The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/11/12/006

The timelessness of quantum gravity: II. The appearance of dynamics in static configurations

© Copyright Original Source

This further confirms it is possible that instants of time can occur within a greater Quantum timelessness, as in Quantum fluctuations, and even the time/space existence of our universe and all possible universes.

Thus, space/time can be momentary and temporary for space/time for the event of the Quantum fluctuation itself.

[Sparko]

How does the fact that "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING" beat up my own argument? Only according to the "god did it" hypothesis, does the universe come from "nothing." My argument is that the universe doesn't come from nothing, its just a part of that "Something" which has always been.

no the universe didn't come from nothing in the bible. It came from God. He created it himself with no prior matter/energy. In the big bang the universe came from nothing: no space, no matter, no time expanded into everything. So how did everything come from nothing? only nothing comes from nothing.

Like I said, I am going to sit back and watch you keep punching yourself in the face. It is entertaining.

[Sparko]

shuny, just admit you are wrong and move on.

[shunyadragon]

shuny, just admit you are wrong and move on.

You failed to respond to the references describing the nature of timelessness in the Quantum world. The references are from excellent academic peer review journals, and warrant coherent responses.

[JimL]

no the universe didn't come from nothing in the bible. It came from God. He created it himself with no prior matter/energy.

If god created matter and energy, then it came from nothing. He said the word, and puff, energy/matter came into existence from out of nothing. Unless you want to argue that god is composed of energy/matter, which I know you don't, then the created energy/matter came from out of nothing.

In the big bang the universe came from nothing: no space, no matter, no time expanded into everything. So how did everything come from nothing? only nothing comes from nothing.

Like I said, I am going to sit back and watch you keep punching yourself in the face. It is entertaining.

You're getting way ahead of yourself Sparko, scientists have hypothesis as to how our spacetime began, but no scientist is as assured as are you that the evidence is that the universe came from absolutely nothing.
Again, Cosmic inflation is not dependent on a singularity, the singularity is simply a notion derived of the imagined idea of Cosmic contraction, but the expansion needn't have begun at a singularity, and so needn't be traced back to one.

[Sparko]

You failed to respond to the references describing the nature of timelessness in the Quantum world. The references are from excellent academic peer review journals, and warrant coherent responses.

your claims were refuted by Kbertsche over and over. Admit you were wrong and move on.

[Sparko]

If god created matter and energy, then it came from nothing. He said the word, and puff, energy/matter came into existence from out of nothing. Unless you want to argue that god is composed of energy/matter, which I know you don't, then the created energy/matter came from out of nothing.

duh. But God was there and he is not nothing. He caused the universe. On the other hand your claim that nothing comes from nothing has defeated the big bang.

punch-face-l.jpg

You're getting way ahead of yourself Sparko, scientists have hypothesis as to how our spacetime began, but no scientist is as assured as are you that the evidence is that the universe came from absolutely nothing.
Again, Cosmic inflation is not dependent on a singularity, the singularity is simply a notion derived of the imagined idea of Cosmic contraction, but the expansion needn't have begun at a singularity, and so needn't be traced back to one.

Basically any theory as to what came prior to the big bang is nothing but guess work, not science jimmy. You have even less to go on than you claim theists do. At least our version makes logical sense and we have revelations that say what happened. Science has nothing.

[shunyadragon]

your claims were refuted by Kbertsche over and over. Admit you were wrong and move on.

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo! No they were not! There was no coherent response for the excellent peer reviewed academic literature I cited.

I wish someone that is competent in Physics and Math would comment whether I am right or wrong!

[Sparko]

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo! No they were not! There was no coherent response for the excellent peer reviewed academic literature I cited.

I wish someone that is competent in Physics and Math would comment whether I am right or wrong!

for the first millisecond after the big bang there were no particles, quantum or otherwise.

[Kbertsche]

I wish someone that is competent in Physics and Math would comment whether I am right or wrong!

I already did, and don't see the need to say any more on the topic. But feel free to solicit comments from other professional physicists as well.

[shunyadragon]

for the first millisecond after the big bang there were no particles, quantum or otherwise.

Reference please, be careful. your response is too simplistic, incomplete, and does not address the issue of timelessness in the Quantum world.

Neither Kbertsche nor you responded to this;

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112119

Quantum mechanics without space/time - a possible case for non-commutative differential geometry?

T. P. Singh (Tata Institute, Mumbai)
(Submitted on 20 Dec 2001)
The rules of quantum mechanics require a time coordinate for their formulation. However, a notion of time is in general possible only when a classical spacetime geometry exists. Such a geometry is itself produced by classical matter sources. Thus it could be said that the currently known formulation of quantum mechanics pre-assumes the presence of classical matter fields. A more fundamental formulation of quantum mechanics should exist, which avoids having to use a notion of time. In this paper we discuss as to how such a fundamental formulation could be constructed for single particle, non-relativistic quantum mechanics. We argue that there is an underlying non-linear theory of quantum gravity, to which both standard quantum mechanics and classical general relativity are approximations. The timeless formulation of quantum mechanics follows from the underlying theory when the mass of the particle is much smaller than Planck mass. On the other hand, when the particle's mass is much larger than Planck mass, space/time emerges and the underlying theory should reduce to classical mechanics and general relativity. We also suggest that noncommutative differential geometry is a possible candidate for describing this underlying theory.

© Copyright Original Source

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

I already did, and don't see the need to say any more on the topic. But feel free to solicit comments from other professional physicists as well.

You failed to respond to the academic references. It appears your references are on a perforated roll. If your competence is anything to account you would respond beyond simplistic assertions,

[Sparko]

Reference please, be careful. your response is too simplistic, incomplete, and does not address the issue of timelessness in the Quantum world.

in the initial inflationary period, the universe was so hot that there were no particles. Once it cooled a bit then the various particles started to form and you had quarks and so on which became electrons and protons and then atoms (Helium initially) - so you already had space and time before any particles.

Neither Kbertsche nor you responded to this;

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112119

Quantum mechanics without space/time - a possible case for non-commutative differential geometry?

T. P. Singh (Tata Institute, Mumbai)
(Submitted on 20 Dec 2001)
The rules of quantum mechanics require a time coordinate for their formulation. However, a notion of time is in general possible only when a classical spacetime geometry exists. Such a geometry is itself produced by classical matter sources. Thus it could be said that the currently known formulation of quantum mechanics pre-assumes the presence of classical matter fields. A more fundamental formulation of quantum mechanics should exist, which avoids having to use a notion of time. In this paper we discuss as to how such a fundamental formulation could be constructed for single particle, non-relativistic quantum mechanics. We argue that there is an underlying non-linear theory of quantum gravity, to which both standard quantum mechanics and classical general relativity are approximations. The timeless formulation of quantum mechanics follows from the underlying theory when the mass of the particle is much smaller than Planck mass. On the other hand, when the particle's mass is much larger than Planck mass, space/time emerges and the underlying theory should reduce to classical mechanics and general relativity. We also suggest that noncommutative differential geometry is a possible candidate for describing this underlying theory.

© Copyright Original Source

Still waiting . . .

What? Your latest google result? Did you even read the paper? Kbertche already answered you on it. Basically the guy is proposing a new way to look at things, but he doesn't prove anything. from the conclusion of the paper: "In this paper we have argued that there should exist a formulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical spacetime manifold" - he is tossing out an idea. nothing more.

You merely google and then post something that sounds like what you want to say. You don't understand it or even give a crap. You didn't read the paper, you just copied an abstract.

yeesh.

[seer]

You merely google and then post something that sounds like what you want to say. You don't understand it or even give a crap. You didn't read the paper, you just copied an abstract.

yeesh.

Strange, Shuny is usually so careful and scholarly...

[JimL]

duh. But God was there and he is not nothing. He caused the universe. On the other hand your claim that nothing comes from nothing has defeated the big bang.

Yes, but unless god is energy/matter himself, then even if created, it was created out of nothing. A subtilty you seem to be incapable of understanding. My argument doesn't say that energy/matter came from nothing, which is another feature of my argument that you can't seem to understand.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22798[/ATTACH]



Basically any theory as to what came prior to the big bang is nothing but guess work, not science jimmy. You have even less to go on than you claim theists do. At least our version makes logical sense and we have revelations that say what happened. Science has nothing.

I agree, it is guess work at this point, except that my argument rests on the emprical evidence we have of existence in that nothing comes from nothing, yours is based on a fairy tale book that says it does.