presenting the mechanism that can cause energy and matter to begin to exist where there is an absolute existence of no thing.
Wow, you are again asking the SAME question when we already explained to you that it had nothing to do with the current theory. As for the problems you have cited, obviously no theory is 100% correct or without problems but the Big Bang is the model that currently answers the most questions, that's why we're currently use it but it needs either completing or a better theory that may overturn it (theory that has yet to appear). In comparison, your "theory" doesn't even come close since it gives 0 predictions so it's as useful as saying a pink unicorn farted the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Now if you really want to show me up present a mechanism by which existence could begin to exist. Why should we show that when it has nothing to do with our position? How many times will you beat up the same strawman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi 1.61803,
1.61803 writes: Hmmmm...I thought this universe is a product of the Big Bang. And has it's beginning 14 some billions years ago. Hmmmm...I thought the BBT was supposed to be an explanation of what happened to the universe from T=10-43 to present.
1.61803 writes: In the past the universe began from the big bang. No.
1.61803 writes: The materials I assume you mean matter? If so this matter was also a product of the big bang. I prefer energy as it would occupy much less space. Can you immagine how big a pile of matter it would take to create the universe? But regardless the matter had to exist eternally or it had to begin to exist.
1.61803 writes: It is one theory the fundamental properties of these particles of matter are made up of a plankes size fibers of woven membranes vibrating at specific resonance in 11 dimensions, to give rise to the different manifestations of this energy. Yes this is one hypothesis called string theory but why they call it theory I do not understand as the hypothesis has not reached concensus.
1.61803 writes: It is not intuitive for us to be able to imagine how this could stem from "nothing". But that is because our concept of "nothing" is incomplete when it comes to quantum levels. But if there is no existence, there is no quantum levels as there is no existence for them to exist in.
1.61803 writes: It could very well be as simple as Our current universe exist because it wants to exist. Sure it could just exist. But according to science if that was the case it would be a dead universe. That was the reason that it was necessary for the universe to have a beginning as it could not be a static universe when discovered it was expanding. But that is not acceptable to the Scientific community as that requires a creator. So it became necessary to come up with a way for the universe to exist without having a beginning from nothing. So Hartley and Hawking came up with the instantion removing the necessity of God, which did not get much following. Then along came the String Theory so called to get rid of the problem of a beginning. The problem is there has to be existence for either of these to work.
1.61803 writes: There are particles of matter and anti-matter that as you say spring from nothing, exist and annulate each other. Well no they do not spring from nothing. Because if there is no existence there is no place for the vaccum to exist for these particles of matter and anti-matter to spring from as nothing exists. The problem here is that no one can fathom what no thing, non-existence or an absolute absence of anything is. If no thing exists then no thing exists or can exist without beginning to exist. For that a mechanism is required. Can you present such a mechanism? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Son,
Son writes: Wow, you are again asking the SAME question when we already explained to you that it had nothing to do with the current theory. But this thread is not about the current theory. In this thread I asked the question concerning existence. I have stated several times that existence is eternal thus energy and matter is eternal and the universe has existed in some form for eternity. I gave scripture to support my position. Either the universe has always existed in some form or began to exist. Science says it began to exist. To affirm the universe began to exist as Science say all you have to do is present a mechanism that can bring energy and matter into existence which would refute my argument. So don't think of it as refuting my argument but as supporting the scientific method of the beginning to exist of the universe. You could also figure out how the instanton hypothesis or the so called String Theory could work without there being existence for them to begin in. If you have no intention of refuting my argument, why bother to post?
Son writes: In comparison, your "theory" doesn't even come close since it gives 0 predictions so it's as useful as saying a pink unicorn farted the universe. Since I have not been allowed to present my hypothesis you have no idea how much evidence I can present to support my position. I have a mechanism for the creation of the universe for starters and Science does not have one. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Son,
Son writes: Why should we show that when it has nothing to do with our position? How many times will you beat up the same strawman? But it has everything to do with the universe existing. I am not beating on a strawman in my thread but you keep inserting your straw man and trying to present it as my argument. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
How is it a strawman if im presenting our own position and not yours? Most of what I presented wasn't about your position but about how you refused to understand ours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Science doesn't say it began to exist (in the sense you understand it). What I was pointing out is that there is a third option (the current scientific model) on top of the two you presented. You're basically asking us to defend a position noone here holds, that's the very definition of a strawman.
By the way, you're free to present your hypothesis/predictions there. Edited by Son, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4293 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined: |
ICANT writes: The universe has always existed in some form. The universe has not always existed in its present form. In the past the universe began to exist in the form we see it today. In other words the universe as we see it today was assembled from existing materials in the past. Now if you have a mechanism whereby matter and energy can begin to exist from an absence of anything (non-existence) I am all ears.
You are again contradicting yourself. If the universe always existed in some form, then you do not need a mechanism to get to existance from non-existance. Since non-existance in that context doesn't exist.Since the universe always existed in some form. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4293 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined: |
ICANT writes:
If the universe has not existed forever that means it had to begin to exist. But you stated that you believe that the universe always existed in some form. Therefor it wouldn't need to "begin" to exist. Get your thoughts straight before spewing contradictory assertions. Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" - Dr Gregory House
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
ICANT writes: Sure. It is also the current theory that suggest our universe is a product of this Big Bang. Unless you have another theory that refutes this.
Hmmmm...I thought the BBT was supposed to be an explanation of what happened to the universe from T=10-43 to present. ICANT writes: Of course. Those would be two options.
But regardless the matter had to exist eternally or it had to begin to exist. ICANT writes: Until one can accept that on a quantum level things to not exist you will not be able to "fanthom" how existence is perpetual, or how a wave function can manifest reality. The creation of our universe from a quantum fluctiation known as the big bang is the current scientific theory. If a religious person wants to think they're God was responsible then thats fine. If the same person wants to say the universe has always existed thats fine too.
The problem here is that no one can fathom what no thing, non-existence or an absolute absence of anything is. If no thing exists then no thing exists or can exist without beginning to exist. For that a mechanism is required. Can you present such a mechanism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Now if you really want to show me up present a mechanism by which existence could begin to exist. Why would anyone want to do this when you have been repeatedly told that this never happened?
Either the universe has always existed in some form or began to exist. No, the Universe has "always" existed. It is just that "always" may not be as long as you think it is.
Science says it began to exist. No, it does not. SWH uses the word "beginning" loosely. He does not ever (in my knowledge) say that the Universe began to exist. Of course, the present form of the Universe may well be said to begin to exist from a prior form, but that is a trivial point.
To affirm the universe began to exist as Science say... It does not say...
all you have to do is present a mechanism that can bring energy and matter into existence which would refute my argument. They were never "brought into existence". Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024