If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?

John J. Bannan said:
isn't it true that String Theory suggests matter is comprised of curled up dimension? And what is dimension? Again, even an ex physicist doesn't know. But, dimension surely looks like nothingness curled up on itself.
Click to expand...
"curled up dimension"?
WTF does that even mean? (excuse my French).:confused:

And "dimension surely looks like nothingness curled up on itself"?

Where do you get this stuff from? :confused:
 
String theory posits 11 dimensions. However, according to the theory, 8 of those dimensions are curled up on a sub-atomic scale. I agree. WTF does that mean. I didn't make this up. Dimension is just an aspect of space. Apparently, an aspect of higher dimensional space has curled up on itself under String Theory. Well, an aspect of space surely seems like nothing - doesn't it?
 
Instead of just telling me I don't get it, which is true - I don't get what you're saying, why don't you explain it? What is the difference between space and a void? You answer that question, and then I'll tell you how they really are the same thing.
 
"Space" is defined as the distance between two objects whereas "void" is defined as empty space.
 
Well, that doesn't help much. Provide an answer to the question I asked the ex physicist, please. Just saying a void is empty space, and space is the distance between two objects doesn't explain why a void is not the same as space as it relates to my previous arguments.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Well, that doesn't help much. Provide an answer to the question I asked the ex physicist, please. Just saying a void is empty space, and space is the distance between two objects doesn't explain why a void is not the same as space as it relates to my previous arguments.
Click to expand...

Ok, look at it this way.

If space is the distance between two objects, that doesn't mean that there couldn't still exist 'something' between those two objects. In space, there is radiation that permeates the universe, amongst other things.

A void can also exist in the distance between those same two objects, the only difference is that there would be no radiation, or anything else from amongst those other things that currently exist in space.

Does that help?
 
No. Because I already made a similar distinction with the ex physicist. I said I knew that space is not empty but contains energy (or fields if your like), but that doesn't mean that the energy is anything but a different aspect of nothingness. See my previous posts on this thread. Void is absolute emptiness, while space is almost emptiness except for the fields. So, what? I understand that nothingness is a void. But what I am trying to convey is that energy may simply be an aspect of nothingness. Accordingly, "void" and "space" are simply aspects of the same nothingness. The ex physicist cannot comprehend how it is possible to equate Void with Space. This is the very question I am trying to place focus on. If Void and Space are the same, then you don't need an explanation for the existence of the Universe, do you? You only need an explanation for how a Void could create Space.
 
Ah, that I understand - that you believe that is my misunderstanding. I am not under a misunderstanding. I understand perfectly well what you and the ex physicist are talking about. You both can't accept the possibility that nothing is something, or that a "Void" could create "Space". I understand your completely understandable inability to understand this. But, think a little harder before you assume this is not a possibility. Given the fact that nothingness needs no explanation and appears to be a dead ringer for existence - it's quite logical to conclude that somethingness must therefore be an aspect of nothingness, as opposed to the assumption that nothingness and somethingess cannot possibly be the same thing.
 
I guess a better way for you to grasp this is to ask, how could something come from nothing? Well, it did - didn't it? So if something came from nothing, it must be that nothing and something are intricately related - no?
 
Some atheist said that the universe came about all on its own, but they couldn't explain how. I was giving them a possible answer.
 
Forgive me if I wasn't following the details, but is your answer some form of theism? If so, what explains the existence of that?
 
Actually, seeing the connection between nothingness and somethingness is far more atheistic than theistic. Afterall, if the existence of the universe needs no explanation because it's really just nothingness - which needs no explanation - than where does God fit in?
 
John J. Bannan said:
Actually, seeing the connection between nothingness and somethingness is far more atheistic than theistic. Afterall, if the existence of the universe needs no explanation because it's really just nothingness - which needs no explanation - than where does God fit in?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: It doesn't fit in. As an atheist, I don't see the universe as "nothingness," but I also don't see the need for a god.
 
I don't see the need to explain everything. I don't need to make sure everything has a logical reason behind it.
My life is like a really goofy movie that makes no sense. I don't care, I just wanna sit back and enjoy it because if I try to pick it apart, it looses its fun. I figure my existence is one big happy accident.
 
Doesn't quantum theory allow for something to come from nothing? Well actually it would stil be nothing but in a different form.

Isn't it possible from empty space for a particle and an antiparticle to form simultaneously, thus the sum of matter is still zero its just in a different form? If this can happen, then couldn't a universe be made randomly as long as there is an antiuniverse full of antimatter created also?

Im not too familiar with quantum physics but I know that particles can appear out of nowhere (or rather go from virtual to real particles) by borrowing energy from particles possibly very far away and then that particle disappears. Particles pop in and out and they borrow and give off energy between them. So couldn't the universe come out of nothing this way, and make antimatter as well as matter?
 
John J. Bannan: You have knowledge of a Time when there was nothing?
I guess a better way for you to grasp this is to ask, how could something come from nothing? Well, it did - didn't it?
Click to expand...
In answer to your question: "No, it did not!"

If QM or some other theory comes up with an plausible for something evolving from nothing, I will revise my view on this issue. Until such time (which I do not expect to come about), I will consider your notion about nothing/something to be a crackpot concept.

It seems obvious that there is something. You claim that it somehow evolved form nothing. I see no reason for that belief. On what do you base your belief in there having been a time when there was nothing?
Ah, you're both still looking at somethingness as being distinct from nothingness, instead of looking at somethingness as nothingness.
Click to expand...
You are correct if the above refers to me. The very semantics of the two words indicates that they are antonyms (I am referring to the bolded words in the above quote from one of your posts).

Is English your second or third language? Either that or you are stubbornly clinging to some cute but erroneous notion you read or made up. You remind me of an excellent answer to an age old question:
Intelligent people believe in stupid ideas because they use their intelligence to defend ideas they acquired when they were not using their intelligence.
Click to expand...
Try using your intellibence to analyze your view on this issue.

Easier to understand or simpler to explain does not indicate true, more natural, or more fundamental. One can explain just about anything by a very simple explanation: "It happend due to magic."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top