from nothing to something

[(Q)]

All I am saying is that something must exist. Whatever that 'something' is is not the question.

But what science IS saying is that in lieu of the fact that "something" did not exist at a particular point in time and at a particular location, "something" suddenly came into existence and promptly dissapeared leaving only the effects of its existence behind. The only "thing" that was present prior to its existence was a vacuum, which is loosely defined as a region of space empty of matter; ie. nothing.

We could be treading on the area of semantics here.

then they should conclude that... SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG.

They HAVE made that conclusion.

My only point is in addressing the idea that something comes from nothing.

I hope you can now understand how it does.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Damn, I was typing a reply and got disconnected....then Zero Faith beat me to the punch! Ah well I'll be brief...

Prapraktri--Those are not the only two options, silly. Things don't have to exist at all points in space....there can be places where there are no "things" existing at that time. We can say "nothing" exists in those places just as we can say "darkness" exists in the absence of light.

I have already addressed this. The concept of "nothing" is relative. My example was how it is relative to space. You now bring up how it is relative to time, as well. I have no disagreement. Yes, when asked about light in a dark room one might refer to there being 'nothing'. But this 'nothing' is relative to the existence of light. There is no need for me to go further in this, we agree.

At any rate, "from nothing to something" is a bit of a strawman argument. It should say something like "the universe/big bang came from virtual particles which came from a vacuum". We know virtual particles can appear randomly in a vacuum, so this is perfectly reasonable.

The theists' question is always, "then where did this 'vacuum' come from?", which of course cannot be answered. Atheistic people do not accept the concept of God seeing that they have no experimental ability in this department. Ultimately something must come from something, and the 'something' we term God is, in concept, the only absolutely plausible conclusion to answering wherefrom all sensually perceived reality comes.
Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts? The Vedas call this Maya, the illusionary material energy. We, the spirit-souls, are engaging one fleeting existence (the senses) upon another (the surrounding environment) and then attempting to arrive at any real concrete conclusions. It is thus not so hard to understand the necessity of God and the necessity of the soul.

Some people seem to think that in order to be valid, a theory has to leave no question unanswered. The truth is, the Big Bang theory does not claim to be the end all, final explanation of everything. We don't know everything there is to know about how our universe came into being--not scientists, not theologians--no one. We know the Big Bang occurred by studying the dopplar effect--that's not really disputable. It remains open as to how, exactly, it occurred, but there are plausible theories.

It will remain theories upon theories upon theories. If "God" is only a theory, then it is a perfect theory. It is actually the final conclusion. To think that any other theory will ultimately explain the "end all" reason for being is futile.

Let's talk about the idea of something coming from nothing. This seems illogical to us, because we have the misconception that time is an infinite, linear continuum--it isn't. Time is relative, not absolute, and is used to describe the position of a point in space. If there is zero relative motion, zero time has passed. Therefore, any theoretical universe that existed "before" our universe/the Big Bang had a lifespan of exactly 0 seconds. The universe didn't come from nothing, so much as we live in a universe where time has a beginning. Get it? Neither do I, lol

Either way time goes, we do not accept that something comes from nothing. I say "we" because we are talking about it. If something does come from nothing, absolutely, then all things are essentially nothing and thus nothing is really being said now. In this case, why keep conversing on nothing?

 

[Paraprakrti]

All I am saying is that something must exist. Whatever that 'something' is is not the question.

But what science IS saying is that in lieu of the fact that "something" did not exist at a particular point in time and at a particular location, "something" suddenly came into existence and promptly dissapeared leaving only the effects of its existence behind. The only "thing" that was present prior to its existence was a vacuum, which is loosely defined as a region of space empty of matter; ie. nothing.

We could be treading on the area of semantics here.

then they should conclude that... SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG.

They HAVE made that conclusion.

My only point is in addressing the idea that something comes from nothing.

I hope you can now understand how it does.

I know and have already addressed this concept of "nothing" in relation to space and time. I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

 

[Ceridwen018]

The theists' question is always, "then where did this 'vacuum' come from?", which of course cannot be answered.

Where did god come from?

Atheistic people do not accept the concept of God seeing that they have no experimental ability in this department.

Experimental ability? What do you mean by this?

Ultimately something must come from something

Says who?

Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts? The Vedas calls this Maya, the illusionary material energy. We, the spirit-souls, are engaging one fleeting existence (the senses) upon another (the surrounding environment) and then attempting to arrive at any real concrete conclusions. It is thus not so hard to understand the necessity of God and the necessity of the soul.

I can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. Could you explain?

It will remain theories upon theories upon theories. If "God" is only a theory, then it is a perfect theory. It is actually the final conclusion. To think that any other theory will ultimately explain the "end all" reason for being is futile.

Except that god isn't a theory, because it is backed up by zero evidence of any kind.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Where did god come from?

God constitutes the eternal 'something' that underlies all things. Now, we are getting back into the debate of whether there is something or there is nothing, in an absolute sense. If you reply with, "then why can't this vacuum be eternally existing?", then I will reply that this vacuum does not constitute a 'something' and therefore is insufficient in describing the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. The concept of God suggests a 'something' that exists transcendental to any conception of 'nothing', 'void' or 'vacuum', which are all relative terms relating to either the lack of perceiving any quality present or to the lack of a specific quality in question.

Experimental ability? What do you mean by this?

I mean that God cannot be experimented on. Sorry if I worded it wierd.

Ultimately something must come from something

Says who?

Says logic. If, at the point you accept that from nothing comes all things, then these so-called "things" are essentially no-things. Furthermore, any discussion of these 'no-things' are no-things as well. So why keep conversing? The premise that something comes from something, (speaking in an absolute sense of course), is beneficial to all viewpoints in this discussion, scientific or religious.

Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts? The Vedas calls this Maya, the illusionary material energy. We, the spirit-souls, are engaging one fleeting existence (the senses) upon another (the surrounding environment) and then attempting to arrive at any real concrete conclusions. It is thus not so hard to understand the necessity of God and the necessity of the soul.

I can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. Could you explain?

I am trying to explain how all conclusions are futilely endeavored after by a method that is essentially fleeting. Actually, if it weren't for the symptom of consciousness we would have no ability to observe these points. But somehow or other this transcendental ability has fallen subject to these fleeting senses. Now we are attempting to find our way by engaging the fleeting senses with the fleeting objects of the senses. I was more or less being analytical toward the human endeavor of objectifyingly understanding reality in a God-like manner, yet doing so with such apparently flawed tools.

Except that god isn't a theory, because it is backed up by zero evidence of any kind.

I use the word "theory" as opposed to referring to it as "fact", seeing that I know many people here will only try to debate whether it is or not. Perhaps I can just stick with "concept" or "idea". Nevertheless, I hope you understand the point I am trying to get across.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Either way time goes, we do not accept that something comes from nothing.

So you're saying you don't have a problem with Big Bang theory?

Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts?

Easily--the conclusions we have made using the scientific method, so far, have yeilded huge success. We now have computers, telephones, the internet, artificial intelligence, gene therapy, and so forth. We have reaped the benefits of our "fleeting senses" for some time now....looks like they might not be so fleeting after all.

At any rate, how can you say that, and then say that the existence of a sentient, all powerful, invisible being is an absolute, stand-alone, concrete fact? Would you concede that is it POSSIBLE God doesn't exist?

Another thing--you say that logically, something has to come from something. Then you say that logically, there must be something you call "God" which did not come from something. Hmm....looks like either a) you concede that God must come from something or b) you concede that it logically possible for something to not come from something else. It seems to me you cannot have it both ways.

What if three dimensional space itself is the "something" from which virtual particles "come"? That way, this conversation is still "something"....also, it's not difficult to grasp three dimensional space never having to come from something else, which would mean God = three dimensional space. Problem solved!

 

[Pah]

just think now, the universe had to have come, have started, from something. and the scientific theory, that the big bang, etc, started it, seems a bit untrue to me.

And it seems that many scientists thought so too. There has been great effort to reconcile the Therory of General Relativity, quantum physics and the singularity of the Big Bang. Cosmologists today seem to have solved the problem and the answer is that nothing comes from nothing - that something preceded the Big Bang. And that "something" lies in String Theroy and Membrane Theroy

See God is not in the Big Bang, a new thread.

-pah-

 

[Paraprakrti]

So you're saying you don't have a problem with Big Bang theory?

I'm not so much interested in it. Obviously It doesn't try to be the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. So I suppose in that sense, no I don't have a problem with it.

Easily--the conclusions we have made using the scientific method, so far, have yeilded huge success. We now have computers, telephones, the internet, artificial intelligence, gene therapy, and so forth. We have reaped the benefits of our "fleeting senses" for some time now....looks like they might not be so fleeting after all.

That which has a beginning, has also an end. "For some time now" still means fleeting. Also, computers, telephones, internet, etc, etc, are not the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. We make lots of neato toys, and then...?

At any rate, how can you say that, and then say that the existence of a sentient, all powerful, invisible being is an absolute, stand-alone, concrete fact? Would you concede that is it POSSIBLE God doesn't exist?

At this point we must decide in this argument what we do accept to exist, quality wise. If there is intelligence then is it reasonable in what would be an intelligent conversation to say that intelligence has come from non-intelligence? This is a more specific example of saying 'something comes from nothing'. The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Another thing--you say that logically, something has to come from something. Then you say that logically, there must be something you call "God" which did not come from something. Hmm....looks like either a) you concede that God must come from something or b) you concede that it logically possible for something to not come from something else. It seems to me you cannot have it both ways.

'Something comes from something' is referring to all such knowledge that is not 'end all', 'final conclusion'. Obviously, since it is that 'God' is the eternal and supreme 'something', It does not require to have come at all. In other words, something is not coming from nothing in this case because this 'something' is not coming at all. God is not a link in the chain. He is the proprietor of the chain itself. As the Bible puts it, the alpha and omega, beginning and end. God pervades all space and time.

What if three dimensional space itself is the "something" from which virtual particles "come"? That way, this conversation is still "something"....also, it's not difficult to grasp three dimensional space never having to come from something else, which would mean God = three dimensional space. Problem solved!

Refer back to my reply to your third paragraph in this post.
This only works if 'three dimensional space' is not itself bereft of intelligence. Otherwise I'll come back to the, 'then everything discussed is essentially non-intelligent, so why should we continue?' point.
Actually, God is simultaneously one and different with the universe. That is the perfect reconciliation of God's transcendental nature. We cannot completely separate God from His energies (the universe in this example) and we cannot completely equate Him to His energies to say that the universe is God. An analogy, the sun globe and the sunshine. They are one in a sense that one cannot divorce the two from each other. But yet, one would only be foolish to think that sunshine is the sun globe.

 

[(Q)]

I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

It may sound illogical to you, but that doesn't mean it has not been shown to be the way our universe works, it has. If you do not accept that which has been observed from experimentation, then you have no reason to accept any other observed phenomena.

The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Then by your logic, god and intelligence would have had to come from something, what was that something?

 

[Paraprakrti]

I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

It may sound illogical to you, but that doesn't mean it has not been shown to be the way our universe works, it has. If you do not accept that which has been observed from experimentation, then you have no reason to accept any other observed phenomena.

"Nothing" is never observed. "Nothing", in an absolute sense means the lack of observing. You can observe a "vacuum of space", that is still not a "nothing". Nothing in all actuality doesn't exist. It's usage is relative. This is simple logic. If nothing is the cause then nothing is the effect. "Observed phenomena" constitutes a 'something'. No one observes, measures, takes photographs or fondles a 'nothing'.

The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Then by your logic, god and intelligence would have had to come from something, what was that something?

I have already addressed this either in this thread or in the "tasteless man" thread. Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing. I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal. I also addressed the typical debate, "then the universe is eternal and so a God would be superfluous". Is the sun globe superfluous to the sunshine? In this sense, God means the reservoir of energies. This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

 

[(Q)]

"Nothing" is never observed. "Nothing", in an absolute sense means the lack of observing. You can observe a "vacuum of space", that is still not a "nothing". Nothing in all actuality doesn't exist. It's usage is relative. This is simple logic. If nothing is the cause then nothing is the effect. "Observed phenomena" constitutes a 'something'. No one observes, measures, takes photographs or fondles a 'nothing'.

That is merely semantics. You ignore the fact that 'something' came into existence where there was no 'something' before.

Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing.

That's nice, but you can't show that, you can only make an assumption, unfounded at best. What you don't address is from where god came?

I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal.

You have just been arguing to death the fact that something MUST come from something. If you claim god exists, then god is a something and that something MUST have come from something else. Can you venture to propose from where god came?

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

Does that imply that god is not of this universe but instead is outside of our universe? Does that imply other such universes exist?

 

[Lightkeeper]

Some people believe that God is Nothingness. Some religions strive for emptiness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

You seem quite full of knowledge about the inconceivable. Can you verify any of this, or is it simply empty preaching?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some people believe that God is Nothingness. Some religions strive for emptiness.

How nice for them. Since "some people" can be found to believe all sorts of nonsense, what possible relevance could this have?

 

[Paraprakrti]

"Nothing" is never observed. "Nothing", in an absolute sense means the lack of observing. You can observe a "vacuum of space", that is still not a "nothing". Nothing in all actuality doesn't exist. It's usage is relative. This is simple logic. If nothing is the cause then nothing is the effect. "Observed phenomena" constitutes a 'something'. No one observes, measures, takes photographs or fondles a 'nothing'.

That is merely semantics. You ignore the fact that 'something' came into existence where there was no 'something' before.

Call it what you want. One cannot 'ignore nothing' if there is nothing to be ignored. I may perceive something seemingly popping into existence but this does not mean that I should conclude that it has come from nothing. That is nonsensical. To ignore constitutes an object being ignored. Why is this so hard to understand?

Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing.

That's nice, but you can't show that, you can only make an assumption, unfounded at best. What you don't address is from where god came?

My showing that is not the debate. You asked a question on the premise of the existence of God. The term "God" comes with a concept. The concept is that God is eternal. That is the premise. God did not come at all. That is your answer.

I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal.

You have just been arguing to death the fact that something MUST come from something. If you claim god exists, then god is a something and that something MUST have come from something else. Can you venture to propose from where god came?

God does not come from something or nothing because GOD DOES NOT COME AT ALL. Thus allow me to clarify my position:
Something that comes must come from something. Therefore, something that does not come is not required to follow this logic. This should have been obvious from the get go, as soon as I made it apparent that God does not come at all.

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

Does that imply that god is not of this universe but instead is outside of our universe? Does that imply other such universes exist?

God is simultaneously one and different from His energies. Yes to your second question. But this is pointless to debate seeing that I accept such knowledge as it has been revealed to me through Sastra. I was simply trying to convey how insignificant we are in comparison to God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God does not come from something or nothing because GOD DOES NOT COME AT ALL.

The mind reels ...

Again, you claim to know a great deal about God(s). Do you have any evidence to offer?

 

[Zero Faith]

Paraprakrti:

I believe I am beginning to see the heart of your argument (which escaped me before). You're trying to grasp what 'nothing' means; the very fact that we can refer to it implies that it is, in fact, 'something'; that true, absolute nothing can't possibly exist, because if it wasn't there, how could we refer to it, ignore it, claim its presence, etc? Refering to nothing seems to imply that it is, in fact, something.

Am I getting close?

Stephen Hawking best explained the nothingness 'before' the Big Bang by relating time to cardinal directions on Earth.

What exists directly north of the North Pole? Nothing. Absolute nothing. 'North' of the North Pole doesn't even exist. The only way absolute nothing can be true is if the environment "containing" this nothingness also does not exist.

The exact same parallel is drawn with time before the Big Bang (in fact, time lines drawn back to the Big Bang, called 'light cones', actually resemble a planetary hemisphere approaching a north (or, usually, south) pole). Saying that nothing exists before the Big Bang is theoretically identical to saying that nothing exists north of the North Pole (or south of the South Pole). The environment itself is nonexistant.

It is extremely difficult to intuitively grasp the birth of time, since absolutely everything we have experienced takes place in time. We are prisoners of the timestream; our very perception is irrevocably bound to it. Attempting to intuit the birth of time is equivalent to attempting to imagine the fourth (or fifth, sixth, seventh, all the way up to twenty-first) spacial dimension espoused by string theory.

The only thing you can do is trust the math, if the math has proven itself to be reliable in other areas that we are better equipped to intuit.

The fact of the matter is that we as humans are moving forward into areas of science that defy our abilities to comprehend them. This should be expected; obviously, the building blocks of reality and the very nature of our existence are not going to be things easily understood. Rejecting these well-supported theories because they seem intuitively incorrect is irresponsible, narrow-minded and short-sighted.

 

[iwilliam]

There is no way you can get something from nothing. Even a simple atom comes from a smaller form of matter called a quark.

 

[Paraprakrti]

The mind reels ...

Again, you claim to know a great deal about God(s). Do you have any evidence to offer?

Are you a Christian? It would be wrong for me to assume, but your name seems to imply that you are. But then, considering that you question when I explain that God is eternally existing, I am not so sure.

How do I know that God is eternally existing? That is the entire concept. I have yet to refer to a personal conception of God. I am speaking of God as a general concept. That concept consitutes eternality.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alright then, Paraprakrti. What is your evidence for this 'entire concept'?