• 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"?

Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
paarsurrey said:
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
Click to expand...
If time didn't exist before big bang.
And time is only measurement of motion.
And motion didn't exist either.
But first mover had to be first to move.
Then first mover wasn't moving before the first move, otherwise time would exist before time began.

Is God nothing or something?
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Frank Merton said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am certain because there is a big difference between speculation about the real and the real...between belief about the real and the real.... between mathematical conceptual models of the real and the real....conceptual models are meant to represent the real, the first lesson that materialists should learn is that mental constructs are just that...they are meant to serve as symbols for the real, but never to be mistaken as the equivalent... Now if you can provide any evidence of science actually having successfully done an experiment whereby some mass has been made to disappear from the universe or that some mass has been added to the universe, then you will have something to say that is not meaningless...
 
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Frank Merton said:
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.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that it is meaningless to talk about nothing.......as nothing is timeless... But in saying that, we both acknowledge that a valid concept used to describe timelessness is 'nothing'.....you yourself used in in the quote above. Therefore it is not meaningless to use the concept 'nothing' in the correct context. Logically then, you are agreeing with me that you are implying from nothing came everything...yes? So no one is discussing the nothing before the speculated beginning....for that would be meaningless....we are only discussing your dogmatic belief that the sum total of all existence came from nothing....and that is meaningful... :)
 
Last edited:
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Ouroboros said:
So there are 3 things:
Nothing, something, and someone.

A someone is neither something or nothing.

A someone doesn't move and doesn't have time.

Am I getting this right?
Click to expand...
well....Someone had to be first in mind and heart.....that He be able to say I AM!
then consider whether substance first or Spirit.

if substance first....then all of science is wrong.
substance can 'self' generate and 'self' motivate.
the laws of motion are then a lie.

if Spirit first then creation follows
order is in play
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Thief said:
well....Someone had to be first in mind and heart.....that He be able to say I AM!
then consider whether substance first or Spirit.
Click to expand...
So someone can move like a something, just so he can speak. Didn't he have to create an atmosphere before he spoke though, or is spirit sounds not audible waves?

if substance first....then all of science is wrong.
substance can 'self' generate and 'self' motivate.
the laws of motion are then a lie.
Click to expand...
So spirit is someone who is not a nothing and not a something and can speak without air waves.
And he can move without time as well and was unmovable until then.

Thinking about it, you're talking about Brahman, aren't you?
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Merton

Active Member
Thief said:
time is only a measurement.....of movement.

no movement....no time
Click to expand...
That's possible but I don't think so. Movement and time are not necessarily dependent on each other. Time, at least, seem to have an independent pulse to it (quantized to Plank time) and could be ticking away with nothing to tick. The premise of this thread is that there is nothing before the beginning, which means no time, which means no eternity while only emptiness existed, as there was to time to form an eternity. This is the simplest, but not the only possible scenario.

We understand space-time as being a single thing, but that implies possible places where there is only space and no time and places where there is only time and no space. Such transformation calculations are now regular in relativity theory, all bound up with the speed of EMR -- massless particles travel through space but experience no time.
 
F

Frank Merton

Active Member
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
No quite the opposite. God is mind; this is not simpler (or easier) than nothingness. It does not require mind for existence -- any cobblestone can prove that.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Frank Merton said:
That's possible but I don't think so. Movement and time are not necessarily dependent on each other. Time, at least, seem to have an independent pulse to it (quantized to Plank time) and could be ticking away with nothing to tick. The premise of this thread is that there is nothing before the beginning, which means no time, which means no eternity while only emptiness existed, as there was to time to form an eternity. This is the simplest, but not the only possible scenario.

We understand space-time as being a single thing, but that implies possible places where there is only space and no time and places where there is only time and no space. Such transformation calculations are now regular in relativity theory, all bound up with the speed of EMR -- massless particles travel through space but experience no time.
Click to expand...
You mistake the eternal now for time....the eternal now is omnipresent....eternity is not measurable as time.....time is an observation and measurement of relative movement of aspects of the omnipresent eternal now... Think of the eternal now as the persistence or endurance of formless timeless existence....the concept of time is an abstraction by the finite mind to represent the passage of movement and activity observed within eternal existence.... By the finite mind, I mean the human mind that perceives the cosmos as existing of three dimensions of space and one of time....aka 3D time space...or just time space or space time..
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Frank Merton said:
No quite the opposite. God is mind; this is not simpler (or easier) than nothingness. It does not require mind for existence -- any cobblestone can prove that.
Click to expand...
But there never was a nothingness....it can not exist... Prove to us that there is, or was ever absolute nothing...
 
F

Frank Merton

Active Member
ben d said:
You mistake the eternal now for time....the eternal now is omnipresent....eternity is not measurable as time.....time is an observation and measurement of relative movement of aspects of the omnipresent eternal now... Think of the eternal now as the persistence or endurance of formless timeless existence....the concept of time is an abstraction by the finite mind to represent the passage of movement and activity observed within eternal existence.... By the finite mind, I mean the human mind that perceives the cosmos as existing of three dimensions of space and one of time....aka 3D time space...or just time space or space time..
Click to expand...
No I don't, and I said no such thing.
 
F

Frank Merton

Active Member
ben d said:
But there never was a nothingness....it can not exist... Prove to us that there is, or was ever absolute nothing...
Click to expand...
Of course, there can be no absence of space-time. That doesn't imply that space-time can't have a beginning, but only that one cannot sensibly talk about there being something "before" that beginning.

I think it was Aristotle who first pointed out that this has to have been the case, else we would be in a bottomless well and never have been able to reach the present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top