Proof of God

[Mobyseven]

Here's a medal.

/me dons medal and reads: "For skillful bashing of one's head against a brick wall."

This is beautiful. Is it yours? I will totally make use of it.

Yes, that's mine. I make you a gift of it.

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe: If it is not something from nothing, then there was never nothing

So far, so good.

BillyJoe: If there was never nothing then it is time without beginning.

Depends what you mean by "beginning". Time is inherent to our universe, so there may be "places" (i.e. universes) where time doesn't exist, etc..

These universes where time does not exist, must be unchanging universes. Therefore they are unobservable, because observation occurs in time.
A universe that is unobservable?...now, where I have I heard that concept before.

BillyJoe: If it is something from nothing, then there was once nothing.

Only if time had a beginning, which is not certain...

If there is nothing, there is no time.
Therefore, with the appearance of something from nothing, there is the beginning of time.
Otherwise explain how time exists when there is nothing.

BillyJoe: If there was once nothing then it is not time without beginning.

There's no time in a singularity, and yet there's chaos there.

I'd like to see a reference.
Change implies time.
Without time, there is no change.

BillyJoe: If science is ever to explain the ultimate questions of our existence, it must explain EITHER how we can get something from nothing OR how we can have time without beginning.

Assuming you're correct, I don't see how this is a problem. It may very well be that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply "outside" of our universe. Infinite time may exist. Or "beginning" may be the wrong term, here.

By infinite time, I would have to assume you mean time without beginning. However, you say "beginning" may be the wrong term here. So what do you actually mean here? And where does the first law come in?

The problem is that your deistic god does NOT explain "something from nothing" or "time without beginning" or their respective opposites. It's just a magical construct that doesn't need to conform to logic simply because we assume that he doesn't.

My point is that there are imponderables in physics at this point in time which make it pretty damn presumptious to dismiss god at this point in time.
There are others:
The holistic interconnectedness of every quantum particle in the universe with every other quantum particle in the universe (non-locality).
Backwards in time causation at the quantum level.
The timeless, massless photon which exists everywhere at once.

If this is the best we can do in the world of the quantum, we are in no postion to be excluding any possibility.

If god creates the universe, and the first law holds, he's using something to create something else.

You haven't heard, then, of the concept of gravity as negative energy?
From nothing can come mass/energy and gravity for a zero sum game of universe creation.

 

[Belz...]

These universes where time does not exist, must be unchanging universes. Therefore they are unobservable, because observation occurs in time.

Necessarily ?

A universe that is unobservable?...now, where I have I heard that concept before.

From you, obviously. Are you know saying that your own line of reasoning is no longer valid ?

If there is nothing, there is no time.

Again, you're assuming that our universe is the only thing there is.

Therefore, with the appearance of something from nothing, there is the beginning of time.

Again, not necessarily.

I'd like to see a reference.
Change implies time.
Without time, there is no change.

Again, read up on current stuff. I'm not a teacher. If you're REALLY that lazy, I might make a little effort to help you out.

There's no time in a singularity if all dimensions are compressed to a point.

However, you say "beginning" may be the wrong term here. So what do you actually mean here?

Well, we don't really have words for things outside of time, so "beginning" for time is a misnomer, because you can't "begin" without time, see ?

And where does the first law come in?

Unknown, but it's irrelevant to our discussion. It's possible that it's an integral part of our universe, but not applicable elsewhere.

My point is that there are imponderables in physics at this point in time which make it pretty damn presumptious to dismiss god at this point in time.

Not dismissing god. Just saying that since there is NO evidence that it exists, and since we have alternate explanations, some of which seem supported by the evidence we do have, we can safely remove him from the equation, pending actual evidence that he does exist.

That's for the agnostics, anyway.

The holistic interconnectedness of every quantum particle in the universe with every other quantum particle in the universe (non-locality).
Backwards in time causation at the quantum level.
The timeless, massless photon which exists everywhere at once.

And the point of this list ?

If this is the best we can do in the world of the quantum, we are in no postion to be excluding any possibility.

"If this is the best we can do" implies that you believe that these concepts are ridiculous and untrue. But I don't see why. Because they are counter-intuitive ? Because you simply can't wrap your brain around them ? Neither can I. But if the evidence supports them (I don't know if it does), then so be it.

You haven't heard, then, of the concept of gravity as negative energy?
From nothing can come mass/energy and gravity for a zero sum game of universe creation.

I'm very much aware of this, and your admission that it equals zero pretty much destroys the necessity for a creator, as well.

Sauce for the goose, Billy.

 

[BillyJoe]

s: Something came from nothing.​

n: There was once nothing.
t: Time has a beginning.​

~s ⊃ ~n
~n ⊃ ~t
s ⊃ n
n ⊃ t
∴ s ∨ ~t​

While this is a valid argument, I dispute whether it is a sound one.

I believe it is both valid and sound.

Primarily I take issue with the second premise (that if there was never nothing then time has no beginning) because it is perfectly reasonable to posit a cyclical model of time whereby time has a beginning, before which it is meaningless to talk of time, but where matter may have (in one form or another) existed.

If, before the beginning of time, there was matter, this matter would be unobservable because observation can only occur in time. (Matter that is unobservable! What a concept! ). This matter would be observable only with the beginning of time, which would be indistinguishable from matter arising out of nothing (ie something from nothing). In other words, before the beginning of time, there is no time in which this matter exists.

On top of that, I dispute the fourth premise (that if there was once nothing then time has a beginning) because it is also perfectly reasonable to posit a universe in which time has no beginning, but where matter need not always exist.

You will need to show how it is possible to have time without matter.

By definition, you cannot have time without change and you cannot have change without matter, otherwise there is nothing to undergo change. Therefore, you cannot have time without matter.

And on top of that, I dispute the entire argument, because it appears to be a false dichotomy - that is that there may be other options that you haven't considered could be true: For example, that time has a beginning, but that something did not come from nothing!

Do you mean that there was something before the beginning of time?
Of course you can't mean that, because before the beginning of time, there is no time in which that something can exist. Therefore that something comes into existence, from nothing, with the beginning of time.

Or do you mean....well, what else could you mean with that statement?

The lesson to be learned is that not only must one have a valid argument, but that the argument must also be sound. While you have a valid argument, I would suggest that you do not have a sound argument, for the reasons I listed above.

Well, the argument is both valid and sound - unless you can actually explain how you can have time without matter, or matter without time.

Moreover, science doesn't need to 'displace' the deistic god from the gap he supposedly fills - evidence for the existence of a deistic god needs to be provided to show that there is a god there to fill this gap. You know: Burden of proof?

That would be a relevant point if my aim here was to prove that "there is a god" which clearly is not my aim.
Your aim, on the other hand, is to show "there is no god" - oops, no you don't, you only want to show "I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he does not exsit". Sorry about that. (I am joking of course)

Yes, there certainly is a lot to reply to. I would appreciate it if you would simply post a rebuttal to my post when a rebuttal is ready, rather than posting snippets here and there which makes it rather difficult for me to reply to you.

Before long each of our posts would stretch from here to infinity.
Really, I must be allowed to answer in my own way.
I don't object when others have pulled snippets out of my post on which to comment.

You took the quotes out of context, incorrectly summarised my position, and now you have the gall that you were correcting me?...Excuse me for seeming a little bit pissed off, but when I say something I mean what I say. I don't mean the strawman argument that you put forward as an effing correction!

I am just calling it as I see it. If you disagree, you can just show me where you think my reasoning has gone astray - which, of course, you do. But I don't really see the point in insults.

Except that that is not my argument. My argument is right there, staring you in the face, and you're still too damn stupid to see it! To absolutely spell this out for you: If god created the universe but left absolutely no trace of himself, then we can remove god from the equation entirely, making god unnecessary in the first place.

The way I read this is that you are looking at a scenario where
- god created the universe.
- god left no trace of himself.
And then you say that the god who created the universe is unnecessary because he left no trace of himself.
The god who created the universe is unnecessary because...

Do you see my problem with that?
Seems I am reading this incorrectly though.
Anyway that was the interpretation I was using, when I "corrected" you, and I think it is a valid interpretation.

There is absolutely no requirement that we actually discover what caused the universe before we consider this god to be unnecessary. Do you understand now?

Not really, sorry.

In any case, most of the interpretations of quantum physics, which is the basis of everything that exists, even have a god like qualities:
- The holistic interconnectedness of every quantum particle in the universe with every other quantum particle in the universe.
- Backwards in time causation.
- The massless photon which exists everywhere in no time.

Seems to me, in the face of this, anything is possible - at this point in time.

My apologies for stating that you were deliberately misrepresenting my position then. You accidentally misrepresented my position because you have the reading comprehension skills of a blind emu. Here's a hint: Next time you want to "[correct] a logical error" that you think I've made, try reading the damn paragraph again. That should stop you from wasting your time by arguing against a strawman version of what I said.

I submit that my interpretation of what you said is completely defensible as outlined above.

No, I was not engaging in hyperbole at all. For one, I have never written, "There is no god," in the manner you write it - capitalised and bolded, as though it is some sort of dogmatic assertion of knowledge. That is yet nother strawman on your part.

It was my attempt to draw attention to the boldness of that statement. I originally asked where, in the phrase "there is no god", the element of doubt can be found as expressed in the phrase "I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he does not exist".

Furthermore, I have never, ever said, "I know there is no god." Never. Not once in this series of exchanges have I said that. I have many times now stated that I am in Dawkins' "Category Six", and I have explained why saying, "There is no god," is no more a dogmatic expression of faith than saying, "There are no fairies," or, "There is no aether." Your continual desire to label me as some sort of dogmatic (or dare I say it? - 'religious') athiest is truly wearing thin. It is nothing more than an argument ad hominem, and to make it worse I have now repeatedly stated my position on this matter.

I understand your position on atheism - it's identical to mine.
I just disagree with it's characterisation with the statement "there is no god". And we disagree on the tooth faerie.

I apologise if this post seems rude, but you have worn out my patience. To be wrong is one thing - there is nothing bad about that - but after having been shown why you are wrong it is no more than sheer arrogance and stubborness to remain willfully ignorant.

I'm not really concerned with rudeness.

And, if it is any consolation, I do much more clearly understand your point of view. And I do appreciate the time and effort you have expended on this subject. However, especially in the face of the weird, bizarre, and shocking things thrown up by quantum physics, I am a just a little loathe to discount any explanations about the origins of the universe. Still, because there is no evidence for god, "I live my life as if there is no god".

 

[BillyJoe]

Necessarily ?

Yes, necessarily.

From you, obviously. Are you know saying that your own line of reasoning is no longer valid ?

Are you saying my line of reasoning IS valid.

Again, you're assuming that our universe is the only thing there is.

No. But we are dealing with our universe, aren't we?
I mean, we don't know of any other universe, do we?
So...."there are no other universes" aren't there?

Again, not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. (This really is easy, this one liner thing )

Again, read up on current stuff. I'm not a teacher. If you're REALLY that lazy, I might make a little effort to help you out.

No. You make a statement that rings false, you back it up. Or not. Who cares.

There's no time in a singularity if all dimensions are compressed to a point.

What do you have when all dimensions are compressed to a point?
No space, no mass, no time.

Well, we don't really have words for things outside of time, so "beginning" for time is a misnomer, because you can't "begin" without time, see ?

But you can begin with time.

Unknown [where the first law comes from], but it's irrelevant to our discussion. It's possible that it's an integral part of our universe, but not applicable elsewhere.

"an integral part of our universe" sounds like a god, sorry good, reason.

Not dismissing god. Just saying that since there is NO evidence that it exists,

True, Which is why I am not here to prove "there is a god"

and since we have alternate explanations, some of which seem supported by the evidence we do have, we can safely remove him from the equation, pending actual evidence that he does exist.

Well, that is news to me and just about everyone else.

And the point of this list ?

You say we have explanations. Well, here they are. Notice anything strange, weird, bizarre, shocking about them? By any chance?

"If this is the best we can do" implies that you believe that these concepts are ridiculous and untrue. But I don't see why. Because they are counter-intuitive ? Because you simply can't wrap your brain around them ? Neither can I. But if the evidence supports them (I don't know if it does), then so be it.

They are the best we can do to explain what we observe at the quantum level. They are not necessarily true. They are just the best we can do. Ridiculous is not the right word. I used a few adjectives which I think better describes them - strange, weird, bizarre, shocking. They are certainly counterintuitive. And we certainly cannot wrap our brains around them.

But the evidence does not support them - they are attempts to explain the evidence.

I'm very much aware of this, and your admission that it equals zero pretty much destroys the necessity for a creator, as well.

You wish.
Before there can be zero producing mass/energy and gravity, there has to be law(s) that enable it to be so.

 

[BillyJoe]

Moby, your efforts are truly impressive, here. My hats off....Here's a medal.

I doubt that you have the capacity to judge. <- only joking

 

[Belz...]

Yes, necessarily.

Please explain why observation of a timeless event cannot occur.

Are you saying my line of reasoning IS valid.

Now you're just trolling. Is your line of reasoning valid or not ?

No. But we are dealing with our universe, aren't we?

Irrelevant. You are making a universal statement.

I mean, we don't know of any other universe, do we?
So...."there are no other universes" aren't there?

That's a bad analogy. We already know of ONE universe.

Yes, necessarily. (This really is easy, this one liner thing )

Why should every single one of my answers be longer than 25 words ? Do you have a problem with concise answers and questions ?

No. You make a statement that rings false, you back it up. Or not. Who cares.

Obviously not you.

What do you have when all dimensions are compressed to a point?
No space, no mass, no time.

Exactly. I'm happy to see we agree.

But you can begin with time.

Sure.

"an integral part of our universe" sounds like a god, sorry good, reason.

What the hell are you talking about, now ? It's very possible that some of what we consider to be immutable laws only apply to our universe.

Well, that is news to me and just about everyone else.

No, only people who don't know how the burden of proof works.

You say we have explanations. Well, here they are. Notice anything strange, weird, bizarre, shocking about them? By any chance?

Yes, they fit the facts and are supported by evidence to a degree. They are not figments of our imaginations, although they may not be correct, in the end.

They are the best we can do to explain what we observe at the quantum level. They are not necessarily true.

Correct.

strange, weird, bizarre, shocking. They are certainly counterintuitive. And we certainly cannot wrap our brains around them.

Which, again, is irrelevant to whether or not they are true.

But the evidence does not support them - they are attempts to explain the evidence.

You wish.

I don't wish. You just SAID that this removes the necessity to create something from nothing.

You will need to show how it is possible to have time without matter.

By definition, you cannot have time without change and you cannot have change without matter, otherwise there is nothing to undergo change. Therefore, you cannot have time without matter.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sorry, it was footy night tonight.
I couldn't get around to answering one last post.
I'll be back tomorrow, if you think it's worthwhile.


Oh $#!+, now there's another one.

 

[vexed]

Hmm, up to 1048 posts, still no proof for god? Didn't think so.

 

[Herzblut]

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

No time without motion, Belzy. No clock without oscillation. Tick-tack-tick-tack.

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

BJ ok now you've been shown some weaknesses in your argument and have had opportunity to clean them up, but it would help to see a current version of your argument, so we can see how it stands. This thread has gone on too long to be able to pick out the argument from the rhetoric. It looks to me like Moby and Belz handed you your derrierre on a plate, but that may just be because your argument is dispersed. In particular how are you handling the undetectable thing now, that looked pretty troublesome.

 

[Belz...]

No time without motion, Belzy. No clock without oscillation. Tick-tack-tick-tack.

Why the hell not ? Even if you have no way to MEASURE time, it doesn't follow that time can't exist.

Just because you don't have a ruler at hand doesn't mean that your subject has no dimension in space.



...oh, and what's an "ethics" to you, Herz ?

 

[Herzblut]

That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant. What MATTERS is whether or not it's true. And what makes it true is evidence.

Why the hell not ? Even if you have no way to MEASURE time, it doesn't follow that time can't exist.

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

Hmm, up to 1048 posts, still no proof for god? Didn't think so.

You may not have noticed but, half way along, this thread changed from one about the proof that there is a god to proof that there is no god.

 

[BillyJoe]

BJ ok now you've been shown some weaknesses in your argument and have had opportunity to clean them up, but it would help to see a current version of your argument, so we can see how it stands. This thread has gone on too long to be able to pick out the argument from the rhetoric. It looks to me like Moby and Belz handed you your derrierre on a plate, but that may just be because your argument is dispersed. In particular how are you handling the undetectable thing now, that looked pretty troublesome.

Sorry I haven't responded to you before.

Now, if that had have been a bare breasted female in your avatar, that might have changed things.

And I don't mind you insulting me, but I outright object to you insulting Mobyseven. He has put too much work into this thread to be lumped in with Belz.

I will try for a summary.



...back later.

 

[Mobyseven]

You may not have noticed but, half way along, this thread changed from one about the proof that there is a god to proof that there is no god.

Except that you're the only one still claiming that anyone would need to prove that there is no god, I assume because you still don't understand that you cannot prove a negative.

Ladies and gentlemen (and Shemp, if he's lurking here) I have reached my limit here, a limit to what I call the Bleep Equation, where nonsense reaches a vertical asymptote in regards to time. Basically, it occurs when somebody starts using irrelevant quantum mechanical claims to try and justify their argument - especially when the person has very little understanding of quantum mechanics.

People, I have tried, but this thread has reached the limiting factor of the Bleep Equation. There really is nothing more to discuss, because as has been said before: What BillyJoe is claiming isn't right - it isn't even wrong...well, okay it IS wrong, but it's so wrong that I no longer know where to begin, and I commend Belz... with putting up with BillyJoe to this point.

BillyJoe, you are a troll and this discussion really should have finished the first time you were shown why you are wrong. I don't have any kitten pictures right at this point, so instead here is a vampiric take on a pop-culture reference:

Thankyou, and goodnight.

 

[BillyJoe]

Does this mean I win.


Actually, Mobyseven, I understand your post entirely....
The disappointment.
The frustration of not winning.....

.....except for that bit about Belz, I don't get that!
(No, I mean, I really don't get that.)


BJ

 

[Paulhoff]

There is no so-called god, there is no proof of any so-called god, there is no need for a so-called god, and last but not least, there is nothing that a so-called god explains.

Paul

 

[Mobyseven]

Does this mean I win.


Actually, Mobyseven, I understand your post entirely....
The disappointment.
The frustration of not winning.....

.....except for that bit about Belz, I don't get that!
(No, I mean, I really don't get that.)


BJ

See, this is exactly what people mean when they say you're rude - not to mention arrogant and a moron. The frustration is not about winning or losing - this was never about winning or losing. This was about trying to correct some major short circuits in your reasoning and logic skills, and the frustration I feel, I feel because I have tried my best to explain these things to you and your damn ego is too big for you to admit that you were wrong. The things I am telling you in this thread are not controversial, or cutting edge - they are well established principles of critical thinking and reasoning that you seem unable to grasp.

Anybody who has learnt something in this thread that improves their critical thinking skills is a 'winner', really. By that definition, I am not a winner - while I regularly do learn things on these forums this thread has been a place where I have applied knowledge rather than learning anything new. By that definition you are also not a winner - quite the opposite in fact, because not only have you not learnt anything in this thread, you will leave with a firm belief that you actually won the argument, and you will reinforce your previously held incorrect notions. Such cognitive bias is the curse of the poor thinker.

This thread could have and should have been over long ago, but your reluctance to admit when you are wrong over even the most basic of concepts (such as not being able to prove a negative) has drawn this thread out for far too long as we've watched you bring out logical fallacy after logical fallacy, running around in circles. I highly recommend that you try to get to Melbourne University for a few Critical Thinking lectures - this semester will be the last time you can do so as the course is being cancelled...a travesty.

Stop being such a moron. Kindly.

 

[BillyJoe]

Please explain why observation of a timeless event cannot occur.

Firstly, there cannot be a timeless event.
An event takes time.
If time does not exist, nothing can happen.
Secondly, it takes time to observe this event.

Now, please explain why what I have written is wrong.
(or do I need to read it up?)

Now you're just trolling. Is your line of reasoning valid or not ?

Here is the exchange:

BJ: If there was never nothing, then it is time without beginning.
Belz: Depends what you mean by "beginning". Time is inherent to our universe, so there may be "places" (i.e. universes) where time doesn't exist, etc..
BJ: These universes where time does not exist, must be unchanging universes. Therefore they are unobservable, because observation occurs in time.
A universe that is unobservable?...now, where I have I heard that concept before?
Belz: Are you know saying that your own line of reasoning is no longer valid ?
BJ: Are you saying my line of reasoning IS valid.
Belz: Now you're just trolling. Is your line of reasoning valid or not.

Of course I think my line of reasoning is valid.
We have been discussing an unobservable god. You have been claiming "there is no god", and I accept the qualifications you put on this statement, and I accept that you believe you are nevertheless justified, by way of "you cannot prove a negative", in stating it the way you do, instead of ""I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he does not exsit".
Okay, so now You come up with a universe, which I deduce to be an unobservable universe, and I allude to the fact that this reminds me of that unobservable god. I am wondering why you accept a unobservable universe when you don;t accept an unobservable god.
In other words, I expected you to deny that what you were talking about was an unobservable universe. Instead you ask me if I am now saying that my own line of reasoning is no longer valid!

Get that?
I'm showing you up and you pretend you're showing me up!

Irrelevant. You are making a universal statement.

I said: "But we are dealing with our universe, aren't we?"
And you reply: "Irrelevant. You are making a universal statement".
I couldn't perhaps be making a universal statement about our universe, by any chance, could I? Nowhere in this whole thread have we been talking about anything other than the creation of this universe. The subject of my discussion has been the deistic god defined as the creator of our universe.

That's a bad analogy. We already know of ONE universe.

I accept that.

Why should every single one of my answers be longer than 25 words ? Do you have a problem with concise answers and questions ?

I wouldn't have a problem if it was possible to unambiguously know what you mean by what you say. When what you say seems totally irrelevant to what I've said, I don't even know how to begin responding. Do I assume you have misread me? Do I assume I have misread you? Have we misread each other? That is why I started using the trash can.

Obviously not you.

Here is a case in point:
I have to go back several posts to even make sense of what you are saying. Here they are:

BJ: If there was once nothing then it is not time without beginning.
Belz: There's no time in a singularity, and yet there's chaos there.
BJ: I'd like to see a reference. Change implies time. Without time, there is no change.
Belz: Again, read up on current stuff. I'm not a teacher. If you're REALLY that lazy, I might make a little effort to help you out
BJ: You make a statement that rings false, you back it up. Or not. Who cares.
Belz: Obviously not you.

You make a statement, which I know to be false, so I ask you for a reference to back up your claim. You tell me to look it up myself. Naturally, seeing as it is your claim, I throw it back in your court, all the time knowing from past experience that you you will not bother. Hence I responded with "back it up. Or not. Who cares?", because I already know you will not do so and I no longer care that you won't. But you bend that lack of caring back on me.

I hope you now understand that three word replies are not sufficient, although I suspect you do it deliberately in order to not actually say anything or to cover up the fact that you are not actually answering what is put to you.

Exactly. I'm happy to see we agree.

Like with this reply where you attempt to cover up the fact that you were wrong. Here is the exchange:

Belz: There's no time in a singularity, and yet there's chaos there.
BJ: I'd like to see a reference. Change implies time. Without time, there is no change.
Belz: There's no time in a singularity if all dimensions are compressed to a point.
BillyJoe: What do you have when all dimensions are compressed to a point?
No space, no mass, no time.
Belz: Exactly. I'm happy to see we agree.

In a singularity, as you said, there is no time, because all dimensions are compressed into a point and a point is defined as having zero spacial dimensions. Therefore there is also no time, as you said. However how, without time or space, can there be chaos as you said in the first quote above? The answer is that there cannot be. So your last quote in the series is incorrect. So, contrary to what you said, we don't agree. And you are wrong. Perhaps, regarding chaos you were thinking of what occurs immediately after or before a singularity, where there is no longer zero spacial dimensions and zero time.

Sure.

Here you are reduced to a single word reply.
I take it you're having a little joke now - if you haven't been all along that is? I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing just a fullstop soon.

No, only people who don't know how the burden of proof works.

Belz: Not dismissing god. Just saying that since there is NO evidence that it exists, and since we have alternate explanations, some of which seem supported by the evidence we do have, we can safely remove him from the equation, pending actual evidence that he does exist.
BJ: Well, that is news to me and just about everyone else.
Belz: No, only people who don't know how the burden of proof works.

Forgive me but I thought you were going to supply this evidence!!
I know, I know.....look it up yourself.

Yes, they fit the facts and are supported by evidence to a degree. They are not figments of our imaginations, although they may not be correct, in the end.

My point was that the explanations are completely weird. If those explanations are true, hell, anything could turn out to be true when all the facts and explanations are in.

They are the best we can do to explain what we observe at the quantum level. They are not necessarily true.

Correct

Which [strange, weird, bizarre, shocking. They are certainly counterintuitive. And we certainly cannot wrap our brains around them], again, is irrelevant to whether or not they are true.

But that is also part of my point. If such weird and bizarre explanations could turn out to be true, how can god be dismissed as a possibility

back

I don't wish. You just SAID that this removes the necessity to create something from nothing.
You will need to show how it is possible to have time without matter.

BJ: You haven't heard, then, of the concept of gravity as negative energy?
From nothing can come mass/energy and gravity for a zero sum game of universe creation.
Belz: I'm very much aware of this, and your admission that it equals zero pretty much destroys the necessity for a creator, as well.
I'll just let you read back. You'll find I said the exact opposite.
BJ: You wish.
Before there can be zero producing mass/energy and gravity, there has to be law(s) that enable it to be so.
Belz: I don't wish. You just SAID that this removes the necessity to create something from nothing.

I did not.
I said it is a zero sum game.
There is still the problem of how to create mass/energy and gravity from zero. How to make it happen, as it were.
Your last reply in this series failed to quote the underlined sentence of my post. This sentence mentions the laws of physics. To get something from nothing requires the laws of physics. The laws of physics predict quantum fluctuations as a means of getting something from nothing. Where do the laws come from? In other words, what makes a quantum fluctuation even a possibility.

You will need to show how it is possible to have time without matter

In fact, if you read back, I have said the exact opposite, so I need to do nothing of the sort.

By definition, you cannot have time without change and you cannot have change without matter, otherwise there is nothing to undergo change. Therefore, you cannot have time without matter.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Yeah, I know, read it yourself, you lazy bastard.