Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Willamena]

Sensible and convenient to a theist perhaps, but not to anyone else.

Well, to be fair, it's as good a word as any (sans baggage).

 

[Scott C.]

The question of why or how there is existence, blows my mind. We can do the mental gymnastics and get all philosophical about the meaning of "something" and "nothing", but that does not change the fact that there IS something, a whole lot of something out there, and that is certainly NOT nothing. I would think that theists and atheists alike ought to agree on a couple of points. Existence is a grand and beautiful and mystifying reality. "Something from nothing" seems impossible. "Always something" seems impossible. Yet here we are. Go figure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahem:

This "ONE who created/evolved them" you're suggesting: is it something or nothing?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Illogical. In the beginning of what? If God already existed "before" he created then you might as well say that something always existed and turned into our universe with no need for a god.You are confusing the "beginning" of our universe with the beginning of "something". "Something" has "always existed", it just turned into our universe for some natural reason we don't know yet.

The beginning of the universe itself, God 'created the heavens and earth', Genesis even mentions heavens before Earth. - including those laws we call nature- nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

To make the assertion that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws.. is a logical paradox unique to atheism is it not?

 

[paarsurrey]

The question of why or how there is existence, blows my mind. We can do the mental gymnastics and get all philosophical about the meaning of "something" and "nothing", but that does not change the fact that there IS something, a whole lot of something out there, and that is certainly NOT nothing. I would think that theists and atheists alike ought to agree on a couple of points. Existence is a grand and beautiful and mystifying reality. "Something from nothing" seems impossible. "Always something" seems impossible. Yet here we are. Go figure.

G-d has communicated and told that He has created everything that includes "nothing" and "something"; why not accept this reasonable claim?

Regards

 

[Scott C.]

I believe in God and that he is the creator. It still blows my mind that there IS a God for God is something and not nothing. You see even that which I believe to be true, blows my mind and is a grand and beautiful mystery.

 

[paarsurrey]

for God is something and not nothing

Then your concept of G-d needs to be corrected.
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then your concept of G-d needs to be corrected.
Regards

So you think God is "nothing"?

 

[ArtieE]

To make the assertion that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws.. is a logical paradox unique to atheism is it not?

No. Different atheists have different views on the subject. As I see it our "laws of nature" apply to this universe. Who knows what laws applied to whatever existed "before" this universe if there even was a "before". We don't know. We just don't put in "a god" instead of "we don't know" and pretend that putting in a god explains anything.

 

[Scott C.]

If you're trying to tell me that God exists but does not exist, I don't buy it. God most certainly exists. If a thing exists, then that thing is not nothing. This is my definition.

 

[ArtieE]

G-d has communicated and told that He has created everything that includes "nothing" and "something"; why not accept this reasonable claim?

We can't accept this socalled reasonable claim simply because simple logic says that "created everything" would have to include himself. So you have to make up your mind: Did he create himself or has he always existed?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. Different atheists have different views on the subject. As I see it our "laws of nature" apply to this universe. Who knows what laws applied to whatever existed "before" this universe if there even was a "before". We don't know. We just don't put in "a god" instead of "we don't know" and pretend that putting in a god explains anything.

but without any intelligent design, you still ultimately rely on self creating laws, that's the paradox that creative intelligence offers a power of explanation for.

If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted beach with no sign of anyone around, would you assign that to the random action of the waves?

 

[ArtieE]

but without any intelligent design, you still ultimately rely on self creating laws, that's the paradox that creative intelligence offers a power of explanation for.

No, there has simply "always" been some kind of "natural laws" governing whatever "something" that has "always" existed.

If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted beach with no sign of anyone around, would you assign that to the random action of the waves?

Nope. If you can provide evidence that your particular god has written "HELP" in letters kilometers long on the backside of the moon from one day to the next when we weren't looking I'll consider that we are dealing with some intelligence with powers greater than ours.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, there has simply "always" been some kind of "natural laws" governing whatever "something" that has "always" existed.Nope. If you can provide evidence that your particular god has written "HELP" in letters kilometers long on the backside of the moon from one day to the next when we weren't looking I'll consider that we are dealing with some intelligence with powers greater than ours.

yet the universal constants, mathematical algorithms necessary for producing sentient life, can be written off as blundering into existence for no particular reason?

'always existed' was the rationale atheists used to use for static, eternal, steady state models (no creation = no creator) they mocked and rejected the specific creation event proposed by a priest as 'big bang' and 'religious pseudo-science'

The best evidence we have, is that there was a specific beginning, creation of all matter/energy as we can possibly know it. A beginning as the Bible states, anything else is philosophical speculation

 

[ArtieE]

yet the universal constants, mathematical algorithms necessary for producing sentient life, can be written off as blundering into existence for no particular reason?

No, they didn't blunder into existence "something" has always existed governed by laws and this is just what "something" presents itself as now.

'always existed' was the rationale atheists used to use for static, eternal, steady state models (no creation = no creator) they mocked and rejected the specific creation event proposed by a priest as 'big bang' and 'religious pseudo-science'

Stop confusing "the universe always existed" with "something always existed". This universe is just the present configuration of this "something".

The best evidence we have, is that there was a specific beginning, creation of all matter/energy as we can possibly know it. A beginning as the Bible states, anything else is philosophical speculation

Please learn the basics of physics. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, they didn't blunder into existence "something" has always existed governed by laws and this is just what "something" presents itself as now.Stop confusing "the universe always existed" with "something always existed". This universe is just the present configuration of this "something".Please learn the basics of physics. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm talking about observed reality versus speculation, the universe is the only something we can observe exists, and it's matter - energy relationships were created as we know them now during that creation event.

I'm afraid you'd need to go a little beyond basic physics..


.. initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. According to prevailing scientific theories it was at this time that the forces we see around us today merged into one unified force..

In the second phase, this quark–gluon plasma universe then cooled further, the current fundamental forces we know take their present forms through further symmetry breaking – notably the breaking of electroweak symmetry – and the full range of complex and composite particles we see around us today became possible, leading to a gravitationally dominated universe, the first neutral atoms (~ 80% hydrogen), and the cosmic microwave background radiation we can detect today.

etc etc

 

[paarsurrey]

So you think God is "nothing"?

I never said that. G-d is a being; He has created everything "nothing" to "something".

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

We can't accept this so called reasonable claim simply because simple logic says that "created everything" would have to include himself. So you have to make up your mind: Did he create himself or has he always existed?

It is not a claim only, it is a fact. G-d is Being whom none created.

Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted beach with no sign of anyone around, would you assign that to the random action of the waves?

I don't see how this analogy is relevant.

 

[Ouroboros]

The question of why or how there is existence, blows my mind. We can do the mental gymnastics and get all philosophical about the meaning of "something" and "nothing", but that does not change the fact that there IS something, a whole lot of something out there, and that is certainly NOT nothing. I would think that theists and atheists alike ought to agree on a couple of points. Existence is a grand and beautiful and mystifying reality. "Something from nothing" seems impossible. "Always something" seems impossible. Yet here we are. Go figure.

That's the gist of the mystery. Whichever way we try to solve it, it becomes a paradox.