Jump to content

How did the universe come into existence?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3479 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 584
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cool, cool.

I still can't wrap my tiny brain around the how come question that seems to prevent further thought.

How come everything is? How come we are here? How come we are having this discussion when we all realise no conclusion can ever be reached by our inadequate tools, technology, and brains? How come we got up this morning? How come I can't will myself to stop breathing? How come kittens are so cute? How come I love the color pink when it is so cliche and girly?

Is that what how come means? A question that says, wow, that's cool and all, but I would like to ponder the reasons forever and am not really concerned specifically with the answer or even if there is one.

If that is the case, how come the universe had to begin, how come it couldn't had just always been there?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha! You brought gravity into the thread, Ceka - a favourite of mine :)

I haven't watched that video but, whoever he is, I can tell you that he doesn't know how gravity works. Nobody does - yet. In the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein showed how matter warps space, causing objects (and light) to be affected by the shape of space, and the scientists say that's why objects that are close to the Earth fall to the Earth. But it doesn't show that at all. It shows that matter warps space, and that the direction of matter is affected by the shape of space, but it doesn't show why, when you stand on top of a building, holding an apple over the edge, and let go of it, the apple heads straight down instead of straight up. It follows the shape of space alright but there's no explanation as to why it goes towards the earth instead of away from it.

Scientists seem to omit that bit, because it's not known. The only one who I've seen try to explain it was Steven Hawkins. I have a book in which he tried to explain it this way:- The Earth fires off gravitons (theoretical gravity particles). They travel up, away from the Earth, and they hit objects in their path, causing the objects to shift direction, which causes them to travel towards the Earth. That's the most ridiculous thing that I've seen written in a genuinely scientific book.

I like my idea better :) Empty space is evenly spread 'stuff' - the fabric of space. Particles are knots in the stuff of space - sort of conglomerations of it. A large mass, such as the Earth, has lots of particles, using up lots of the space stuff, causing the density of stuff around the earth to be thinner than further away from it. The nearer you get to the Earth, the lower the density of space stuff. So, like objects rush to lower density (like when a hole is punched in a high altitude aeroplane, for instance), objects rush to the lower density space around the earth. And, of course, they speed up as they get nearer and the density gets less.

So I'm glad that you brought gravity into the thread, Ceka, and I'm sorry for digressing. Back to the topic now...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Aha! You brought gravity into the thread, Ceka - a favourite of mine 
:)

I haven't watched that video but, whoever he is, I can tell you that he doesn't know how gravity works. Nobody does - yet. In the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein showed how matter warps space, causing objects (and light) to follow the shape of space, and the scientists say that's why objects that are close to the Earth fall to the Earth. But it doesn't show that at all. It shows that matter warps space, and that matter follows the shape of space, but it doesn't show why, when you stand on top of a building, holding an apple over the edge, and let go of it, the apple heads straight down instead of staight up. It follows the shape of space alright but there's no explanation as to why it goes towards the earth instead of away from it.

Scientists seem to omit that bit, because it's not known. The only one who I've seen try to explain it was Steven Hawkins. I have a book in which he tried to explain it this way:- The Earth fires off gravitons (theoretical gravity particles). They travel up, away from the Earth, and they hit objects in their path, causing the objects to shift direction, which causes them to travel towards the Earth. That's the most ridiculous thing that I've seen written in a genuinely scientific book.

I like my idea better
:)
Empty space is evenly spread 'stuff' - the fabric od space. Particles are knots in the stuff of space - sort of conglomerations of it. A large mass, such as the Earth, has lots of particles, using up lots of the space stuff, causing the density of stuff around the earth to be thinner than further away from it. The nearer you get to the Earth, the lower the density of space stuff. So, like objects rush to lower density (like when a hole is punched in a high altitude aeroplane, for instance), objects rush to the lower density space around the earth. And, of course, they speed up as they get nearer and the density gets less.

So I'm glad that you brought gravity into the thread, Ceka, and I'm sorry for digressing. Back to the topic now...

 

Apples fall down instead of up because the earth is spinning on an axis. The strongest gravity in proximity to the apple is the center of the earth. If the apple were closer to the sun than to the earth (and wasn't immediately consumed by flames) it would drop to the center of the sun, I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Apples fall down instead of up because the earth is spinning on an axis. The strongest gravity in proximity to the apple is the center of the earth. If the apple were closer to the sun than to the earth (and wasn't immediately consumed by flames) it would drop to the center of the sun, I think. 

I don't think it's anything to do with the Earth's spin. You are right about what would happen to the apple if the Earth were close to the Sun. Of course, it would accompany the earth into the Sun :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Anaiya Arnold wrote:

It's a complete mystery to me why you would conclude that I wrote as though you had said or implied a "creator" in the sense of a person.  Perhaps you can specify which comments of mine state or imply any such thing, because I have no idea where you pulled that out of. 

When we talk about a creator, we generally mean an intelligence. All of your post simply used the word "creator" so it looked like you meant an intelligent creator - a person.

 

There's no need to assume a creator. 
Either there was always something and the universe could have evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it
, which is as likely to be a precursor as a creator,
or something can come from nothing and so we don't need a creator. 

Nothing can "
come from nothing
".

If the universe "
evolved due to the innate properties of whatever pre-existed it
", as you suggested, then something would have existed before it, so where did that come from? From something that existed before that? And so it goes on and on. In other words, it always existed, which is something that I find cannot possibly be true. If it is true, how come it got to always be there? That's the question that leads to the conclusion that it can't always have been there.

The rest of your post uses the word "creator" as an intelligent being, but I'll assume you don't mean it that way. If you do, why talk to me about it? I never suggested such a thing.

All I am saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever. If you sit back and really consider that it might have existed forever - infinitely in the past,
never having had a beginning
 - you'll come to the conclusion that it can't have been that way.

I'm not suggesting anything about where it may or may not have come from, or how it got started when there was Null, and no place or time for Null to be. There are all sorts of fancy ideas about that, but nobody will ever know because it's not possible for us within the universe to know.

Phil you said there had to have been a creator.  You now claim when "we" (a group ill defined here but which obviously includes yourself and which you've no reason whatsoever to believe includes me) use the word creator, "we" (a group that includes you but which you've no reason to believe includes me) generally mean intelligence.  So according to what you are claiming, you used a word that you think means intelligence is involved, I used the same word, and even though nothing I've said indicates I am in this group you refer to as "we", you immediately chose to assume I had made this assumption that it very much looks like you wanted readers of your posts to make.

If you think that creator means an intelligence is involved to most people or to whoever constitutes this "we" you vaguely refer to, then why would you use this word without clarification in the first place, unless you're hoping people would make this error so you could feel all clever when they did? 

In any case, the assumption that I thought you meant what you must have fully expected people would think you meant, was mistaken.  The only characteristics I have assigned to your creator come entirely from your actual texts and any necessary implications of the assertions made within.

So for instance, while the charactertistics of this creator are unclear, necessarily they must be sufficient to distinguish it from any and all other things that are not creators because this is a necessarily implication of stating "there must have been a creator" rather than "there must have been something or other".

 

The question "how come something was always here" is not implied by the universe evolving from some other non-nothingness.  The question entails a bunch of baseless assumptions, most significantly of all the assmption that "nothingness" is not an impossibily in any form other than a conceptualization of a thinking mind.  If "nothingness" as something other than a conceputalization is impossible, then the answer to your question is "because nothingness is impossible there must be something".  So until you can explain why we would assume nothingness is even possible, your question is not even a starter.  Baseless assumptions about rules that are observable within our universe holding true externally, are also involved in this question of yours.

 

 

At no point have I used the word creator as referring to a something necessarily characterized by intelligence, which I have already pointed out to you.  I challenged you to show what comment of mine implied that I assigned intelligence to your "creator" and your response was to suggest that a group that includes you usually think the word means this.   In the same post you then reiterate this earlier accusation, so I reiterate my challenge.  Show how my comments using the word creator  assigns intelligence to the referent of that word. 

 

Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";.  So all you are doing is completely changing your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anaiya.

1. I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it.

2. When I used the word "we", it meant mean all of us - we who have life.

3. I expected people to understand that "someone or something" does not mean a "creator" in the way that "creator" generally means. At one point, I even included an 'event' as being the means of creation. It's you who have got it all mixed up.

It actually sounds like you're just being argumentative just for the sake of it. I'm sorry, but the rest of your post just seems garbled because you're going all over the place. But I'll quote the last bit and reply to that:-

"Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";.  So all you are doing is completely changing your argument."

Anaiya. I did not say that there must have been a creator. Please go back and read my posts again because your memory of them is garbled.

Since the universe hasn't existed forever, it must have been created - come into existance. That's what I've said all along, and that doesn't imply a "creator". You changing what I said doesn't mean that I said it. Everything is still there in the thread so you can see for yourself if you're so inclined.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:



You seem to be repeating yourself in cosecutive posts, so I'll repeat myself a bit...

Nothing springs from nothing. I'll add, not without someone or something causing it.

And you're still using the word "creator" as an intelligent creator. "Creator"
means
an entity/person/intelligence. I'm not assuming, or suggesting, a "creator". I'm saying that this universe (this space, this time, and this matter that we know) didn't always exist and so it must have been created. I've made no suggestion as to how it got created. It might have popped through from another universe for all I know, or it might have been created by an omnipotent being. I don't suggest any particluar way of its creation, but I do say that it hasn't existed forever.

You also think it's more likely not to have existed forever, so why are you debating against me so much?
;)

You said, "
Either something came from nothingness or there was never nothingness
"

Before this universe came into being, there was nothingness - Null. If there hadn't been nothingness/Null, the universe would have already existed and that can't be.

I think you are thinking about many universes, and perhaps thinking that our universe sprang from one of them. Some scientists suggest that too. But other universes are not this universe, and this universe is the only one that I've been talking about. If there was something here already for another universe to shove stuff into, then the spacetime of this universe was here already, so it would promote the "always existed" idea. And that can't be.

Your creator assumption is not possible unless either something came from nothing or there was never a state of nothingness.  Your whole reason for assuming a creator though is because you do not find either of these things believable, but your creator is not possible unless one of them is true.

I haven't written an assumption of a "creator". I do have a "creation" assumption, which is quite different. But, since you write as though I have a "creator assumption", I'll say that I do have a similar assumption. I've said it before, anyway. Since this universe cannot have been here eternally, it must have had a beginning, and, since nothing can spring from nothing without someone or something creating it, it must have been created. It's the only conclusion. A someone could be God, or someone in a lab in another universe, or even the ultimate fate of a black hole. I can't argue either way. What I can argue about, and it's all I've been arguing about, is that this universe cannot have existed eternally.

You are assuming nothing comes from nothing because that is your observation within this universe.  But it is baseless to assume that if nothing comes from nothing within the limitations of this universe, that this same thing must be true externally to our universe.  That nothing comes from nothing may have only become a fact at time T where time T is the   exact moment the universe became extant.  And further it may be the case that nothing comes from nothing applies nowhere but within our universe.

What evidence do you have that nothing comes from nothing rather than that something comes from nothing, externally to our universe and its limitations?

Your addition is nonsense of course. Either there is nothingness and no something or someone that can cause somethingness, or there is not nothingness.

And you are still making these baseless assumptions about my use of the word creator.  Please explain where that comes from other than a very rude and disrespectful assumption that unlike you, I am completely unable to conceptualize a 'creator" that is absent of intelligence.  Either give a reason for your persistent accusation that is specific to what I have written, or accept that it is unmerited and again more about your baseless assumptions than anything I have written.

Now you are claiming you are not assuming or suggesting a creator.  The following is a quote from your earlier post.  Note the word in bold.

The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed?

You posited not merely "something" existing, but specifically described it as a creator.

Your reasoning is also utterly unsound when you try to assert that you both did not claim a creator and are merely claiming that something must have created the universe.  If X was created by something, then the something is a creator.  You cannot suggest that X was created without also suggesting a creator by necessarily implication.

By suggestion creation you cannot exclude and must include a creator.  X came into being does not require that X was created.  Being created does not simply mean coming into being, but rather coming into being via a process that entails a creator.

What I am debating against is this assumption of your's of a creator.  One you now apparently wish to distance yourself from  based on the fact that despite you having suggested a creator, both by referencing one outright as in the text I quoted above, and through the assertion the universe was "created" (a process that is distinguishable from "coming into being" only by virtue of the addition of a creator) you have since asserted that you never even suggested such a thing. 

You seem to assume that if X is not this universe or within this universe, then X has never existed.  That is a baseless assumption.  The universe began at time T postulated as being the Big Bang, and there is no evidence whatsoever that nothingness rather than somethingness proceeded the Big Bang.  There is no evidence that there is not something external to our universe now, much less that there was not something before time T.  That's just a baseless assumption on your part.

I'm not thinking of many universes in particular. 

It might be alien to your thinking style (as your assumptive thinking style is to me) but I personally don't make assumptions about things I know that I do not know, and instead, in such cases settle for a series of potential answers amongst which I do not arbitarily favour or disfavour any particular potential answer to the exclusion of others or the singular promotion of one specific potential answer.  I am no more or less inclined to believe that there was always something, than I am to believe that something came from nothing.  Both answers are equally likely so far as the information I can currently access indicates, so I do not favour one or disfavour the other.

Assuming many universes is a leap of assumption I am neither inclined nor willing to make.  I do not exclude it nor do I favour it.  It would be entirely arbitary to do either and simply baseless assumption.

Nothing you've argued here gives any basis for excluding the possibility that there was never "nothingness".  You keep stating that this is the case without ever actually giving us any reason to believe it other than that you personally find it difficult to believe.  That's not a compelling reason.

Since you seem to think you can posit "was created"  without a creator, I reiterate that the distinction between something being created and something coming into being, is that both are identical other than one of these adds a creator as a necessary component and the other is silent on whether or not a creator is involved.  If you say "create" then you are positing a creator via necessary implication.  Nothing is created without a creator and things that come into being without a creator are not created but came into being via some process other than "creation".  Of course that's all besides the point in a context where you specified a creator as you did indeed do.

Again you repeat your unproven assertion that if the universe had a beginning there must have been nothing before it but where is the evidence for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Anaiya.

1. I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it.

2. When I used the word "we", it meant mean all of us - we who have life.

3. I expected people to understand that "someone or something" does not mean a "creator" in the way that "creator" generally means. At one point, I even included an 'event' as being the means of creation. It's you who have got it all mixed up.

It actually sounds like you're just being argumentative just for the sake of it. I'm sorry, but the rest of your post just seems garbled because you're going all over the place. But I'll quote the last bit and reply to that:-

"Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";.  So all you are doing is completely changing your argument."

Anaiya. I did not say that there must have been a creator. Please go back and read my posts again because your memory of them is garbled.

Since the universe hasn't existed forever, it must have been created - come into existance. That's what I've said all along, and that doesn't imply a "creator". You changing what I said doesn't mean that I said it. Everything is still there in the thread so you can see for yourself if you're so inclined.

 

Hey, I don't think she is arguing with you, just pointing out how what you said does imply you are saying creator.

Take number 1 from your reply above, " I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not [say] the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it."

So if the universe had to be created by someone or something, wouldn't that mean that that something or someone would be referred to as a creator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Anaiya.

1. I said that the universe had to be created by someone or something. I did not the universe had to have a "creator". I don't know why you keep on about it.

2. When I used the word "we", it meant mean all of us - we who have life.

3. I expected people to understand that "someone or something" does not mean a "creator" in the way that "creator" generally means. At one point, I even included an 'event' as being the means of creation. It's you who have got it all mixed up.

It actually sounds like you're just being argumentative just for the sake of it. I'm sorry, but the rest of your post just seems garbled because you're going all over the place. But I'll quote the last bit and reply to that:-

"Now you want to claim is that all you are saying is that the universe cannot have existed forever, which is in fact entirely different to saying "there must have been a creator";.  So all you are doing is completely changing your argument."

Anaiya. I did not say that there must have been a creator. Please go back and read my posts again because your memory of them is garbled.

Since the universe hasn't existed forever, it must have been created - come into existance. That's what I've said all along, and that doesn't imply a "creator". You changing what I said doesn't mean that I said it. Everything is still there in the thread so you can see for yourself if you're so inclined.

 

Actually you specifically used the word creator, so that's a non starter there.  But even without that fact, creation is a process that entails a creator.  It is a particular form of coming into being whereby a creator is a necessary component of the process.  If X came into being by being created, then X has a creator. 

When you used the word we you made a statement that was factually wrong then.  Speak for yourself rather than everyone else to avoid a repeating that kind of error.

You seem to not understand that no matter if you call the creator someone or something, so long as you posit creation as the means of coming into being, you are necessarily positing a creator.  This would be the case even if you had not specifially called the creator "creator" as in fact you did.

See that bolded word there?

The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed?

 

To suggest I am just being argumentative for the sake of it is being grossly disrespectful.  Your frustration at your inability to present your arguments as you intended to present them (which must be the case if you specifically stated "creator" but think you did not specifically state such a thing and now wish to claim your argument never even suggested a "creator") is no excuse for accusing me, nor reason for believing, that I am being argumentative for the sake of it.  What a nasty, rude, arrogant and disrespectful thing to even think in the circumstances, much less have the nerve to actually type into your post.  I am astounded at your lack of civility in making such a baseless accusation.

If you cannot keep up, it does not follow from that that my post is garbled.

Phil let me repost again for you a snippet from your earlier post.  Once again, pay careful attention to the bolded word.

The conclusion must be that something created it, and before that happened, no space, time and matter existed. Then, of course, we ask, how come that creator existed?

See that word that is bolded?  It's the word "creator" isn't it?

And again, you cannot posit that creation occured, that something was created, without necessarily also positing a creator.   If X was created, then X has a creator.  If X did not have a creator, either X does not exist of X came into being via a process other than being created.  Being created is to come into being via a process that entails a creator.

Now you seem to think that being created and coming into being are synonomous.  They are not.  Being created is always a process of coming into being, certainly, but it's specifically  those processes of coming into being that entail a creator.  And even if this was not the case, in this instance, you specified a creator.  Need I yet again repost your quote and bold the relevant word?

Indeed everything is still there in the thread; that's where I got your quote where you specify a creator from...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That is much easier and in fact effortless when compared to trying to justify that a loving god allows babies to suffer, for example.

I just say that as an example in how not believing in something, especially an Omnipotent All Loving Lord and Savior, is much less effortless and actually requires no faith whatsoever. It is not meant as an attack against your faith or beliefs, or anyone else's, and I have much respect for all faiths, or at least those who believe in them, because no matter what, we are all here, together, and I would rather keep civil dialog open rather than hateful religion bashing.

That would include being open to the beliefs, or lack thereof, of the non believers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. 

That is a form of faith.

Its a believe statement founded on no rational basis other than pure faith that there is nothing but cold darkness and death, and that all of existing is nothing but mere chemical reactions of random particles that created themselves and by pure chance organized into the patterns they have.

Its more faith based than any religion you can think of, as it has to first try and deny some basic common shared experiences: the existance of emotion and self-awareness for example; it has to presume, on faith, that these are not real, just chemical.

 

To make a statement that something is not is as much faith as one that something is - in the absense of any ability to prove one's stance.

 

An Atheist parts severe ways with an agnostic in that the atheist takes a stance and puts forth a faith in an insistence of nothingness.

An agnostic, as noted below my post; simple has no answer and does not ask the question. Buddha was agnostic.

An atheist has no answer, but answers it anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That is much easier and in fact effortless when compared to trying to justify that a loving god allows babies to suffer, for example.

I just say that as an example in how not believing in something, especially an Omnipotent All Loving Lord and Savior, is much less effortless and actually requires no faith whatsoever. It is not meant as an attack against your faith or beliefs, or anyone else's, and I have much respect for all faiths, or at least those who believe in them, because no matter what, we are all here, together, and I would rather keep civil dialog open rather than hateful religion bashing.

That would include being open to the beliefs, or lack thereof, of the non believers.  

I am, I suppose, agnostic. Some athiests are as dogmatic as the most religious. Some great minds have adopted Spinoza's god. I guess I just don't feel the need to say "I know". It's not that I don't care, I simply don't know. And the cool thing about not knowing things is that it always gives me something to do when I wake up.

I am a big fan of awe and I find a lot more of it when I question faith and start digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. 

That is a form of faith.

Its a believe statement founded on no rational basis other than pure faith that there is nothing but cold darkness and death, and that all of existing is nothing but mere chemical reactions of random particles that created themselves and by pure chance organized into the patterns they have.

Its more faith based than any religion you can think of, as it has to first try and deny some basic common shared experiences: the existance of emotion and self-awareness for example; it has to presume, on faith, that these are not real, just chemical.

 

To make a statement that something is not is as much faith as one that something is - in the absense of any ability to prove one's stance.

 

 

 

 

Emotion and self awareness even if based on chemicals, is still real. It is impossible to prove that there is no god, just as impossible as is it to prove that there is one. My stance is that it takes much less effort to accept the obvious than to attempt to justify the fantastical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That is much easier and in fact effortless when compared to trying to justify that a loving god allows babies to suffer, for example.

I just say that as an example in how not believing in something, especially an Omnipotent All Loving Lord and Savior, is much less effortless and actually requires no faith whatsoever. It is not meant as an attack against your faith or beliefs, or anyone else's, and I have much respect for all faiths, or at least those who believe in them, because no matter what, we are all here, together, and I would rather keep civil dialog open rather than hateful religion bashing.

That would include being open to the beliefs, or lack thereof, of the non believers.  

I am, I suppose, agnostic. Some athiests are as dogmatic as the most religious. Some great minds have adopted Spinoza's god. I guess I just don't feel the need to say "I know". It's not that I don't care, I simply don't know. And the cool thing about not knowing things is that it always gives me something to do when I wake up.

I am a big fan of awe and I find a lot more of it when I question faith and start digging.

I care and I don't know anything. I don't even know how I am made or what keeps me alive. I have some ideas based on what I have been told and read, but ultimately I accept the fact that I know nothing and anything that I think I may know could be completely wrong and based on misinformation, fallacies, or lies. Or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, I'm in agreement with Anaiya here. You did use the term "creator" and you did imply creator by using the term "creation". A distinction without a difference isn't useful. I also see dismissiveness in such statements as "I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense". I admit it appears like nonsense to me, but so does Congress and nearly everything my teenage neighbor tells me about cars. That said, I think science's search for answers is sincere and I don't dismiss it.

You also said "I find it totally inconceivable that the universe was always there - to infinity in the past." I suppose this explains the doggedness of your position. You're in good company though... Max Planck, the discoverer of quantum physics, found it ultimately inconceivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its amazing how much -FAITH- it takes to hold up an atheist pov.

;)

 

With all due respect, as I realize you believe in Jah and are I believe Rastafarian or something similar in your faith, it takes absolutely no effort whatsoever to hold an atheist point of view.

Faith is the belief in something. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. 

That is a form of faith.

Its a believe statement founded on no rational basis other than pure faith that there is nothing but cold darkness and death, and that all of existing is nothing but mere chemical reactions of random particles that created themselves and by pure chance organized into the patterns they have.

Its more faith based than any religion you can think of, as it has to first try and deny some basic common shared experiences: the existance of emotion and self-awareness for example; it has to presume, on faith, that these are not real, just chemical.

 

To make a statement that something is not is as much faith as one that something is - in the absense of any ability to prove one's stance.

 

An Atheist parts severe ways with an agnostic in that the atheist takes a stance and puts forth a faith in an insistence of nothingness.

An agnostic, as noted below my post; simple has no answer and does not ask the question. Buddha was agnostic.

An atheist has no answer, but answers it anyway.

 

Oh, you added more. 

If the atheist says there is no god how is he any different than the person who says there is a god. They have both based their statements on unprovables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


16 wrote:

is interesting concept - nothingness

our measurements show that what we can observe has a beginning and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something

which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable
then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic

as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation

That's the problem when discussing what I've called "nothingness" (you used a better word - "Null"). Even calling it a state/condition/circumstance/condition/whatever of nothingness is meaningless because that turns it into a something, which negates the very idea of absolute nothingness. Even using a word for it (nothingness or Null) turns it into a something. Imagining it without it being a state of reality in time and space is impossible for us. That's why I've suggested considering it rather than imagining it, because we can't possibly imagine it.

I see no reason to decide that something isn't true, just because it's unprovable. I see no reason to say that Null can't have been.

As an aside, I like to think that Null exists (although the word "exists" gives it the property of existing, which is not what I mean). I like to think that outside the expanding universe is singularity - Null - absolute nothingness. Not the singularity that cosmologists talk about as being at the centre of black holes - one singularity to each black hole. I like the word "singularity" to describe Null, so it's just "singularity" and not "
the
singularity" or "
a
singularity" - just "singularity". Maybe the very centre of black holes touch singularity too - or maybe they don't.

The evolving universe doesn't deal with the thread's question - "How did the universe come into existance?". The evolving universe is all about after it came into existance.

yes, evolve was the wrong word. not precise enough in this context. so i will try to restate

i think we can conclude that inline with the rules of observation and measurement, the universe in its current material form had a Beginning. what is open is what was there before this particular beginning?

my inclination is that there was Something, and Something before that, and before that, ad infinitum. Something cannot come from Nothing all by itself

if Something did come out of Null - the nothingness - then there was Something Else beyond/outside of the Null that enabled this - a paradox in itself. Something Else immeasurable from within the Null itself. immeasurable also in any Something that came out of the Null. as all measurements of and within this Something can only lead back to the Null and not beyond. so if we did accept that there was no Something before the Beginning then there must have been Something Else. which is Something in itself

interestingly the acknowledgement of Something Else in this context can indicate a plurality state. wherein Something Else can operate on/in or modify, a Null state  (if such a thing is possible) and not be observable or measurable. if it were measurable then would not the state be singular by defintion?

+

yes we can certainly accept Null as a valid reference. is axiomatic is all

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Charolotte Caxton wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


16 wrote:

is interesting concept - nothingness

our measurements show that what we can observe has a begining and an end. from this we reason that the universe did have a beginning. when we conjecture that before the beginning there was Null - the state of absolute nothingness - then we create a paradox. the Null state is unprovable by any known method of measurement. so we treat it as an axiom. as a btw, in a semantic debate it can be shown that the state of nothingness itself cannot exist as when we assign a property value then it becomes something

which opens up: if we say that it cannot be Null, as Null is unprovable
then: a) what was it before the beginning? or b) was there even a beginning as we normally understand the concept? if we say that it was Null, even if we can't prove it, then we are being axiomatic

as a starting premise i am more inclined to b). what we do know is that things evolve. from this we can postulate that the universe in its current form evolved from a previous form and will one day evolve into another form. ad infinitum. if only because of the Null argumentation

That's the problem when discussing what I've called "nothingness" (you used a better word - "Null"). Even calling it a state/condition/circumstance/condition/whatever of nothingness is meaningless because that turns it into a something, which negates the very idea of absolute nothingness. Even using a word for it (nothingness or Null) turns it into a something. Imagining it without it being a state of reality in time and space is impossible for us. That's why I've suggested considering it rather than imagining it, because we can't possibly imagine it.

I see no reason to decide that something isn't true, just because it's unprovable. I see no reason to say that Null can't have been.

As an aside, I like to think that Null exists (although the word "exists" gives it the property of existing, which is not what I mean). I like to think that outside the expanding universe is singularity - Null - absolute nothingness. Not the singularity that cosmologists talk about as being at the centre of black holes - one singularity to each black hole. I like the word "singularity" to describe Null, so it's just "singularity" and not "
the
singularity" or "
a
singularity" - just "singularity". Maybe the very centre of black holes touch singularity too - or maybe they don't.

The evolving universe doesn't deal with the thread's question - "How did the universe come into existance?". The evolving universe is all about after it came into existance.

I think nothingness is like a basket of oranges. You remove all the oranges and you have null oranges. When you say the basket is full of no oranges, that does not make the nothingness something, the word is just a way to describe something that isn't.

Calling nothingness something does not make it something, it does not revoke its null state.

So I agree, nothingness can be and I can imagine it.

I have something stuck in my head that I don't know how true it is, but sounds kinda relevant to me. I think I was told that cold is the absence of heat. If that were true, could we say nothingness is the absence of somethingness? 

the orange exercise is a fun exercise as well. attempting to show that something could exist by its absence. another fun exercise is: if we could prove Null unequivocally then would we not also prove God at the same time? in this context God being a word to describe a Something Else than can enable Something to come from Nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3479 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...