I'm interested in your thoughts. Not how. I'm not interested in the idea that a god did it or not. I am interested in your thoughts on why there is something instead of nothing.
I can't answer this. The material had to have always been here. If there was nothing, then well..this question wouldn't exists.
In a real way you did answer it. The question is meaningless because existence must be the default. There is no purpose for something coming in to being if it has always existed. It has just always existed.
I live because I see the thought I knew was right but with this question I prefer to remain silent.
i don't want to sound too corny, but
if i say to you turn left and then make another left, then essentially i'll be sending you back to where you're coming from
left and left cancels each other
Not suggests negative
Nothing suggests negative
a negative and another negative cancels each other
that's why you cannot say Not Nothing
Usually they do, but I think I found one here that does not. The not is part of a comparison. This not that.: a thing. as opposed to no thing. So the not is just a way of saying "as opposed to."
Anyway, I am using two different negatives. doesn't that count? I mean two exact opposites cancel out, but that would mean an equal and opposite negative and positive should cancel out, not two negatives. lol...
Two negatives make a positive. I did not not go to the store. So therefore I went. Right?
Speaking of right,, using the above rationale, wouldn't two wrongs make a right? Or is that two lefts?
Do 2 wrongs make a right? No. Cancellation only applies to negative or positive statements. A wrong or an Incorrect statement is just a lie or a misunderstanding.
Well if I tell you I am a lier and then tell you lied about being a lier just to prove that I am. Am I a lier or not?
Yes, that would make you a liar. If you told the truth and said it was a lie, then either way you told a lie some where. If you were to say that you're a liar, and then said you lied about being a liar, then some where there you told a lie.
Tried to ignore this ,but decided not too
Its spelled Liar
Oop! I neglected to do a spell check
You typed the word TOO instead of TO
There is no place in Belgium named Liar. I
m quite sure it is Lier. lol..
That something is the Creator God; He is the First and the Last.
Well, whatever be the reason but I think something is better than nothing.
I like this question.
“Nature abhors a vacuum.” I do not know why.
There was nothing before there was something. The Big Bang, brought everything, including matter, energy, light and time etc into being approximately 15 billion years ago. The nothingness which existed, or rather didn't exist was not the blackness of space, because that also came into being with the Big Bang. The question of what existed before the Big Bang does not really make sense, because there was nothing before. And the question of how long this nothing had existed does not make sense, because there was no time for nothing to exist in. But for some reason, and no one really knows why, something did arise out of nothing, and a fraction of a billionth of a second later, that something exploded to create the universe. Apparently though this explosion was without sound.
I am not sure I completely agree with the Big Bang theory as it is currently understood. If there was absolutely nothing, what caused the big bang to happen. There had to be something.
The Big Bang does not explain what caused it but instead what happened after the cause.
Yes, I know.
I was more refering to some of the theories associated to the Big Bang. That it came from nothing.
To be honest, I don't think I know theory well enough to really discuss it much.
I may be wrong, but I personally doubt any empirical evidence will ever be forthcoming to explain why the Big Bang happened. Science can create wonderful theories, which make some sort of logical sense, at least to scientists, who understand these things. However, as it is not possible to travel physically back in time to the Big Bang, theories will probably all they will ever be. And for most of us, trying to imagine a time when there was no time and a place when there was no place makes little sense. The mind has not evolved enough to be able to comprehend such ideas.
Some scientists now theorise that there is in fact not one universe, but many, maybe an infinity of universes, all created by their own Big Bangs, but again, proving such theories will not be possible. The human mind wants answers to the unanswerable, and if it cannot find those answers, it necessarily needs to create them. I certainly don't believe in a creator, but nevertheless recognise that to such ultimate questions, even science may never know the answers for certain. However, I can understand why people believe that using God to explain the cause provides an acceptable answer. But for me, this just raises the question of where God came from. Has He always existed, if not when did He come into being? So whatever we choose to believe about the origins of the universe, we should all recognise that there is little evidence for any of it.
Hence, my unproven and unsubstantiated theory. We haven't got a bloody clue, which is why we're constantly looking for answers and constantly trying to fathom the meaning of life.
And it is why we argue with those who have a different view of life to ourselves. Our brain constructs an understanding of reality, and it is confused when it encounters people, who have brains which have views that are completely alien to our own. To our brains, there is only one reality, and they assume others can only see things in the same way. To realise that they don't can shock the brain, and in order to maintain its own constructs, it must argue the point, in the hope that others will come around to our way of thinking. By doing so, we hope to convince ourselves. But others are equally unwilling to let go of their own constructs. Coming onto online forums and arguing with strangers, is all part of our attempt to convince ourselves of the rightness of our views.
i don't believe my views are right RS. I do have views, regarding spirituality. But, I do not ask others to accept them. Generally, I think I'm a tolerant person where religious views are concerned, but I'm finding more and more, people want, not for me to consider their views, but completely accept them. This irritates me.
Hey Hollie, are you serious? Haven't you figured out the meaning of life? I thought that was kid's stuff.
Raspberry, now I'm arguing in religious forums which I vowed to stay out of.
had there ever been nothing there would be nothing now.
Also there was no explosion. Theory is rapid expansion, not explosion.
That is one reason why one believes in the Creator God.
Because energy exists. It had to do something. It couldn't simply sit around twiddling its thumbs for an eternity. It got bored.
But energy didn't exist before the Big Bang.
Were you there? Seriously. We speculate. Sorry, the whole idea of something from nothing is ludicrous. Something might not have inhabited the area we call the universe now, but if the Big Bang pans out; that which was the beginning came from somewhere else. It didn't magically appear.
We may never know the answer, but the Big Bang is simply another creation story to me.
Not so. The theory is that the singularity was all the energy/mass now in the universe in an almost infinitely compressed form. Like a super black hole.
You may be thinking of atoms, not energy. Even were that energy potential it was still there. There is no theory of something from nothing coming from science.
Now, they may say it is something from nothing because that is the way some scientists like Hawking have used the phrase. But the nothing they are talking about is potential energy, not nothing.
Big bang is in serious trouble this year anyway. Earlier there were discoveries made that make it unlikely that it happened the way we thought. The entire idea may be scrapped or seriously revised.
Penrose and others are working on a different theory all together, We will see. But the Penrose model would make our universe without beginning.
Again, we will see.
Without beginning? Yes, well that makes perfect sense.
Yes, and pigs might fly over strawberry fields. Forever.
Tell me why there has to be beginning?
Was it Carl Sagen who said humans were limiting their understanding of the universe by thinking all things must have a beginning and an end? He just might have been right.
More likely slarty; it might not. I get the atheist's dash to find a way around the conundrum. I simply don't feel the need to make up something bizarre, in order to convince myself I'm right about the nonexistence of a god.
If we ever reach the point where we know all that there is to know, we aren't guessing and we state, without a doubt, that existence has always existed. I'll say 'cool'. Until that time, I have my doubts.
What conundrum? So you are saying you think something came from nothing? Or that there has to be a god that has always existed? And you don't think either of those ideas are far fetched?
i don't know that Penrose is an atheist. He just has a theory based on the same data everyone has, background radiation.
The BB wouldn't necessarily be a beginning anyway. At least not THE beginning. Only the begining of this universe. Again, all energy/mass would have been in the singularity.
Fact is, something always existed. You have a choice of what that was but we can't argue about the fact that if that were not the case nothing would exist now.
All I am doing is observing that energy/mass, due it's nature and the fact that it can not be created or destroyed, is the likely candidate. It has the virtue of actually being, where as a god is speculative at best.
So we create a model from what we actually know is fact. The model may still be wrong, but the facts it contains are not.
So for now, until there is evidence to the contrary, the energy/mass model of something that has always existed rather than the god model seems the most rational choice.
I'm not saying you should believe it. I don't put any faith in it either. I just think that it is the most rational model we have at the moment.
Yes I do consider the others far fetched, but a simple atheistic statement of ' existence exists' is foolish too. I don't see how it is a claim any different from the other two. It is still something from nothing.
I don't think any rational person didn't already assume that. The Big Bang sounds exactly like the creation story, just with a modern twist..
How, exactly, is that different from the god model? It is still speaking of omnipresence. Something that existed outside of our understanding of this space and time, and has always existed. It implies omnipotence. Something that created the singularity. It implies a level of omniscience. It points to a different understanding of the concept of god. Are you willing to accept that?
So, you are saying there is a god that is beyond our ability to find an understanding of. Gotcha.
"How, exactly, is that different from the god model? It is still speaking of omnipresence. Something that existed outside of our understanding of this space and time, and has always existed. It implies omnipotence. Something that created the singularity. It implies a level of omniscience. It points to a different understanding of the concept of god. Are you willing to accept that?"
Very astute. Yes it is the same as the god model, but the difference is that the nature of energy/mass is not a conscious being. But it does not imply omnipotence. It also does not imply that the nature energy/mass created the singularity, it implies that it was in the state of singularity.
In fact it never left it. BB theory implies that the event is on going. This, what you are living in, is the singularity in an expanded form.
I think since there are thousands of gods which man has worshiped, the one thing they can all agree on is that whatever created or produced us is the basic definition of god. But if that god is a process and not a being, it makes a world difference.
"So, you are saying there is a god that is beyond our ability to find an understanding of. Gotcha."
Don't got me. lol... No, I did not imply that let alone say it. I am saying that even though we are all human and we perceive the world in similar but different ways, the underlying reality shines through.
Concepts like god have a basis in reality even if they are metaphor. And most likely they are all metaphor. That is why it is important that we have science to sort some of those metaphors out and bring them in to the light of reason.
We can know a lot about the universe and how it works. Perhaps someday we will know everything. But not today.
I am just postulating the idea that the nature of existence itself is what has been mistaken for god. We know a lot about god if that's what it is, and those like Pantheists who believe this to be the case can at least prove their version of god exists. lol...
You know, if that's your version of god, on some levels I agree with you. But, I'm still not going to take up the reality simply exists mantra. I've got a few more blanks that need to be fillled first.
Well lets look at it logically. Something that comes in to being obviously has a reason for coming in to being. That is to say it is caused by some process or other. The cause is the reason or the why.
But what reason can something have for existing if it always has existed? Do you see what I mean? The reason or purpose or the why comes before the thing. The cause comes before the effect. So if there is no cause, as in something always having existed, then it can have no reason, no why, for it's existence.
So if energy/mass always existed in one form or other then there can be no cause for it and no reason for it, so it just always was. It's just logical, right?
Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.
How do you compress capacity to create matter?
Well that's an interesting question. The funny thing is energy is not just capacity to perform work. It's a little more complicated than that. Energy and mass are the same thing in different form. You may have heard of E=mc squared.
Unfortunately where ever I looked that was the definition. None of them mention "complicated"
So mass is also the ability to do work? Nowhere I could find a definition for mass, everybody has some idea but nobody has any definite knowledge.
As far as I know both are concepts. So you can also say love=justice/L(root), L being Avogadro constant.
I just did a hub on it if you are interested.
A piano has mass, hence it is only a concept, until one falls on you and it then becomes a completely different concept.
I often advise people who think energy is just a concept to stick their finger in a socket.
Never tell a Kiwi that where the power is 220V...
Good point. lol... In your case just consider the fact that photons have no mass. If energy is just a concept then you couldn't see the writing on this board. Photons are pure energy. Anyone care to challenge their existence as mere concept?
A piano has matter and in consequence of gravity, weight. If I'm in outer space, what happens to your mass? May be your mass is afraid of darkness!!
"And now for something completely different." lol...
Not a meaningless question, Slarty.
This is a good question, but the profound answer seems to be ignored.
That's actually not so profound, but more like ridiculous.
That's not the answer Lone77star, it's just a guess.
Creation, meaning created by God, I assume. This is not actually an answer, but another question. Using God as an explanation, simply begs the question from where did God originate? Did He have a beginning, like the universe, or has He always existed? Either way, it throws up more questions than answers.
It is not a valid question to ask "where did God originate". By definition the Creator God is the being who has always been on His own; He always existed otherwise nothing ever existed; we owe our existence from Him.
I was forgetting that to question God is not valid. There are some things that must be above reasoning, and that the human desire to know must be put to one side as far as God is concerned.
It is the definition of the word "God"; once that definition is accepted it would be wrong to change it. One may say that nothing ever exists or everything always existed; and that would be wrong as one could see.
The Creator God is the One; the Independent and Besought of all.
He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like Him.
Love the question. This is in fact what started me on my quest for answers as a child. I can still remember asking my mom what there was before there was anything. I knew, "nothing" couldn't be right because "nothing" is still a "thing".
What I've come to for myself is the answer is within us, not in some outside force. It's called perception. I see no reason "something" and the absense of "something" can't co-exist side by side. What makes this possible to me, is the "thing" is what my attention is caught up in. By freeing my attention from all "things" including the idea of "my", the state of prsense is entered which is the same as latent energy.
Perhaps we,(as pure consciousness) even move back and forth between these two perceptions more often than we're aware of, being that while in one, the other becomes beyond comprehension.
..Ya got me thinking there (or the caffienes kicked in) lol, but for example what about when we dream...we are not in a conscious state -right? yet our dreams are a mixture of perceieved/imagined/factual.
Yeah. It's a concept I have a lot of fun with.
To go one step further regarding what you said about sleep, what about when we wake up and don't recall any dreams. No images, no sense of time passing? We just wake up. Where did "we" go?
..And even if we can remember ,maybe we actually do ,but the part of our brain ,the instant recall part doesnt recall....BUT..I remember reading this article once that talked about this very thing.
Have you ever been somewhere and wondered why you knew it!, that street ,that building or met someone and thought later ,I feel like Ive met them before..or somehow I know 'this thing' but cannot explain why!
Hey what if when we are awake ,we are really dreaming and vice versa..
I think we percieve nothing initially,but that other part in our brains know there is always something (in the nothing) it just hasnt surfaced yet, or its encrypted lol
Yes, have had the deja-vu experience before.
I think most of the confusion arises in how we describe "we."
Many people don't see themselves as anything other than a physical body. I believe I am a spirit that lives in a body at times.
And perhaps, because we get a little un-nerved by the thought of nothing, the closer we get to it, the more our brain wants to project a something to fill the perceived emtyness. Because, more than anything, we fear being alone.
. Because, more than anything, we fear being alone.
Wouldnt that make a great title for a book!
I agree with you there. And in another way,it is also can be quite a revealing time, spiritual experience.
Okay, I did the title, the rest is up to you.
I agree, whole-heartedly.
I've ventured into the dark void on many occasions. Found it not to be a place of evil, but mostly a respite from the endless bombardment of stim the world of light reflects.
Amazing how darkness can bring en-light-enment yet in the world of light emtyness can fill us so completely.
Is that a challenge,lol
An enlightened mind is a peaceful one for the main part.
Light reveals the obvious(at times) and relevant,but the darkness reveals yet another layer.
It is that stage I am thinking that can also be fragile, for some souls keep drifting-for others,they remain just far enough to be safe.
There is so much that is 'unknown' and its pretty amazing (to me)that even as I write this,my mind is contemplating writing a book
Go for it. Then read my hub on self publishing. I'll read it.
Consider the gauntlet thrown, tossed and or otherwise flung in your general direction. You good with splitting the profits 50-50? I mean, coming up with the title was hard work and all.
I've written about sitting alone in the dark before, how everything you start to consider comes only from yourself, because there isn't anybody else to blame it on. It's a good exercise in personal responsibilty.
I agree, I try to stay connected to this world of form and do a good job most the time, but I gotta tell you, there is no view that can match when you're standing on the event horizon.
I guess I should ask, seeing as how we're splitting the profits, what's the book going to be about?
The prospects are exciting.
2012 will be a good year,I wonder if it will be the year of the monkey ,lol
What will the book be about?
Well nothing,at this stage
Definately there are areas that Id like to research etc.
Light dispels darkness,but why doesn't it work the other way around?
I know (heard of) light threrapy,but is there such as thing as 'dark' therapy.
I guess that is exactly what you were describing in your post-I like it.
There has been some work done with what's called 'sensory-deprivation' tanks where you float in a saline solution I believe while being in total darkness. Don't know if I'd go to that level but again, it would show you who you are without all the distractions.
The first thing that came to mind was-
It would show me I was deprived ,arhhhhh
But yea I understand the concept
Food for thought then. lol....
The Dark Sucker Theory
For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker. The dark which has been absorbed is then transmitted by pylons along to power plants where the machinery uses fossil fuel to destroy it.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
Wow, I've never heard of this theory before. You are obviously a lerned man who's done a great deal of research on the subject. I couldn't seem to find any mention of it anywhere else.
Odd thing is, when it comes to the candle, you might be on to something. Given that flame consumes oxygen, as it does it warms the surrounding air. Warm air rises(obviously warm air doesn't pay much attention to the law of grabity) cold air rushes in to fill the space created. Anyone the works in the HVAC field can back up this claim. As the esteemed Mr. earnst has pointed out, "cold is the lack of heat," so who's to say cold and dark, having similar intrests and likely few other friends, don't hang out together. Therefore, as the flame sucks the cold it is also sucking the dark along with it.
Umm, maybe I can get a hugh grant to research this more in detail.
Looks like quite the fantasy, good luck with that.
Darkness is a lack of light. Same as cold is a lack of heat.
Right. Well winter is coming, which is is usually accompanied by a distinct lack of heat.
Depends on where you are Slarty....... we have spring and summer close by.
Yeah. That's right. You live on the bottom of the world.
How come you haven't fallen off yet?
I dunno how we hang on, I think we have a thing down here called grabity that grabs us and keeps us attached to the planet, I know I get tired from hangin on.
Well I don't believe in gravity. It's like evolution. It's all a lie. God keeps his hand on you to keep you on the earth. If he's pissed at you he lets go. Then you're f**ked. Simple as that.
Sounds like god is pissed at you if you are just hanging on. But at least we know you aren't drunk. An Irish priest once told me a person isn't drunk as long as they can hang on to a blade of grass to keep them from floating off the world.
He knew what he was talking about.
What's keeping the blade of grass in place?
God. Have you not been listening? He has millions of fingers. Enough for every blade of grass. Jeeeez...lol...
I'm going by your statment:
Well I don't believe in gravity. It's like evolution. It's all a lie
The Creator God created everything from annihilation; He claims it with reasons:
[2:118] He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=117
I understand what you're saying paarsurrey, but it doesn't address the question.
If, "God created everything from annihilation," that indicates there was something pre-exsiting to destroy. How could God create everything if there was already something?
That shows God rearranging the furniture, not creating it.
Nothing is just something we haven't discovered yet
Nothing and something are twins.
by qwark6 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by John Harper4 years ago
"This is the theory of a leading Oxford University scientist who claims to have evidence of stars and galaxies that existed long before the universe as we know it formed, The Daily Mail reported.Professor Roger...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big...
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as...
by janesix4 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by Julie Grimes5 years ago
Why is it that very educated, scientific, logical minds believe in the supernatural? How is it that billions of people everywhere believe in a higher power of some sort, be it a god, alien, or whatever? Now...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.