The Great Nothing-o-tron

Originally posted by eatmybishop
well if you insist, i would have to answer b... something cannot come from nothing... this does open up the question where did it all start though

Yes , I do insist . Surely you meant A ???? Re-read the post.

Now if your answer is A then to me that logically leads one to eternal existence. If something cannot come from nothing then there must always have been something . Nothingness is an impossible condition of existence , because if nothingness ever was then we wouldn't be here now. From nothing , nothing can come . I agree with you . So something can only come from something else which means either an infinite regress of somethings or one big eternal something which has no beginning.

"Where did it all start?" is not a question you can ask if you really think B because a "start" would imply that existence started from nothing. The only conclusion left is there was no start => beginningless eternity.

Originally posted by Wayne1324
I would answer A.

But, whats the point of the question? You can neither destroy nor create matter. So, the events your decription would never even be possible.

What do you hope to gain from such a ridiculous, rhetorical question?

What do you hope to gain from such a ridiculous, rhetorical question?WAYNE

I would have thought it obvious. It's a rational argument for eternal existence. If you think A then you can't believe that existence itself has a beginning because if it did then it must have come from a state exactly the same as the nothing-o-tron scenario. If existence has no beginning then that is eternal existence , uncaused and permanent. Existence has been existing for an infinite amount of time (if time is a useful term for you).

Such a machine cannot exist due to the law of conservation of mass-energy.

Before the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole.

And what is behind door B? I will go with B. What is your loaded response to people choosing B?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have a thought experiment....

I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Such a machine cannot exist due to the law of conservation of mass-energy.

Before the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole.

Before the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole

And how long was it there for? forever?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Before the Big Bang, mass-energy existed in the form of a singularity. The entire universe was one giant black hole

And how long was it there for? forever?

I have no idea.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do.

I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do THOUSAND

However , I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that A would be the most likley scenario. I see no reason at all why A should not be logically true. No-one really knows but then no-one really knows if the sun will come up tomorrow. All life is faith in probability at some level and to me I think A is at least 1000's of times more likely than B , good odds for eternal existence I say.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I have no idea.

It was either for a finite time or it wasn't.

Originally posted by klopdisselboom
And what is behind door B? I will go with B. What is your loaded response to people choosing B?

Good spot . It would disingenuous of me to not admit the loaded nature of this thought experiment. If you really believe B , what is your rationale for B ? Why is existence not gone forever? Is there any reason for favouring B over A when A would seem to be the most logical and simple answer? If existence is gone then there is nothing there to kick start it again. So why B?

(Hint - there is nothing behind door B really other than pushing back to door A which ultimately leads one to the conclusion that life must be eternal in some way...door C leads to a holiday for 2 in Jamaica but you have to get 200 points for that)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I designed it with a special chip that gave it a long term goal of annihilating existence itself , so no it wouldn't. How about answering the question at hand?

Alright, alright. I would say A, basing it on the evolutionists perspectuive. That's the only way this question makes any sense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's a rational argument for eternal existence.

There is nothing rational about your experiment.

Your experiment assumes the impossible. And, it suggests nothing because our understanding of the origin of the universe is in its infancy. It only allows for the logic that our minds are capable of when there is so much more that we don't understand.

Originally posted by Wayne1324
There is nothing rational about your experiment.

Your experiment assumes the impossible. And, it suggests nothing because our understanding of the origin of the universe is in its infancy. It only allows for the logic that our minds are capable of when there is so much more that we don't understand.

What about the origin of the universe do you think you understand? Impossible or possible seems to be the norm when it comes to what people think about the universes origin.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What about the origin of the universe do you think you understand? Impossible or possible seems to be the norm when it comes to what people think about the universes origin.
Kelly

Did I give you any indication that I understood the origin of the universe?

My point was that nobody understands it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have no idea if A or B is the correct answer. I would be surprised if you think you do THOUSAND

However , I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that A would be the most likley scenario. I see no reason at all why A should not be logically true. No-one really knows but then no-one really knows if the sun will come up tomorrow. All lif ...[text shortened]... hink A is at least 1000's of times more likely than B , good odds for eternal existence I say.

Well, by conservation of mass-energy, I suppose A would be correct. This is one reason why Christianity is in disagreement with science.