1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    17 Jan '07 19:093 edits
    For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

    1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?

    2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that completely excluded the possibility of existence? If so would that be more of a nothingness than the nothingness that (somehow) existence emerged from?

    3) Is potentiality a thing and what does this word mean? Can it really make any sense in an absolute void of nothingness? If an absolute void is by definition devoid of any potentiality or possibilities how can the universe be possible? Is a void of nothingness with no potential at all different from a void in which a potential universe can emerge?

    4) Do you imagine that there was a "time" when there was absolutely nothing at all and then "later" came the existence of the universe? The Big Bang strongly suggests an event of some sort , which in turn would suggest a sequence or some sort or progression from non-existence to existence. Life is at state A (nothingness) and then at state B - (Universe existing). There is change from one state to another (if one may call nothing a state). But if this is not the case then the Universe must have always existed from nothing and must eternally exist or be coming from nothing. If this is true then there can never have been a time when there was "nothing" because the Universe was always there contaminating nothingness with somethingness which contradicts the idea of nothing anyway.
    Do we need time for something to happen and can the emergence of the Universe from nothing be regarded as a "happening".If it did happen then it must have happened timelessly because time cannot exist in nothingness. But if this is true and it happened timelessly then it must have always been happening for eternity or not happened at all.(?) We could say that the Universe is eternal itself but then we admit existence is eternal. If it's not eternal then there must have been two states nothingness and somethingness (the universe) . But how do we move from one state to another without there being any time for it to happen in? What happens at the interface between nothingness and somethingness ? Does time stand still ? Is it timeless? And if it does doesn't that mean something from nothingness is happening eternally? Nothingness must be a temporary state in order for the universe to be there.

    5) Can anyone help me get life?

    6) Item 7 will be my absolute definition of nothing.



    8) So have you nothing to say , or does this really make ratrional sense? At least with eternal existence one would have a chance of something existing. Eternity may be mysterious but it sounds more rational to me. The idea of the eternity of existence(forget God for a minute) seems more logical to me because you don't have the same problem. You don't have to explain how something can "come into being" from nothing or how absolute non-existence can stop non-existing and exist. You don't have an effect without a cause because there is no effect. Effects have beginnings whereas eternity has no beginning.No cause is needed because only effects have causes. You do have the other question of "how can something never have had no existence" or "how can something have no beginning (at all)" . This is also a mystery , but one theory has a unity to it and the other seems disjointed to me.

    Here's why...

    I can just about imagine non-existence just non-existing and there being no existence whatsoever. To me if nothing exists then nothing ever will exist , or would have existed.
    I can also imagine existence always existing and never not existing and existence being eternal . What I find much harder is the two states co-existing , ie there being non-existence and existence from nothing. This implies the presence of non existence and existence alongside each other. And also suggests some potentiality in non-existence for existence to come to exist (otherwise why not just carry on non existing?) Which of course contaminates the absoluteness of nothingness.

    At least with eternal existence you have something to play with and something for the universe to emerge from ( or maybe the universe is eternally exploding and contracting?) , but with non-existence you have nothing , not even potentiality. This seems the least likely and logical.

    So we take our pick.
    Either existence happens for absolutely no reason from non- existence . Or existence has just always been there , there was no "happening from nothing" because there never was a "time" when existence didn't exist. Finite existence emerges from infinite existence , rather than existence emerging from non existence. And science has nothing to say really because there's no proof either way , so we just choose. They are both mysterious but one seems more of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
  2. Joined
    16 Sep '06
    Moves
    1631
    17 Jan '07 19:27
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

    1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?

    2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that ...[text shortened]... of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
    humans just need to believe theres a begining and an end, were born we die so the universe had to be born..or created and it will eventually die.. its hard to imagine nothing in the material sence but when considering things as small as the atom or as large as a sun it pust things into perspective..there was never nothing...thats impossible there wil always be somthing..even when the sun heaves its last breath and destroys much of our known universe there still remains the left over matter light or dark...it dosent matter
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    17 Jan '07 19:33
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

    1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?

    2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that ...[text shortened]... of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
    Thread number infinity with the same ole crap.
  4. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    17 Jan '07 19:392 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Thread number infinity with the same ole crap.
    How appropriate that on a thread on the substance of nothing that , as usual , you contribute with nothing of any great substance. I still believe in your potentiality however.
  5. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110786
    17 Jan '07 19:44
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing...
    Who'd be crazy enough to believe that?
  6. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    17 Jan '07 22:07
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Who'd be crazy enough to believe that?
    Scottishnz for one , plus quite a few Atheists I imagine. I presume you must believe in some form of eternity then?
  7. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    17 Jan '07 22:43
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Scottishnz for one , plus quite a few Atheists I imagine. I presume you must believe in some form of eternity then?
    You're right: it's crazy.

    As crazy as the assumption that God could somehow be the reason for His own existence.
  8. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110786
    17 Jan '07 22:591 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Scottishnz for one , plus quite a few Atheists I imagine. I presume you must believe in some form of eternity then?
    I've read his posts. Are you quite sure about his belief system?

    Edit: Upon reflection, there are some who indeed subscribe to this crazy belief.

    "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
  9. Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    18452
    18 Jan '07 00:102 edits
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    plus quite a few Atheists I imagine.
    Who says there was nothing?

    The universe always was, always is, and always will be.

    Even if it is recycled (the theoretical "Big Crunch" ), it will still be.
  10. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    18 Jan '07 00:32
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    For those of you who believe the universe came from nothing I have a few questions....

    1) Why did nothingness and non-existence not just continue in nothingness? Is there something about nothingness which makes existence probable/possible?

    2) Is there more than one type of nothingness? Would it have been possible to have had a nothingness that ...[text shortened]... of a unified rational mystery to me. The other just seems illogical.
    You misunderstand and/or misrepresent scientific, rational and atheist positions.
    We don't start with the assumption that the universe came from nothing. You're right, that seems patently absurd. Rather we look at what exists now and formulate possible explanations for the current situation. The current big bang cosmology is one such possible explanation. A supernatural creation is another.
    Now we have some alternatie explanations we figure out which ones are logically defensible, which ones fit the data best, which ones produce the most accurate predictions, and which are the simplest without the need for lots of assumptions.
    If the one we decide is the best happens to have some unfortunate and strange consequences - such as universe from nothing say - well we can reject it and look for another, or try to understand what this means and how it might work.

    Rejection is not something scientists have chosen. Instead they've attempted to understand how this might work.
    Perhaps instead of making up some pathetic diatribe you could examine what cosmologists and nuclear physicists on teh cutting edge have been doing. It's really very interesting.
  11. Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    18452
    18 Jan '07 00:39
    Originally posted by amannion
    You misunderstand and/or misrepresent scientific, rational and atheist positions.
    We don't start with the assumption that the universe came from nothing. You're right, that seems patently absurd. Rather we look at what exists now and formulate possible explanations for the current situation. The current big bang cosmology is one such possible explanation. ...[text shortened]... ts and nuclear physicists on teh cutting edge have been doing. It's really very interesting.
    Great answer!
  12. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    18 Jan '07 08:58
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    You're right: it's crazy.

    As crazy as the assumption that God could somehow be the reason for His own existence.
    No , God is not the reason for his own existence because you are assuming that God "came into " existence. It would be the same with anything eternal that has no beginning , the eternal thing has always been. This is crazy but it is LESS crazy than something from nothing because with something eternal it's MUCH easier to imagine existence existing and the Universe emerging from this eternal existence than it is to imagine the Universe emerging from nothingness. In short , the one thing we DO know for sure is the the Universe (and existence) exists and we know that it doesn't not exist. Therefore existence being eternal seems more likely because you don't have the crazy problem of something from nothing , you just have the mystery of a completely different type of exitence : eternal existence.
  13. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    18 Jan '07 09:04
    Originally posted by amannion
    You misunderstand and/or misrepresent scientific, rational and atheist positions.
    We don't start with the assumption that the universe came from nothing. You're right, that seems patently absurd. Rather we look at what exists now and formulate possible explanations for the current situation. The current big bang cosmology is one such possible explanation. ...[text shortened]... ts and nuclear physicists on teh cutting edge have been doing. It's really very interesting.
    I've looked into quark-gluon plasmas and the like and I love Briane Greene and string theory. However , I'm not interested in explaining the existence of the Universe as such. That's more a scientific question . The metaphysical and philosophical question of the idea of non-existence is more interesting because you soon start to see a logical paradox emerging. The scientific definition of nothing can be different from the philosophical absolute defintion of nothing. No scientist has ever proved absolutely they have seen anything come out of nothing for no reason.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Jan '07 09:43
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    So we take our pick.
    Either existence happens for absolutely no reason from non- existence . Or existence has just always been there , there was no "happening from nothing" because there never was a "time" when existence didn't exist.
    And here lies the strawman. The claim that time is external to the universe.

    Your whole argument assumes without reason that time and space exist externally to the universe. Even your concept of 'nothing' assumes this.

    I personally do not believe that "the Universe came from Nothing" and I suspect that Scottishnz doesn't either contrary to your claim.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    18 Jan '07 13:532 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And here lies the strawman. The claim that time is external to the universe.

    Your whole argument assumes without reason that time and space exist externally to the universe. Even your concept of 'nothing' assumes this.

    I personally do not believe that "the Universe came from Nothing" and I suspect that Scottishnz doesn't either contrary to your claim.
    Time is merely a dimension of the material universe. Thus you could potentially have an existence by a being that did not come from a material universe in which the concept of time was never associated. Then you could have that being create a material universe in which time was birthed as a deminsion into it. Time merely measures point A from point B. Therefore, the nonexistence of point A I think is unlikely if not impossible.

    In terms of science, they can and will only be able to look as far back as the beginning of the Big Bang. Nothing can be seen prior thus anything beforehand is and will AWLAYS be pure conjecture in terms of science. Therefore, prior to the Big Band I say pick a belief system that suits you with speculations along side of that belief systems to help build your faith.
Back to Top