proof

All that exists must begin.
Prior to that first beginning, nothing could exist.

Therefore: it is necessary that something came from nothing.

It’s such a profound and seemingly incomprehensible concept… but it’s the only way it can be. It’s no more unbelievable or unacceptable than to say “has always existed, forever and ever.” Because then you’re asserting that there was never a beginning… which just sounds outrageous to me.

Whatever ‘it’ is, it had to have a beginning, somehow.

Before the beginning of existence, nothing existed, because there was no existence.

It is my personal opinion that infinity that has always existed without a beginning, is a bit less feasible than some mysteriously spontaneous manifestation of something from nothing. The concept of an infinite realm which has always existed with no beginning, i think is a but more unbelievable than a mysteriously spontaneous eruption of something /seemingly/ out of nothing.

But maybe there really was a beginning, and really will be an end, and this is just this, and that’s just that. Infinity can’t really exist, and nothing can exist without a beginning. As far as we know, aside from the abstract concept of infinity, everything that exists, has both a beginning and an end. Maybe there’s a being that acts as the container for our universe, who lives through hundreds of billions of iterations of universes. But i don’t think it’s aware of us… and if it is, it’s likely on the same level that we are aware of the existence of bacteria in our intestines, but we did not “intend” for them to be there, nor do we communicate with or control them in any precise way. Maybe our intestinal bacteria pray to us for us to eat the kind of food that makes their “universe” better than when we don’t eat whatever kind of food that is… but we would never know, unless they rise up and cause a problem we can perceive, when we eat something they don’t like… or perhaps they could secrete some sort of euphoria-inducing enzyme when we eat or do whatever they do like.

But Your speculation is assuming that infinity exists, and that some being exists that had no beginning. That, IMO, is a pretty wild speculation.

Read my words very carefully:

Before ANYTHING existed… there was nothing. It means what it means, because that is the only possible definition of the words, and those definitions are the reasons i’m using those words.

It is absolutely necessary, that prior to existence, nothing existed. That is literally the meaning of those words. I don’t have to test or prove that. The words speak for themselves. Kinda like if i say “all husbands are married.” I know this without testing it, because it is the definition of the word.

Now… /perhaps/… there is no such time as “prior to existence.” Perhaps, for some unexplainable phenomenal reasons, existence has literally always, forever and ever, existed. But that doesn’t make sense to me, because things need beginnings, and infinity seems quite impossible to me, because physical existence must have limits, due to there being no discernibly infinite source of materials.

“WE” didn’t “come from nothing.” The universe “apparently, supposedly” developed from an exploding singularity, which, allegedly, supposedly, did spontaneously manifest “from nothing.” But it’s also possible that our universe is not the only location in existence, and that our singularity could have come from elsewhere, or elsewhen, or some other dimension. The origin of that singularity is the problem… but while it didn’t necessarily occur out of sheer nothingness with zero explanation… having “a beginning” makes more sense than not having a beginning. So it’s only slightly better in that way. But then, that singularity could have come from somewhere else… and how do we even ask those questions? There could be billions of universes.

“We” came from our parents, who came from their parents, and so on. WAAAYYY back, a long ass time ago, we still didn’t just come from nothing. Life began from various materials luckily existing in close proximity and with favorable conditions. Through physics, those materials crossed paths, combined, and resulted in something that replicated itself, and was slightly different every so many iterations, until one of the iterations developed favorably enough that it ended up being dominant. This cycle continues still, today.

“Prior to existence” means “before existence.” Before anything existed, nothing existed. That’s what the words mean. It’s exactly the same as “all husbands are married.”

Now, the real question is whether existence ever began… or if it has simply always been. Lacking a beginning or end, is equally as profound as, or even more profound than, having a mysteriously spontaneous beginning that cannot be adequately understood.

Perhaps whatever being might have created us, might not be subject to its own rules… but we still would be.

And don’t forget the whole science-ism conspiracy. Some scientists propose controversial stuff just to cause a stir and get funding. The system is corrupt, but /actual science/ is not, and there are some great minds who voluntarily maintain their own rigor, and are not driven by creating controversy to get fame and funding.

You know they found evidence of life on mars, right? Not talking little green men, but life, nonetheless. I don’t think the “luck” you’re talking about is all that extreme. The extreme part is that we (earth life, not just humans) were able to continue developing as long and as well as we have. Out of so many billions of iterations, it’s bound to happen “just right” at least a few times. I would bet there are other life forms out there somewhere… but i wouldn’t even know how to begin imagining what they might be.

@goag:

not perceiving something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist… but perceiving something doesn’t necessarily mean it does exist. Hallucination is pretty well documented, and has been an important part of the human experience, throughout human history. We know why a dog whistle works how it does. We can test that. It’s not even close to the same thing.

Obviously, as evidenced by mere observation of reality, people can believe whatever they want, regardless of whether it’s valid or true. Lots of people believe falsities, and lots of those people take it to the next level and insist they cannot be wrong, that they are absolutely correct, without realizing that it’s possible they are mistaken. I’m not the type to piss myself when i get scared. I’ve seen weird shit too, but that doesn’t mean it has to be ghosts or demons, and the existence of ghosts doesn’t mean there is any god. It’s possible that a spirit is created, somehow, upon the initiation of a new offspring. It’s possible, because i have no reason to believe it’s impossible… despite having no evidence to suggest that it’s actually true, which i think we should and would have, if it were actually true. If we have “spirits,” then there should be far more evidence available. There should be ways to test it.

If there is a ‘god,’ who intends for us to be aware of his existence, then there should be /some/ evidence that makes a strong case for that conclusion. There is not. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god. Fantastical, unverified, unsubstantiated, illegitimate, invalid claims, do not constitute “evidence.”

Literally anyone can make up a story about how a wonderful thing exists only if you believe it and act a certain way. But making up that story, does not make the story true.

@RT:

“I mean… I have absolutely no proof what so ever but, you know what?! *snaps finger*”

Dude, that’s hilarious.

I disagree that “before existence, nothing existed” is subjective. If existence has not begun, then nothing can exist. I know it’s difficult to imagine a time when existence itself is impossible, but that is the point i’m trying to make with that statement. If there was a beginning, then there was a time before that beginning, when nothing could exist. If something already existed, then it wasn’t “prior to existence.” I’m being sort of metaphysical, hypothetical, and incredibly abstract… but the point is pure logic. Existence can only occur after existence is possible, and not before. Therefore, it is necessary to accept that IF there was a beginning (which is not known, but is very profound either way), then there had to be a time (even if not a measurable span, due to lack of existence) when existence was not yet possible.

And actually, your repeated suspicion of the BBT prompted me to hit the google.

From my brief foray into the fray, it /seems/ to me that the BB is still, far and away, the best and most viable theory, by a long shot. I’m not a scientist, but i don’t need to be a scientist to be able to understand the debate i was reading, and the logic in play. Essentially, it seems that “alternative theories” tend to be based on “cherry picking,” where they try to explain just a few specific parts “better” than the BBT, but always end up having some other fundamental fatal flaw, aka “deal breaker.” One deal-breaker is too many. If a theory fails, it’s not valid. I don’t think there is any current hypothesis or “theory” that can legitimately depose BB. It’s complicated. But hey, if there is a better (ie: more accurate and complete) way of understanding our universe, then i’d love to hear about it. It’s just that it will have to withstand unprecedented scrutiny, in order to do better than the BBT, and without failing to appropriately frame anything that the BBT currently does. In short: any new theory would have to include all of the data that supports the BBT, and more. There would have to be a new discovery for that to occur. AND, the new discovery would have to be assessed in a way that is not compatible with the BBT.

Then there’s the whole political part of how people intentionally misconstrue or misrepresent data, and claim that “top scientists disagree,” when in fact those “top scientists” are not even in the cosmology field.

I suppose it does come down to a certain measure of “faith,” in that we have to hope that people will voluntarily and dutifully remain “faithful” to their own rigor and adherence to scientific protocol, above their own desire for personal gains.

We have to hope they will remain scientific, make models to represent the actual data, rather than adjusting the data to fit the models. That’s what science is about, and that’s what any true scientist cares about doing: figuring out what is actually happening, as well as we can understand all we can observe through the scientific method.

To understand science, and to understand why a person would be a scientist… i think the very definition thereof, helps to justify having a measure of faith and trust, in that thing. Not everything is deserving of that, but it seems quite justified in this regard. Scientists are doing a lot more than simply reiterating from a holy book. The difference is quite profound. Science is all about questioning endlessly, to make sure there are no “holes” in the theories we can devise. When we find a hole, we try to figure out what to do about it… were we wrong? Is it a mistake? Can we learn something more through it? When religion is shown their own holes, they simply deny any holes exist, and insist that God’s Word is perfect and final.

One is all about fixing the explanation to suit the observation, where the other is about fixing the observation to suit the explanation.

Science says that if the theory doesn’t fit the data, then the theory is wrong.
Religion says that if the holy book doesn’t fit reality, then reality is wrong… and even worse: it must be the work of satan!

Anyway…

ex husbands aren’t husbands, unless they are remarried. “Ex” means “formerly.” As in, no longer are that. The Ex-President is no longer the president (though people often refer to them as if they are…).

In order for “god to be found not guilty of creating the universe,” god must first be Found. It must be located and tested, before we can even begin to know what it has or has not done. And if we have never been able to find it… then how can anyone be so sure it even exists? Well, by being incorrect, that’s how.

As for your miracle plant example… if such a thing were discovered to exist, i would fully expect some shadow gov’t agency to attempt to criminalize and eradicate it, OR, attempt to monopolize it and charge $10k/oz for it.

“In order for humanity to be able to effectively deny the existence of a god they must be able to come up with a feasible possibility that is provable beyond doubt…”

Oh really? Says who?

That’s not how it works bro.

You’re basing your stance on the assumption that god’s existence is the default standard perception, and it is not. That is a learned, taught, artificial indoctrination standard. That is not the natural default mindset. No one grows up in the wilderness away from other humans and just up and decides that god exists and made everything the way he wants it to be, in order to explain their environment and their own existence.

The default is total ignorance. The default is zero. The position that assumes the existence of a god, is neither default, nor zero. That is a “trick” that theists love to use, but it’s a false framing tactic. It’s incorrect to frame the discussion as though the invalid and unsubstantiated claim needs to be disproved. The correct way to frame it is that all claims (like accusations) require evidence, or they are nothing more than hearsay. This is the same reason that people often refuse to accept the possibility that “9/11 was an inside job.” They want /total proof/, while hypocritically denying that any valid proof or even evidence, can exist… while it is all around them. There are numerous reasons to find the claim of god to be quite invalid… but those who want god to exist, just because they like the idea, refuse to perceive what would easily show them just how absurd that belief really is.

If you have no evidence, and you can’t prove it exists, then it doesn’t.

If you at least have some sort of legitimate evidence, but can’t “prove” it exists, then it at least /might/, and at that point, at least becomes worthy of further consideration.

But it never got that far.

Once the claim is validated and substantiated, THEN we can move on to the disproving of previously and incorrectly substantiated claims. But something that has never been legitimately substantiated, cannot move on to the next phase of being disproved. It’s not even a valid claim yet.

It’s this simple: if there really was an actual god who wanted us to know he exists, it would be obvious. He can do ANYTHING, right? If he wants us to know he exists, he would make it easy for us to determine he exists. He has not done that. Ergo: he is either not all-powerful, or he does not want us to know he exists, or he is not even aware that we exist.

Since it is quite clear to me and many others that there is no god that matches the description of any of the established religions, then i have to define all established religions and dangerously delusional cults, which encourage blind irrationality, while discouraging understanding and truth. I cannot condone, support, or even accept “those people” as valid human beings, because they are at a high risk for irrationally motivated destructive behavior and general drama. They make it difficult for the world to discover the important things worth working together to achieve, while creating arbitrary and unnecessary problems, “just because they want to believe” something that is obviously, apparently not true.

@jswiss:

And that’s exactly the problem. The default false-framing tactic itself, is invalid. It’s a trick they always use to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the claimant, and transform it into a burden of disprove upon the dissent. It’s BS. It’s pure obfuscation at its finest, and it’s infuriating. The worst part is that i call people on this very flaw, constantly, and they just do it again, as if i simply didn’t hear them the first time… or as if by simply repeating it (argumentum ad nauseam!), i will give up and abandon the “debate.”

I would like to believe that i would be justified in simply exterminating all of them… but unlike them, i realize that i can’t just decide to believe outrageous things and then go act on them, and not expect severe consequences.

I want to make a distinction, though, and that is that there is a difference among theists. I can’t help but accept those who simply want to believe a god exists, despite knowing how illogical and irrational that may be, and how there is literally zero actual evidence to support such a belief. They simply want to believe that, and i can’t really say there is a problem with that particular thing, because in my mind, that represents a damaged person who needs help coping with their life and mortality. I have to feel sympathy for those types.

But the rest… those who just carry on the convention and tradition, just because that’s what they’re told and they think that’s what is actually true, and most reasonable to believe… i just can’t. I can’t tolerate that. I feel it is wrong to tolerate that. And, just like anyone else, my prerogative allows me to decide what i will or will not tolerate for deem acceptable, and then use those factors as judgement criteria to aid my selective association process. I won’t associate with people like that. That’s my choice, just like it’s their choice to believe something so ridiculous. Incompatible people with no common ground, do not belong in the same environment. Especially when only one side of those people is even willing to attempt being reasonable and cooperative. I’ve had enough of those others. I do not wish to spend any more of my life dealing with people like that. I’ve learned my lesson. I have to draw the line somewhere, and that’s one of the places i must draw mine.

lol. Are you saying infinitesimal durations don’t exist, or require “belief?”

No, they do have evidence, but people who don’t want it to be true, always like to say the evidence isn’t evidence.

I love/hate the phrase “it’s all just theories.” As if theories are just whatever people felt like thinking at any given moment. lol.

Another thing i love/hate is how people can use creative language and tactics to gain the upper hand in a “debate,” even if their stance is actually not correct.

I will say that god has already been disproved, by all theists failure to ever produce any evidence to support their theory.

Meanwhile, science has loads and gobs of evidence to support the BBT.

I trust what can be observed and tested. So far, in the BBT vs God contest, BBT seems to have an insurmountable lead, and God has yet to put a single point on the board. Not even one. One!

Zero evidence for any god = people insist on believing anyway.
BBT still not quite perfect after many years of collecting and correlating data, countless tests and ultra-strict rigor = some people insist BBT is “false” (and further imply that it somehow means god is true…).

LOLOLOLOL…

People are stupid.