everything is visible in a medium..
There is no such thing as 'nothing' because the energy that accounts for 'everything' occupies that space or concept...
Making such a issue out of nothing causes nothing to exist...
It's a very hard concept for the human mind to truly grasp.
In answer to your question though. Let's say we're talking about one of the god myths. We have no ability to detect and confirm the existence of said god. So scientifically it's impossible to find any evidence to support a belief in it's existence. Similarly though if it doesn't acutally exist there's no possible way to conclusively prove it doesn't. So can we actually prove nothing exists? Or can it just remain a theory in physics and mathematics? And if it doesn't actually exist there's no way to actually prove it doesn't is there?
Carl Sagan had a good discussion on this in his book The Demon Haunted World.
to conclude, one should be aware that learning comes not from perceived knowledge but from what we don't know yet. our minds are too young to assume that everything has been done. that goes for scientific methods.says me
Science never claims to have all the answers. Only ridiculous things like religions do that. Science though at least continues to seek those answers using our brains rather than just accepting religious dogma which means never really using your brain again.
have you been religious? have you read readings from different religious orientations? if not, then one cannot make assumptions. Einstein, Napoleon Hill, and other philosophers were motivated by some points of rationality behind it. It has been anyway historical in persisting.
Religion has been the bane of scientific endeavour throughout history and the morons who still believe in ancients myths of gods today continue to limit society's acceptance of science.
I accept that. there's truth in that light. same goes for science fanatics impermeable to another source of learning. I would like to stay in the middle where I can grasp whatever makes sense. love this discussion.now you're giving me ideas to get my writing started again..
I accept that anything is possible but to move across to belief in something I must first see conclusive scientific evidence. To believe in things without credible evidence basically means you'll believe in pretty much anything. Where do you draw the line?
we don't always find answers as we expect them.you're maybe looking for or asking the wrong questions.
To be honest I'm not asking all that many questions or looking for answers. Questions and answers to what?
quantum physics has proved 1 wrong.
1. reductio ad absurdum. since 1 is self contradictory, 3 is absurd. instead of scrapping the whole thing, as has been done by all objective minds, you continue with it. can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
can you name one scientific fanatic whose views ran in opposition to the rest of the scientific community and as a result, hindered progress? also, effected the ability of large groups of the general populace? by and large, the disputes within the scientific community encourage more testing, and are at a level far above the simple. I would not say a stubborn scientist is at all like the other side, if for no other reason, the utter lack of control over the people that various religions have had.
its proved matter can come into existence without a cause, in the sense we currently understand causality. so yes, within our natural universe, your first point is proven wrong.
look up hydrogen atom and quantum physics experiments. their is one. when you become published and can scientifically disprove that, I'll give you another. but not till you do that, ok?
you are misrepresenting the big bang theory. our known universe began an expansion 13.7 billion years ago, and this expansion is still taking place. the big bang does NOT imply that the singularity came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. or if this is even the first time this expansion has taken place. you can not draw the conclusions you have been from the current model.
that's what science thought too, then they started up on quantum physics.
wrong assumption. what I'm pointing out is that the big bang does not give an approximate age to the singularity. do you agree or disagree?
can you point out where I claimed that? questioning one arguement does NOT mean I'm suggesting another specific one.
we do not have a full understanding of space and time. the more we discover about these two concepts in our universe, the more we realize we aren't there yet. until we have full understanding, we can not say nope, thats not possible. and as another question, can you demonstrate that the current expansion of our universe is the first time it's occurred?
you really aren't up to date on quantum physics. nor do you address anything I ask you to. but I can't say that's a shock.
again, you wrongly assume that I'm neccesarilary taking the position that if I don't believe your god created the universe, then the universe is eternal. you failed to actually clarify what my position was. I know in your mind their is only one possibility, but if youre unable to look at this from an objective viewpoint, I can't do nothing bout that.
you do realize hawking rejects the notion of a god, don't you? I find it humorous when theists use the arguement from authority with those who disagree with their own beliefs.
Nothing does not exist....see,there's your proof!!!What's the prize?
shifting the burden of proof I see. how typical of a theist! non existence has not been proven, it is itself a contradiction. why don't you make your case for the existence of non existence?
have to agree with maxx' argument here..
if you can not demonstrate the properties of a state of non existence, you can not conclude such a state exists, and any conclusions drawn from that unproven state can not be presented as truth.
absence of any proof makes it true?
no, what I asked was entirely accurate. what's the difference between absence of choice 1 or absence of choice 2? you can't really say, both are absent! evidence and properties of nothing are BOTH not proven.