This touches on some of my previous posts but simplified and rephrased. I only see 2 ways something can exist you can use this philosophy with anything i do not see any holes in it(if there is i would honestly like to know), Existence can either always exist or Existence can be created. If neither one of those are not true then that would mean nothing exist, there would be no way to start existence.so when people say there is an infinite cycle of universes being created, that cycle would have to have a starting point or always exist, god would have to have a starting point or always exist, energy would have to have a starting point or always exist, and a universe or a multiverse would have to have a starting point or always exist.no matter what you belive there is only 2 ways for something to exist or nothing exist and there would be no way to start existence.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Im sorry its 2 sentences in there i messed up.
"If neither one of those are not true then that would mean nothing exist, there would be no way to start existence"
I meant to say: If neither one of those are not true then that would mean nothing exist, there would be no way for something to exist.
There is the possibility of an infinite cycle, and it did most likely have a starting point. But if that is the case, we will never know what started it, because there is no backwards compatibility between universes in that setup. Also, the inclusion of god is unessesary.
There are claims that god and energy always existed which needs absolute nothing to exist. I have heard the infinite cycle claim and if it had a starting point then it would have to start from nothing what both of those have in common is there is no cause and both concepts need nothing to exist. If there was something that sparks existence then you will keep going in a long cycle of what created that,that and that until you get to root of existence which has to come from nothing, always exist which needs nothing to exist or nothing exist there is no other ways for something to exist.if you know another way that something can exist i would like to hear it!
You've also left out tunnelling from nothing, infinite cycle from a single creation event, and lots of other stuff I'm sure.
What do you mean by tunneling from nothing? But i have stated the infinite cycle claim.
You said an infinity cycle that has always existed. I saying an infinite cycle with a finite starting point.
But you see the infinite cycle can only exist 2 ways a starting point or always exist which is the 2 ways i have stated.
If nothing isn't the cause of existence and something is the root for existance then that would imply whatever that something is has always existed(which would need nothing to exist) if not then that something had to come from nothing or nothing exist at all, i know it a mind twister!
Andrewcgs - 'if not then that something had to come from nothing'
Add that to your list as well.
Andrewcgs - "or nothing exist at all"
make sure you add this one as well
I said 2 ways for something to exist if nothing exist then that is not a way for something to exist. I knew somebody was going to bring that up but i was ready lol!
Add that to your list as well.
That is apart of my starting point claim.
I believe(and correct me if I'm wrong) when he says "Tunneling" he is referring to a specific peculiarity of Quantum Physics
so something coming from nothing means it was created? Well then you are using such a wide definition of that word to include just about anything. What are the odds you are going to narrow the definition of that word the instant it suits your needs?
Or, if you would like, you could tell me the word in question, I could post the actual definition, and then he couldn't narrow it beyond its actual scope.
Narrow the word down to what? like i said you can use this philosophy with anything but i might be a little confused.
What i got from that is the wormhole concept or the string theory but when he said from NOTHING is what got me, but he clarified it though. But im saying what ever theory is out there or popular spiritual beliefs the foundation of existence can only work in 2 ways or there is no existence.either something can come from nothing or something can always exist which needs nothing to exist or nothing exist at all.
"Quantum tunnelling or tunneling (see spelling differences) refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount."
Thought I don't know why Nyar would have mentioned this.
It's a fancy way of saying something from nothing.
It's a hopeless tangle of word salad. Notice you have already made subtle changes to your 2 options.
Proof please! where have i changed my stance i have only backed it up i have answered evey thing you have questioned and destroying you attempts to prove me wrong.
I don't think you've destroyed anything yet......
"Existence can either always exist or Existence can be created."
"those 2 concepts have in common is they dont have creators they are self created and they both needed absolutely nothing to be created."
"either something can come from nothing or something can always exist"
You not slick the second quote was from a previous thread where i was explaining a similar point but not the same point that is not from this thread. The second quote i still stand by the foundation of that statement but things that im am trying to clarify in this thread again you fall short. The only part i said wrong was that both concepts are not created something that always existed is not created which i have clarified in this thread every else is saying the same thing but worded differently.
Why don't you stop the mental gymnastics and goal post moving and just cut to the punchline?
That's the equivalent of me asking my Catholic neighbor to quit throwing holy water in my face every time we cross paths.
Like i said you attempts to prove me wrong are destroyed by logic and honesty! like i said there are 2 ways for something to exist i get the sense you disagree you have given me others ways for something to exist but you didn't even realize they fit in the category of one of the 2 ways i have stated implying that your mind can even grasp the concept i am explaining. I am standing on solid grounds you are scrambling buddy.
This is proof you guys really cant name 1 other way for something to exist, this is groundbreaking!
I understand you are trying to create 2 categories that will encompass every imaginable form of existence. I also understand that as you widen those 2 categories, more and more of the imaginable forms of existence will fit into them. But what I don't understand is the point. Why not start with A and ~A and be done with it; instead of posting pages of goal post moving to eventually come to that version anyway?
Well first of all you implied you disagreed and tried to point out other ways something can exist and ways that i left out so dont sit there like you have been understanding this whole time or agreeing. But i don't understand? What do you mean by A and A