A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

Well, you have Genesis 1:1. Just read on from there.

So, space existed before matter? (darkness was on the face of the deep). So there really wasn't *nothing*, right?

So, will you give scientists space and time to work with? No matter, just those two?

 

[Thief]

So, space existed before matter? (darkness was on the face of the deep). So there really wasn't *nothing*, right?

So, will you give scientists space and time to work with? No matter, just those two?

perhaps a bit more literal....

Whose Face?
and before the creation of light.......what darkness?

and is this toooooooo deep for humans to deal with?

 

[DavidFirth]

So, space existed before matter? (darkness was on the face of the deep). So there really wasn't *nothing*, right?

So, will you give scientists space and time to work with? No matter, just those two?

Read all of Genesis 1 and 2. No, God doesn't tell you everything. If He did you wouldn't understand it. He told us what we need to know.


Scientists don't seem to have a problem finding stuff to work with but I'll tell you what. I'll give you everything in the universe, just think up a viable theory of abiogenesis we can work with. Can you do that?

 

[McBell]

Can you do that?

Kent?
Kent Hovind?
Is that you?

 

[DavidFirth]

Kent?
Kent Hovind?
Is that you?

I'll take that as a,
"Why, no, David, I cannot."

 

[McBell]

I'll take that as a,
"Why, do, David, I cannot."

You issued a Kent Hovind Challenge.
I called you out on it.

Make of it whatever you like.
Does not change the dishonesty of the challenge.

 

[Ponder This]

According to researcher, Leonard Susskind, he says that most cosmologists now lean in the direction that there was always "something", therefore "infinity".

In the case of there being a "beginning", the question begs where does one draw the line as a starting point? For example, with me posting back to you, when did that start? when I started typing? when I read your post? when I signed on to RF? when you and I were born?

In Buddhism, this concept is often called "dependence rising", namely that it appears that every thing has a cause and every thing seems to be interconnected in some way.

'beginning' refers to the point in time or space when something starts. For example, according to cosmology the Earth didn't always exist even though the universe did. It wasn't that the matter that comprises the Earth wasn't around, but that the matter wasn't always in the form that comprises what we would call the Earth. So even if there was always some sort of physical material, that doesn't necessarily equate to something that we would call our universe. Similarly, a bar of iron does not become a sword until it is formed into a sword.

So the meaning here is semantic. What some people say is a material object that pre-existed the universe is what some other people say is just the universe in another form, but still the universe. The two don't disagree; it's a matter of perspective.

I am afraid you are missing what I am saying: so let's go back to my original question:

When you are dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming, and the dream, as far as you as the dreamer is concerned, is real.

Can you confirm or deny this so we can continue the discussion?

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Feel free to continue the discussion. There is no need to rest solely on one point.

If I type only the word 'universe' to you. It travels via internet to your screen where you see it. When you see the word 'universe' your mind immediately associates to this word a wealth of ideas and you generate guesses as to what concept I actually refer to. When I type 'origin of the universe' to you, it conveys somewhat more to you. You make new connections, possibly disregard certain connections and generate a new model of understanding for this phrase. So it is with all language.

I don't always dream (or remember that I dream). I don't always know that I dream, but sometimes I do know that I am dreaming. The dream doesn't always seem real, but sometimes it does.

With whom shall I discuss the reality of my dreams while I am dreaming? And how shall I make a comparison of that reality to the reality I experience when awake and the dreams have ceased? Will I say that my grandfather is not real because he is dead? Of course my dreams are real to me that have the quality of seeming real to me. This I can confirm. Are they real to you? Do we share this dream?

 

[DavidFirth]

You issued a Kent Hovind Challenge.
I called you out on it.

Make of it whatever you like.
Does not change the dishonesty of the challenge.

Dishonesty? I asked for a viable version of abiogenesis theory and you can't give me one. What's dishonest about that?

Einstein worked on relativity for years. I'm willing to give you a few years.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course my dreams are real to me that have the quality of seeming real to me. This I can confirm.

OK, and when you awaken, you realize the dream was just a dream, and was not real, correct?

 

[McBell]

Dishonesty? I asked for a viable version of abiogenesis theory and you can't give me one. What's dishonest about that?

Einstein worked on relativity for years. I'm willing to give you a few years.

You asked for a version of abiogenesis you will agree to.
Since we all know you are not interested in any truth or fact that contradicts your beliefs, you have issued a Kent Hovind Challenge.

Kent Hovind Challenges are dishonest.

 

[DavidFirth]

You asked for a version of abiogenesis you will agree to.
Since we all know you are not interested in any truth of fact that contradicts your beliefs, you have issued a Kent Hovind Challenge.

Kent Hovind Challenges are dishonest.

I in no wise asked for a version I would agree to. I simply asked for a viable version of the theory.

Which one do you believe? Or do you believe in God or whoever created life?

 

[godnotgod]

In 1919, Edwin using the Hooker Telescope discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum were not nebulae and part of the Milky Way, but separate galaxies of their own, and since then other galaxies were discovered that were even further away than the Andromeda Galaxy, our nearest spiral galaxy.

Before Hubble's discovery, astronomers using the telescopes since Galileo and Kepler's time before Hubble, they all thought the Milky Way was the entire universe.

Below is image of small region in space, located in the Fornax constellation, known as Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF), from the Hubble Space Telescope.

It is not the whole universe, but only a tiny section of the universe, using the telescope full range, from ultraviolet to near-infrared lights. This image is the furthest image of the universe we can see, using an optical telescope. That's about 13 billion years ago, or when the universe was approximately 600 million years old.

(Source: Hubblesite (hubblesite.org), Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014, HubbleSite: Image - Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014)

Like I said, it is not the whole universe, HUDF image showed only a small region in space, and that image displayed different 10,000 galaxies, not stars.

So how does this is criteria that tells you that the universe is real?

 

[McBell]

I in no wise asked for a version I would agree to. I simply asked for a viable version of the theory.

which one(s) are not "viable"?
I suspect that just like with evolution, your understanding of abiogenesis is severely lacking.
like trying to have a honest and meaningful discussion on trigonometry with five year old.

Which one do you believe? Or do you believe in God or whoever created life?

I do not "believe" in any of them.

 

[ChristineM]

Read all of Genesis 1 and 2. No, God doesn't tell you everything. If He did you wouldn't understand it. He told us what we need to know.


Scientists don't seem to have a problem finding stuff to work with but I'll tell you what. I'll give you everything in the universe, just think up a viable theory of abiogenesis we can work with. Can you do that?

Better still, for a theory(s), where did god come from? What did he use to create the earth out of nothing - genesis 1:2? And what did he stand on to do it?

Can you do that? And no...'read Genesis 1" does not answer those questions, in fact it causes them to be asked

 

[godnotgod]

And from David comes a lot of 'nothings' and then came 'something'.
!

That assumes that this 'something' is actually something. Now comes Quantum Physics telling us the all particles in the universe are the result of energy excitations in the fields in which they 'exist'; that what appear to be 'particles' are actually standing waves. Can you call such 'particles' 'something', or are they just 'a whole lotta nuttin, honey', just pretending to be 'something'?

 

[metis]

'beginning' refers to the point in time or space when something starts. For example, according to cosmology the Earth didn't always exist even though the universe did. It wasn't that the matter that comprises the Earth wasn't around, but that the matter wasn't always in the form that comprises what we would call the Earth. So even if there was always some sort of physical material, that doesn't necessarily equate to something that we would call our universe. Similarly, a bar of iron does not become a sword until it is formed into a sword. So the meaning here is semantic. What some people say is a material object that pre-existed the universe is what some other people say is just the universe in another form, but still the universe. The two don't disagree; it's a matter of perspective.

If you reread what both of us posted, we're pretty much saying the same thing.

Where a difference seems to lie is when one uses a word like "universe". It's important for us to remember that the word "universe" is not the actual universe itself, as the term is merely an abstract labeling of something. It's like the Buddhist teaching that, when we point our finger at the moon, it's important to remember that the end of our finger is not the moon.

The issue of "infinity", therefore, has it that nothing appears to have a true beginning or end.

 

[`mud]

I think GNG is confusing `waves` with harmonics of motion in `nothingness`.
How can those `existing` waves exist without any velocity ?
~
I'm confused with this fancy verbage,
how can anything come from nothing,
and what is the `container` of the singularity ?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is not relevant. End of story


Quote "please quote my exact words where I say reincarnation/rebirth is God worship? Right, "

I did not say you said that, so you are using deception to hide behind

Haha.....what cheek....so instead of quoting my supposed lie, you obfuscate by asking me to quote something you did not say. If you did not say it, and I never claimed you said it, your request is nothing more than and obfuscation to avoid admitting there is no lie to quote to begin with.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So feel free to admit you are wrong.

As said,i know what i posted, i also know what it referenced and i provided evidence to disprove your claim. You then moved the goalposts and claimed the reference was to you personally and not, as the original post i replied to, general.

Ah ha....so you are now saying that you thought the context in which I referred to still mind meditation as a religious practice was not related to my personal position...what a waste of time this has been.

 

[ChristineM]

Haha.....what cheek....so instead of quoting my supposed lie, you obfuscate by asking me to quote something you did not say. If you did not say it, and I never claimed you said it, your request is nothing more than and obfuscation to avoid admitting there is no lie to quote to begin with.

You lied about what a posted, you stated that i said you posted the comment which is total tosh. You want to to hide behind bs then god luck to you

Edit: this is not the first time you have deliberately misrepresented my comments in your pathetic attempt to prove your balls are bigger than a woman's