A Universe from Nothing?

[Neo Deist]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

I believe that at this point in time, we can't say one way or another. All we have are theories, none of which can be proven beyond any doubt. Why bother worrying about something that you are incapable of validating? I personally choose to believe in God as the creator, but certainly not according to the Bible.

 

[LuisDantas]

We took most of our history to learn of radiowaves' existence.

Is it reasonable to expect that we would simply know how to understand whether there was a beginning for the universe? I don't think so.

If anyone feels strongly about whether there was a beginning or a creator, it seems to me that they will just have to deal with that passion and the lack of means of resolving it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where did I ever say that? Please quote any post where I said that I believe God created the Universe from nothingness.

I stand corrected. It was a clearly naive assumption on my part based on your self-identification as a Christian. I was unaware that ...

Early church fathers such as Theophilus, Justin Martyr, and Origen actually believed that matter was pre-existent with God. Borrowed from platonic thought, these church fathers believed that God "ordered" this chaotic matter and gave it its shape and form, thus resulting in the creation of the world. As McGrath notes, "[m]atter was already present within the universe, and did not require to be created; it needed to be given a definite shape and structure" (McGrath, Theology, p. 38). There are many problems associated with this view (see below), and this is why by the fourth century most Christian theologians rejected this view. [source]

My apologies ... and thanks for the lesson.

 

[Thief]

Then neither does space, as the Theory of Relativity shows that they are both aspects of the same fabric: space-time.

time is a measure of movement.
it is not a substance or force.
It is only a cognitive device.....created by Man to serve Man.

space is real enough....that emptiness from one particle to another.
time is all in your head.

 

[leibowde84]

No...no assumptions....I know that planet Earth is not the only planet that has ever existed that has life..... Since the same elements that this solar system is comprised of, are the same elements that make up all star systems, you will need to explain to me what is so unique about Earth that only it was ever capable of giving rise to life since time began?

That's the thing. I am not making this claim. I am not assuming earth is the only planet with life. I would say that it is likely that there are others, but we don't have enough information to know yet. You are jumping the gun, making an assumption that there certainly is other life out there. I am, on the other hand, refusing to make that assumption either way.

You are making an assumption, I am not. So, I'll ask again ... why is making this assumption reasonable?

 

[leibowde84]

No...no assumptions....I know that planet Earth is not the only planet that has ever existed that has life

If you "know" this to be true, then can you provide the evidence that you base this "knowledge" on. Considering your claimed "surety", this should be easy, should it not? Or, do you base this "knowledge" on your own reasoning (assumptions based on our minimal scientific understanding as human beings) rather than actual empirical evidence?

 

[Parsimony]

time is a measure of movement.

And space is the flipside of that measurement. No space, no movement.

it is not a substance or force.

Nor is space.

It is only a cognitive device.....created by Man to serve Man.

Then how is it possible to measure it? Why is it that the presence of mass can slow it down? The existence of gravity requires both space and time to be real.

space is real enough....that emptiness from one particle to another.

Then so is time. You can't have one without the other.

time is all in your head.

Time is objectively measurable by devices external to the mind. If time didn't exist, then everything would be happening all in the same instant. Things like measurement and thought wouldn't be possible. Entropy and causality wouldn't exist.

 

[Thief]

And space is the flipside of that measurement. No space, no movement.

Nor is space.

Then how is it possible to measure it? Why is it that the presence of mass can slow it down? The existence of gravity requires both space and time to be real.

Then so is time. You can't have one without the other.

Time is objectively measurable by devices external to the mind. If time didn't exist, then everything would be happening all in the same instant. Things like measurement and thought wouldn't be possible. Entropy and causality wouldn't exist.

time was invented by Man.
it is ONLY a means of measurement.

you can have all the space you want.....
you don't have to measure it

 

[Parsimony]

time was invented by Man.
it is ONLY a means of measurement.

Evidence?

you can have all the space you want.....
you don't have to measure it

You don't have to measure time any more than you have to measure space.

 

[Thief]

Evidence?

You don't have to measure time any more than you have to measure space.

I grew up reading about time keeping....too involved to post here.

Time is a quotient....on a chalkboard.
you will never see it otherwise.

and true.....the measure is not required for the universe to function

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So the search for habitable planets has just begun and there is already a list of about 50 potentially habitable exo-planets in the relative near vicinity of here...then there is the rest of the billions of stars in this galaxy before we move on to the billions of galaxies....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

'potentially' is the key word. every lottery ticket you buy is 'potentially' a winner also. Gliese 581g - touted as 'Earthlike' turned out to probably not even exist at all.

'potential' invariably refers to the habitable zone- because an exo planet's approx. size and distance from the sun is pretty much the only thing we can vaguely guess at from tiny wobbles in stars. -which does not equate to habitable by any stretch, far less inhabited.- there are many more improbable parameters to take into account as above.

Moreover observation so far supports the improbable math- From billions of stars in the Milky Way, we hear nothing but deafening silence. Why?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's the thing. I am not making this claim. I am not assuming earth is the only planet with life. I would say that it is likely that there are others, but we don't have enough information to know yet. You are jumping the gun, making an assumption that there certainly is other life out there. I am, on the other hand, refusing to make that assumption either way.

You are making an assumption, I am not. So, I'll ask again ... why is making this assumption reasonable?

I have already provided the reason...go back and read what I have said....

 

[Parsimony]

I grew up reading about time keeping....too involved to post here.

Time is a quotient....on a chalkboard.
you will never see it otherwise.

and true.....the measure is not required for the universe to function

How can something be measured if it doesn't exist? What is it that a clock is measuring if not time?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you "know" this to be true, then can you provide the evidence that you base this "knowledge" on. Considering your claimed "surety", this should be easy, should it not? Or, do you base this "knowledge" on your own reasoning (assumptions based on our minimal scientific understanding as human beings) rather than actual empirical evidence?

While there may not be empirical evidence in the public domain that there is ET, that does not mean it does not exist.....msm based human intelligence will be the last to know...

 

[outhouse]

From billions of stars in the Milky Way, we hear nothing but deafening silence. Why?

You don't know or understand the distance involved here?

The answer is obvious

 

[leibowde84]

While there may not be empirical evidence in the public domain that there is ET, that does not mean it does not exist.....msm based human intelligence will be the last to know...

So, can you provide the evidence that is not in the public domain that you base your claim of "knowledge" on? I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. I mean, if you don't have any evidence to present, just say that and I'll stop asking.

 

[leibowde84]

Moreover observation so far supports the improbable math- From billions of stars in the Milky Way, we hear nothing but deafening silence. Why?

The closest possibly habitable planet to earth is roughly 20 light years away. So, it takes 20 years to send a message, and 20 years to get one back. So 40 years for a back and forth. And, there are possibly millions of habitable planets just in our galaxy, but they are too far to expect communication from. If communication could be instantaneous, you might have a point. But, because it takes any communication 1 yr to travel 1 light yr, and the vast majority are thousands if not millions of light years away from us, it seems absurd to expect that, if even intelligent life existed out there, we would have heard from them already.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'potentially' is the key word. every lottery ticket you buy is 'potentially' a winner also. Gliese 581g - touted as 'Earthlike' turned out to probably not even exist at all.

'potential' invariably refers to the habitable zone- because an exo planet's approx. size and distance from the sun is pretty much the only thing we can vaguely guess at from tiny wobbles in stars. -which does not equate to habitable by any stretch, far less inhabited.- there are many more improbable parameters to take into account as above.

Moreover observation so far supports the improbable math- From billions of stars in the Milky Way, we hear nothing but deafening silence. Why?

So given your lottery analogy, you admit that potentiality still leads to the realization......do the math...given the statistical number of planets in the universe....at lottery odds that is still billions of life bearing planets...haha...

I wonder what the odds were of Columbus finding life outside of the 'flat earth' reality mindsets of that era....and like yours' is in this era? .....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, can you provide the evidence that is not in the public domain that you base your claim of "knowledge" on? I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. I mean, if you don't have any evidence to present, just say that and I'll stop asking.

Let me see how this works..... So can you provide any evidence in the public domain that can disprove the existence of ET? ... I mean I feel like I'm dealing with a 'flat earther' here..

 

[outhouse]

But, because it takes any communication 1 yr to travel 1 light yr, and the vast majority are thousands if not millions of light years away from us, it seems absurd to expect that, if even intelligent life existed out there, we would have heard from them already.

And that lack of knowledge is where he fails.


If you take how far OUR communications have been floating out in space, only a handful of possible planets out of billions that possibly exist that could have heard our first radio waves. Let alone radio back if they had intelligence enough to communicate, and could understand what we are saying.

Much the same as if we heard chimps talking we could even begin to decipher a meaning.

20 light years away

13 now.