Richard Dawkins nothing is something | Atheist is confused.

[JBA1234234]

 

[Steyn]

These atheists have more blind faith than religious people.

They have blind faith in science that one day, some scientist would answer the question how did the universe came into being.

Dumb creatures

 

[Oldwish]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Stephen hawking.
So the law of gravity is nothing as well?
If you throw a ball at the wall it will bounce back because of the law “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction” but will that law ever create the ball or the wall?
Isko kehte hain truck ki batti wali science.

 

[JBA1234234]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Stephen hawking.
So the law of gravity is nothing as well?
If you throw a ball at the wall it will bounce back because of the law “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction” but will that law ever create the ball or the wall?
Isko kehte hain truck ki batti wali science.

GOURMNT AUNTY: Ye saree mil kar humko pagal bana rahe madrchod k bachy.

 

[Eyeaan]

It is not a new idea. Many physicist have forwarded this concept since 80s.
Here 'Nothing' is a uncertain, unknown and immeasurable physical (rather exactly mathematical) entity - and have no other meaning out of its mathematical construct. Its necessity arises out of Standard Model - This mathematical 'Marker of Nothing' rests upon validity of model and data, and then backward extrapolation.
That means 'Nothing' doesn't exclude 'Something' at or before the 'Modeled event'. Many mathematical theories and models have investigated for that horizon and before by imminent theorists. The physics before that event is all open for exploration - at least mathematically as data seems an insurmountable block.
There is no absurdity but of course Richard Dawkins is a scum and a hack who uses science for political games. It is not to defend Dawkins.

There are parallel logical and epistemological arguments that go for 'Nothing' is Something' but those are irrelevant in this debate.

 

[JBA1234234]

It is not a new idea. Many physicist have forwarded this concept since 80s.
Here 'Nothing' is a uncertain, unknown and immeasurable physical (rather exactly mathematical) identity - and have no other meaning out of its mathematical construct. Its necessity arises out of Standard Model - This mathematical 'Marker of Nothing' rests upon validity of model and data, and then backward extrapolation.
That means 'Nothing' doesn't exclude 'Something' at or before the 'Modeled event'. Many mathematical theories and models have investigated for that horizon and before by imminent theorists. The physics before that event is all open for exploration - at least mathematically as data seems an insurmountable block.
There is no absurdity but of course Richard Dawkins is a scum and a hack who uses science for political games. It is not to defend Dawkins.

There are parallel logical and epistemological arguments that go for 'Nothing' is Something' but those are irrelevant in this debate.

HMMMM

 

[Eyeaan]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Stephen hawking.
So the law of gravity is nothing as well?
If you throw a ball at the wall it will bounce back because of the law “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction” but will that law ever create the ball or the wall?
Isko kehte hain truck ki batti wali science.

I assume this talk is not in context of laws and geometry - (ALL laws of physics rest upon geometric assumption about the structure of universe and on confirmation by measured data).
In this context 'something is a physical entity (though in terms of a mathematical structure). After a certain level - all (classical and relativistic) entities are viewed in terms of mathematical structures, field etc. This 'something' is really 'something' - yet unknown.

 

[Eyeaan]

HMMMM

MMMMH
it's all bitch - one end to another - good luck.

 

[Zainsha]

GOURMNT AUNTY: Ye saree mil kar humko pagal bana rahe madrchod k bachy.

Hahaha sahi kaha...

 

[asadqudsi]

Agnostics zindabad

 

[kaka1]

 

[Steyn]

Agnostics zindabad

Do you know what agnostics are? They deny the existence of God.[/QUOTE]

 

[RAW AGENT]

These atheists have more blind faith than religious people.

They have blind faith in science that one day, some scientist would answer the question how did the universe came into being.

Dumb creatures

maulvis have answered it long back?

 

[RAW AGENT]

Do you know what agnostics are? They deny the existence of God.

[/QUOTE]
So what?
Are they going to pynish others for not believing in their pount of view?

 

[Ali raza babar]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Stephen hawking.
So the law of gravity is nothing as well?
If you throw a ball at the wall it will bounce back because of the law “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction” but will that law ever create the ball or the wall?
Isko kehte hain truck ki batti wali science.

Matlab he could follow the absurd idea of something creating itself.
But Accepting a creator is a problem?
Really?

 

[AWAITED]

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Stephen hawking.
So the law of gravity is nothing as well?
If you throw a ball at the wall it will bounce back because of the law “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction” but will that law ever create the ball or the wall?
Isko kehte hain truck ki batti wali science.

Lol ask scientists explain gravity, they don't knosit, shy mass attracts? And if it's a physical rule then why it doesn't apply in quantum world, why it's mechanics change?