1 edit
Humans exist in a linear time-frame and are subject to the physical rules of our material universe so it´s very difficult for us to imagine what existed before the universe or what exists now outside of it. Just because we can´t imagine what it would be like doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist but it certainly makes it harder for us to understand (if it exists at all).
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour whole argument assumes without reason that time and space exist externally to the universe. Even your concept of 'nothing' assumes this. 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.
My concept of nothing is this .... absolutely nothing....that is why I chose not to even put the number 7 there in my defintion. I have only used time based words to describe nothing as a state but in reality , of course , it is nothing , no time , no matter , no potentiality , no nothing.
So if you , like me , agree that something cannot logically emerge from nothing , you must therefore think the eternity or permanence
of existence more likely and logical then. I see no other logical possibility for you. And I know Scottishnz does not believe in eternity , so he must by definition and implication believe in eternity then? I wouldn't worry too much . He will be along soon enough.
Originally posted by nige22Yes but some things are harder to understand than others. Something finite from something eternal is easier than something from nothing at all.
Humans exist in a linear time-frame and are subject to the physical rules of our material universe so it´s very difficult for us to imagine what existed before the universe or what exists now outside of it. Just because we can´t imagine what it would be like doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist but it certainly makes it harder for us to understand (if it exists at all).
Originally posted by whodeyHowever , do you not agree with the logic that says if there really was nothing then nothing would just carry on in nothingness. Why would anything happen at all? Therefore , because there is something (the universe) it suggests that there has always been something (eternity). Does not logic dictate that it be one or the other but not both since the idea of absolute nothingness directly contradicts the existence of something (us)?
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. The ...[text shortened]... tem that suits you with speculations along side of that belief systems to help build your faith.
Originally posted by BowmannI think I would find even that more plausible than something from nothing
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened...
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem...or rather nothing 0 eternal something 1 ?
knightmeister 1, strawman 0
Tell me , why is it a straw man? How can I have misrepresented nothing? There can only be one kind of nothing and that's....erhum....well nothing...nought , zilch , zero , null , void , empty , non existent . Anything more than this would have to be something and something is not nothing. Do you have another version of nothing from which something can come. If you don't then you must believe in eternity. Its like zero . There's only one zero. And 0+0+0+0= 0 . It doesn't matter what you do with zero it still gives you zero! That's how I think nothing would be ...nothing could possibly come from it! Nothing gives birth to nothing. This is why eternal existence is more plausible because you have something all along.
If I have the strawman , give me the real one instead.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI believe this is where you're going wrong. Man does not understand the nature of nothingness.
Tell me , why is it a straw man? How can I have misrepresented nothing? There can only be one kind of nothing and that's....erhum....well nothing...nought , zilch , zero , null , void , empty , non existent . Anything more than this would have to be something and something is not nothing. Do you have another version of nothing from which something can ...[text shortened]... hing. This is why eternal existence is more plausible because you have something all along.
Does a void exist? Could the universe not exist? What, indeed, is existence?
Originally posted by BowmannWhat do you mean by the "nature" of nothingness. Nothingness has no nature , because it's....ehem...not there. Infact I find it easy to understand because you just refuse to allow anything to exist in it. This is why I find all this quantum talk about "vacuums of nothing" which have the "potentiality" for virtual particles. It sounds like something to me , not the real nothing I'm talking about.
I believe this is where you're going wrong. Man does not understand the nature of nothingness.
Does a void exist? Could the universe not exist? What, indeed, is existence?
It's not about understanding nothing it's about avoiding the logical contradiction of something from nothing. It can't happen logically and yet many Atheists seem to believe it miraculously. I know full well what nothing implies and means , that's why I think something from nothing is highly unlikely.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWrong. It's all about understanding.
It's not about understanding nothing it's about avoiding the logical contradiction of something from nothing.
Quantum physics aside, man may never be able to comprehend what you struggle to comprehend. We assume there is either something, everything, or nothing.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThen you had better demonstrate that a core of modern cosmology is something coming from the "real nothing" you're talking about, otherwise you're just blowing smoke and none of us have any obligation to defend this proposition that appears to only exist in your head.
What do you mean by the "nature" of nothingness. Nothingness has no nature , because it's....ehem...not there. Infact I find it easy to understand because you just refuse to allow anything to exist in it. This is why I find all this quantum talk about "vacuums of nothing" which have the "potentiality" for virtual particles. It sounds like something to me , not the real nothing I'm talking about.
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterEternity is an abstract concept. For us, it cannot be measured or fathomed but used only as a word to define a concept. How then can we demand it exists?
However , do you not agree with the logic that says if there really was nothing then nothing would just carry on in nothingness. Why would anything happen at all? Therefore , because there is something (the universe) it suggests that there has always been something (eternity). Does not logic dictate that it be one or the other but not both since the idea of absolute nothingness directly contradicts the existence of something (us)?
When I think of eternity, time is involed. However, when I think of God, I think of a being who created time itself. The concept of time eternal is derived from people like us who only know what existence is like within the material universe and who try to imagine the material universe continuing for ever or having never started to begin with. Thus we are not free to speculate what an existence could be like or if it is possible outside the realm of the material universe and the confines of time such as the one God may have come from.
Having said all of that I think there are only two possibilites. The first is that the material universe is eternal. The other possibility is that the material universe is derived from a nonmaterial like demension where time was or still is nonexistent. Lets assume the later by saying we came from a deminsion from which time is nonexistent. Can this existence be declared eternal without time being involved? No it cannot, or at least in terms of how we define eternity. The problem is that just as the concept of eternity is abstract and unfathomable, so is the concept of an existence outside the realm of the material universe and the subsequent deminsion of time that is attached to that material existence.
As far as science is concerned, the data seems to point to time and the material universe having a beginning. I think this would suggest that the material universe may have all been derived from a nonmaterial existence via the Big Bang or that matter is, in itself, eternal and was merely going through a cycle of some kind via the Big Bang. The paradox is once again that the correct solution must come from one of two abstract concepts that appear to be both incorrect on the surface or at least unfathomable. These two concepts are that we the live in an eternal material universe or that the material universe was birthed form a nonmaterial eternal like existence that was devoid of time. As I said before, science can look as far back as the Big Bang but no further. It is like a door that has been opened through which no one can see past. The rest is up to your imagination and/or your belief system.
Edit: Just kidding, I really believe that nothingness plus nothingness equals somethingness. I think science will back me up on that one. 😛