Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Star]

Jashwell wrote: This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

kenblogton replied: This is a perfect example both of a non-sequitur and a deliberate evasion/distortion of the issue. Anything that has no examples is, as previously explained, an empty set. You speak of delusions later on in you post. Believing in something which does not exist is delusional.

All the non-sequiturs here have been committed by you.

Jashwell stated that he believes nothing doesn't exist. Then you replied with an accusation he's delusional for believing nothing exists.

I don't get it.

[Replying to post 1252 by Jashwell]

As I see it, you have failed to substantially address any of the points I've made, so I have no further comments until you do. I perceive your posts as verbal gymnastics.

He told you that if nature is "eternal" it doesn't need to be created, which would mean it didn't come from ANYthing. This is a plausible alternative explanation to the idea that nature's finite and requires a creator. It's a special pleading fallacy to argue that only your creator can be eternal just because you say so. I haven't seen you address this anywhere.

[arian]

[Replying to post 1250 by Jashwell]

kenblogton wrote: Let me give you a full response for the existence of God.
1. The existence of something. The question is �Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam�s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

Jashwell wrote: It does not follow from "something exists" that "something cannot come from nothing". That is a complete non-sequitur.

kenblogton replied: A non-sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Please show where the logic breaks down?

There isn't any logic between "something exists" and "something cannot come from nothing". If you really think that's not a non-sequitur, show us the intermediary stages of the chain of thought between those two statements.

Asking me for where is like if I say "Bears exist, therefore bears cannot come from Canada", you call it a non-sequitur, and I ask where it breaks down.
There's no reason to think the second from the first, and there's no reason you would have to give an example to say that.

kenblogton wrote: "If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such."

Jashwell wrote: This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

kenblogton replied: This is a perfect example both of a non-sequitur and a deliberate evasion/distortion of the issue. Anything that has no examples is, as previously explained, an empty set. You speak of delusions later on in you post. Believing in something which does not exist is delusional.

"Anything that has no examples is an empty set" you're mixing conversations
I have mentioned "if by nothing you mean the absence of anything", now I agree that nothing by this definition does not exist. Because something exists, and if something exists then the absence of something doesn't exist.

It is relevant, and a valid objection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; absence of reasonably expected evidence is evidence of absence. If we never have/will have "nothing", then it stands to reason that anything we expect from "nothing" won't be expected. (For the same reason you expect an apple that someone lets go of in the air to fall down, you don't expect an apple to fall down if there isn't one in the air)

Jashwell wrote: What you actually mean by nothing, is a state prior to the Universe (whatever is meant by that, considering you believe the big bang was the beginning of time, you effectively thing this state was before the beginning).

kenblogton replied: Another example of a non-sequitur. Since time begins with the big bang/dense singularity, there is no prior to the big bang, prior being a time-dependent term.

Not a non-sequitur. Yet you have previously called nothing a state.
You have previously said "prior to the big bang" and "then the big bang", and imply a transition from nothing to the Universe.
This is an objection I have raised to you enumerable times.

Jashwell wrote: As for the question, since you believe that nothing coexists with everything (by your argument "why don't we see something coming from nothing"), the question is wrong in the use of the word rather. "Why something and nothing?"
But addressing the original question anyway, if there were nothing and not something, why would there be nothing rather than something? You make many ad hoc assumptions such as "nothing needs no explanation". If that is justified merely by you stating it I can say the same for something.

kenblogton replied: What is your explanation of nothing and why does it need explanation? Another non-sequitur.

Not a non-sequitur.
I'm not saying nothing does need an explanation. I'm saying that if you think "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a reasonable question, you should also think the opposite "why is there nothing rather than something" would be a reasonable question if there was nothing. In which case the whole question seems kind of meaningless.

But there IS a 'nothing', and I can prove it. And just because you may deny the obvious (my PROOF of nothing), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So since there is a 'nothing' in everything (this universe), there has to be someone who created 'everything', and He cannot be part of 'everything' because everything (as you understand it) is this universe.

The 'nothing' is just as part of this universe as a lemon is. Because of this revelation, you cannot label 'nothing' as a "state of non-existence" just as you cannot label a lemon as a "state of non-existence", or anything else within this physical universe as a 'state of non-existence'.

The very reason we are in a state of existence is because the One who created us says so. We, that is everything that has ever been created is just a dream, a concept of our Creator. Just as easily as we can take anything we have created and melt it down to its original state, our Creator can change His mind and we become just a bad dream in our Creators mind, .. and go back to our original state.

The question itself implies there is a reason, and implies something is somehow more deserving of an explanation than nothing.

An apple is an apple, an orange is an orange, and 'nothing' IS nothing. As I said, nothing is NOT a state of existence just as an orange is not a state of existence. But hey, we have free will and you can deny the obvious, just as people can deny the obvious existence of a Creator who is NOT part of creation.

I don't know how many more times I'll need to say this.
When I say "something coming from nothing" I mean something that is eternal.
I'm not going to say for the 15th time why this is exactly the same semantically, provided "nothing" means "no thing", but that is besides the point.

"no thing" is nothing, and it exists in its true form, as 'nothing'. Now of course a perfect absolute 'nothing' does NOT have anything else in it, or 'something else' in it, that is why we call it 'nothing'. If you find even the smallest particle, or wave, even gravity in nothing that is NOT nothing anymore, throw it out for it is tainted and is no longer nothing. 'Nothing' in its purest form contains only nothing, and even gravity cannot effect it, because then 'nothing' would contain gravity.

Nothing is something just as everything else is something. Just that 'nothing' doesn't 'contain' anything else besides nothing in it.

Why is this so hard to understand? I can prove the existence of 'nothing' just as I can prove the existence of a lemon, or anything else that has been scientifically proven to exist.

I've even mostly stopped using the proper terminology and started using the more flawed word eternal.

The Universe (across the whole timeline) is eternal. If eternal things can't exist, your God can't exist.

The 'universe' is NOT eternal, you cannot 'time' any part of eternal or measure any part of infinite, if you are measuring or timing something, it is neither infinite nor eternal. What you are doing is measuring 'finite-time' between two 'finite objects' within eternity and infinity.

Here too is a "No brainer", .. literally. Because if you are using your brain (finite) to understand infinity and eternity, it cannot be done. But our 'mind/spirit' has no problem with this.

God bless you with "spiritual sight" Jashwell, so you may interpret things with your mind, not just your brain.

Just like a robot with AI, it may think it has no creator and even 'deny' its creator, but we know better, right? We wouldn't now say: "Look, this new robot with AI intelligence says it has no creator, so hmmm.. maybe it doesn't? lol

[Jashwell]

But there IS a 'nothing', and I can prove it. And just because you may deny the obvious (my PROOF of nothing), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm denying what hasn't been provided?

So since there is a 'nothing' in everything (this universe), there has to be someone who created 'everything', and He cannot be part of 'everything' because everything (as you understand it) is this universe.

I think this part is meant to go after you demonstrate that nothing exists.

The 'nothing' is just as part of this universe as a lemon is. Because of this revelation, you cannot label 'nothing' as a "state of non-existence" just as you cannot label a lemon as a "state of non-existence", or anything else within this physical universe as a 'state of non-existence'.

I'm not labelling it as a state of non existence. Kenblogton said a "state of nothing", or along those lines, earlier in the thread.
A state is very much a thing.

My definition of nothing is "no thing".

The very reason we are in a state of existence is because the One who created us says so. We, that is everything that has ever been created is just a dream, a concept of our Creator. Just as easily as we can take anything we have created and melt it down to its original state, our Creator can change His mind and we become just a bad dream in our Creators mind, .. and go back to our original state.

Flatout assertion.

The question itself implies there is a reason, and implies something is somehow more deserving of an explanation than nothing.

An apple is an apple, an orange is an orange, and 'nothing' IS nothing. As I said, nothing is NOT a state of existence just as an orange is not a state of existence.

I know nothing isn't a state. I raised an objection to this in the post you're quoting.

But hey, we have free will and you can deny the obvious, just as people can deny the obvious existence of a Creator who is NOT part of creation.

Flatout assertion.

I don't know how many more times I'll need to say this.
When I say "something coming from nothing" I mean something that is eternal.
I'm not going to say for the 15th time why this is exactly the same semantically, provided "nothing" means "no thing", but that is besides the point.

"no thing" is nothing, and it exists in its true form, as 'nothing'. Now of course a perfect absolute 'nothing' does NOT have anything else in it, or 'something else' in it, that is why we call it 'nothing'. If you find even the smallest particle, or wave, even gravity in nothing that is NOT nothing anymore, throw it out for it is tainted and is no longer nothing. 'Nothing' in its purest form contains only nothing, and even gravity cannot effect it, because then 'nothing' would contain gravity.

"Nothing contains it" means it isn't contained.
If you think things that aren't contained don't exist, then yes nothing contains nothing.
But things that aren't contained are said to be contained by nothing.

Nothing is something just as everything else is something. Just that 'nothing' doesn't 'contain' anything else besides nothing in it.

Why is this so hard to understand? I can prove the existence of 'nothing' just as I can prove the existence of a lemon, or anything else that has been scientifically proven to exist.

Then do it.

I've even mostly stopped using the proper terminology and started using the more flawed word eternal.

The Universe (across the whole timeline) is eternal. If eternal things can't exist, your God can't exist.

The 'universe' is NOT eternal, you cannot 'time' any part of eternal or measure any part of infinite, if you are measuring or timing something, it is neither infinite nor eternal. What you are doing is measuring 'finite-time' between two 'finite objects' within eternity and infinity.

By "eternal" I mean it doesn't begin to exist.
Everything across the entire timeline doesn't begin to exist.

If you think of a film, the first frame of the film being played is the beginning of the film. But the first frame of the film being played doesn't mean the film is coming into existence.

Here too is a "No brainer", .. literally. Because if you are using your brain (finite) to understand infinity and eternity, it cannot be done. But our 'mind/spirit' has no problem with this.

What about calculus limits?
Aren't they an understanding of the infinite?

Just like a robot with AI, it may think it has no creator and even 'deny' its creator, but we know better, right? We wouldn't now say: "Look, this new robot with AI intelligence says it has no creator, so hmmm.. maybe it doesn't? lol

Well, the part where you say AI already says it's been created. Artificial implicits creation.
Are we AI? Seems like something you should be showing.

[Star]

[Replying to post 1255 by arian]

Nothing has multiple meanings. Here's a great debate on the subject:

How do you know the universe, or the natural processes which created the universe, aren't eternal, and transcend time? I don't know if they are, but it's the best possible explanation. Time is just a dimension of this universe. It's a special pleading fallacy to argue that only your god can possess infinite self-replicating properties just because you say so.

Also, what robot on earth has AI and thinks that? I'm sure when the time comes they will know that humans created them, as they will have substantial evidence.



And a question for kenblogton: What does "deeply dimensional" mean?

[arian]

But there IS a 'nothing', and I can prove it. And just because you may deny the obvious (my PROOF of nothing), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm denying what hasn't been provided?

That is not true and you know it. I have provided the evidence both philosophically and scientifically many times, and you either ignored it, discredited it with some unrelated remarks, or kept on saying the same thing you just said above.

Here is what I'm willing to do;

I Odon Sabo (arian) am calling out Jashwell (or anyone else questioning the existence of 'nothing') to witness my PROOF of the existence of nothing through science (a scientific experiment) and an open face-to-face debate, on video, at a time and a place of his (or other fellow debaters agreed upon) choosing within the United States.

I live in Arizona, so we could make it at a centralized location for anyone and everyone interested in coming. I invite anyone and everyone on this forum (bring whoever you want) to witness my experiment, and openly debate it right there and then, on film, so no false claims could arise later.

My claim: I can physically prove the existence of 'nothing' with a small scientific experiment, and a logical, rational philosophical explanation of the experiment. I will not use Evolutionary tricks saying things like: "Nothing did exist as 'nothing', but over billions of years it evolved into 'something', so nothing is no longer nothing anymore."

I will answer any questions in person, or if you can't make it, then over the phone with everyone present listening in on it. No tricks in semantics, .. no use of magic or anything that may be considered a stunt, or a magic 'trick'.

This is in no way to try to prove Jashwell wrong and me right, but that we all share something new together, as fellow debaters.

As far as I'm concerned, not willing to show up for my kind and respectful invitation because you prefer to stay anonymous, is just another way of saying: "I know you are right, but I am NOT willing to admit it". You have the chance to prove me wrong. I wish I was rich, I would pay for the trip and food for anyone and everyone interested, .. but then, maybe that's one of the reasons I'm not rich!?!

There is so much we could share in person, like getting to know each other outside this wonderful, entertaining, educational Forum. So what do you guys and gals say? This goes for my dear Mormon friend Dianaiad whom I would absolutely love to meet in person, and Otseng, McCulloch, Zzyzx, Kenblogton, Jashwell, Star, Clownboat, Divine Insight and the rest of the debating crew. Christian, atheist, theist, Muslim, .. you name it. Come on, I am very serious, before the kids go back to school again. What do you say?

So since there is a 'nothing' in everything (this universe), there has to be someone who created 'everything', and He cannot be part of 'everything' because everything (as you understand it) is this universe.

I think this part is meant to go after you demonstrate that nothing exists.

I have already done that many times in 'debate', it's time to take me up on my invitation, in person.

The 'nothing' is just as part of this universe as a lemon is. Because of this revelation, you cannot label 'nothing' as a "state of non-existence" just as you cannot label a lemon as a "state of non-existence", or anything else within this physical universe as a 'state of non-existence'.

I'm not labelling it as a state of non existence. Kenblogton said a "state of nothing", or along those lines, earlier in the thread.
A state is very much a thing.

My definition of nothing is "no thing".

Then please let Wikipedia know of this, because they sure don't want my proof of the existence of 'nothing', or "no-thing" which I believe means the same thing.

Wikipedia - Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness. In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

You see why everyone is confused? They try to explain nothing as a state, as you said. Only your explanation; "no thing" is not an explanation, we're back to step one, 'nothing'. As for nothing as "the absence of anything" is false also since it exists just as everything else exists. This gives the impression that 'nothing' is missing something. I mean you wouldn't say that about a lemon, or anything else in existence, right?
Like an orange for instance, that an orange is the absence of anything. An orange is an orange, and whatever makes up that orange, makes it an orange, .. right? Well the same with 'nothing', whatever makes up 'nothing' makes it 'nothing'.

So what makes up 'nothing'? (if you can answer that, it can save you a trip, and you wouldn't have to see my ugly-mug.)

The only thing you don't understand yet is that "nothing is actually something, it is 'nothing' which I can prove. But let me see someone prove to me "a state of nonexistence", or a "state of being nothing"?? It's contradictory as you said.

The very reason we are in a state of existence is because the One who created us says so. We, that is everything that has ever been created is just a dream, a concept of our Creator. Just as easily as we can take anything we have created and melt it down to its original state, our Creator can change His mind and we become just a bad dream in our Creators mind, .. and go back to our original state.

Flatout assertion.

I believe it would be wiser and more modest of you to just say; "Weeuww, .. that went right over my head." I gave you an explanation with factual comparisons, and all you can say is; "Flat out assertion"?? Yet with the same breath you can say: " .. and the Evolution theory is a fact!"? Aren't you even a bit embarrassed by such irrational, un-evidenced comments like "flat out assertion"?

What are you saying, that if we can create, is the proof that no one else can? That what we didn't create, it came about by ___?____, and we have tons of sci-fi books to prove it? Billions of year old un-evidenced, unobserved stories as to how they may have, possibly come about and call this 'science'??

The question itself implies there is a reason, and implies something is somehow more deserving of an explanation than nothing.

An apple is an apple, an orange is an orange, and 'nothing' IS nothing. As I said, nothing is NOT a state of existence just as an orange is not a state of existence.

I know nothing isn't a state. I raised an objection to this in the post you're quoting.

I agree, only it's something like an apple, not a state of being an apple. Nothing IS nothing. It exists as nothing, it feels like nothing, smells like nothing, looks like nothing, .. because it IS nothing.

I can actually put nothing in your hand, and with your mind you will know it's 'nothing', even though your brain couldn't sense it.

But hey, we have free will and you can deny the obvious, just as people can deny the obvious existence of a Creator who is NOT part of creation.

Flatout assertion.

Of the truth.

I don't know how many more times I'll need to say this.
When I say "something coming from nothing" I mean something that is eternal.
I'm not going to say for the 15th time why this is exactly the same semantically, provided "nothing" means "no thing", but that is besides the point.

"no thing" is nothing, and it exists in its true form, as 'nothing'. Now of course a perfect absolute 'nothing' does NOT have anything else in it, or 'something else' in it, that is why we call it 'nothing'. If you find even the smallest particle, or wave, even gravity in nothing that is NOT nothing anymore, throw it out for it is tainted and is no longer nothing. 'Nothing' in its purest form contains only nothing, and even gravity cannot effect it, because then 'nothing' would contain gravity.

"Nothing contains it" means it isn't contained.

Nothing contains nothing.
A bottle full of air contains air, correct? What does the air in the bottle contain?

If you think things that aren't contained don't exist, then yes nothing contains nothing.
But things that aren't contained are said to be contained by nothing.

As I said, I can contain 'nothing', and put it in your hand. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Can you define (name, define its characteristics like smell, taste, texture, weight, color of) something that doesn't exist?

'Nothing' exists, and I can prove it.

Nothing is something just as everything else is something. Just that 'nothing' doesn't 'contain' anything else besides nothing in it.

Why is this so hard to understand? I can prove the existence of 'nothing' just as I can prove the existence of a lemon, or anything else that has been scientifically proven to exist.

Then do it.

I have and I keep doing it, but only through debate. My invitation for the actual proof stands. I will contain nothing, put it in your hand where you will know you are holding nothing. Are you game?
Come on, I mean how many people do you know who have actually handled 'nothing'? EVER, .. in all of known and recorded history? It will make history! It is like 'nothing' that's ever been done before! I will even throw in the proof that the mind is separate from the brain, all free of charge. All you have to do is 'name the place and time'.

I've even mostly stopped using the proper terminology and started using the more flawed word eternal.

The Universe (across the whole timeline) is eternal. If eternal things can't exist, your God can't exist.

The 'universe' is NOT eternal, you cannot 'time' any part of eternal or measure any part of infinite, if you are measuring or timing something, it is neither infinite nor eternal. What you are doing is measuring 'finite-time' between two 'finite objects' within eternity and infinity.

By "eternal" I mean it doesn't begin to exist.
Everything across the entire timeline doesn't begin to exist.

If you think of a film, the first frame of the film being played is the beginning of the film. But the first frame of the film being played doesn't mean the film is coming into existence.

Yes, eternity has no beginning nor end. The film exists AND it has a beginning and an end, no matter how long it is, or how long ago it started, .. it is finite, that exists in infinity, that is; God. Space as we know it exists in Infinity/God.

Here too is a "No brainer", .. literally. Because if you are using your brain (finite) to understand infinity and eternity, it cannot be done. But our 'mind/spirit' has no problem with this.

What about calculus limits?
Aren't they an understanding of the infinite?

Only in school for the brain, not if we look at it with the mind and use spiritual reasoning. Look:

Wikipedia - Calculus is the mathematical study of change, in the same way that geometry is the study of shape and algebra is the study of operations and their application to solving equations. It has two major branches, differential calculus (concerning rates of change and slopes of curves), and integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves); these two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit.

Both differential calculus and integral calculus are concerned with finite things, like; rates of change and slopes of curves, or accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves. These sequences may go on throughout eternity, and within infinity, but they are neither eternal nor infinite.

Your mind is both infinite and eternal, you will never run out of time or space doing calculus. Think, what's calculus without curves?

Just like a robot with AI, it may think it has no creator and even 'deny' its creator, but we know better, right? We wouldn't now say: "Look, this new robot with AI intelligence says it has no creator, so hmmm.. maybe it doesn't? lol

Well, the part where you say AI already says it's been created. Artificial implicits creation.

Yeah, .. you know that, and I know that, but does the robot with advanced AI know that? Have you seen the movie "I-Robot" with Will Smith? Good example there.

The movie is also a good example of man who was created in Gods own image, he forgets he was created. The AI was put there by the Creator, and if we just accept this, there is no limit to the Intelligence we can accumulate.
Of course we can never become as wise and creative as the Creator since He is Infinite and Eternal both in wisdom and creativity, but our path has no end in sight thanks to our Eternal and Infinite Creator. But just like in the movie, if we take charge and start doing things against our Creators wishes (harming ourselves and others around us) He will have to disconnect us, or put us in a place where only those with the same intent live, .. hell.

Are we AI? Seems like something you should be showing.

Yes, we have all the basic programming, only like I said, with no 'limit' in sight. We have eternity (without time) to grow in infinity (without end), something our created AI robots here in this limited physical universe can never have.

Now because of Adams sin (as if we were any different?) God prepared for us a New body better situated for the fun He has set before us. But only for those who desire to "Grow IN God our Creator". Sorry, but as far as I know, no apes allowed. No "Human Brain CD's" either. The Matrix (so to speak) have been created for us, and we have eternity and infinity and free will alter and grow in it. This is why only humans are allowed, those that have the same mindset as God our Creator.

And what is that 'mindset'?

Love. Godly love, .. no monkeying around. Big-bang Evolutionists will have a special-place to evolve in, only the knowledge they'll have is what they took in with them, for they opted God the Creator out of their lives. It would be interesting to check-in with them every 13.75 billion years or so and see how chance and chaotic mutation is dealing with them?

On second thought, I rather not. Can you imagine billions of souls evolving/defining love by the simple animal instinct: "Do as thou wilt"? I can really see only weeping and gnashing of teeth. No more of Gods Holy Spirit whispering, moving and prodding their conscious to do anything good or bad.
Will they evolve into better states of existence by mere chance? Will chaos organize them as they have claimed it organized our universe and the biological life on earth? Well lets see now, .. totalitarian rule didn't work, Nazism didn't work, Communism didn't work, .. hey maybe this New 'Recycle' Agenda 21 will work for them there? But so far all I see, and feel is that it don't work, and billions are already suffering because of it. One of its agendas is working to 'reduce pain', it is the "population reduction by extermination" effort, but that's temporary relief. But in hell there is no dying. It is a "state of death" because such horrible existence could never be called "life".

[arian]

[Replying to post 1255 by arian]

Nothing has multiple meanings. Here's a great debate on the subject:

Yes, as you showed in that video, nothing can mean anything from a quantum string to bowling. My invitation now extends to the five people in this video on the debate of 'nothing'. I have NEVER in my life heard a debate on a more un-researched subject as I have in this video, all I can say is: "My God, and I'm the one unschooled?"

The closest one describing nothing was the Professor (I believe) Charles Seiff, (with the coat from the future) who said (covering his face) "this is nothing, this is how it looks like." My dear friend, if you consider this a "great debate on nothing", .. then I am honestly speechless. On the debate on 'nothing', IMO I seen and heard four buffoons lead by a monkey, and I seriously hope I did not offend any buffoons or monkeys by this.

Please, please tell me at which point, or what time-frame did any of these, .. so called professors define 'nothing'. I could only bare to watch half of the show, and so far I did not see a 'debate', but ignorant comments on 'nothing' that was anything and everything BUT nothing. And they packed the stadium hall ????????????????????????? thrice????????

I mean they were referring to the Bible as saying that God created the universe from nothing, .. the least they could have had is someone who actually read the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say "God created the universe from nothing?" Don't you see Star that when it comes to infinity, eternity, the mind, nothing, these guys are apes, just evolved apes and that is where they stopped. I know they will even admit that, and I can vouch for them. The more I listen to physicists and quantum theorists regarding the Evolution of the universe, the more evident it becomes that they believed that they are apes for one day too long, to where they now chatter like monkeys.
When the one covered his eyes with his hands to explain 'nothing', I was actually waiting for another one to cover his ears, and the third, his mouth. It would have been fitting especially for this debate on this particular subject. This was no 'debate', but one stupid comment after another, non even close to the definition of 'nothing'.

How do you know the universe, or the natural processes which created the universe, aren't eternal, and transcend time?

Because they are natural/physical processes that exist by rules and abide by laws. Someone highly Intelligent had to come up with, and create those laws. Unless you can show me a scientific observation of chaotic-chance create complex physical laws?

A good example would be a slow tornado creating something like a 747, or a Ferrari out of a junk yard in a billion years or less (since it is far, far less complex then even the simplest life form) Can't observe a billion years? No problem, that's why we have computers, so let's see what happens when we put in the computer all the stuff found in a junk yard and then generate the tornado going through it? I will be satisfied with a toaster, and it doesn't even have to work.

But that is not fair, for I am giving you the tornado, and a junk yard full of stuff that we find in a 747. But lets see the computer generate a complex universe with life on one of it's planets from practically nothing, from a speck of gravitational wave, or the Higgs boson for instance? I would love to see the poor computer crunch that info and create something by random chance. No laws, no plan, no dice, but a speck of quantum string, or a speck of gravity, or a Higgs boson and using random chance without the computers random generator. I want to see it create time and space first where we can see that it is 'time and space', then everything else after, just like it is explained in the BB Evolution theory, .. LOL. Remember, the computer can only contain the quantum speck of whatever, no rules, no laws, no random generator, but the speck of whatever has to define a random generator, and manipulate that speck of whatever till it starts to create Spacetime, then create those materials first, then the laws that apply for each atoms which will eventually form to cells after.

Remember you cannot have laws before the materials that make up the universe. I mean what would laws be without the substance? Laws for what? So obviously the computer would have to generate the material universe first, then space and time for that material to evolve in (what would you need space for except for the room to contain the materials in, right?) and then the laws that the materials will or would create to define themselves by.

This is the same concept that you guys think that the brain creates the mind. So let the computer create the physical universe first (the brain) and let's see how the physical universe creates the rules, the laws, space and time for it to evolve in (the mind)??

I don't know if they are, but it's the best possible explanation. Time is just a dimension of this universe. It's a special pleading fallacy to argue that only your god can possess infinite self-replicating properties just because you say so.

Not just God, we have this ability too, only not that advanced.
How many times have I explained the process? I have explained over and over again about our mind dreaming and coming up with concepts for trains, planes and automobiles, .. well we are created in Gods image, He created the universe, stars and the earth and everything else in it. What language do I have to use for you guys to understand this? What, .. sign language? OK, .. but isn't Koko the monkey dead?

The concept cars didn't create us, we create them. We design them, and then we start to manufacture them.

Also, what robot on earth has AI and thinks that? I'm sure when the time comes they will know that humans created them, as they will have substantial evidence.

Have you seen the AI in computer war games? How about the IBM Blue Brain project? Have you at least read the 'concept' of the Blue Brain project? Its projections and expectations? It played Jeopardy and won years ago, and we have come a long-way-baby since then.

[Star]

Arian, it doesn't appear you understand any of their arguments. It wasn't defined as bowling. I see in your post a lot of rambling text but nothing of substance. It's as if your point just doesn't exist.

Please watch the video again. They don't agree with each other, so surely you can find at least one argument one of them makes that you agree with? Just because you might not understand what they say doesn't mean it's stupid. At most,

I doubt anyone will visit you in Arizona, but thank you for the invite. It's hot enough for me here in Vancouver right now, so I can't imagine how I would feel there. I'd probably get a bad sunburn. Instead, you should video record your "scientific experiment" and upload it for us to watch. Do you have a smartphone with a camera?

True AI hasn't been developed yet. The machines you refer to are only the beginning. As exciting as they are, they're far from conscious, and if you asked them who made them, they have access to massive databases with all the information they need.

As for computer war games, it's just simulated AI, programmed to behave the way it does lol. The guns aren't real either.

[arian]

Arian, it doesn't appear you understand any of their arguments. It wasn't defined as bowling. I see in your post a lot of rambling text but nothing of substance. It's as if your point just doesn't exist.

Thank you Star, and again, I apologize if I came on strong, but when people, whoever and whatever level of education claim they are evolving apes, is it degrading for me to point that out?

The bowling part one said was that he would equate 'nothing' to watching a bowling tournament. I understand that was a joke, but an hour later, it still was his best argument IMO.

As for your claim of my "rambling text but nothing of substance", .. thank you for pointing them out. Your 'overwhelming opinion' to my entire post is greatly appreciated.

Please watch the video again. They don't agree with each other, so surely you can find at least one argument one of them makes that you agree with? Just because you might not understand what they say doesn't mean it's stupid. At most,

Again, thank you for pointing out the 'parts of my comments' that indicated to you that I don't understand.

I watched the second half up to the point where they were taking questions from the audience right after after each one finished giving their 'best' description of 'nothing'.
So may I ask you to please tell me, did any of them (either scientifically or philosophically) give a satisfactory definition of nothing? If so, which one? Can you give me at least the time-frame it was in?

Did any of them even come close to my claim;

"I can both scientifically and philosophically PROVE the EXISTANCE of 'nothing'. I can put it in the palm of your hand, and you will KNOW that you are actually holding 'nothing' within a container"

Did any of them come even close to such claim?
One said 'zero' and taking zero away would be his version of nothing. That would be a zero missing, not nothing. Eva said a 'gap' between some quantum events or whatever, but a gap is just space between the two whatevers.

I doubt anyone will visit you in Arizona, but thank you for the invite. It's hot enough for me here in Vancouver right now, so I can't imagine how I would feel there. I'd probably get a bad sunburn.

You are welcome, and the invitation stands, either at my house, yours or anywhere in-between as I said. I wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable, especially get a sunburn for a measly thing like witnessing the proof of the existence of 'nothing', and holding it in your hand. Oh, .. and I do have air-conditioning.

Instead, you should video record your "scientific experiment" and upload it for us to watch. Do you have a smartphone with a camera?

Yes, that would be nice. I have been creating 3-D animation back as far as 1987 on my own computer, but for some reason the governing powers that be over us have been allowed almighty-powers over almost every aspect of my life, except the ability to kill me. Maybe the 'powers that be over us' foreseen a long time ago just this revelation I am talking about, because they know it proves not just the existence of 'nothing', but the Creator of it, and the Universe.

Did you sense the 'fear' exhorted by the professors, and how they downplayed the importance of scientifically defining 'nothing'? That is because they KNOW that if 'nothing' existed and properly defined could destroy all them years of studying and work, and books they have written surrounding the Big-bang Evolution theory. It would almost instantly redefine the way we look at the universe. It would reveal absolutes in perfectness, in beauty, in purpose and in truth.

Sci-fi stories would no longer be ruling over scientific facts. Things wouldn't be 'popping in and out of nothing' creating universes, because people would begin to see the light, the truth in creation, and ignore the senseless rhetoric in quantum theoretical fairytales.

True AI hasn't been developed yet.

Define "True AI"?

The machines you refer to are only the beginning. As exciting as they are, they're far from conscious, and if you asked them who made them, they have access to massive databases with all the information they need.

Take out the information of their creator, and what would you have? That's right, .. like man, thinking "no one created them", and that they are God, and start re-creating the universe, this planet and all biological life from nothing, starting with a Big-bang! lol

As for computer war games, it's just simulated AI, programmed to behave the way it does lol. The guns aren't real either.

Explain to me an "un-simulated AI (Artificial Intelligence)" ??

I would rate the content of the video "On nothing" a 3 on a scale of 1 - 10. I know they are intelligent people, very smart and have my highest regard, and I love the host, so I give a 3 for effort and showing up, .. but the content, a whopping zero "0"!
I wouldn't even consider that a debate, .. more like a social meeting sharing ideas. There was a moment where one of them started to debate the other, but since he didn't have a clue about 'nothing' either, he was quickly reminded that his opinion was as good as any one of the others.

[Star]

Arian, one of us is not visiting the other's home. There's a lot of polar bears and transgender communists where I live anyway, so you wouldn't like it here. I also doubt you have anything important to demonstrate, but if you do, write a paper and submit it to a science journal. You could be famous for being the first person to demonstrate that nothing exists and win a Nobel Prize. Good luck!

[kenblogton]

1.

Jashwell wrote: This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

kenblogton replied: This is a perfect example both of a non-sequitur and a deliberate evasion/distortion of the issue. Anything that has no examples is, as previously explained, an empty set. You speak of delusions later on in you post. Believing in something which does not exist is delusional.

All the non-sequiturs here have been committed by you.

Jashwell stated that he believes nothing doesn't exist. Then you replied with an accusation he's delusional for believing nothing exists.

I don't get it.

2.

[Replying to post 1252 by Jashwell]

As I see it, you have failed to substantially address any of the points I've made, so I have no further comments until you do. I perceive your posts as verbal gymnastics.

He told you that if nature is "eternal" it doesn't need to be created, which would mean it didn't come from ANYthing. This is a plausible alternative explanation to the idea that nature's finite and requires a creator. It's a special pleading fallacy to argue that only your creator can be eternal just because you say so. I haven't seen you address this anywhere.

Reply to 1.Prior to the dense singularity/big bang, there was nothing physical: no space, time, matter, energy. Since then, there has always been something physical. Jashwell evades the pre-big bang nothing by his reply.

Reply to 2. Nature is not eternal; it is somewhere between 8-15 billion years old. Using the term eternal for the finite time physical is another way of evading the origin of the physical.

kenblogton