Artificial Life Created

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Because that does not answer wicknights questions.

The universe had a beginning. Why?

And you haven't answered my question. The question put to you was "why does god exist?" and your response was "because he exists". Why can you not apply exactly the same reasoning to the universe itself?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And you haven't answered my question. The question put to you was "why does god exist?" and your response was "because he exists". Why can you not apply exactly the same reasoning to the universe itself?

Because at one point the universe did not exist.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Because at one point the universe did not exist.

The universe as we know it may not have existed but that doesn't mean there was nothing before. Scientists can get within a few milliseconds of the big bang but anything before that is unknown. The only people I've ever heard say "the universe came from nothing" is theists strawmanning atheists. so why can't something other than a god "just exist"?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The universe as we know it may not have existed but that doesn't mean there was nothing before. Scientists can get within a few milliseconds of the big bang but anything before that is unknown. The only people I've ever heard say "the universe came from nothing" is theists strawmanning atheists. so why can't something other than a god "just exist"?

Why can't something other that a god just exist and we call it God?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I pointed out the difference between "intelligence was applied in this case" and "intelligence must be applied for this to happen" and you said this was a fair point. Now you're saying it requires intelligence. what is your basis for saying it requires intelligence?

I didn't say it MUST BE a higher form which would be proof of a creator. Maybe it could happen by accident. But what i did say was that maybe god made the ripples on the surface of Mars or maybe they were made by water. Based on out observations of everywhere else water made them. Based on our observations of ALL life (incuuding venter's bacteria) something caused them. It is reasonable to assume that just like water causing surface features something caused life to begin or even the universe to begin. It could have happened by accident but it is reasonable to assume it didn't.

You keep on talking about proving god didn't do x, y and z and disproving the existence of god but as I already said this is logically impossible because your god is defined as being unfalsifiable.

so what? You can't prove atheism is false either unless you can prove God exists!

If a scientist shows that there is a natural process

What is a "natural process" according to the "laws of nature"?
From whence did the laws of nature originate?

by which life can arise and someone comes along and says that, even though the natural explanation works just fine, the supernatural being that they believe in had an unknown, unspecified, undefined and undetectable involvement in this process then there is no way that anyone can prove them wrong.

and if someone says hyperspace wormholes take matter from our universe into a parallel one there is no way to prove them wrong. But you will still call it science and say it is based on reason.

It's no different to saying that even though Newtons laws and Quantum mechanics explain gravity quite well, that what's actually happening is god is directly intervening to pull us all down.

If the origin of supersymmetry and pre 10^21 GeV unified interactions was determined by God that would be true yes.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can prove that statement to be false but the question is: is there any reason to accept this to be the case?

Ids there any way to prove parallell universes?
But they are still science arent thay?
Including the universe in which you don't believe what you are saying above!

When we have a perfectly natural explanation for something why posit the involvement of a supernatural being who doesn't appear to be performing any function?

What do you mean by "natural"? Do you mean "Nature" preforms the function of God?

I'm getting the impression that you're one of the great many theists who defines atheism as "the belief in no god".

Im getting the impression yo think my belief or lack of it is part of this discussion. It isn't!

That is quite an irrational position to hold, any proponent of that position is saying something about the nature of the universe that they cannot possibly know, just like a theist.

Im also getting the impression you are now introducing an argument which has nothing to do with the issue but which you are fond of making.

But you will find that the majority of people who identify themselves as atheists do not actually hold that position. Let me explain through an analogy:

Lets not . I already defined "nones" and atheists in the "Stalin pol pot mao" thread.

Someone comes to me and says that they know what next weeks lotto numbers are going to be. Your idea of atheism here would be for me to say "you're wrong, those aren't the numbers that will come up" but by saying that I would be saying that I also have some knowledge of what the numbers are going to be. My response would actually be "You cannot possibly know what numbers will come up and so I do not believe your claim". That is not to say that his numbers won't come up, they have as much chance of coming up as any other combination, but if his numbers do come up it will be nothing more than a coincidence.

This isnt a good analogy but I suggest you look up "unexpected hanging"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox

In the case of religion, I have no idea if there is a god or not. There may well be some kind of intelligent being out there somewhere and there is absolutely no way I can say otherwise. The point is that I find the arguments that are used to justify belief in one specific god to be extremely poor, riddled with fuzzy thinking, logical fallacies, special pleading, confirmation bias etc etc etc.

Like your unexpected hanging?

So ISAW, since my position is simply that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your position, the only way to "disprove" my position is to prove yours.

It is reasonable to assume that if we observe things have a cause there is a first cause.
But it might have happened by accident. But asking for a "proof that God exists" is really only ball hopping.

What is "always wrong" is that which harms another living being for no overriding reason.

according to "nature"?

tell me ISAW, can you not think of any reason whatsoever not to slit your neighbour's throat and steal his wallet other than "because the bible says not to"?

I didnt claim that we have to fundamentally follow laws in the Bible and mainstream Christians dont believe that anyway! You are knocking down a straw man! they do believe however that the source for "natural law" is God.

Go on, give it a shot. Try to think of a reason not to rape your daughter that does not provide as its sole basis "an unquestionable authority figure says I shouldn't". I bet you can think of lots, just like every other sane human being.

Indeed . and Christianity does not assert that "everyting in the Bible has to be followed to the letter" In fact the subject of values is dealt with in more writings outside of the Bible then in it. And The church didn't have bound copies of the Bible for centuries. so what do you think was the source of their "values"?

I'm not talking about Papal authority, I'm talking about divine authority. The basis of christian morality is that what is wrong is what god says is wrong. There is no reason applied to that statement.

Oh ther is a LOT applied to it. You are ignorant of all the debates about it. so what do you think was the source of their "values"? They dint have access to the Pope . He was miles away on another continent? How about early Church groups that went to india who were cut off for centuries? e.g. thomas christians No Bible and No Pope. So what do you think was the source of their "values"?

There may be reason applied to find out what exactly it is god is saying but the basis for christian morality is an argument from authority. God does not say "thou shalt not kill because.....", he simply says "thou shalt not kill", end of story and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong. There is no debate

Wrong! there are also christian anarchists such as Tolstoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

I asked you to stop that. It's rude, unnecessary and not conducive to debate and I will not continue if it does.

Touchy.
Bye bye then if you don't like being shown when you are ignorant and factually wrong!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The universe as we know it may not have existed but that doesn't mean there was nothing before.

But you can't get any scientific evidence about this to disprove it so how is it any different to what you claimed about God?

Scientists can get within a few milliseconds

Actually quite less than that . We can recreate conditions about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big Bang
the so called electroweak epoch Between 10–36 seconds and 10–12 seconds after the Big Bang.

We are working on earlier but before 10^-43 we really don't have the physics

of the big bang but anything before that is unknown. The only people I've ever heard say "the universe came from nothing" is theists strawmanning atheists. so why can't something other than a god "just exist"?

If it did It would take the place of god in the argument. Only one percent of people believe "it happened by chance" Most people believe ther was a cause. Neither can disprove the other. But when the atheists get in charge and push theoir theory in history hundreds of millions died in a century. Christianity kill maybe at most 10 million by pushing christianity on people over 20 centuries.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, the Bible asserts that the universe had a beginning.
This is pretty unique among ancient religions and worldviews, most of which posited a pre-existing universe populated by a multitude of deities.

Not true.

Its very common. Most cultures have or had some kind of 'beginning' myth, some forgotten, some not religious but still there.

For example, Korea. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Korea you'll get the most well known 'origin of the korean race' story but it says nothing about the beginning of the universe/world.

One might think that they don't have nor ever had such a belief since most of them don't even know about it (first hand experience).

Yet on another link on the same website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_mythology#The_Creation_of_the_World
You have a very simplified version of their 'beginning'.

This is true for most cultures, its quite uncommon not to have a creation myth, not to have a 'how the universe started' belief.

Indeed, it is only in the last 50 years that the majority of cosmologists have accepted that the universe had a beginning.

They accept that the Universe did not always exist in the state its in.

The order of development of life as given in the Bible matches that which most scientists now subscribe to, even though the biblical authors had no way (other than revelation) of knowing this to be true.

Oh really ? It matches this ?

3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3 billion years of photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Please point out the relevant passages and enlighten us all. I had no idea.

So we have the creation of plant life, followed by aquatic life, followed by various forms of animal life, followed by humankind.

Which, surprisingly is A) so vague and wrong anyways. Plants did most certainly not come first, especially dry land life as genesis says.

Ultimately, of course, the Bible is not a scientific textbook - and it would be wrong to treat it as such. But the little it does tell us, in highly symbolic language, about creation becomes more understandable the more we learn about our universe.

Point out one solitary single thing in the creation myth that has helped our understanding of the universe.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Science says - the universe was created

No it doesn't.

atheists say - there is no creator

Some do, most here don't.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't say it MUST BE a higher form which would be proof of a creator. Maybe it could happen by accident. But what i did say was that maybe god made the ripples on the surface of Mars or maybe they were made by water. Based on out observations of everywhere else water made them. Based on our observations of ALL life (incuuding venter's bacteria) something caused them. It is reasonable to assume that just like water causing surface features something caused life to begin or even the universe to begin. It could have happened by accident but it is reasonable to assume it didn't.


It is reasonable to assume that if we observe things have a cause there is a first cause.
But it might have happened by accident. But asking for a "proof that God exists" is really only ball hopping.

It may well be reasonable to assume something did it. The problem comes in with saying that this something is the specific being described in a specific holy book. If everyone went around saying something created the universe and never claimed to know the will of this something there would be no problem.

ISAW wrote: »

so what? You can't prove atheism is false either unless you can prove God exists!

Very true.

ISAW wrote: »

What is a "natural process" according to the "laws of nature"?
From whence did the laws of nature originate?

I don't know. And that statement does not entitle anyone to add the addendum "so it must be god".

ISAW wrote: »

and if someone says hyperspace wormholes take matter from our universe into a parallel one there is no way to prove them wrong. But you will still call it science and say it is based on reason.

Ids there any way to prove parallell universes?
But they are still science arent thay?
Including the universe in which you don't believe what you are saying above!

No I won't call that science. If someone says "there might be something called a hyperspace wormhole that might take matter from our universe into a parallel one but we're not sure so we'll investigate further" I would call that science but if anyone made that statement as fact today I would call them a quack.

ISAW wrote: »

Im getting the impression yo think my belief or lack of it is part of this discussion. It isn't!

Im also getting the impression you are now introducing an argument which has nothing to do with the issue but which you are fond of making.

You talked about disproving atheism so I responded to this point. If you don't feel it's relevant to the issue then you should probably leave it out.

ISAW wrote: »

This isnt a good analogy but I suggest you look up "unexpected hanging"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox

Like your unexpected hanging?

I know what my position is and I know that the analogy I gave describes it very well. If you don't think it's a good analogy then it would appear you don't understand my position.

ISAW wrote: »

I didnt claim that we have to fundamentally follow laws in the Bible and mainstream Christians dont believe that anyway! You are knocking down a straw man! they do believe however that the source for "natural law" is God.

Which part of your religion says that you can pick which rules you want to follow?

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed . and Christianity does not assert that "everyting in the Bible has to be followed to the letter" In fact the subject of values is dealt with in more writings outside of the Bible then in it. And The church didn't have bound copies of the Bible for centuries. so what do you think was the source of their "values"?

Oh ther is a LOT applied to it. You are ignorant of all the debates about it. so what do you think was the source of their "values"? They dint have access to the Pope . He was miles away on another continent? How about early Church groups that went to india who were cut off for centuries? e.g. thomas christians No Bible and No Pope. So what do you think was the source of their "values"?

What I think was the source of their values was the society in which they were raised and the impulses that evolved in their brains. I also think that these pre-existing values were written down in the bible and claimed to have come from god. But that's not a satisfying answer to a theist of course. People are quite capable of discerning right from wrong without the edicts of any higher power. religion is an obstruction to ethics imo.

ISAW wrote: »

Touchy.
Bye bye then if you don't like being shown when you are ignorant and factually wrong!

Must I again explain the difference to you between showing someone to be wrong and declaring in bold caps followed by an exclamation mark that they are wrong? the former is the essence of debate, the latter is just rude, as is the use of the word ignorant

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong!

Since I had already written my post before I noticed this I will finish it but if you say this again this debate will come to an abrupt end

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

The universe had a beginning. Science says so.

No it doesn't. The Universe was in a hot dense state and then started expanding to what we have today.

If the universe had a beginning then at some point prior to that beginning the universe did not exist.

Time was created when the big Bang was created. There is no 'prior' to this, not in our concepts anyways.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Some do, most here don't.

Then they are agnostic

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think you will find that life was created first, before anything else. It helps to actually read the Bible. There are online versions of you don't have a hard copy.
And read it symbolically, as already mentioned.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

How do you interpret that to agree with scientific fact ?

The Sun and Moon are mentioned later but this ties in with the development of light sensing organs

One of the first life forms on this planet was bacteria who used photosynthesis. Long long long before 'vegetation'.

So no, the bible is not anywhere even close to been in agreement with the real timeline of life emerging on Earth.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Then they are agnostic

Atrheists do not believe that there is no god.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine you are getting that from The Genesis Enigma, or from one of the many Christian sites that have ran with this idea, but it is actually quite inaccurate.

Dear, dear, which goes to show that your imagination is a very poor basis upon which to engage in debate.

I've never heard of the website you mention, and I find the idea of people trawling through websites to reinforce their preconceptions to be the kind of semi-literate barbarism which spawns most of the silly misconceptions about Christianity and faith that people post on this forum.

I first became interested in the correlation between the biblical order of creation and scientific theories many years ago - actually before I'd ever heard of the internet. It goes back to some fascinating conversations I had with a microbiologist and some Hebrew scholars back in the early 1980s.

The first life were bacteria. The Bible is "correct" that plants came before animals but they weren't land vegetation as the Bible describes, they lived in the seas.

Tut, tut, you really aren't listening, are you? I said quite clearly that it would be silly to treat the Bible as if it were a scientific text book. It is describing, in highly poetic language, the general process of creation in a way that primitive people could understand.

Of course if you want to read poetry like a science text book you are free to do so, but you might find yourself disappointed that, when your loved one is around, that the earth doesn't actually move under your feet and the sky doesn't literally come tumbling down (apologies to Carole King).

The creation story describes the beginning of plant life - the same plant that was the origin of trees etc.

The Bible also describes plant life being produced before the Sun, which is nonsensical since all life requires the Sun.

Of course life requires sun (well, actually light and heat, not specifically the sun). That's why light is said to be created first.

Later, as the earth's atmosphere changed, the sun,moon and stars would have become visible - thus night and day as we know it, and our familiar views of the stars, would begin to take shape.

God then produces sea creatures and birds at the same time. This doesn't match biological life on Earth, birds were a late addition coming after land animals.

Did I mention those Hebrew scholars I met back in the 80s? The Hebrew word oph is not confined to birds. It comes from a root meaning 'to cover' and literally refers to anything with wings. Indeed, in Leviticus it is translated as "flying creeping things on all fours" (eg flying insects).

(I should really cut and paste this somewhere to save me typing it again in case we get some poor fool in future, whose sole source of biblical knowledge is atheist-myth websites, who tries to tell us that the Bible is false because it includes the bat in a list of 'birds'.)

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Atrheists do not believe that there is no god.

No, just that God is, by definition, impossible.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think you will find that life was created first, before anything else. It helps to actually read the Bible.

Isn't that what I just said?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Sun and Moon are mentioned later but this ties in with the development of light sensing organs

What?

The Sun and the Moon were "created" approx 1.2 billion years before life appeared on Earth.

StealthRolex wrote: »

He created sea creatures first and then flying creatures. have you never seen a fish fly?

He created birds before land animals. That is wrong.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Which came first the flying dinosaur or the bird?
Furthermore is the fossil record complete?

The flying dinosaur.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Still being literal with the Bible. A sea grass is not grass but seaweed. it's green and lives in the sea. See.
If it helps ask yourself if the shoreline is land or sea.

I'm not being literal with anything. The argument is that the Bible mysteriously follows the order of biological evolution. I'm merely pointing out it doesn't.

StealthRolex wrote: »

God exists because He exists. Any other answer is beyond human comprehension. God decides how things are and has His reasons.

Well God obviously can't decide that he himself exists since that would require his own existence.

So does God just exists?

Nothing higher than God decided that he would exist, there is no intelligent reason why God exists as opposed to not existing, he just does? Correct

So if you are happy with such a concept you should be equally happy with other things just existing or being the way they are for no reason.

The constant need for some theists to infer a reason for the existence of everything seems a bit odd when you don't require the reason for the existence of God himself.

StealthRolex wrote: »

We ask where life came from. Science has no answer.
We ask what started life. Science has no answer.
We ask why the universe is here. Science has no answer.
We ask why life began. Science has no answer.

Leaving aside that science has answers for a lot of those things, how is simply picking a religious answer without any way to determine if it is true or not actually increasing our understanding?

StealthRolex wrote: »

"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."

That is the point. Something comes from nothing all the time, it is happening right now all around you, particles that did not exist and are not created from anything are springing into existence.

There is no such thing as empty space. Nothing produces something and will always produce something.

The human concept of nothing, an empty space that contains nothing and thus will continue to contain nothing unless something is moved into it, doesn't exist. It is a human fallacy.

Again this highlights the mistake in trying to use our own common sense to figure out the nature of reality.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Clearly something cannot come from nothing.

Something can come from nothing it happens all the time. The article you linked to wasn't saying the space is not actually nothing, it was saying that there is no such thing as empty space.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So where did even these tiniest of somethings come from?

They didn't come from anywhere. This is the point, the human concept of nothing is invalid.

This should not be that hard for you to imagine since you probably believe that God made the world out of nothing.

Where did the stuff that God made the world out of come from?

StealthRolex wrote: »

If the atheist position is that God is highly improbably and science suggests that the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbably (Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), in Life Itself, says that the probability of life's chance origin simply defies calculation.) are atheists not then the casinos favourite type of gambler?

How many planets are in the universe?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, just that God is, by definition, impossible.

God as defined by your religion is impossible. That doesn't mean there is no god, just that you guys don't think through things properly

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

No, just that God is, by definition, impossible.

That's it, strip my point of its context despite me explaining twice what I meant

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Dear, dear, which goes to show that your imagination is a very poor basis upon which to engage in debate.

I've never heard of the website you mention, and I find the idea of people trawling through websites to reinforce their preconceptions to be the kind of semi-literate barbarism which spawns most of the silly misconceptions about Christianity and faith that people post on this forum.

It is not a website it is a book by Andrew Parker.

PDN wrote: »

I first became interested in the correlation between the biblical order of creation and scientific theories many years ago - actually before I'd ever heard of the internet. It goes back to some fascinating conversations I had with a microbiologist and some Hebrew scholars back in the early 1980s.

Was his name Andrew Parker?

PDN wrote: »

It is describing, in highly poetic language, the general process of creation in a way that primitive people could understand.

Except its gets thing the wrong way around.

Exactly how inaccurate would the Genesis account have to be before you consider that it isn't describing the general process of creation?

Or does your religion force you to think there must be something there?

PDN wrote: »

The creation story describes the beginning of plant life - the same plant that was the origin of trees etc.

Of course life requires sun (well, actually light and heat, not specifically the sun). That's why light is said to be created first.

And then the sun, which suggests that the people who wrote this book did not understand the correlation between light and the Sun, or between the Suns energy and life. Not surprising since they live thousands of years ago.

PDN wrote: »

Later, as the earth's atmosphere changed, the sun,moon and stars would have become visible - thus night and day as we know it, and our familiar views of the stars, would begin to take shape.

But the Bible doesn't say the sun and moon became visible.

Seriously PDN what is the point of this? If something matches you go how interesting, if something doesn't match you figure out some way that it isn't supposed to be taken literally and means something else.

You can do that with any and all creation myths if your agenda is to try and make them look like they correlate with reality.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, just that God is, by definition, impossible.

No I don't think god is by definition impossible, I think god is unlikely and I also think regardless of his existence or not I don't care one bit.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

How do you interpret that to agree with scientific fact ?



One of the first life forms on this planet was bacteria who used photosynthesis. Long long long before 'vegetation'.

So no, the bible is not anywhere even close to been in agreement with the real timeline of life emerging on Earth.

Symbolism

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

If something matches you go how interesting, if something doesn't match you figure out some way that it isn't supposed to be taken literally and means something else.

You can do that with any and all creation atheist myths if your agenda is to try and make them look like they correlate with reality.

I learned that from studiorat

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that what I just said?

I should have said "light". Thanks and I've corrected it

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. Something comes from nothing all the time, it is happening right now all around you, particles that did not exist and are not created from anything are springing into existence.

A complete contradiction of the quotes you answered or is it the case that existence does not mean existence in the way that you argue that nothing does not mean nothing.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

How many planets are in the universe?

Not enough to put the odds in your favour in any casino in the universe.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

The constant need for some theists to infer a reason for the existence of everything seems a bit odd when you don't require the reason for the existence of God himself.

It is not theistic, it is human.
Do atheists not have a reason for their existence or the existence of anything?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I learned that from studiorat

Oh course you can, I don't subscribe to atheist creation myths either. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Not enough to put the odds in your favour in any casino in the universe.

Really. Please expand.

What are the odds of life and what are the number of planets in the universe?

The last estimate I heard was a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

Nick Dolan

StealthRolex wrote: »

Symbolism

You cannot have it both ways. you cannot say the bible accurately describes the creation of the universe and then say, well the bits that can be proved wrong are just kinda stories.

theology, morality, ethics are all points of view and this is where most beleif systems operate. Once you start making scientific claims, your on science's turf and nothing short of evidence and reason cut it.

Also i would like to repsond to Jakkass if the mods give me the go ahead, im not sure whats on topic and whats not at this stage

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

A complete contradiction of the quotes you answered or is it the case that existence does not mean existence in the way that you argue that nothing does not mean nothing.

No, it is that you didn't understand what you quoted (no offense :pac:)

The particles that appear in the void are not placed into it. The void is empty, but these particles appear at random, so you can't actually say an empty void is actually empty because even if you take everything out of it (ie it is nothing) particles will randomly appear and it will not be empty.

In this universe there is no such thing as nothing. It is a human concept. Nothing will always contain something because nothing produces something.

If you are thinking this is weird and doesn't make sense, you are correct. Welcome to the world of quantum mechanics.