Religion

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)

61. I'm talking about YOUR definition of nothing.

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 04:10 PM

Apr 2012

You have argued that consistent physical laws that can be used describe what can and can't happen constitute a "something" and "nothing" doesn't have any kind of "something."

So, once again, if "nothing" cannot be described in terms of consistent physical laws, then anything is allowed, including the spontaneous creation of "something."

This means that the only way you can never get "something" from "nothing" is if there are physical laws preventing it, but as you have consistently argued, such physical laws would mean that you are starting with "something" rather than "nothing."

The only consistent, logical conclusion is that "something" will always be able to come from "nothing" because there cannot be anything that prevents it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all] Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 OP

what about OTHER ways of knowing. deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #1

I agree with everything you said about science. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #2

Science is a tool to inform, nothing more or less... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #5

Your solid and thoughtful argument is exactly why we need a a multiple number of voices in these Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #8

Ooooohhhh...you win the skepticscott Mar 2012 #11

I'm with you on this longship Mar 2012 #3

The modern Scientific Method itself is based on the epistemology of humblebum Mar 2012 #4

Actually modern scientific method is based on falsifiability, not necessarily logical positivism... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #6

You expect the science bashers to read Popper? Odin2005 Mar 2012 #9

I don't think the science bashers show up here Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #13

This subthread was started by one. laconicsax Mar 2012 #20

"Science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago" - The Vienna Circle met less than 100 humblebum Mar 2012 #12

And that has what relevence to my post? n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #14

It has all the relevance in the world, because it reveals your cluelessness humblebum Mar 2012 #16

You do realize that science, as a disciplined method predates the Vienna circle, right? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #17

You really don't have a clue.nt humblebum Mar 2012 #19

Science is the branch of fantasy that is limited by observation FarCenter Mar 2012 #7

I cringe whenever I see the word "scientism" being used. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #10

We know of several limits to science bananas Mar 2012 #15

You seem to be confusing pure mathematics and computational theories with the rest of science... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #18

No, I'm not confusing anything. bananas Mar 2012 #22

It does help skepticscott Mar 2012 #23

Does praying over operating systems improve their security? Silent3 Mar 2012 #25

That last question in your post is a ... SamG Mar 2012 #26

"God of the Gaps".... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #27

Thanks! I had it backwards. SamG Mar 2012 #28

Absolutely - and the phase of the moon is very important, too. bananas Apr 2012 #36

"No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems" bananas Apr 2012 #39

I take that comment you quote from the OP... Silent3 Apr 2012 #41

Give us some examples of how skepticscott Apr 2012 #87

I hope you're giving bonus points for anecdotes and double points for confirmation bias! laconicsax Apr 2012 #94

You should read "one of Scientific American’s most classic articles" bananas Apr 2012 #40

The major limitation of science is its refusal to make stuff up laconicsax Mar 2012 #21

A great cartoon summary is often so SamG Mar 2012 #24

Yeh, like trying to change the definition of nothingness. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #29

It's called a self-correcting process. laconicsax Mar 2012 #30

I'm so glad that you admit that it has been changed. However, in this case humblebum Apr 2012 #31

I've admitted nothing I haven't already claimed. laconicsax Apr 2012 #32

By george, I think you are beginning to understand it. humblebum Apr 2012 #33

I think you're confused. laconicsax Apr 2012 #34

It's quite simple really. Something does not equal nothing. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #35

I accept your apology. n/t laconicsax Apr 2012 #37

Good. Then since we know that something exists where the humblebum Apr 2012 #38

Nope, experimentally verified. laconicsax Apr 2012 #42

Something still exists in your state of nothingness. humblebum Apr 2012 #43

Nope there's nothing there. laconicsax Apr 2012 #45

If there is any physical reaction in that space at any time, detectable or not, humblebum Apr 2012 #50

You couldn't be any more wrong. Here's why: laconicsax Apr 2012 #53

Your nothing, sir, still is a something. And you arrived at your defintion of nothing by humblebum Apr 2012 #55

That's interesting, especially since I was talking about your definition of "nothing." laconicsax Apr 2012 #56

Your assertion of special pleading is a vacuous argument in this case. humblebum Apr 2012 #57

Rechecked, it's still special pleading. laconicsax Apr 2012 #59

The physical event immediately prior to your "spontaneous creation" pretty much humblebum Apr 2012 #60

I'm talking about YOUR definition of nothing. laconicsax Apr 2012 #61

I hate to come to HB's defense at this point, but... Silent3 Apr 2012 #44

There's a significant problem with your argument. laconicsax Apr 2012 #46

Hm. I got nothin'... :) Joseph8th Apr 2012 #48

I agree with you that you can't properly take a rule observed from within... Silent3 Apr 2012 #49

This is what I find to be the most humorous part of your argument. You are actually humblebum Apr 2012 #52

Since when is my describing what you have done "admitting?" laconicsax Apr 2012 #54

What you're describing is "Wu Chi" ("ultimate state of nothingness") bananas Apr 2012 #58

"...don't see how invoking gods answers or illuminates...in the slightest" - humblebum Apr 2012 #51

Climate modeling is not tea leaf reading. Tea leaf reading is not climate modeling. Silent3 Apr 2012 #62

So theologians just "make answers up"? Attack #15 Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #78

Playing the victim skepticscott Apr 2012 #85

How would you explain what it is theologians come up with their answers? eqfan592 Apr 2012 #88

Seems like you have our friend skepticscott Apr 2012 #92

I'll admit a minor amount of fault with this tactic. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #95

I'm sorry an old cartoon inflames you so much. laconicsax Apr 2012 #93

God of the gaps lurks at the cutting edge of science... Joseph8th Apr 2012 #47

Love your last paragraph about a "limited window". SamG Apr 2012 #63

Where in the world do you get your information. cbayer Apr 2012 #64

Last time I looked, it was only "a considerable number of" believers who claimed SamG Apr 2012 #65

I do not maintain that the fundamentalists are a small minority. cbayer Apr 2012 #66

"they are in the best position to challenge the fundamentalists" SamG Apr 2012 #67

Again, you seem to know little about progressive christians and christian groups. cbayer Apr 2012 #68

So you have no examples of legislation introduced by anyone other than... SamG Apr 2012 #69

See, that's the difference. cbayer Apr 2012 #70

So, what, exactly do they do? Roll over and play dead? SamG Apr 2012 #71

Start here cbayer Apr 2012 #72

I could spend the next five years researching each and every... SamG Apr 2012 #73

I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could say would satisfy you. cbayer Apr 2012 #74

In other words, you got nothing. Challenged for facts, another SamG Apr 2012 #75

You were told multiple times skepticscott Apr 2012 #79

personal attack #19 out of bounds except in "religion" nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #83

Trust me, you don't want to have me post skepticscott Apr 2012 #84

"self-righteous people"...etc personal attack #16 Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #80

"work with communities and within movements to promote liberal and progressive causes" SamG Apr 2012 #76

this whole post is about "believers"and what they do or do not do. Attack #18 Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #82

Yes, so just talking about the actions (or inactions) of believers is also an attack. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #90

paragraph 2 charicatures believers attack #17 Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #81

Are you seriously calling that an attack? eqfan592 Apr 2012 #89

Those of us who ask questions we believe to be in a addition to science are accused-- Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #77

By all means, list it skepticscott Apr 2012 #86

Any post that doesn't agree with what he/she thinks constitutes an attack. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #91