Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

.

What if God created himself? But that would also means, the need to physic laws (wich apparently not random laws) and time.
Do simple things like quantum creat themselves from nothing? how?
I mean, what do you mean by nothing (if you are saying from nothing) ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not my opinion that you've provided no evidence for the existence of a creator or that your arguments are logically inconsistent, it's a demonstrable fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Particle pairs seem to arise from space-time, and they can because the total energy of the pair is still zero. I'm guessing that larger sets of particles could emerge too, but would be increasingly less likely, since the odds are multiplied with every additional pair. The odds that a God could appear fully formed with the capacity to pre-conceive the plan of the entire universe is so extremely unlikely we can dismiss it.

But, the idea that a tiny universe could appear is more likely. Matter is balanced by gravitational potential energy, meaning the universe needed no net inputs of energy to form. If God has no gravitational potential energy, or even matter, then physics don't apply, and the notion can be dismissed.

So, an uncaused simple thing is more likely than an uncaused complex thing. We observe that complexity is a function of time. Simple things complexify given only the fact that they cool and can form more complex arrangements without splitting apart by heat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.

According to you, and others.
Also myne is a demonstrable fact too..according to me, and others.

 

.

I agree, I'm not also denying the possibility, or something that can appear from nothing, but i find it unlikely.
The total energy is zero, doesn't mean no energy at all, since the (+) and (-) are equal, like in a stable atome.
The thing you said about the developement from simple things to complexed things by the factor of time, but such thing isnt so simple as it is.
If you say quantyms can appear by themselves, and make no difference sicne the total of their energy is still zero, then how can they do anything? inless you say quantums will form the electrons and the protons and neutrons will somehow appear, that still need the factor of time after all.
The possibiliy of something from nothing, isnt totally possible, but we need tome for that, I think, right?
And later, we defferently need physic laws to orgenise things and get a guarentede results, no physic laws means, just some flying "things" hanging around.
Still i'm not denying that something may appear from nothing, but I can't understand this one, I mean, the quantum and etc.. it's not convincing.
There must be a starting point somewhere, before the bigbang.. (or before the universe cycle, if we suppose that the universe have cycles, expand, and then shrink and become as it was before the big bang, then another big bang, and expand, and so on, still there must be a starting point)
The word infinite is not litterly infinite, it's just a very very big number, or a word to hide what we don't know or we couldnt udnerstand, like saying the universe is infinite with no limite, maybe it is, but it also may have a some kinfd of a limit, that kidna "infinite" due to time relativity or something...
Many theories can be posed here.

 

@Shadow1 --

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "demonstrable" means. When something is demonstrable it is capable of being proven or demonstrated.

There is not a single theistic argument that can't be thoroughly eviscerated by an application of logic, not a single one. A lowly undergrad like me can go toe to toe with the greatest theologians of the ages and whoop their asses without even breaking a sweat as every argument for the existence of a creator is logically fallacious(unless you've come up with a new one, in which case feel free to present it).

As for the evidence, all any theist does is say "X is evidence of god" and then shut their ears when a more plausible(read, requires fewer assumptions) explanation of X is offered. Thus, theistic positions have no supporting evidence.

So it is demonstrable that there's no evidence for a theistic deity and no argument which stands up to the application of logic. We This is demonstrable because every argument ever presented(as well as every piece of evidence ever offered) has been rebutted. What you believe is irrelevant, what is in evidence is all that matters.

 

Shadow1—No show, no go.

 

If you can't show it, then it doesn't go over.

 

...

 

That's true. Nothing to show.

Happy wishes.

 

...

...

 

Show you what?
You wanna see it?

 

Yes, demonstrate God.

 

Someone seems to believe that someone else can demonstrate God to them, for their elucidation. Like winding up a toy.

I bet they also believe that they can't do this themselves, for themselves, or that this is the only demonstration possible. They would rather have a bunch of not very rational ideas about the subject to cling to.

 

If God is not presentable then the notion is of no concern.

Existence, however, is presentable, so one might just as well live in it.

 

.

& did you read my posts?

 

.

:tempted:
:itold:

 

Looks like God is thought to be a see-saw teeter-tottering.

 

Someone's filled SciWriter in on the big secret.

 

...