A Universe From Nothing

[ecco]

You are confused. My first post was #35 where I pointed out “the creation of the material worlds from matter was the default teaching of early christianity and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter”. This is the context of our conversation regarding early (ancient) Christian belief.

I might point out that Neither early Christianity nor their literature (from which I gave multiple examples), were in existence “3,000-6,000 years ago". This is historically incoherent.

At this point I can't tell if you are being intentionally obdurate or if you have serious problems comprehending English.

You entered this thread at post#35 with...

Hi,

I don’t really want to enter this conversation other than to mention a historical point. The theory of creation from nothing is a theory than was developed and adopted in the later Judeo-christian movements, but the earliest Judeo-christian movements understood that the material universe was created from pre-existing matter.

If you had bothered to read, and comprehend, the previous 34 messages, you would have know that the phrase "the ancients" was being used to refer to people who came before 2000 years ago.

Secondly, your theory that “belief doesn’t matter” lacks data, logic and coherence. The principle of belief as a factor in motivations and behaviors applies to intelligent individuals of all ages. If belief motivates and affects modern intelligent individuals, why would beliefs not matter and affect the “early Christians” we are discussing?

Your theory is incoherent on this point.

I'll have to assume that you either did not read my post #115 or you are incapable of understanding it. In either case, that's your problem, not mine.

Here it is again. If you still cannot understand it - oh well

Note the word "ancients". This CLEARLY refers to people who lived long ago.
Note the word "believed". This CLEARLY refers to something that occurred in the past.

Taken together, "ancients" and "believed" CLEARLY refers to the beliefs of people who lived long ago. In the context of this discussion, had you been able to follow it, the beliefs of people living 3,000 - 6,000 years ago.

Note the word "is" before the word "immaterial". The "is" CLEARLY refers to the present tense.

Is it becoming clearer yet?

My closing comment in the post you were referring to was:

If some believed that rocks were made of something rather than nothing - OK Big Whoop.
It seems you disagree with that. Perhaps you can explain why it matters to you what they believed. Perhaps you can explain how it affects today's scientific understandings.​

I understand, I had a grandfather who was ancient. Your theory is non-historic since the “Early Christianity” I referred to did not exist “3,000 – 6,000” years ago. This is yet another incoherence inside your theory.

The people who were in this thread long before you jumped in weren't referring to your grandfather when they used the term "the ancients". That you need to resort to such nonsense shows how baseless your argument is.

 

[ecco]

You could have the answer of this if you´ve read the "wall of words". So try to read the post and deduce for yourself "what scholars".

I asked:

Specifically, what scholars are having problems with a "two time creation of the Earth" problem. What are the fields of studies of these scholars?​

I guess you believe it takes 1284 words to answer that question. More likely, you used 1284 words to try to hide the fact that you couldn't answer "Specifically, what scholars are having problems with a "two time creation of the Earth" problem."

Some of those 1284 words were quotes from Genesis. Do you really think the writers of Genesis knew the answer to my question? If not, why did you bother quoting Genesis?

The bottom line is that you made up a modern day "scholarly problem". When called out on it, you tried to hide the truth by posting a wall of words that didn't address the question.

The subject matter may change from thread to thread, but your methods of responding don't

 

[ecco]

You could have the answer of this if you´ve read the "wall of words".

So, in your opinion, your wall of words addressed three different questions. Sad.

 

[Clear]

Hi @ecco


REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE THREAD IS IN THE CONTEXT OF "THE ANCIENTS" OF 3,000-6,000 YEARS AGO.

Ecco claimed : “If you had bothered to read, and comprehend, the previous 34 messages, you would have know that the phrase "the ancients" was being used to refer to people who came before 2000 years ago. (post #121)

...You entered this thread at post#35 with...
If you had bothered to read, and comprehend, the previous 34 messages, you would have know that the phrase "the ancients" was being used to refer to people who came before 2000 years ago.

This yet another false claim that does not support your theory that "belief doesn't matter." The prior 34 messages most often apply to relatively MODERN theist claims, and rarely refer to "the ancients" as the following survey of the posts demonstrate.


Post #1,The opening post says “Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing.” This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #4 says “....Not all theists believe what you think they do....” This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #5 The better observation is to ask why some "theists" tell the story that some "atheists" believe such and such…. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #9 Mr. Farnsworth, theists don't believe in a superman, BTW, they believe in a god, god(s) or God. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #13 I don't think something comes from nothing. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #14 Nothing is only determined by what we can observe and detect. … This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #15 just read of the Egyptian Creation Myths …. This refers to ancient Egyptian myths, not to my point regarding “Early Christians" and their beliefs

Post #16 no one actually knows how our universe began. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #17 I don't think 'nothing' is a state that exists or existed. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #19 And yes, I totally agree it's a fact that scientists change their minds about things all the time….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #20 " out of thin air", there wasn't even that, they propose !...... This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #21 An individual soul here and there will attain that Supreme Knowledge but certainly not mankind as a whole…… This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #22 Are you saying there was something before the socalled "Big Bang"?.... This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #25 *if* time existed before the Big Bang, so did matter and energy. ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #32 You don't know. That's the honest answer. ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #33 The ancients were learning, what we are still learning `now`…..THIS does refer to "the ancients" but as a generic without reference to time period..

Post #34 This may not be the best characterization to make, when an always existing cosmos viewpoint is using....well...frankly just another variety of belief, ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #35 is my first post pointing out that “The theory of creation from nothing is a theory than was developed and adopted in the later Judeo-christian movements, but the earliest Judeo-christian movements understood that the material universe was created from pre-existing matter. “ And, I gave multiple examples from the post a.d. literature demonstrating my point.

Look at the messages surveyed. Your claim that the prior 34 post referred to “the ancients” is incorrect. Other than post #15, a reference to ancient Egyptian myths, the prior 34 posts do not reference people “3,000 – 6,000 years ago” as you claim.

If we start using false statements, this is not a good way to support any theory nor is it a basis for efficient and accurate communication or to gain credibility in the eyes of readers. I don’t think false statements can save an incoherent theory.



Ecco said : "At this point I can't tell if you are being intentionally obdurate or if you have serious problems comprehending English."

And I cannot tell if your false statements are intentional falsehoods or desperate misinterpretations or diversions meant to delay admitting you have not given readers data, or logic nor have you given them any coherent argument to support your theory.

Ecco, Do you have any real data or reasonable logic or any coherent argument to support your theory or not? If you do not have data, no logic, and no support to make your theory coherent, then readers may confidently assume your theory is dead in it's tracks..

There is no use to have a conversation regarding your theory simply devolve into innuendo regarding intelligence or dishonesty. Do you have anything to support your theory that beliefs don't matter or not?


Clear
ειφυνεδρω

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Incredulity is no substitute for scientific knowledge.

Known scientific knowledge that is. Science on any level is Not the teacher of morality.
Science can teach ' how ' to do it ( atomic energy / atomic bomb ). The Bible teaches on ' should ' we do it.
Just as bad religion is dangerous, so can be the part of science that is not written in stone, so to speak.
Science has its explanatory world view, whereas religion has its basic ethical view, and where the Bible is concerned the biblical view.

 

[ecco]

There is

Hi @ecco


REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE THREAD IS IN THE CONTEXT OF "THE ANCIENTS" OF 3,000-6,000 YEARS AGO.

Ecco claimed : “If you had bothered to read, and comprehend, the previous 34 messages, you would have know that the phrase "the ancients" was being used to refer to people who came before 2000 years ago. (post #121)



This yet another false claim that does not support your theory that "belief doesn't matter." The prior 34 messages most often apply to relatively MODERN theist claims, and rarely refer to "the ancients" as the following survey of the posts demonstrate.


Post #1,The opening post says “Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing.” This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #4 says “....Not all theists believe what you think they do....” This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #5 The better observation is to ask why some "theists" tell the story that some "atheists" believe such and such…. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #9 Mr. Farnsworth, theists don't believe in a superman, BTW, they believe in a god, god(s) or God. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #13 I don't think something comes from nothing. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #14 Nothing is only determined by what we can observe and detect. … This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #15 just read of the Egyptian Creation Myths …. This refers to ancient Egyptian myths, not to my point regarding “Early Christians" and their beliefs

Post #16 no one actually knows how our universe began. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #17 I don't think 'nothing' is a state that exists or existed. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #19 And yes, I totally agree it's a fact that scientists change their minds about things all the time….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #20 " out of thin air", there wasn't even that, they propose !...... This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #21 An individual soul here and there will attain that Supreme Knowledge but certainly not mankind as a whole…… This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #22 Are you saying there was something before the socalled "Big Bang"?.... This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #25 *if* time existed before the Big Bang, so did matter and energy. ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #32 You don't know. That's the honest answer. ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #33 The ancients were learning, what we are still learning `now`…..THIS does refer to "the ancients" but as a generic without reference to time period..

Post #34 This may not be the best characterization to make, when an always existing cosmos viewpoint is using....well...frankly just another variety of belief, ….. This is not referring to “the ancients”.

Post #35 is my first post pointing out that “The theory of creation from nothing is a theory than was developed and adopted in the later Judeo-christian movements, but the earliest Judeo-christian movements understood that the material universe was created from pre-existing matter. “ And, I gave multiple examples from the post a.d. literature demonstrating my point.

Look at the messages surveyed. Your claim that the prior 34 post referred to “the ancients” is incorrect. Other than post #15, a reference to ancient Egyptian myths, the prior 34 posts do not reference people “3,000 – 6,000 years ago” as you claim.

If we start using false statements, this is not a good way to support any theory nor is it a basis for efficient and accurate communication or to gain credibility in the eyes of readers. I don’t think false statements can save an incoherent theory.



Ecco said : "At this point I can't tell if you are being intentionally obdurate or if you have serious problems comprehending English."

And I cannot tell if your false statements are intentional falsehoods or desperate misinterpretations or diversions meant to delay admitting you have not given readers data, or logic nor have you given them any coherent argument to support your theory.

Ecco, Do you have any real data or reasonable logic or any coherent argument to support your theory or not? If you do not have data, no logic, and no support to make your theory coherent, then readers ma confidentlyl assume your theory is dead in it's tracks..

There is no use to have a conversation regarding your theory simply devolve into innuendo regarding intelligence or dishonesty. Do you have anything to support your theory that beliefs don't matter or not?


Clear
ειφυνεδρω

There is no point in my continuing have a conversation with someone who conflates the age of his "ancient" grandfather with the phrase used in this thread; "the ancients". Bye bye.

 

[ecco]

Known scientific knowledge that is.

Are you really going to quibble between "scientific knowledge" and "known scientific knowledge"? If something is not known, it is not scientific knowledge, is it?

Science on any level is Not the teacher of morality.

Did you really find it necessary to point out the obvious or were you laying the groundwork for a strawman? Do you know any people that believe in science, that would say science teaches morality? I don't.

Science can teach ' how ' to do it ( atomic energy / atomic bomb ). The Bible teaches on ' should ' we do it.... religion has its basic ethical view...

Should we own slaves? Bible says yes.
Should we take the young virgin female offspring of our vanquished foe and divide them up among our victorious soldiers? Bible says yes.

Secular law and combat rules of engagement say no.

Now tell us again of the ethics of the Bible.

 

[Clear]

There is

There is no point in my continuing have a conversation with someone who conflates the age of his "ancient" grandfather with the phrase used in this thread; "the ancients". Bye bye.

I agree, there is no evidence (so far) that there is any point in you trying to continue the conversation about your theory that beliefs don't matter. Still, I hope your journey is good Ecco.




Readers :

CONCLUSION REGARDING BELIEFS

Just as we have shown that the beliefs of great discoverers such as Columbus, Galileo, Newton and virtually all others played a role in their ongoing efforts (which changed the course of history), the early belief that material things are made of matter forms part of the motivation for continual curiosity as to the nature of that matter and the search for knowledge concerning matter and how it might be used. The belief that material things are made of some form of matter underlies physical sciences and progress in understanding and working with matter.

Whether for good or evil, beliefs matter a great deal.

Clear
εισεσεδρω

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Are you really going to quibble between "scientific knowledge" and "known scientific knowledge"? If something is not known, it is not scientific knowledge, is it?
Did you really find it necessary to point out the obvious or were you laying the groundwork for a strawman? Do you know any people that believe in science, that would say science teaches morality? I don't.
Should we own slaves? Bible says yes.
Should we take the young virgin female offspring of our vanquished foe and divide them up among our victorious soldiers? Bible says yes.
Secular law and combat rules of engagement say no.
Now tell us again of the ethics of the Bible.

Something improvable does Not mean impossible.
Of course science does Not teach morality, that is my point. Morality is a Bible teaching.
First, ancient Israel was Not in the slave-trade business as the Southern United States.
There were No debtors prisons in ancient Israel, so to pay off a debt one would be in slavery but as a hired person - Leviticus 25:40
Those particular virgin women lives were spared and given as wives to the soldiers, not as slaves. They did nothing to deserve being killed.
If they were Not given as wives they would have had to fend for themselves. That would have been unloving.
What do you find unethical about the 19th chapter of Leviticus _______

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..........................The belief that material things are made of some form of matter underlies physical sciences and progress in understanding and working with matter.................

In Scripture I find 'matter' comes from God's Power, God's Strength - Isaiah 40:26
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the material realm of existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no default position in science or rligion. People have their views and beliefs.

 

[Clear]

In Scripture I find 'matter' comes from God's Power, God's Strength - Isaiah 40:26
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the material realm of existence.

Hi @URAVIP2ME

It certainly could be true that God supplied and used "energy" since energy is one form of matter. I am not sure why you quote Isaiah 40:26 since that scripture simply tells us to behold him “who created (or displayed in LXX) all things rather than indicating he made things out of “energy”

My original point was that the early Judeo-Christians, in their literature tell us that they did not believe God created this material world "out of nothing", as in a "magical" creation, but instead, used matter to create it. The theory of creation "ex-nihilo" or the "magical" creation "out of nothing" was a later innovation. I brought this up because the O.P. seemed to assume that ex-nihilo creation was the default "theist" position.

Clear
εισιττζφυω

 

[ecco]

Something improvable does Not mean impossible.

I agree. Science does not prove things like evolution - it just provides massive evidence. Yet many fundamentalist theists argue that evolution isn't proved, therefore it must be wrong.

Of course science does Not teach morality, that is my point.

Then why did you bother posting...

Science on any level is Not the teacher of morality.

...What was the reason for posting the obvious?

Morality is a Bible teaching.

Nonsense. Humans understood morality long before the Jews put it down in writing. Humanity would not have lasted for 50,000-100,000 years without morals. In fact, Chimps and other mammals have levels of morality.

There were No debtors prisons in ancient Israel, so to pay off a debt one would be in slavery but as a hired person

In the American South slaves were fed and housed. Do you feel that they could therefore be considered "hired persons"? The Bible uses the term slave and specifies when it is justified to beat them. Is your employer allowed to beat you?

Those particular virgin women lives were spared and given as wives to the soldiers, not as slaves. They did nothing to deserve being killed.

Neither did their younger brothers. Neither did their older, non-virginal, sisters, and mothers. Yet your God said to kill them.

If they were Not given as wives they would have had to fend for themselves. That would have been unloving.

So it's OK to hang around big city bus stations, find fourteen-year-old runaways, and sell them or give them to men. After all, if you don't do that you are letting them fend for themselves.

What do you find unethical about the 19th chapter of Leviticus _______

What part? Not mingling linen and cotton?
Not counting uncircumcised fruit?
Not marring the corners of a beard?
God repeatedly asserting He is God?

Or was there some other nonsense you were referring to?

 

[gnostic]

Regarding to the “ancients”, some would date to before 2000 years ago, while others would date it to the Fall of Rome and the end of the Western Roman Empire, in 476 CE.

The later date (476 CE) would also marked the start of the Middle Ages in Europe, and that of the Dark Ages, where literacy were scarce.

But the Dark Ages don’t apply to the other half of Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine empire, which continued to exist till the Ottoman Turks captured it.

Anyway, the Antiquity said to start with two possible starting points, the start of writing, eg the earliest form of cuneiform (proto-Sumerian cuneiform) inscriptions at temples in the Eanna District of Uruk (biblical Erech), between c 3400 and c 3300 BCE. Sumerian cuneiform evolved from proto-Sumerian cuneiform, from the start at 3100 BCE, which coincided with start of Jemdet Nasr period (c 3100 - c 2900 BCE).

Or the start of making copper-tin alloy tools - bronze - hence the Bronze Age, which supposedly started at circa 3100 BCE, hence start of Jemdet Nasr period.

Jemdet Nasr is settlement near Uruk, where hundreds of fragments of clay tablets were discovered, which indicated more refined Sumerian cuneiform began to flourish. The Jemdet Nasr period also marked the beginning of civilization of Sumerian proper.

Uruk predated the Sumerian civilization, with the earliest settlement, which united two Neolithic villages into a single town about 5000 BCE, but didn’t flourish as a major civil until around 4000 BCE, and that marked what archaeology called the Uruk period (c 4000 to c 3100 BCE)

Uruk wasn’t the only city to flourish during the 4th millennium BCE. There were also Ur (c 4800 BCE), Eridu (c 5400 BCE), Ubaid (Tell al-Ubaid, c 6500 BCE). In what was later called the Assyria, the earliest settlement of Nineveh, c 6000 BCE as a Neolithic city, but Nineveh didn’t become important city until 3000 BCE.

The period before the Uruk period is called the Ubaid period (c 6500 - c 3800 BCE) that included much of Mesopotamia. Both periods are considered Chalcolithic period, which is late Neolithic period, where people were using both stone tools and copper tools.

Anyway, archaeology considered the Bronze Age as historical period, and before 3100 BCE, to prehistoric period.

According Genesis 10, it say one person found and built these cities in Mesopotamia, including Calah (Assyrian Kalhu), but that’s not possible, because Kalhu was built during Middle Assyrian period, by Shalmaneser I (reign 1274 - 1245 BCE). Assyrian have great records of royal annals that recorded reigns of their kings from Middle Assyrian dynasty to end of the Neo-Assyrian dynasty.

So clearly, Genesis 10 is unreliable, and not historical records.

 

[gnostic]

Of course science does Not teach morality, that is my point. Morality is a Bible teaching.
First, ancient Israel was Not in the slave-trade business as the Southern United States.
There were No debtors prisons in ancient Israel, so to pay off a debt one would be in slavery but as a hired person - Leviticus 25:40
Those particular virgin women lives were spared and given as wives to the soldiers, not as slaves. They did nothing to deserve being killed.
If they were Not given as wives they would have had to fend for themselves. That would have been unloving.
What do you find unethical about the 19th chapter of Leviticus _______

Slavery is slavery, regardless if people being traded or to pay off debts. Slavery comes in all forms.

You are just quibbling over semantics.

The slave trade predated American slave trades. Jesus didn’t stop it, nor did the church. So if you are going to mince over the indenture and debt-type slavery, then that make Christians worse than Jews because of the 2000 years of slave trades that existed among Christians.

Serfdom during the feudalism of Middle Ages, but that turned into slave trades during and after the Renaissance. So essentially Christianity just swap one type of slavery for another.

The Leviticus rules on debt-type only applied to Jews, not to non-Jews, because another form of slavery are war captives from defeated enemies. That also exist in the Bible, which had nothing to do with debts.

Whatever forms of slavery exist, Christianity condoned and endorsed, so the Bible is no better scripture than the Quran, when it comes to morality.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The purpose for Jesus coming to Earth was Not to put a patch on this broken system of things, but for the BIG picture.
It is MAN, Not God, who has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury. MAN has Not kept the Golden Rule - chapter 19 of Leviticus.
There were No jails in ancient Israel - Deuteronomy chapter 19.

The BIG picture is that the remedy is God's Kingdom government which Jesus taught us to pray ' thy kingdom come.....' (Daniel 2:44)
Mankind's long history has proven that MAN can't successfully govern his step.
That is why God is going to have Jesus step in because MAN can't succeed on his own.
There will be No slavery under Christ's coming 1,000 year governmental reign over Earth. Just good conditions as per Isaiah 35th chapter.

 

[MichaelleahciM]

Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing. I find this very strange, because I (though I don't speak for all atheists) don't believe this. I don't know where the universe came from, if it had a cause, and if so, what its cause was. But I don't believe it came from "nothing." Theists, on the other hand, very clearly DO believe the universe was made from nothing. Theists (at least, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theists) assert with absolute certainty that a magical being created the entire universe out of thin air with a spoken incantation. This magical immortal superman literally poofed the universe into existence out of absolutely nothing. Now, as I said before, I don't know where the universe came from, and whatever the cause of the universe is, if we ever find it out, I think it may very well seem like a miracle. I recognize that our existence is a huge mystery and is very special and improbable. But I highly doubt that the explanation for it is a magical superman who created it all out of thin air. That sounds like a very childish solution invented by primitive people who wanted an explanation for something that none of us may ever understand.

Hi Hebert, New guy here, (my excuse! LOL) Your Atheists? Correct? Atheist believe in science, don't they? What I've read about Quantum Physics is that the particles that make up matter do indeed, 'pop' into existence. They say it has been proven scientifically beyond any doubt. Something to do with a vacuum and two metal plates, might have been the Cashmere Effect . There is an energy field that is everywhere and changes to the energy waves, perhaps it was charge, the particles pop into existence, a negative and a positive, which practically instantly annihilate each other. Apparently during the Big Bang or Big Expansion there were equal numbers of pairs. But somehow the negatives mostly wiped out leaving an abundance of our particles. But it's not out of nothing, it is out of this underlying field of energy. These particles compose atoms, molecules, you and me and the planets and the energy field is everywhere. The Energy Field is our source of creation, whatever the Energy Field is. I'm an Atheist who disagrees with all historical conceptions of a supreme being, but I do entertain a continued personal consciousness, and at the same time that personal consciousness predate these bodies. No supreme being required, but most likely this Energy Field of which I spoke is required at a minimum. ( I theorize if literally everything in this universe arose from the Energy field, then so does our consciousness and energy never goes away, just changes states.)

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Hebert, New guy here, (my excuse! LOL) Your Atheists? Correct? Atheist believe in science, don't they?

Most do. But not all.

What I've read about Quantum Physics is that the particles that make up matter do indeed, 'pop' into existence. They say it has been proven scientifically beyond any doubt. Something to do with a vacuum and two metal plates, might have been the Cashmere Effect .

Casimir.

There is an energy field that is everywhere and changes to the energy waves, perhaps it was charge, the particles pop into existence, a negative and a positive, which practically instantly annihilate each other. Apparently during the Big Bang or Big Expansion there were equal numbers of pairs. But somehow the negatives mostly wiped out leaving an abundance of our particles. But it's not out of nothing, it is out of this underlying field of energy.

Good as far as it goes, The next point to notice is that the energy from gravity is negative and balances the other forms of energy, so that the *total* is zero: nothing.

These particles compose atoms, molecules, you and me and the planets and the energy field is everywhere. The Energy Field is our source of creation, whatever the Energy Field is. I'm an Atheist who disagrees with all historical conceptions of a supreme being, but I do entertain a continued personal consciousness, and at the same time that personal consciousness predate these bodies. No supreme being required, but most likely this Energy Field of which I spoke is required at a minimum. ( I theorize if literally everything in this universe arose from the Energy field, then so does our consciousness and energy never goes away, just changes states.)

I'm not sure 'consciousness' is appropriate for the background energy of a vacuum.

 

[MichaelleahciM]

Most do. But not all.

I'm not sure 'consciousness' is appropriate for the background energy of a vacuum.

In a nutshell sort of thingy thought, it seems most lean towards, everything here, is a derivative of the smallest components at the quantum level? Hence, and it is my imagitive stretch, then so is consciousness. Is the direction I was headed to. It seems improbable to me that consciousness would be capable of full indepence from quantum influence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......... Apparently during the Big Bang or Big Expansion there were equal numbers of pairs. But somehow the negatives mostly wiped out leaving an abundance of our particles. But it's not out of nothing, it is out of this underlying field of energy. These particles compose atoms, molecules, you and me and the planets and the energy field is everywhere. The Energy Field is our source of creation, whatever the Energy Field is. I'm an Atheist who disagrees with all historical conceptions of a supreme being, but I do entertain a continued personal consciousness, and at the same time that personal consciousness predate these bodies. No supreme being required, but most likely this Energy Field of which I spoke is required at a minimum. ( I theorize if literally everything in this universe arose from the Energy field, then so does our consciousness and energy never goes away, just changes states.)

Scripture agrees ' Not out of nothing ' but out of God's Power, God's Strength (Isaiah 40:26)
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the material realm of existence.