Originally posted by Boshuda
I applied to an advert asking for extras for Ep1. You had to be 6foot tall.I'm 6 foot 5 inches so I had no chance!!
After reading about the making of Ep1 it figures I had no chance as the sets were designed smaller, and Heightened only to incorperate Liam Neesons huge frame!:-(
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now it would be interesting to know what their definitions of "nothing" are, and how they know that this "nothing" actually is the "nothing" you defined, if such a thing can even exist.You just vaguely defined it as the opposite of anything. That's a completely abstract concept, which we don't know anything about or even know. So, we have to see exactly what they are talking about and how it was proven. I think you might be taking popular science simplifications and speculation to support your point in this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4dpeJVDxs&feature=related
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.pngMaybe you have links to the papers they must be referring to (though we probably wouldn't understand them)
You defined "something can't come from nothing" with this "Nothing is literally the absence of ANYTHING. So how can nothing make something? If nothing made something, it wouldn't be nothing anymore. It would be the cause of something, which is not nothing."
That is circular. You said beause everything that begins to exist has a cause (1) if something begins to exist it can't come from nothing as the nothing would be a cause (2)
And you defined the (1) by saying because something can't come from nothing (2) everything that begins to exist needs a cause (1)
That's circular, you haven't proven either of those independently.
Well, I think they can be, but for the sake of argument I'll drop that, as you are correct in saying "if I had proven that the universe came from the nothing I defined, the conditions would have had to be timeless".
Timelessness being something we also can not imagine and make any sort of reasonable claims about, but that's beside the point.
Okay, why not just say "the universe was either caused by a creator (will and ability) or by something else"? I believe you are going to come back to the phrasing of necessary and sufficient, which means very specific things in logic, but say I agree to this. How do you now prove that it must have been the creator and not another cause?
I covered that above, I'll drop that line of argument for the sake of clarity.
Yeah, I apologize. Could you explain the fundamental way to get to your God, though?
That are the two most interesting things to me.
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" must be "God of the Bible"
and
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" did it and not "some other cause"
?
