Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[SqueakyVoice]

I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.

I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't  map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's  more a problem for vlad than physics.

Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property  it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.

A physics nothing can lose be described as starting with something and taking everything possible away from it and then 'seeing' 'what's left'. This type of nothing therefore has some evidence and reasoning to back it up.

Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...

So unless vlad can suddenly find some way of showing his nothing is reasonable, then I think we're entitled to ignore his pronouncements on the matter.

[Outrider]

But God can be described as an infinite reality.

Not without distorting the common meaning of 'God' beyond any even vague understanding. An infinite reality in which complexity arises through natural processes is one thing, but a spontaneous complex intelligence manifesting as reality is something completely different.

That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.

No, it's conceding that many people aren't capable of grasping that 'nothing' can be a balancing act between two opposites - matter and anti-matter in equal proportions are, on balance, nothing.

Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30  billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?

Who says that it didn't? Who says that this universe is the only universe? As it stands, at the moment, we don't know - and we may never know - what particular 'events' or 'conditions' resulted in our universe beginning. Why presume from physical constraints on data transiting that universal boundary that 'God'?

O.

[jeremyp]

Ah......a something.....with properties.

Yes, hence an infinite reality.

O.

But God can be described as an infinite reality. That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.

Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30  billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?

Why did God choose to create the Universe 13 billion years ago and not 30 billion years ago or last Tuesday.

[wigginhall]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

[floo]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

Now that would have been pretty!

[BashfulAnthony]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

Now that would have been pretty!

You can always imagine them, eh, Floo?     

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Hi! Mr idiot here, forgive my idiocy but I will keep on asking WHY!!

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Dear Wigs,

Hi! Mr idiot here, forgive my idiocy but I will keep on asking WHY!!

Gonnagle.

Yeah, but why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.

If you are going to ''pull a Stenger'' and say that the universe came into existence because nothing is unstable then asking why 13 million years ago and not 30 million years ago or last Tuesday is a reasonable question.

It is then ridiculous to then appeal to anything subsequent to the big bang for an answer i.e. the manifest laws of physics.

The question is valid.

[jeremyp]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.

That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.

I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't  map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's  more a problem for vlad than physics.

Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property  it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.



Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...

What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.

That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.

Yeh...........so why the bollocks about who created God then.

[Outrider]

This shows the idiocy of why questions.   Why didn't God make a perfectly round sphere, with fairy lights dangling from it?

It's a perfectly good question of the company you now keep Wigginhall........Namely those who think this universe had a start but came from something pre-existent and infinite.

That would include Christians because God is something pre-existent and infinite.

Yeh...........so why the bollocks about who created God then.

It's the obvious argument to the argument from apparent design.

O.

[Outrider]

What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?

In and of itself, nothing. It is, however, merely an example of how nothing can be achieved it isn't sufficient to describe nothing - there are other ways in which zero can be achieved.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What then is unreasonable about 0=0=0=0=0=0?

In and of itself, nothing. It is, however, merely an example of how nothing can be achieved it isn't sufficient to describe nothing - there are other ways in which zero can be achieved.

O.

But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?

Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?

Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''

[Outrider]

But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?

If I were calling the big bang zero then yes, I'd have a problem. I'm not, though, so that's lucky.

Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?

No, I'm saying that the universe can be represented by the operation of maths. Applied maths is always an analogy.

Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''

Natural laws.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the problem is that if you are calling the big bang zero then anything previous has been cancelled out plus you are left with the question how do you get something from nothing?

If I were calling the big bang zero then yes, I'd have a problem. I'm not, though, so that's lucky.

Are you saying that the universe is the operation of maths?

No, I'm saying that the universe can be represented by the operation of maths. Applied maths is always an analogy.

Who or what is working the numbers then to get the all important ''zero''

Natural laws.

O.

uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.

Oh and before ye go.........Which natural laws?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing.

I'd agree that physics' nothing doesn't  map onto vlad's idea of nothing, but that's  more a problem for vlad than physics.

Vlad's nothing has the property (/ies) of 'not being able to become something/ being capable of stopping something coming into existence'. So according to Vlad's reasoning as it's got a property  it must be a something. In addition neither vlad nor anyone else has ever provided a single shred of evidence or reasoning to show that a 'vlad nothing' did or could exist.

A physics nothing can lose be described as starting with something and taking everything possible away from it and then 'seeing' 'what's left'. This type of nothing therefore has some evidence and reasoning to back it up.

Even more crudely vlad nothing is saying 0=0=0=0=0=0
(Maths/) Physics nothing says 0=1-1=(2×3)-6=8-2^3...

So unless vlad can suddenly find some way of showing his nothing is reasonable, then I think we're entitled to ignore his pronouncements on the matter.

The physicist isn't talking about a nothing but something which is unstable so it is not in anyway an argument for or against a Vlad nothing which is non being.

You know you are uncertain about this argument being any kind of argument so you sneak in the second ''argument'' which is that there are many ways to nothing. The trouble is you are using entities from that which exist now which is circularity of argument.

Also you propose a nothing 0 which the New Atheist physicists do not actually propose.

My nothing has the ''property'' of not being which renders any talk of ability to become redundant.

If you think that not being can become something then watch out because you assert that God does not exist.

[Outrider]

uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.

He asserted, baselessly.

Oh and before ye go.........Which natural laws?

All of them. The ones we're aware of, the ones we've hypothesised and not yet confirmed or refuted and the ones that we've not even started to explore, yet.

O.

[jeremyp]

uncaused matter or reality as you have put it is not natural.

Uncaused God is not natural.