25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopYes , I do insist . Surely you meant A ???? Re-read the post.
well if you insist, i would have to answer b... something cannot come from nothing... this does open up the question where did it all start though
Now if your answer is A then to me that logically leads one to eternal existence. If something cannot come from nothing then there must always have been something . Nothingness is an impossible condition of existence , because if nothingness ever was then we wouldn't be here now. From nothing , nothing can come . I agree with you . So something can only come from something else which means either an infinite regress of somethings or one big eternal something which has no beginning.
"Where did it all start?" is not a question you can ask if you really think B because a "start" would imply that existence started from nothing. The only conclusion left is there was no start => beginningless eternity.
25 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Wayne1324What do you hope to gain from such a ridiculous, rhetorical question?WAYNE
I would answer A.
But, whats the point of the question? You can neither destroy nor create matter. So, the events your decription would never even be possible.
What do you hope to gain from such a ridiculous, rhetorical question?
I would have thought it obvious. It's a rational argument for eternal existence. If you think A then you can't believe that existence itself has a beginning because if it did then it must have come from a state exactly the same as the nothing-o-tron scenario. If existence has no beginning then that is eternal existence , uncaused and permanent. Existence has been existing for an infinite amount of time (if time is a useful term for you).
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBefore the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole
Such a machine cannot exist due to the law of conservation of mass-energy.
Before the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole.
And how long was it there for? forever?
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do THOUSAND
I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do.
However , I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that A would be the most likley scenario. I see no reason at all why A should not be logically true. No-one really knows but then no-one really knows if the sun will come up tomorrow. All life is faith in probability at some level and to me I think A is at least 1000's of times more likely than B , good odds for eternal existence I say.
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by klopdisselboomGood spot . It would disingenuous of me to not admit the loaded nature of this thought experiment. If you really believe B , what is your rationale for B ? Why is existence not gone forever? Is there any reason for favouring B over A when A would seem to be the most logical and simple answer? If existence is gone then there is nothing there to kick start it again. So why B?
And what is behind door B? I will go with B. What is your loaded response to people choosing B?
(Hint - there is nothing behind door B really other than pushing back to door A which ultimately leads one to the conclusion that life must be eternal in some way...door C leads to a holiday for 2 in Jamaica but you have to get 200 points for that)
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAlright, alright. I would say A, basing it on the evolutionists perspectuive. That's the only way this question makes any sense.
I designed it with a special chip that gave it a long term goal of annihilating existence itself , so no it wouldn't. How about answering the question at hand?
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is nothing rational about your experiment.
It's a rational argument for eternal existence.
Your experiment assumes the impossible. And, it suggests nothing because our understanding of the origin of the universe is in its infancy. It only allows for the logic that our minds are capable of when there is so much more that we don't understand.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Wayne1324What about the origin of the universe do you think you understand? Impossible or possible seems to be the norm when it comes to what people think about the universes origin.
There is nothing rational about your experiment.
Your experiment assumes the impossible. And, it suggests nothing because our understanding of the origin of the universe is in its infancy. It only allows for the logic that our minds are capable of when there is so much more that we don't understand.
Kelly
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDid I give you any indication that I understood the origin of the universe?
What about the origin of the universe do you think you understand? Impossible or possible seems to be the norm when it comes to what people think about the universes origin.
Kelly
My point was that nobody understands it.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, by conservation of mass-energy, I suppose A would be correct. This is one reason why Christianity is in disagreement with science.
I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do THOUSAND
However , I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that A would be the most likley scenario. I see no reason at all why A should not be logically true. No-one really knows but then no-one really knows if the sun will come up tomorrow. All lif ...[text shortened]... hink A is at least 1000's of times more likely than B , good odds for eternal existence I say.