Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Scott C.]

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.).

Mormons believe that God created the earth from pre-existent matter of some sort and that this is consistent with Genesis.

 

[Scott C.]

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.

I agree that it kicks the question down the line. But it also answers questions regarding the purpose and origin of our mortal lives here on good 'ole Mother Earth.

As I've stated in so many words elsewhere, we can't solve the problem of existence, given the available evidence and our limited intelligence. Although, it's fascinating to discuss.

 

[Pudding]

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

Possibility:
(1) Something exist first without creator. Need evidence to confirm this possibility.
(2) Nothing exist first without creator. Need evidence to confirm this possibility.
(3a) Creator exist first. This creator do not belong to any religion and is unknown to our world. Need evidence to confirm this possibility.
(3b) Creator exist first. Some religion claims that their religion's god is the creator. But non-believer disagree with their claims.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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

I realize how high I was when I made this post so here's my real reply...

I think something is there first and then that something will eventually transfer into nothing.
I think this because to me there is no such thing as 'eternity'.
So right now we are something, however, when we die we will become nothing.

 

[Baladas]

I don't believe in the existence of "nothing".

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't believe in the existence of "nothing".

Then by theological standards, what did we come from?
By atheistic standards, where do we go when we die?

 

[Baladas]

Then by theological standards, what did we come from?
By atheistic standards, where do we go when we die?

It is not known how life came into being.
Our bodies break down and return to the earth. We continue to exist as nourishment for the soil, plants and animals. We are all immortal in this sense.
That is enough for me.
I suspect that there is more, but I haven't a clue what.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't like the concept of "first".

Is liking and or disliking within the domain of science? Science is not sentimental.
Is it?
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

Is liking and or disliking within the domain of science? Science is not sentimental.
Is it?
Regards

To like or dislike something is not part of the scientific method, but it is a motivator.
We all, even scientists, have a sense of aesthetics.
Appreciation of beauty afflicts us in engineering & science.
But in this case, I dislike the idea of "first" because it excludes prior existence in some different form, ie, it places unverifiable restrictions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Appreciation of beauty afflicts us in engineering & science

That makes one a weak or a biased scientist. A scientist should neither appreciate beauty nor should be afflicted by it, as one may misinterpret the scientific data and result of the experiments one does.
It should be left for the peoples of Arts and or religion.
Please don't take it personal; there is no such intention on my part.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

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

If there was a creator and that creator is eternal, then there would have always been something. Imho, matter of some kind has always existed since time began. Before that, there was no time, so it would be impossible to claim that anything or nothing existed, in the way we understand it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That makes one a weak or a biased scientist. A scientist should neither appreciate beauty nor should be afflicted by it, as one may misinterpret the scientific data and result of the experiments one does.
It should be left for the peoples of Arts and or religion.
Please don't take it personal; there is no such intention on my part.
Regards

Tis both a weakness & a strength.
Sure, sure, it can lead one astray, eg, Einstein's initial distaste for the probabilistic element of quantum mechanics.
But beauty is a powerful motivator to pursue more elegant theories & designs.
I found that in engineering, pursuit of simple beauty....shibumi...yielded the best designs.

 

[paarsurrey]

If there was a creator and that creator is eternal, then there would have always been something. Imho, matter of some kind has always existed since time began. Before that, there was no time, so it would be impossible to claim that anything or nothing existed, in the way we understand it.

Why it is thought necessary that it should always be understandable by an ordinary man? Men of science think and work in an environment of complex terminologies/mathematical equations and words by assigning specific meaning, not understandable by an ordinary man. In the domain of revealed religion, men belonging to science are just laymen.

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Why it is thought necessary that it should always be understandable by an ordinary man? Men of science think and work in an environment of complex terminologies/mathematical equations and words by assigning specific meaning, not understandable by an ordinary man. In the domain of revealed religion, men belonging to science are just laymen.

Regards

I just meant in the way we currently understand the terms "something" and "nothing".

 

[leibowde84]

That makes one a weak or a biased scientist. A scientist should neither appreciate beauty nor should be afflicted by it, as one may misinterpret the scientific data and result of the experiments one does.
It should be left for the peoples of Arts and or religion.
Please don't take it personal; there is no such intention on my part.
Regards

This is just about the most absurd post I've ever read on RF, but don't take it personally, as I don't mean it in that way. It is just assuming that religious professionals and artists have a monopoly on subjectivity. There is no reason why "beauty", though subjective, cannot be appreciated and/or used in engineering design or any other scientific persuit. There is always benefit in being a well-rounded person, no matter what your profession is. There are plenty of scientists that are artists, and scientists that are religious. All of these things overlap constantly.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is not personal, anybody could reflect.
Post #92
"simple beauty"​

Now another attribute has been added for science, unnecessarily or necessarily. Simplicity and beauty both relate to Arts, poetry and religion.
Don't they? Please
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

It is not personal, anybody could reflect.
Post #92
"simple beauty"​

Now another attribute has been added for science, unnecessarily or necessarily. Simplicity and beauty both relate to Arts, poetry and religion.
Don't they? Please
Regards

How about the camera. It was a scientific discovery that made various new art forms possible.

 

[paarsurrey]

How about the camera. It was a scientific discovery that made various new art forms possible.

Does science claim that every snapshot by camera is beautiful?
Do cameras have a check on ugliness or complexity? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

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

There is no such thing as "nothing".

But I like to know what this nothing-and-something is all about, before I say anything more.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then by theological standards, what did we come from?
By atheistic standards, where do we go when we die?

Why do you think there needs to be a beginning to absolute reality? The concept of real means something that is not illusory.....not some phantom that comes and goes.....it is really real...cosmic existence is absolute reality...it has no beginning and no ending like temporary things...