How can something come from nothing?

Let us not forget that this so-called "science", is STILL a Philosophy. Regardless how much momentum is behind it. Momentum does not account for all that opposes it, but rather, just walks all over it and "forces" opposition to agree, and as subtly as can be done, so as to "appear" as the good guy.

One cannot redefine "nothing", in order to force something coming from it.

Qualifications? Mine? I just think, and take Truth to be an absolute. Facts, which change per perspective, are not under the subjection of Truth. Therefore they oppose the Truth. So what are most "facts", since they oppose the Truth?

Does the Experience of lies, determine their validity?

I think not.

Does the momentum of lies determine their validity?

No again. It just determines the amount of force coming upon the one trying to discern Truth.

At some point, one who truly wants the Truth, has to ditch the things they hold to be "self-evident", because most of these were TAUGHT, not so much Naturally Learned.

If one truly "looks" into this "idea", the Eye is the greatest deceiver, yet we base a scientific method on a known liar? Who does that?

But because man seeks CONTROL, they FORCE the concept of "brain". But there is the argument that brain is the manifestation of Mind. This I can actually work with, but this "something" is clearly not a "nothing".

In a philosophical aspect, "nothing" does not "exist". Some have tried to create a "nothing", into which they tried to give it attributes, by whatever medieval methods. This substance would be known as a "golem".

All who have attempted to do this have regretted it, to say the least. If one can take the writings of history as honest accounts, though documented by those who would only be everyday citizens, regardless how eccentric, then their stories should be enough to warn of tampering with the Idea of Nothing.

your "working knowledge" of science must come from comic books

By the way, qho the hell began talking about IQ?? It certainly wasnt me. You sound a bit lik another a2k dude who is similrly convinced of his own mental superiority yet hsnt displayed any of its content.

That which is completely true is not for us to know.
That which is for us to know and experience is not entirely untrue...it just seats at a sub domain on which we can operate efficiently within our own needs and goals. Our languaging is based on it and our meanings depend on it...so does our Science. This is an inconvenient little truth.

But don't take what I am saying as an attack on Science because it is the opposite. Flatulent attacks on Science which has done a great deal of work for us as a species are unwelcome from my part.

Yes the idea that you can redefine Nothingness (a self contradictory concept) is one of the biggest blunders Scientists have made when dealing with Philosophical topics without knowing what the hell they are talking about.
But that is the exception not the rule. On that regard don't try to sell me a Anthropomorphic concept of God to justify the absence of absence.

Go take another tea old man! I am guessing you have yet to make a digestion of whatever you had for lunch...

OK I am in the mood, lets embarrass you in public a little bit further shall we?

Can you give me your definition of Random? How does the chain of cause and effect on that really really works eh? I am dying to get a coherent answer from you...lets go to Philosophy of MATHS straight away!

Shoot YOUR definition and explain the deal genius....hehehe!
Come come, and I shall kick your back to pre history where you belong!

are we talking random sampling or what, random has many working meanings from ahaphazardness to derivative techniques of analyses.

You seem to cackle while you make believe that you are making some valid point.

No I am not talking of our ability to predict and the complexity involved such that the coinage "random" has a pragmatical statical use...

I am talking of the real thing that you guys claim exists...

What do you take magic randomness and throw in the towel or cause and effect? My comic book Science and Philosophy is guessing that you can only have one of the two...

Shoot back in plain old fashioned honest English if you have any honesty yet to spare!

No I am not talking of our ability to predict and the complexity involved such that the coinage "random" has a pragmatical statistical use...

I am talking of the real thing that you guys claim exists...

What do you take magic randomness and throw in the towel or cause and effect? My comic book Science and Philosophy is guessing that you can only have one of the two...

Shoot back in plain old fashioned honest English if you have any honesty yet to spare!

oure reqlly not making sense pal. I use rndom in works ranging from kriging to 1st and 2nd derivative mapping of sets of variables . Then theres the good ol Englih maning that mrely suggests aimless directions (like Brownian movement).
I always feel inferior to someone who asserts a single dominant meaning for many words.

I am always eager to learn, I dont think Ive ever asserted that what I know is better than what you know. As I recall, youre the one with the verbal and "technical" superiority indices.

by the way, I do need a good ass kicking, havnt had one in many a year. Remember your PRNG is a "TOOL" , not a process. Science is a process that uses tools in ts works.

It comes to mind the old sentence in Physics "Shut up and calculate"
I think I have made a cut clear question Randomness or Determinism and HOW? "Aimless directions" is gibberish, period!
As for your last comment quoted above I am Speechless...

"Stella, there's a married guy here reckons he hasn't had a good arse kicking in years".

"Ralph, if it's that farmer being pelted with truth and pulchritude by felipe that fascinating portuguese philosopher please don't filo pastry it up".

"Yes dear."

You are adding to the soap opera keep up the good work!
Brilliant contribution, great success!

Ya all just pounder for a second on the wording "aimless directions"...repugnant!
I mean someone must be laughing in hell so hard right now...
...monkey paradise comedy it is!

your problem is that you have only one focus an are unable to appreciate multiple hypotheses. So, I find your abusive cackling kind of funny and a bit pitiable.
Have you ever considered how computer tech has absconded with scientific terms that had nothing to do with computers originally??

It is ironic that Theologians fair better defending with some Logic their bullshit then Scientists do in defending actual factual hard data with proper sentences and meaningful discourse!

I gladly grant that in your defence Science has more or less 400 years while Theology has been around for a few millennia...

The downfall of Science isn't the lack of interest of the masses nor their stupidity but rather the lack of communication skills and capacity to articulate sensibly any sort of discourse which doesn't end in a pedant gibberish salad of pseudo complex intellectual abstract lifting.

You guys better go back to building washing machines! Just, I mean really just leave Ontology alone!

and religions have made accommodations to scientific evidence. Even the Catholic Church has done away with "Special Creation" and all orts of denial since the Enlightenment.

It isnt so much "building wash machines" It was originally about discovering the hydrologic laws and Bernoullis Principle which opened up creative design by engineers so that wash didnt require being beaten on a rock.

Science isnt making believe that its something that it isnt. You are the one engaging in that.

not to mention the knowledge of Conservative organic compounds, detergents and emulsification.