The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[idav]

You crossed two lines with no regard.
Aging is a movement.
Eternal life is likely to be spiritual, not physical.

And if spirit cannot endure....God died a long 'time' ago.
He isn't moving any more.
and He's not waiting for you in your last hour.

With what your saying then god is eternal cause he is paralyzed.

Thats not what I am saying. Put simply time isnt on our side here, we expire. In a state of godlike power time slows down, no expiration, but with more power energy and movement not less.

There is no coherent difference between spirit and substance, its the same thing in a different form.

Edit: thief there is a very real scientific view for timlessness and I am trying to explain it to you. Einstein proved there is something like a real realm that if you have enough power you end up in a state of timelessness. It happens also when moving at the speed of light, you end up in a state of timeless eternity.

 

[Thief]

With what your saying then god is eternal cause he is paralyzed.

Thats not what I am saying. Put simply time isnt on our side here, we expire. In a state of godlike power time slows down, no expiration, but with more power energy and movement not less.

There is no coherent difference between spirit and substance, its the same thing in a different form.

Edit: thief there is a very real scientific view for timlessness and I am trying to explain it to you. Einstein proved there is something like a real realm that if you have enough power you end up in a state of timelessness. It happens also when moving at the speed of light, you end up in a state of timeless eternity.

I get the physics....it applies to physical things.
And no I am not saying God is paralyzed.
If He is DEAD.....He is not moving.

Eternal life would be difficult if physically performed.
Maintaining what you are would become an exhaustive affair.

Scripture reports God is spirit.
I do agree.
If not, then substance formed and God is a creation of substance.

think about it......you have to let go of science to say is it so.

 

[Etritonakin]

The way I see it......

There was never nothing, and there was never no-one.

There was always something, and always at least one to act upon it.

However, something and someone are not always in the same form.

We may find it easier to think that there was always something (that something cannot come from nothing), than to think that there was always someone (that someone cannot come from no-one) -because we believe we see more of that something than we do of that someone which has always existed. We may tend to see things as the result of other things, but not ourselves as evidence of someone else -because we haven't met that someone else.

At least... according to reports of others, which may or may not be true for all we know -or true in all cases (or may or may not be believed).......... not all of us have met that someone else.
Those ho did meet that someone else -or had more evidence of that someone else than others -would have a unique perspective. Still, meeting that someone else would just be a beginning to knowing that someone else -as it is with things.

From the human perspective of having become aware at a certain point in time -and perceiving the rest of our experience to be "forward", it is somewhat easy for us to imagine ourselves continuing to live eternally given the right set of circumstances (or changing or avoiding the set of circumstances which might lead to our demise).

It is not so easy for us to imagine -looking the other "way" -which we perceive as backward in time-that a being could have existed forever in that direction. We assume that all aware beings must become aware at a certain point in "time" -which we perceive as an "apparently irreversible succession". However, the "apparently irreversible" part may also be due to our perspective and scope of power. That is to say that we do not have the power to rewind or erase some things -or all things at once -not that it is theoretically impossible. We are able to rewind many things -or rather quickly erase them -but only some things -according to our scope of power.

Everything is technically "forward" from a certain perspective. Even if everything were rewound, it would be after it was wound. The end state might be the same as the initial state -and so nothing may have been accomplished technically, because it was then unaccomplished -but some sort of memory of the order of events would be the only evidence of anything having taken place at all. So -time itself may be based in the memory of "God" -his continual awareness and anything which might be recorded or remembered -and the interplay between someone and something.

Another someone may have far more power -or even all power -and a perspective of having being always aware -as everything that has always been has always affected that someone -and that someone has always affected everything -in a sort of balance.

In scripture, Christ was able to take on different forms -and is credited with willing new things into existence ("all things" -as directed by the Father) by directly interfacing with everything, and forming one thing from other things.

(We see things which occurred after the "big bang" -and tend to think of the big bang as the beginning of everything -but who is to say what was before it (I can barley comprehend what was after it) -or even whether or not something may be beyond it.
Some think "alternate" universes exist -but what if this universe could be one of a number on a "vine" of sorts. I'm not saying this is the case -and there is certainly enough room in this one to make that unnecessary as far as my mind can comprehend time -but this universe may still be likened to the fruit of something which existed before the big bang and, possibly, beyond the big bang)

.....but I don't really know all of what happened -it's just fun to think about


God is able to cause himself to be perceived by us as many things -pillar of fire -human -huge "glorious" form/body -burning bush, etc.. so God could technically be called the mind of everything -and essentially everything could be perceived as his body and or "raiment" as he desired.

(2Ch 2:6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?

Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Psa 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.)

 

[1robin]

The way I see it......

There was never nothing, and there was never no-one.

There was always something, and always at least one to act upon it.

However, something and someone are not always in the same form.

We may find it easier to think that there was always something (that something cannot come from nothing), than to think that there was always someone (that someone cannot come from no-one) -because we believe we see more of that something than we do of that someone which has always existed. We may tend to see things as the result of other things, but not ourselves as evidence of someone else -because we haven't met that someone else.

At least... according to reports of others, which may or may not be true for all we know -or true in all cases (or may or may not be believed).......... not all of us have met that someone else.
Those ho did meet that someone else -or had more evidence of that someone else than others -would have a unique perspective. Still, meeting that someone else would just be a beginning to knowing that someone else -as it is with things.

From the human perspective of having become aware at a certain point in time -and perceiving the rest of our experience to be "forward", it is somewhat easy for us to imagine ourselves continuing to live eternally given the right set of circumstances (or changing or avoiding the set of circumstances which might lead to our demise).

It is not so easy for us to imagine -looking the other "way" -which we perceive as backward in time-that a being could have existed forever in that direction. We assume that all aware beings must become aware at a certain point in "time" -which we perceive as an "apparently irreversible succession". However, the "apparently irreversible" part may also be due to our perspective and scope of power. That is to say that we do not have the power to rewind or erase some things -or all things at once -not that it is theoretically impossible. We are able to rewind many things -or rather quickly erase them -but only some things -according to our scope of power.

Everything is technically "forward" from a certain perspective. Even if everything were rewound, it would be after it was wound. The end state might be the same as the initial state -and so nothing may have been accomplished technically, because it was then unaccomplished -but some sort of memory of the order of events would be the only evidence of anything having taken place at all. So -time itself may be based in the memory of "God" -his continual awareness and anything which might be recorded or remembered -and the interplay between someone and something.

Another someone may have far more power -or even all power -and a perspective of having being always aware -as everything that has always been has always affected that someone -and that someone has always affected everything -in a sort of balance.

In scripture, Christ was able to take on different forms -and is credited with willing new things into existence ("all things" -as directed by the Father) by directly interfacing with everything, and forming one thing from other things.

(We see things which occurred after the "big bang" -and tend to think of the big bang as the beginning of everything -but who is to say what was before it (I can barley comprehend what was after it) -or even whether or not something may be beyond it.
Some think "alternate" universes exist -but what if this universe could be one of a number on a "vine" of sorts. I'm not saying this is the case -and there is certainly enough room in this one to make that unnecessary as far as my mind can comprehend time -but this universe may still be likened to the fruit of something which existed before the big bang and, possibly, beyond the big bang)

.....but I don't really know all of what happened -it's just fun to think about


God is able to cause himself to be perceived by us as many things -pillar of fire -human -huge "glorious" form/body -burning bush, etc.. so God could technically be called the mind of everything -and essentially everything could be perceived as his body and or "raiment" as he desired.

(2Ch 2:6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?

Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Psa 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.)

The claim is not that a universal nothing ever existed but that a specific natural nothing, is the issue at hand. That is what the evidence all suggests. Back when Einstein was inventing physics to allow for the steady state God was not so necessary. Not now.

 

[Etritonakin]

The claim is not that a universal nothing ever existed but that a specific natural nothing, is the issue at hand. That is what the evidence all suggests. Back when Einstein was inventing physics to allow for the steady state God was not so necessary. Not now.

ermmmmmm.... but..... would not a specific and natural nothing actually be a something?

Would it not ..... not be a "nothing", but a something which could be -due to its specific nature -transformed into something else which IT was previously not (but still kinda really was)?

A true nothing cold not have a specific nature.

If a "stuff" of specific nature could be called a "nothing", then the word nothing would have to mean something other than actually nothing. If, then, a manipulation or rearrangement of the stuff caused it to be "something" which came from the stuff called "nothing"...

then.... ok

 

[1robin]

ermmmmmm.... but..... would not a specific and natural nothing actually be a something?

There is at best a little irony or breakdown in terminology but nothing relevant. I think you missed the point. It was the existence of natural entities that was on trial not any potential type of entity. Who knows what we actually have but the two things we can't have is a universe that contains it's own explanation and/or cause, or one which lacks either.

Would it not ..... not be a "nothing", but a something which could be -due to its specific nature -transformed into something else which IT was previously not (but still kinda really was)?

God may be many things. What he is not, is being described or bound by natural law. I also have no justification in granting any quasi-pantheistic interpretation of reality.

A true nothing cold not have a specific nature.

But something with a true nature could have ceased to exist in the past. That specific thing is nature, not God.

If a "stuff" of specific nature could be called a "nothing", then the word nothing would have to mean something other than actually nothing. If, then, a manipulation or rearrangement of the stuff caused it to be "something" which came from the stuff called "nothing"...

I rewrote my post a time or two because it is easy to see the irony of a debate about nothing. A show about nothing turned out okay but the existence of nothing is a stretch. I finally thought the real or imagined semantic irony was too obvious to be commented on. RATS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[idav]

I get the physics....it applies to physical things.
And no I am not saying God is paralyzed.
If He is DEAD.....He is not moving.

Eternal life would be difficult if physically performed.
Maintaining what you are would become an exhaustive affair.

Scripture reports God is spirit.
I do agree.
If not, then substance formed and God is a creation of substance.

think about it......you have to let go of science to say is it so.

First that is an interesting claim that god is dead. What makes you think god could die?

I could put it so we are closer to agreement. The first substance to exist was spiritual in nature. That's one thing, when you describe spirit your giving attributes of a substance.

 

[outhouse]

you have to let go of science to say is it so.

Is the same thing as saying you have to let go of reality

 

[Thief]

Is the same thing as saying you have to let go of reality

Reality is relative.
Demonstrated by your denial and retorts.

Science claims evidence.

(you still in that outhouse?)

 

[Thief]

First that is an interesting claim that god is dead. What makes you think god could die?

I could put it so we are closer to agreement. The first substance to exist was spiritual in nature. That's one thing, when you describe spirit your giving attributes of a substance.

No....No...NO....
If God is dead, He is not moving....is not a declaration He IS dead.

I believe God is Spirit and eternal.
He is very much alive.

In an act of creation....Spirit begets substance.
Spirit first.
(serious movement...still moving.....increasing speed)
The universe (one word) is gaining speed.

Ever wonder about the dark matter/energy that science claims MUST be there?

 

[Etritonakin]

There is at best a little irony or breakdown in terminology but nothing relevant. I think you missed the point. It was the existence of natural entities that was on trial not any potential type of entity. Who knows what we actually have but the two things we can't have is a universe that contains it's own explanation and/or cause, or one which lacks either.

God may be many things. What he is not, is being described or bound by natural law. I also have no justification in granting any quasi-pantheistic interpretation of reality.

But something with a true nature could have ceased to exist in the past. That specific thing is nature, not God.

I rewrote my post a time or two because it is easy to see the irony of a debate about nothing. A show about nothing turned out okay but the existence of nothing is a stretch. I finally thought the real or imagined semantic irony was too obvious to be commented on. RATS!!!!!!!!!!

Oh ......

-if there was a point somewhere in the posts between the original and mine which I missed, it is probably because I actually did miss it -by not reading the posts between the original and mine.

I responded to the original post/topic -not necessarily what followed. I don't even have the time to wallow about in all of that.

Otherwise, it seems you missed the point of the points I made -by assuming they related to points I actually did miss......

 

[Whiterain]

I like Life from un-life and think Abiogenesis is fantastic, primordial.

My only issue with human evilution is I also believe in the myth the Giants were the first
humanoid race. In myth the giants were the first humanoid race, then modern Man.

But Gigantism is considered a pituitary gland deformity and there is fleeting evidence
giants were a dominate race unless the measurements figured are all exaggerated,
figuring some 6 meter tall Titan's stomping around. We need taller skeletons found,
maybe there are some buried in Scandinavia...

Regardless, myth blatantly implies Mankinds genetic problems are from breeding with
the Giants and Neanderthals, I assume. That and I just find transitional evolution based in
major assumptions at the moment, I'll give a few centuries to mellow out.

The Neanderthal is the ultimate wrench in this.

 

[Thief]

I like Life from un-life and think Abiogenesis is fantastic, primordial.

My only issue with human evilution is I also believe in the myth the Giants were the first
humanoid race. In myth the giants were the first humanoid race, then modern Man.

But Gigantism is considered a pituitary gland deformity and there is fleeting evidence
giants were a dominate race unless the measurements figured are all exaggerated,
figuring some 6 meter tall Titan's stomping around. We need taller skeletons found,
maybe there are some buried in Scandinavia...

Regardless, myth blatantly implies Mankinds genetic problems are from breeding with
the Giants and Neanderthals, I assume. That and I just find transitional evolution based in
major assumptions at the moment, I'll give a few centuries to mellow out.

The Neanderthal is the ultimate wrench in this.

I for one will never believe something dead will roll over and breathe.
Chemistry can be very quick and appear animated....but....
That's not life.

I have seen a documentary about Large people.
It seems gravity is relentless and our form doesn't do well in larger sizes.

 

[idav]

Chemistry can be very quick and appear animated....but....
That's not life.

Then we aren't life. Chemistry is not dead, aren't you alive?

 

[1robin]

Oh ......

-if there was a point somewhere in the posts between the original and mine which I missed, it is probably because I actually did miss it -by not reading the posts between the original and mine.

I responded to the original post/topic -not necessarily what followed. I don't even have the time to wallow about in all of that.

Otherwise, it seems you missed the point of the points I made -by assuming they related to points I actually did miss......

I must have missed that, say again. Just kidding. Your post was so semantically relevant to mine I thought it was a reply. That explains it.

 

[1robin]

Then we aren't life. Chemistry is not dead, aren't you alive?

We are alive, chemistry isn't. Chemistry is a word and does not pay taxes so it can't be alive. Heck even the dead pay taxes in the US. I guess chemistry is an abstract idea.

 

[idav]

We are alive, chemistry isn't. Chemistry is a word and does not pay taxes so it can't be alive. Heck even the dead pay taxes in the US. I guess chemistry is an abstract idea.

This idea Thief presented was that god is dead. Well if all of this is just chemistry then there was nothing to be alive to begin with. As a pantheist, I would agree that if god is dead then chemistry is dead, if not then its alive, quite simply.

 

[idav]

BTW the fact that chemistry needs to be in certain configurations to be deemed as alive is not lost on me. I just think awareness and life is a bit deeper than their corresponding chemical reactions we see on the surface.

 

[metis]

It is all but impossible to know exactly what caused the first life here on Earth, and we probably will never know. Could animate objects come from inanimate chemicals? Why couldn't they?

How about the issue of reproduction? Replicating molecules may be the answer to that question.

Did God or the Gods cause this all? How could we possibly know the answer to that, even though there are some who claim they know.

How about "I don't know"? Or maybe something like "Whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"?

Why do we supposedly have to know for certain as there's plenty of questions in this world that we'll probably never know the answer to?

 

[Ouroboros]

Then we aren't life. Chemistry is not dead, aren't you alive?

Exactly.

Currently, I'm taking a class in Nutrition (just for fun, with my wife, she's a chef and this will help her in her profession), and there's quite a lot of chemistry behind living. Triglycerine, amino acids, fatty acids, I have the chemical definitions of them, and many others. And the processes how these are broken down and used by the body is all a matter of chemical processes. It's all part of a physical reality. Even electromagnetism plays a roll. For instance why saturated fat v unsaturated fat behaves differently depends on chemistry and physics, not pixie dust and magic.