I wouldn't know about science.
-
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
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh, come on.....
Nothing of science that professes something or nothing. That's philosophy.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
How about science that professes something from nothing?..
Last edited:
Absolutely not.How about science that professes something from nothing?..
Edit: Science is the process of mapping and describing things about the world that reflect our understanding. In that sense, I suppose, it does sound like philosophy. But science has been reduced, limited by a specific purpose and particular proccesses that philosophy has not. While science has a philosophy that guides it, philosophy is free to pursue other directions.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Why don't you tell me.How about science that professes something from nothing?..
Because, so far I have not seen any science that professes anything about the universe becoming "something from nothing".
It is certainly not in the current Big Bang model, because the current theory is only about the "observable" universe. It doesn't say anything about coming from "nothingness".
You would be using strawman if you think i believe in this "something from nothing". You do have a quack for twisting other people's words around.
So please tell me your source of this "something from nothing" nonsense, which you keep bloody bringing up. I am dying to know this old scarecrow that you keep beating.
gnostic
The Lost One
Forget it, Willamena.
He can't distinguish the differences between science and philosophy. Explaining the differences to him would be a waste of your time, especially from a guy who simply refused to learn even the most rudimentary of science.
Frank Merton
Active Member
True believers always can't learn science if it doesn't support the belief. This is part of belief. One breaks belief only slowly by introducing cognitive dissonance, the slow realization that what is believed does not fit reality. Unfortunately the human mind is good at rationalization, and even when we can't think up a rationalization there are churches and other organizations ready to provide them.
I think a rational person will seek out beliefs and rip them out of their minds. They are put there through indoctrination, not learning, and do not belong and cause immense harm in the end. The most we should allow ourselves is opinion -- sometimes strongly held, usually not -- with an ongoing willingness to change our minds and not to rationalize.
Most of the beliefs we have came to us as children before our rational facilities were mature (with some they never mature) and we hold onto them because of instincts we all have to hold onto what we were taught as children. Sometimes beliefs come other ways, as through propaganda (the use of emotion to convince -- not just hate and disgust but also love and awe and beauty). The only valid reason for accepting something as true is that the preponderance of the valid evidence supports it and any evidence that doesn't is invalid in some way.
Frank Merton
Active Member
True believers always can't learn science if it doesn't support the belief. This is part of belief. One breaks belief only slowly by introducing cognitive dissonance, the slow realization that what is believed does not fit reality. Unfortunately the human mind is good at rationalization, and even when we can't think up a rationalization there are churches and other organizations ready to provide them.
I think a rational person will seek out beliefs and rip them out of their minds. They are put there through indoctrination, not learning, and do not belong and cause immense harm in the end. The most we should allow ourselves is opinion -- sometimes strongly held, usually not -- with an ongoing willingness to change our minds and not to rationalize.
Most of the beliefs we have came to us as children before our rational facilities were mature (with some they never mature) and we hold onto them because of instincts we all have to hold onto what we were taught as children. Sometimes beliefs come other ways, as through propaganda (the use of emotion to convince -- not just hate and disgust but also love and awe and beauty). The only valid reason for accepting something as true is that the preponderance of the valid evidence supports it and any evidence that doesn't is invalid in some way.
I think a rational person will seek out beliefs and rip them out of their minds. They are put there through indoctrination, not learning, and do not belong and cause immense harm in the end. The most we should allow ourselves is opinion -- sometimes strongly held, usually not -- with an ongoing willingness to change our minds and not to rationalize.
Most of the beliefs we have came to us as children before our rational facilities were mature (with some they never mature) and we hold onto them because of instincts we all have to hold onto what we were taught as children. Sometimes beliefs come other ways, as through propaganda (the use of emotion to convince -- not just hate and disgust but also love and awe and beauty). The only valid reason for accepting something as true is that the preponderance of the valid evidence supports it and any evidence that doesn't is invalid in some way.
Frank Merton
Active Member
True believers always can't learn science if it doesn't support the belief. This is part of belief. One breaks belief only slowly by introducing cognitive dissonance, the slow realization that what is believed does not fit reality. Unfortunately the human mind is good at rationalization, and even when we can't think up a rationalization there are churches and other organizations ready to provide them.
I think a rational person will seek out beliefs and rip them out of their minds. They are put there through indoctrination, not learning, and do not belong and cause immense harm in the end. The most we should allow ourselves is opinion -- sometimes strongly held, usually not -- with an ongoing willingness to change our minds and not to rationalize.
Most of the beliefs we have came to us as children before our rational facilities were mature (with some they never mature) and we hold onto them because of instincts we all have to hold onto what we were taught as children. Sometimes beliefs come other ways, as through propaganda (the use of emotion to convince -- not just hate and disgust but also love and awe and beauty). The only valid reason for accepting something as true is that the preponderance of the valid evidence supports it and any evidence that doesn't is invalid in some way.
I think a rational person will seek out beliefs and rip them out of their minds. They are put there through indoctrination, not learning, and do not belong and cause immense harm in the end. The most we should allow ourselves is opinion -- sometimes strongly held, usually not -- with an ongoing willingness to change our minds and not to rationalize.
Most of the beliefs we have came to us as children before our rational facilities were mature (with some they never mature) and we hold onto them because of instincts we all have to hold onto what we were taught as children. Sometimes beliefs come other ways, as through propaganda (the use of emotion to convince -- not just hate and disgust but also love and awe and beauty). The only valid reason for accepting something as true is that the preponderance of the valid evidence supports it and any evidence that doesn't is invalid in some way.
Frank Merton
Active Member
Now a comment about this theme, "something from nothing" although I must apologize for saying things that in such a long-standing theme have probably been said before. I think the biggest problem those who object to the universe somehow coming into existence from nothing is that they have an intuitive notion of what "nothing" might be, but nothing rigorous. It is just an intuitive concept we evolved as we grew up but really have no idea what we might be talking about when we use the word.
A true nothingness, without space or time, would not have time. It would not go on forever and ever because there would be no time for it to go on in. I think this is quite a mouthful to try to chew, and some people cannot get their minds out of the box they have that is to them "common sense" and conceive a no-time situation.
What is possible in a true nothingness? Well it seems the question is without meaning.
Now is it possible to say that nothingness cannot exist? There is a sense this sentence is true, since saying something cannot exist contradicts the concept of nothingness. Nothing is defined as lack of existence, so nothing cannot exist. How can something that cannot exist, exist?
Maybe that is just a language game and we could rearrange the definition of "exist" to include the null set by special exception.
A true nothingness, without space or time, would not have time. It would not go on forever and ever because there would be no time for it to go on in. I think this is quite a mouthful to try to chew, and some people cannot get their minds out of the box they have that is to them "common sense" and conceive a no-time situation.
What is possible in a true nothingness? Well it seems the question is without meaning.
Now is it possible to say that nothingness cannot exist? There is a sense this sentence is true, since saying something cannot exist contradicts the concept of nothingness. Nothing is defined as lack of existence, so nothing cannot exist. How can something that cannot exist, exist?
Maybe that is just a language game and we could rearrange the definition of "exist" to include the null set by special exception.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
gnostic....appeal to authority does not mean a thing....you claim there was pre-time = 0 , but that's not what science generally believes,,,they say time = 0 just happened and time began...Why don't you tell me.
Because, so far I have not seen any science that professes anything about the universe becoming "something from nothing".
It is certainly not in the current Big Bang model, because the current theory is only about the "observable" universe. It doesn't say anything about coming from "nothingness".
You would be using strawman if you think i believe in this "something from nothing". You do have a quack for twisting other people's words around.
So please tell me your source of this "something from nothing" nonsense, which you keep bloody bringing up. I am dying to know this old scarecrow that you keep beating.
Now I wait patiently to see if gnostic responds...he usually hits and runs to avoid showing his ignorance on the science....and the logic...
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hello Frank Merton....you are very astute...I agree with you that a true nothingness without time would not have time...
That's precisely the nothingness without space or time that science claims the big bang came from at time = 0 . I hope gnostic can grasp it as well as you do... ps.. Frank...you can delete two of your multiple posts above...
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Your appealing to the authority of someone who also does not think, if I understand Willamena correctly, that something from nothing is possible....
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do you believe that something can come from nothing Frank?
gnostic
The Lost One
My understanding is that "something from nothing" argument, have been one of philosophical views, not that of any scientific position.
It is funny how you readily dismissed any request for verifiable evidences or from valid scientific sources, in favour of your make-believe, wishing-washing illogic.
As I have stated to you in the past, NO SCIENTISTS - from Georges Lemaître to Hawking- have been able to provide any verifiable evidences
(A) TO WHAT HAPPEN BEFORE THE BIG BANG,
(B) WHAT HAPPEN AT t = 0 second,
(C) and WHAT HAPPEN in the earliest epochs AFTER the Big Bang (eg for the first 388,000 years after the Big Bang).
(B) WHAT HAPPEN AT t = 0 second,
(C) and WHAT HAPPEN in the earliest epochs AFTER the Big Bang (eg for the first 388,000 years after the Big Bang).
Everything before the 388,000 years after the Big Bang is opaque to our current technology.
So don't give me this repeated craps of yours about t = 0 second. If scientists don't know and can only speculate about the very initial expansion, then they are just bloody speculations.
Don't you understand what "speculation" mean or what "they don't know" mean?
You keep telling me that I don't understand English that well, but I have made statements repeatedly the Big Bang only really covered the theory on THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE. And the "observable universe" don't mean t = 0 second, because they can't see beyond the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation.
This CMB is the earliest observable thing we can see (from the WAMP and Planck space telescopes). Scientists can only speculate what happened before these oldest lights.
So the observable universe only really cover from today to 388,000 years after the BB.
So scientists cannot tell you if the universe begins at t = 0 second, or predated this time, or that the universe is eternal, because THEY CURRENTLY CAN'T SEE anything before 388,000 years after the Big Bang.
There are many different hypotheses before the observable universe, they have yet to verify any of theses hypothesis being true.
So quit asking me question that I have no way to answer you.
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
This is a science and religion forum......not philosophy...
The answer to the OP question of whether it is possible for something to come from nothing, in the absence of any rational evidence of the existence of nothing, is that it can't...and anything to the contrary is mere speculation.. Now I am not debating the idea of post big bang universal expansion, I am debating the idea that something can come from nothing... Now science claims it does not know how and it does not know why, but the universe just suddenly emerged from a non-existent state 13.7 billion... and also expect people to believe it without a shred of direct evidence within 388,000 years of time = 0 .
If as you say though, there is a possibility of there being something preexisting time = 0, then it is no something from nothing and I am not debating that...it is only the something from nothing idea...
Correct.
At least, the idea that is being grasped at is poorly represented by those words.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
true enough science stops at the point of singularity.....
and that point is described as 'something'......
do you consider the 'void' as nothing?
If what is real stands apart from concepts, what does that say about the concept "reality?"