I know but then it’s so easy to give up, and even if you don’t, the next time something slightly disturbs the balance, such as it being Thursday, you need to achieve a monumental life changing effort again just to do the exact same thing you did for months…? And the crazy thing is that even experts on the subject don’t seem to understand going “it’ll get easier just keep at it” my sister in Christmas, I am fourty freaking years old I don’t think I’ll suddenly be able to not randomly forget brushing my teeth

Oh man machine language is so good, literally the best actually

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 splinter is too vanilla, try rocksteady x shredder sub

Joke’s on them, my face is dataset poisoning

Let me just burn this last CD and then recycle this computer

Me when I burned my last cd

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”

I’ve been vibe coding for several decades, they’re not gonna co opt that shit

My brother in christ, what do you think we use to make the broth?

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?