how can we best explain our existence ?

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

Careful! He didn't say he was simpathetic[sic], only that someone deserved his sympathy and that suggests that he intended to withhold the deserved sympathy out of some kind of spite.

He might be trying to tell us that he is syphilitic. That would explain the brain injuries.

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing seems incoherent. Why just any and everything cannot or does not come to exist uncaused therefore ? how could nothing control the universe coming to be ?
Your scenario is fantastic and incredible. if originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of nothing, rather than, say, rabbits , or ferraris ? There were not even physical laws existing to control the outcome of the universe. So you seem not to have a plausible argument on hand. From absolutely no thing, nothing derives.
That seems to me more rational and reasonable. The universe could not have caused itself, since it did not exist. To believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself all at once makes therefore no sense .

Why not ? God could have had the will to cause the universe, and bring it into existence, all at once, without time-intervall. God could exist timelessly without the universe with a timeless intention to create a universe with a beginning. He could exercise his power, and time as a result would come into existence, along with the universe, and God would enter into time. It all happens at once. That is a scenario that makes most sense to me.

Wow! The universe baffles another stupid person, therefore it must be his imaginary friend that did it all. How original!

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

It is unstable because it is unbalanced and it spontaneously collapses into stuff, non-nothingness. This is the quantum foam, stuff appearing where nothing state fails.

You do atribute unstability to what, if there was absolutely no thing to be unbalanced ?

You may have heard the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". The simple answer is that something, not nothing, is the default or natural state. Nothingness is incapable of sustaining itself for long periods.

excellent. Then there would have to be the question : what is that something as default natural state ? We could go further and ask : what properties woul d this " something " need to have ? Since in the beginning, nothing physical existed, that something would have to be timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, self-existence, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

The creator or cause of the universe that you so ardently seek,
may be as feeble as the heat from a single match or even less. Therefore, even if there was a "cause" for the universe, that cause does not need to be either powerful or intelligent.

In that case it would have to be a eternal universe in some form. This is however either a probable scenario, since this proto - universe would need to have a beginning as well, and therefore a cause.

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

To believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself all at once makes therefore no sense .

But to believe that an infinitely more complex supreme being was the cause and effect of itself makes perfect sense, once you have numbed your skull with enough Kool-Aid.

[Godlovesyou]

ghoulslime wrote

And what caused your magically delicious imaginary friend to exist, blood drinker?

permit to cite from my personal virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...ed-god-t77.htm

The question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

[Godlovesyou]

Kate wrote

I have a question: Why has this godtard not answered the "religion" question on its profile? Is it embarrassed? Seems like all this goddidit shit is bravado, since it won't own its preferred flavor of godflesh.
Perhaps distracted by the grape-flavored windows?

let me tell you : name calling does not help your case, and tells more about you, than about me. I do categorically not answer people, that have no brain to communicate in a educated and respectfull manner.

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

You do atribute unstability to what, if there was absolutely no thing to be unbalanced ?

I attribute your instability (What the fuck is "unstability"? Jesus Leprechauns, dude, get an edumacation!) to a lack of development of critical thinking skills in early childhood.

[Godlovesyou]

ghoulslime wrote

...by collecting, testing, and amassing factual data to explain it,

So i guess its about time to give a good answer, then ?!!

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

let me tell you : name calling does not help your case, and tells more about you, than about me. I do categorically not answer people, that have no brain to communicate in a educated and respectfull manner.

Yeah, Kate! Show that you have a brain and be respectfull !

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

permit to cite from my personal virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...ed-god-t77.htm

The question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Wow! Magical magic caused your magically delicious friend to exist without a cause! Well that just solves the whole problem of infinite regression so tidily! A universe with random matter in a constant state of dynamics could never ever ever have happened without unicorns and leprechauns and such waving magic wands to give us lovely apples to eat for yummy snacks! But omnipotent and eternal Godseses with great big gianty staffs could just make it all happen with a whosh boom bang!

What profound logic we have witnessed this day!

[Philboid Studge]

Sternwallow wrote

Careful! He didn't say he was simpathetic[sic], only that someone deserved his sympathy and that suggests that he intended to withhold the deserved sympathy out of some kind of spite.

One hastens to add: "sympathy" presumes an association or affinity with GLY. Does old Phil really deserve that? I suppose when I mix gin and oxycodone* we probably share a similar level of stoopid.



*I call it a 'Percocetini'

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

You have not even begun to substantiate your assertion: "From absolutely nothing, nothing derives."

It is not logical any more than its presumed corollary that there is no thing that can disappear completely. We know enough physics to observe nothingness turning into somethingness and some things returning to nothingness all the time and all around us. The former is the quantum foam and the latter we call annihilation.

virtual particles do not appear from absolute nothingingness

You seem to need to tighten your grasp on logic and reason and add a dash more of knowledge.

i guess you need some enlightenment about virtual particles : as stated above, they do not appear out of absolutely nothing.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...ations-t65.htm

Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20
I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig's desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, `I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “
Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."

(I could have improved the elegance and effectiveness and efficiency of that last sentence by simply saying "You're retarded". I refrained out of sympathy for your limited and self-limiting vocabulary.)

how kind of you ....

[Godlovesyou]

Victus wrote

I don't think you get it. Based on physics, our current understanding is that the universe is probably uncaused

who's current understanding is that exactly ?

[ghoulslime]

Godlovesyou wrote

So i guess its about time to give a good answer, then ?!!

Does a "good" answer involve magic beans and nursery rhymes, you pathetic simpleton? Put down your book of idiot tales, and get an education, dolt! Every day, science advances truth a little more. Every day your Bronze Age mythology looks more and more retarded.

[Godlovesyou]

ghoulslime wrote

But to believe that an infinitely more complex supreme being was the cause and effect of itself makes perfect sense, once you have numbed your skull with enough Kool-Aid.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...god-t79-15.htm


As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.