Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

[doubtingthomas]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQlcEF9BOM

It's impossible for a human to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing. Religious people don't have the answer. Atheists don't either. Some religious apologist have argued that Time is circular, but that explanation doesn't really explain anything.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Well, most physicists would say that we have nothing from nothing. The universe is made of absolutely nothing.

Mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... discussion.

[doubtingthomas]

Mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing:

That's interesting. You should still watch the video.

Here's the bio of Kipping

https://www.astro.columbia.edu/content/david-kipping

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing:

That's interesting. You should still watch the video.

Here's the bio of Kipping

https://www.astro.columbia.edu/content/david-kipping

Thanks. I'll check out the video this evening or tomorrow. Just Googling Kipping shows that he believes there's essentially a 50-50 chance that we are living in a computer simulation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/

[Philo Sofee]

That's interesting. You should still watch the video.

Here's the bio of Kipping

https://www.astro.columbia.edu/content/david-kipping

Thanks. I'll check out the video this evening or tomorrow. Just Googling Kipping shows that he believes there's essentially a 50-50 chance that we are living in a computer simulation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/

That's a rather stupid analogy, computers imply a Creator. There has ALWAYS been intelligence behind computers, i.e., always intelligent inputs FIRST, then the program works. It MUST be plugged in by......... drumroll........an intelligent person first, so the analogy fails for atheism, it's a win for Creationists.

[doubtingthomas]

That's a rather stupid analogy, computers imply a Creator.

Kipping is agnostic and he doesn't believe there's a 50-50 chance that we live in a simulation. Kipping has argued that we are probably not in a simulation.

[doubtingthomas]

Thanks. I'll check out the video this evening or tomorrow. Just Googling Kipping shows that he believes there's essentially a 50-50 chance that we are living in a computer simulation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/

Great!

Kipping has another video titled "Why You're Probably Not a Simulation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ

I am sure that article didn't clarify Kipping's views.

But Kipping's new video is a must watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgQlcEF9BOM

[drumdude]

. Religious people don't have the answer.

How do we know this?

Nothing rules out their explanation, even if there’s no evidence for it. Their explanation is intentionally unfalsifiable.

[Philo Sofee]

That's a rather stupid analogy, computers imply a Creator.

Kipping is agnostic and he doesn't believe there's a 50-50 chance that we live in a simulation. Kipping has argued that we are probably not in a simulation.

OK, thanks. I ought to look before talking. The computer simulation is just not a very good analogy in any form if one is against Creationism. It will always imply an intelligence. Computers never have just happened by chance anymore than inputs for programs. Programs ALWAYS have intelligent programmers behind them. There is never an exception.

[Philo Sofee]

. Religious people don't have the answer.

How do we know this?

Nothing rules out their explanation, even if there’s no evidence for it. Their explanation is intentionally unfalsifiable.

But so is the atheist one. Nothing they have shown is final proof, and hence unfalsifiable. True, the probability looks to me to be in greater favor for the atheist when it comes to physical evidence of any of the human Creator Gods which have been imagined, but that has nothing to do with whether there is any kind of deity or not. Since we have invented the gods, refuting them is easier than falling off a log, but that is only proof of non-existence of human invented and imagined gods, that isn't proof of no kind of deity whatsoever. That might actually be beyond our ability to know about. We just don't know yet...