By some reckoning, you very much are.
-
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
Something.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
It can't be.(science)
substance at rest will remain at rest....until Something move it
Science doesn't rule God.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
True....but the Creator is you..
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What if they weren't at rest?
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't know this Kotlar, so I can't really comment much of what he think. But judging by what you say about him, he is also reaching, making assumption or coming to conclusion based on his opinion, with no way to verify what he say to be true.
Can he objectively and conclusively demonstrate that this Intelligent Designer is actually involved with the immune system?
And there lies the issue of your problem, each time you mention one name or another. Each person has made presupposition, based on what he believe that "could be" possible, but unless you have verifiable evidences that this Designer really exist, he (or she) cannot collaborate what he (or she) might think it is possible.
Each of these claims, are no more than guesses.
Science rely more than logic. Without evidences, there is really no way to tell if the logic is true. Evidences are what make it objective. The more evidences
Of course, the evidences could go against a scientist (or anyone who is make a claim). And the lack or absence of evidences don't make anything to be true; all claims are FALSE "by default".
Your latest so-called expert, is simply rationalizing what he has seen or experience. Any Tom, Dick and Harry off the street can rationalize what they have seen, doesn't necessarily mean what they have seen are true.
Science is about what is false and what is true, and the only way that can be achieve is through empirical and verifiable evidences.
Tell me, URAVIP2ME. Do you know of any of Kotlar's peers (fellow-biotechnologists) who verify that is indeed some great, invisible and powerful Designer have designed the immune system?
"Something at rest will remain at rest" is science. Science doesn't rule God. Science is observation.
"Something must come from something" is philosophy. Philosophy doesn't rule God. Philosophy is truth, which belongs to each of us.
Frank Merton
Active Member
"Believe" is too strong a word. As I said, I don't know if "nothing" can exist -- to what extent can something be said to exist when there is no time for it to do so? That doesn't mean the universe can't have a beginning though -- all you would need is for time to begin to exist. Then things can happen, but speaking of before that moment is meaningless.
There is no rational or logical reason for saying that time cannot just begin (we understand that this would also include a start for space and probably also energy). It is against our experience for such things to happen, but so what? Lot's of things in the universe happen that we find utterly contrary to our sense of how they ought to be. To say it cannot happen is not acceptable; to say it cannot happen you need to provide some logical reason, not just a gut feeling.
Frank Merton
Active Member
The problem here is that theists are holding onto (for dear life) the straw of there having to be a first mover or creator. There is no logical reason for this, but it is such an ingrained part of Western religion that people brought up in it seem incapable of thinking clearly about it.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So this claim raises a couple of rational questions....what could possibly be the cause of time beginning to exist from timelessness? And since time can not exist without space....how could time and space possibly come from no time and space?
ps....I think the concept of 'nothing' is the best one to represent the concept of 'no time and no space'....what is a more appropriate concept in the English language to describe the negation of time and space in your opinion Frank?
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I am not debating the need for a creator beginning Frank.....I have been making the case from the get go that there could not be a beginning because something can not come from nothing....the sum total of universal mass and energy and whatever else that is subject to change had no beginning...it is eternal...only the forms change and thus only these can be said to have beginning and endings...
Last edited:
Frank Merton
Active Member
You are asking how come something can happen when there is no time or space? This is the chain you have around your brain that you can't see it is a meaningless question. I can just as easily ask why not?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You keep saying that because you know deep down it is a perfect rational and logical question to ask....and you need to obfuscate to avoid having to face it by claiming it is meaningless to ask.... What difference is that from the theist creationist who, when says it was God who began the universe....is asked....and when did God have its beginning?....responds...oh you don't ask that....that is a chain you have around your brain that you can't see it is a meaningless question...haha......
Oh I can answer your 'why not' response.... because of the science....matter and energy can not be made to disappear....it is eternal and until such time science prove they can do that...it is logical to stay with the evidence...and considering reciprocity...since there is not a scientist alive who thinks energy and matter can be made to disappear.....that's shows how much they really believe that energy and matter can appear from the absence of energy and matter...
Last edited:
Frank Merton
Active Member
Why is it you are so certain that matter/energy and space/time cannot be destroyed or created? It happens all the time at the quantum level, and it appears that dark energy is being created constantly, as the universe expands its density stays constant. I would suggest a little less religion and a little more science before you pronounce final judgment on such matters.
My claim about meaninglessness is that there can be no existence without time. In a timeless situation there is nothing, and therefor it is not meaningful to talk about "before" the beginning of time.
My claim about meaninglessness is that there can be no existence without time. In a timeless situation there is nothing, and therefor it is not meaningful to talk about "before" the beginning of time.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Then God doesn't move.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
God is Spirit....not substance
and many people seem to think He is everywhere
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
G-d - He sees without eyes. He hears without ears. He talks without having the organs of speech (mouth, tongue, lips etc).
He is absolute while everything is measured in relation to him, time and space are His creation:
[55:30]Of Him do beg all that are in the heavens and the earth. Every day He reveals Himself in a different state.
[55:31]Which, then, of the favours of your Lord will you twain deny?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=55&verse=31
Regards[55:31]Which, then, of the favours of your Lord will you twain deny?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=55&verse=31
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So he's nothing then.
It's either something or nothing. Your choice.
...
But if you think of God as everything instead of just everywhere, then it becomes easier.