• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Universe from Nothing?

`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Before the singularity.....before even the first one.
What was that, that apparrant lack of mobility.
Motionless nothingness not moving at all.
Nothing here to move, nowhere left to be.
~
I seem to never get an absolute 'evidential' answer.
~
Was the singularity always there ?
It came from nothingness did it ?
Some entity created it if it was really there at all.
And then we come back to the creator of this entity,
the entity that wasn't created and came from nothingness.
I guess everything must come from nothingness except,

.......God ???
~
'mud
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
'mud said:
Before the singularity.....before even the first one.
What was that, that apparrant lack of mobility.
Motionless nothingness not moving at all.
Nothing here to move, nowhere left to be.
~
I seem to never get an absolute 'evidential' answer.
~
Was the singularity always there ?
It came from nothingness did it ?
Some entity created it if it was really there at all.
And then we come back to the creator of this entity,
the entity that wasn't created and came from nothingness.
I guess everything must come from nothingness except,

.......God ???
~
'mud
Click to expand...
"Before" presupposes time. Time is an artifact of the bang/expansion. There was no before before. There was no "always."
Motion presupposes time too, and space ('spacetime). Can't have motion without spacetime.
And the old "who greated God" conundrum just pushes the question back a step.
Turtles all the way down.
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
I seem to never get an absolute 'evidential' answer.
~
Where was the 'singularity' when the nothingness didn't exist, yet ?
~
'mud
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
That's getting close to the absolute truth.
I think we need a different word for the impossibility of there being a 'starting' cause.
That might occur when we accept the size of the entire Cosmos.
I love all that Stuff out there beyond the concept of any gods.
'Gravitational occurrences', maybe quadrillions of them,
but an original and the 'first'..........
~
'mud
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Valjean said:
There was no "where," or "when."
reality is not comprehensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Click to expand...
This is only for those who believe there once was no time at all....

...reflect on the events that would be observed if you play the flow of time backwards from now..... somewhere, all that exists will disappear... .

1. So what is the mechanism by which all that now exits could disappear including matter and energy and space and singularity and time?

2...and would not this state be absolutely nothing?

3. Now reverse it again to fast forward....from this nothing comes time and all that now exists...is this not something from nothing?

4. So what is the mechanism by which all the now exists could arise from nothing?

5. And why did nothing give rise to everything?

6. Does it not make more sense to accept that nothing is a state that does not exist?
 
Last edited:
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Parsimony said:
Are you, at any point, actually going to provide evidence backing your claims or are you just going to keep repeating your claims? I really need to know that before I decide whether to continue this or not.
Click to expand...
I don't think you bother to ask thief.

he is notorious here at RF for evading direct questions, for not providing credible sources, other than his lame "God did it", and for moving goalpost when you try to pin him down.

if you ask him a question or ask for sources, don't hold your breath.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
outhouse said:
No they do not.

The scientific side has never claimed that.

They claim a singularity expanded.

Are black holes nothing to you? they are singularities as well
Click to expand...
Willamena said:
I singularly doubt that.
Click to expand...
Valjean said:
A universe emerging from, or a product of, no thing; from a gravitational singularity, An inflation from a point where there was no universe, nothing, not even time.
Click to expand...
A singularity or gravitational singularity is not "nothing".

Scientists just don't really know what this singularity is, but do describe the singularity as been super hot and dense.

All scientists do know is that law of physics - general relativity and quantum mechanics break down at the point of initial expansion at t = 0 second. And it break down because the singularity, like that of black hole singularity, the gravitational singularity has something like a event horizon, in which we cannot observe beyond this point of time.

Matters as we understand it, have masses, and therefore each matter would have density. Correct?

The more massive an object, the greater its gravity. Correct?

And in physics, matter not only have mass, but also energy. Correct?

As I understand about black hole, it is a very massive star that have run out of fuel (lighter elements) to fuse them into heavier elements, and due to its very dense mass, it would cause the star to collapse from its own gravity, and will pull any objects into the black hole, and even light cannot escape the pull.

If the gravitational singularity is very dense, then wouldn't it stand to reason there the singularity is infinitely more massive than any stellar black hole? And if it have mass, density and gravity, then is the singularity "something"?

Some scientists called this singularity before the Big Bang - a primordial black hole - because it has some of the properties to stellar black holes, except this singularity isn't a former star.

The singularity must have energies and forces for the singularity to exist, which again must have mass, even if we don't currently know what this singularity-something is.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
A singularity or gravitational singularity is not "nothing".

.
Click to expand...
gnostic...I am pretty sure Valjean meant the 'no thing' from which the the theoretical singularity emerged from.... Iow, the same question I ask, and kept getting 'post time = 0' science explanations....:)
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Aquitaine said:
In terms of knowing the "answers" to the universe? Damn right. You don't know any more than anyone else buddy.
Click to expand...
You prove my point....people are not equal...some do not even know that something can't come from nothing...haha...
 
Last edited:
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
ben d said:
gnostic...I am pretty sure Valjean meant the 'no thing' from which the the theoretical singularity emerged from.... Iow, the same question I ask, and kept getting 'post time = 0' science explanations....:)
Click to expand...

That's because what scientists do or do not know about what happened at t = 0 second is largely theoretical and speculative.

That's what you don't seem to be able to grasp. And I have pointed out frequently to you that BEFORE t = 0 second is only purely speculative, and the 1st few seconds AFTER t = 0 second is also speculative.

The majority of the Big Bang cosmology is what can be observed or verifiably determined is the observable universe. And the main reason why I bring up post-zero-second, is that there are only verifiable evidences after the 1st second. There are at least 6 different epochs before 1 second begins, and all of this is speculative.

You keep harping on and on, about purely speculative stage of the universe, without evidences to support your stance about how or what cause the expansion to began in the first place.

How many times do I have to tell you no scientists are able to verify what happen at t = 0 second? And if they don't know, you and I certainly don't know.

Yes, there are many different theories out there, that say this or that happened before the Big Bang (t = 0 second), none of them can be tested or verified. And that's including your eternal universe and you associating this lame-*** something-out-of-nothing to the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang, because the whole nothingness is also purely speculative.

Science don't know what occur at t = 0 second, so unless you have something more concrete than what you believe in that's not testable or provable, stop beating a dead horse.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
That's because what scientists do or do not know about what happened at t = 0 second is largely theoretical and speculative.

That's what you don't seem to be able to grasp. And I have pointed out frequently to you that BEFORE t = 0 second is only purely speculative, and the 1st few seconds AFTER t = 0 second is also speculative.

The majority of the Big Bang cosmology is what can be observed or verifiably determined is the observable universe. And the main reason why I bring up post-zero-second, is that there are only verifiable evidences after the 1st second. There are at least 6 different epochs before 1 second begins, and all of this is speculative.

You keep harping on and on, about purely speculative stage of the universe, without evidences to support your stance about how or what cause the expansion to began in the first place.

How many times do I have to tell you no scientists are able to verify what happen at t = 0 second? And if they don't know, you and I certainly don't know.

Yes, there are many different theories out there, that say this or that happened before the Big Bang (t = 0 second), none of them can be tested or verified. And that's including your eternal universe and you associating this lame-*** something-out-of-nothing to the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang, because the whole nothingness is also purely speculative.

Science don't know what occur at t = 0 second, so unless you have something more concrete than what you believe in that's not testable or provable, stop beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...
Haha.....all the bluster about speculation and the inability of science to verify what happens at time = 0 does not obscure the facts.....science says there was no time up to the beginning of time...yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top