"Magic Nothing" Made the Universe, According to Atheists - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15161765
Atheists simply LOVE to use the word "magic" when attacking Christians and Nature's God.
They seem to think it makes them look smart and, as they like to claim, "rational."

In fact, there is no scientific basis for their inane belief that their Magic Nothing made everything.

Nobody has ever given a remotely scientific explanation for Magic Nothing making the universe and they never will. It is absurd on its face.

"If anyone made God, He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox in his lecture A Matter of Gravity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc&t=215s
#15161795
MrWonderful wrote:"MAGIC NOTHING" MADE THE UNIVERSE

The Boundary Conditions of the Universe

When there is no end or beginning, there is nothing that requires making.

Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless according to the no-boundary proposal because there is no notion of time available to refer to. It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.

— S.W.Hawking, lecture at the Pontifical Academy (2016)

See J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking (1983) Wave function of the Universe Phys. Rev. D Vol.28, No.12, 2960-2975


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Mar 2021 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15161797
Matter and energy and correspondence originated at the Big Bang. Comparing this Creation event to the "south of the South Pole" is childish word games. Some people buy into them out of pure desperation. Then they call these word games "science".

The Anthropic Principle, first proposed by Brandon Carter, is profound science and mathematics.
There is no way around it except with word games such as "Multiverse" or "south of the South Pole."

Science and nature enamor atheists, who fail to realize much less acknowledge that they are God's Creations.

"Nature is God's greatest evangelist." - Pastor Jonathan Edwards
#15161802
MrWonderful wrote:The Anthropic Principle, first proposed by Brandon Carter, is profound science and mathematics.

The Anthropic Principle simply states that as we exist in this Universe, the Universe exists in a way that allows us to come into existence.


:lol:
#15161994
MrWonderful wrote:Tell everyone the origin of matter, energy, organization, and the precision of physical constants which make life possible and elegant. Be specific. Be scientific. Don't just give another two meaningless words.


Not that I personally accept the reasoning but the notion is that nothing is unstable so something ultimately comes from nothing.

Nonetheless what is your argument? That science relies on faith as does religion? Perhaps. But it is more than that. It works on equations, testing, hypothesis and theories some of which turn out to be proven whilst religion only relies on faith and nothing else.
#15162006
MrWonderful wrote:Nothing

B0ycey wrote:nothing is unstable so something ultimately comes from nothing.

Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. The particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle.

A team from Bar Ilian University used a scanning superconducting quantum interference device to image quantum fluctuations in the vicinity of the quantum phase transition from a superconductor to an insulator. They found fluctuations of the diamagnetic response in both space and time that survive well below the transition temperature, demonstrating their quantum nature.

See A. Kremen et al, Imaging quantum fluctuations near criticality Nat Phys. 2018 Dec; 14(12): 1205–1210.


:)
#15162219
B0ycey wrote:Not that I personally accept the reasoning but the notion is that nothing is unstable so something ultimately comes from nothing.


That is not reasoning. It is utter nonsense. There is nothing remotely suggestive anywhere in science that matter, energy, beauty, and synergy can come from nothing. Zero. Please tell readers what is "unstable" about "nothing."

Nonetheless what is your argument? That science relies on faith as does religion? Perhaps. But it is more than that. It works on equations, testing, hypothesis and theories some of which turn out to be proven whilst religion only relies on faith and nothing else.


Argue with Carl Sagan, a scientist highly esteemed by the Left and atheists. He said that there is no dichotomy between spirituality and science. Countless other scientists have said the same thing, man averring that science shows profound evidence of Nature's God.

You have been listening to Richard Dawkins and swallowing every lie he tells you. Very unscientific and unintelligent, that.

Men of powerful faith have pursued science relentlessly for centuries. Don't you know anything? Anything at all?
#15162220
Saeko wrote:None of these things necessarily have an "origin".


Nor do your thoughts.

According to statistics in a book called by Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes published in 2003: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religions. Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.
#15162223
MrWonderful wrote:That is not reasoning. It is utter nonsense. There is nothing remotely suggestive anywhere in science that matter, energy, beauty, and synergy can come from nothing. Zero. Please tell readers what is "unstable" about "nothing."


Not my words but that of scientists. As it happens I am an amateur mathematician and had a go of writing an equation on time being the origins of matter once upon a time and that is also on the basis on what our notion of what, 'nothingness' is. The equation works on the basis that light has no speed and that the motion of spacetime which moves between light and our perception of matter converts its energy into electrons and protons (protons being anti elections that cannot eliminate each other due to magnetism) which then causes matter into existence due to this contradiction. Whether I am right or wrong I don't know. And perhaps it is more likely I am. But the only reason I am telling you this is that if I can come up with a solution to how matter can exist mathematically and coherently from nothing then the notion of matter coming from nothing shouldn't just be ignored. But saying that I am also happy to entertain that a diety may exist too. It may. I simply do not know and as such don't rule anything out.
#15162234
MrWonderful wrote:Be specific. Be scientific.

"just to locate the reader in the right context."

A Ph.D. dissertation by Adrià Gómez-Valent.

Adrià Gómez-Valent, Departament de Física Quàntica i Astrofísica Universitat de Barcelona (2017) Vacuum Energy In Quantum Field Theory And Cosmology

In this thesis I describe the CCP [Cosmological Constant Problem] in the Introduction (Chapter 1), and I make a short (but exhaustive) historical review of the cosmological term from its birth, a hundred years ago, up to the present. I also introduce the standard cosmological model, the ΛCDM [Lambda cold dark matter], together with its associated theoretical and observational problems. This leads to the study of alternative scenarios that are potentially able to alleviate the aforementioned drawbacks. I review in a quite general way some of them, just to locate the reader in the right context. The last two sections of the Introduction are mainly focused to motivate a particular class of models, the so-called running vacuum models (RVM’s), which arise from the renormalization group formalism of Quantum Field Theory in curved spacetime applied to Cosmology. These models are the main object of study of this thesis. In them, the vacuum energy density evolves with the expansion, having a direct dependence on the Hubble rate. The latter somehow parametrizes the dynamics of the cosmological vacuum. This time evolution of ρΛ can only respect the fulfillment of the local energy conservation equation if the Newtonian coupling acquires some dynamics too, and/or if the laws that describe the matter-radiation energy densities acquire some anomalous behavior. All these scenarios give rise to a very rich phenomenological palette of different RVM’s, which is amply studied in the subsequent chapters, in the main body of the thesis.

And, if this is too much for you and you find yourself getting lost in specificity, there's always

Rafelski and Muller, The Structured Vacuum: Thinking About Nothing (1985)

[A] book in which established concepts about the vacuum are explained [...] but not the technical details.


:)
#15162370
B0ycey wrote: But the only reason I am telling you this is that if I can come up with a solution to how matter can exist mathematically and coherently from nothing then the notion of matter coming from nothing shouldn't just be ignored.


No, WHEN you come up with your "solution," we may consider this preposterous, unscientific, cockamamy something from nothing, but not until then. You have not given one second of thought to how silly it sounds to say "IF I can come up with this, then we shouldn't ignore that."

Yes we should UNTIL then. It's bizarre. It's pure desperation.
#15162371
MrWonderful wrote:No, WHEN you come up with your "solution," we may consider this preposterous, unscientific, cockamamy something from nothing, but not until then. You have not given one second of thought to how silly it sounds to say "IF I can come up with this, then we shouldn't ignore that."

Yes we should UNTIL then. It's bizarre. It's pure desperation.


You don't get it. That WHEN can apply to anything. Certainly a diety without any form of supporting evidence.

My point is that nothing is a loose term anyway. You can have a square mile of space without an ounce of energy in it and by all logic that is nothing. But it isn't. It is time. Or space time. And if you went quick enough you could stop time altogether within it. So motion or stretching of this spacetime must convert that into something else as energy transfers states and time is a state. I came up with that in my own and wrote an equation some years back. So there is an idea that something can come from nothing (I don't like that term but whatever) with some form of support to it. And I am not a Quantum Physicist who would be better at mathematical formulas than me. So these theories don't just come from no where. They come from things we know and equations and have more support for their ideas than just some random guy holding a book shouting at the top of his voice that 'God did it', without even trying to explain who created God.
#15162382
The lad has no point to make other than to continue typing. Desperation, panic, nonsense.

These point to mental disorder.

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. - Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, American Journal of Psychiatry, December, 2004

"If someone made God then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox in A Matter of Gravity
#15162384
MrWonderful wrote:Atheists simply LOVE to use the word "magic" when attacking Christians and Nature's God.
They seem to think it makes them look smart and, as they like to claim, "rational."

In fact, there is no scientific basis for their inane belief that their Magic Nothing made everything.

Nobody has ever given a remotely scientific explanation for Magic Nothing making the universe and they never will. It is absurd on its face.

"If anyone made God, He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox in his lecture A Matter of Gravity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc&t=215s

:lol:
LOL
Every time, ever, that something was attributed to a supernatural or magical phenomenon, every single time, eventually, when we actually found out what really happened, it turns out it was a natural thing that made it happen.
It is not magical dancing that made it rain.
The celestials objects are not moving around because Apolo or Zeus are moving them.
People don't die because of Osiris

If gods exist, they don't care or don't want us to be aware of their existence. Making "their creation" aware of their existence shouldn't be too hard for beings responsible for creating the universe.

For the record, the existence of any god does not make "the beginning of everything" any less complicated, you are just moving the explanation one step further. What made god? Are we to believe that the UNIVERSE needs a creator but the creator does not? :lol: If god is eternal and always existed? why is it that the universe cannot be eternal and always existed as well? You are the one self-imposing restraints and basically talking from your ass complete nonsense.
You cannot "argue god" into existence any more than you can argue a unicorn into existence.
Last edited by XogGyux on 21 Mar 2021 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
#15162385
MrWonderful wrote:"If someone made God then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox in A Matter of Gravity


I suppose the point here is that if God wasn't created he came about from nothing which you argue against. How ironic.

The thing is I don't argue that God doesn't exist. He may well have created the universe and made everything quantifiable. He may have came about from nothing. However what I don't do is dismiss things on a notion of faith. I look at what evidence there is and reach a conclusion by the simplistic form. A scientific method perhaps but with more foundation than just say 'it is' without questioning what 'it is' even is.
#15162386
B0ycey wrote:I suppose the point here is that if God wasn't created he came about from nothing which you argue against. How ironic.

The thing is I don't argue that God doesn't exist. He may well have created the universe and made everything quantifiable. He may have came about from nothing. However what I don't do is dismiss things on a notion of faith. I look at what evidence there is and reach a conclusion by the simplistic form. A scientific method perhaps but with more foundation than just say 'it is' without questioning what 'it is' even is.

God is male? :eek: Have you seen God's weiner?

@BlutoSays Yeah, Bluto! Don't you believe in f[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So, Croatian President reiterates today:"A c[…]

Washington Compost? Uh huh. Yup, jimjam is stupid […]

Is D.Trump Insane?

Can't be true, right? Sadly, this really happened.[…]