Leonardo Posted October 7, 2013 #926 Share Posted October 7, 2013 You just need to read more about modern scientific theory, knowledge and practice. I've given the scientific understanding of the state of nothingness and it seems pretty real to me. There is nothing there. No energy, no matter, no time, no space, and nothing like gravity, which is a product of these other properties.. So what does exist in nothingness? Well actually nothing much, if anything at all. Most likely nothing at all. And no, I dont think this has anything to do with quantum physics. It is a lot more recent discovery than that, but it might flow from understandings gained in the study of quantum physics.. Thank you for your suggestion, MW, but I feel my appreciation of what modern science tells us in the specifics of our discussion is quite up-to-date and sound. I will leave it to posterity to judge the rest of your post, as I can see you have a very unshakeable belief in your own correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 7, 2013 #927 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I will try and put this simply. The only universe in which there is no need(and indeed no room ) for a "creator god" is one in which creation is a natural spontaineous ocurence. And what is "creation"? The movement or change from something to nothing. All that follows this is entirely natural evolutionary progress. Thus, when nature allows or instigates the change from a state of nothing to a statee of something; then, and only then, can natural evolution, with out any guidance or creation be possible, "from the beginning" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 7, 2013 #928 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Thank you for your suggestion, MW, but I feel my appreciation of what modern science tells us in the specifics of our discussion is quite up-to-date and sound. I will leave it to posterity to judge the rest of your post, as I can see you have a very unshakeable belief in your own correctness. Not my correct ness but the writings of the scientists most expert and recent in this field. I just read them. There is room to "negotiate" what is meant by nothingness" so that people can make more sense of it. Some people seem to find it hard to envisage, but basically it contains nothing we could see, measure or recognise .Personally i have no problem comprehending nothing (or for that matter infinity) but a lot of people seem to have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 8, 2013 #929 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) I don't see it being a sin to disobey a law if we know there are laws we must disobey.I also think you are using the word "law" in too many ways, confusing "natural law" with legislated law with divine law. At any rate your wordplay is not persuasive. Laws applies to all cases: For instance: 1 - Natural laws aka laws of Physics. If you break the law of gravity by throwing yourself down from a 150 floors building you will have to pay the consequences thereof with your life. 2 - The law of cause and effect: If a baby sticks his hand into a fire it will have to pay the consequences thereof with a burn finger. 3 - God's Law: If you break the command "Thou shall not kill" you will have to pay the consequences thereof with either your life or a life sentence in jail. 4 - The catch-22 concept which renders a law which is supposed to be obeyed contrary to which it was commanded. It is symbolized by the order not to eat of the tree of knowledge or to offer one's son in holocaust to God. And finally 5 - The Pichuach Nephesh concept which waves the obligation to observe a law on behalf of another that involves the life of another being, human or animal. For instance, to break the order to sanctify the Sabbath by working to save an animal who has fallen in a hole or for hospital workers to work on the Sabbath. As you can see, we are not fundamentalists in our observation of the laws as we find shortcuts to accommodate priorities. Edited October 8, 2013 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 8, 2013 #930 Share Posted October 8, 2013 The universe created itself because non-existence is a contradiction in terms. The physics here is not as well known as the above message implies, but we have a good idea. That there God was created in the process is a new one on me and certainly doesn't fit any physics I know of. Now you are contradicting yourself in terms. If non-existence is a contradiction in terms, How could the universe have created itself if it did not exist to create itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 8, 2013 #931 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) You are writing your belief. Science demonstrates your belief to be unsound. ( because science shows how something can naturally and spontaneousely develop from nothing) And logic demonstrates it to be illogical. If god can exist forever then why not the universe? If the universe required creating then why not god? etc. On the other hand I will not attack a belief because a belief is just that and requires no scientific support. It can really only exist outside of science and knowledge. Your thinking is confined by your belief. Just accpet that it is not only possible but natural and inevitable, for something to come fromm nothing and you will reset your logic and your thinking. So, Science shows how something can naturally and spontaneously develop from nothing. Go right ahead and share it with me. I am all ears. If God did not live forever He could not be eternal. The universe can't because we have established proof as a fact from everyday life that it had a beginning. Even the theory of the BB made known in 1922 by George Lemaitre confirmed the Bible that the universe had a beginning and that the Creator is an Eternal Spiritual Being. (Gen.1:1) Edited October 8, 2013 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 8, 2013 #932 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I will try and put this simply. The only universe in which there is no need(and indeed no room ) for a "creator god" is one in which creation is a natural spontaineous ocurence. And what is "creation"? The movement or change from something to nothing. All that follows this is entirely natural evolutionary progress. Thus, when nature allows or instigates the change from a state of nothing to a statee of something; then, and only then, can natural evolution, with out any guidance or creation be possible, "from the beginning" As I have told you above, I am ready for the evidences requested to demonstrate spontaneous occurrences our of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted October 8, 2013 #933 Share Posted October 8, 2013 As I have told you above, I am ready for the evidences requested to demonstrate spontaneous occurrences our of nothing. How did God come into existense? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphorbia Posted October 8, 2013 #934 Share Posted October 8, 2013 That's exactly what I was about to ask you: "You don't get it do you?" Again: If the Creator had a creator, He would be a creature and not the Creator. And for the universe to have had a Creator, there is nothing purely rhetoric. It is a fact proved by the logical assertion that the universe could not have caused itself to exist. Your mind is so focused on your fictitious god and that it is the original creator of all that exists that you are blinded by any other explanations. I'm an atheist, but I know I can't 100% rule out a god. That said, you also can't prove there is a god.....any god. But no, you not only proclaim there is a god without any proof, you claim it is the creator of all that exists. I keep hearing from Christians that god has always existed and always will. Where's your proof? Why couldn't the universe as we know it have always existed in one form or another? We don't know what there was before the Big Bang, so why throw a god in to the picture? To say that everything in the universe had to have had a creator except your god is more than a little hypocritical.....especially when your god is so very unproven! Who has proved that the universe could not have caused itself to exist? Do you have any unbiased links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #935 Share Posted October 9, 2013 How did God come into existense? LOL yes a good one, but of course god (if the creator of the universe) is a superior order of being and stands separate from the universe.Ben's point is that god "always" existed. That is a belief statement open to too many imponderables for me. How long is always? My logical extrapolation is that god, given its nature, if real and physical, must be an evolved sapient entity and thus MUST have come after the universe began. It is impossible, outside of belief, for a being to exist in sapient form with out learning/evolving the abilities and skills of sapience. Sapience occurs as a result of a long proces of learning. Because i know from contact with "god" that god is physical, real and sapient, then the only logical conclusion I personally am able to come to; is that god, like you and I, is an evolved product of a pre-existing universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #936 Share Posted October 9, 2013 As I have told you above, I am ready for the evidences requested to demonstrate spontaneous occurrences our of nothing. They are availble via a quick google and a little reading. ( I just checked) Or, of course, you can chose not to look, remain ignorant of them, and accept things in faith. (That is not a disparaging comment, just an observation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henriy Posted October 9, 2013 #937 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Whether it is animal or person has two choices, different choices to the place is not the same, step by heaven, hell step. Animals shall not choose to run in order to survive and foraging, humans too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted October 9, 2013 #938 Share Posted October 9, 2013 LOL yes a good one, but of course god (if the creator of the universe) is a superior order of being and stands separate from the universe. Ben's point is that god "always" existed. That is a belief statement open to too many imponderables for me. How long is always? My logical extrapolation is that god, given its nature, if real and physical, must be an evolved sapient entity and thus MUST have come after the universe began. It is impossible, outside of belief, for a being to exist in sapient form with out learning/evolving the abilities and skills of sapience. Sapience occurs as a result of a long proces of learning. Because i know from contact with "god" that god is physical, real and sapient, then the only logical conclusion I personally am able to come to; is that god, like you and I, is an evolved product of a pre-existing universe. Isn't it just much simpler then to say that Energy has always existed and that 'somehow' Energy manifested into the Universe? And that ...as sapient beings in the Universe, we 'created' the concept of God as a way to explain things about the Universe that we did not understand...and still don't understand? And that because this 'concept of God' was passed down through countless generations from the dawn of Humanity that it is so ingrained in our brains that most don't even ponder whether God even exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #939 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Isn't it just much simpler then to say that Energy has always existed and that 'somehow' Energy manifested into the Universe? And that ...as sapient beings in the Universe, we 'created' the concept of God as a way to explain things about the Universe that we did not understand...and still don't understand? And that because this 'concept of God' was passed down through countless generations from the dawn of Humanity that it is so ingrained in our brains that most don't even ponder whether God even exists? NAturally humans with evolved self aware sapience construct gods (and many other imaginative constructs) This skill is not learned but is an inherent and powerful part of every human brain from birth. It is part of how we see our universe and of the thinking and language skills we posses. BUT that same self aware sapience allows us to recognise, catalogue, and evaluate the wwhole environment around us. It therfore allows us to recognise and perceive gods, just as it allows us to recognise and perceive cats and dogs. So gods come in a number of forms constructs and real entities. This is true for many things in human nature. We even "construct" cats and dogs using imagination. "Mccavity Mccavity a creature of depravity" I know from personal experience that there is a real, powerful and physicla alien being, which humans call god But i also know humans make up and construct all sorts of gods. We all, individually, also perceive real things, including god, through the knowledge and filters available to us as an individual and a member of our society. So the one real god, is not seen perceived or understood by everyone in the same way. This also happens with cats and gods Eg culture and individual perception makes a big difference in how a person sees and interprets/perceives a cat. For some it is a pet, for others lunch, and for some a threat; but given the physical nature of god, it is more exaggerated in "his" case. Ps. I am not at all sure that energy has always existed. Why should that be the case? Once energy existed, then the universe did, but at one point there was nothing, including energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted October 9, 2013 #940 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Now you are contradicting yourself in terms. If non-existence is a contradiction in terms, How could the universe have created itself if it did not exist to create itself? What you don't see is that there is no "before" the beginning of time. The universe creating itself was the beginning of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 9, 2013 #941 Share Posted October 9, 2013 What you don't see is that there is no "before" the beginning of time. The universe creating itself was the beginning of time. This, too, is a logical impossibility. Creation is an action which requires time in which to be enacted. There was no "creation event", there is only eternal existence. Of course, science can find a way around this in BBT by stipulating our 'universe' is not actually all that is (which is oxymoronic because universe means "all that is"), and the "creation" of the expanding region of space in which we live happened within a greater 'universe' which is unknowable to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 9, 2013 #942 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Most Christians don't know that the character of God has evolved over time. And to my interpretation Adam and Eve seemes to be royally duped. They say it was a rebellion against God. I simply can't see that. Perhaps you don't know that God is not subject to evolution. (Isa.46:5) And with regards to Adam and Eve there was no rebellion against God. The whole point was a Catch-22; aka a command to be obeyed by doing the opposite. If by reaching for the tree of knowledge man got knowledge of good and evil, how could the acquisition of knowledge be a sin? It would make no sense to think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted October 9, 2013 #943 Share Posted October 9, 2013 This, too, is a logical impossibility. Creation is an action which requires time in which to be enacted. There was no "creation event", there is only eternal existence. Of course, science can find a way around this in BBT by stipulating our 'universe' is not actually all that is (which is oxymoronic because universe means "all that is"), and the "creation" of the expanding region of space in which we live happened within a greater 'universe' which is unknowable to us. There is no need for time to extend backward forever. That is a psychological, not a logical, demand. A beginning of time is in fact a logical necessity for there to be a "now," as without a beginning, "now" could never be reached.Every time this subject comes up I am met by a wall of incomprehension, something I just do not understand. I think it comes from thinking of infinity as a number, which it ain't. The creation of the universe as we know it, the "Big Bang" may or may not coincide with the beginning of time -- that we don't know -- but there is no question logically that time had to have a finite beginning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 9, 2013 #944 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) There is no need for time to extend backward forever. That is a psychological, not a logical, demand. A beginning of time is in fact a logical necessity for there to be a "now," as without a beginning, "now" could never be reached. Every time this subject comes up I am met by a wall of incomprehension, something I just do not understand. I think it comes from thinking of infinity as a number, which it ain't. The creation of the universe as we know it, the "Big Bang" may or may not coincide with the beginning of time -- that we don't know -- but there is no question logically that time had to have a finite beginning. See, I would suggest the need to impress a 'beginning' upon time was the psychological demand. That seems apparent when you appeal to your sense of 'self-time' in your argument regarding why there is a "now". There is no logicality to inventing a 'beginning' to time, unless you are only speaking of time as a local phenomenon. But we are talking in universals here, so locality does not apply. Edited October 9, 2013 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #945 Share Posted October 9, 2013 See, I would suggest the need to impress a 'beginning' upon time was the psychological demand. That seems apparent when you appeal to your sense of 'self-time' in your argument regarding why there is a "now". There is no logicality to inventing a 'beginning' to time, unless you are only speaking of time as a local phenomenon. But we are talking in universals here, so locality does not apply. Scientifically time did not exist if you go back to a certain point Time BEGAN only when other physical changes happened and when the universe became something, I suppose this is the sceintific reasoning because basically, time is something which only exists when measurable against external events, Ie the definition of time existing/passing is connected to change. Where thee is nothing to change and no change happens, then time does not exist. This could be a state of affairs for a short "time" or for "eternity"Both would be identical periods of "non time" with no internal or external observers/measurers or any physical indicators of change to define time. Let us suppose that your self awareness existed, alone, in such a non time period. You ceased to exist at one point and then came back into existence at some other point. Because there are no indicators of time outside your self and you cannot be aware of the time which has /has not passed, that period could be second or a trilllion years. The two periods are identical for all physical purposes. Neither you nor your conscioussness nor anything else in the universe has altered in the tiniest measurable degree. Time has stood still, or rather, has ceased to exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 9, 2013 #946 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Just about anything can be a god, if you let it. Money, drugs, women, internet, forums, just about anything. Many many many god. Some of them can destroy your life if you let them. And the BB which no one knows why it happened and what for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #947 Share Posted October 9, 2013 And the BB which no one knows why it happened and what for. It had no purpose. Why did it require one? it was not self aware.****e happens. Big bangs happen. Same principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 9, 2013 #948 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) It had no purpose. Why did it require one? it was not self aware. ****e happens. Big bangs happen. Same principle. Well, George Lemaitre said in 1922 that it happened to prove the biblical account that the universe had a beginning. IMHO, it did not have to. Logic had already supplied the proofs by demonstrating that matter could not always have existed without a beginning. Edited October 9, 2013 by Ben Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 9, 2013 #949 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Scientifically time did not exist... With all due respect, MW, basing my opinion on previous examples of your scientific knowledge, I do not grant you authority to determine what science has to say regarding time. Where thee is nothing to change and no change happens, then time does not exist. This could be a state of affairs for a short "time" or for "eternity". Time is the rate of change, which implies time is also the duration between changes. When nothing changes, time is still in existence - this is merely the duration between changes. Time exists even in the duration between changes. Either change happens - whenever that happens - and time exists, or no change ever happens - in which case there is no universe. Simply put, there is no universe (and no "creation of universe") without time, and there is no time without universe. Both time and universe are perspectives of the same, eternal, reality. Edited October 9, 2013 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 9, 2013 #950 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) With all due respect, MW, basing my opinion on previous examples of your scientific knowledge, I do not grant you authority to determine what science has to say regarding time. Time is the rate of change, which implies time is also the duration between changes. When nothing changes, time is still in existence - this is merely the duration between changes. Time exists even in the duration between changes. Either change happens - whenever that happens - and time exists, or no change ever happens - in which case there is no universe. Simply put, there is no universe (and no "creation of universe") without time, and there is no time without universe. Both time and universe are perspectives of the same, eternal, reality. Well that is precisely what i said. There was no universe, and thus there was no time, because time is a consequence of a universe in which change occurs. It is not me defining this. I am just using material from scientific articles. When i said no change occured, I meant that no change occured, at all /ever, for all that non time (Although ever is also a term loaded with time) Then energy, matter, space, time, etc all suddenly started up. No universe (no anything) / no time; then universe (everything, or at least some thing)/time. Purely, a natural and spontaneous event, but "driven" by the relative nature of "nothingness" versus "somethingness". I hate to admit it but I am with hawking on this one. In his own words, prior to the big bang time did not exist. Edited October 9, 2013 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now