Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
markdohle

Can something come from 'nothing'

38 posts in this topic

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God creates something out of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God creates something out of nothing.

Yes true, but God has no cause.

Peace

Mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "nothing".

That is an impossibility. We only call something a nothing because it holds no relevance to us.

We call space full of "nothing" simply because it doesn't harbor anything that is of immediate use or relevance to our situations.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question! One that has many scratching their heads to this day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is in fact something.

Edited by ozman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as nothing. There has always been something. The question remains how organized that eternal something is. Could it be concious? Could it be intelligent? After all, it has an eternity to evolve. It only took life on earth 4 billion years to evolve sentience. Imagine what evolution might be capable of with 10^2000 billion years.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing means No + Thing.

God says "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon no thing."

It is past out understanding how something can be made from nothing.

Only God can make something out of nothing and that with only words from His mouth.

Way to go!!! That's my God!!!

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing means No + Thing.

God says "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon no thing."

It is past out understanding how something can be made from nothing.

Only God can make something out of nothing and that with only words from His mouth.

Way to go!!! That's my God!!!

God bless.

And The Flying Spaghetti Monster created your God out of nothing, Way to go!!!! That´s my Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!

Monster bless.

</sarcasm>

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing can't exist, and if something is therefore an imperative, and since there's a zillion different constructs for the something to exist as, why is the something that exists (our universe) constructed the way it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And The Flying Spaghetti Monster created your God out of nothing, Way to go!!!! That´s my Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!

Monster bless.

</sarcasm>

Nope, thats the devil making you beleive that the spaghetti monster is real... and you listen... Poor you :(

<sarcasm>

<Hehe>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call it God, I call it Nature. The more we look at things the more we see that common sense is not applicable to the universe.

Whether there was a conscious or unconsious process at the start is frankly unknowable.

Edited by Cradle of Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, such questions can drive a person insane.

I think I'll have another beer...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's my humble thoughts...

- We exist and are within "something" That's self-evident.

- Yet, pure "nothingness" is perfect, as it continually validates itself, requiring nothing more to continue in that state.

- The fact is, though, there IS "somethingness" Again, that's self-evident.

- For "something" to come out of pure "nothing" makes no sense at all.

- I think, therefore, that there has always been and will always be "something"

Apart from those conjectures I'm totally clueless.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that our thinking is surrounded by all kinds of boxes that limit our ability to conceive things. This derives largely from our experiences when we are babies and learning the physics we need to know to avoid injury (such as "down" is dangerous, as is fire).

Almost everyone sometime around third grade goes through a period of wondering about people on the other side of the globe falling off.

One of the strongest lessons we learn as babies is causation -- that very very often when A happens it is always followed by B. Stick your finger in a fire (A) and it burns (B). It takes a great deal of unlearning to know that this is not always the case and that two events happening one after the other, even over and over and over, does not necessarily imply any kind of causation (hence medical science requires placebo and double-blind tests and statistical analysis).

Hume made it clear, with close analysis of cases where causation seems undeniable, that the situation is really much more complicated, and that what you tend to have when you look at such things closely is an infinite regression of smaller and smaller associations that in the aggregate add up to what we perceive as causation. He made it clear that what we call "causation" is a mental conclusion we draw when events seem to be tied to each other, but that we are not to draw any certainty that the next time we try it will happen again -- only that it probably will happen again.

That the universe had a beginning in time (that is, has not always existed) seems mathematically necessary (how did the universe get from infinitely far away to here?) and that this beginning was utterly uncaused is inescapable. (Assuming a creator existing from infinity solves nothing).

There is a tendency to want to think of the beginning of time as happening in some sort of "super-time." That would not be correct. There is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time any more than there is a "north" of the North Pole. There is no eternity to worry about -- the beginning of time is the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can something come from 'nothing'"?

Of course! Our soul or spirit or "presence" is not a thing.

Edited by braveone2u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God creates something out of nothing.

Yes true, but God has no cause.

Peace

Mark

Actually, would it be more accurate to say that God is the Cause and all of his creation is the effect? God didn't make something out of nothing, he created something from himself without him, the creation could not occur, so there was indeed a cause and something.

What is truly mind boggling is the manifestation of the first "thing". God is also a "thing", if something cannot come out of nothing then where the heck did God spring from.

If there is no God and something cannot come out of nothing, then where the heck did the Universe spring from?

The same principle argument that works for atheists and theists alike from what I can see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, would it be more accurate to say that God is the Cause and all of his creation is the effect? God didn't make something out of nothing, he created something from himself without him, the creation could not occur, so there was indeed a cause and something.

What is truly mind boggling is the manifestation of the first "thing". God is also a "thing", if something cannot come out of nothing then where the heck did God spring from.

If there is no God and something cannot come out of nothing, then where the heck did the Universe spring from?

The same principle argument that works for atheists and theists alike from what I can see.

Hi libstak,

You said it: "What is truly mind boggling is the manifestation of the first 'thing.'" One's "awareness" (a thinking process which goes on after the physical body dies) has to be "programmed" or confused or given a choice to know or even believe that a "thing" (a concept that can be measured) is validly eternal or vice versa. For example, I choose to accept that things(?) are real, even though in reality, they are ephemeral and changing on earth. It's really the reason why I am a Christian because Jesus Christ offers what I want...which is the promise of paradise, a perfected reality of things(?) or "program." I want to be in a world of perfected moments with all of my senses intact. I certainly would not want to be in the Void, a reality of NO THING. Thankfully, we have the Blessed Trinity as a choice. True, in my belief system, both are valid: the perfected world of things versus the perfected world of no thing (via Nirvana). God the Father equals no thing. God the Son equals paradise/heaven (perfect world of "things" or program). Holy Spirit is right here, now, on earth, seen and unseen within the universe.

I've done the Void. Again, I want paradise -- this time. There is definitely God (without a single doubt in my being), but that's for an individual to find out. From what I've gathered, it's really not a black or white thing. God knows what's really in a person's heart, one's sincere desire. There is no right or wrong "home." It just happens that I'm not wild about merging with God. I love the idea of being with God via Jesus Christ. Third choice is back here again... (Yeah, dot dot dot)

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Lane Craig is correct. It would be more appropriate to say that "matter can come from energy". Which we've already know since Einsteins theories were proven correct. I was guilty of using the virtual particle argument; it seemed so intuitive, "nature abhors a vacuum".

Still, the fact that matter can come out of non-matter, and vice versa is simply amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that our thinking is surrounded by all kinds of boxes that limit our ability to conceive things. This derives largely from our experiences when we are babies and learning the physics we need to know to avoid injury (such as "down" is dangerous, as is fire).

Almost everyone sometime around third grade goes through a period of wondering about people on the other side of the globe falling off.

One of the strongest lessons we learn as babies is causation -- that very very often when A happens it is always followed by B. Stick your finger in a fire (A) and it burns (B). It takes a great deal of unlearning to know that this is not always the case and that two events happening one after the other, even over and over and over, does not necessarily imply any kind of causation (hence medical science requires placebo and double-blind tests and statistical analysis).

Hume made it clear, with close analysis of cases where causation seems undeniable, that the situation is really much more complicated, and that what you tend to have when you look at such things closely is an infinite regression of smaller and smaller associations that in the aggregate add up to what we perceive as causation. He made it clear that what we call "causation" is a mental conclusion we draw when events seem to be tied to each other, but that we are not to draw any certainty that the next time we try it will happen again -- only that it probably will happen again.

That the universe had a beginning in time (that is, has not always existed) seems mathematically necessary (how did the universe get from infinitely far away to here?) and that this beginning was utterly uncaused is inescapable. (Assuming a creator existing from infinity solves nothing).

There is a tendency to want to think of the beginning of time as happening in some sort of "super-time." That would not be correct. There is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time any more than there is a "north" of the North Pole. There is no eternity to worry about -- the beginning of time is the beginning.

I totally disagree. The paradox of Infinite regression is a nice idea.... That's it. Time and time again nature prooves to us that it will not be confined to our ideas. Just because we think something is paradoxal dosnt mean that it actually is.

Also time. Human beings in our ever present drive to quantify and categorize need to see time as a thing and assign attributes to it because we beleive we precieve it. We don't. "Time" is merely a label we assign to perceived change. We search for beginnings and endings because we have beginnings or endings. In truth there is no such thing. There is only change and fluctuation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was nothing before, then something had to have changed nothing so that it could be something. This means that there never was any nothing to begin with. :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was nothing before, then something had to have changed nothing so that it could be something. This means that there never was any nothing to begin with. :D

That's the box you are in. I guess almost everyone is in it, the idea that everything has a cause, even though both philosophy and physics long ago left it behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the box you are in. I guess almost everyone is in it, the idea that everything has a cause, even though both philosophy and physics long ago left it behind.

Which philosophy? And in no way did physics leave it behind. I would ask how you came up with that one? There is no cause in infinity possibly cycles or tangled hierarchies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was nothing before, then something had to have changed nothing so that it could be something. This means that there never was any nothing to begin with. :D

Oh this can get so crazy. How can there never have been nothing? The first instance of something had to occur at some point *gets another drink*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the herd.

Why do some of you insist that ontology and metaphysics can be argued from literature? That's kinda like arguing for spiderman's ontological existence from a film.

Second, ALL biblical schoars are in agreement that both the Hebrew, especially the Hebrew, and the content of Genesis 1 IS NOT a creation ex nihilo

(a creation out of nothing). Before creation commences we are told that the earth was formless and void (tohu wabohu). We are also informed that the waters and the deep were present (1:2).

Lastly, this text tells us NOTHING about the ontological world, but rather about the way the author, his community, and their worldview, perceived the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.