Post
Weird question, I know but, honest to God, I have someone disputing the existence of nothing because it can't be measured, studied, observed nor can conclusions be drawn from it. He thinks it's as illusory as unicorns, tooth fairies and rational atheists. Weird, I know! :)
maxximiliann maxximiliann 36-40, M 6 Answers Oct 31, 2012 in Religion

Your Response

Cancel

everything is visible in a medium..

Best Answer

There is no such thing as 'nothing' because the energy that accounts for 'everything' occupies that space or concept...

Best Answer

Making such a issue out of nothing causes nothing to exist...

Best Answer

It's a very hard concept for the human mind to truly grasp.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
Carl Sagan had a good discussion on this in his book The Demon Haunted World.

Best Answer

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

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

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..

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

we don't always find answers as we expect them.you're maybe looking for or asking the wrong questions.

Best Answer

To be honest I'm not asking all that many questions or looking for answers. Questions and answers to what?

Best Answer

@Hirafu - If I could interject, here's a simple logical argument that necessarily takes us from the physical to the metaphysical. Consider the following: (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Using some basic logic and deductive reasoning we arrive at the conclusion that the first efficient cause of the universe 13.7 billion years ago is, necessarily, uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, transcendent, omnipotent and personal. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God. Therefore, God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Simple, right? :)

Best Answer

quantum physics has proved 1 wrong.

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

Quantum physics most certainly hasn't proved that something can come from nothing. Since the universe only began 13.7 billion years ago it isn't eternal (duh!). Therefore asking "Where did the universe come from?", "Why did it only start to exist 13.7 billion years ago?" and "What caused it to come into existence 13.7 billion years ago?" Are all valid questions.

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

**facepalm** How has quantum physics proved that something can come from nothing for no reason at all?

Best Answer

To borrow from an illustration by Philosopher Richard Taylor, "Imagine you are walking through the woods on a hike and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder where that ball came from – what is the explanation of its existence? If your hiking buddy said to you, “Don’t worry about it – it just exists, inexplicably!,” you would think either that he was crazy or that he wanted you to keep on moving. But you wouldn’t take seriously the idea that this ball just exists without any explanation of its existence. Now suppose that the ball, instead of being the size of a basketball, were the size of an automobile. Merely increasing the size of the ball would not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence, would it? Suppose it were the size of a house? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of a planet or a galaxy? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of the entire universe? Same problem! Merely increasing the size of the object does not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence. And so I think it is very plausible to think that everything that exists has an explanation of why it exists." (http://bit.ly/Pm4s92)

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

that's what science thought too, then they started up on quantum physics.

Best Answer

***double facepalm*** What you're trying to speculate is that the singularity which gave birth to the universe is eternal. If that's true, where is it? :)

Best Answer

More importantly, what you're trying to suggest is that the universe came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. That's worse than magic! At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat you've got the magician and the hat. With you we don't even have that!

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

can you point out where I claimed that? questioning one arguement does NOT mean I'm suggesting another specific one.

Best Answer

Space-time did not exist before the universe came into being. As such, the question "How long did the singularity exist before it became the universe?" is illogical. It suggests that time existed before time actually existed. It's like asking, "What's the name of the wife of the married-bachelor?"

Best Answer

Waitaminute! Are you alluding to Vacuum Fluctuation Models of the universe which were canned 20 years ago because of their incoherence with observable facts?

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

Speak for yourself. You may not understand space-time but these guys certainly do: Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." (The Nature of Space and Time, page 20)
Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, co-author of the BVG theorem, had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)
As such, the fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

Best Answer

Even with clear proof staring you in the face you choose to be militant and irrational and cling to this Never-Never Land notion of atheism - which is perfectly fine. If you want to continue being a militant, irrational atheist go right ahead. As for me and the rest of rational society, we've got better things to do. Great chatting with ya. I wish you all the best :)

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer
28 More Responses

Nothing does not exist....see,there's your proof!!!What's the prize?

Best Answer

A lifetime supply of catnip! Congratulations! lol :)

Best Answer

YES!!!!!!

Best Answer

LOL!! :D

Best Answer

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?

Best Answer

Nothing doesn't exist because if it did exist it would be something, not nothing. Likewise, infinity doesn't exist either. It too is just a concept like nothing.

Best Answer

Btw, what does any of this have to do with the fact that you can't refute the simple, straight-forward cosmological argument for the existence of God I've presented but you refuse to accept that God does exist? You're not just being militant, are you? :)

Best Answer

have to agree with maxx' argument here..

Best Answer

Thanks Pursuit! Finally, a rational mind! lol :)

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer

The very absence of those properties is what makes non existence a valid concept. In essence, you're refuting yourself :)

Best Answer

absence of any proof makes it true?

Best Answer

Nice strawman. I said "The very absence of those ***properties*** is what makes non existence a valid concept." Pay attention! lol :)

Best Answer

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.

Best Answer
6 More Responses

Related Questions