the testimony of the holy ghost

[_malaise]

You exist to contemplate your existence and your experiences. If you chose to believe that the God hypothesis is out back on the crazy shelf where it belongs, then your null hypothesis must buy into nothing creating matter, the matter (chemicals) mixed together to magically make the brain your using to contemplate it, and this makes logical sense. If the foundation for your logic is nothing can become something, then it's easily rejected using your own logical argument regarding the truth claims made by Joseph Smith, as it's based on a feeling.

There is nothing logically contradictory about something coming out of nothing, although it it seems counter intuitive to us that such a thing could be possible. But think about it logically for a minute. Can you imagine that something could come out of nothing? Conceivability implies possibility, and it does not seem like there is a problem conceiving of something just popping into existence. In fact, modern quantum mechanics actually does posit that there may be some random events with no discernible cause. I know that seems strange, but what seems strange to the mind of the limited human animal has little to do with what is actually the case.

With that said, it's easy to say that the universe has always existed in some form and operates using a closed system of natural laws. You will want to say god has always existed, so you won't find any support for your position using this argument. The arguments are the same in this regard. Since you can explain the existence of the universe by saying it is has always existed in some form (and please, don't bring up the big bang if you don't know any of the physics behind it) the argument I made before would still apply even if something could not come out of nothing.

[_Jersey Girl]

You exist to contemplate your existence and your experiences. If you chose to believe that the God hypothesis is out back on the crazy shelf where it belongs, then your null hypothesis must buy into nothing creating matter, the matter (chemicals) mixed together to magically make the brain your using to contemplate it, and this makes logical sense. If the foundation for your logic is nothing can become something, then it's easily rejected using your own logical argument regarding the truth claims made by Joseph Smith, as it's based on a feeling.

There is nothing logically contradictory about something coming out of nothing, although it it seems counter intuitive to us that such a thing could be possible. But think about it logically for a minute. Can you imagine that something could come out of nothing? Conceivability implies possibility, and it does not seem like there is a problem conceiving of something just popping into existence. In fact, modern quantum mechanics actually does posit that there may be some random events with no discernible cause. I know that seems strange, but what seems strange to the mind of the limited human animal has little to do with what is actually the case.

With that said, it's easy to say that the universe has always existed in some form and operates using a closed system of natural laws. You will want to say god has always existed, so you won't find any support for your position using this argument. The arguments are the same in this regard. Since you can explain the existence of the universe by saying it is has always existed in some form (and please, don't bring up the big bang if you don't know any of the physics behind it) the argument I made before would still apply even if something could not come out of nothing.

thews "argument" against "something came out of nothing" falls flat on it's face in light of the fact that Believer's believe that exact process took place at Creation.

thews doesn't see that parallel.

[_malaise]

I'm sure that he would say that god has always existed and that at the moment of creation he made the universe. So the universe has a cause, even though god did create it ex nihilo.

[_Nightlion]

No natural men [humans] will be allowed into his presence. Only those willing to lay down their lives in this world (as signified in the ordinance of baptism where you symbolically lay down your worldly life to rise up unto a life in the kingdom of God) and make a connection (baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost) with God to realize a new creation where they are given a new heart, to love God, knowing God, having charity or the love of God put into them by power and a newness of soul will be acceptable unto God and capable to build up a real and true Zion society.

Not my kinda God. On so many levels.

This is religion not a buffet. Not your kind of God? You think that ends it?
LIke, what? You got your own universe somewhere, so thank you God, but no thanks?

[_harmony]

Not my kinda God. On so many levels.

This is religion not a buffet. Not your kind of God? You think that ends it?
LIke, what? You got your own universe somewhere, so thank you God, but no thanks?

I know what I know, Nightlion. I don't need a man to stand between God and I. I don't need anyone who walks on earth to validate what I believe. I know what I know, and that's enough for me.

Your mileage may vary, and that makes no difference to me at all.

[_thews]

You exist to contemplate your existence and your experiences. If you chose to believe that the God hypothesis is out back on the crazy shelf where it belongs, then your null hypothesis must buy into nothing creating matter, the matter (chemicals) mixed together to magically make the brain your using to contemplate it, and this makes logical sense. If the foundation for your logic is nothing can become something, then it's easily rejected using your own logical argument regarding the truth claims made by Joseph Smith, as it's based on a feeling.

There is nothing logically contradictory about something coming out of nothing, although it it seems counter intuitive to us that such a thing could be possible.

Doublespeak. Nothing cannot become something.

But think about it logically for a minute. Can you imagine that something could come out of nothing?

No, because this is impossible, which defies logic.

Conceivability implies possibility, and it does not seem like there is a problem conceiving of something just popping into existence. In fact, modern quantum mechanics actually does posit that there may be some random events with no discernible cause. I know that seems strange, but what seems strange to the mind of the limited human animal has little to do with what is actually the case.

You imply you understand quantum mechanics enough to make something coming from nothing feasible... please explain it, mainly because I know you can't.

With that said, it's easy to say that the universe has always existed in some form and operates using a closed system of natural laws.

BS. Your logical foundation skirts the scientific method, in that it's only held to the existing universe. What you're doing it taking your finite limitations and filling in the boundary conditions to make it fit your accepted variables... much like a Mormon's logic. Define the X axis of time regarding when it started. Define what existed 10 minutes before this.

You will want to say god has always existed, so you won't find any support for your position using this argument.

I'll call BS again. Don't put words in my mouth by the way, because you're wrong. Regarding God's existence I lack the ability to perceive infinite concepts (like who made God or where matter came from). Unlike you, I acknowledge this fact. Who made God or who God is, is beyond my ability to perceive it, so attempting to define an infinite boundary condition would then make it finite... circular reasoning.

The arguments are the same in this regard.

No they are not. The origin for the existence of matter is a viable question... is it not?

Since you can explain the existence of the universe by saying it is has always existed in some form (and please, don't bring up the big bang if you don't know any of the physics behind it) the argument I made before would still apply even if something could not come out of nothing.

You are wrong. I'm not explaining away anything, and if you asked me the question instead of answering it for me without asking it, I would say it's beyond my comprehensive ability with a finite thought process and knowledge of only one dimension (domain). As you toss out references to physics as if you understand them, I know you don't, which is why you take the universe as just always existing as the starting point... catch up. Prove me wrong...

Where did matter come from and what existed before it?

[_malaise]

Doublespeak. Nothing cannot become something.

Why not? Can you explain why you feel that way? My point is that there is nothing contradictory or illogical about imagining something coming out of nothing. If you think it is impossible then you need to explain why.

You imply you understand quantum mechanics enough to make something coming from nothing feasible... please explain it, mainly because I know you can't.

I don't think you have the physics for such an explanation

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=152325

Maybe that will help

b***s***. Your logical foundation skirts the scientific method, in that it's only held to the existing universe.

Why is that? the scientific method seems like it could work in any possible universe.

What you're doing it taking your finite limitations and filling in the boundary conditions to make it fit your accepted variables... much like a Mormon's logic. Define the X axis of time regarding when it started. Define what existed 10 minutes before this.

This is just nonsense talk. I'm not going to respond to nonsense talk.

I'll call b***s*** again. Don't put words in my mouth by the way, because you're wrong. Regarding God's existence I lack the ability to perceive infinite concepts (like who made God or where matter came from). Unlike you, I acknowledge this fact. Who made God or who God is, is beyond my ability to perceive it, so attempting to define an infinite boundary condition would then make it finite... circular reasoning.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You are wrong. I'm not explaining away anything, and if you asked me the question instead of answering it for me without asking it, I would say it's beyond my comprehensive ability with a finite thought process and knowledge of only one dimension (domain). As you toss out references to physics as if you understand them, I know you don't, which is why you take the universe as just always existing as the starting point... catch up. Prove me wrong...

Where did matter come from and what existed before it?

i don't know.

[_thews]

Doublespeak. Nothing cannot become something.

Why not? Can you explain why you feel that way? My point is that there is nothing contradictory or illogical about imagining something coming out of nothing. If you think it is impossible then you need to explain why.

"Nothing" is the opposite of something... it doesn't exist. Using your logic, it is possible for a piece of rock candy to just appear on my desk. It's not possible and therefore illogical. Regarding contradictory logic, using your argument, while a piece of rock candy has never appeared on my desk, it is possible. Correct?

You imply you understand quantum mechanics enough to make something coming from nothing feasible... please explain it, mainly because I know you can't.

I don't think you have the physics for such an explanation

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=152325

Maybe that will help

A very Mormon tactic is used in this response. You claim to understand something you don't, and instead of giving me an answer, you send me off on a goose chase to find it for you. If you have a point to make then make it. Placing belief in something you don't understand is your choice, but attempting to portray yourself as one who does understand it is a ruse.

b***s***. Your logical foundation skirts the scientific method, in that it's only held to the existing universe.

Why is that? the scientific method seems like it could work in any possible universe.

You need to have something to observe in order to test it. You claimed the God theory was not logical, yet you have no logical argument for the origin of matter other than placing belief that someone much smarter than both of us combined X10 will figure it out and explain it to you. Infinity as a concept is understandable, but infinite concepts like the origin of God or the origin of matter are not understandable with a finite thought process. I admit I have a finite thought process and you do not. I can reach a logical conclusion regarding answers I'm capable of and you choose to change the boundary conditions to fit what you can understand.

What you're doing it taking your finite limitations and filling in the boundary conditions to make it fit your accepted variables... much like a Mormon's logic. Define the X axis of time regarding when it started. Define what existed 10 minutes before this.

This is just nonsense talk. I'm not going to respond to nonsense talk.

What you claim is "nonsense talk" is what you know you can't explain, so you choose to label it as nonsense insead of acknowledge you don't (and can't) know.

I'll call b***s*** again. Don't put words in my mouth by the way, because you're wrong. Regarding God's existence I lack the ability to perceive infinite concepts (like who made God or where matter came from). Unlike you, I acknowledge this fact. Who made God or who God is, is beyond my ability to perceive it, so attempting to define an infinite boundary condition would then make it finite... circular reasoning.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Define the term and what part you don't understand.

You are wrong. I'm not explaining away anything, and if you asked me the question instead of answering it for me without asking it, I would say it's beyond my comprehensive ability with a finite thought process and knowledge of only one dimension (domain). As you toss out references to physics as if you understand them, I know you don't, which is why you take the universe as just always existing as the starting point... catch up. Prove me wrong...

Where did matter come from and what existed before it?

i don't know.

Good answer. Regarding the God theory, while you may choose to dismiss any earthly concept of a God and what it encompasses, infinity isn't held to this domain. I find it odd that some (not saying you) people accept this domain as the only one, mainly because it's what they've been exposed to and have knowledge of.

[_malaise]

"Nothing" is the opposite of something... it doesn't exist. Using your logic, it is possible for a piece of rock candy to just appear on my desk. It's not possible and therefore illogical. Regarding contradictory logic, using your argument, while a piece of rock candy has never appeared on my desk, it is possible. Correct? p

What makes it impossible, metaphysically speaking? You keep saying that it is impossible for something to come from nothing and refusing to explain. You aren't very bright, are you?

A very Mormon tactic is used in this response. You claim to understand something you don't,

I do understand basic QM, but I am not going to try to explain it to you. You haven't even taken physics 101, much less QM (people teach entire classes on QM).

and instead of giving me an answer,

The answer would be too complicated for you to understand, savvy?

you send me off on a goose chase to find it for you. If you have a point to make then make it. Placing belief in something you don't understand is your choice, but attempting to portray yourself as one who does understand it is a ruse.

I didn't send you on a goose chase to find it, I linked to a place where people tried to explain this in simple terms. Stop being such a damned retard.

You need to have something to observe in order to test it. You claimed the God theory was not logical, yet you have no logical argument for the origin of matter other than placing belief that someone much smarter than both of us combined X10 will figure it out and explain it to you. Infinity as a concept is understandable, but infinite concepts like the origin of God or the origin of matter are not understandable with a finite thought process. I admit I have a finite thought process and you do not. I can reach a logical conclusion regarding answers I'm capable of and you choose to change the boundary conditions to fit what you can understand.

Again, this is nonsense. There is nothing about the concept of the universe existing forever that I can't understand. I may not be able to perfectly grasp the concept of infinity deep in my heart, but I understand it quite well intellectually. I have no idea what you mean by boundary conditions-you're talking in nonsense.

[
What you claim is "nonsense talk" is what you know you can't explain,/quote]You're right, I can't explain your retarded nonsense talk. Make your point clear

so you choose to label it as nonsense insead of acknowledge you don't (and can't) know.


Good answer. Regarding the God theory, while you may choose to dismiss any earthly concept of a God and what it encompasses, infinity isn't held to this domain. I find it odd that some (not saying you) people accept this domain as the only one, mainly because it's what they've been exposed to and have knowledge of.

More nonsense

[_thews]

"Nothing" is the opposite of something... it doesn't exist. Using your logic, it is possible for a piece of rock candy to just appear on my desk. It's not possible and therefore illogical. Regarding contradictory logic, using your argument, while a piece of rock candy has never appeared on my desk, it is possible. Correct? p

What makes it impossible, metaphysically speaking? You keep saying that it is impossible for something to come from nothing and refusing to explain. You aren't very bright, are you?

So let me understand what you're claiming... you claim something can come from nothing, and when I disagree, you hold me to an explanation? Just to be clear, nothing doesn't exist... it's nothing. For "it" to become something, "it" has to be something. Is that bright enough for you?

A very Mormon tactic is used in this response. You claim to understand something you don't,

I do understand basic QM, but I am not going to try to explain it to you. You haven't even taken physics 101, much less QM (people teach entire classes on QM).

Wow you must be so smart (insert clapping). You really must have a grasp on antimatter don't you? Please enlighten us so that we may bask in your infinite knowledge.

and instead of giving me an answer,

The answer would be too complicated for you to understand, savvy?

Another Mormon-like dodge... you are well trained. Without data, it's just another opinion. Your over-bloated hype pretending to be some uber intellect is failing you... maybe you should try actually making a point?

you send me off on a goose chase to find it for you. If you have a point to make then make it. Placing belief in something you don't understand is your choice, but attempting to portray yourself as one who does understand it is a ruse.

I didn't send you on a goose chase to find it, I linked to a place where people tried to explain this in simple terms. Stop being such a f*****g r*****.

Is it time for a time out little boy? How bout you grow up and discuss things like an adult?

You need to have something to observe in order to test it. You claimed the God theory was not logical, yet you have no logical argument for the origin of matter other than placing belief that someone much smarter than both of us combined X10 will figure it out and explain it to you. Infinity as a concept is understandable, but infinite concepts like the origin of God or the origin of matter are not understandable with a finite thought process. I admit I have a finite thought process and you do not. I can reach a logical conclusion regarding answers I'm capable of and you choose to change the boundary conditions to fit what you can understand.

Again, this is nonsense. There is nothing about the concept of the universe existing forever that I can't understand. I may not be able to perfectly grasp the concept of infinity deep in my heart, but I understand it quite well intellectually. I have no idea what you mean by boundary conditions-you're talking in nonsense.

I understand why you have no idea what I'm talking about, which is why you continue to evade the questions asked and mount these pathetic responses aimed at glorifying your supposed knowledge based on ignorance.

What you claim is "nonsense talk" is what you know you can't explain,

You're right, I can't explain your r******* nonsense talk. Make your point clear

Ohhh that was a zinger aye. It may impress some 5th graders, but you continue to make no sense.

so you choose to label it as nonsense instead of acknowledge you don't (and can't) know.


Good answer. Regarding the God theory, while you may choose to dismiss any earthly concept of a God and what it encompasses, infinity isn't held to this domain. I find it odd that some (not saying you) people accept this domain as the only one, mainly because it's what they've been exposed to and have knowledge of.

More nonsense

More ignorance. If you can't even contemplate the notion that nothing doesn't exist, it doesn't surprise me you must resort to a childish rant.