The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm back...

What do you think of this proposition?

Both the idea of something from nothing and eternal existence logically imply that either the universe is uncaused or eternal existence is uncaused.

a)Eternal existence has to be uncaused because it has by definition no beginning and therefore was not caused to be by anything because it alwa t both models contain this element of something uncaused.

I guess you would agree?

I hold to the opinion that something from nothing is a contradiction.

I severely dislike the idea of time not existing before the big bang...not only is it absurd with respect to the question of what made the clock start ticking (as it were), it also helps assign to time some properties that I outright reject...(that you can stop it, exist outside of it (urghhh), travel backwards through it, see into the future etc...)

causation of a first cause is a contradiction because you then have to resolve that cause too. Any convenient and easy definitions for God's *neccessary uncaused* nature begs the question: If you don't mind God being eternal and uncaused...whats your problem with the universe being eternal, necessary, and uncaused?

Basically I hold to the view that the universe always has and always will exist (such that it could not have been caused)...how it existed before the big bang and how it will exist once we are long dead and gone is anyone's guess...there are a few scenarios to choose from: big freeze, big rip, big crunch along with others...I doubt my studies will take me to the point were I could actually have any real insight into this problem, and with that I'm just content to state I'll never know!

Again...though grudgingly I'm willing to accept that there is perhaps some way that the existance of an eternal FSM/magic pot/holy hobgoblin... and eternal universe co-existing cannot be ruled out, I have zero faith in it.

Originally posted by Agerg
I hold to the opinion that something from nothing is a contradiction.

I severely dislike the idea of time not existing before the big bang...not only is it absurd with respect to the question of what made the clock start ticking (as it were), it also helps assign to time some properties that I outright reject...(that you can stop it, exist outside of it (ur ...[text shortened]... obgoblin... and eternal universe co-existing cannot be ruled out, I have zero faith in it.

Again...though grudgingly I'm willing to accept that there is perhaps some way that the existance of an eternal FSM/magic pot/holy hobgoblin... and eternal universe co-existing cannot be ruled out, I have zero faith in it. AGERG

I admire your intellectual honesty . The option you reluctantly said could not rule out involved two things that were eternal. However , I wondered why you found that more likely than one eternal thing and one temporary thing (universe)?

Originally posted by knightmeister

My experience has been that Atheists have got hooked on this idea of something from nothing because they see it as an argument against God.

Which Atheist do you know who has made such a claim?

Originally posted by knightmeister
No offence taken my friend . I respect you greatly as a debator. You are at least able to get this far. With other posters I've found they were still stuck at the "but there was no before the universe because there was no time before the universe" stage.

Maybe it is you that is stuck with the "there was time before the universe" stage.
Let us for a moment look at time as a dimension. Supose the universe is made up of 4 dimensions, 3 space dimensions and one time dimension.
Now, are the three space dimensions infinite? If you travel in a straight line will you never run out of space? If so how did infinite space come out from a single point? (the big bang)
If space is not infinite then what is on the other side of the edge? Is that a paradox? If not then why is it a paradox for time to not have an edge but still be finite?

Originally posted by knightmeister
In light of the incredible, eternal God who created everything just right in
a snap of six days, STOCKEN


This belief is only put forward by super fundies and unintelligent Christians , but it is not a neccesary form of belief in God . Also , one can also believe in an eternal uncaused cause that could be very diffferent from the christian God a ...[text shortened]... d to resort to this something from nothing nonsense unless you prefer to run away from strawmen.

But something from nothing makes more sense than any other story I've
heard or been able to conjure up. It's obvious. You have to always ask
yourself what was before, if you don't accept an eternal God or universe
(which I don't). But if your answer is nothing, then shazam! problem solved.
Of course! There was nothing! Now, I know how it all works. Thank you.
Good night.

I avoid complication. Now, let's gather all the brightest scientists of
the world to try and figure out how everything can come out of nothing.
That's beyond my understanding, for sure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe it is you that is stuck with the "there was time before the universe" stage.
Let us for a moment look at time as a dimension. Supose the universe is made up of 4 dimensions, 3 space dimensions and one time dimension.
Now, are the three space dimensions infinite? If you travel in a straight line will you never run out of space? If so how did infini ...[text shortened]... t a paradox? If not then why is it a paradox for time to not have an edge but still be finite?

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with time being finite . I speculate that time may not even exist in reality since time is not an object or thing. I absolutely agree that time is the fourth dimension of the universe and I have argued for hours with AGERG on this , but being a 4th dimension does not prove time is substantive , just as a centimetre is a unit of measurement but you try putting a centimetre under a microscope!! The idea of time as a "real" thing may just be a form of reification. Time is also not proven to be a force like gravity or electro magnetism. For me eternity is not made of "time" since time is not a substance or a thing or a force , therefore eternity can exist quite easily independent of time altogether even though our perception of it might be that it must be associated with 'time' in some way.

The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"

Originally posted by stocken
But something from nothing makes more sense than any other story I've
heard or been able to conjure up. It's obvious. You have to always ask
yourself what was before, if you don't accept an eternal God or universe
(which I don't). But if your answer is nothing, then shazam! problem solved.
Of course! There was nothing! Now, I know how it all w ...[text shortened]... /i] everything can come out of nothing.
That's beyond my understanding, for sure.

But if your answer is nothing, then shazam! problem solved.
Of course! There was nothing! Now, I know how it all works.


.....which is of course logically contradictory because you need to have something there to understand how it works. It seems you prefer tidy problem solving to mystery?

Originally posted by knightmeister
For me eternity is not made of "time" since time is not a substance or a thing or a force , therefore eternity can exist quite easily independent of time altogether even though our perception of it might be that it must be associated with 'time' in some way.

So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Causality is not independent of time. If time is finite (in the past direction or somehow circular) then there is no 'emerging' involved and hence no 'nothing'. If time is infinite then there is still no 'emerging' involved and hence no 'nothing'. So in order for the universe to 'emerge' from 'nothing' it is necessary to make the claim that time is external to the universe.
You still haven't explained what you think about the 'nothing' that must exist beyond the end of the three space dimensions for surely if you claim that there is something (God or whatever) beyond the end then it must be measurable for it to exist (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...you need to have something there to understand how it works.

?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

[b]The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Causality is not i t (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all.[/b]

What on earth does "causality is not independent of time" mean? Both causality and time are both most likely concepts that exist in the mind (unless you can identify which particles or quantum energy they might be constituted of?) . You need to get out of the realm of concepts and into the world of substantive existence. Particles , energy , forces , gases etc. The universe is not made of 4 dimensions nor is it made of "causality" OR "time". It IS made of STUFF , atoms and quantum particles.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

[b]The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Causality is not i ...[text shortened]... t (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all.[/b]

So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

Yes , absolutely , it must have substance otherwise it would not exist. However , it is unlikely to be of the same quality/catagory of substance as anything in this universe because eternity is uncaused and not contingent on anything. It it exists in any kind of 3d space as we understand it it would be unlimited "space" in all directions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

[b]The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Causality is not i ...[text shortened]... t (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all.[/b]

So in order for the universe to 'emerge' from 'nothing' it is necessary to make the claim that time is external to the universe.

.....Do you make this claim? I certainly don't . I actually think that whatever phrase one uses to describe the S from N idea is contradictory and illogical , which is why I don't believe it to be true and go for the only other logical solution available that existence is eternal not temporary. I only use these phrases because they are the only phrases I've got. Whatever words you use you are done for with S from N because the whole idea is so silly anyway.

You don't think I actually believe S from N do you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So this 'eternity' thing has substance?

[b]The issue my friend is one of causality and not time. The paradox is not "What happened before the universe?" but " Why does a universe emerge from (absolute) nothing? What substance caused it ? but if nothing contains no substance by defintion , how can the universe be caused to be?"
Causality is not i ...[text shortened]... t (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all.[/b]

You still haven't explained what you think about the 'nothing' that must exist beyond the end of the three space dimensions for surely if you claim that there is something (God or whatever) beyond the end then it must be measurable for it to exist (taking up space) and hence it is not beyond the space dimensions at all. WHITEHEAD

I see where you are going ...you are saying that

1. in order for something to exist it must exist in 3d space (as we know it)

2 . If something exists outside the universe it must exist in 3d space

3. 3d space is finite , therefore God or whatever must be finite.

Unfortunately , I can challenge 1 by positing that space is created by the thing itself . You have reified space into a substantive thing. Space is dependent on substance not the other way round . The space of the universe is expanding because it is dependent on the substance within the universe expanding. It does not expand "into" space , it creates space.The universe IS space literally and if universe is finite , it occupies a finite space...thus if God or whatever is infinite and eternal it occupies an eternal , infinite space. Once again you fail to distinguish between concepts and objects.

Originally posted by knightmeister
... and go for the only other logical solution available that existence is eternal not temporary.

Have you defined eternal for us yet? I missed it if you did. If time is finite they why not call it temporary?

I only use these phrases because they are the only phrases I've got. Whatever words you use you are done for with S from N because the whole idea is so silly anyway.

You don't think I actually believe S from N do you?
I don't think I believe it either but that of course depends on how you use the words. Was there nothing before the universe 'started'? I would say yes. Did the universe therefore come from 'Nothing'. I say no, the universe just started and there was no 'before'.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Again...though grudgingly I'm willing to accept that there is perhaps some way that the existance of an eternal FSM/magic pot/holy hobgoblin... and eternal universe co-existing cannot be ruled out, I have zero faith in it. AGERG

I admire your intellectual honesty . The option you reluctantly said could not rule out involved two things that were eter ...[text shortened]... dered why you found that more likely than one eternal thing and one temporary thing (universe)?

The option you reluctantly said could not rule out involved two things that were eternal. However , I wondered why you found that more likely than one eternal thing and one temporary thing (universe)?

I find it more likely that there is only one eternal thing and *NO* god (as opposed to temporary one): The universe My justification for this is that to my knowledge there actually is a universe, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that there is a deity.

I cannot rule out the possibility that there exists two eternal things, God and the universe

I can definitely rule out the possibility that there is an eternal God, and temporary universe because as stated elsewhere in this thread you have not eliminated the eternal part or the need for causation, you have merely changed the object that has been caused...a conveniently easy magic definition for God won't work; I reject it as much as I reject a green invisible sprout (as well as the IPU)...

Basically the universe seems like it needs to be eternal, you can add eternal God if you like (and we'll probably debate these views elsewhere); but thats all I allow for (unless you've got a well thought out *other option*).