Does The Universe Require a Creator?

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Ad hominem is not a synonym for insult.

Never claimed it was, but when he does not provide and argument, but simply says I'm wrong, BECAUSE of Example A: but Example A is an insult, this is not an argument, but rather a poor reaction to the person rather than the argument itself.
What argument has her provided?

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Is A Dimmer Enlightenment always like this? I honestly can't fathom how he thinks. It's like dealing with a child with a vocabulary way too large for its age but then it doesn't actually know what most of the words mean.

^----- good argument here; Clapping again!

Like SD said this topic is going right in the direction they predicted, it started out decent, but has got nowhere, its full of things Unrelated to the OP, and has other wise resulted in unnecessary statements.

The original, statement made to me after the OP, was the idea you did not believe something cannot come from nothing.
So, I provided an example of something that has always existed.
in doing this it provides the argument that something has always existed, and there for Nothingness never was.


Things that don't exist cannot have a physical impact on a material world
I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue this.


Shadows exist... even if COLD does not, and the argument that cold does not exist for reasons XYZ, does not argue a reason shadow don't exist.
This was the entire point I have been trying to make, but you refuse to accept it, I guess.
We are now so far from the OP, and the beginning of this topic it's disgusting.

A shadow is a dark area where light from a light source is blocked by an opaque object.
It occupies all of the three-dimensional volume behind an object with light in front of it. Things cannot occupy Volume of any kind if they are nonexistent.

You claimed shadows, do not exist, for the same reason Cold does not exist, and this is demonstrably false.
Even if cold does not exist, has nothing to do with shadows....

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Never claimed it was, but when he does not provide and argument, but simply says I'm wrong, BECAUSE of Example A: but Example A is an insult, this is not an argument, but rather a poor reaction to the person rather than the argument itself.

That is not at all what happened.

What argument has her provided?

Take 'absence of heat will allow things to freeze', that isn't really right, if these things are below the freezing point, they will be frozen [I don't want to get into the exceptions like supercooling, it's not relevant]. There is no absence of heat, they're still chock full of heat. You do realize that the steel you're surrounded by is frozen. right? As is the white hot element in any incandescent light bulb? They're all frozen. I can't answer your question because it's simply incoherent, as I already made clear and just did again. Only something at absolute zero has an 'absence of heat'. I think you don't understand the difference between temperature and heat, see previous post, even though I explained how it's a category error to use heat and cold together as if they're comparable you did it again here.

Now, I left out all the sentences that were just insults, but there, as clear as day, is the argument. How did you miss it?

I don’t have time for a dumpster fires this will be my last post here for this topic.

 

[mechtheist]

That is not at all what happened.





Now, I left out all the sentences that were just insults, but there, as clear as day, is the argument. How did you miss it?

I've often had to tell people I explained how they're wrong, multiple times, and I really can't stand going back over the posts copying and pasting proven they're full of shit, so thank you! And just to make it clear, that was ONE of the times I explained all of that shit in one form or another. Usually, when you've whacked them as seriously as here, they at least have sense enough to slink off and act like it never happened, but this guy can't wait to keep piling on the evidence that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about while clearly ignoring what I say then claiming I didn't say it. When you make such an elementary but extreme error of misunderstanding, like that heat and temperature are not the same thing, you should address it in some from but he refuses to even try, he just keeps spewing that same nonsense. There really isn't any way to reach someone that acts like that.

 

[mechtheist]

This is true, in our universe.

Stephen Hawking would disagree. He theorized that if we could go back far enough we would find a place where there was space, but no time or energy. Inside that space was what he referred to as Nothing. Not the absence of anything, but rather undefined quantum fluctuations that could spontaneously create pairs of virtual particles from itself. Most of those virtual particles collided and annihilated themselves. Rarely, however, two particles would become so separated they became real, energetic particles. Presumably, it was this random generation of energy from nothing that eventually built into the big bang.

I think there is something seriously wrong here, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't see how you can have space without time./ Hawking worked with GR and it doesn't provide for such a circumstance as far as I understand it. The best drastically simplified, in-a-nutshell explanation of GR, forgot who said it, maybe John Wheeler, was that mass tells spacetime how to curve and curved spacetime tells mass how to move. If ya got movement, there's gotta be time, or something really weird is going on. BUT, you're talking about quantum mechanical type stuff where GR breaks down so ??? I'm betting, and giving huge odds, that what you said is seriously off somehow. The virtual particles separating sounds a lot like Hawking Radiation, but that involves black holes.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

quantum fluctuations that could spontaneously create pairs of virtual particles from itself.

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Was this energy not already there? Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can something undergo change if it didn't exist prior?
Unless energy was at a state of empty quantity or 0 at one point or perhaps in a superposition?
But even then, that requires at least two existing states, correct?

 

[*SD*]

Like SD said this topic is going right in the direction they predicted

I think you misunderstand the context of my post, it wasn't a compliment in your direction.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

N

I think you misunderstand the context of my post, it wasn't a compliment in your direction

Fair enough, never claimed it was though.

 

[*SD*]

Fair enough, never claimed it was though.

Just as I never claimed that you claimed it was.

 

[Mythtaken]

I think there is something seriously wrong here, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't see how you can have space without time./ Hawking worked with GR and it doesn't provide for such a circumstance as far as I understand it. The best drastically simplified, in-a-nutshell explanation of GR, forgot who said it, maybe John Wheeler, was that mass tells spacetime how to curve and curved spacetime tells mass how to move. If ya got movement, there's gotta be time, or something really weird is going on. BUT, you're talking about quantum mechanical type stuff where GR breaks down so ??? I'm betting, and giving huge odds, that what you said is seriously off somehow. The virtual particles separating sounds a lot like Hawking Radiation, but that involves black holes.

This came up over a few discussions Hawking had about the no-boundary proposal.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless.

 

[We are Borg]

What would be nice is to have someone aboard like King Crocoduck.

 

[mechtheist]

This came up over a few discussions Hawking had about the no-boundary proposal.

"at first there is only space and no time"
Can someone tell me what that means? Like, how long did that state last? How long before you realize how silly that question is? I mean, if space exists without time, it does so for no time, like zero time? But that would mean there's no time when space exists without time.

And, OH NOOOOOOOs, there be dark photons, I ain't gonna have anything to say about that.

 

[Mythtaken]

It's a strange concept, for sure. It actually comes very close to AHE's vision, as Hawking said because there was no time, that state was essentially eternal, having no beginning or end, even if it lasted no more than a couple of shakes of a cesium atom.

 

[mechtheist]

'Strange' just doesn't come close. I don't want to disagree with Hawking, but I can't see how using 'eternal' and 'lasted' can have any meaning without time, I keep calling lots of things 'incoherent', it's the best word I can come up with. Photons experience no time, if the Higgs field disappeared or wasn't there, wouldn't that mean that all particles would be massless so they would not experience time? But not experiencing something is not the same thing as that something not existing. What if a universe had no Higgs, all its particles would travel at c and experience no time, would that universe have time? It would have to because otherwise 'speed' wouldn't really make sense. My brain is turning into pretzels.