A Universe from Nothing?

[james bond]

Well ideas are like belief...ideas about truth is not truth...truth is what is...no judgment is involved..no belief is involved..

The only statement I agree with is "truth is what is." Ideas can be beliefs, but can also be just ideas. And one idea about truth can be the truth.

As for the judgment part, that is where choice comes in. One has to judge for themselves the path to the truth (not that there is "no judgment is involved or no belief is involved" -- that is what we call facts). The key point is there may be more than one path or way to the truth, but only one truth.

 

[Segev Moran]

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?

Its a very hard question as there not even an agreement on what nothing is

When you say nothing... what do you mean?

Just for the purpose of the post, there are some theories what nothing really is:

Nothing is not really nothing rather something we cannot define with our current understanding (This is one of the theories)
Pf. Kraus suggests that nothing is really some sort of energy of a type of undefined substance that we call nothing
Creationists claim that nothing is absence of any Material substance or ingredient (As the claim is that God is not nothing)
Some suggest that the universe is a simulated universe.. thus nothing is actually the time before the simulation started...

After you took a minute and thought what is your definition of nothing, let me ask you this...

When you model a 3D Object in a computer... Is it considered nothing?
What happens when you shut down the computer? is the 3D model still there?
What about Characters in a video game?

If you cannot see/feel/hear/taste/smell something, is it nothing?

 

[`mud]

Don't be silly,
nothing is the absence of anything.
~
And I have a whole lot of 'em,
but there's nothing to 'em.
~
'mud

 

[james bond]

From what I can gather from atheists or secular scientists, nothing is not a vacuum but quantum particles and their energy being released. The LHC was built to do experiments on this and recently upgraded to a more powerful collider, the most powerful in the world. Yet, energy is neither created nor destroyed so how the energy to "create" our universe came to be cannot be explained. Quantum particles would have to have transformed, i.e. "evolved" ha ha, for the universe to form and expand. Compare that to God created heavens, universe and earth on the first day. Investigate for yourself which is the better explanation.

 

[McBell]

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?

The only time I have ever seen the "universe from nothing" even mentioned is from creationists beating up on a strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The only statement I agree with is "truth is what is." Ideas can be beliefs, but can also be just ideas. And one idea about truth can be the truth.

As for the judgment part, that is where choice comes in. One has to judge for themselves the path to the truth (not that there is "no judgment is involved or no belief is involved" -- that is what we call facts). The key point is there may be more than one path or way to the truth, but only one truth.

If you mean that ideas can be true in the sense they are mental constructs representing some fact , then yes, but if you think any idea about anything at all is true in the absolute sense, then you are mistaking the conceptual representation of the 'thing' for the reality of the thing itself... Follow?

What is the reality represented by the concepts of 'path' and 'truth' in the context of your claim that "there may be more than one path or way to the truth, but only one truth"?

 

[gnostic]

The only time I have ever seen the "universe from nothing" even mentioned is from creationists beating up on a strawman.

Yeah.

I have yet to see any non-creationist here arguing in favour of universe from nothing.

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah.

I have yet to see any non-creationist here arguing in favour of universe from nothing.

Well, if the truth be told, they don't have a lot to work with.

 

[`mud]

Would that be 'nothing' ?
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you mean that ideas can be true in the sense they are mental constructs representing some fact , then yes, but if you think any idea about anything at all is true in the absolute sense, then you are mistaking the conceptual representation of the 'thing' for the reality of the thing itself... Follow?

No, not really. Perception is a rather complicated process which includes physiological and psychological aspects. Conceptualising is just the last part of the process, and even without concepts we are still quite far removed from some assumed "reality".

 

[`mud]

It's called "Stuff" !
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, not really. Perception is a rather complicated process which includes physiological and psychological aspects. Conceptualising is just the last part of the process, and even without concepts we are still quite far removed from some assumed "reality".

So you are one of those people who believe that if you are not looking at something, it doesn't exist.....that the conceptual representation in you brain creates the illusion of an external reality?

 

[Skwim]

No, not really. Perception is a rather complicated process which includes physiological and psychological aspects. Conceptualising is just the last part of the process, and even without concepts we are still quite far removed from some assumed "reality".

So is anything out there (something that exists aside from yourself) triggering these perceptions?


.

 

[james bond]

If you mean that ideas can be true in the sense they are mental constructs representing some fact , then yes, but if you think any idea about anything at all is true in the absolute sense, then you are mistaking the conceptual representation of the 'thing' for the reality of the thing itself... Follow?

What is the reality represented by the concepts of 'path' and 'truth' in the context of your claim that "there may be more than one path or way to the truth, but only one truth"?

In part. An idea representing something that exists as real or as fact is one truth. An example of that is God. Or another is an idea which doesn't exist yet, but can exist in the future if the idea goes through to production. For example, someone wrote a book and after some work on the part of the author and their representative it is going to be published. Then there is the idea as a conceptual representation of the "thing." It can still be real even though it's only in the mind or imagination. For example a unicorn can exist only in the imagination and be thought of as real.

Now, can we apply the above ideas to the past or historical events and try to explain it that way? I submit the Holocaust for examination. Most of us would agree that it's history based on what we read and the evidence that was presented in photos, witness or first-person accounts, history books, film, media and so on. To explain it, we do not have to take something from today such as the internet to prove it. If we take just the internet, then a few may not believe the Holocaust happened because there are deniers and they may be persuasive or mislead with their denial. They may represent what is fact with their own "facts" which may not be true at all. What would deny the deniers is the other evidence or the other ideas which represents some fact or a string of facts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In part. An idea representing something that exists as real or as fact is one truth. An example of that is God. Or another is an idea which doesn't exist yet, but can exist in the future if the idea goes through to production. For example, someone wrote a book and after some work on the part of the author and their representative it is going to be published. Then there is the idea as a conceptual representation of the "thing." It can still be real even though it's only in the mind or imagination. For example a unicorn can exist only in the imagination and be thought of as real.

Now, can we apply the above ideas to the past or historical events and try to explain it that way? I submit the Holocaust for examination. Most of us would agree that it's history based on what we read and the evidence that was presented in photos, witness or first-person accounts, history books, film, media and so on. To explain it, we do not have to take something from today such as the internet to prove it. If we take just the internet, then a few may not believe the Holocaust happened because there are deniers and they may be persuasive or mislead with their denial. They may represent what is fact with their own "facts" which may not be true at all. What would deny the deniers is the other evidence or the other ideas which represents some fact or a string of facts.

I am using the concept 'real' as that which actually exists on the other side of the concept. Iow, concepts are mental constructs....that is the reality...they are not that which they are meant to represent.....we merely use them as a proxy to represent what we mean. Do not conflate the concept of the real with the real....else you will be caught in maya.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So is anything out there (something that exists aside from yourself) triggering these perceptions?

Yes, I do think there is an "out there", but what we experience will always be a perception. What I was questioning was the idea that if we stop conceptualising we can somehow access "reality". Conceptualising is only the last part of the perceptual process.

"Reality" is a very tricky concept, it raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you are one of those people who believe that if you are not looking at something, it doesn't exist.....that the conceptual representation in you brain creates the illusion of an external reality?

No, I don't think that. My point was that it is not just concepts which form the "illusion" that we experience. Conceptualising is only the last part of the perceptual process.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I don't think that. My point was that it is not just concepts which form the "illusion" that we experience.

I have no idea what that has to do anything....please explain what it has to do with what I posted? And please quote my exact words so I know what it is you are disagreeing with?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have no idea what that has to do anything....please explain what it has to do with what I posted? And please quote my exact words so I know what it is you are disagreeing with?

You were making your usual distinction between conceptual representation and "reality", ( post #1327 for example ), I was challenging your simplistic assumptions about perception.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, I do think there is an "out there", but what we experience will always be a perception. What I was questioning was the idea that if we stop conceptualizing we can somehow access "reality."

And how would one go about this? And why does it even occur to you that reality can be accessed, whatever that means, if one stopped conceptualizing perceptions, whatever that entails?

"Reality" is a very tricky concept, it raises more questions than it answers.

Well, it must easy enough of a concept for you to talk about it. So, what is it you're talking about when using the word?


.