If this nothing can be pointed out, its no longer nothing, but something, this nothing.

Like we do nothing all the time.    Just look at the point of one event to the next.  if your sitting there is nothing between you and your chaire. 

Within the plane of existence of this computer everything seen is made of pixels.......

Ultimately everything YOU see is a brain signal sent to your eyes via retina or whatever......

You never actually see anything..... you get a brain signal.....   thats the truth... 

on your own.....what?

Its like if I asked you folks how to make a fist.     You can't convey or communicate how to fire off the proper brain signals to make a fist.

You just "know" how.......

We ignore the very basic foundations of information we recieve.    People just figure on direct/naive realism.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:07PM, Justme333 wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:45PM, Adelphe wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Justme333 wrote:

I was taught somewhere that there should be no disagreement between creationism and the big-bang theory because they can co-exist.  If not, it is either because of faulty science or faulty theology.  Do not know that much about the science part, but I can tackle the theology part. My Church teaches that scripture does not prove how the heavens were made, but instead shows how to go to heaven. So I am not seeing a conflict here.

Justme

Indeed--in fact, the Big Bang theory was developed by a Christian.

ETA:  Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg (help·info) 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.

(wiki--more)

Indeed, but I was unsure what to call the non-creationism theory, the phrase I originally learned used evolution (should be no disagreement between creationism and evolution), but did not see that term used in reading through this thread.  Regardless, I do not see a conflict between the two sides.

Justme

I don't either.

I think (along with JPII's Encyclical Fides et Ratio) that the two are not just compatible but essential--just like the OP/subsequent posts (and comments from others) imply.

The Pope posits that faith and reason are not only compatible, but essential together. Faith without reason, he argues, leads to superstition. Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Jiwe wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Kwinters wrote:

'It’s often said that you can’t get something from nothing. And while this may be true for most practical applications of your life, it isn’t true for our physical Universe.'

But nothing isn't literally speaking nothing - it is something. So "You can get something from nothing" really says the same thing as "You can get something from something".

James

Right!

Not even in just philosophy...

Some would consider the study of "nothing" to be foolish, a typical response of this type is voiced by Giacomo Casanova (1725–1798) in conversation with his landlord, one Dr. Gozzi, who also happens to be a priest...

However, "nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.

but physics:

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether serving as the transmission medium for propagating light waves.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:41PM, Adelphe wrote:

If you watched it [2  hours of Krauss and Dawkins] and understood it, it should be a simple matter to summarize it.

I listened to the vast majority of it, and it was very disturbing. 

They continually argued that for example a teacher that teaches the book, but doesn't believe it fully in their heart and mind should be fired. Or a doctor who believes in ID should lose all his patients.

Writing my cousin is a monkey on the test is not good enough.  If they could determine you don't believe it to your core, they'd mark your answer wrong.

And ironically, these guys probably speak disparagingly of the Inquisition...

There was a moment when Krauss found some common ground with religion and Dawkins immediately objected.  Dawkins believes there is no common ground between faith and what he believes is the Truth. His purpose therefore seems to be at all costs to stay on the opposite side of that fence.

So you can see why there aren't many scientific researchers that would admit to being a person of faith.  They'd be ridiculed, not promoted, not published.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:17AM, Paladinsf wrote:

Addie, ole girl, your search skills are declining along with your memory.

Here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0

If you began @ 1:55 you get his "analysis."

As for his "personhood" theory, it rests on the UNspoken assumption that I myself CANNOT w/o reference to anything or anybody define for MYSELF what I am worth to ME.

BS, piled on  his “God” bun. And it has to be that way. Unless he makes that assumption, his entire argument – and the belief in supernatural religion –is bogus.

I do NOT need to have some eternal agent force or imaginary being to fill me with "personhood." It comes as standard equipment.

 

(btw (and thanks, too), I copied your post onto the "Best Possible World" thread as a "collection" of theodicies as this is more related to that topic rather than this)