How can something come from nothing?

why should I . Ive not read anything youve said that was even close to demonstrating that you know what youre talking about. Try not to fake it, theres tooo many other people here who actually understand scientific areas that you ineffectually try to expound upon. They wont be a kind as I.

"Scientific data" about the concept of Nothingness?
Or "Scientific data" about the inconsistencies of the old testament God?

Have you lost track of the point at hand? Have you yet to understand when you came in guns blazing without knowing there was a rhetoric exercise going on?

If you have anything to correct in my "word salad" which as usual was written in 3 minutes as I was going through thinking it on the spot and translating it in my head by the second feel free to correct my English, but what was is it that was wrong on the Logic itself?
You fracking bet nothing was wrong on that department and I dare you to point out what was it!

...I graciously concede often it is true I post without revision and here n there some verbal time is missed or a word or two are eaten as I write what I am thinking as fast as possible before I lose track of my own thought process which ticks many interdisciplinary areas as I go in 5th gear but usually I go back two or three times to correct my posts, but let me be blunt never the core of what I write is usually wrong....often the ideas are the result of years or even decades of introspection upon the matter and quite often I go to youtube looking for the "experts" opinion (and I do triangulate sources) and happen to stumble upon exactly the same conclusions I got to which is more then most do in this world which is copy paste what they never thought about by their own accord.

Note Farma my only concern all my life in any subject was with the basics, the fundamentals of stuff and seeing what language forms and figures of speech have been used on them and wondering whether they fit, they make sense and at what point they breakdown. People usually pass through fundamentals and go as if they were a given axiom while I pounder on them for past time all day long...

Why do you nit pick without doing a counter? That is absolutely unforgivable when you do it time and again without risking a thought of your own and dare to step out of just going through scientific quotes...I could do that all day and get good on the picture is is not like information is not plentifully available but I often dare to push through the edges and see what comes out. That is what excites me and keeps me going! So why all the fuss?

...oh by the way I am not "faking" anything...I don't know what is going on in your own culture but bluffing in FUNDAMENTAL topics is not common on these parts of the world, and much less in my type of personality...in fact much of what I write can be tracked back years and years, and you can even see the evolution of the thought process itself as the arguments got more refined overtime. I am one of the most consistent persons posting on A2K because I don't bullshit my way through with copy/paste without actually have thought on what I am about to write.
When I somewhat I mess up the exact wording on very abstract subjects it is the opposite, the topic ticks so many boxes that I struggle to bring back all the inter disciplinary details I have thought about previously, and my brain needs to warm up on debate till it gets to full productivity. I spend most of my thinking time playing devils advocate to counter myself as much as possible until I strip a concept to its bare bones.
Almost no one I know does that to the kind of limit I push it...if you don't appreciate it or don't have the time to spare to pounder on it for yourself I don't give a frack...it is my life and I live it honestly to the best of my ability!

You know what I do with these religious guys? I go with them and better I play devils advocate against myself past their best arguments to flush out all possible counters and see what trees keep standing...I don't do tribal warfare "us" vs "them" I am genuinely interested in getting just a inch further in my own personal understanding of Reality and I ear all voices even the craziest ones.
In my wholistic style I conglomerate the best each field had to say and I painstakingly stick it altogether, in a coherent and overarching, often abstract speculative theory or pattern I can glimpse upon. I gather what many mean to say but fail to cohere about.
Even with the "God" concept I'll do that. Take the most while ditching the nonsense.

I definitely should go back to bed I slept 3 hours today as yesterday and my sleeping hours are totally fracked up...take care old farts see you all tomorrow!

If for every scientist that engages in Philosophical debate without knowing morning to dusk throughout its career there was a prison sentence of ten minutes for each entry I suspect most if not all would be in for life!

It is interesting that these specimens when confronted present a philosophical argument against Philosophy as an excuse...it shows just how naked the King goes!

Should we also enact similar punishments for philosophers who try to make believe they are scientists??

In all honesty Philosophers often do their homework better on Science (specially these days) then Scientists do their homework on their own philosophical biases and prejudices...

Its is quite true that 70% of all professionals in any area are dumb, Philosophy is no exception, we are talking of the remaining 30%!

To do Science perfectly you all bunch should stop using words and start just talking with each other in binary language...and I mean it even in the cafeteria on break time...because that is where the best ideas come from and its the place where most naive Philosophy is done.

PS - As Artificial General Intelligence get closer and closer ironically Scientists will go extinct by natural selection way before Philosophers will. Algorithms can do the menial work of data gathering and observation way better than people...the problem arises when one has to give meaning to that data through language!

where do you acquire these statistics that you throw around as if they were fact??

Science is a" process", its not a book of facts that you can quietly read about . Learning the ways of the "process" is like piloting a vessel v reading about it and commenting from your armchair. Even the geodetic surveys that mark depths and shoals are peopled by folks skilled in the process of navigation, not philosophy majors seeking relevance.

...oh ignorant you...these statistics are like a fractal they are everywhere in all areas...

The backbone of society that used to do menial work since pre history represents 66%, the bureaucrats that can barely understand and follow geniuses are around 20% something and there are 3/5% of pseudo geniuses with a ratio of 0.1% of actual brilliant minds...

As Trevor Noah says, if you don't know it now you know it!

PS - On the 60's and 70's studies were made to see if the IQ distribution varied with education around the world on selection for complex abstract work...guess what? It doesn't! For some reason Universities and PHD's have the exact same number you can find with sanitizers agricultors and construction workers...it looks like yes man are needed everywhere in order for society to work properly! Ego is a bitch!

Surely you understand that 94.6% if all statistics quoted on the Internet are made up on the spot...

...right?

The reality is that the vast majority of "scientists" are highly specialized dumb yes man that measure some numbers in a lab corner while the maestro gets the credit and makes it all work...coffee boys that gather some bits of data under strict supervision and that soon can be replaced by an algorithm no doubt.

Surprise surprise the ones who are not that dumb are at least natural at Philosophy and have good interdisciplinary skills.

Recently I have seen a master manipulator that goes by the name of Jordan Peterson contradict some of these numbers, but in all fairness I think he often confuses narrow intelligence in specialized domains with general intelligence that operates in domains that require interdisciplinary back and fourth...

Because I am fair and open to criticism I will post him on video:

The actual landscape...

That "low EQ" lady could only present that kind of drek on the internet where people with low "EQ's" can take it up and latch on to her assertions as the latest "Pop"psych secrets to understaning. We just lived four years with a president who believed everything that was told him last.

There appeqrs to be but 2 people on A2k who even worry about IQ's s determinant to what one attains or whose opinions are worth.

I think your belief that Scientists are dumb can only be wrought by someone who possibly started out with an interest in science but not the drive or ability to sustain the work needed from the ground up including ,the facts and the process that is science.

I dont think anyone here who is in the sciences has ever worried one single second as to what itd be like without philosophers . You are the only one whose brought it up to an extent that we comment on it.

I have great admiration for Scientific work and pay attention to it way more then the average and even the non average Joe does...what I don't do is the deification of Science as if Science was in fact in a position of answering all questions that are relevant. To believe in such nonsense coming up from grown up old people is actually astonishingly naive!

And yes in spite of all the frack ups many Philosophers have done and keep doing I do admit to have a deep appreciation for the vastness, the scope, and the ambition, required in a proper Philosopher....for starters with the exception of some book makers you are not in it for the money and you dare to do the hard questions to which Science has no answer or cannot YET treat in a proper formal manner. It is pioneer work and it should be more acknowledge.
To shut it down with pot shot comments and putting all kinds of crazy in the same boat is I believe a shot in your own foot and just shows an extremely defensive position brought up by inconvenience from people and organizations that need constant funding...asking weird questions that undermine much of the bullshit walking around takes in fact some level of courage.
Science at its best behaviour is not Positivist nor does it work like a brand selling at peoples doors...I prefer the ones who admit to thread carefully in very complex topics and that make a clear distinction between what is interesting speculative Logic theory crafting in Philosophy and what is actual on the ground down to Earth Science without many bold claims...

As for what you think about my merits or my ability to communicate my intellectual instincts and dare I say muddy insights well I have a good back bone I can handle the criticism because I am not insecure...

In fact I would go as far as to predict that much of what I say will eventually come to pass in a more polished more cohesive and worked upon fashion...
The proof that I don't care much with my own theories is that I don't give them the formal treatment and effort that at least some of them fully deserve.
it is not the first nor the last time around that I had something to say to a Nobel Laureate by which I would actually stick my neck on a bench and that would make sense for an honest debate at closed doors...so I give a **** for what A or B thinks I mean or meant or miss explained. Some of my good ideas didn't take more then 10 minutes to think and some of my worst took me a lifetime. Things come and go and sometimes you trump on them and are lucky...I despise taking credit or making a fuss for getting onto something. Thinking honestly about concepts is my NATURAL pastime and there is no money name or fame involved in my actions.
In flesh and bone I am the average nice chap that lives a simple and full life without the futile childish ambition of fame money and glory...that is XIX century cheesy show off.