Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Darkstorn]

Nothing can come from nothingess. This is also evidenced by quantum physics: There's no such thing as nothingess itself. There's always something. In our case, the smallest identifiable component of everything is particles: Every single position within spacetime is 100% filled with these particles; There is never an instance of true nothingness.

More recent theories show that the universe has "always" existed: Positing that there never was an instance of nothing. And that even the big bang was merely a "rapid" expansion from a smaller state: The quantum state.

Therefore: Everything that ever was, and will be, has always existed. There never was "nothing." We've been going through the same "building blocks" time and time again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't find this proliferation of names and concepts very helpful. Names like "Brahman" and "God" inevitably have a lot of religious baggage attached to them, while "Cosmos" is more neutral and less laden with concepts and assumptions.

True....but as all the originally evolved unique cultures of the world merge into a one world culture....the world is presently in a 'melting pot' phase wrt learning about the collective experience of global humanity and thus one should not be too pedantic if real understanding is our goal...

ps..you can delete one of those posts above...double post...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

True....but as all the originally evolved unique cultures of the world merge into a one world culture....the world is presently in a 'melting pot' phase wrt learning about the collective experience of global humanity and thus one should not be too pedantic if real understanding is our goal...

To me being pedantic is insisting on using baggage-laden labels like "God" when there is no need. "Cosmos" is fine here, a neutral term.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is it just me, but how can "nothing" exist?

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it just me, but how can "nothing" exist?

Because G-d created both as to what humans understand as "something" and the thing they understand as "nothing".
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To me being pedantic is insisting on using baggage-laden labels like "God" when there is no need. "Cosmos" is fine here, a neutral term.

Religious dogma like the Buddhism sect you believe in is really only meant for the disciple not to take the concept for reality...if your mind does not realize this and takes it literally...you are just as much a fundamentalist as a follower of Benny Hinn..

 

[ArtieE]

Because G-d created both as to what humans understand as "something" and the thing they understand as "nothing".
Regards

So since your god is something he created himself?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Religious dogma like the Buddhism sect you believe in is really only meant for the disciple not to take the concept for reality...if your mind does not realize this and takes it literally...you are just as much a fundamentalist as a follower of Benny Hinn..

A patronising and inaccurate comment, and not related to what I said.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A patronising and inaccurate comment, and not related to what I said.

It was...you were whining about the pantheistic understanding of God being all that is....the cosmos...and the physical universe is Its manifestation.. Are you saying your being an atheistic Buddhist has no bearing on your position...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because G-d created both as to what humans understand as "something" and the thing they understand as "nothing".
Regards

Gibberish. Nothing cannot exist. It is nothing.

 

[paarsurrey]

So since your god is something he created himself?

Does one say it on the basis of science or religion?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Gibberish. Nothing cannot exist. It is nothing.

Does one say this on the basis of science or religion? Please
Regards

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Does one say this on the basis of science or religion? Please
Regards

Science and religion. For something to exist it has to have properties. If it's nothing then it doesn't exist. Philosophically, if it has a description that counts as properties and can exist.

 

[leibowde84]

Because G-d created both as to what humans understand as "something" and the thing they understand as "nothing".
Regards

Nothing cannot exist, by definition. So, can you explain what you mean soecifically.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@leibowde84 and others.
It is something like virtual particles. They can arise and disappear, also can change into real particles and perhaps back to virtual particles. It is a very dynamic picture. Perhaps things are arising and disappearing all the time in the universe, there is no barrier between existence and non-existence. Of course, we will know more about that in future.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@leibowde84 and others.
It is something like virtual particles. They can arise and disappear, also can change into real particles and perhaps back to virtual particles. It is a very dynamic picture. Perhaps things are arising and disappearing all the time in the universe, there is no barrier between existence and non-existence. Of course, we will know more about that in future.

The virtual particles to which you refer arise from and dissolve back into the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum....there is no disappearing of the sum total energy... So there can be no talk of existence becoming non-existent in absolute terms....only of the relative forms.....which is the same relative duality we see in the arising and destruction of human forms, stars, and galaxies,,etc...

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it just me, but how can "nothing" exist?

Where should "something" be placed if there is no space to place it?
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where should "something" be placed if there is no space to place it?
Regards

There is relative density of substance that allows the more dense to displace the less...but there is no nothing... If you think otherwise...please provide your evidence?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Where should "something" be placed if there is no space to place it?
Regards

You limit your thinking when you do that.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is relative density of substance that allows the more dense to displace the less...but there is no nothing... If you think otherwise...please provide your evidence?

A solid (dense) substance can be placed in an in-solid substance if it can contract, but before a big-bang all around is very dense, so it cannot be displaced to house a solid substance unless first space to place it is caused to exist.
Regards