I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 10)

cofty

I would honestly love to hear an explanation of how to get something from nothing

Go to YouTube and search for Lawrence Krauss "A Universe From Nothing".

tec

Except that Nothing... isn't nothing.

Peace,

tammy

prologos

Caedes, Phizzy, was off to work. No, I do not buy into the

turtles all the way down, or kick the can down the road argument problem, because ones you breach the

Universe into the Cosmos deliniation, "things" become immaterial in every sense of the word.

Penrose opines that information passes through the Big bang from a PREVIOUS eon.

It is stated that (dark) energy is a property of the space in the cosmos and shows up inside the Universe.

for me it would is a big leap of faith to assume that there was nothing, no-one eternal at work with this energy out there that became organized matter.

As Kate said there is something DIVINE the way we perceive it, and I believe all living being derive JOY from the thimgs they do.

The universe is not slaving for the creator, it grows, glows*, evolves with joy.

Joy , the beautiful divine spark.-- as tranlated from a european text.

*There go your photons coming from oscillating electron orbits.

Seraphim : I draw the line when the entity has the term THING in it, like in some-thing. Once your beyond things, our brainy and limited concepts could have lost traction

prologos

If sombody could give a one sentence "hit the nail on the head" (not on the thumb) digest of what Pr. Krauss teaches there.

I read it and the argument there and in similar eposees is that there is something inherently energetic about the eternal vaccuum out there, and it happened.

I just had this thought:

If energy coelesced into matter with gravity at work,

why could the eternal energy potential in the pre-bang eon not also organize itself into a creating entity?

Qcmbr

Woah, why are we conceding the ground that we can't disprove god? Of course we can.

Step 1: The believer must describe their god including what phenomenon they are responsible for, what the absence of their god would change, what future events will occur due to their god,what evidence would invalidate their god and what evidence there is for that god. Describing impossible gods is not allowed since that is an exercise in semantics not a description of reality.

Step 2: We apply the scientific method against all phenomenon attributed to said god and compare to see if the existence of such a being can be extrapolated from the results. We apply similar standards to all predicted occurrences of phenomenon. We see if any invalidating evidence does indeed exist.

Step 3: Where evidence is too difficult to find ( information has been erased, tools do not exist etc.) then we apply standards of reality such as probability studies to see what likelihood of such a being existing are.

I have never met a believer who could truly get past step 1 which means they disprove their own god.

Believers love these debates because they are too often allowed to set the standards bar on truth. They get to play with words and demand that their perception of reality be given greater weight than the objective reality described ( and proven) by science. They critique any changes in scientific understanding of reality while refusing to provide even the most basic description of how anything works.

We, rationalists, should not shirk from disproving the individual gods of the deluded.

Seraphim23

Yes indeed, this fussy vacuum of something is normally what passes for nothing with these things. I’ve not heard any reasonable argument still regarding absolutely nothing turning into something. Nothing has to really be nothing and not quantum mechanics or energy.

Qcmbr

Why do you need that Seraph? What aspect of your god are you arguing for? You seem to simply be positing a physics question and describing your intuitive assumption that matter has always existed. How does your intuition cope with an eternity of time before we get to this moment we call now? Does that feel right?

cofty

It must be nice to be able to just make shit up and not have to deal with all those difficult facts Seraphim.

Good post Qcmbr - We don't insist on step 1 often enough.

Qcmbr

What I do want to make clear is that I'm not suggesting we can disprove all gods at once. The believer takes great delight in asking the skeptic to provide some overarching proof that no god can exist while deceitfully positing only one specific god.

I'm making the point that it is perfectly easy to disprove your personal god no matter whether it is a maize god, an animal/ human hybrid god or even a zombie god.

I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .

Share this