The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing

originally posted by: Barcs

People are claiming that QM indicates a god, so yeah, I'm dismissing that claim because it's not backed by anything other than personal opinion. A consciousness can observe something, but that has nothing to do with electron microscope readings causing interference with what they are measuring. The observer effect doesn't change when somebody is physically watching something, ONLY when readings are taken with the microscope. If it was consciousness, you could take reading after reading after reading, and change the result, simply by looking at it, and that's not what happens. There is no link to consciousness there, it is all wishful thinking and woowoo as I said. In reality, we don't know enough about QM to make such conclusions yet.

If you are willing to say: 'We don't know'; then we can agree.

That is precisely what I'm saying. We don't know, and there's no evidence to suggest consciousness is responsible for it, thus no reason for me to believe claims like that. It's an unfalsifiable claim. I agree we don't know, I just get tired of people repeatedly claiming that it is evidence for god or that it "slays" materialism.

So no chance of you being able to temporarily suspend the Theistic and Creationist claims from that vid then ?
Okay.

'We don't know', but ..."...it is all wishful thinking and woowoo..."... ?
Okay.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Barcs
You just described yourself there buddy, jumping to conclusions and showing your ignorance on the gender fluidity thread. Why are you going after people today, what's up man chill out and be more thorough with your research when making your claims, just some friendly advice.

What conclusions am I jumping to? I admit unknowns are unknown.

Admittedly I misread your post, so I apologize for thinking you associated LGBTQ with pedos. That's my fault, but you were comparing them to demonic things.

originally posted by: Nothin
'We don't know', but ..."...it is all wishful thinking and woowoo..."... ?
Okay.

Yes. When you don't know something and you claim that it's evidence for a god, that IS 100% wishful thinking. Yes, the consciousness QM claim is woowoo. None of that is backed by any kind of evidence. I'm not claiming it's false, I'm saying that the conclusion is not known, so arbitrarily stating something slays materialism when we don't even know that is pure nonsense. Just because I argue against false claims doesn't mean I'm arguing the exact opposite position as fact.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"Materialism has not been slayed by anything. Too much is still unknown in QM at this time, hence why there are so many different interpretations. Only the woowoo interpretation goes against materialism, like when people jump to invalid conclusions for example the long misinterpreted observer effect, which actually is NOT about consciousness."

Bumping for relevance

I'm repeating the following because it is part of the foundation of physics which shows material reductionism is a backwards philosophy:

Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

Invisible to the naked eye you mean. Not invisible as in completely undetectable. We know these subatomic properties exist because we have tested and verified them using other tools.

a reply to: Barcs

Maybe you're right ?

Is not 'everything', nonsense ?

Mooji: Nothing

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Invisible to the naked eye you mean. Not invisible as in completely undetectable.

Correct. Exactly like God. Though God is not materially visible, His handiwork is made obvious in the meticulous order of the universe perpetuated by the Laws that have his same nature.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Invisible to the naked eye you mean. Not invisible as in completely undetectable.

Correct. Exactly like God. Though God is not materially visible, His handiwork is made obvious in the meticulous order of the universe perpetuated by the Laws that have his same nature.

What tools and meters do you use to measure this god? Can you explain the experiments performed to produce this data?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I gues the answer is Our mind. We don't have Tools to measure God. Our Tools can only measure time.... That = changes.

God can not change since God is infinite and take's up all Space there is. We can not measure a medium of Space that is a absolute constant. To Our knowledge God can not exist…..

But still we argue…. from absolutly nothing (a absolute constant),...we have a beginning of time (finite) that Equals changes. We suddenly go from a absolut constant Space time to a Space time With changes. How do you argue that…?

How can a void of absolute nothingnes form finite time…?

Scientifically you have to state that the infinite medium can't form finite time. Since the infinite medium is a absolute constant. Scientifically you can not argue this question because science dont have the Tools to verify the question.

Our science and observations are only based on what we can observe and measure, not what Our science can not observer or measure. So Our finite existance is the only knowledge Our science have. Our science have no Tools to measure anything byond what is finite.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

I gues the answer is Our mind. We don't have Tools to measure God. Our Tools can only measure time.... That = changes.

God can not change since God is infinite and take's up all Space there is. We can not measure a medium of Space that is a absolute constant. To Our knowledge God can not exist…..

But still we argue…. from absolutly nothing (a absolute constant),...we have a beginning of time (finite) that Equals changes. We suddenly go from a absolut constant Space time to a Space time With changes. How do you argue that…?

How can a void of absolute nothingnes form finite time…?

Scientifically you have to state that the infinite medium can't form finite time. Since the infinite medium is a absolute constant. Scientifically you can not argue this question because science dont have the Tools to verify the question.

Our science and observations are only based on what we can observe and measure, not what Our science can not observer or measure. So Our finite existance is the only knowledge Our science have. Our science have no Tools to measure anything byond what is finite.

If it can't be observed or measured, how can it be said to exist

a reply to: TzarChasm

So what you are say is that: if we can not observe or measure something it does not exist..? That is like "stating" that we have Scientific Tools to observer, measure and study " Absolutly" everything…. That is like stating that we have to know how to observe and study all Space there is...…

But you know we don't since you answered With Your reply. You also know that such a void must exist even though we dont have to Tools to oberver it.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

So what you are say is that: if we can not observe or measure something it does not exist..? That is like "stating" that we have Scientific Tools to observer, measure and study " Absolutly" everything…. That is like stating that we have to know how to observe and study all Space there is...…

But you know we don't since you answered With Your reply. You also know that such a void must exist even though we dont have to Tools to oberver it.

Fix your english and then we'll talk.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

So what you are say is that: if we can not observe or measure something it does not exist..? That is like "stating" that we have Scientific Tools to observer, measure and study " Absolutly" everything…. That is like stating that we have to know how to observe and study all Space there is...…

But you know we don't since you answered With Your reply. You also know that such a void must exist even though we dont have to Tools to oberver it.

No, he asked how you can possibly know that something exists which can't be measured or detected in any way shape or form.

It seems religious folk are REALLY bothered by skeptics asking for evidence. That's why God is a personal belief. You can't demonstrate it in any reasonable logical manner.

a reply to: Barcs

It is called reasoning. Our mind is also a tool…. There are Things we know of…. but can't measure or observe, but still we have to use them to do calculations (like constants) and time. We can not oberve or measure the wastnes of infinite space but still we know that it must exist. There is no end to Space..... But we cant prove it. But still we know.

We argue that finite is infinite but we have no way of observing or measuring it. But still we think finite have have these Properties. Even though the definition of infinite is the opposite of finite… imagine that. So if by definition finite is the opposite of infinite some other void must be infinite. We can't observe or measure it, but by definition we know that it must exist since finite is not infinite and dont have the Properties.

originally posted by: Hammaraxx
Can you imagine a state of absolutely nothing?
The possibility that creation was actually creation?
I'm seriously asking, because I can.

The problem with the God theory is it ends up with the chicken or the egg causality dilemma. If God created the universe then who created God so on and so forth. If one is to believe God has been around forever to answer this dilemma then why can't we also say that outside out universe there is infinite amount of nothing and everything where time and the law of our universe do not exist, and we can also say there is a random chance of an infinite number of universes too because of this. The problem is ALL of these things are impossible to happen within our universe and so for us they are very hard to even conceptualize about.

At the very simplest levels both intelligent design and random chance would basically happen the same way as in our universe would have been created by God out of this infinite amount of nothing and everything or it was created by random chance out of an infinite number of different universes.

The biggest problem with the God theory is just one word... Why? Why do we need God to do all this when random chance works just as good? When we look at life we see an extreme amount of imperfections that we mere humans can do better in many ways, so it is hard to chew on that an all knowing all powerful God can not do as good as mere humans can.

Our eyes years back were used as an example of proof of God...nothing so perfect could be created by chance so intelligent design must be there. The problem is not only are our eyes imperfect, but they actually suck by design and if someone created them with intelligent design they did a really bad job to the point that any human would look at the draft and say no that is horrible. If a TV was like an eye we would have the cables feed right through the middle of the picture tube and as we watched TV we would have the cables block a chunk of the picture... Ya great God like design...lol This is why evolution aligns away from intelligent design as it is more about evolving with things that end up good enough, not perfect in any way. Our eyes are only good enough...

Everything about our universe is random chance at its finest, so why would intelligent design ever be apart of that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem with the God theory is it ends up with the chicken or the egg causality dilemma. If God created the universe then who created God so on and so forth.

This is really not a issue at all. The issue is: How can a absolute nothingnes create a finite existance known to us as Time....?

A absolute nothingnes is a absolut constant…(A absolute constant timeline)... known to our mathematical and scientific terms as a constant. And according to those therms Nothingnes can not form finite time. Because it is a absolute constant (non changing).... It's timeline is a absolute constant..... It means that it's timeline does not change.... it is a absolute... This is really the issue we are arguing.

What is absolute nothingnes...? Is it a void of space With a microscopic amount of finite or is it a void of space without absolutly any finite....
We have to make up our minds what this absolute nothingness is.... Can we state that from absolute nothing time was formed when this space really was not absolutly empty of finite..? We can not call this space for absolutly nothing, Because time is already present.

From this we are still left With the problem between finite and infinite. We all know which was first.... And it sure was not the finite.

Finite take up Space. The infinite is that Space Which finite occupy… If finite occupy this Space finite can not be infinite as the definition describes. Finite must have been formed….


From sciencetifically experiments they also state that finite mass appear from nothing suddenly… How do we explain this scientifically…. Do we have a way to monitor this actions..? No we dont.... We just observe the event.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem with the God theory is it ends up with the chicken or the egg causality dilemma. If God created the universe then who created God so on and so forth.

This is really not a issue at all. The issue is: How can a absolute nothingnes create a finite existance known to us as Time....?

A absolute nothingnes is a absolut constant…(A absolute constant timeline)... known to our mathematical and scientific terms as a constant. And according to those therms Nothingnes can not form finite time. Because it is a absolute constant (non changing).... It's timeline is a absolute constant..... It means that it's timeline does not change.... it is a absolute... This is really the issue we are arguing.

What is absolute nothingnes...? Is it a void of space With a microscopic amount of finite or is it a void of space without absolutly any finite....
We have to make up our minds what this absolute nothingness is.... Can we state that from absolute nothing time was formed when this space really was not absolutly empty of finite..? We can not call this space for absolutly nothing, Because time is already present.

From this we are still left With the problem between finite and infinite. We all know which was first.... And it sure was not the finite.

Finite take up Space. The infinite is that Space Which finite occupy… If finite occupy this Space finite can not be infinite as the definition describes.

This is why I describe what is outside of our universe as infinite nothingness while also being infinite everything where time does not exist. Makes no sense to us in this universe, but that is why I explain it that way. We can not apply what is in our universe that is a norm here to what is outside where everything and nothing can be the same thing with no beginning or end.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Time have always existed.

1. As a constant. were there are no changes.

2. As a finite timeline of changes.

One timeline always existed the other had a beginning.


The timelines really does describe what existed first.....

originally posted by: spy66

Time have always existed.

1. As a constant. were there are no changes.

2. As a finite timeline of changes.

One timeline always existed the other had a beginning.

I mean what is time in the first place to suggest there is time at all outside of our universe. We have time in our universe, but I don't think time needs to be a constant. Just look at a black hole singularity time is round it but not in it.. even Hawking worked on whether time revered if the universe started to contract, so I don't think we can really make statements about time in general outside of our observable universe.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We can not have a black hole without the presens of finite matter. This means for Our uiverse to have a black hole we need the existance of finite (time). So basically we are way into the creation of Our universe at this stage………..and all it's Properties. We can not talk about nothingness and black holes at the same time. Because within a void of absolute nothingnes we would not have black holes. We can not have a black hole were there are no Properties of finite…..? Nothingnes means no finite…..?? That means no black holes.


Time must be diveided into at leat two segments to be absolut true.

1. A absolute constant.

2. A finite Count of changes.

We would need a referance point, and that point would be the absolute constant (1)…...

originally posted by: spy66
...
Our science and observations are only based on what we can observe and measure, not what Our science can not observer or measure. So Our finite existance is the only knowledge Our science have. Our science have no Tools to measure anything byond what is finite.

How to measure the immeasurable ?

Just outside of town, there is rumoured to be a Heavenly-Hardware shop.
It is said that upon entering: walk past the Intention-Instrumentation section, and right on by the Concept-Checkers display and the Weight-of-Words scales.

Then one supposedly turns right at the 'How-Nice-is-it-out-Today?' and 'How-Tight-are-Those-Yoga-Pants?' counters, and continues past the Love-O-Meters, and on past the Funniness-Sensors, Idea-Indicators, Stupidity-Samplers, Silliness-Scopes, Dream-Display-Monitors, and the Beauty-Gauges.

Word is that one then approaches the back service counter, and says to the man: " I would like to measure the immeasurable".
He might reply: "Sorry sir. We don't have any Stink-O-Meters to measure the olfactory intensity of anal-Chinooks".
That may be because the boss at the shop next door, always sends his new employees in there, to ask for those.

One may then hold steady, and let him know that the interest is in quantifying divinity, and divine intervention.