paarsurrey
Veteran Member
G-d's attributes are in absolutes; G-d is the First (the Beginner) and the Last (the Ender) of the Universe.
Regards
Last edited:
-
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"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
G-d's attributes are in absolutes; G-d is the First (the Beginner) and the Last (the Ender) of the Universe.
Regards
How the universe appeared from nothing. New Scientist TV: How the universe appeared from nothing
Unification
Well-Known Member
No-thing: Primordial Consciousness.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Static, steady state, big crunch, multiverses, quantum voids- a steady retreat into the inherently unfalsifiable - atheism of the gaps ?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well that's settled it...I saw it on TV....so it has to be true...
Well that's settled it...I read it in the Bible...so it has to be true...Well that's settled it...I saw it on TV....so it has to be true...
Unification
Well-Known Member
Same concepts.
No, we just don't fill the gaps with gods and declare the problem solved. That gets us nowhere.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
what gets us nowhere is excluding God, creative intelligence, or anything else on mere preference for a particular outcome.
The furthest we've got, the only theory of cosmogony that stood up to scientific scrutiny- was the one presented by a priest and mocked and rejected as 'Big Bang' for what atheists complained of as the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event. 'religious psuedoscience' Hoyle called it.
I say follow where the evidence points, not academic presumptions.
Only in the sense they are revered as entities beyond human power. That is nigh-all they have in common.
Then explain to us in detail the strategy scientists should adopt in order to follow this "evidence".
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
it's called scientific method, you have to go out of your way to disassociate your personal beliefs from your science, easier said than done, but that's what Lemaitre did explicitly- refusing to acknowledge any connection between the Primeval Atom and God- even telling the Pope to quit gloating. It was the atheists who complained of those implications, who by their own admission based their preferred theories around their preferred opposite implications- they did not disassociate their beliefs..
But then how could they when they didn't acknowledge they had any?
Assuming scientists didn't rule out gods as possible explanations for things, explain in detail what they should do next to establish whether gods are responsible or not!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'm saying that neither theism or atheism should be a presumption or goal of science, I believe the scientific method has steadily built the case for God as is, the fact that it has done so despite presumptions of atheism only makes the case stronger.
And the scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian god is...?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I defer you to the more qualified conclusions of Hoyle among many atheist scientists - on what the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom was evidence of - their opinions not mine!
Hoyle [] found the idea that the Universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, (Wiki page on Big Bang)
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Vishvavajra
Active Member
"Something" and "nothing" are mutually dependent concepts. Neither one is intelligible except as a negation of the other. Therefore it would be impossible for either to preexist the other.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Interestingly, neither Hebrew nor Norse creation myths feature creatio ex nihilo, which isn't really something you find in ancient creation myths in any culture. In the Norse myth the cosmos is formed from the corpse of Ymir, much as in the Babylonian creation myth it's formed from the corpse of Tiamat. The Hebrew creation myth from Genesis 1 has things created from the Deep, which is an impersonal version of Tiamat, and which preexists the creation of the world. That's actually very typical for Middle-Eastern cultures and exactly what one would expect. But because nobody seems to study other Middle-Eastern creation myths, most don't realize what the Deep is supposed to represent, and they miss the fact that it's not created but preexistent.
The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is Yahweh shown to create anything out of nothing. Creatio ex nihilo is a thoroughly modern concept; ancient people seem to have found it unintuitive, so they didn't construct their myths that way. Even in the creation myth of Genesis 2 we see that everything is made of something that already exists (Adam from dirt, Eve from Adam, etc.).
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Convenient, perhaps, in the sense that it serves as a cop-out that makes some people feel they can safely drop the question altogether. Sensible, not so much. For those who aren't satisfied with cop-outs of that sort, it doesn't answer any questions and only raises more. It just kicks the problem down the line without actually solving anything.