BoogeyMan

Why do you say "...you would see this to be true." I have not expressed a preference either way. I do like the field of physics, tho.

No thanks...... Keep it away from me. I've been battling the freakin' flu for a month.

Who is "his"? Beowolf or boogeyman? Did we have a mail mix up?

I thought that you were ambivalent on the subject. Just posting for the jolt. Go for it. Enjoy.

??

If it's only entertainment, then you could post on the Pro-religion side of the argument. The OP had a great many more hits than the average poster. More fun.

If you think it's a scam, then do not participate. Like the 3 card Monty hustlers around Times Square. Why spin your wheels? There is an entire planet populated with amazingly diverse people out there to enjoy.

Re-reading all of this post, it occurs that the anti-religion-ers are so demanding of proof, one might draw the conclusion that the strident calls for proof may define the fear of "What if I'm wrong". Very interesting, that the topic would generate this level of emotional response. Again, great post.

+1......

God, string theories, unicorns, quantum Stevie Hawkings, renegade Italians and Santa Claus........ Jeeze. This thread is turning to do-do. It was a great thread. Congratz to the OP.

09/27/2010 Has it been proven yet? I understand that there will be or recently has been a probe launch of some type to try to gather info about blackholes. Could the launch be about the Italians experiment?

Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Out of context. Can we keep the spin in it's proper orbit? The point was made in the context of Hawkings radiation. If you see/ measure a force, yet are unable to identify it, then to speculate that it is in the realm of the supernatural is not valid. You are not making any sense. If you are able to measure something and you are the first person to do so you can call it what ever you want. example >> Hawkings radiation That is identifying what you have measured!! Sure, you can call a mouse a buffalo if you wish. Hawkings radiation is so far a debated theory. Since no one can get anywhere near a black hole the point here is moot. Hawkings radiation topic occurred in earlier posts. However your post did remind me of a prof who once faced the same question about a unicorn from a student. He smiled and said "we are about physics here. Mythology is down the hall and on the first floor." You are correct in that I did not fully explain in scholarly terms exactly what I going for. To be back on topic......, Ya can't get sumthin' from nuttin'. I make/stand by no further claims.

Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Out of context. Can we keep the spin in it's proper orbit? The point was made in the context of Hawkings radiation. If you see/ measure a force, yet are unable to identify it, then to speculate that it is in the realm of the supernatural is not valid.

I have rarely seen someone get so upset and defensive at the prospect of continuing a discussion based on what they actually said. So far I've engaged the OP on a variety of different topics. Your only contribution has been to say one thing and then strenuously deny you said it. What was your point? (yawn)...... Boring........ Go away.

The odd thing in this thread is that we both have practically plagiarized Aristotle. Physics proves that "something" cannot come from "nothing". Simple as that. The Casmir effect was produced and measured between plates. Plates are "something". That a measurable "something" was observed between the plates can not be called "creation". The measurable "field" was manufactured by the plates. No real difference than generating electricity. If anything, the Casmir effect declares that you must have"something" to generate another "thing". "Black holes radiate, with a radiation known as Hawking radiation." Radiation is a measurable thing. A black hole is not a "nothing" as is can be measured. That there are other forces, as yet previously undiscovered is a scientific given everywhere. Because a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. The proposition that "something" can come from "nothing" is not valid and still stands and remains unassailable. so far.........

And claiming your words are being twisted but not clarifying what you meant is an old weasel's tactic. "How dare you say I said X!" "So what did you mean?" "I meant what I said" "But surely that means X?" "How dare you say I said X!" Again... (yawn) You have no point of discussion for the topic being debated. Again, you are being simply argumentative to, or for some personal gratification. Once again, I recommend rest.

Spinning another's post out of the context in which it was meant is an old rabble rowser tactic. It's easy to do, and reveals the spinner as being unable to debate the topic on it's merits. The "I'll be the judge of what you meant". is old hat and fails when exposed.

No it's not. This 'You are really out there' could be construed as a personal attack, but nothing I've said has been directed at you personally. Now stop whining. No I'm not. You are assuming the existence of a deity. It's right there in black and white. If you now want to say that you were not stating or implying that some form of deity or entity must be responsible for the start of the universe, then fine - but the fault is yours for incorrectly stating your position earlier in the thread. Wowzers... take an aspirin, and lay down. Get some rest.

I didn't say you assigned any attributes, I said you assumed its existence. Read what I wrote if you wish to debate me, otherwise you'll just keep being wrong. What you wrote; "Any further debate boils down to a discussion of what powers the debaters accede to as belonging to a deity or their version of a deity. To simply throw out that there is "nothing" is denied by the physical fact that matter does exist." [/repl Wow.... You are really out there. I presupposed nothing. I say that physics denies that nothing can generate something. This is simply a personal attack, as you have nothing to really say. You are spinning, and inventing outlandish interpretations of what I, and others have written, simply to be argumentative towards some personal end. .

Of? No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice. Nope..... Did not. Read it again. I left the question open. I did not say there was an entity. I said all the was left was faith. That's all. Did too. You left open the question of its attributes. That question assumes its existence. (Unless 'not existing' is an attribute.) No, no and no.......Again..... you are wrong... I'm did not assign anything, anywhere. Attributes, powers, abilities and so forth of an entity come from the imagination and human speculation of the debaters. I did not, nor do I now enter that debate. All I say is that it is unexplainable how anything can come from nothing. Physics says it is an impossibility. I define nothing else, nor do I defend anything else. Re-read what I wrote if you wish to debate me.

Exactly....... It's unexplainable. I disagree that matter was there all along. Look past the definable and measurable. The explainable. From nothing to something? We'll never know.

Of? No it doesn't. You've just leaped straight from "I don't know how it happened" to "There must be an entity that did it" You can't just gloss over that step and expect people not to notice. Nope..... Did not. Read it again. I left the question open. I did not say there was an entity. I said all the was left was faith. That's all.

See post #35. We agree that there is a nothing. A vacuum. That matter exists is a proof. Explain the existence of matter from that nothing. Unexplainable. That's about as far as anyone can go. To quantify the unquantifiable ends any further discussion. The debate then shifts to the qualities and attributes imagined that the unexplainable entity has been anointed with by the debaters. Human intellectual speculation. All that is left after that is faith, and the 7000+ years old discussion that surrounds it. The debate has shifted, as you correctly point out.

My niece is studying cosmology. She's really quite the artist at it. Surplus Eastern Bloc firearms are often stored covered in Cosmoline. It's a bitch to clean off without powerful solvents. High test gasoline. It works great for me. You may have to soak a bit, but all three of my SKS's and Mosin Nagants cleaned up like arsenal new.

We are not discussing the why of physics. The debate is how can physics be used to discuss religion. Since matter ( sub atomic particles, radiation et al) is not creatable, yet can be changed.... so forth..... as far as we know, the question of where from the void did matter originate is unexplainable. Any further debate boils down to a discussion of what powers the debaters accede to as belonging to a deity or their version of a deity. To simply throw out that there is "nothing" is denied by the physical fact that matter does exist. EDIT.... BTW, we stand on the shoulders of Aristotle, and other great thinkers as we are echoing them.