Ok so burden of proof is on the one telling any story, then reality itself must adhere to, or challenge that or it’s just a correct assumption? Also note that nobody else is allowed to have any other belief or facts to challenge the story because “nobody can know anything about anything”? It’s like the debating technique of a narcissist

Yeah, because that’s what all religious practicioners engage in at every point of their study. I just haven’t ever heard someone whine at others for doing so without evidence, since from our adolescence we learn that people don’t come back from or report from any afterlife making every single belief about it a guess, aka belief. I don’t know what you are smoking to hold these in your head simultaneously but it seems intensely frustrating honestly.

You seem to have a problem with my belief, and just generally how science works but it can be remedied

Itt, people that can visualise but think that not constantly visualising everything they read means they have the superpower to “feel words as concepts”

No goes to Google gemini

One proof of time is that it exists now and never didn’t. Now provide your proof

You don’t really understand what personal attacks means, do you?

Classic run away tactic. Not even one response just more personal attacks. Okay thanks for trying! It was pretty unpleasant to talk to you.

I have lots of information. You require that nothing must have happened before big bang for an infinite time. None such requirement exist. It is clear you are riffing on guesses you like, and then blaming ontological philosophy yet still claim scientific realism? Since your standpoint has no scientific evidence, every other must also not. But not so. It’s not untested. It isn’t impossible to know. You just have to research the topic. You will move the goalpost out of scientific realism forever, yet never understand that infinity itself.

I am now basking in the profundity of us as the accidental exhaust of cosmic flatulence

A feeling should not be the reason you convert to any religion

My refute: it is always feelings, the alternative is science

you are wrong

Can you explain?

you are wrong to even ask

Then the other person stated how there is no logical argument, that you have to use “feelings” (explaining again the same refutal)

you can’t expect to use science to explain

What we refer to then is feelings?

state my argument back at me to prove your faith, peasant

This is this discussion so far from my viewpoint. To add to that, I have to say also that it is clearly triggering for you and difficult to discuss. I don’t mind but take a breather whenever. It makes for a better quality enlightenment.

( Small aside: The supposition that we don’t use science in matters of theology and metaphysics is very important to examine. What do we use? )

It’s a bigger leap to consider something came into existence from nothing. Your link explicitly explains it for you; “The zero point vacuum of space is proposed to be positive and infinite”. Nothing is created from nothing in science (despite the alluring title of the article) especially not any laws of physics, space & time itself, nor extra dimensions or anything else. Laws of physics are fundamentally different from both matter and almost any ontological standpoint.

It is of course not neither easier OR as hard to consider the universe to have been created by a conscious entity or as you propose, just spontaneously. They are both infinitely complex and “philosophical” as you say “impossible to prove”. They can be viewed as fundamentally the same metaphysical statement.

Because they are the same leap of logic. You argue in a circle against yourself when you say it is more complicated; if a being exist that created it, as something else creating it. As time starts, what started it? Nothing is required for it to have always existed. It is more elegant to me, but you may feel differently.

It is again the burden of proof of the creation theory and your theory of spontaneous creation that there is a before anything and what that nothingness is. We have no scientific proof of that, and zero dimensions thought experiments are not close to explaining or proving what that is. After that you have to paradoxically prove what any symbols used to describe that proof came from ad nauseum.

If you understand occams razor and even go so far as asking yourself “how can time exist for infinite time?” you need to at that point not instantly give up, refer to the fact I explained in the beginning, that we are beings of space and time that have a hard time grasping infinity. It does not mean it is impossible. It certainly does not mean we can’t or shouldn’t advance our understanding of physics.

The concept of nothing, the concept of infinity; yes in philosophy impossible to prove and easily landing the philosopher in mind traps. However in science, testing and providing an accurate framework for our environment is instrumental for philosophy. We often discuss, test and make thorough use of n-D systems, infinity, and many of the concepts you bring up without breaking our minds. You give the fantastic too much credit. We learn how to derive four dimensional proofs as kids. Ironically, zero dimensional problems are the easiest.

We are capable of proving physical properties of our world and use that to inform our philosophical choice. It’s just that you choose religious philosophy (not to be confused with philosophy of religion) and I chose scientific realism to explore.

I just don’t think that makes any sense whatsoever. How is it that things can pop into existence from nothing, that is the hypothesis and disproving it is on us? It should be the other way around. Burden of proof should lay on the idea that things can, and did, pop into existence from nothing. That isn’t something we see happen all the time. We do observe time and space, and have never observed it not existing. Like gravity. But I’m probably missing something critical. To me it is a bigger leap to assume time and space came into existence from nothing suddenly.

So… Feelings. I would really like to explore this rationale in your mind. Nobody should convert or join any religion on feelings. Yet, prophecy, metaphysics, theology… So the edge of scientific reasoning but just slightly outside? Or because their father and mother practice it?

Unless I have missed something huge, time didn’t ever not exist. If you refer to big bang, what evidence says time started then? Sounds really fascinating but I have never heard of it

I… Yes? That’s a correct interpretation, but you denied an answer to me. Or perhaps I misunderstood your position, that nobody should ever convert or consider any religion?

I agree. Except, compared to all other living beings, our art is special. Why is that? Why can Bob Ross teach how to capture it, not only on a visual level but on a visceral cathartic level, for painter and observer to intuit and interpret the signal of the majesty of nature, indeed often even framing a specific part of nature in a love letter that can riff on the concept and introduce fantastic concepts that may even refer to and provoke completely novel amalgamations of existing natural phenomenon and depict them fallably while ultimately even through text inspire a view of the majestic we couldn’t without the artist?

It was unlocked hugely by an insight I got long ago that is a deep truth that I always keep an eye on, which is that;

The more honest you are with others, the more honest you are with yourself.

It is one of the effects of “mirror neurons” phenomenon and the realisation that our subconscious, our “self” does not explicitly distinguish between you and other people the way your prefrontal cortex and conscious mind does. This is old research by now but to me it makes so much sense and I see the effects in people around me all the time.

In dream or deep meditation, “god experiences” (I forget the English name for it) or with psychedelics, this comes to the surface and provokes many “we are one” messages and compassionate teachings such as the golden rule and karma etc. But bottom line, most of our brain just doesn’t give exactly a fuck about who is who at any given time. Just the relationship between them.

Similarly, if you talk down on yourself, you are also more likely to feel like other people are not enough. We all mirror each other and react to subconscious signals every day. This is an cascading effect, that will become exponentially useful if you consciously choose and gradually adjust how to be towards others.

(I kind of go off on this tangent now, because I apparently like talking about it but feel free to ignore the rest if you aren’t into the specifics of my understanding of why it is like this)

Our bodies are talking to each other (subconscious to subconscious) with immense bandwidth, from smells and hormones, microexpressions, physical notes (leaving objects or others in some specific state). But most of it is discarded and not raised to system 1 (frontal lobe)

By learning other people’s predictions, our body can predict events and sometimes chains of several events between several people, and intuit how they came to be at a certain place at a certain time or why the car keys are in a new place, inferring other events, and all these predictions occurs in system 2, subconsciously and continually so that our focus can be on what’s at hand.

By being predictable we incur safety and signal affinity. Any deviation from normal will be evaluated by system 2 if it should warrant a notice to system 1 to investigate, and that will most often be a signal of discomfort, as unpredictability of any kind is an “expensive” metabolic operation.

A very dry explanation that perhaps gives a little insight into the crisscrossing neurological mechanics. It’s good to first understand that the body is continuously budgeting for any prediction error, and for instance meeting new people or interacting with someone that speaks differently than we expect, is draining from a pure metabolic standpoint. The body needs to have prepared glucose and other material and if it happens many times in a row with no rest period for the thoughts to settle, the stress can make you straight up ignore what others say and just answer your prediction to what they just said. It’s the cheapest mode of operation and most common during a day.

I digress a lot but it’s fun because I just pieced together a pretty solid understanding of the whole and previously I had just so many sporadic and isolated insights that lately has found each other into a cohesive model and it’s kind of cathartic to just share it blatantly. It’s a tiny bit probable that my ADHD medication makes me ramble a bit and I hope I didn’t overwhelm ya. Cheers!

Um, yeah the interesting part is that while physics itself indicate time as a one dimensional infinite band, (with possibly branching multiverses but I digress) we as humans attribute a beginning and end, as all we know consists of such objects and entities. Our mind is terrible at grasping infinity, it has even broken many curious minds that try to understand it and are a bit too tenacious in their search. In any case that is my proposal here, that it is an unanswerable question how the universe started. We have facts up to big bang. It (as usual with these things) gives us just more questions than actual answers to how the universe came to exist. I argue that it always did and always will.

No, no it definitely makes sense and btw pineapple on pizza is heavenly (pun intended) but I have always thought and heard from my Mormon friends that they can “work harder” on faith and then come closer to God in the afterlife as a “reward” (this is just me paraphrasing violently) and I found that kind of offensive, as I feel most religions and absolutely Christianity as a whole make a big deal of being equal children of God. Like if you wanted to sit next to Jesus you better work your ass off in your life. It is probably wrong, I understand, but even the idea of a hierarchy in a spiritual setting is for me incredibly offensive