• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood said:
.. 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
Click to expand...
You said that "energy was created" and it can't be created. What does this have to do with it?
 
V

vijeno

Active Member
Nothing doesn't exist. So you can't even say that something existed "first".

If you seriously want to find out how devastatingly hard it is to say anything about nothing without making a complete fool of yourself, I suggest Sartre's Being and Nothingness, or maybe some Hegel or Heidegger.

Ironically, or just interestingly, the problems that arise are pretty similar to the problems when you try to talk about god.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
paarsurrey said:
It is not a claim only, it is a fact. G-d is Being whom none created.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you claimed that your god created everything and everything includes himself. This is basic simple logic. Maybe you would like to try to rephrase your statements so that they make sense logically?
 
N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Instead of the gibberish attributed in the name of science between <something , nothing and something> a simple statement that G-d did it all is most sensible and convenient.
Do you agree?

Regards
Click to expand...
So why is it your God? How are you so certain it's Yahweh? Why couldn't it be Odin, Ville & Ve, who then slay Ymir to craft the world from his corpse?
 
Deathbydefault

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
What if something was the force of white
and nothing was the force of black
When they collided it created something within nothing
and nothing within something.

Lol I just yin yang-ed a question with no true answer.

You need something to create nothing is my answer :3
 
idea

idea

Question Everything
something or nothing?

option #3 - there was no "first", everything is eternal with no beginning, there is no such thing as an ultimate "first"
 
Scott C.

Scott C.

Just one guy
At this point I need someone to agree with me... We have no idea what the heck we are talking about here. While it's fun to try to understand and explain this stuff, we are at best using intellects which are infinitely small when compared to the intellect required to grasp the question of something, nothing, something from nothing, never nothing, first something, first cause, eternity...Yet, here we are and we are here and we exist. Mind blown!
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Scott C. said:
At this point I need someone to agree with me... We have no idea what the heck we are talking about here. While it's fun to try to understand and explain this stuff, we are at best using intellects which are infinitely small when compared to the intellect required to grasp the question of something, nothing, something from nothing, never nothing, first something, first cause, eternity...Yet, here we are and we are here and we exist. Mind blown!
Click to expand...
Yes I know what you mean, sometimes just saying nothing is the best position to be in.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards
Click to expand...
There was no first....the Cosmos had no beginning....it is eternal.... That the sum total of all that exists...always existed...is a the only sound logical conclusion since to make the claim that once upon a time it did not exist..... requires dogmatic belief that it came out of nothing which is unsound and not logical...
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
ben d said:
There was no first....the Cosmos had no beginning....it is eternal.... That the sum total of all that exists...always existed...is a the only sound logical conclusion since to make the claim that once upon a time it did not exist..... requires dogmatic belief that it came out of nothing which is unsound and not logical...
Click to expand...

No first, no last--agreed. But can you make a viable argument for the existence of now?
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Scott C. said:
At this point I need someone to agree with me... We have no idea what the heck we are talking about here. While it's fun to try to understand and explain this stuff, we are at best using intellects which are infinitely small when compared to the intellect required to grasp the question of something, nothing, something from nothing, never nothing, first something, first cause, eternity...Yet, here we are and we are here and we exist. Mind blown!
Click to expand...

Yes, whether God or some sort of spontaneous event created the universe- the same apparent first cause paradox applies- where did that come from?

Yet here we are as you say, so obviously there is a solution, it's a moot point- a wash.

But what's not even, is the capacity of creative intelligence v chance to create the world we see around us.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
BSM1 said:
No first, no last--agreed. But can you make a viable argument for the existence of now?
Click to expand...
Very astute observation BSM1....the absolute is timeless....a beginning and ending wrt the absolute is an abstraction by the human mind to create the concept of finite time...and the concept of now is a further abstraction from linear time to denote the present moment... So the concept of 'now' is not real in the absolute sense..only real in the relative conceptual sense in the context of finite perception....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top