Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science has a long track record of being wrong and having to be corrected. There is a book of truths that has never been proven wrong, for even when it has been thought to be wrong, it has been eventually been proven right after all.

Go on then, I'll bite. Show me some, no, I'll make it even easier, show me one proof that the big book of fairy tales you reference is right. You might want to look up the word proof before making an ass of yourself.

NB Proof does not equate to that smelly old rag you revere so much nor does a poorly made YouTube video constitute proof.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I reason that the universe could have existed without us. However the Earth is the only known place in the universe that was made with just the right conditions so we can exist. Why do you think that is? Is it possible you have the common sense to use reason and logic to answer that question?

the Earth is the only known place in the universe that was made with just the right conditions so we can exist

Yes, it is the only “known” place, but that doesn't mean it is the only place. It has been calculated that there must be many billions of Earth-like planets in the universe and, even assuming that none have plant life, it would only take one to have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, which could come about with various non-biological processes not involving plants (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle “An additional source of atmospheric free oxygen comes from photolysis, whereby high energy ultraviolet radiation breaks down atmospheric water and nitrous oxide into component atoms. The free H and N atoms escape into space leaving O2 in the atmosphere “ ), for it to be just fine for us to colonize (we would have to bring some agricultural seeds with us among other things but that is besides the point).

-your reasoning is also flawed on this for other reasons as indicated inside the various other posts in response to yours.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science has a long track record of being wrong and having to be corrected. There is a book of truths that has never been proven wrong, for even when it has been thought to be wrong, it has been eventually been proven right after all.

Science has a long track record of being wrong and having to be corrected.

Scientific method itself has never been shown to be wrong because it doesn't guarantee nor is supposed to guarantee the correct theory; it merely offers the most rational way of judging the most probable correct theory (it is also the only valid and sane method we have got).
That means, whenever a scientific theory is proven wrong by new evidence, that doesn't in any way falsify or invalidate the scientific method that was used to obtain it.

In proper science, unlike in typical religion, the theories are made to change/adapt to any new evidence rather than any new evidence being made to be adapted to the theories.
The fact that scientific theory has been “corrected” (as you said above) in this way is proof that scientific method is working and this is obviously and clearly a vindication of science thus this is a mark in favour of science over religion.

That contrasts with unshakable blind faith in a religion where any new evidence is made to be adapted (usually by either denying that it exists or by giving it an illogical highly-twisted interpretation in this case) to the theories (religious belief in this case) rather than the theories being made to change/adapt to any new evidence. This means that the theory is never “corrected” with this unshakable blind faith no matter how obviously false the theory is according to new evidence and that proofs unshakable blind faith in a religion is stupidly delusional and this is clearly a mark against religion over science.

So your criticism of science here is totally invalid and it is your religious beliefs that should be criticized for NOT being correct!

Originally posted by Kepler
Go on then, I'll bite. Show me some, no, I'll make it even easier, show me one proof that the big book of fairy tales you reference is right. You might want to look up the word proof before making an ass of yourself.

NB Proof does not equate to that smelly old rag you revere so much nor does a poorly made YouTube video constitute proof.

To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

Job 28:25

Air has weight according to this verse in the Holy Bible.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/How_much_does_air_weigh.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

Job 28:25

Air has weight according to this verse in the Holy Bible.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/How_much_does_air_weigh.htm[/b]

Air has weight according to this verse in the Holy Bible.

How do you know this? it doesn't say wind is made of moving air, it just says the WIND (which is NOT air but rather the movement of air) has "weight" -which, by the way, is false anyway! (just look up the definition of 'weight'😉 Weight is NOT the continuous movement of something! So what "To establish a weight for the wind" implies is clearly false! -I thought what the Bible says is not supposed to (according to some Christians) be ever false because it is supposed to be "the word of God" who is supposed to be incapable of being wrong? -so how do you explain that?

Does it explain what weight actually is? or does it say all the chemical elements air is made of? answer, no. Only science can answer that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

Job 28:25

Air has weight according to this verse in the Holy Bible.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/How_much_does_air_weigh.htm[/b]

That's not proof of anything. I did suggest you look up the meaning of proof but you seem incapable of accessing a dictionary. Oh well, better luck next time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So do you believe wikipedia is a good source to identify what quarks are and to find out what is the fundamental particle of matter?

P.S. I looked up quark in Wikipedia and it says the following:

A quark (pron.: /ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

Wikipedia is usually a good source for the layman and even for specialists it's a good starting point if you want to know more about a subject that is related to your work.

Quarks are a category of fundamental particles in the Standard Model. One might say that a quark is a fundamental constituent of matter (although there is obviously no way to prove that it itself is not made up of smaller constituent parts), but certainly not the fundamental constituent of matter. What a difference an article makes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Wikipedia is usually a good source for the layman and even for specialists it's a good starting point if you want to know more about a subject that is related to your work.

Quarks are a category of fundamental particles in the Standard Model. One might say that a quark is a fundamental constituent of matter (although there is obviously no way ...[text shortened]... certainly not the fundamental constituent of matter. What a difference an article makes.

It does not really matter to me if the quark is the fundamental part of matter or not. My aim was to restate my original question so that the something I referred to is understood to be physical and not spiritual. So why does whatever you consider the smallest part of physical matter exist at all? Do you understand that question?

Originally posted by humy

Air has weight according to this verse in the Holy Bible.

How do you know this? it doesn't say wind is made of moving air, it just says the WIND (which is NOT air but rather the movement of air) has "weight" -which, by the way, is false anyway! (just look up the definition of 'weight'😉 Weight is NOT the continuous movement of something! ...[text shortened]... say all the chemical elements air is made of? answer, no. Only science can answer that.

Wind is moving air and that was what the verse is referring to. So today, we know moving air has mass and weight because we are able to weigh it.

Originally posted by Kepler
That's not proof of anything. I did suggest you look up the meaning of proof but you seem incapable of accessing a dictionary. Oh well, better luck next time.

I just proved that you will not accept proof of something that you do not want to believe. That is the only reason I wasted my time with your challenge to prove what kind of person you are. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It does not really matter to me if the quark is the fundamental part of matter or not. My aim was to restate my original question so that the something I referred to is understood to be physical and not spiritual. So why does whatever you consider the smallest part of physical matter exist at all? Do you understand that question?

Answer this one, why not? Why shouldn't it exist? If there was nothing you wouldn't be here to debate the matter but the mere fact of existence doesn't mean you, me or the universe as a whole are special or inherently unlikely.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wind is moving air and that was what the verse is referring to. So today, we know moving air has mass and weight because we are able to weigh it.

Wind is moving air

No! wind is the MOVEMENT of air! And NOT "moving air". "moving air" means the AIR that is moving as opposed to the MOVEMENT of that air!
Here is a valid definition of air:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wind “a natural movement of air”

Here you have confused the meaning of “moving” with the meaning of “movement of”!

Also, if wind was “moving air” and not the “movement of air” then to imply that the “wind has weight” would mean “moving air has weight” which would beg the question of why that verse was specifically saying that MOVING air has weight in particular rather than just the air regardless of whether it was moving? -the answer to this question is, of course, totally obvious; they did not know that air has weight regardless of whether it is moving (and most probably simply didn't know it had weight at all!) thus THAT is why they said “wind” in that verse and not 'air'! If they where referring to the weight of the air regardless of whether it was moving or not then why on earth didn't they (or 'God' if you actually believe such crap) say 'air' and not 'wind'? -for the existence of the weight of the air is totally irrelevant to whether the air is moving! -sorry, your Bible tells something here that is false! and therefore, if the Bible is the word of God, then God has said something that is false! -no escaping that fact. Your God is ether stupid or a liar, apparently.

Originally posted by humy

Wind is moving air

No! wind is the MOVEMENT of air! And NOT "moving air". "moving air" means the AIR that is moving as opposed to the MOVEMENT of that air!
Here is a valid definition of air:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wind “a natural movement of air”

Here you have confused the meaning of “moving” with the meaning ...[text shortened]... is false! -no escaping that fact. Your God is ether stupid or a liar, apparently.

The person writing this was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did. I don't think the writer knew what air was either. I doubt he had ever heard of such a thing. However, he could feel the wind (air movement, movement of air, moving air) and was inspired to write of its weight. Today, we know what wind is made of and we also know it has weight just like the inspired writer said it did.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science requires something to exist before it can determine any facts on that something. I know that I exist because I had two parents and there was at least one witness to my birth and a recorded birth certificate. Science has given the name quark to the fundamental particle of matter, but do they know why it exists? Why does matter exist? That is a differe ...[text shortened]... that question with facts. Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.

An explanation of existence of matter has always eluded me. I cannot explain it and this is a great mystery that nobody can solve that I am aware of. Matter is just something we all know exists and we have to accept it.

Religion involves accepting the existence of GOD which we cannot prove exists. Accepting a superior being that created the universe just makes everything more complicated. Then you are left wondering how GOD exists and that is harder to explain than matter.

Religion just tells you to accept what you cannot explain as well, only their explaining an existence with another existence is more complicated and takes you back to square 1. You are still left with a mystery.

Stick with the most simple mystery. If you bring god into it you will just get a headache because you are needlessly complicating things. There is no way of proving god exists and if god does exist why did god put parasites and disease on earth? If god doesn't care about us don't give god any respect. Don't have faith in god's existence. god doesn't deserve it. god is an imperfect screw up, the bum of superior beings. Have higher standards than that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The person writing this was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did. I don't think the writer knew what air was either. I doubt he had ever heard of such a thing. However, he could feel the wind (air movement, movement of air, moving air) and was inspired to write of its weight. Today, we know what wind is made of and we also know it has weight just like the inspired writer said it did.

he could feel the wind (air movement, movement of air, moving air) and was inspired to write of its weight.

Then he was clearly in error.
And PLEASE stop pretending to be stupid with this "(air movement, movement of air, moving air) " as if you don't understand the difference between "movement of air" and "moving air". Do you really claim that you are so confused you just cannot understand the difference?

Today, we know what wind is made of

Yes, it is 'made' (if that is the right word) of the movement of air.

and we also know it has weight

wrong yet again! You are just not getting it are you! (actually, pretending to). Wind, i.e. the movement of air, has no weight because movement of anything has no weight. Only the air itself has weight and air is NOT 'wind' i.e. air is not its own movement. Please don't pretend you don't know the difference between wind and air.

just like the inspired writer said it did.

NO, just UNLIKE he said! Science has got it right while he got it wrong -it is as simple as that.
Your original claim that the Bible says air has weight is debunked.