leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'm glad you said that, because the meaning of the term in common language is very different than it's scientific context.
-
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
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
But that happens in all galaxies and has been happening eternally...are you suggesting that this milky way galaxy is the first galaxy to produce sentient beings?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I agree. All signs point to it not being that way. Chanced are that life exists all over the cosmos. It's just too big!!
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
No, I'm implying that even if living beings have existed for all of eternity their specific sentience has not.
Their consciousness is not eternal, nor are their bodies.
However, bodies can be recycled but the specific way someone perceives life cannot.
You cannot, to my knowledge, recycle a consciousness.
Therefore, consciousnesses came from something and ends in nothing.
That is my thinking, feel free to sway it.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
As I said...we are talking about the generic sense of life...not a particular sentient being...so just like there are temporary forms of sentient beings in existence eternally....these temporary forms are endowed with consciousness...therefore consciousness also in the generic sense has existed forever....
And btw....just because you do not know how consciousness could be 'recycled', does not mean it is not possible...
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Yes I understand that you are talking in generics, and it should have been obvious from the start that I referred in specifics.
It's not that I "don't know" it's that there isn't any evidence, imperial or otherwise, for such a thing.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Some on the research by Rupert Shelldrake seems to point to it....he uses the concept of morphic resonance...Rat Learning and Morphic Resonance
gnostic
The Lost One
Which no scientists can verify...yet.
The infinite universe or multiverse are still hypothetical and theoretical at this stage.
The only cosmology that have been verified (as with evidences) so far, is the Big Bang cosmology. Until there are evidences to the contrary, the BB is still a very valid theory.
They don't even know what the singularity, prior to the Big Bang, so how they possibly know what is "prior to the singularity".
The Big Bang theory only covered the timeline of the observable universe; everything else is speculation, as we well there being "no energy".
We have in truth no way to even tell whether there was ever a start of existence.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
'
The big bang has not been verified, it is a theory....there is some evidence that has lead most scientists to believe it is a fact...but as times go on...problems emerge, such as gravity...Physics beyond the Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...and Lithium... CEH: Big Bang’s Lithium Problem Gets More Problematic for example..
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.
Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."
In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Big Bang Theory
Concerning your.... how they possibly know what is "prior to the singularity".....then you will need to ask those who claim there was absolute nothing...namely.Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose.
Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.
But the belief in nothing goes beyond that prior to the beginning...what do you think bb theory says is outside the universe big bang expanding bubble? Yup...nothing...no time or space...lol
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Precisely...
I don't think I would support your reading of what I wrote, Ben.
I did not mean "we don't know the truth", but rather "the question probably does not make sense".
I did not mean "we don't know the truth", but rather "the question probably does not make sense".
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Ok...you said..."We have in truth no way to even tell whether there was ever a start of existence."
What was your comment in response to?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Obviously the chicken came before the egg, so the "something" had to have existed before "something else." Matter is eternal.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You are correct...energy and matter are/is eternal two sides of the one coin....Obviously the chicken came before the egg, so the "something" had to have existed before "something else." Matter is eternal.
The OP. It uses premises that I find unwarranted.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Sweet baby Jeebus thank you for this beautiful mind.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Shucks...no...the omniscient source is just welling up within you...
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Just get a rush of joy self-actualizing my own divinity.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well yes...but watch the ego....it can be our downfall...