Quote from: iamsheikhadil on June 16, 2019, 10:21:55 AM

Quote from: BADecker on June 16, 2019, 03:51:47 AM

Quote from: iamsheikhadil on June 16, 2019, 02:52:37 AM

Quote from: BADecker on June 15, 2019, 07:33:46 PM

1. But where did "nothing" come from? "Nothing" didn't come from "nothing," did it?

2. The science that suggests this is simply interpretation that contradicts itself in areas. The example of Big Bang shows that our math and physics cannot be used to calculate what the BB was like, so it can't really calculate that BB even existed.

3. Naming the particles is simple. For example, the earth is a planet. How simple. But it is very much more complex that simply calling it a planet. Just because we haven't figured out the complexity of an atom or electron, doesn't mean the complexity isn't there. For example, we have figured out enough to know that electrons are made up of other subatomic particles.

4. Except that aether theory, electric universe theory, and micro-gravity theory all contradict points in the theory of relativity... which remains a theory, because it can be changed upon further findings. This shows that it is not a fact, and things like black-holes are so far out there that we don't really know what part of relativity holds true with them.

In addition, the idea that a point inside the black hole can contain the matter of the black-hole, contradicts Euclidean geometry. A point is the place where things meet. It is the non-existence of material... yet scientists run all around this idea by suggesting that a chunk of space that is too small to even contain "nothing," can contain so much material that the gravity of it can suck even light in.

Scientists are twisting math into things that it is not made to be twisted into.

Cool

1) you are trying way too hard to paint a God into the picture. It won't work. You aren't able to perceive "nothing" doesn't mean "nothing" can't exist. If big bang is true, indeed everything came into existence from "nothing". There's nothing to argue.

2) Nah..... life is a part of the mysterious universe. To claim that the universe is lame and life is superior so a God exist is absurd. Life and universe both are weird yet simple.

3) Sure, but the logic still stays. On the fundamental level, every stuff on earth is made up of same thing. Doesn't matter how complex they are, at the fundamental level, everything is same. Everything is "matter".

4) recently we even got a picture of blackhole Wink

blackhole exists both practically and theoretically. Light can indeed be sucked in as it had dynamic mass and it behaves like particles too. The blackhole has gravity high enough to do it

You can't convince me a sky daddy exist yet Cheesy

1. You are trying way too hard to paint God out of the picture. - We can easily understand "nothing." Simple people wave their hand through the air, and call it nothing. Scientists call the emptiness of some parts of outer space, "nothing." But a "nothing" that is absence of even outer space is the real nothing, but we can't comprehend it because such would be too different. The fact that BB Theory contradicts itself, throws everything that BB was supposed to be right back into the lap of God.

2. Life and the universe are not simple. They are extremely complex and complicated. Ask any serious scientist. The proof of the complexity lies in the fact that if life were simple, we would have figured out how to live for 10,000 years by now. But we still can't guarantee even 100 years.

3. All matter is energy when you get right down to it. We barely understand anything about the aether which gives birth to the energy that makes up the matter.

4. Anybody can call a black hole whatever he wants. And scientists can make up all kinds of theories about what a black hole is. Standard black hole theory doesn't fit Euclidean Geometry that we use every day. Since nobody has gone out to visit a black hole, let's stick with what we know, not some silly theory that doesn't match anything.

5. I don't believe that there is a sky daddy. God is way more powerful than a sky daddy could ever think of being.

Cool

1) you are correct that comprehending "nothing" is hard. But nature or universe or whatever was there before universe doesn't care if we can comprehend it or not.

This is when I believe in the "everything doesn't exist until observed" theory.

The only way we can comprehend "nothing" is by comprehending what and how we felt before taking birth. We didn't exist. Hence, it was "nothing" for us. All of a sudden we took birth and became conscious. Our consciousness came out from "nothing".

2) life and universe is neither simple nor complex. Simple and complex are comparative term. You need something outside of universe to compare it to. Life and universe are there what it is. Hence, we just can't say they are complex just because we can't comprehend it.

3) Matter is mass and it is energy. And they existed eternally. They will continue to exist eternally. Unless the bigbang was right. Then they came out from nothing. They will cease to nothingness or just stay eternally.

Matter and anti matter is being created and annihilated all time in space everywhere ....

4) I was not talking about blackholes in the first place at all..... I was referring black hole with the theory of relativity for better understanding. Doesn't matter what a black hole looks like, theory of relativity is very real, speed of light is constant and times varies for different velocities and objects. They are facts.

5) God is a skydaddy who doesn't exist. What was he doing before creation? Chilling alone in darkness? Thinking whether to create or not? Didn't he question himself why he was there in the first place? He's in a self prison. He can't die. He can't escape. Eternal boring. Hence decided to create? Lol....

If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator.

''If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator. '' Exactly but yet badecker uses special pleading to say NOPE, god doesn't need a creator because I say so.