jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (121 posts)

Why is there something, and not nothing?

  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I can't answer this. The material had to have always been here. If there was nothing, then well..this question wouldn't exists. smile

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Quite right,

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. Ehnaira05 profile image61
      Ehnaira05posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I live because I see the thought I knew was right but with this question I prefer to remain silent.

      Goodday!

    3. shop online fast profile image50
      shop online fastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      great question

      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

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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? wink

        1. shop online fast profile image50
          shop online fastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. shop online fast profile image50
              shop online fastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Tried to ignore this ,but decided not too

                Its spelled Liar smile

                1. shop online fast profile image50
                  shop online fastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Oop! I neglected to do a spell check

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Is ok ,I am the same ,feel free to correct my bloopers wink

                2. shop online fast profile image50
                  shop online fastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You typed the word TOO instead of TO

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Looks ok?

                3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  There is no place in Belgium named Liar. I
                  m quite sure it is Lier. lol..

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    lol

                    Foxes have ...?

                    I just had to scribble down the word peeble,because it looked wrong in my head.

                    Should probably go to bed and quit while I'm ahead.

    4. profile image69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That something is the Creator God; He is the First and the Last.

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What creator god might that be?

    5. Sneha Sunny profile image84
      Sneha Sunnyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well, whatever be the reason but I think something is better than nothing.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    I like this question. smile

    “Nature abhors a vacuum.” I do not know why. smile

  3. profile image0
    RookerySpoonerposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The Big Bang does not explain what caused it but instead what happened after the cause.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
          DoubleScorpionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. profile image0
          RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image0
              RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. profile image0
                RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this
                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Got it, that footage also calmed me down. So thank you smile

            2. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Hey Hollie, are you serious? Haven't you figured out the meaning of life? I thought that was kid's stuff. lol

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Raspberry, now I'm arguing in religious forums which I vowed to stay out of. mad

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this
                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    mad mad

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      had there ever been nothing there would be nothing now.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Also there was no explosion. Theory is rapid expansion, not explosion.

    4. profile image69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That is one reason why one believes in the Creator God.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    bump

  5. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    Because energy exists. It had to do something. It couldn't simply sit around twiddling its thumbs for an eternity. It got bored.

    1. profile image0
      RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      But energy didn't exist before the Big Bang.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Without beginning? Yes, well that makes perfect sense. roll

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It might. wink

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, and pigs might fly over strawberry fields. Forever.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Tell me why there has to be  beginning?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Carl was probably right about a lot of things. wink

            2. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    "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...

        2. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work.

          How do you compress capacity to create matter?

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I just did a hub on it if you are interested.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                A piano has mass, hence it is only a concept, until one falls on you and it then becomes a completely different concept. lol

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I often advise people who think energy is just a concept to stick their finger in a socket. wink

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Never tell a Kiwi that lol where the power is 220V...roll

                2. profile image0
                  jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  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!! lol

        3. profile image0
          RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this
          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry to say it is a poor explanation of BB theory.

  6. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Music break

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "And now for something completely different." lol...

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry my bad ,just playin over here in the corner with new smilies -->

        Beam me up scotty

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Methinks cagsil has created a monster. smile

  7. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 6 years ago

    Not a meaningless question, Slarty.

    This is a good question, but the profound answer seems to be ignored.

    Creation!

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That's actually not so profound, but more like ridiculous. lol

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That's not the answer Lone77star, it's just a guess.

    3. profile image0
      RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. profile image0
          RookerySpoonerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image69
            paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this



            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.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Kindly provide a rational definition.

              1. profile image69
                paarsurreyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  What did he create? Matter and space is eternal.

                  What is dependent? 

                  Not by the atheists nor by animals!!

                  Impotent may be the correct word, if you are not attributing the creations to god.

                  Frankly we all are different.
                  Next time give a definition.

  8. TKs view profile image60
    TKs viewposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ..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.

      Fascinating.

      1. TKs view profile image60
        TKs viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          ..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

          1. TKs view profile image60
            TKs viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              .  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.

              1. TKs view profile image60
                TKs viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Is that a challenge,lol smile

                  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 lol

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Go for it. Then read my hub on self publishing. I'll read it.

                  2. TKs view profile image60
                    TKs viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    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?

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Looks like quite the fantasy, good luck with that. smile

  9. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Darkness is a lack of light. Same as cold is a lack of heat. smile

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Right. Well winter is coming, which is is usually accompanied by a distinct lack of heat. wink

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Depends on where you are Slarty....... we have spring and summer close by. smile

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah. That's right. You live on the bottom of the world.

          How come you haven't fallen off yet? wink

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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. smile

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Question:

                    What's keeping the blade of grass in place?

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Grabity?

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Soil.

                  1. SpanStar profile image60
                    SpanStarposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Come on A Troubled Man, your answer is something a child would say but you made reference to how great science is, the implication is there's no gravity so how is soil to remain in place if there's no gravity.  Please enlighten us.

                3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  God. Have you not been listening? He has millions of fingers. Enough for every blade of grass. Jeeeez...lol...

                  1. SpanStar profile image60
                    SpanStarposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Slarty O'Brian,

                       I'm going by your statment:

                      Well I don't believe in gravity. It's like evolution. It's all a lie

  10. profile image69
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    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

    1. TKs view profile image60
      TKs viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  11. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Nothing is just something we haven't discovered yet wink

    Nothing and something are twins.

 
working