OtherGround Forums Atheism debunked

6/6/18 9:39 AM
4/23/02
Posts: 89617
Curtis_E_Bare - 
The Jentleman -
Curtis_E_Bare -
The Jentleman -
Curtis_E_Bare -
toelocku -
Curtis_E_Bare -

" Also go ahead and tell me how you would prove that nothing created the universe. Go ahead, I DARE you."

 

Mathematical proof, in the form of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, can be found here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Lol quantum matter isn't "nothing"

"With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where 'nothing' means there is neither matter nor space or time [6], and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally."

 

You should probably know the definitions of the words before you try and criticize.

“It has been suggested...”

Your “evidence” proves absolutely nothing. The write up you posted lists several factors that it is unable to account for, and then has this little nugget shoved into the middle of it.

“Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing.”

If you believe the universe came from nothing then you are basing your beliefs on just as big of a fairytale as you claim theists do.

"“Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing.”

 

Which the paper then goes on to provide.

No it doesn’t. “Is still missing”... . It openly states that there are factors that it cannot account for. What it does, is continue with conjecture based on what has been “suggested”.  A belief not based on facts.

Congratulations. In the arrogance of trying to seem above fairytales, you believe in one just because it was concocted by “scientists”.

"In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof
that the universe can be created spontaneously from
nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created
by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum,
it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes
the value p = −2 (or 4)."

 

 


can you please explain to a dummy like me how a bubble can form in nothing?

 

thanks please use small words for my sake

 
6/6/18 9:45 AM
6/12/13
Posts: 4905

God created the universe 13 Billion years ago so he could put a civilized man on earth for about 6,000 of those years?  And have Jebus come to remind us of god only 2000 years ago?  

 

Why would any sane person waste all that time?

6/6/18 9:47 AM
4/23/02
Posts: 89621
Spider Rico - 

God created the universe 13 Billion years ago so he could put a civilized man on earth for about 6,000 of those years?  And have Jebus come to remind us of god only 2000 years ago?  

 

Why would any sane person waste all that time?


cool atleast you admit you've never read the bible
6/6/18 10:01 AM
10/6/17
Posts: 1347
Curtis_E_Bare -
The Jentleman -
Curtis_E_Bare -
The Jentleman -
Curtis_E_Bare -
toelocku -
Curtis_E_Bare -

" Also go ahead and tell me how you would prove that nothing created the universe. Go ahead, I DARE you."

 

Mathematical proof, in the form of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, can be found here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Lol quantum matter isn't "nothing"

"With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where 'nothing' means there is neither matter nor space or time [6], and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally."

 

You should probably know the definitions of the words before you try and criticize.

“It has been suggested...”

Your “evidence” proves absolutely nothing. The write up you posted lists several factors that it is unable to account for, and then has this little nugget shoved into the middle of it.

“Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing.”

If you believe the universe came from nothing then you are basing your beliefs on just as big of a fairytale as you claim theists do.

"“Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing.”

 

Which the paper then goes on to provide.

No it doesn’t. “Is still missing”... . It openly states that there are factors that it cannot account for. What it does, is continue with conjecture based on what has been “suggested”.  A belief not based on facts.

Congratulations. In the arrogance of trying to seem above fairytales, you believe in one just because it was concocted by “scientists”.

 

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no
rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions
of theWheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE)."

 

"In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof
that the universe can be created spontaneously from
nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created
by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum,
it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes
the value p = −2 (or 4)."

 

 

The “p” in your equation represents “uncertainty in operating order”. The “mathematical foundation is still missing”...

Your bubble is described several times as “probabilistically”, and they admit to not being able to factor in several variables. The whole things used words like “suggests”, “possibility”, “theorized”, “if”, and “puzzle”.

It does not prove anything, just adds to your belief system.

6/6/18 10:15 AM
8/18/13
Posts: 18152

TTT 

6/6/18 10:18 AM
10/13/09
Posts: 1696

So, which of the thousands of religion mankind follows / followed is the right one? And why are the others wrong?? 

Edited: 6/6/18 10:38 AM
6/3/09
Posts: 10754
The Jentleman -

The “p” in your equation represents “uncertainty in operating order”. The “mathematical foundation is still missing”...

Your bubble is described several times as “probabilistically”, and they admit to not being able to factor in several variables. The whole things used words like “suggests”, “possibility”, “theorized”, “if”, and “puzzle”.

It does not prove anything, just adds to your belief system.

"It is clear that the effect of the ordering factor p is im-
portant only to small bubbles, and different p will result
in different quantum potential. In other words, for small
bubbles (i.e., a ? 1), the first term is significant to Q(a),
while for large bubbles (i.e., a ? 1), it is negligible. So,
the factor p represents quantum effects of the system de-
scribed by the WDWE in Eq. (4)."

 

“mathematical foundation is still missing”

That's not actually a quote from the article.  However, there is a similar statement in the introduction.  It sets the stage for why the content of the paper is important and how it fits.  The paper first identifies what is missing and then provides it.

mathematical foundation is still missing until now

“Your bubble is described several times as “probabilistically”, and they admit to not being able to factor in several variables. The whole things used words like “suggests”, “possibility”, “theorized”, “if”, and “puzzle”.”

The paper never uses the words “theorized,” “possibility” or “suggests”.  If you need to lie to try and make a point you have already lost.

6/6/18 10:34 AM
7/26/12
Posts: 30256

lol at everyone staying a mile away from Gregors genetics as a way to debunk evolution. 

 

"Let's argue in the gaps!"

 

 

sad

Edited: 6/6/18 10:36 AM
6/3/09
Posts: 10755
Pretjah -  

can you please explain to a dummy like me how a bubble can form in nothing?

 

thanks please use small words for my sake

 

Doubtful that I could explain it to you.  But if you are interested start with the basics for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  If I find a “For Dummies” explanation on the web I’ll post it for you but I doubt I could accurately write one myself at an introductory level.

6/6/18 10:38 AM
4/23/02
Posts: 89623
"Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
 
so everything = nothing?
6/6/18 10:40 AM
11/5/03
Posts: 22180
Munk -
toelocku - 
David@accu -
toelocku - 
Glowman -
toelocku -
Glowman -

Who created God?

Which God?

Pick one.

Yahweh the real One


How do you know he's the real one when every religion claims that their god is the real one?

Yahweh is just a descriptor word... God is God universally 


Not unless he has multiple personality disorder and contradicts himself...which isn't logical.

What people think is one thing and what God is another 

Edited: 6/6/18 10:50 AM
10/6/17
Posts: 1348
Curtis_E_Bare -
The Jentleman -

The “p” in your equation represents “uncertainty in operating order”. The “mathematical foundation is still missing”...

Your bubble is described several times as “probabilistically”, and they admit to not being able to factor in several variables. The whole things used words like “suggests”, “possibility”, “theorized”, “if”, and “puzzle”.

It does not prove anything, just adds to your belief system.

"It is clear that the effect of the ordering factor p is im-
portant only to small bubbles, and different p will result
in different quantum potential. In other words, for small
bubbles (i.e., a ? 1), the first term is significant to Q(a),
while for large bubbles (i.e., a ? 1), it is negligible. So,
the factor p represents quantum effects of the system de-
scribed by the WDWE in Eq. (4)."

 

“mathematical foundation is still missing”

That's not actually a quote from the article.  However, there is a similar statement in the introduction.  It sets the stage for why the content of the paper is important and how it fits.  The paper first identifies what is missing and then provides it.

mathematical foundation is still missing until now

“Your bubble is described several times as “probabilistically”, and they admit to not being able to factor in several variables. The whole things used words like “suggests”, “possibility”, “theorized”, “if”, and “puzzle”.”

The paper never uses the words “theorized,” “possibility” or “suggests”.  If you need to lie to try and make a point you have already lost.

The introduction doesn’t say mathematical foundations has been solved, it clearly states that it “is still missing”. The introduction uses those type of words to give an outline of what their basing their work on. Which is a mixed bag of theory, along with a few suggestions, a box of “what-if’s” based on variables they can’t account for. Thrown together into a formula they don’t know the proper order of to get a maybe, might possibly work, if we cross our fingers...

 

 

The fact that you called this “proof” tells me you will lie to yourself, and “have already lost”

6/6/18 11:03 AM
1/3/18
Posts: 1082


op doesn’t personally know, but a guy he knows...lmao!! So much fucktartedness in this thread.
6/6/18 11:19 AM
6/3/09
Posts: 10756
Pretjah -
"Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
 
so everything = nothing?

Explain .

6/6/18 11:34 AM
1/30/10
Posts: 4110

Who created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??? And who created that person/thing that created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??? And who created the person/thing that created the person/thing that created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??

6/6/18 11:38 AM
2/5/06
Posts: 35055

6/6/18 11:39 AM
4/23/02
Posts: 89626
Curtis_E_Bare - 
Pretjah -
"Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
 
so everything = nothing?

Explain .


in simply stupid people terms (for people like me) isnt the heisenberg uncertainty principle essential an explaination of "everything" not being able to be qualified in a specific manner?
 
so since you give this as the starting point for how nothing can have a bubble
 
is'nt that saying everything = nothing?
Edited: 6/6/18 11:39 AM
4/23/02
Posts: 89627
dios - 

Who created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??? And who created that person/thing that created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??? And who created the person/thing that created the person/thing that created the person/thing that created the universe (us)??

 

explain to me how a supernatural (outside of the laws of nature) being,  has to have a creator?

 

 
Edited: 6/6/18 11:41 AM
6/3/09
Posts: 10758
The Jentleman -

The introduction doesn’t say mathematical foundations has been solved, it clearly states that it “is still missing”. The introduction uses those type of words to give an outline of what their basing their work on. Which is a mixed bag of theory, along with a few suggestions, a box of “what-if’s” based on variables they can’t account for. Thrown together into a formula they don’t know the proper order of to get a maybe, might possibly work, if we cross our fingers...

 

 

The fact that you called this “proof” tells me you will lie to yourself, and “have already lost”

No, the introduction does not say that.  But the paper does, in fact the first line of the abstract is:

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE)."

I call it a mathematical proof because that is what it is.  It is a mathematical proof to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

 

You are purposely misrepresenting the content of the paper, which I guess in no surprise consider you have already been caught lying about the content of the paper.

I enjoy these types of conversations and would be happy to continue but if you continue to be dishonest then further discussion is pointless.

6/6/18 11:42 AM
3/23/07
Posts: 57222
donkypunch55 - 

I love theists.

”we can’t explain it, so it can’t be so AND the most logical answer is GOD!”

lol, what?

Did gravity not exist until Newton put a name to it?

serious question:  What seems more plausible?

1. That science has not reached its full potential or ability to explain EVERYTHING just yet.

or..

2.  There a man living in the sky that created everything and we are cast in his likeness.


I don't know, therefore god.

6/6/18 11:46 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 13819

I don't know, therefore Silver Surfer. 

6/6/18 11:49 AM
3/25/18
Posts: 47
occupy_DDF -

Anyone who is having trouble understanding the concept of something being created out of nothingness either is not now or has never been married.  Wives turn nothing into something all the goddamn time. 

LOL!!

6/6/18 11:53 AM
6/3/09
Posts: 10759
Pretjah -
Curtis_E_Bare - 
Pretjah -
"Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
 
so everything = nothing?

Explain .


in simply stupid people terms (for people like me) isnt the heisenberg uncertainty principle essential an explaination of "everything" not being able to be qualified in a specific manner?
 
so since you give this as the starting point for how nothing can have a bubble
 
is'nt that saying everything = nothing?

No, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not an explanation of everything not being able to be qualified in a specific manner.  I’m still not even entirely sure what you mean by this.

In simple terms the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is fundamental limit to the precision of our knowledge of particles.  One of the results of it is that particles or bubbles can appear out of nothing. 

6/6/18 11:56 AM
10/6/17
Posts: 1349
Curtis_E_Bare -
The Jentleman -

The introduction doesn’t say mathematical foundations has been solved, it clearly states that it “is still missing”. The introduction uses those type of words to give an outline of what their basing their work on. Which is a mixed bag of theory, along with a few suggestions, a box of “what-if’s” based on variables they can’t account for. Thrown together into a formula they don’t know the proper order of to get a maybe, might possibly work, if we cross our fingers...

 

 

The fact that you called this “proof” tells me you will lie to yourself, and “have already lost”

No, the introduction does not say that.  But the paper does, in fact the first line of the abstract is:

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE)."

I call it a mathematical proof because that is what it is.  It is a mathematical proof to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

 

You are purposely misrepresenting the content of the paper, which I guess in no surprise consider you have already been caught lying about the content of the paper.

I enjoy these types of conversations and would be happy to continue but if you continue to be dishonest then further discussion is pointless.

The introduction and paper you posted simultaneously. I read over the entire thing and didn’t go back to check where exactly each words were used. My bad. It’s quite telling that you’re stuck on semantics of where it casts these doubts of certainty in their claims instead of recognizing that they’re being utilized and affirming that this is not “proof” of anything, but pure conjecture. Which it is. 

You getting hung up on their use of “proof” yet ignoring the rest of the verbiage that voids it as being actual proof of your beliefs is amusing to say the least.

You’re being, not mistakenly dishonest, but deliberately disingenuous.

6/6/18 12:00 PM
10/6/17
Posts: 1350
Brockback Mountain -
The Lion King - 

Mendel's laws of Genetics (scientific facts) contradict evolution. Second, if the universe came into existence BY random chance then there would be no reason for science because then ANY scientific laws could randomly change because of "random chance." For example, you atheists think that there was nothing and that the universe "just appeared" out of nowhere because of random chance. According to that logic then some magical unicorn could randomly appear or gravity might stop working because of "random chance" which is BS but it's still much more likely than our entire universe (if you've actually taken any science classes you'd know how complex our universe is) coming into existence by random chance. Also go ahead and tell me how you would prove that nothing created the universe. Go ahead, I DARE you. And remember, the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy is where you're saying something is true because there's no evidence against it, so you can't try to disprove any gods or anything. Also, all the events mentioned in the Bible have been shown to be historically accurate and many of the very specific prophecies that it made which were ridiculous at the time actually came true in the exact ways it said it would happen. Evolution has been proven to not work and there is 0% evidence that it actually happened. Ever wonder why they call them MISSING links? Go ahead, show me your evidence for evolution. I DARE you, but I know you won't because you can't.?


Nobody says "the universe came into existence by random chance"

"Also go ahead and tell me how you would prove that nothing created the universe."

Atheists dont claim proof that "nothing created the universe" Just that we dont believe anything without evidence. Especially not the bronze age version of lord of the rings.

"all the events mentioned in the Bible have been shown to be historically accurate"

LOL no not even close.

"Ever wonder why they call them MISSING links? "

The call it the missing link because people who don't believe in natural selection are likely missing a few chromosomes.

Seriously though there is rampant evidence of evolution in the fossil record. In order to not have any so called "missing links" the fossil record would have reveal every species ever to live with perfect continuity.

Incredible that anyone can look at the full scientific literature supporting evolution and say "no way" and then look at a magical book written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago and
say "oh yea thats where the truth is"

“Atheists dont claim proof that "nothing created the universe" Just that we dont believe anything without evidence. Especially not the bronze age version of lord of the rings.”

Well that’s not the conversation right now...