Did Nothing Create Everything?

SetiAlpha6 said:
There are at least three different locations, I know of, where the presence of God may have directly altered the physical surface of the Earth in the vicinity of the mountain.

All three are described in more or less detail, depending on the event, in the Bible.

One in particular, the Split Rock, has a chance to either blow people’s minds apart, or just be classified as a natural phenomenon, depending on how the analysis scientifically plays out.

I don’t want anyone to take my word for anything!

Saudi Arabia has just opened their country up to tourism, so people can visit the sites.

And there have already been a few scientists studying these locations for a few years now, but the sites need much more study.

So there are a few rebel scientists already investigating the site. The site is massive!

Perhaps they could tell me where the Rebel Base is?
Click to expand...
This does not address my point. How can anyone devise objective criteria for determining evidence for God?

I submit that it cannot be done.

What you seem preoccupied with is something quite different, namely matching landscape features to an ancient human literary artefact. That, it should be needless to say, is nothing to do with science, interesting though it may be.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
I know I sound crazy!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, when you keep asking about the rebel base, you seem mad as a box of frogs.
I haven’t worked you out yet. You seem sometimes quite rational and at other times paranoid and obsessive. I’ll give you benefit of the doubt for a while yet, though.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
If it could be it would have been done by now.
Alex
Click to expand...

Alex, you guys told me to present anything I wanted, including scripture, and that would be fine, because evidence for God was welcome here. And people were open to it because their scientific naturalistic philosophy does not robotically blind them to evidence for God. And I thought that you were not setting me up!
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Alex, you guys told me to present anything I wanted, including scripture, and that would be fine, because evidence for God was welcome here. And people were open to it because their scientific naturalistic philosophy does not robotically blind them to evidence for God. And I thought that you were not setting me up!
Click to expand...
My comment was not directed at you.
The observation by Exchemist is on the money if you think about it..I asked for your evidence..what you think is evidence.
Unfortunately what you bring to the table is not evidence of the existence of god it is evidence that real locations and rocks may have been referenced..but what you fail to realise is the ramification of the Spiderman reference earlier.
Nevertheless I will give you an A for effort given you at least offer something which is a first but mainly for getting your act together and working out how to post photos.
I think you would do well to address my questions however as if you look you will find that the history points to myth founded on astrology. Its there all you need do is look.

I think if you are keen for truth and proof etc you must at the very least check out why I asked those questions.

Your enjoy your celebration of death and don't eat all the kids candy.
alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
My comment was not directed at you.
The observation by Exchemist is on the money if you think about it..I asked for your evidence..what you think is evidence.
Unfortunately what you bring to the table is not evidence of the existence of god it is evidence that real locations and rocks may have been referenced..but what you fail to realise is the ramification of the Spiderman reference earlier.
Nevertheless I will give you an A for effort given you at least offer something which is a first but mainly for getting your act together and working out how to post photos.
I think you would do well to address my questions however as if you look you will find that the history points to myth founded on astrology. Its there all you need do is look.

I think if you are keen for truth and proof etc you must at the very least check out why I asked those questions.

Your enjoy your celebration of death and don't eat all the kids candy.
alex
Click to expand...

So are you willing to review more evidence, or am I starting to stress you guys out?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
So are you willing to review more evidence, or am I starting to stress you guys out?
Click to expand...
Alex cannot speak for readers collectively. Is it part of your paranoia that see everyone who challenges you as part of a single massed band of opponents?

Personally I don’t need to see any more desert rock pictures. By themselves they mean nothing. I would prefer you decided whether you want to talk about science and religion, as you were doing earlier, or whether you want instead to pursue eccentric ideas about evidence for the Judaeo-Christian Old Testament Exodus narrative, regarded by most scholars as mythical.
 
exchemist said:
Alex cannot speak for readers collectively. Is it part of your paranoia that see everyone who challenges you as part of a single massed band of opponents?

Personally I don’t need to see any more desert rock pictures. By themselves they mean nothing. I would prefer you decided whether you want to talk about science and religion, as you were doing earlier, or whether you want instead to pursue eccentric ideas about evidence for the Judaeo-Christian Old Testament Exodus narrative, regarded by most scholars as mythical.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone here who wants to review more of the evidence for the existence of God?

If not I will stop posting the evidence.

If just one person wants to review more evidence I will present more.

If the censorship team here even allows me to present evidence.

I understand!

They are afraid of the existence of any evidence outside their philosophy.

No problem, it is completely understandable, we all fear things we don’t understand.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Is that a crazy thing to ask for?
Click to expand...

Well, let us start with the obvious question:

The belief that there was once absolutely nothing. And that nothing happened to that nothing for an eternity until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating time, everything, and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself into highly organized molecular elements (again, for no reason whatsoever), and then into extremely complex self-replicating molecular bio-machines which then turned into dinosaurs. And all of the trillions of processes needed to pull all of this off had to defy entropy on a scale never before seen in empirical science.

If someone actually believes this, I would like to see them offer some empirical proof for it.
Click to expand...

In re, "the belief that there was once absolutely nothing": What do we mean by, "nothing"?

Yes, the question feels tricky because the detailed answer is complex, but the general answer is a fairly reliable consideration that this, "belief that there was once absolutely nothing", attends a different definition of what "nothing" is than, say, a cosmologist.

Thus: From what nothing did Creation supposedly ... what, emerge? emanate? occur? Most certainly, it didn't synthesize, as such; ex nihilo precludes, by definition, that Creation came about as a synthetic result. Well, there's the catch, eh? What do we mean by, "nothing"?

The history of ex nihilo includes a bunch of people arguing about how reality came about as a result of God's will. It's kind of like the weird question about the Bang when people get hung up on the idea of what was there, in all that space, before the event, because the answer that the space didn't exist confounds their imagination°.

Existence exists because it must exist. True, that's hardly a scientific statement, but we can look at its implications according to a blend of the observation that the Universe we have is the Universe that exists, and the proposition that if God wanted it some other way, it would be that way.

What preceded God? This question is problematic unless arbitrarily resolved; we might, for instance, insist that a monotheistic godhead is timeless.

Meanwhile, once upon a time, I could be found suggesting certain, more scientific-sounding inevitability. That is, the fact that the Universe exists means it must. There isn't really a question of whether circumstances could be otherwise. The basic difference between this appearance of an article of faith, to the one, and stylized monotheistic godheads, to the other, is that while we await God, we can still try to figure out the origins of the Universe; each new answer also represents myriad new questions. With gods, it really depends on what the people who invent them want.

The nearest I can imagine to the Universe occuring ex nihilo is buried somewhere in the mystery of what came before the Bang, and before that, and before that, until the only thing I can imagine is a lack of anything.

So we should probably start with what anybody means by, "nothing".
____________________

Notes:

° Among the myriad notes that might go here, I would recall an old, and seemingly obscure, scrap, I think from Hebrew mysticism, by which the difference between "nothing" and "no thing" is a vital distinction. The latter is as mysterious as it is obvious, but here are two ways of looking at it that are familiar despite their faults: What would it mean to step out into nothing, as in, welcome to your first spacewalk? That's not actually nothing. A bit more complicated: Cosmologists have in the past included among potential models a cyclical Universe of expansion and contraction, and we might for the moment just pause to consider a contraction of the Universe itself: When people try to picture this in their heads, they think about the space where the contracting Universe was before contraction vacated that area. Notice there are a couple words that don't quite work. Volume, not area; and then there is the whole question of the space where Universe was. It should not, as I understand, be called "space", because it's not. And as screwed up as that entire consideration is, it also reminds of the problem; it's not mixing metaphors, but, rather, mixing definitions. Still, though, a contracting Universe cannot be pictured in the same way a healing wound might, with scar tissue taking the place of the ever-smaller wound. What, to the human perspective, is "no thing"? What is "nothing"?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Is there anyone here who wants to review more of the evidence for the existence of God?

If not I will stop posting the evidence.

If just one person wants to review more evidence I will present more.

If the censorship team here even allows me to present evidence.

I understand!

They are afraid of the existence of any evidence outside their philosophy.

No problem, it is completely understandable, we all fear things we don’t understand.
Click to expand...
Haha this is one of the crank's oldest gambits. And thoroughly disreputable it is, too. The schtick is: "Anyone that disagrees with me is afraid, afraid of the TRUTH!" What pathetic codswallop.

Also pathetic codswallop is the quite baseless accusation that anyone here is trying to "censor" you. Has any moderator threatened to stop you posting? No of course not. So drop this garbage.

I, at least, have done my level best to engage you in civil discussion throughout (only commenting on the possibility that you might be nuts when you yourself raised the issue, unprovoked).

Nothing you have presented is evidence for God. You have failed to address the basic issue, which I raised, of how it can be possible to have objective evidence of God. The exercise you have now started, of comparing land features with Exodus, is not science at all and is a very long way short of evidence for God, quite obviously. The most it could be is evidence that the biblical account is in some respects historical. But if that were shown to be the case, it would not be evidence for God.

You seem, disappointingly, to have decided that rather than address tough issues such as this, you will retreat to your comfort zone of victimhood. Much easier, isn't it, to accuse everyone of victimising you, instead of actually dealing with the difficult points they raise? I suppose it is one way of ending the thread, now that things are getting difficult, which is presumably why you are doing it.
 
exchemist said:
Haha this is one of the crank's oldest gambits. And thoroughly disreputable it is, too. The schtick is: "Anyone that disagrees with me is afraid, afraid of the TRUTH!" What pathetic codswallop.

Also pathetic codswallop is the quite baseless accusation that anyone here is trying to "censor" you. Has any moderator threatened to stop you posting? No of course not. So drop this garbage.

I, at least, have done my level best to engage you in civil discussion throughout (only commenting on the possibility that you might be nuts when you yourself raised the issue, unprovoked).

Nothing you have presented is evidence for God. You have failed to address the basic issue, which I raised, of how it can be possible to have objective evidence of God. The exercise you have now started, of comparing land features with Exodus, is not science at all and is a very long way short of evidence for God, quite obviously. The most it could be is evidence that the biblical account is in some respects historical. But if that were shown to be the case, it would not be evidence for God.

You seem, disappointingly, to have decided that rather than address tough issues such as this, you will retreat to your comfort zone of victimhood. Much easier, isn't it, to accuse everyone of victimising you, instead of actually dealing with the difficult points they raise? I suppose it is one way of ending the thread, now that things are getting difficult, which is presumably why you are doing it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have been great to talk with. Thank You!
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
They are afraid of the existence of any evidence outside their philosophy.
Click to expand...
Yes of course they are, it is so obvious...it is you that demonstrates fear by ignoring my questions...I alledge that you will not examine the history that is backed up with actual evidence that what you are on about is myth and I suspect deep down you don't want to look because you fear that I may have truth backed by actual evidence.
But you saying in effect you have not been given a fair run is a lie because clearly you have..I think you should be a man and apologise for you unsupported allegations.
Moderators have engaged in this thread strongly suggesting they know what is going on and by their actions certainly are not shutting you down...you tell a miserable lie which is wrong.
You must retract your baseless allegation and apologise to all.
But I must say as a generalisation and based only upon my personal experiences that you are typical of believers, Christians in particular, well all my negative experience has been with Christians, who make wild unsupported claims and refuse to back them up and when presented with real facts reject them in a most rude manner..well not even a courtesy of rejection but by ignoring you...look at all I have posted..look at all you simply ignored..disgustingly rude, disgustingly arrogant but typically christian. We have listened to you, and tried to help you and here you are lieing...I don't like liars it indicates they think you are so stupid that you can't tell that they are lieing...why are liers so stupidly arogant....apologise that is the only decent thing you can do...and apologise specifically to the moderators who could have shut you down early on, yet who let you go only to have you insult them. Disgusting behaviour.
Alex
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
Well, let us start with the obvious question:

In re, "the belief that there was once absolutely nothing": What do we mean by, "nothing"?

Yes, the question feels tricky because the detailed answer is complex, but the general answer is a fairly reliable consideration that this, "belief that there was once absolutely nothing", attends a different definition of what "nothing" is than, say, a cosmologist.

Thus: From what nothing did Creation supposedly ... what, emerge? emanate? occur? Most certainly, it didn't synthesize, as such; ex nihilo precludes, by definition, that Creation came about as a synthetic result. Well, there's the catch, eh? What do we mean by, "nothing"?

The history of ex nihilo includes a bunch of people arguing about how reality came about as a result of God's will. It's kind of like the weird question about the Bang when people get hung up on the idea of what was there, in all that space, before the event, because the answer that the space didn't exist confounds their imagination°.

Existence exists because it must exist. True, that's hardly a scientific statement, but we can look at its implications according to a blend of the observation that the Universe we have is the Universe that exists, and the proposition that if God wanted it some other way, it would be that way.

What preceded God? This question is problematic unless arbitrarily resolved; we might, for instance, insist that a monotheistic godhead is timeless.

Meanwhile, once upon a time, I could be found suggesting certain, more scientific-sounding inevitability. That is, the fact that the Universe exists means it must. There isn't really a question of whether circumstances could be otherwise. The basic difference between this appearance of an article of faith, to the one, and stylized monotheistic godheads, to the other, is that while we await God, we can still try to figure out the origins of the Universe; each new answer also represents myriad new questions. With gods, it really depends on what the people who invent them want.

The nearest I can imagine to the Universe occuring ex nihilo is buried somewhere in the mystery of what came before the Bang, and before that, and before that, until the only thing I can imagine is a lack of anything.

So we should probably start with what anybody means by, "nothing".
____________________

Notes:

° Among the myriad notes that might go here, I would recall an old, and seemingly obscure, scrap, I think from Hebrew mysticism, by which the difference between "nothing" and "no thing" is a vital distinction. The latter is as mysterious as it is obvious, but here are two ways of looking at it that are familiar despite their faults: What would it mean to step out into nothing, as in, welcome to your first spacewalk? That's not actually nothing. A bit more complicated: Cosmologists have in the past included among potential models a cyclical Universe of expansion and contraction, and we might for the moment just pause to consider a contraction of the Universe itself: When people try to picture this in their heads, they think about the space where the contracting Universe was before contraction vacated that area. Notice there are a couple words that don't quite work. Volume, not area; and then there is the whole question of the space where Universe was. It should not, as I understand, be called "space", because it's not. And as screwed up as that entire consideration is, it also reminds of the problem; it's not mixing metaphors, but, rather, mixing definitions. Still, though, a contracting Universe cannot be pictured in the same way a healing wound might, with scar tissue taking the place of the ever-smaller wound. What, to the human perspective, is "no thing"? What is "nothing"?
Click to expand...

Hi Tiassa, can you please prove anything you are saying?

If not I can certainly give you full marks for creative story telling.

Please prove something, even anything you said.

Ok?
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Yes of course they are, it is so obvious...it is you that demonstrates fear by ignoring my questions...I alledge that you will not examine the history that is backed up with actual evidence that what you are on about is myth and I suspect deep down you don't want to look because you fear that I may have truth backed by actual evidence.
But you saying in effect you have not been given a fair run is a lie because clearly you have..I think you should be a man and apologise for you unsupported allegations.
Moderators have engaged in this thread strongly suggesting they know what is going on and by their actions certainly are not shutting you down...you tell a miserable lie which is wrong.
You must retract your baseless allegation and apologise to all.
But I must say as a generalisation and based only upon my personal experiences that you are typical of believers, Christians in particular, well all my negative experience has been with Christians, who make wild unsupported claims and refuse to back them up and when presented with real facts invite them in a most rude manner. We have listened to you, and tried to help you and here you are lieing...I don't like liars it indicates they think you are so stupid that you can't tell that they are lieing...apologise that is the only decent thing you can do...and apologise specifically to the moderators who could have shut you down early on, yet who let you go only to have you insult them.
Alex
Click to expand...

I apologize, I certainly have been given a fair run.
And you have been a friend to me, and I appreciate you very much!!!
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Is there anyone here who wants to review more of the evidence for the existence of God?
Click to expand...
Just as soon as any datum is offered that qualifies as evidence, rather than opinion, hearsay, folklore or propaganda.
If not I will stop posting the evidence.
Click to expand...
You've posted evidence for the existence of mountains, rocks and men killing one another.
The case for Geography, Geology and Warfare have has already been made and do not require further proof.

Insults won't make you credible; nor will pseudo-polite dismissals of reason.
SetiAlpha6 said:
I understand!
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt that.
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
I apologize, I certainly have been given a fair run.
Click to expand...
I can't accept your apology as you have not grovelled in a fashion which indicates that you recognise how greatly you have offended me.
If you think of me as a friend you could list point by point all your sins so I can see you have thought deeply about your rude behaviour and then and only then will I forgive you.
Nothing personal it is just if you are to stop lieing you first need to publically acknowledge that you lied...anything less does not warrant forgiveness.
Nothing personal I am trying to help you act like a mature individual and get you some understanding that you need to please those real people around you rather than waffling I expect being a sinner in the eyes of a god that you have failed to establish exists.

So have you had your Halloween?
It has raised its ugly head here which is a terrible thing...the parents do it for the kids and because the other parents do it...pathetic mob mentality over here I am afraid.
Hope you and yours are well and I wish you a great day.
Alex
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top