Checkmate atheists.

merciful gods sanction evil

sanction
săngk′shən
noun
Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. synonym: permission.
Merciful gods approve rape of kids

>God allows sin for a good purpose, and at the end of history justice will prevail.
you're a moronic shyster.

>story

oh, reality is for god's entertainment? even more cruel

>god glorifies himself by torturing helpless animals

you can't even make it make sense.

>Everything in this story has a good purpose.

The purpose:

In the year 2100, almost all Christians on earth, by percentage, will live in Nigeria.

You believe in the official religion of Nigeria

>all nations of the world will be Christian

you don't really believe this now do you m8? you're losing left and right

A CIRCUMCISED GOD???
SERIOUSLY??!

>a real god wouldn't have any business with mercy
A claim with no basis

>how do christians deal with cynicism?
God cannot have the shortcomings of fallen men, it would be absurd. We have faith in a God who is good.

God has the capacity to feel grieved by evil, while at the same time having predetermined it to occur.

God has the capacity to feel grieved by evil, while at the same time having predetermined it to occur.

>god has the capacity to be affected by evil

What you've just stated is blasphemy, for evil to affect god means evil can affect god.

Apologies, after reading more on the subject I have realised my error. Please refer to Calvin's commentary on Genesis 6:6 for a better answer:

>The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, ‘This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’

1/2

>God cannot have the shortcomings of fallen men
and yet your god needs to peddle mercy. your god is a fallen man

only humans and animals have mercy. when you say that your god is merciful, then you say that your god is a human. mercy is great, but you mix it with god, which is very bad. you do this because you're a shyster

>Demonstrate to me why God cannot be merciful.

god cannot demonstrate any quality of man; to do so means god has something in common with man, which means god is not purely elevated above, more good, and more perfect than man.

These type of arguments were executed and defeated you over 2000 years ago

>Does not an image of a man share his likeness?

that's not what was being talked about and does not address the point I just made. This would be called a goalpost move, you're changing to a different discussion.

Just chiming in here, but I vaguely remember the Bible saying something along the lines of God creating man in his image. Also, the Bible says God has a lot of emotions and personality traits, even Jesus talks about the personality of God.

The Bible was originally written for and by pagans who believed Gods were individual entities with distinct personalities. Yahweh started out as a war God IIRC. And God in the early part of the Bible actually recognizes the existence of other pagan Gods as being real Gods. This came shortly before the God of the Bible began to be understood as a monotheistic deity. The Bible mentions God interacting with Ba'al and Chemosh and losing in a war to them to eventually succeeding.

>Just chiming in here, but I vaguely remember the Bible saying something along the lines of God creating man in his image.

ok but genesis is literally gnostic text not christian. So which way do you want to have it?

I can do this all day

you're saying that man resembles god, that has nothing to do with the axiom that was proposed

man can resemble god, god cannot resemble man. it's not a bidirectional concept. you are using language and an argument from a gnostic source anyway, if you want to argue christian god you stick to new testament really, as YHWH is an ugaritic god and genesis is a gnostic text-- the old testament has very little to do with christianity

of course, you know basically nothing about any of this.

>Why can't man's mercy resemble the perfect mercy of God?

Because in your own view of the universe, a crocodile eating a small human child is "god's perfect mercy". You can't say it's not mercy because to do so you assume to know the will or thoughts or God

When you say god is "merciful" that is your human interpretation in a thankful way. God cannot directly exhibit the same conceptual ideas as a human with the same conceptual boundary. He is not within your sphere of understanding

I am repeating your own religion back to you; which you are trying to blaspheme, btw.

> k but genesis is literally gnostic text not christian.

What? Can you elaborate? Gnosticism is basically new age shit, long after the creation of the Bibles by Emperor Constantine.

you don't believe in a god, you believe in a narcissistic shyster. you approve israeli thuggery in return for clientelism that profits you personally. you're the parasite priest class from genesis 47

i'm not inclined to help you out of here anymore

>whell, what aboot youuur god??
frick off homo

>Demonstrate to me why God cannot be merciful.
why? my God isn't contested, yours is.

your god not a god. your god is the result of human nature. not even the result of the best humans, but irredeemable cretins. christianity is west asian black magic. a scourge on humanity.

The one that the Bible identifies as the one true God of course. But you already knew that.

The one from the old testament or the one from the new testament ?

They're clearly not, In the OT got is angry, vindictive, and makes wagers with Satan who is is executioner, in the NT he's the complete opposite.

i bet you touch kids inappropriately

so Baal, El, or Yahweh...? Asherah too, although she's only mentioned indirectly
>inb4 El & Yahweh are the same
>implying Yahweh inherited Israel from himself

Which god/concept of reality don't you believe in?

>TIL
have a nice day immediately. your life has no value.

The Bible mentions by name some Greek gods. When you have a surface level understanding of religion due to your entire experience being what you've read others say online...this is what you get.

>no atheistic societies survived for more than a few generations.
Says the guy posting to a global communications platform invented by about the 10th generation of peoples living in a secular constitutional republic whose ideology has already dominated the globe for a few generations.

Religion has declined today due to coordinated attacks on it by communist agitators and the ideologies that spawned them over the last 100+ years. Going back to the women taking gay men and secretly pushing them into the catholic clergy.

>Two generations max.
Its cute that you really think that your grandfather, possibly your father, fought in the revolutionary war, kid, thanks for the chuckle.

It definitely wasn't just 2 generations ago and a secular constitutional republic is definitely not based on some decree of any supernatural entity from some holy book. Jefferson publicly labeled himself a Deist to specifically distance himself from Christian doctrines.

Cutting out the supernatural religious dogma and just using the lessons being communicated through the mythology with the metaphor is exactly what turns his beliefs from theistic to atheistic and from some religious to secular in nature.

>Specifically getting rid of the theism in your ethics isn't the same as intentionally creating an atheistic framework of ethics.

It isn't the only system he borrowed from, even christians and israelites have borrowed most of their ethics from other cultures while they were appropriating holidays and idols. Religion obviously has a purpose, to control groups of people, that doesn't make their superstitious dogma and silly stories facts, its just much easier to assert divinely inspired rules you want to thrust upon people than justify them.

俺バカ

I don't like applying attributes to god because it exists beyond our comprehension.
If simulation theory is correct then the programmer/programming team would be 'god' that may or may not posses omniscience/omnipresence/etc.
>because this thing is far beyond categories.

A non argument

Which god/concept of reality don't you believe in?

I don't believe in any other gods besides the Christian god. I believe that there are other spiritually powerful entities that exist that are not god but can claim to be as this is written and warned about in the bible.

That isn't what I said at all but considering you attempt to boil down an argument into a meme is telling enough to me lol. To people of other religions, that is their reality. It isn't what I believe, and I believe it to be wrong. A schizophrenic mans reality may be that he lives on a giant rainbow sailing the stars. It's real to him and his reality.

Dudes the worst kind of subjectivism here's his true fantasy

Heathens and atheists suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Their entire existence refer to themselves as "I, Me, Myself" 3 persons but knowing it's ONE BEING yet The Trinity is BS. Kek, what homosexuals.

>No, my definition of reality is clear. The one in which there is a Christian God and Jesus Christ. To deny that other peoples realities are different in their own heads is silly.
Yes it is clear that your definition of reality is actually based on what you are imagining in your head instead of being based on some sense of shared mutual physical environment as is usually the case with the definition of reality. I clearly get that its real to you, dammit, but you are talking about your imagination rather than reality and you also have to admit that in your definition of reality, pro-wrestling actually is real to people who believe it is real.

>Truth = Utility

What is 'not real' about Pro Wrestling? It's athletic men/women physically mauling and fighting each other in a ring while being cheered and booed by an audience of people enjoying themselves at the spectacle. Is that mot reality being experienced and perceived?

A mirage is an illusion but there is a reality to it, which is it is a play of light. Some c**ts here don't even fully understand the concepts they arguing about.

What is your reality anon? If you cannot give me an objective answer with absolute certainty of it's conclusions then what is the point? It is the same as me telling you I believe in the Christian god. It's a belief until there is more understanding which current scientific reasoning or consensus is not compelling to me.

>your opinion wrong because it just is
>my opinion right because it just is
very compelling arguments on display today

Why should I believe you over a israelite or a Muslim? Muslims always talk about how their prophecies coming true proves that their religion is correct. At least they try to use actual evidence to substantiate their beliefs like that

>This is not a transformation of universes.
Yes it is, the exact mathematical transformation (in units of universe) being applied in that case is +1. You know there are at least two functions involving only 0 value that leads to exactly +1, 0! and 0^0, so a functional transformation directly from 0 value to 100% is entirely mathematically possible.

>Nothingness is not a universe.
It is necessarily universal, by definition, x=x+0.
If you didn't have nothing, you couldn't define anything else because nothing wouldn't be the specific thing that distinguishes anything from itself.

>Saying it's a transformation of a universe to another would be like saying 1 to 2.
+1 is a mathematical transformation that will get you from 1 to 2 in any arbitrary unit.

>Nothingness is not a universe
Repetition isn't further evidence, Nothingness is universal, as the smallest possible value of anything and everything, it is automatically added to everything, by definition x=x+0.

>it's not even a zero because there is no placeholder since nothingness can still contain infinite other universes in other regions of the plain of nothingness.
0 can be a placeholder where their weren't even placeholders before, 1 =001.00 and 0 can contain infinite other values in other regions of the equality as well, 0=x-x fall all infinity x.

One could even say that, due to the equilibrium of matter and energy and their negatives, that universes themselves have virtually zero more energy than nothingness, it just got temporarily twisted in a spot of nothingness due to a peculiar quantum "lumping" mechanism.

It's like seeing the ripples in a pond and claiming that the ripples are separate from the pond. Metaphysically sure, but physically no.

Like I said, they can be metaphysically separated by the metrics you state, but they are physically part of the pond.

In terms of the universe and nothingness the connection is even stronger since the nature of these two things are inextricably linked in such a way that universes have virtually no more energy or matter than nothingness itself.

At least with a pond ripple you are introducing more energy. But for a universe, there is no energy input, it just comes by pear happenstance of the quantum foam somehow "lumping" or "tangling", probably temporarily.

> Pressure isn't metaphysical, though, it is actual physical movement.

Anything that we categorize is metaphysical. Since a category in itself does not exist. It's only an enabler for our understanding.

From the perspective of nothingness, the pond ripple has no more energy than the pond itself, or the whole universe for that matter. We only say the ripple has more energy because that helps us categorize and pattern out what we see.

> Physically, there are high energy ripples and slow moving calm waters, if anything, the idea of "pond" is metaphysical vagueness.

If humans put a name to it, it's metaphysical by definition.

It's not like a deity stamped a name on something for all to read. It's just a fiction we made up.

> Its not happenstance, its is an absolute innate quality that 0!=1 and nothing is something that functionally 100% of things must manifest from, 0!=1 is always true, not just at some arbitrary temporary beginning.

As far as quantum foam theory goes, it is happenstance. We do not know how quantum foam works, or any of the other possible theories. We just have evidence for them,.

There is no physically connected consequence saying this had to happen.

Look up the definition of metaphysics. There is what we know, physics, and then there is how we know it metaphysics. Among many other lenses of understanding.

If you categorize it, it is metaphysical by definition. A ripple does not exist, only your idea of it exists. Similar to how time does not exist, only your relative perspective of motions exist. And so on.

> Nope it is always necessarily happening, that is not happenstance, it is an innate identity of the thing.

If you can prove that the quantum foam had to create our universe based on some kind of formula that can make predictions, then please do and claim your Nobel prize and your billion dollar prize. You can even prove it in a lab because we have lab experiments which can isolate the effects of quantum foam effects.

> Except its physical existence where instrumentation can measure their existence without you or your ideas being involved.

Please keep in mind what a metaphor is. I was using pond ripples as an imperfect example of what I am saying, I explain why it is imperfect.

In the case of the pond ripple, yes, you can measure things of it. But imagine you couldn't, imagine the ripple came without cause, no input energy. No input energy means there is no energy to measure. That is kinda what the nature of universes and nothingness is. Universes have no detectable distinction between themselves and nothingness.

We can see the physical interactions of our universe and nothingness, but their natures work in such ways that it is always an isolate of a trait, rather than the whole.

> Again by your new moronic standards, physics isn't possible and everything is just some metaphysical categorization.

There's no reason to be so dramatic. I am talking exclusively about the concept of nothingness and the creation and existence of universes.

> I don't need quantum foam, the formulas already show that nothing is something and it MUST yield everything else predictable by arithmetic, geometry, and any physical fields where compounding functions apply.

Then please submit your answer for the Nobel prize.

> That contest isn't actually about presenting anything new

Or you're just full of shit and want to be destructive rather than constructive in conversations.

> I could present my grand unified theory of everything which would swing the doors wide open to helping humanity in every conceivable thing, but I wont be popular.

Lmao. Worst excuse ever.

>The issue with nothingness is that it is not zero everywhere,
I know, I just showed you x-x=0, it doesn't have to be 0 on both sides of the equality to still be nothing.

>The language of math and English can not properly describe this nature.
It can't completely describe nature, but it can properly describe discrete values like 0 or 1 and show how that is just a simple mathematical transformation where 0+1=1.

>When a universe forms, nothingness doesn't go away, zero is still there infinitely.
Yes, and? 1=1+0=1+0+0=1+0+0+0+... what is the problems with that? It is a necessary result of the nature of 0 and its definition x=x+0 and holds up logically.

>Nothingness did not transform, a universe just appeared in an infinitely small part of nothingness.
That still describes a transformation and a small part of nothing is indistinguishable from a large part of nothing because the smallest possible amount of anything is exactly equal to the smallest possible amount of everything, so its kind of a pointless statement.

One could even say that, due to the equilibrium of matter and energy and their negatives, that universes themselves have virtually zero more energy than nothingness, it just got temporarily twisted in a spot of nothingness due to a peculiar quantum "lumping" mechanism.

It's like seeing the ripples in a pond and claiming that the ripples are separate from the pond. Metaphysically sure, but physically no.

Yes, thanks for the concession, mathematical definitions and proof leads to infinite "universes" that could result entirely from functions of nothing and nothing upon nothing.

>mathematically language, which you confuse with logic.
Arithmetic is a type of logic.

scientists have made mathematical formulas to describe physical phenomenon and failed,
They have made logical systems to describe physical phenomenon and failed as well, but arithmetic logic seems to be the most accurate at logically describing actual physical quantities, states, and changes observed over time.

>A transformation does not mean "something appears"
It can mean that if the transformation is defined through dependence on something appearing.

>a transformation means something derived from something else and contains elements of that something
Yes and 0^0=0+1 satisfies all those conditions.

>You can try and logic this by formulating an imaginary zero placeholder, but that's not how physics works.
That is exactly how it works, if there isn't something else measurable in a particular place, then physically there is this nothing thing holding its place and the mathematical value given to nothing is exactly 0.

>There is nothing in our universe made from nothingness,
If nothing can be made of it, then so can anything else and since nothing is the smallest possible value of everything else, it makes sense that everything would begin at nothing, its also why all the different dimension must connect at their mutual zero point, also known as the origin point.

>rather it comes from the things that nothingness may manifest secondarily, namely the particles from quantum foam.
Yes, this is what I said all along, nothing primarily manifests more nothing, but when left unbounded will secondarily generate anything else up to and including a potential universe, ie everything else.

>Meaning the nothingness didn't go away, it didn't transform, we actually coexist with nothingness.
A transformation isn't necessarily annihilatory it doesn't always mean going away, it means to change. Of course it is pervasive, x=x+0, you can't have something without starting at nothing.

>does not mean they have logic
Arithmetic logic units don't implement arbitrary syntax guidelines, they specifically use logic gates and boolean logic to ensure a specific, consistent system of logic is implemented, you clearly don't even know nothing about logic nor arithmetic.

>Having logic is not a substitute for having physical evidence.
It is a prerequisite, I have already mentioned how 0 relates to physical measurement, in summation, even a simple measuring stick starts at 0 units.

>Physics of nature has a tendency to work far removed from the logic
No, again being able to logically describe the solution is the first step in developing physics theories in the framework of science.

>can mean anything to mean anything by changing the definitions whenever it suits you.
I am specifically using the mathematical definition and you are the one attempting to syntax your way around what mathematical transformation, even doing nothing is mathematically a +0 transformation which is a very important, if not the most important type of mathematical transformation due to the many contexts where you have to be able to maintain the same state through many different frames of reference.

>1 is not defined as 1 + 0
The additive property x=x+0 is used to define all the other (ie nonzero) numbers.

>just as 0 is not defined as 0 x 1.
x*0=0 is the exact definition for the multiplication identity of 0.

>language games, nothing more.
They are the logical identities that form the basis of the axioms that define arithmetic, its a very specific type of language game, a logic game, called arithmetic logic.

>as I said, the nothingness didn't go away, it's a separate entity.
Like I said, thank you for your concession that the universe must have come from nothing and nothing else.

>Physics works by experiments, not logic.
Experimentation is just one step of the method.

>Nature's physics doesn't use placeholders,
We use 0 as a placeholder for nature's nothingness.

>the very concept of numbers, comes from an underlying logic.
You have moved to my position, your original claim was

> Arithmetic is a type of logic.
And natural languages have grammar, syntax, etc. All languages have logic within them to make them work, but that does not mean they have logic in what they are describing.

This is why there are countless logically and mathematically consistent physics formulas which have failed. Having logic is not a substitute for having physical evidence.

Physics of nature has a tendency to work far removed from the logic we are familiar with in our languages, whether it be math or natural languages.

> It can mean that if the transformation is defined through dependence on something appearing.

You can mean anything to mean anything by changing the definitions whenever it suits you. But that is not generally a good way to acquire knowledge, that is a very good way to destroy knowledge.

> Yes and 0^0=0+1 satisfies all those conditions.

Like I said, 1 is not defined as 1 + 0, that is insane, just as 0 is not defined as 0 x 1. These are language games, nothing more.

Anyways, as I said, the nothingness didn't go away, it's a separate entity. Like how creating a child doesn't mean the parent dies.

In fact, the nature of nothingness likely means nothingness (the parent) will outlive the universe (the child).

> That is exactly how it works, if there isn't something else measurable in a particular place, then physically there is this nothing thing holding its place and the mathematical value given to nothing is exactly 0.

That's not how physics works. Physics works by experiments, not logic. Sometimes we get lucky with logic, but 99.999% of the time it's wrong. And the times we are lucky it typically gets replaced by a theory more solidly grounded by experiments in a few decades.

Nature's physics doesn't use placeholders, that is a purely metaphysical concept inherent in the language of mathematics. And this concept is particular ill-suited to discussing the universe and nothingness since nothingness doesn't go away.

>does not mean they have logic in what they are describing.
Thanks for the concession.

>If it were so easy, we would have a unified theory by now.
No, that is impossible, primarily because of incompleteness and uncertainty.

>Nothingness is not zero,
0 is the arithmetic value of nothingness.

>the manifestation of a universe does not remove or change nothingness in any way.
I am the one who originally asserted this and mathematically proved it by pointing out that 0=x-x.

>Meaning you didn't go from 0 to 1
nothing upon nothing ie 0^0 goes to 1, always, by definition and logical observation.

>Mathematical languages are not designed for true nothingness as it is experimentally detected in physics.
You need the mathematical descriptions of nothing ie 0 to even define the initial or empty set since {}=0.

>I didn't concede anything
You did, your argument is constantly changing as a result.

>At this point
you have had difficulty following the conversation to begin with, you specifically foreshadowed your own tendency to use alternative definitions outside of math and physics to try to explain math and physics.

>The nature of nothingness is not zero,
The value of nothingness is modeled in arithmetic logic by 0.

>nothingness in the physics as we understand it is a physical phenomenon of something that does exist.
No, nothingness in physics is when there isn't something else there that can be measured.

>I'm talking about nothingness in physics, not math.
Nothingness in physics is derived from measurement which begins with nothing.

>But in physics, nothingness is a real tangible thing that pervades all things
Only because physics is derived from math via geometry and real tangible points in physics are 0 dimensional.

> would essentially view the creation and extinction of universes as instantaneous events.
Its called the annihilator identity of 0 and yes I keep trying to say the properties of 0 are always, not just from some arbitrary beginning to end.

>I didn't concede anything
You did, your argument is constantly changing as a result.

>At this point
you have had difficulty following the conversation to begin with, you specifically foreshadowed your own tendency to use alternative definitions outside of math and physics to try to explain math and physics.

>The nature of nothingness is not zero,
The value of nothingness is modeled in arithmetic logic by 0.

>nothingness in the physics as we understand it is a physical phenomenon of something that does exist.
No, nothingness in physics is when there isn't something else there that can be measured.

>I'm talking about nothingness in physics, not math.
Nothingness in physics is derived from measurement which begins with nothing.

>But in physics, nothingness is a real tangible thing that pervades all things
Only because physics is derived from math via geometry and real tangible points in physics are 0 dimensional.

> would essentially view the creation and extinction of universes as instantaneous events.
Its called the annihilator identity of 0 and yes I keep trying to say the properties of 0 are always, not just from some arbitrary beginning to end.

To put another way, "nothingness" is not "nothing", it just appears as if it were thus the "ness" on the end. It's one of the great mysteries of modern physics how something that seemingly should have absolute nothing, is actually filled with an incredible amount of things, with energies that are unfathomably great. The nature of nothingness has the energy capacity to create a universe, and we have no idea how it can contain or deliver this energy. The fact it can even create matter like electrons throughout the universe requires an amount of energy vastly exceeding our universe. It's as if our universe is just a tiny pin prick in the field of nothingness that just let loose a ton of this energy all at once.

you can't create a percentage out of an identity

watching stupid people attempt to be pseuds when they don't even normally try to be pseuds is painful.

Physics has no definition of nothing, because nothing has never been observed. It's always speculative, or something found in an ideal theory (such theories are inherently wrong, but that's considered acceptable for application purposes).

In math you can have nothing since math exists independent of physical reality, other than Set Theory and what not.

> Its is when there isn't something else there, if you didn't physically have nothing, there would always be something else blocking your measurements.

Like I said, to know there is nothing, you must observe it. But we have no way to observe nothing. Physicists have basically made peace with this reality when they got smacked by the quantum foam and other such theories. Nothing is more like a statistical aberration of quantum fluctuations.

And yes, there is always going to be something blocking physics measurements because, as far as we know, we have no way to observe or create nothing. The quantum foam pervades everything.

> Even a simple measuring stick has a spot for 0, so you can measure nothing in 0 units.

That doesn't work when talking about things like quantum foam. You can kinda measure the statistical likelihood of nothing momentarily passing in an instantaneous spot, but it's never going to be something you can properly measure because physics does not truly allow for nothing to exist, the entirety of reality hates nothing.

> In physics too otherwise there would physically always be something else in the way that would prevent you from physically existing.

Actually, the contrary, the fact that nothing is impossible is what makes our existence possible. Without the quantum foam, it's possible our entire universe would just dissolve back into the quantum field, or "nothingness."

Someday we'll have proper terms and understood traits for these phenomenon and we'll be able to discuss this subject more easily.

>why I keep having to repeat over and over that even a simple measuring stick can measure nothing in terms of space.

Show me how to measure nothing with a measuring stick.

why is this your response to "show me how to measure nothing with a measuring stick"

answer the fricking question or don't respond with non sequitur i'm not easy to confuse

>If there ever was a state of absolute nothingness then we'd still be in that state.
Or it would be the universal thing that is always right there inbetween you and yourself just like it is with everything else.

It has to exist between each thing, or you couldn't ever have something specific, you would always be a bunch of other things in between it.

A specific single point in space is nothing because of its definition via 0 dimensionality.

Nothing isn't a thing. I don't think you understand that.

It's a concert. Saving nothing actually exists is incorrect. If it exists it isn't nothing. Nothing is the lack of existence. So you can't point to it or measure it.

>Saving nothing actually exists is incorrect. If it exists it isn't nothing.
No, if it exists, it is something and nothing is something, you keep talking about it because it has its own name which is what we do to things.

>Nothing is the lack of existence.
There is no such thing as lack of existence, nothing is the smallest possible amount of existence which is why any instrument can measure it within its context of measurement.
I am pointing at nothing right now because it is what I am holding in my open hand.

It has been named something because it is something, I am not misusing words, you just can't wrap your head around its inherent paradoxical nature reflected in the math where 0=-0 because the value of nothing is a self-negating paradox.

Yes nothing, nothing is the thing that is wrong with me, the thing we have been talking about for hours, the meds I take.

>can be considered
This doesn't mean they have to be.

Mathematically, something is represented by a variable such as x.
x can equal any amount of thing, including no amount of thing or 0 ie nothing, therefore, nothing is something when speaking in mathematical/geometrical/physical context, even though it could mean other things in different syntactical contexts.

Ok but if "not anything", is still the thing with the value 0, it is still measurably something.

No they aren't necessarily opposites (nothing is the thing that remains when something is removed from itself, the smallest possible amount of it) and x=-y is the mathematical definition of opposites and 0 can both x and y, opposite of itself, without violating the logic, so even if they were, it wouldn't make any difference mathematically since the value of nothing is the exception to the general rule of noncontradiction.

There are two ways, you don't use the measuring stick and you are implicitly measuring nothing or you directly measure the space from the start of 0 to the start of 0 on the stick to explicitly measure nothing.

>????? you can never reach 0 by measuring physical space
All measuring sticks start at 0, have you really never seen a ruler.

If you say scripture leads you to an understanding of God-- god does X and it is merciful, so says scripture. Okay

Going forward, you don't have scripture. How can you know God's mercy? You cannot understand God, he is above and completely outside of your understanding. Jesus was created for this reason, to interface with you and lead you and symbolize the connection to you. So you can understand Jesus and his words, you can understand what scripture tells you, but you can't understand God.

Let's say in 10 years, God creates a big giant tornado that goes across all of western europe and kills 200 million people.

Explain to me why this was not God's mercy. Explain how you can be sure this apparently destructive act was not an act of his love. Go.

>Everything that God does is an act of love,

? there is no Christian basis for this statement

>scientists seething trying to use math and unfalsifiable premises to prove that nothing can self-arise and that A = !A.

Kinda funny destroying foundations of logic to pwn the theists.

> If nothing can be made of it, then so can anything else and since nothing is the smallest possible value of everything else, it makes sense that everything would begin at nothing, its also why all the different dimension must connect at their mutual zero point, also known as the origin point.

Nothing is made from nothingness. Rather nothingness exhibits the quantum foam, and the particle behaviors eventually create a universe. However, nothing remains in exactly its same nature. We can see the nature of nothing in container absolute zero experiments. Nothingness is here, all around us, it's effects impact our universe's physics.

Nothingness should not be confused with zero, nothingness is just a word for something we have no other word for. Nothingness is a real physical thing that never goes away.

> Yes, this is what I said all along, nothing primarily manifests more nothing

There is not more nothing. If you see a ripple on a pond, do you say there is more pond?

> A transformation isn't necessarily annihilatory it doesn't always mean going away, it means to change.

Changing the definition of words is not useful. It's not a transformation. From the perspective of nothingness, nothing happened, the universe is just a quantum foam blip.

The physics of nothingness is also unbound by time, meaning from the perspective of nothingness our universe has come and went instantaneously.

Nothingness is NOT the absence of something, it is the presence of something we do not understand yet. It is not zero of something, it is a something that we don't understand.

Just replace "nothingness" with some science word "Quantum expanse field" or something. Maybe that wont imply the number zero in your head anymore, I don't know. We don't have a term for this thing, that I'm aware of.

Question, does quantum mechanics take time?

If we ever took a ship to leave our universe, somehow. The moment we disconnected ourselves from our universe, somehow, the universe would instantly cease to exist, because we are no longer bound by that universe's time/space fluctuation. We would live in our own little bubble of time/space in our ship.

Where is this evidence? Show it to me.

Ok thanks will look it up.

Quantum foam is not a God. It's just a phenomenon. But as soon as we see a deity floating around the quantum foam, I'm sure it will make headlines.

It would almost appear that nature is trying to initiate a universe within our universe, but it can't. Perhaps it's being "pushed back" by the nature of our own universe now occupying the space. But in the vast plains of nothingness, what is there to push back against the quantum foam from initiating the creation of a universe?

Yeah, like I said you sound like Krauss but more annoying. I don't need to argue. You should see if you can turn your smart guy points in for a new face, body or brain.

You're fat and dumb. I don't argue with tubs. You win. Now turn those smart guy points in for a new set of teeth or waistline.

>Again, you're trying to propose a circle which makes no sense to be in a progression
It makes so much since they call it clockwise and use it to measure the progression of time?

>makes no sense to be without a beginning.
So you think every time the clock strike 1pm, that it is the beginning of time all over again and that it actually matters what point in the circle you put the 1pm rather than the relative position of the numbers?

>equivocation
Its not an equivocation, its an exception that disproves your rule where you are assuming linear coordinate system is the only possibility when that is not case in a spherical supporting reality.

>A circle or a wheel is concept which isn't undergoing a progression,
In other words, you know nothing about math and have never even heard of the circular and spherical coordinate systems, this is the first time you have been exposed to nonlinear geometries?

>To say something is going clockwise or not is progress, motion, a sequence of events, you moronic Black person.
Pretty ironic from the dumbass who doesn't understand that clocks are literally used to measure the progression of time, motion, and the timing of a sequence.

>You're trying to concept of a circle to exempt an actuality by using the naming of the wording as an equivocation.
No, you said that to progress there has to be a beginning, but that isn't true mathematically, when considering progressing along a closed arc in circular coordinates rather than along a line in linear coordinates.

>So yes, it's very much still an equivocation fallacy.
So no, it is not an equivocation, it is mathematical refutation of your false claim of progression that only considers progression along expanding line segments rather than closed loops.

x++ doesn't require a beginning, its always just +1 from any point.
Its actually more likely that it is physically impossible to have a beginning, nothing you have ever done or observed was actually a beginning it was just a continuation of conditions.
They don't even see an alpha 1 isn't even the first number, 0 is, you are the one who seems so afraid of something you have to invent complicated nonsensical systems to prove to yourself it is impossible.

>Talk about nonsensical lol
So in addition to being ignorant about math and geometry and physics, you don't code either, the formulas are all just nonsense?

>you're the one proposing the possibility of a sequence of events without a beginning
Then how much would you have to turn the clock counter-clockwise to get back to the absolute beginning of the circle if there is some definitive beginning and end to every circle rather than an inside and outside?