Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[idea]

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)

Hermann von Helmholtz - "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..."

Louis Pasteur
" I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?"

V. I. Vernadskii
"None of the exact relationships between facts which we know will be changed if this problem has a negative solution, that is, if we admit that life always existed and had no beginning, that living organisms never arose at any time from inert material...."


I'm a believer in the conservation laws of thermodynamics - ie - something has always, and will always, exist.

 

[Thief]

Magic, miracles and superstitions fall more in the realm of religions than of science.

Science tried to acquire knowledge about nature (as well as man-made stuff, like phones, computers, cars, etc), and try to verify if that knowledge are true or false through evidences or through tests.

Science doesn't try to explain magic, miracles, superstitions, god(s), spirits, etc. These are gibberish of religion, not science.

I've seen several 'documentaries' of science making the attempt.
very entertaining.

not really convincing.

some people of 'science' don't want to believe.

 

[Thief]

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)

Hermann von Helmholtz - "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..."

Louis Pasteur
" I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?"

V. I. Vernadskii
"None of the exact relationships between facts which we know will be changed if this problem has a negative solution, that is, if we admit that life always existed and had no beginning, that living organisms never arose at any time from inert material...."


I'm a believer in the conservation laws of thermodynamics - ie - something has always, and will always, exist.

would that 'something' be sentient?
would that 'something' be? ...God

 

[idea]

would that 'something' be sentient?
would that 'something' be? ...God

conservation principles indicate that it is not just one something that eternally exists, but that everything has always, and will always exist.

Something = everything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

conservation principles indicate that it is not just one something that eternally exists, but that everything has always, and will always exist.

Something = everything.

There is only one everything....the one that is everything.....call it what you will....

 

[Looncall]

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)

Hermann von Helmholtz - "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..."

Louis Pasteur
" I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?"

V. I. Vernadskii
"None of the exact relationships between facts which we know will be changed if this problem has a negative solution, that is, if we admit that life always existed and had no beginning, that living organisms never arose at any time from inert material...."


I'm a believer in the conservation laws of thermodynamics - ie - something has always, and will always, exist.

These are very old writings. Don't you have anything current?

I find this religious method of arguing by digging up old authors to be hilarious: a silly appeal to authority.

 

[idea]

These are very old writings. Don't you have anything current?

I find this religious method of arguing by digging up old authors to be hilarious: a silly appeal to authority.

Have new authors been able to perform abiogenesis? I'll update my quotes when there is something new to report....

I'm a fan of strong-panspermia, that is all I was trying to say.

 

[idea]

There is only one everything....the one that is everything.....call it what you will....

Everything is made up of many different individual somethings.... each something is eternal, with no beginning and no end.

 

[Deathbydefault]

let's see.....God from the very beginning.....
Jesus makes an appearance...as Son of God....
they share the same mindset....supposedly.....

recycled?

So you try to refute my argument by presenting that God and Jesus may have the same mindset?
Interesting.

But unevidenced.

 

[Thief]

So you try to refute my argument by presenting that God and Jesus may have the same mindset?
Interesting.

But unevidenced.

yeah, well....a personal testimony would be hard to accept.
especially when you don't want to.

Such was the reception when Jesus spoke of God as .....Father.

 

[Thief]

There is only one everything....the one that is everything.....call it what you will....

God is His creation?

 

[leibowde84]

I've seen several 'documentaries' of science making the attempt.
very entertaining.

not really convincing.

some people of 'science' don't want to believe.

There is something prudent/admireable in having a reluctance to believe anything without sufficient evidence, don't you agree?

 

[Thief]

There is something prudent/admireable in having a reluctance to believe anything without sufficient evidence, don't you agree?

and something strangely stubborn in denial of cause and effect.

People like science....I sure do....
and science will take you to a point of decision.
singularity

Science can go no further.
Science will not tell you substance is 'self' starting.
if it did, other portions of the discipline fail.

no experiment can be deemed definitive if cause and effect are separated.

so there you are...at the point of singularity.....and science will abandon you.
the experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

all you can do is think about it.

singularity had no Cause?.......sure about that?

 

[leibowde84]

and something strangely stubborn in denial of cause and effect.

People like science....I sure do....
and science will take you to a point of decision.
singularity

Science can go no further.
Science will not tell you substance is 'self' starting.
if it did, other portions of the discipline fail.

no experiment can be deemed definitive if cause and effect are separated.

so there you are...at the point of singularity.....and science will abandon you.
the experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

all you can do is think about it.

singularity had no Cause?.......sure about that?

I agree that there must have been a "cause" for a singularity, as you say. But, why does that "cause" have to be God and not simply some other event, entity, etc. that we just haven't figured out yet. Just because we haven't figured out what caused the Big Bang shouldn't lead one to believe that it must have been God. It is very possible that one day, scientifically, we will figure it out and be left with the next question ... what caused that. So, why do you jump to the conclusion of God? Is it merely due to the lack of an alternative explanation that we currently know about (God of the gaps)?

 

[Thief]

I agree that there must have been a "cause" for a singularity, as you say. But, why does that "cause" have to be God and not simply some other event, entity, etc. that we just haven't figured out yet. Just because we haven't figured out what caused the Big Bang shouldn't lead one to believe that it must have been God. It is very possible that one day, scientifically, we will figure it out and be left with the next question ... what caused that. So, why do you jump to the conclusion of God? Is it merely due to the lack of an alternative explanation that we currently know about (God of the gaps)?

The result of the 'bang' holds the evidence.

if the expansion had been a simple 'bang'....
the result would be a hollow sphere of energy...one percussion wave....ever increasing in size.

that is not what we see when we look up.

I believe the 'point of origin' was set in rotation BEFORE the 'bang'.
hence the spirals, orbits, and spins that we do see.

God pinched the singularity.....and snapped His fingers.

 

[leibowde84]

The result of the 'bang' holds the evidence.

if the expansion had been a simple 'bang'....
the result would be a hollow sphere of energy...one percussion wave....ever increasing in size.

that is not what we see when we look up.

I believe the 'point of origin' was set in rotation BEFORE the 'bang'.
hence the spirals, orbits, and spins that we do see.

God pinched the singularity.....and snapped His fingers.

You didn't answer my question, though. Why do you jump to the conclusion of God instead of just assuming it is some natural phenomenon that we simply don't know about yet?

 

[Thief]

You didn't answer my question, though. Why do you jump to the conclusion of God instead of just assuming it is some natural phenomenon that we simply don't know about yet?

God is not 'natural'?......ok.....supernatural....
and do we need the understanding to be sure .....the cause?

I see a coin on the table....someone left it.
I see a top spinning....it did so on it's own?

Children don't know or understand the world we live in.
but it operates.

So what if you don't understand God....

 

[leibowde84]

God is not 'natural'?......ok.....supernatural....
and do we need the understanding to be sure .....the cause?

I see a coin on the table....someone left it.
I see a top spinning....it did so on it's own?

Children don't know or understand the world we live in.
but it operates.

So what if you don't understand God....

Yet again, you dodged the question. All of this is irrelevant to what I asked. Assuming that there was a cause, which I'm fine with, why do you jump to the conclusion of God rather than just assuming there is some natural explanation we are not aware of yet?

 

[Thief]

Yet again, you dodged the question. All of this is irrelevant to what I asked. Assuming that there was a cause, which I'm fine with, why do you jump to the conclusion of God rather than just assuming there is some natural explanation we are not aware of yet?

why skirt the possibility of God?
He would be as good an explanation as any we have.

 

[leibowde84]

why skirt the possibility of God?
He would be as good an explanation as any we have.

I never said that God wasn't a possibility. But, what support do you have for your claim that God IS the answer rather than some cause we aren't aware of that is natural?