How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #190

No. You are still trying to force through something magical and supernatural into what is just mysterious, unseen in usual human experience and largely as yet unknown. You are word -juggling to do that and ignoring that you have to account for an intelligence as well as creative being for nothing, or you have a bigger problem than Something from nothing.

Is it because of the difference between "Nothing" and Nothing? That's a difficult distinction to dismiss. Going down to Nothing leaves considerable room for conjecture, including conjecture around the postulate of a consciousness (there's a good deal about consciousness which is unknown).

Mathematically, gravity was described before Einstein explained a bit more and I don't think we know entirely what it is as yet. That does not mean it isn't true. It is the stock fallacy of Theism, if a thing can't be explained down to the last detail, it supposedly fails. I leave the persistent failing to you.

Newton and Galileo never got the full picture on gravity; it took Einstein to link it to mass. I was raising the question of how gravity can be applied to a void of Nothing in which there wouldn't be any mass. I'm not implying that gravity----or quantum mechanics or relativity----isn't real; I'm questioning their assumed presence in an environment which wouldn't facilitate their presence.

Also appeal to authority, Stephen Fry in this case. It is a familiar Theist trick to quotemine other atheists to make it look it like they refute each other. I recall I even said I had my mind open about all this and only argue it is less of a problem than a cosmic mind. I also recall you said Krauss made 'god'plausible and posted a clip where he absolutely did not. Why should I trust anything you say on the matter?

I don't remember Stephen Fry entering into it. I referred to the video with Krauss and Stephen Colbert, but I remember you stating at one point that you didn't see the Krauss quote on plausibility (it wasn't in either of the videos I linked to). I don't know why you weren't able to see it, but here's another link with the same quote:

https://thegreywayfarer.com/2018/11/08/ ... m-a-deist/

Pal, your faith based mindset is making you commit fallacy after fallacy. Trying to force through Godfaith. That is what you are quite plainly trying to do. I am being wide -open skeptical. Just aomething from nothing naturally was always a valid counter hypothesis and Krauss and Hawking at least produces a mathematical backup. Theism producesonly an extra problem they never, ever, try to explain more than pointing to the Gospel of John.

You place a lot of stock in a transcendental consciousness being "an extra problem", but a process of elimination seems to move us at least somewhat in that direction. You've already transmogrified immaterial mathematics into a cosmic impetus, giving it virtually godlike powers of its own. Even if you don't accept the idea of a cosmic consciousness, you have the "mundane" doing some eerie things.

And I haven't been pointing to the Gospel of John.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #190

No. You are still trying to force through something magical and supernatural into what is just mysterious, unseen in usual human experience and largely as yet unknown. You are word -juggling to do that and ignoring that you have to account for an intelligence as well as creative being for nothing, or you have a bigger problem than Something from nothing.

Is it because of the difference between "Nothing" and Nothing? That's a difficult distinction to dismiss. Going down to Nothing leaves considerable room for conjecture, including conjecture around the postulate of a consciousness (there's a good deal about consciousness which is unknown).

Mathematically, gravity was described before Einstein explained a bit more and I don't think we know entirely what it is as yet. That does not mean it isn't true. It is the stock fallacy of Theism, if a thing can't be explained down to the last detail, it supposedly fails. I leave the persistent failing to you.

Newton and Galileo never got the full picture on gravity; it took Einstein to link it to mass. I was raising the question of how gravity can be applied to a void of Nothing in which there wouldn't be any mass. I'm not implying that gravity----or quantum mechanics or relativity----isn't real; I'm questioning their assumed presence in an environment which wouldn't facilitate their presence.

Also appeal to authority, Stephen Fry in this case. It is a familiar Theist trick to quotemine other atheists to make it look it like they refute each other. I recall I even said I had my mind open about all this and only argue it is less of a problem than a cosmic mind. I also recall you said Krauss made 'god'plausible and posted a clip where he absolutely did not. Why should I trust anything you say on the matter?

I don't remember Stephen Fry entering into it. I referred to the video with Krauss and Stephen Colbert, but I remember you stating at one point that you didn't see the Krauss quote on plausibility (it wasn't in either of the videos I linked to). I don't know why you weren't able to see it, but here's another link with the same quote:

https://thegreywayfarer.com/2018/11/08/ ... m-a-deist/

Pal, your faith based mindset is making you commit fallacy after fallacy. Trying to force through Godfaith. That is what you are quite plainly trying to do. I am being wide -open skeptical. Just aomething from nothing naturally was always a valid counter hypothesis and Krauss and Hawking at least produces a mathematical backup. Theism producesonly an extra problem they never, ever, try to explain more than pointing to the Gospel of John.

You place a lot of stock in a transcendental consciousness being "an extra problem", but a process of elimination seems to move us at least somewhat in that direction. You've already transmogrified immaterial mathematics into a cosmic impetus, giving it virtually godlike powers of its own. Even if you don't accept the idea of a cosmic consciousness, you have the "mundane" doing some eerie things.

And I haven't been pointing to the Gospel of John.

Sorry. Got that completely wrong

Why? Because "Krauss-says-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" isn't enough for me? In the video with Colbert, the good Doctor even encourages Stephen to be skeptical. "I am," Stephen replies.

So am I.

Colbert not Fry. Don't know why I thought you were referring to another conversation.

That said, doubt and question is always good.It's why people become atheist. I trust you will be better than try the dirty trick of 'You got that really wrong - you must be wrong about the rest'.

Yes. The difference between Nothing that cannot produce anything and a nothing that can. Of course I can see the difference. The point is that a nothing with the potential to crate may not itself need a creator. That solves the problem (theoretically) of something from nothing and an intelligent creator from nothing. You don't need one, which makes Krauss's argument better than appealing to an intelligent creator.

What more you got? The bit about Gravity makes no point that I can see. Not the link. I thought I could see that clip again as I suspect you quotemine, quite apart from Colbert, being funny of course, but using that to be aggressive, denialist and biased for his Faith. But instead it led to some Deist preaching page.

Make your own case - don't throw links and expect me to do your homework for you.

Your attempt to put the eerie (indeed ) idea of mathematical potential producing matter/energy from nothing on the level of improbability with a god, or indeed turtles all the way down, fails because at best or the least, it means there is an equally good alternative hypothesis to an intelligent creator. There is no reason why 'god' has to be the preferred option. And of course adding 'it has to explain why this thing from nothing is intelligent', just multiplies the problem. If a god can come from nothing, then it shouldn't be a problem for Nothing to produce Something, right? And it doesn't need to be intelligent.

On the other hand, an eternal uncreated creator is more on a level with turtles all the way down, which I'm sure you as well as I won't like. The virtual particles experiment shows the principle is not impossible. And skepticism about what is weird is a bit foolish in the face of quantum and a possible holographic universe. What is weirder, I wonder, than an uncreated creative intelligence?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #192

doubt and question is always good.It's why people become atheist.

Then doubt and question must be good even when they don't lead people to become atheist.

The difference between Nothing that cannot produce anything and a nothing that can. Of course I can see the difference. The point is that a nothing with the potential to crate may not itself need a creator. That solves the problem (theoretically) of something from nothing and an intelligent creator from nothing. You don't need one, which makes Krauss's argument better than appealing to an intelligent creator.

The problem is that a nothing which can create something isn't going to be Nothing. While it may be theoretically arguable that something can be created from nothing, there is no logical way to argue that something can be created by Nothing. And that a creative "nothing" which is actually something wouldn't itself need creating is simply a convenient presumption. If one can ask who created a god, then one can certainly ask what created anything less than a god.

What more you got? The bit about Gravity makes no point that I can see. Not the link. I thought I could see that clip again as I suspect you quotemine, quite apart from Colbert, being funny of course, but using that to be aggressive, denialist and biased for his Faith. But instead it led to some Deist preaching page.

Make your own case - don't throw links and expect me to do your homework for you.

Oh, please......I am making my own case----with references.

Your attempt to put the eerie (indeed ) idea of mathematical potential producing matter/energy from nothing on the level of improbability with a god, or indeed turtles all the way down, fails because at best or the least, it means there is an equally good alternative hypothesis to an intelligent creator.

You're the one having mathematics doing eerie things. I'm just following that lead.

If a god can come from nothing, then it shouldn't be a problem for Nothing to produce Something, right?

See my observation on the impossibility of this above.

I'm not talking about a god coming from nothing, or even from Nothing. It's more like a transcendent principle residing in Nothing.

On the other hand, an eternal uncreated creator is more on a level with turtles all the way down, which I'm sure you as well as I won't like.

My problem with turtles all the way down is that there is always infinite Void being filled by however many turtles there are. Getting from Void to Void-filler is where it gets interesting.

The virtual particles experiment shows the principle is not impossible.

The experiment indicates that it happens while offering no insight on what makes it happen.

And skepticism about what is weird is a bit foolish in the face of quantum and a possible holographic universe.

Thing about holograms----they exist in more dimensions than they're projected into.

What is weirder, I wonder, than an uncreated creative intelligence?

Something being created by Nothing without an uncreated creative intelligence. That would be weirder.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #192

doubt and question is always good.It's why people become atheist.

Then doubt and question must be good even when they don't lead people to become atheist.

The difference between Nothing that cannot produce anything and a nothing that can. Of course I can see the difference. The point is that a nothing with the potential to crate may not itself need a creator. That solves the problem (theoretically) of something from nothing and an intelligent creator from nothing. You don't need one, which makes Krauss's argument better than appealing to an intelligent creator.

The problem is that a nothing which can create something isn't going to be Nothing. While it may be theoretically arguable that something can be created from nothing, there is no logical way to argue that something can be created by Nothing. And that a creative "nothing" which is actually something wouldn't itself need creating is simply a convenient presumption. If one can ask who created a god, then one can certainly ask what created anything less than a god.

What more you got? The bit about Gravity makes no point that I can see. Not the link. I thought I could see that clip again as I suspect you quotemine, quite apart from Colbert, being funny of course, but using that to be aggressive, denialist and biased for his Faith. But instead it led to some Deist preaching page.

Make your own case - don't throw links and expect me to do your homework for you.

Oh, please......I am making my own case----with references.

Your attempt to put the eerie (indeed ) idea of mathematical potential producing matter/energy from nothing on the level of improbability with a god, or indeed turtles all the way down, fails because at best or the least, it means there is an equally good alternative hypothesis to an intelligent creator.

You're the one having mathematics doing eerie things. I'm just following that lead.

If a god can come from nothing, then it shouldn't be a problem for Nothing to produce Something, right?

See my observation on the impossibility of this above.

I'm not talking about a god coming from nothing, or even from Nothing. It's more like a transcendent principle residing in Nothing.

On the other hand, an eternal uncreated creator is more on a level with turtles all the way down, which I'm sure you as well as I won't like.

My problem with turtles all the way down is that there is always infinite Void being filled by however many turtles there are. Getting from Void to Void-filler is where it gets interesting.

The virtual particles experiment shows the principle is not impossible.

The experiment indicates that it happens while offering no insight on what makes it happen.

And skepticism about what is weird is a bit foolish in the face of quantum and a possible holographic universe.

Thing about holograms----they exist in more dimensions than they're projected into.

What is weirder, I wonder, than an uncreated creative intelligence?

Something being created by Nothing without an uncreated creative intelligence. That would be weirder.

This is all repeating yourself and being denialist. I don't deny it's all arguable, and eerie as you say, but 'god' is more of a logical problem than something from nothing the latter of which has some support from physicists, while 'god' has nothing but you pretending to know what is possible and what is not and insisting on a strawman I already answered. It isn't that a nothing that produces a Something isn't really a Nothing, but it is enough of one that it doesn't need to be crated by anything.

The attempt to make mathematics and physics 'Something' that has to be intelligently created failed as they become (arguably) inherent in what any matter/energy does. And you have failed to show that Krauss has said a god or intelligent creator is plausible, either in the video clip or the web-page you linked where, as i said, I am not going to do your homework for you.

Your 'transcendant principle' is just as well mathematical potential, but you try to dress it up in magical or theological terminology. You have no valid case that I can see and your denial matters no more than what I think out it. I just leave it as 'nobody knows for sure' including you, and so there is no case for Theism 'belief in an intelligent creator'. Neither is it anything more than the Theist demand everything be explained 100% before it is accepted by demanding to know how. I already made the point with gravity, which point you evaded with a, irrelevant little history lesson. If a thing is described as happening it is valid, even if the mechanism isn't known (applies to resurrection, too
Do you have anything new or valid rather than repeated failed claims and denial?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194

This is all repeating yourself and being denialist.

You've employed a fair bit of repetition and denial yourself.

I don't deny it's all arguable, and eerie as you say, but 'god' is more of a logical problem than something from nothing the latter of which has some support from physicists

As I see it, the logical problem stems from physicists getting a universe before getting physics.

It isn't that a nothing that produces a Something isn't really a Nothing, but it is enough of one that it doesn't need to be crated by anything.

Logically, there's a hard line between something and nothing. They're direct opposites. They're mutually exclusive. Trying to rebrand something as "enough of a nothing", therefore, doesn't work. If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that there's an overlap or gray area between something and Nothing, that would be eerie.

The attempt to make mathematics and physics 'Something' that has to be intelligently created failed as they become (arguably) inherent in what any matter/energy does.

.....which means that mathematics would exist only as a description of what matter/energy does and would have no "potential" to do anything without the existence of matter/energy. If mathematics did have the potential to exist as a force in itself without any forces to describe, that would be eerie.

And you have failed to show that Krauss has said a god or intelligent creator is plausible, either in the video clip or the web-page you linked where, as i said, I am not going to do your homework for you.

You can't be bothered to scroll down just below the article's title? Does someone have to do your homework?

Your 'transcendant principle' is just as well mathematical potential, but you try to dress it up in magical or theological terminology.

If "mathematical potential" is on par with a transcendent principle, I'd say that qualifies it as transcendent.

I already made the point with gravity, which point you evaded with a, irrelevant little history lesson.

"Newton and Galileo never got the full picture on gravity; it took Einstein to link it to mass. I was raising the question of how gravity can be applied to a void of Nothing in which there wouldn't be any mass. I'm not implying that gravity----or quantum mechanics or relativity----isn't real; I'm questioning their assumed presence in an environment which wouldn't facilitate their presence."

The only thing I see being evaded is an answer to the question I raise.

If a thing is described as happening it is valid, even if the mechanism isn't known

A description----like mathematics----of a thing happening isn't logically a mechanism by which it would happen.

Do you have anything new or valid rather than repeated failed claims and denial?

Are you asking if I have any more questions which you'll dismiss as denial?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194

This is all repeating yourself and being denialist.

You've employed a fair bit of repetition and denial yourself.

I don't deny it's all arguable, and eerie as you say, but 'god' is more of a logical problem than something from nothing the latter of which has some support from physicists

As I see it, the logical problem stems from physicists getting a universe before getting physics.

It isn't that a nothing that produces a Something isn't really a Nothing, but it is enough of one that it doesn't need to be crated by anything.

Logically, there's a hard line between something and nothing. They're direct opposites. They're mutually exclusive. Trying to rebrand something as "enough of a nothing", therefore, doesn't work. If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that there's an overlap or gray area between something and Nothing, that would be eerie.

The attempt to make mathematics and physics 'Something' that has to be intelligently created failed as they become (arguably) inherent in what any matter/energy does.

.....which means that mathematics would exist only as a description of what matter/energy does and would have no "potential" to do anything without the existence of matter/energy. If mathematics did have the potential to exist as a force in itself without any forces to describe, that would be eerie.

And you have failed to show that Krauss has said a god or intelligent creator is plausible, either in the video clip or the web-page you linked where, as i said, I am not going to do your homework for you.

You can't be bothered to scroll down just below the article's title? Does someone have to do your homework?

Your 'transcendant principle' is just as well mathematical potential, but you try to dress it up in magical or theological terminology.

If "mathematical potential" is on par with a transcendent principle, I'd say that qualifies it as transcendent.

I already made the point with gravity, which point you evaded with a, irrelevant little history lesson.

"Newton and Galileo never got the full picture on gravity; it took Einstein to link it to mass. I was raising the question of how gravity can be applied to a void of Nothing in which there wouldn't be any mass. I'm not implying that gravity----or quantum mechanics or relativity----isn't real; I'm questioning their assumed presence in an environment which wouldn't facilitate their presence."

The only thing I see being evaded is an answer to the question I raise.

If a thing is described as happening it is valid, even if the mechanism isn't known

A description----like mathematics----of a thing happening isn't logically a mechanism by which it would happen.

Do you have anything new or valid rather than repeated failed claims and denial?

Are you asking if I have any more questions which you'll dismiss as denial?

The only problem is your trying to insist that something from nothing is not possible in any sense and that for the matter you constantly evade - why a 'god'should be the only alternative, which of course is the faithbased belief you are trying to make the only possible answer. You used the term 'impossible' for anything else, which really exposes your agenda.

Your first point is 'same to you' Theist kneejerk. I have only repeated answers to points you keep repeating and it is not denial, but answers (or at least responses), which you keep denying.
As you see it, it is just trying to create a problem that really isn't there. If only you could see it (1), it is the old theist problem of insisting that nothing can happen unless God passes a law. Just the same as insisting on a hard line between something from nothing. I can imagine one merging into or rather emerging from, another. So can you, because you tried to make 'physics' the difference, and when I explained (hypothetically) you tried to make the mathematical potential a synonym for a god when all it is is what will happen when things happen to matter/energy - which I explain again virtual particles suggest can come from a 'nothing' which, whether you swear it is something or not, does not need to be created.

You may deny that, but it is the same problem with apologetics objections to evolution, consciousness, Life and indeed morality. The Emergence without god has to be denied, on Faith.This is clearly your mindset but do not actually say so. Because that would put the burden of proof on you and why should you have burden of proof? God is a given, right? Isn't that your mindset? Be honest now.

On my other board, a regular opponent used to dismiss emergence by sneering at it. Used to dismiss Occam's razor by sneering at it. In fact dismissed everything with argument from incredulity, which is what you do. "As I see it" you dismiss the answer I gave (physics happens when stuff happens) because you want to keep the 'logical problem' that enables you to dismiss something from nothing even as an alternative possibility.

The mere possibility - let us get straight the nub, here - means "God is not necessary". You lose, even if you keep disputing the score.

You cheeky fellow. Your article, which You posted, is Your homework, not mine. I do not have to search out and explain your evidence for you. That is a theist trick I have seen many many times, and you can't fool me.

Ok I do understand incredulity, even without Godfaith (which plainly you have because you avoid mentioning it as delicately as nobody mentioning the Temple Fracas at either trial). I get it, but it is not a real objection nor philosophical (which you call logic) because at quantum level what is logical anyway? You can't deny the possibility, especially with supportive evidence, but you must because that leaves 'Something More' (this transcendental element you keep trying to slide under the laboratory door) as the default theory. Dude I know what is going on because I have seen it before.
,
As I see it, denial of anyone living 'under the earth' because they would fall off was a failure of imagination, not a logical problem, and that is what you have with Something from Nothing, which even before Krauss or Hawking, was a counter claim (which got laughed at). But you can't (credibly) laugh at Krauss or Hawking (though Colbert tried to ) but only dismiss it out of hand, like you are a better physicist than they are.

I'm lovin' this, because I have nothing to lose; what more you got? Hang on - I'll have to submit and read.

Right, you are doing a mix of the supernatural and incredulity with 'eerie. It really isn't, but you try to misrepresent it so it sounds like it:- the whole rule of mathematics and laws of physics have to be written (by God) before matter/energy can happen. Instability 'happens'; it does not need a set of rules. Just like everything including evolution, it develops laws by what happens and can be stable. What isn't goes extinct. You do not need a science for virtual particles, only after them.

Your point about Gravity is still irrelevant. The point is that it existed even before Newton, Einstein and anyone else explained what it was or how it worked. Nor does it mean virtual particles or something from nothing is invalid because the mechanics can't totally be explained. Though Krauss explains enough, which you reject because of philosophical (or just verbal barriers you invent. I'll have to submit again so I can see what's what.

Sauce - of course, you insist on 'explain 100% or I reject it" A wearisomely common theist tactic. Denial of what is presented. Using bod in the street incredulity to dismiss Krauss - that is what I call Denial. And the bottom line is I don't even care. You already Believe - I don't, and Krauss etc. give me more than just 'God or not' which was valid to start with. Now Krauss and Hawking make it more than that and that you dismiss it and prefer godfaith (which is what you are doing - not physics, or even philosophy, don't think you are fooling me) doesn't matter .It was never about convincing a Faith-based believer, but explaining why you have no case. Just for jolly, why don't you explain how the universe began without some kind of emergence from an existing Gray Area?i I predict you won't because a god without any cause or origin is the Faith, isn't it?

You lost before you began and this is just playing a game that didn't matter, even apart from 'religion' doesn't even come into it. But you go on trying to score pointless points. Cosmic origins is an interesting discussion but gets the deist nowhere because nobody really knows.

P.s Just because Theisthink fascinates me - incredulity (fallacy). The argument 'I can't imagine this, therefore it isn't true'. Your brain is better than bonehead Creationism of that kind. In fact they can imagine it, as they have no trouble should they convert. It is not they can't imagine it, but they don't want to. You can (and do) imagine this gray area of emergence without any physics rules needing to be in place, but you have to pretend 'it doesn't make sense', so you can dismiss it, leaving 'God' as the default hypothesis. Isn't that it? It is whether you see it or not, because I see it laid out as a clear pattern and have seen it many, many, times before.

(1) actually you can, - the 'gray area'. But you keep trying to invent things that have to be there to play the infinite regression card by insisting that events have to be planned - that, plus making anything else supernatural [eerie/transcendental]) in order to make the 'gray area' an 'impossible' barrier.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #196

The only problem is your trying to insist that something from nothing is not possible in any sense and that for the matter you constantly evade - why a 'god'should be the only alternative, which of course is the faithbased belief you are trying to make the only possible answer. You used the term 'impossible' for anything else, which really exposes your agenda.

Something created from nothing by nothing is not possible in a literal sense, and any nonliteral sense is meaningless.

I have only repeated answers to points you keep repeating

I have repeated questions about statements you have repeated without answering the questions.

Just the same as insisting on a hard line between something from nothing. I can imagine one merging into or rather emerging from, another.

Yet you can't take the next logical step. Why? Because it leads outside the Material and you don't want to go there?

you tried to make 'physics' the difference, and when I explained (hypothetically) you tried to make the mathematical potential a synonym for a god when all it is is what will happen when things happen to matter/energy

But you had the mathematical potential giving rise to matter, energy and physics, didn't you? The cart keeps coming before the horse.

which I explain again virtual particles suggest can come from a 'nothing' which, whether you swear it is something or not, does not need to be created.

The mere insistence that "a nothing" wouldn't need to be created doesn't make it so.

You may deny that, but it is the same problem with apologetics objections to evolution, consciousness, Life and indeed morality. The Emergence without god has to be denied, on Faith.This is clearly your mindset but do not actually say so. Because that would put the burden of proof on you and why should you have burden of proof? God is a given, right? Isn't that your mindset? Be honest now.

Accusing me of intellectual chicanery doesn't address any of the questions I've been raising.

On my other board, a regular opponent used to dismiss emergence by sneering at it. Used to dismiss Occam's razor by sneering at it. In fact dismissed everything with argument from incredulity, which is what you do.

When you insist that "a nothing" which is actually something but "enough of a nothing" wouldn't have to be created, but at the same time could be created without prior physics, I'm supposed to be credulous?

"As I see it" you dismiss the answer I gave (physics happens when stuff happens)

If physics happens when stuff happens, what happens to make stuff happen?

because you want to keep the 'logical problem' that enables you to dismiss something from nothing even as an alternative possibility.

You should want to dismiss the idea of something from nothing, because it suggests the existence of something beyond the human concept of something and nothing. You vehemently oppose the notion of a magician, but you're still stuck with the magic.

The mere possibility - let us get straight the nub, here - means "God is not necessary". You lose, even if you keep disputing the score.

In other words you're declaring yourself the winner, taking your ball and going home.

You cheeky fellow. Your article, which You posted, is Your homework, not mine. I do not have to search out and explain your evidence for you. That is a theist trick I have seen many many times, and you can't fool me.

Don't like the Krauss quote, eh?

Ok I do understand incredulity, even without Godfaith (which plainly you have because you avoid mentioning it as delicately as nobody mentioning the Temple Fracas at either trial). I get it, but it is not a real objection nor philosophical (which you call logic) because at quantum level what is logical anyway?

If the quantum level doesn't have to be logical as we define logic, why can't it follow the logic of the transcendent?

As I see it, denial of anyone living 'under the earth' because they would fall off was a failure of imagination, not a logical problem, and that is what you have with Something from Nothing, which even before Krauss or Hawking, was a counter claim (which got laughed at). But you can't (credibly) laugh at Krauss or Hawking (though Colbert tried to ) but only dismiss it out of hand, like you are a better physicist than they are.

Something from Nothing is something from the non-physical. Physicists who venture into the realm of the non-physical are not dealing with physics, dress it up in physical jargon though they may.

I'm lovin' this, because I have nothing to lose

For someone with nothing to lose, you sure are hanging on tight to what you have.

You do not need a science for virtual particles, only after them.

This one brief sentence says so much. Materialism stakes everything on scientific grounding, but when the scientific ground becomes shaky then science itself suddenly becomes conveniently unnecessary. If science isn't necessary, what is there to tell you that a transcendent principle isn't necessary?

Your point about Gravity is still irrelevant. The point is that it existed even before Newton, Einstein and anyone else explained what it was or how it worked. Nor does it mean virtual particles or something from nothing is invalid because the mechanics can't totally be explained.

My question about gravity, which you call irrelevant instead of answering, is how there would be gravity in a void of Nothing in which there would be no mass. A question isn't irrelevant or pointless just because you don't have an answer, and "Instability 'happens'; it does not need a set of rules" isn't an adequate substitute for an answer. It's just changing the rules when you're not in the lead.

Just for jolly, why don't you explain how the universe began without some kind of emergence from an existing Gray Area?i I predict you won't because a god without any cause or origin is the Faith, isn't it?

The Gray Area is exactly what I'm positing, and it doesn't conform to the strictly material. It's not "logical". It doesn't need "a set of rules". But here's where I follow Einstein's advice and keep questioning. If the Gray Area doesn't need science to exist, then what makes it exist?

the 'gray area'. But you keep trying to invent things that have to be there to play the infinite regression card

I've tried to help you understand this before. It's not about regression; it's about reduction. It's also about asking questions and not stopping once you've gotten all the answers you want. It doesn't bother me that there may be questions beyond the ones I've asked and the possible answers they've led me to. How about you?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #196

The only problem is your trying to insist that something from nothing is not possible in any sense and that for the matter you constantly evade - why a 'god'should be the only alternative, which of course is the faithbased belief you are trying to make the only possible answer. You used the term 'impossible' for anything else, which really exposes your agenda.

Something created from nothing by nothing is not possible in a literal sense, and any nonliteral sense is meaningless.

I have only repeated answers to points you keep repeating

I have repeated questions about statements you have repeated without answering the questions.

Just the same as insisting on a hard line between something from nothing. I can imagine one merging into or rather emerging from, another.

Yet you can't take the next logical step. Why? Because it leads outside the Material and you don't want to go there?

you tried to make 'physics' the difference, and when I explained (hypothetically) you tried to make the mathematical potential a synonym for a god when all it is is what will happen when things happen to matter/energy

But you had the mathematical potential giving rise to matter, energy and physics, didn't you? The cart keeps coming before the horse.

which I explain again virtual particles suggest can come from a 'nothing' which, whether you swear it is something or not, does not need to be created.

The mere insistence that "a nothing" wouldn't need to be created doesn't make it so.

You may deny that, but it is the same problem with apologetics objections to evolution, consciousness, Life and indeed morality. The Emergence without god has to be denied, on Faith.This is clearly your mindset but do not actually say so. Because that would put the burden of proof on you and why should you have burden of proof? God is a given, right? Isn't that your mindset? Be honest now.

Accusing me of intellectual chicanery doesn't address any of the questions I've been raising.

On my other board, a regular opponent used to dismiss emergence by sneering at it. Used to dismiss Occam's razor by sneering at it. In fact dismissed everything with argument from incredulity, which is what you do.

When you insist that "a nothing" which is actually something but "enough of a nothing" wouldn't have to be created, but at the same time could be created without prior physics, I'm supposed to be credulous?

"As I see it" you dismiss the answer I gave (physics happens when stuff happens)

If physics happens when stuff happens, what happens to make stuff happen?

because you want to keep the 'logical problem' that enables you to dismiss something from nothing even as an alternative possibility.

You should want to dismiss the idea of something from nothing, because it suggests the existence of something beyond the human concept of something and nothing. You vehemently oppose the notion of a magician, but you're still stuck with the magic.

The mere possibility - let us get straight the nub, here - means "God is not necessary". You lose, even if you keep disputing the score.

In other words you're declaring yourself the winner, taking your ball and going home.

You cheeky fellow. Your article, which You posted, is Your homework, not mine. I do not have to search out and explain your evidence for you. That is a theist trick I have seen many many times, and you can't fool me.

Don't like the Krauss quote, eh?

Ok I do understand incredulity, even without Godfaith (which plainly you have because you avoid mentioning it as delicately as nobody mentioning the Temple Fracas at either trial). I get it, but it is not a real objection nor philosophical (which you call logic) because at quantum level what is logical anyway?

If the quantum level doesn't have to be logical as we define logic, why can't it follow the logic of the transcendent?

As I see it, denial of anyone living 'under the earth' because they would fall off was a failure of imagination, not a logical problem, and that is what you have with Something from Nothing, which even before Krauss or Hawking, was a counter claim (which got laughed at). But you can't (credibly) laugh at Krauss or Hawking (though Colbert tried to ) but only dismiss it out of hand, like you are a better physicist than they are.

Something from Nothing is something from the non-physical. Physicists who venture into the realm of the non-physical are not dealing with physics, dress it up in physical jargon though they may.

I'm lovin' this, because I have nothing to lose

For someone with nothing to lose, you sure are hanging on tight to what you have.

You do not need a science for virtual particles, only after them.

This one brief sentence says so much. Materialism stakes everything on scientific grounding, but when the scientific ground becomes shaky then science itself suddenly becomes conveniently unnecessary. If science isn't necessary, what is there to tell you that a transcendent principle isn't necessary?

Your point about Gravity is still irrelevant. The point is that it existed even before Newton, Einstein and anyone else explained what it was or how it worked. Nor does it mean virtual particles or something from nothing is invalid because the mechanics can't totally be explained.

My question about gravity, which you call irrelevant instead of answering, is how there would be gravity in a void of Nothing in which there would be no mass. A question isn't irrelevant or pointless just because you don't have an answer, and "Instability 'happens'; it does not need a set of rules" isn't an adequate substitute for an answer. It's just changing the rules when you're not in the lead.

Just for jolly, why don't you explain how the universe began without some kind of emergence from an existing Gray Area?i I predict you won't because a god without any cause or origin is the Faith, isn't it?

The Gray Area is exactly what I'm positing, and it doesn't conform to the strictly material. It's not "logical". It doesn't need "a set of rules". But here's where I follow Einstein's advice and keep questioning. If the Gray Area doesn't need science to exist, then what makes it exist?

the 'gray area'. But you keep trying to invent things that have to be there to play the infinite regression card

I've tried to help you understand this before. It's not about regression; it's about reduction. It's also about asking questions and not stopping once you've gotten all the answers you want. It doesn't bother me that there may be questions beyond the ones I've asked and the possible answers they've led me to. How about you?

This is going nowhere and you have nothing but denial. You and I and even Krauss do not know what is possible or not at quantum and Cosmic origins level, and virtual particles show that in concept, it is possible. I have given the answers possible. You have demanded 100% explanations to unknown. That is just theist trickery. Unknowns are unknowns not evidence, nor answerable.

And the question you have consistently refused is to explain a cosmic intelligence with no origin.

You call opting (without god reason) for the supernatural (you call 'transcendent') as the next 'logical' step. It is your faithbased preference - step without any good reason. We know the material exists, even at quantum level. We have no evidence or even logical reason for the supernatural. And you have the sauce to imply that I'm the biased one.

No I didn't try to make 'mathematical potential' a synonym for a god. You did. All Krauss said what that "Nothing" (nothingness) matter is inherently unstable. No supernatural necessary. A postulated intelligent creator with no origin is the ultimate unexplained, unanswered question and cart before the horse.

If you can't (or won't) accept the possibility that cosmic 'nothing' (even with inherent potential to produce virtual matter/energy through inherent instability) requires no creation, then I can't help you. It doesn't matter. It is at least the vague gropings at an explanation or theory of Something from Nothing, while you have no explanation or hypothesis of a creative cosmic intelligence and refuse even to tackle the point. What you will accept or not is irrelevant, what even halfway looks like a theory (with physicists like Krauss and Hawking) makes more of a case than appeal to an uncreated creator, whether you deny it or not. I see no reason to credit an unexplained and illogical 'god' and that's the real point. You may have faith in what you like, but you have no case.

You are are hangin' in tight to denial and refusal to answer my question about where a an intelligent creator comes from (and you always did avoid that) and persist in thinking you can outwit Krauss and Hawking (never mind me) with wordplay. So less of implying I'm the one doing persistent denial. You have produced nothing to deny.

The wordplay is yours, not mine You insist on science, mathematics or physics existing before there is anything material or energy. Why? Because you require Godwritten laws before there is anything for it to apply to. Inherent instability is in inherent situation (hypothetically) that does not need a law or science. Nor a physics textbook when actions start happening. We use physics, mathematics and science to describe these actions, not dictate them.

It is clear (to anyone but you) that your entire position is predicated on a pre -existent lawgiver before there is anything. You just hang in tight there with this unsupported god - claim and I'll keep exposing it for the ultimate 'something from nothing that it really is.

Ok, gravity. Apart from a potted history lesson about discovering how it works. Hypothetically, one could say it didn't exist before there was anything for it to act upon. Possibly it might even exist as a property (so to speak) of nothingness. It depends what it actually is. A distortion of time, and theoretically time as a procession of conceptual events even before there is anything for it to happen to could be inherently there without anyone needing to create it. It is your old theist trick of demanding answers, explanations and evidence (which in virtual particles we have anyway) before you will even give it equal validity to a god you have consistently refused to answer question about, explain or give evidence for, other than persistent denial and word - play and, as we have seen, illogical apologetics tricks. Like what you can't understand with bod in the street incomprehension as a pretext for appeal to a placeholder god.

Like what makes inherent instability exist? Nothing needs to to. Nothing and inherent instability does not need creating. Why should it? And if 'Something' makes it exist, what makes the Something? You are the one consistently evading the implied turtles all the way down, the uncreated creator with no explanation, and persistently trying to make the non material a thing that has to be written, dictated or made and positing magic (until you have something better than a god) as no kind of answer, explanation or hypothesis (and without a single physicist supporting it that i know of) but only your last, residual and really pointless Deist -godfaith. Like I say, I don't even care. It is academic to me. Organised religion is the only thing that is actually significant. I don't mind if there is a God of Einstein (that i decided in my teens was the best one could propose) that makes the universe work. It has nothing to do with any of the organised religions that intrude into our lives, which I gather is where we are on the same page.

I'll do this bit of your back to front theistbased thinking here as it is salient "I've tried to help you understand this before. It's not about regression; it's about reduction. It's also about asking questions and not stopping once you've gotten all the answers you want. It doesn't bother me that there may be questions beyond the ones I've asked and the possible answers they've led me to. How about you?"

Regression or reduction is pointless wordplay. You Must Use The Right Term is a persistent silly trick apologists use to gain a pointless point. Meanings before words, and they mean the same here. And you give your gameplay away with 'answers you want'. You reject what answers we have and insist on providing faithbased answers without valid reason to answers we don't have. Sure, you can propose them, but they carry no logical or evidential weight. They have only faithbased preference. And yet again, you avoid explaining where an uncreated intelligent creator came from - the original problem: two logical problems insteadof one,partly answered with inherent instability and virtual particles.

I could be insulted, but I am used to it, that Theist apologists try to drag me along their irrational faithbased preferences with nothing but possible answers that have 'led you' to Theism - and yet I remember you denied that you were an atheist that was led to theism. I remember that I guessed that from your screen name, don't you? In any case you have nothing but speculation, and not even with a hypothesis, explanation or evidence, merely faithclaim based on rejection of explanations of physicists and possible evidence and trying semantic trickery to shoehorn a god in there, the origins of which I still await an explanation of.

Ball is in your court. I think. I have referred (again) to the half -answers we have, rejected (logically) demands for answers for unknowns and asked yet again for an explanation of where an intelligent creator (which is for sure what you have been trying to wangle in) came from.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #198

All Krauss said what that "Nothing" (nothingness) matter is inherently unstable. No supernatural necessary.

If you can't (or won't) accept the possibility that cosmic 'nothing' (even with inherent potential to produce virtual matter/energy through inherent instability) requires no creation, then I can't help you.

Inherent instability is in inherent situation (hypothetically) that does not need a law or science. Nor a physics textbook when actions start happening. We use physics, mathematics and science to describe these actions, not dictate them.

Like what makes inherent instability exist? Nothing needs to to. Nothing and inherent instability does not need creating. Why should it? And if 'Something' makes it exist, what makes the Something? You are the one consistently evading the implied turtles all the way down

Ball is in your court. I think. I have referred (again) to the half -answers we have, rejected (logically) demands for answers for unknowns and asked yet again for an explanation of where an intelligent creator (which is for sure what you have been trying to wangle in) came from.

You're revealing a double standard in your position. I posit the limitations of the Material as evidence that a transcendent principle----possibly on some order of intelligence----is present in nature, and you insist that I answer every question about its existence. At the same time, however, you [following the lead of Krauss, Hawking et al.] fervently----and arbitrarily----assume instability "inherent" in a void of Nothing, and confound the cheek of asking what that might come from! I point out that being self-evident doesn't make something self-explanatory, and you trot out the same naked assertion again and again----no intellectual inquisitiveness allowed in that territory.

So let me ask you straight out. When you insist that a void of Nothing would be "inherently" unstable, the instability of Nothing needing nothing to cause it, is that an answer which can't be questioned?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #198

All Krauss said what that "Nothing" (nothingness) matter is inherently unstable. No supernatural necessary.

If you can't (or won't) accept the possibility that cosmic 'nothing' (even with inherent potential to produce virtual matter/energy through inherent instability) requires no creation, then I can't help you.

Inherent instability is in inherent situation (hypothetically) that does not need a law or science. Nor a physics textbook when actions start happening. We use physics, mathematics and science to describe these actions, not dictate them.

Like what makes inherent instability exist? Nothing needs to to. Nothing and inherent instability does not need creating. Why should it? And if 'Something' makes it exist, what makes the Something? You are the one consistently evading the implied turtles all the way down

Ball is in your court. I think. I have referred (again) to the half -answers we have, rejected (logically) demands for answers for unknowns and asked yet again for an explanation of where an intelligent creator (which is for sure what you have been trying to wangle in) came from.

You're revealing a double standard in your position. I posit the limitations of the Material as evidence that a transcendent principle----possibly on some order of intelligence----is present in nature, and you insist that I answer every question about its existence. At the same time, however, you [following the lead of Krauss, Hawking et al.] fervently----and arbitrarily----assume instability "inherent" in a void of Nothing, and confound the cheek of asking what that might come from! I point out that being self-evident doesn't make something self-explanatory, and you trot out the same naked assertion again and again----no intellectual inquisitiveness allowed in that territory.

So let me ask you straight out. When you insist that a void of Nothing would be "inherently" unstable, the instability of Nothing needing nothing to cause it, is that an answer which can't be questioned?

Thank you though it doesn't merit an actual thanks..but heck, why not? You post some objections based (as I said) in Incredulity - which I get. And appeal to a transcendent principle (God) smuggled in with some misconception (if not representations) of physics, mathematics and 'science' as some pre -dictated laws before there is any matter/energy to start doing stuff and laws to emerge.

Yes "Emergence" (which is akin the Chemical evolution (q.v) is at least as good a proposal as a cosmic mind. It is not double standards. You have nothing but faithbased (c'mon, admit it ) resistance to the possibility of a something (virtual stuff - virtual particles being evidenced) from a nothing (which though a potential 'Something, like mathematical potential, requires no creator) as an alternative to an intelligent creator. The origins of which you still have to explain.

This is not double standards, but an equally valid hypothesis, which now has evidential support, while you have none but some denialist claims based on misunderstanding if not deliberate misrepresentation.

You are better than this, dude. Let it go. I don't even deny an intelligence as a hypothesis. Just as i don't claim Something from nothing as an Answer. It is a valid alternative possibiliy and that's why you have lost though you keep blustering.

I don't care that you have Faith; it doesn't matter. You can keep it. Where you fail is that you have Nothing to force it on me or anyone else, and you didn't even before Krauss, Harking and virtual particles.
As Hawking buzzed the conference on Epstein Island "God.Is.Not.Nesser-sarry."

Ok. Let's look at your double standard. I don't ask you to explain everything (as you ask of me) but just come up with a plausible claim. Where did this Cosmic Intelligence come from? You can be honest (if your Faith will allow it) and say "I have no idea".

I had an idea of the near nothing stuff (as you may recall) even before you posted Krauss, but after Hawking. You do yourself No Favors by tossing Krauss (whom you posted as an authority for a plausible god, which he never said..boy are you doing it wrong) and Hawking in the bin, like your faithbased denial invalidates these top physicists.

Apart from trying to pot - kettle accuse me of 'cheek' you pretty much admit you have no explanation. You have 'self evident'. Oh yeah? How? Because of your incredulity? Because you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend emergence from potential?

Let me explain for others if not for you. Cosmic Stuff appears (virtual particles supports the suggestion); it interacts; things work and become stable, or do not and vanish. This is chemical evolution. It is an Explanation and in fact chemical evolution (1) is a valid science hypothesis.
The mere counter to goddunnit of 'Something from nothing' was always a valid one and the cosmic intelligence claim had no force even before you posted Kraus. It has even less, as Something from Nothing has physicists and bits of evidence. You have nothing must misunderstanding, misrepresentation, appeals to the supernatural based on semantic and conceptual fiddling and frankly pot - kettle swipes at me. Dude, I don't mind as they only hurt you when I expose your poor methodology. Like accusing me of No intellectual inquisitiveness. Chum, to echo Qualiasoup, 'It was my neighbour who had no curiosity. Having concluded it was a ghost, he didn't bother to look any further' (2). This is exactly what you are doing. Having latched onto 'god' as a faithclaim, you dismiss and reject (on really bad arguments, and bin Krauss, too, you saucebox ) so you can pretend that a cosmic intelligence you admit you have no explanation let alone evidence for (other than 'self evidence - a blatant appeal to Faith) is the default theory.

You have exhibited the classic faithbased fallacy of Theism, as well as presenting (misrepresented) science as support only to bin it when it doesn't.. Give it up, as you have nothing to lose but the mental chains. Or at least admit 'Nobody really knows' and stop pretending that 'god' is the go -to hypothesis. It isn't, even if there was no proposed alternative. Of course it can all be questioned. That's why it is all academic. Nobody knows for sure. Not god' not 'Something from nothing'. They are (at the best for you) alternatives, even without Krauus, Hawking and Veeps as 'evidence'.
Give it up and keep your faithclaim as I'll keep 'Nobody really knows' which I recommend to anyone else.

Now this was an extensive response because your case finally crashed, burned, crumpled and sank. Though you may deny it and keep trying, Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, your case died right here.

(1) it is an argument based on research with silver nitrates that suggests organised increased complexity based on Thermo 2. Together with Social evolution and Biological evolution is actually makes the Creationist concept of "Evilooshun"a 'Darwinist' only a Theory from Big Bang to where our morals come from.

(w2) 'open minded' vid on critical thinking.