When you think about it, the idea of a beginning is more absurd and confusing then the idea of an infinite past. If there was ever nothing, it is only logical to assume that a state of nothingness would persist. Nothing begets nothing. Many people are confused by the bibles explanation of god having no beginning and no end but if there is a god it would only be logical that he have no beginning. conduct this mental experiment. imagine a special container. the container is sealed and nothing can enter or exit. now imagine a billion years has past. what is in the container? nothing. a billion more years and what is in the container?the answer again is nothing. because nothing can come from nothing. so in order for anything to exist something has to have always existed.

When you think about it, the idea of a beginning is more absurd and confusing then the idea of an infinite past.
Why?


If there was ever nothing, it is only logical to assume that a state of nothingness would persist. Nothing begets nothing.
Wrong (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html) and wrong (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf).


conduct this mental experiment. imagine a special container. the container is sealed and nothing can enter or exit. now imagine a billion years has past. what is in the container? nothing. a billion more years and what is in the container?the answer again is nothing. because nothing can come from nothing.
So what?
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?


so in order for anything to exist something has to have always existed.
Supposition.

When you think about it, the idea of a beginning is more absurd and confusing then the idea of an infinite past. If there was ever nothing, it is only logical to assume that a state of nothingness would persist. Nothing begets nothing. Many people are confused by the bibles explanation of god having no beginning and no end but if there is a god it would only be logical that he have no beginning. conduct this mental experiment. imagine a special container. the container is sealed and nothing can enter or exit. now imagine a billion years has past. what is in the container? nothing. a billion more years and what is in the container?the answer again is nothing. because nothing can come from nothing. so in order for anything to exist something has to have always existed.

Having a beginning is indeed the doom of any ToE theory, yet 'nothing' is ever gotten down to as the continuing and eternal cause of all, for, like your 'container', it would indeed take a God to contain it, for 'the lack of anything' proves to be a perfectly unstable state.

See 'The Theory of Nothing', a recently begun thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254

I picked "yes", "no" and "maybe". Though I lean strongly away from any creationist tale, in the end we simply do not know, nor do I claim to know. And anyone who does need not be taken seriously; at least not until we can prove, repeatedly, one way or another. If there so happens to be a "beginning", then so be it. But as it stands currently, there is no evidence to support an ultimate beginning. Scientists lean toward the big-bang theory as a likely possibility for the formation (and constant expansion) of our universe. However, that is not the beginning but rather a "check point" of which to start from - just as one could say "Since November 1st of 1942...".

Having a beginning is indeed the doom of any ToE theory, yet 'nothing' is ever gotten down to as the continuing and eternal cause of all, for, like your 'container', it would indeed take a God to contain it, for 'the lack of anything' proves to be a perfectly unstable state.

See 'The Theory of Nothing', a recently begun thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254

If I may, in objection...

If there is such a beginning, the theory of evolution is far from doomed. It really depends on what type of beginning you are referring to. If it's biblical, then yes, the theory of evolution would not be likely (though we have a ton of evidence that says otherwise). Now, consider the Deist stance. It concludes that God had set all laws of physics into motion and literally let it do it's own thing. Thus the universe, our soloar system and our earth was formed. Most Deists are firmly apted in believing in evolution even with a "creator".

If I may, in objection...

If there is such a beginning, the theory of evolution is far from doomed. It really depends on what type of beginning you are referring to. If it's biblical, then yes, the theory of evolution would not be likely (though we have a ton of evidence that says otherwise). Now, consider the Deist stance. It concludes that God had set all laws of physics into motion and literally let it do it's own thing. Thus the universe, our soloar system and our earth was formed. Most Deists are firmly apted in believing in evolution even with a "creator".

The true fact of evolution goes to how life evolved on Earth to where it is now.

Everything is another matter, which must have had no beginning, for that would have bounded it, making it not everything. One must show the causeless to have ever been going on, requiring nothing before it.

A Deity is just as impossible as a Theity; can't have complexity as the First Forever, much less an ultimate one. Can't even have stuff as the first, not even a tiny electron, for there's nothing to make it of, and so that is what all is made of.

The true fact of evolution goes to how life evolved on Earth to where it is now.
Huh?


Everything is another matter, which must have had no beginning
Supposition.


A Deity is just as impossible
Supposition.


as a Theity
WTF is a "theity"?


can't have complexity as the First Forever, much less an ultimate one.
Supposition. Category error.

Huh?


Supposition.


Supposition.


WTF is a "theity"?


Supposition. Category error.

Evolution is true. The fossils even match the 'junk' DNA. Its method of natural selection is under study for extension, and so it may not be complete.

A Theity is a God who intervenes and controls everything. A Deity does not.

The rest I explain in my other threads.

If I may, in objection...

If there is such a beginning, the theory of evolution is far from doomed. It really depends on what type of beginning you are referring to. If it's biblical, then yes, the theory of evolution would not be likely (though we have a ton of evidence that says otherwise). Now, consider the Deist stance. It concludes that God had set all laws of physics into motion and literally let it do it's own thing. Thus the universe, our soloar system and our earth was formed. Most Deists are firmly apted in believing in evolution even with a "creator".

I was meaning a begining to everything and all things, and that I beleive there can be no starting point becouse a starting point implies nothingness before it. and what would cause the start if there is nothing. and I do feel if there is a creator he has always existed with an infinite past along with the laws the govern everything, but god or no god there in my opinion can be no begining.

Evolution is true.
Yes. And?
I was querying what you meant by that sentence.


A Theity is a God who intervenes and controls everything. A Deity does not.
Making up your own definitions? Considering that the Christian god is called The Deity you appear to be out on a limb here. And zero sensible Google hits for "theity".


The rest I explain in my other threads.
"Explaining" them doesn't stop them from being suppositions.

Can't even have stuff as the first, not even a tiny electron, for there's nothing to make it of, and so that is what all is made of.[/QUOTE]

yes this is what I mean with nothing how can you make something with nothing

I beleive there can be no starting point becouse a starting point implies nothingness before it. and what would cause the start if there is nothing
So you didn't check either of the links I gave in my first post?


I do feel if there is a creator he has always existed with an infinite past along with the laws the govern everything, but god or no god there in my opinion can be no begining.
Right. You have a feeling. And an opinion. Any evidence?

Making up your own definitions? Considering that the Christina god is called The Deity you appear to be out on a limb here. And zero sensible Google hits for "theity".

Perhaps look up 'theist' and 'deist'.

The true fact of evolution goes to how life evolved on Earth to where it is now.

Everything is another matter, which must have had no beginning, for that would have bounded it, making it not everything. One must show the causeless to have ever been going on, requiring nothing before it.

A Deity is just as impossible as a Theity; can't have complexity as the First Forever, much less an ultimate one. Can't even have stuff as the first, not even a tiny electron, for there's nothing to make it of, and so that is what all is made of.

I partly agree. (See post #4).

But I'm merely stating that even with a Deity (no such thing as theity), evolution, in theory, can happen. If God created the first spark of life, so-to-speak, other forms can (and have) evolve from it. That is evolution. In all sense of the word and definition, evolution, except at it's starting point, is completely unintertwined with a theory of creation unless otherwise stated (like in the Bible).

So what?
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?

why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang. Is it possable for the laws that govern everything to being the cause of a big bang. maybe inflation and deflation, expansion then retraction. imagine all the matter in the universe retracting rapidly all the matter getting closer and closer together causing more and more friction and energy until bam big bang and cycle repeated, just an idea, I do not claim to know a thing.

yes this is what I mean with nothing how can you make something with nothing

The state of nothing is evidently unstable; no other recourse for stuff to be.

This basis of the 'lack of anything' becoming' becoming positive/negative balances of somethings is itself eternal, and even unbounded, being the only candidate for the prime mover. We may not like it, intuitively, but what is the other choice? None.

Claiming things forever is not only an incomplete theory, but also fails since one cannot have something already defined and made in all of its very specific particulars without it ever having been made in the first place that never was.

Apparently, the state of the 'lack of anything' is not exactly what we think it is.

Perhaps look up 'theist' and 'deist'.
So you are inventing your own words.
Still doesn't tie in with the actual meaning of deity.

So you are inventing your own words.
Still doesn't tie in with the actual meaning of deity.

Sure it does. The founding fathers of the U.S. even stressed a deity over a theity.

Agreed that some may use 'Deity' to cover all types of gods.

However, a distinction is even being used in this thread.

So what?
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?

why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang. Is it possable for the laws that govern everything to being the cause of a big bang. maybe inflation and deflation, expansion then retraction. imagine all the matter in the universe retracting rapidly all the matter getting closer and closer together causing more and more friction and energy until bam big bang and cycle repeated, just an idea, I do not claim to know a thing.

Who is this directed to?

Regardless, I will respond in itemized detail....


So what?
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?

No, the laws of physics do change. It's in correlation with the changes.


why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang. Is it possable for the laws that govern everything to being the cause of a big bang.

Now, we're getting into cosmology, physics, quantum physics and astronomy.

The laws of physics are relative. The law of gravity on earth is different from that of Mars. And both, again, change over time due to many different factors.

Secondly, we need to clarify something here. Yes, scientists lean toward the big-bang theory as the expanion aka creation of our universe. But they don't say, as far as I'm aware, that it is the beginning of creation and existence itself.


imagine all the matter in the universe retracting rapidly all the matter getting closer and closer together causing more and more friction and energy until bam big bang and cycle repeated, just an idea, I do not claim to know a thing.

Yes, it's a theory like any other. But the big-bang is a reference point, not the ultimate beginning of existence/matter.

Sure it does. The founding fathers of the U.S. even stressed a deity over a theity.
Agreed that some may use 'Deity' to cover all types of gods.
By "some" you mean "everyone but you"?

Considering that the Christian god is called The Deity you appear to be out on a limb here. And zero sensible Google hits for "theity".

why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang.
Because we know that the "closer in time" we get to the Big Bang the less those laws apply/ work. It's simple.

By "some" you mean "everyone but you"?

No, the distinction is in the religious threads, too, not just here. Also see Stenger's work. He necessarily and purposefully leaves out the 'Deity' in one of his proofs showing that the God who is supposed to be everywhere is found nowhere (since the Deity would not be around).

Rare to get one over on you.

No, the distinction is in the religious threads, too, not just here.
A distinction made by you... Only 20 hits for "theity". 19 in posts by you and the last in a post where it's a quote of you. :shrug:


Also see Stenger's work. He necessarily and purposefully leaves out the 'Deity' in one of his proofs showing that the God who is supposed to be everywhere is found nowhere (since the Deity would not be around).
In one of his proofs? Okay.

But, as we have seen, movement does not require a mover, and modern quantum mechanics has shown that not all effects require a cause. And even if they did, why would the Prime Mover need to be a supernatural anthropomorphic deity such as the Judaeo-Christian God? Why could it not just as well be the material universe itself? Stenger, Physics and Psychics (1990) p. 88

And, yet again, because I can predict the line of criticism that this book will generate, I need to make it clear up-front that I am not claiming that the absence of evidence eliminates all possibilities for a god to exist in every conceivable form. And, I am not evaluating all the theological and philosophical arguments for or against God. I am simply evaluating the scientific arguments and claimed scientific evidence for a deity according to the same criteria that science applies to any extraordinary claim. I conclude that, so far, they fail to meet the test.
Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001)


Rare to get one over on you.
So, at best, you've got you, and Stenger who "leaves out" deity. In one of his publications.

So, at best, you've got you, and Stenger who "leaves out" deity. In one of his publications.

Some of us on Stenger's AVOID e-mail list work with him on editing his books before they come out, the next one to be 'The Folly of Faith'.

New words come out all the time; however, I may be charging a royalty for the word 'Theity', as it has certainly become a necessary word for distinction among gods. It will be in the next dictionary. It is related to 'theism' and 'theist'.

Did you check out those founding fathers?

Some of us on Stenger's AVOID e-mail list work with him on editing his books before they come out, the next one to be 'The Folly of Faith'.
And? Will that bring the count up to two occasions where he doesn't use the word?


New words come out all the time; however, I may be charging a royalty for the word 'Theity', as it has certainly become a necessary word for distinction among gods. It will be in the next dictionary.
yeah right. And a redefinition of deity besides adding anew word.


Did you check out those founding fathers?
What's a "founding father"?
You made the claim...

What's a "founding father"?

George Washington and the others, such as Jefferson.

Shall we go around saying 'The God who micro-manages everything and is ever concerned with his creatures' versus 'The God who just started everything going and then went away'?

'Theity' is to 'theist' and 'theism' (which do make a distinction in the dictionary) as 'Deity' is to 'Deist' and 'Deism'.

Also, a bonnet is a hood over here, and a lift is an elevator.

If an English lady in a hotel here in the U.S. asked for a lift and I picked her up, I might get in trouble.

George Washington and the others, such as Jefferson.
Links please.


Also, a bonnet is a hood over here, and a lift is an elevator.
And so far the only use of "theity" seems to be yours.

That's cool!! This is how words are created. What was the meaning again?

As in theist and deist.
Post 8.

Links please..

Anywhere on Google with 'deity' and 'founding fathers'. Didn't you English guys pay attention after the colony was lost.[/QUOTE]



And so far the only use of "theity" seems to be yours.

Only 20,000 or so to go to match Shakespeare.

That's cool!! This is how words are created. What was the meaning again?

Theity: The invisible Guy who is everywhere and doing everything, managing ever leaf that falls and every atom in your french fires…

As opposed to a Deity who just started everything going, either not caring or fully knowing what it would amount to, and then went off on a permanent vacation.

Anywhere on Google with 'deity' and 'founding fathers'. Didn't you English guys pay attention after the colony was lost.
You stated:

The founding fathers of the U.S. even stressed a deity over a theity.
Please provide a link to the founding fathers using the word theity.


Only 20,000 or so to go to match Shakespeare.
Far fewer.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2722912&postcount=49
Check the link.

You stated:

Please provide a link to the founding fathers using the word theity.

They didn't use 'theity', for I hadn't invented it yet. They had to explain the distinction by using more words.



Far fewer.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2722912&postcount=49
Check the link.

Good, then I will begin inventing more useful words, Dywyddyr, and I do have a hard time spelling your name.

I'll go see what spell-check calls out in my writings…

They didn't use 'theity', for I hadn't invented it yet. They had to explain the distinction by using more words.
In other words you were waffling.

In other words you were waffling.

'Waffling' is a good and useful word that someone once made up.

You owe me two cents for using 'theity'.

Every word began somewhere before it gained common usage and that place is here. Everyone is referring to it now.


A Theity walked up to a Deity and said “I’m the smartest, for I do everything, even controlling a trillion-trillion atoms in every piece of dust.”

“Ha.” replied the Deity, “That’s nothing, for I am the smartest scientist ever, one who was even able to perfectly foresee everything, not even having to attend to it thereafter.”


(I sent my 'Theory of Nothing' to Victor Stenger today, although he is on vacation.)

I was there at the beginning.....basic cable was still playing re-runs.

I was there at the beginning.....basic cable was still playing re-runs.

I guess everything possible happens, time and time again.

If there was ever nothing, it is only logical to assume that a state of nothingness would persist. Nothing begets nothing.
Wrong (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html) and wrong (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf).


which page and line show that he is wrong?

which page and line show that he is wrong?

Well, we are merely on page #2, most of which being very brief (and non-productive dialogue). So, using deductive reasoning, I would assume it safe to say that it would be somewhere on page #1.


(Sorry, I had just to chime in and be a smart ass.) :D