by seekchristonly 194 Replies latest watchtower bible
"The lesson is quite clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing - meaning, in this case, I emphasise, the absence of space and time - it may require them. "Nothing" - in this case no space, no time, no anything! - is unstable"
"A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss p170
SO Krauss is the truth on this . Ok lets assume that is so. SO his theory of gravity is based on EInsteins theory or is it not. Ok so where did gravity come from
where did gravity come from
It is in the realm of theoretical physics. Krauss offers a compelling answer in chapter 11 of his book.
Read it and let me know what you think.
But i disagree with his idea that something can be created from nothing and where is his proof, how does he measure it. Where did gravity come from if there was nothing. Im relying on you to inform me
i disagree with his idea that something can be created from nothing and where is his proof, how does he measure it.
Its all in the book
Im relying on you to inform me
Don't be so lazy. Read the book
EndofMysteries:
what is past that point? That might be nothing
Well, yes. And that nothing might be an inherently unstable state, which would explain a thing or two and fit very well with some current scientific suggestions. Or the models might be wrong, or need adjustments. Anyway, my point still stands: Krauss' model does fit with what we know and extrapolates it to an area where we currently can't be sure. A viable rejection of his model needs to show that it is invalid for some reason, and the reason needs to be better than "I don't agree with him about 'nothing'", or it's just a statement of opinion.
Simply put, inserting a conscious and personal creator to solve the question of why nothing is unstable is a bit pointless, unless there are good reasons to attribute more elements of reality to this entity, and so far I have seen no such reasons. If they were to show up, I'd likely change my mind - again. :)
I haven't read this thread and don't care to get bogged down in the scientific debate. I think the crux of the matter is that a believer assumes that "God exists" is the default position to take and that there should be a lot of evidence to prove otherwise before he would change his mind. A nonbeliever asks, "What is this concept of God I keep hearing about? Isn't this a man-made concept? Has God spoken to anyone in a way that is provable? If not, why should I believe in the presence of this entity just because my parents or their parents did?"
Who told me that? I learned that in elementary school science, a thing called, "The law of conservation of energy", which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Or are you saying this scientific fact had new light like the WT and no longer applies?
Yes, the first law of thermodynamics. You forgot one important point, however. Scientific laws are only absolute within a given context. The context in this case, (as most laws pf physics are applied), applies within the confines of our universe. That means it does not include what existed before or outside of our universe.
Energy, (as we know it within our physical universe), had a beginning. We do not know what state of physical properties existed before our universe came into existence, or what energy, (if in fact it existed), could have been like.
d4g
I believe in myself. Other than that you can all go to hell! I mean that in the nicest way.
That being said, the whole concept of a belief system (i.e. the watchtower) is something that I have no interest in.
We do not know what state of physical properties existed before our universe came into existence, or what energy, (if in fact it existed), could have been like.
.
Furthermore, unlike religion, science does not concoct fanciful stories based on ignorant speculations, then dogmatically insist everyone must accept their version of contrived nonesense as truth depite a complete lack of evidence supporting such claims.
