jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (198 posts)

In the Beginning or Not

  1. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Can someone please explain to me the difference in these beliefs.

    In the beginning there was God.

    In the beginning there was a Big Bang.

    In the beginning existence already existed. There was no beginning.

    Does anyone, other than me, realize this is simply grasping at imaginary straws? It all equates to something from nothing.

    I realize we won't know the answer in our lifetimes and there is the very real possibility that mankind may never know; but why make things up? Why can't we just say, 'I don't know.'

    Why is it so difficult for us to state the obvious?

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      To think that something came from nothing defies everything already known to humankind. Anyone making this claim doesn't understand even the thought itself.

      The Universe itself didn't come from nothing. It came from something that is completely unmeasurable to humankind at present. wink

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Thank you.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're welcome. wink

      2. shop online fast profile image60
        shop online fastposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        k

      3. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Of course the Creator God created the universe and then it came to existence.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I tell you what. When the creator god decides to join the fray I'll be more than happy to hear his thoughts on the subject. Until that time, yours is an empty statement.

          1. 69
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The Creator God has already made the statement that you talk about:

            [50:39] And verily, We created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six periods, and no weariness touched Us.

            http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=38

        2. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Says you. lol Just more religious BS. lol

          1. 69
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            One could deny it; no compulsion.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No denial. lol

      4. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So there was no begining, ever. There has always been something and that something created our everything?

        So where did that something that created our everything come from? Something else? Where did this new something come from, yet another something else?

        To my logic there has to have been at some point "a" begining. That begining (whatever it was) is the miracle of something from nothing.

        1. 69
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          He is a man of doubt; so he cannot answer your question.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Paar, speak for yourself and quit making judgmental statements about other people. You jump to assumptions, thinking that your certainty is truth. That shows blatant foolishness.

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No paar. Some people don't accept an easy lie, simply because we don't yet know an answer.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You assume a creation. I don't see where that is a valid assumption. You don't have the data.

          But, it is also impossible to accept the 'it has always been' argument.

          I'm not coming out against people's right to believe in anything. I'm simply saying you are jumping to conclusions if you tout it as fact.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I assume a beginning because perpetual existence without some sort of start is a hard concept for me to understand...

            Has always been... hmm

            Evidence: scientific study and the theory of the big bang, points to "a" begining, at least for us....


            hmm   Is time round? hmm  a wheel with no begining and no end??? hmm


            Ok the choices are:
            1)something from nothing
            2)something having always "been" (without a starting point.)


            Nothing is a concept that could have always been.


            perhaps creation was the end/the destruction of nothing. hmm


            My head hurts.

            1. 0
              Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "perpetual existence" as you put it is very easy to understand. It simply means that things just exist and move. They cannot be conjured out of nothing. Time is an artificial concept invented by man. Concepts do not have shape such as "round". Time is nothing but a measurement of the motion of matter.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I like your definition of time.

    2. shop online fast profile image60
      shop online fastposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i agree with you.  you're absolutely correct.  if we don't know the answer, we should say so: "we don't know"

      but, check this out.  i believe (pay attention to the word BELIEVE) that we were all created to believe in something, or to believe something.

      it doesn't matter if what we believe is true or false, we will believe something

      at the same time, it is important to note that, from time to time, or belief changes depending on new teachings, readings, dreams, personal experiences, or quite franklly encounters with our Maker.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And I can respect that. Belief is grand, and perfectly normal. But stating belief as universal fact drives me bonkers. Even if you believe you have to concede that you just don't know.

      2. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maker? My father and mother were my maker. My father is dead and my mother is presently 64(going on 65) year old. My encounters with her are daily.

        Just the fact that you used that term shows you're a believer.

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've said a million times I neither know nor give a flying fling at a rolling doughnut.

      Seriously, I could literally not be more apathetic without actually slipping into catatonia when the subject comes up.

      Its just a subject that everyone can assert that they are unequivocally correct without being proven wrong.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I care. The whole thing fascinates me beyond end. But, I still know I don't know. And I have faith in the intelligence of others to believe it is within their grasp to get the simple fact that we don't know anything for sure.

    4. 0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are so many "things" we see now. Either all these were there or it was all created from nothing.
      If you have no other theories to add, we have to assume either of this happened, your pick.

      [Beginning is a concept, based on another concept "time", which all need a sentient being with memory]

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No. We don't have to assume anything jomine. We can just say, 'We don't know. We are still collecting data.' Why do people fear saying that?

        1. 0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you don't get it, I'll give you an example. Imagine a switch, either it is on or its off, there is no in between. If its on there is light, if its off -no light. Do you need any further data to say there is no in between? Do you just say "I don't know"? There is something(may be its you only, still that is something). So either that something is created or it was always there, there is no other option. You pick what you want. What ever you choose, there is no need for any further data, only proper rational thinking.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Jomine, it appears you don't get it. The logical default position is, we don't have the data to support a claim. Not 'oh, my. It simply is.'

            1. 0
              jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You have enough data to say YOU exist (assuming everything else is your dream).
              Either you are created or you were always there.
              Is there any other option to explain your presence?
              The claim is "the beginning". For that you will need data, data for the existence of time.

              1. 69
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A good question.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Jomine. Think about it. Your statement leaves only two options.

                God created you. If God did not, you were always there.

                I think we have more options than that. And it seems rather bizarre to assume I exist, but everything else is my dream.

                And time is a human construct. We measure, simply by our perception. It may mean nothing, it may be valid. By our perception of time it might appear infinite, but that would simply be perception.

                You can't get something from nothing. Not in this reality. If it is possible, then it could only exist on another level of reality. Because it is impossible in this one as we perceive it to be.

                Crazy? No crazier than any of the three options we appear to think are our only ones now.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  OK You said it, God created matter. But there is a snag, for god to create universe, god should be an object, made of matter[Let as assume it is a new particle, not found any where in the universe(for the religious sake) and that particle is Gosons(for the relativist sake) smile]. But still that is matter, as god cannot be a concept and create, as concept need somebody to conceive. So matter, either as god or as universe always exist. Similarly space, our conceptualization of nothing, is always there.


                  The dream part is what you told me in another forum, but it doesn't make a difference whether it is you only or it is the whole universe.
                  Regarding options if you cannot conceive of any other options then why think there can be other options? I gave a more simple exercise for you regarding the switch. There are only two options, either somebody put it there, or it was always there, nothing else. No human being can conceive other options. Self creation is an idiotic argument, only a brain dead can bring it forward.


                  Exactly. Time is a human concept. My question is, without the concept of time how can you conceive a "beginning" or "past". Without time there is only present, eternal present.


                  Exactly you cannot conceive any other option. A coin can have only two sides.

                  Depends on you! Yo can think it as profound wisdom too!

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, those are your words. Your conclusions.



                    Now, you've said it. Our conceptualization. All we can imagine with the present data.



                    You see the answer as one of two sides of a coin. As a switch either on or off. You ignore the mass between the thin layer of the two surfaces. You ignore the space between the end position of on or off. Or, maybe you don't. Maybe you just simply aren't elaborating fully.



                    Which begs the question. Why bring it up?



                    No, not profound wisdom. It is no different from the other conclusions, in the final analysis.

                    We lack the data needed to answer the question effectively.

    5. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is no 'beginning' and there is no 'nothing'. Matter just eternally moves and pushes against other matter. That's all that there is in the objective universe. All creation stories are magical fiction.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As is your story. You have nothing to back that statement up, other than simple observation. It's kind of like sitting in the middle of the Pacific ocean and declaring water is all there is.

        1. 0
          Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Matter moving to different locations (eternal universe) is the default position. Big Bang, God creating and 'unknown creation' are all irrational claims. In order for a creation theory to make any sense, then first you'd have to define the most crucial word of the theory. Which is of course...'creation'.

          Creation:___________

          (fill in the blanks)

          Making vague and incoherent statements about how the universe was 'created', but we don't know how it was created is not going to help your case.

          Think of it this way, if someone told you that 'cheese is a second's mother tongue', then would you take that gibberish seriously? The same applies to this idea that the universe had a vague, unspecified beginning which does not make any sense.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know if you read the OP, or not, (I'm thinking not) I didn't make any claims. I consider them all to be silly statements.

            1. 0
              Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You were implying that there was a beginning to the universe, but that we don't know what the beginning was. Regardless, you now say:

              "I consider them all to be silly statements."

              Good, so we can agree that all claims of creation are silly statements.

      2. mr-burns profile image60
        mr-burnsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Does there have to be a beginning? I agree with you

    6. kess profile image59
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you have ask your question and answered it at the same time ....
      Guess you are not open to any other perspective.

      Don't be as those who lacks understanding and are happy to remain so...


      Anyway where else can the origin of all things be if not Nothing?

      Even if you were to lack the understanding of the nature of nothing,does that not mean exactly the same thing? That the origin of all things is nothing (Your lack of understanding)

      And how come somethings ends up as nothing?

      Beginnings can only be referring to time....so where there is no time there is no beginnings nor end... but Time itself is merely something amongst other things so there fore cannot be the ruler of all things.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually kess, comparing my post to yours, I think I'm the open one. You are posting your idea of what it all boils down to. That isn't fact. It is what you believe. All I'm pondering is why people do that.

        1. kess profile image59
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If i may repeat differently....

          You have not requested an explanation nor was one given but yet you have aready discredited it...therefore I must presume that you know all that I know or else....

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. Your statement was self explanatory. Don't be as those who lacks understanding and are happy to remain so

            You appear to think you know. So do a lot of others. And, although I loved your comment; it's just thoughts. It isn't an answer we can lay down as truth, but good thoughts nonetheless.

    7. mr-burns profile image60
      mr-burnsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who knows the truth and who is qualified to say what is what. This may be one of man kinds largest questions that we may never have a answer to.

    8. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Great question!

      My answer is arrogance and the desire to be thought of as better by knowing that which no one really knows. The desire for the power the elevated status brings.

      Stating the obvious brings no status, no elevation, and no power.

  2. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    In the beginning, I was born. This is a true statement from my perseption.

       Did I say that no one was born before me?  If you catch my drift.

      And no, I not being a smart ars, that is just what popped into my mind.
    and I just had to get it out of there.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thats is your beginning ,BUT what about the very beginning ,like before the begininig.


      (Shari Lewis used to sing this song..'This is the songs that never ends,it keeps on going on and on and on..)

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol

      2. mr-burns profile image60
        mr-burnsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Aren't you thinking in 2 dimenstions? Why does there have to be a beginning?

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There doesn't have to be a beginning (or an end for that matter)

          It only helps me if I want to understand what has been ,or to come..

          Do I need to know..No

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I catch your drift. And I leave room for the possibility that religion has a core of truth and that core would exist prior to creation, as we know it.  I also leave room for something before and outside of the Bang, that we don't understand yet. I leave room for a plethora of thoughts too crazy to post.

      That's one of the good things about not knowing. Your mind gets to wander around. I simply do not understand the mind that settles.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Like Paul Harvey always says ....   and now for the rest of the story!

          I guess there will always be more to learn about anything.

        1. 0
          RookerySpoonerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The problem with religion, is its newness.  The universe is estimated to be between 13.7 and 15 billion years old and the Earth, 5 billion years old.  Modern man - Homo Sapiens is estimated to be approximately 100, 000 years old.  To use the image of a 24 hour clock, if the universe began at midnight, then man only appeared at a second before midnight, 24 hours later.  And for much of that 100,000 there was no religion, this only appearing tens of thousands of years ago.  And the religions we do have, were mostly created by Bronze Age humans, who had no scientific understanding of their surroundings.  They had no idea that the Earth was a globe, they believed the Sun was a god, they saw every natural phenomena as having a supernatural cause.  These people lived short brutal lives, and had no way of understanding why they had existence or how old the Earth was, or in fact anything that science has discovered in recent centuries..  Why should we therefore believe that the religions these people created, have anything meaningful to say about existence?  It makes much more sense to base our understanding on empirical evidence, as discovered by the various fields of science.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln8UwPd1 … ure=relmfu

          1. 0
            RookerySpoonerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And another advantage of scence s that it is universal, unlike gods.  The God or gods someone believes in depends on the place and time they were born.  If born in the Middle East, people are most likely to be Muslim.  If in Europe, until relatively recently, Christianity would inform our view of the world.  If from India, then Hinduism or Sikhism is much more likely.  If born in ancient Greece, Zeus would have been the big boy on the block.  All of these systems of worshp believed in entirely different things.  Modern science however, is the same in Australia, America, Europe, Asia, Africa etc.  It bases its conclusions on real evidence in the real world, and is not influenced by local deities.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Science is our only hope for answers, but it appears that people are not averse to claiming   data collected by science as some universal truth. Science has never claimed that. We honestly don't have a final answer. Jumping on science as a final answer can come off like religion at times.

  3. Thinkaboutit77 profile image78
    Thinkaboutit77posted 5 years ago

    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God". The word "was" means "existing previously", so God existed before the "beginning" because He's eternal. It didn't say, "in the beginning there is God". So what began? Time. In the beginning of God was when God started to create. Time was the first thing He created, if it wasn't, words like "beginning" which denotes time, would be meaningless.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I didnt know that 'the word' meant that. I thought it was another name for Jesus?

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think he was focusing on the word 'was'.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh he was? ok ,thank-you (wheres he gone btw)

    2. mr-burns profile image60
      mr-burnsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol interesting. I had no idea. I learned something new today

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So where did "word" come from, when did "word" start?

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is from John and they are not sure about this John who he was? It is definitely not from Jesus.

  4. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Emile, you're creating a conundrum out of nothing. wink

    There is no problem with these first two statements.

    "Before" the existence of space-time-energy-mass (STEM) there was the source of creation. I say "before" in quotes, because it's hard to think of other dimensions outside of space-time. Our language isn't built for it. If time were a line, then source of creation (God) would be perpendicular to that line. But even that analogy might be flawed, though perhaps closer to the truth.

    You said, "In the beginning existence already existed. There was no beginning." But now you're playing with words like kids slinging mud or their breakfast porridge. You're not defining your terms. Existence of what?

    If you start being more specific, then we can have something concrete to talk about. For instance, if you're talking about creation of space-time-energy-mass, then perhaps it didn't have a beginning in the traditional sense, or perhaps it did. I'm not afraid to say, I don't know. And I don't. But I do know some things. Creation would not be in that line -- coming "before" the "Big Bang." Creative source would exist outside of space-time, not within it.

    If someone creates a painting, then "In the beginning (of the existence of the painting), there was blank canvas." If two people create a baby, then "In the beginning (of the existence of the baby), there was sex. True, we humans cannot think much beyond the four obvious dimensions. Our languages were not built for much beyond these four.

      Source
          |
          |
          |
    <-- STEM -->

    1. 0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you defining? What is this "space-time"? What is dimension?

    2. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What about thought? I'm just asking. Does thought have dimensions such as mass, matter, etc.  Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am" That is the rationalists view,  though arguable. The empiricist says (Kant) it has to do with modalities - possibility, actuality, and necessity. Then there is the argument that perception is reality, while the skeptic says you cannot trust perception.

      I always get lost and therefore seek answers with the chicken / egg or horse / cart. Is the universe and its creation first or is my existence first. Or, how can I define the universe if I can not define me as 'self' first. Or, is it the other way around. I am rambling about while wandering about.

      Science is empirical thought. Evidence is demanded. Science is material.
      The big bang is of this nature, from the understanding I have.

      The creationist view is a supernatural view. Some will claim the superstitious view.

      However, religious, including Christianity, views do allow for the big bang - called theistic evolution, today. Who knows what occurs tomorrow. Then comes apologetics and discussions within those religions or they can't agree universally to begin with on much of anything, in my view.

      I rambled, sorry. To answer your question as I see it;

      #1 the supernatural view

      #2 The empirical thought view

      #3 The rationalist thought view

      For me it is analogous with

      Cook an egg

      #1 scrambled

      # 2 fried

      #3 poached

      oh, wait there is always the #4 boiled

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I like the way you think. You let your mind roll around here and there; touching on everything; but keeping your humor because you understand it's only thoughts. smile

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I forgot, you could always make an omelete (sp), omellete (sp), omelet finally got it right. Thank goodness for squiggly red lines.

          Anyway, to make an omelet, we would be adding to, so that would go against some theological thought. And, if we had a cholesterol problem, then we would separate the egg whites, which would be taking away. So, theologically an omelet would not be possible according to Christian thought for it being a analogy.

          But, that still leaves the big question you asked - what came first the chicken or the egg, or for me just how hungry am I? Fried chicken, roasted chicken, oh, I'm beating a dead horse now.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm. I didn't see it as trying to determine which came first. I was wondering why we claim to know. It's like claiming to be in a pot of stew, but we haven't determined the other ingredients; we don't know if it has been seasoned; we don't know whether it's broth or plain water we're floating in; we can't see  the edge, top or bottom of the pot to know how large of a batch is being made, we can't see over the edge to know what the burner is set on, or how long it needs to cook: and yet we're actively peddling the recipe.

            1. tsmog profile image85
              tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Now, you understand, or you always have? wink

    3. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with your explanation is you are doing more than grasping at straws. You're playing an imaginary game of pick up sticks.

  5. brotheryochanan profile image60
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    in the beginning
    beginning of what? when?

    everything? or just the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth?

    We experience birth and over time, demise,
    and this is our thinking.

    It is hard if not impossible for us to accept or allow for anything existent to have Neither birth nor demise. Perhaps we can make an allowance for demise to be possible, but we all need to accede to a beginning and perhaps this is only a mere flaw in our minds ability to comprehend.

    If we are not the primary object (our cosmos) then possibly, we could exist within something that is larger than us and existed prior to us, which may exist long after us.

    Our sun has a life expectancy of 5 billion years, scientist say, and isn't that an comprehensible amount of time for what they also term, a middle aged star.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I can't accept, or allow, for anything without seeing it as giving up. And I do realize some things appear to be a conundrum, but if we are going to accept it we need to label it as such. Saying we'know' is less than honest.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Its either too late at night for me but i am going to have to ask you to rephrase that post please and replace some of those its.

  6. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Interestingly the Chinese got a grip on this around 500 BC.  Their philosophy accounts for the unknown, defines the unknown and the (apparent) unknowable.  Rather than talk in the mind babble, that is the hang-over from the ignorance of christianity, it sets out the various possible ways that we can interact with both the unknown and the unknowable, it talks about spirituality and ways in which it can be applied to daily life, ancestors and their worship as an expression of respect.  In all it covers all these issues.  One very interesting 'school' that dealt with the unknown would meet to discuss what was known and what was unknown - and when it got as far as it could then the practice was to be silent (how can you talk about what you do not know) - a good lesson for the babble mongers of today's purile bull@h!t.

    The history of Chinese philosophy also has its 'burning the books' episode, only in that case they took all the thinkers and sages of the particular school and buried them alive, another activity that would be fun to carry out in respect of babble mongers big_smile

    1. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      wink

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting.  I don't think being silent fits into the Western philosophy past a certain point. But, once we've passed the realm of the known it would be nice if we'd temper our statements with a simple maybe.

  7. 69
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    One should believe in the Creator God to understand the true perspectives of things from His revealed Word.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, I don't consider the quran the revealed word of a god. The musings of mohamed is the best I can come up with. I'm not drawing conclusions from the words an illiterate who lived over a thousand years ago  and claimed they aren't his ideas, but were actually spoken by an angel. We've got plenty of people here and now that claim that. I could pick someone more contemporary if I wanted to go that route.

    2. mr-burns profile image60
      mr-burnsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why must there be a god? Can't the universe just exist? And why do you consider the concept of a god to be male?

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I never mentioned that the Creator God was a male; the pronoun "he" is used as per the English usage.

        The universe cannot exist without the caring, sustainig and nourishment of the Creator God; all inanimate and animates need Him.

        Existence of the Creator God is a must; why doubt Him?

  8. LewSethics profile image60
    LewSethicsposted 5 years ago

    I believe the Universe always existed.  How can it be otherwise?  Any 'first' action' is mentally viewed against a backdrop of something already there.  There was always something there.  It's called the Universe.
    People that say that 'god' created the Universe never explain where 'god' came from, they say 'god always existed'.  Well, that makes less sense than the Universe always being, because 'god' is (supposedly) a complex being, and a complex being cant just spring up out of nothing.
    Also, just to round things out, I would like to remind everyone that according to scientists, all matter is over 99.99..% empty space, so this existence we all are so high on is in reality nothing more solid than wisps of smoke, and what we perceive as solid is a trick of our imagination, where we really live.

  9. foxchild profile image60
    foxchildposted 5 years ago

    Not that I "know", but logically, if there was ever nothing, there would still be nothing.  Something has to be eternal (whether existing infinitely no matter how far back in time you go, or existing outside our current timestream) whether God or energy or matter or consciousness or sub-atomic particles, in order for the universe to begin (the universe itself can't be eternal or it would have already grown old and "died", you know suffered its heat death or whatever ultimate fate awaits it).  BTW, I see no contradiction in your three statements - all three could be true at the same time - An eternal God, existing in whatever dimension - making that reality eternal as well.  Then God creates our reality with a big bang event....

  10. foxchild profile image60
    foxchildposted 5 years ago

    "I tell you what. When the creator god decides to join the fray I'll be more than happy to hear his thoughts on the subject. Until that time, yours is an empty statement."

    Some would say He did... about 2.000 years ago...  smile

  11. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Whatever causes the firecracker to blow up is the creator of a BIG Bang.

      In that happenstance ,  a match or a lighter is  "THE Creator" of a big bang.

  12. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    If I were a rabbit and said unless I see or feel it; it doesn't exist.


       Depending on which rabbit I was;  there wouldn't be very many things is existence. 

      The same can be said of a Man.

  13. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Zeno's Paradox:

    We can never reach a destination because in order to arrive at our destination we must first traverse half the distance required to reach our destination.
    Since there are infinite halves, we will always have another half distance to cover.

    Mathematically this true.


    My question is then why do we go splat if we jump out of a building?


    I believe the creation of something from nothing is this same principal reversed. But I am at a loss to explain it any better than this.

  14. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    hmm


    ... Perpetual existence

    or something from nothing....   



    hmm

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Both seem to be impossible, but it has to be one or the other.

  15. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Total destruction would be the act of going from something(everything) to nothing...

    since everything that exists has an opposite...

    wouldn't that support the something from nothing theory over the perpetual existence theory?

    hmm  ...kingdom without end, I am who am...

    ...what is beyond "matter" is it nothing or is it something? Our reality is complrised of matter,anti-matter.....

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Total destruction" is also impossible.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Proof?

        1. 0
          Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you 'destroy' something, then it will just split up into individual atoms. No matter ever disappears.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ok...so anti-creation, not the transformation of matter from one form to another sense of destruction but the elimination of that matter... of all matter...


            still impossible?hmm



            The destruction of nothing.... destroying nothing at all= creation?... hmm

            1. 0
              Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ?

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Our destruction abilities like our abilities to create are actually just an ability to transform existing matter from one form to another.

                I.E.
                The smashing of a vase, doesn't do anything but split the vase into smaller pieces of the same matter.

                Burning wood becomes ash (another form of matter)

                1. 0
                  Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, exactly.

  16. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    an entity with the abilty to transform something from nothing would probably have the ability to transform something to nothing...
    ...Humanity does not have either ability...


    I don't know. My gut instincts say "something from nothing" is more plausible for some unamed reason.

    Perpetual existence seems so ...  unfathomable.

    and yet "nothing" must perpetually exist... or does the existence of anything cancel the existence of nothing....

    did I mention my head hurts... smile

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately no such entity exists...

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        then you can prove perpetual existence?

        1. 0
          Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You need proof that matter exists and moves?

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perpetually

    2. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mine too! Don't do that Mikel. Let' stick to the subject. 'Mind' is it matter or Plato's theory of forms / ideas. But, enters dualism. Yes, I have a headache too.

      1. tsmog profile image85
        tsmogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I am jesting, really. Because I do have a headache.

  17. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    When the big band happened time was created within the boom. In that second time began; on this side of the bang.

       That Boom went in every direction and so did time!

       We are here, in this time, ... like a fish is a fish bowl.  Looking out at everything passing by.

       BOY!  we must live in a big place.  Have Ya got a minute?  ...  Let me tell Ya all about it!     

       Why arn't You writting any of this down???   


       I wonder if there is somebody feeling like this on one of them other time rays.

        lol

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is no such thing as 'time'. Time was invented by man.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well we need to quiddit  ...  and stay young or ever.

      2. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know we named it!  but I think it still would be, with or without a Name!


            OOps   I said good night a minute ago ............   but then I forgot.

          Nite A gin

  18. 69
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    There was no Jesus in the beginning; Jesus was born of Mary; so Mary existed prior to Jesus.

    The Creator God is the First and Last.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What does that have to do with the question?  Nothing. So, you are basically spamming the thread.

      1. Knight6 profile image60
        Knight6posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        emile r imagine a dozen sheets hanging from the ceiling with only a few cm between them each sheet is blank until they touch just the smallest touch this starts a reaction on both sheets that touch bringing them to life and continue to grow out from the point of contact til it goes back to blank now imagine that the sheets are universes muiltiple all so close and two of them touched just for one moment causing a big bang and starting off a universes life
        simple as it sounds it is one idea which maths and sience are proving hope this helped

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Now that sounds like a fun idea. Thanks for sharing it. smile

    2. Disappearinghead profile image90
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The one the church calls Jesus is the fleshly manifestation of the creator God the First and Last

  19. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    Let me say I don't know.  However listening to those that profess they have the answers to the mysteries of the universe let's me know they don't know either.

    Now I know you're not going to accept what I have to say and that's ok because you don't have to but since I have free will I'm allowed to accept it.

    There use to be a term call "There Is Nothing New Under The Sun." That is to say whatever mankind does simply builds off what already exist.  God is the only being who can actually create something from nothing.  Everyone else is either changing or modifying that which has already been created.

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, not even your god can perform such a miracle. Matter just moves. Matter cannot appear out of 'nothing' (whatever that's supposed to be).

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Can you prove your statement Infinite?  I believe if you were a God you could tell us that it's not possible but not being a God how do you know?

        1. 0
          Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Proof" is a subjective opinion. What's proven to you, is a lie to someone else. The word 'proof' should never be used at all.

          But anyway, there isn't any objective evidence that there are any gods. The burden is on you to either explain or demonstrate that creation from nothing is possible. You're the one who is making the claim here, not me.

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Proof is not subjective only it's interpretation of it.

            I believe you were the one that said "Actually, not even your god can perform such a miracle"

            That says you know this isn't possible so that means you can prove it.

            1. 0
              Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, I never claimed to 'prove' anything. Creation from nothing is an irrational proposal (weather a god is included or not). Eternal matter is the default position unless you can rationally explain how creation from nothing is possible.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The default position is the best guess.

                In this example however there isn't a position that is more credible than the other. Since the only evidence that either thing happened at all is our existence, I would have to say the best guess is something from nothing.

                Because everything in our existence has a begining, a middle and an end. Why would this be the exception?

                1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nonsense. How do you know the future exactly? Everything that exists - clearly - has not ended. lol So - everything in our existence has not had an end. Also - time is observer-dependant. How do you know everything in existence had a beginning? Were you there? No - you are making an irrational assumption in order to defend a belief in an Invisible Super Being that you know must exist because nothing else makes sense to you.

                  Your best guess is "a god dunnit?" lol

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    *rewording what I said-
                    Everything in our existence...  We can demonstrate examples of the "ending" of each type of entity in our reality. Stars that have gone "out", Galaxies that have crashed together, planets exploding, eco systems, dinosaurs...etc

                    However now that I have thought about it none of these things are actually endings...they are transformations of thier base matter...so maybe "perpetual exsistence" is the best guess... hmm

                    -Evolution seems to go against the theme of perpetual existence.
                    -Perpetual existence seems more like the Godunnit theme...



                    ***Ignoring the "your stupid cause you think Godunnit" remark.

                2. 0
                  Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Two problems here. One is that the idea of 'time' (past, future, etc.) was invented by humans. The only reason we think in this manner is because our brains/minds are able to record and memorize the moving matter that it observers. But most objects cannot do this. All they can do is move, but they can't remember where they moved.

                  The other problem with your statement is that you have not told us WHAT this alleged "nothing" is supposed to be. If you're going to claim that things / matter came out of 'nothing', then you should probably know what you're talking about when you use this word. Correct?

                  In contrast, all I'm saying is that things exist and move (a.k.a eternal universe).
                  This clearly makes sense. Whereas "creation from nothing" is non-sense.

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Plus - everything we see that we know had a beginning - was not made from "nothing," so how is it possible to draw the conclusion that therefore existence was made from nothing?

                    When everything we see in existence was made from "something," surely that is the default position? Something has always existed. It can be made into other "somethings" either willfully or naturally.

                    Unless you already believe in a god and need to justify that irrational belief of course. Then the twisting starts. wink

  20. Acheolis profile image70
    Acheolisposted 5 years ago

    I've had a premonition dreams before so I fully agree with Infinite712.

  21. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image61
    Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago

    I don't know.

  22. Shahe Asekeen profile image74
    Shahe Asekeenposted 5 years ago

    the miracles happen here and there are the mystery to science, but are the proofs shown us to remember us the Almighty's presence.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When you say "mystery to science" I take it you mean "impossible and unrecorded"?

  23. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Is space "nothing" or is it "something" with specific characteristics.

    If your answer is nothing, then planets are proof that "something" came from "nothing"...  right?

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What we call 'outer space' is filled with vibrating sub-atomic particles. This explains what the "CMB" actually is. Planets form from other matter like everything else.

  24. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Why is it people seem to think the "burden of proof" is always the other persons responsibility? Even when they know they don't have any proof to support what they believe?

    hmm

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're asking for 'proof' (an irrational word) that matter exists, moves and doesn't appear out of nothing. Do you see the absurdity in this? It's like saying, "can you prove that there ISN'T a green monkey on the back of the moon." Trying to 'prove' anything is irrational, but it's even more irrational to try to prove a negative.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm going to have to take issue with you on this statement:
        "Trying to 'prove' anything is irrational, but it's even more irrational to try to prove a negative."

           If someone invents a device that they claim and rejuvinate a person but you know for a fact that device actually does nore harm then good you are going to have to prove that device is fake.
          If I wanted to prove a green monkey did not exist on the moon it looks like I would have to take a spaceshuttle and map out the dark side of the of moon proving negatives can be done and we do it all the time.

        1. 0
          Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, you'll need to show evidence. The word 'Proof' implies that everything is settled and that there can be no opposing view. In other words, proof is an arrogant term.



          Oh yeah? So how do you 'prove' that there isn't a green monkey on the back of Pluto? We can't send spaceships there. Should we assume that both the idea that there is a green monkey and there isn't one to be equally valid? What if someone claimed that the ghost of a dead rabbit is haunting your brain? How would you prove that there isn't a ghost of a dead rabbit inside your brain? There's all kinds of nonsensical claims that someone can make and "creation from nothing" is one of those claims.

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Space flight was nonsensical, The world being round was nonsensical, the desktop computer was nonsensical and on and on.  Just because we didn't see a tree fall in the forest does that mean it didn't fall?

            There are times we need to prove a negative as we see between attorneys in court all the time.

            1. 0
              Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No they weren't. The problem is that ancient people did not think critically. Instead they made up myths about the gods who created a flat earth that's surrounded by a sky-dome (firmament).



              Of course it fell. A tree falling is another example of motion of matter. This does not require subjective observers. A tree falls weather anyone is there to observe it or not. Our observation has nothing to do with it. The problem is that you are introducing something other than 'matter existing and moving'. This is all there is objectively. The burden is on you, to show that there is anything else.



              So then you can prove that there ISN'T a ghost of a dead rabbit inside your brain? Not only do you claim it's possible to 'prove', but you even claim that it's possible to prove a negative. Therefore, this should be no problem for you.

  25. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Back to bullying? Verbally abusing me doesn't make your position correct. Nor does it answer the question posed to you.



    Motion of matter and Perpetual Existence are not the same thing. Saying a seperate concept exists doesn't support your position on the original concept. Changing the subject, answering a question about another subject because you can't answer the question that was posed to you does not lend weight to your position.




    Yet that is what you did by implying your position was "the" rational position. no? By resorting to bullying you are in effect positioning yourself as 'the' authority that should be heeded based on that authority, not on the merit of your assumptions.

    More assumptions? ...or is the belittlment (the bullying of the idea) of the opposing view somehow proving your point of view to be better to you? Because if that is what you think your accomplishing, it isn't.





    Can you do anything besides name calling/bullying?


    Following your logic: You have stated that since you cannot prove what you believe to be true I should dismiss what you assume to be true out of hand and simply call you names and belittle what you assume is true.

    What I will do instead is simply state: Either position may be correct because there is no evidence to support either position. I however do intuitively feel that something from nothing is the better explanation.

    1. 0
      Infinite712posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So then, I take it that you are not able to do what I requested of you. Correct? If someone has a ridiculous belief, then it deserves to be ridiculed. Keep in mind that I am not insulting you, I am insulting the absurd notion that something could come from nothing.



      You seem to be distracted by the term 'perpetual existence'. All this means is that things exist and move. We can all observe this right now. What we never observe is something coming out of nothing. So again, do you see anything popping out of nowhere? Can a tree appear out of nowhere? Or does it grow from a seed (more matter being added to it). Be honest and think about this. Have you EVER witnessed something coming from nothing? Can you even rationally explain such an idea? If not, then what does this mean? It means that matter just exists and moves (A.K.A eternal universe). Very simple.



      I shall state once more that there are NO AUTHORITIES. We are all equals. Creation from nothing is an irrational theory. But matter just existing and moving is not a theory at all. This is just how things are. Again, do have any evidence that something can come from nothing? If not, then can you at least rationally explain this idea? If not, then we just take reality at face value which is... things just existing and moving.



      Hm? As I recall YOU were the one who brought up this poppycock about authorities, flat earth, etc. Don't blame me if I show you that the reverse of what you said is actually the case.




      Ah, but this a good test. It shows weather you're able to pay attention to the actual argument or if you're a petty individual who gets distracted by 'mean words' such as 'idiot'.



      Nah, it means that you didn't pay attention to what I said. Instead you got distracted by irrelevances.

 
working