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?
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.
Of course the Creator God created the universe and then it came to existence.
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.
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
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.
He is a man of doubt; so he cannot answer your question.
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.
No paar. Some people don't accept an easy lie, simply because we don't yet know an answer.
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.
I assume a beginning because perpetual existence without some sort of start is a hard concept for me to understand...
Has always been...
Evidence: scientific study and the theory of the big bang, points to "a" begining, at least for us....
Is time round? a wheel with no begining and no end???
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.
My head hurts.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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) ]. 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!
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.
"Jomine. Think about it. Your statement leaves only two options.
God created you. If God did not, you were always there."
These are your words. I didn't bring the god word, in fact, I do not exactly know what this "god" thing is. some say it is a concept, some, an object. Creator may be the word, but creation in any form is irrational.
I only said either you are put there or your are always there, we have no other option for your presence. We cannot simply assume yo popped out of nothing.
See, you agree time is a concept. My question, without time how can you say "it began" or "in the beginning"? What is this "beginning"? Without beginning how can you say creation?
Imagine you are "outside" this "universe" and observing it in bird's eye view. What will you see? You will find that matter continuously changes location with respect to each other. There is no time, only different locations. But you'll find that there are objects. So it "IS", there is no was or will. Matter exists. Whenever you find something you can have Only TWO options, either somebody put it there, or it is there, no other. Nobody can conceive any other, because there is no other. Just like the switch, either it is on or off, no partial on or partial off. If it is on-you get light, off- no light. What is this space between on and off?
"I think we have more options than that. And it seems rather bizarre to assume I exist, but everything else is my dream." These are your words and these is the third option people bring up especially for their "god", when confronted with the question who created god.
What data are you talking about? We don't need data to say matter exists. You put the time equation into this at the same time denying it. Creation from nothing or something is irrational idea, contradictory. Matter exists fact. Leave creation out, then we are left with only one option, matter exists. Matter never pop out of nothing nor it becomes nothing. Either on or off, no in between. Or you have to deny "existence".
You brought the concept up by your reply.
It's a dead horse jomine. I'm not going to argue that point with you.
If you state you were 'put there' one is left with one conclusion. Something put you there. If you don't think that implies god, exactly what are you referring to as the force that put you there?
And yet, you do. If you argue for Creation via God, creation via the Big Bang, or existence exists. That is all something from nothing.
The answer to that would simply be the understanding of the concept of time as it relates to the moment prior to its inception. How whatever the part of reality that exists outside of our current perception exists. That is the answer. Not something from nothing. What we have is something from we don't know what. Claiming something from nothing is fantasy. It's Santa/the tooth fairy/a genie in a bottle all wrapped up into one. It's a non answer.
No, two options is not the limit of the possibilities. Not at this point in our search. For here and now, yes. But, the point is we can understand that we are talking about a much larger picture. We've learned that much. We know that time is a barrier that holds back our understanding. To make any claim is only speaking of the right here and now. The knowledge we have attained on this side of the barrier. It ignores the grander scale.
And, you continue to bring god into the conversation. Since you won't settle on your definition of 'god' I don't see any purpose in discussing your god.
Time is the barrier jomine. It's the item we haven't been able to understand how to see around.
Matter exists. We all agree on that. But, you are arguing like a man in a cave. The cave exists. No duh. From his perception, that is all there is. Time immortal has existed within that cave. It's all he knows, but he is still trapped in a cave.
Time is a concept. Time for humans is the location of sun in relation to us. It is NOT a "Thing", hence it is not a barrier or container. Though you give lip service to "time is a concept" you still take time as something. Time, with out it there is no beginning or creation
(btw I'm not referring to god, I said only those two are the options. I said why it is untenable. existence exist is not something from nothing, it does not assume a beginning, no creation. NO TIME. It is not a claim.
Cave do not exist, it is absence of something. Or define exist.
what time is it? Seriously. You perceive your existence within the parameters of time. You can pretend all day that since it isn't concrete, it doesn't exist. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a clock on your microwave.
I'm not arguing that we may not come to a completely different understanding and consider existence to be eternal someday, looking back at the perception we now have. But we have to rise a step in our understanding of reality first. I am saying today is not the day. Assuming that conclusion without a better understanding is no different than thinking something came from nothing. You are basically pretending that 'nothing' has been removed from the equation. It is a non explanation.
Honestly, what is time?
What does a watch do?
A moment ago you were arguing time is a concept, now you are telling me it is not. You first decide what time is, then probably you get a better answer to your question without asking anybody.
Jomine. As long as time is the means by which we measure our existence, it exists. Until you come to terms with that you won't be able to keep up with the conversation.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion
How does a concept exist??
A concept is what you think, and you yourself agree, time is a concept. So how does a thought, a figment of imagination exist? In "reality" there is nothing called time. Without time there is no past, no beginning. Only with beginning, questions like "how it started?" has value. Our universe is timeless, and we have matter, matter that is eternal, in eternal motion.
How can you measure existence? All measurements are comparisons to something we take as standard, all concepts. Your watch is synchronized to the motion of sun(That is, as we observe from earth). What the dials are pointing is merely the position of sun, with the number values we assigned to it. It is our memory that help as make "time" out of this motion.
You know, we agree on a lot, I think we just have polar ideas as to what it means. I agree, that if you throw how we perceive time out of the equation that existence appears eternal. I see that less as a fact and more as a problem with our perception. Why? I'm trying to figure that out, but I think my primarily problem is accepting that reality, as we perceive it, just came into being over a vast period of time. That matter and energy are eternal. It seems so counter intuitive. It almost seems to play into the theme of religion.
I honestly believe this is a step in our understanding. A baby step, but still a step
What we can perceive is only "time". 'Matter exist' is objective reality. Even if we perceive time, we can only work backwards, as our reality is "present". So the question should be, at what point of time, in the past, did all matter vanished and how? Can you conceive, all that exists, suddenly becomes nothing? That will be more like magic.
Matter is eternal, I understand. But how energy, a concept, becomes eternal?
Well, I forget who posted it, but the guy that mentioned the layers of universes touching to cause reaction that resulted in us; that's an interesting comment. If true, then you could very well be correct. Matter would be eternal, but energy appeared due to some outside force. I don't know. So many possibilities. It staggers the mind.
Wow, that is an extremely limited and elementary grasp you have on that concept.
Is it because you got a better "grasp" on time, you are bent on dilating it?
Time is not absolute, yes, it dilates. And, it is a physical event we are able to observe, and we do.
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.
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.
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'.
(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.
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.
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.
Does there have to be a beginning? I agree with you
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..)
Aren't you thinking in 2 dimenstions? Why does there have to be a beginning?
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.
Like Paul Harvey always says .... and now for the rest of the story!
I guess there will always be more to learn about anything.
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
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.
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.
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.
I didnt know that 'the word' meant that. I thought it was another name for Jesus?
lol interesting. I had no idea. I learned something new today
So where did "word" come from, when did "word" start?
Emile, you're creating a conundrum out of nothing.
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.
<-- STEM -->
Are you defining? What is this "space-time"? What is dimension?
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
# 2 fried
oh, wait there is always the #4 boiled
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.
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.
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.
The problem with your explanation is you are doing more than grasping at straws. You're playing an imaginary game of pick up sticks.
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.
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.
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
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.
One should believe in the Creator God to understand the true perspectives of things from His revealed Word.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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....
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
...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.....
If you 'destroy' something, then it will just split up into individual atoms. No matter ever disappears.
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...
The destruction of nothing.... destroying nothing at all= creation?...
Our destruction abilities like our abilities to create are actually just an ability to transform existing matter from one form to another.
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)
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...
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.
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.
There is no such thing as 'time'. Time was invented by man.
Well we need to quiddit ... and stay young or ever.
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
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.
What does that have to do with the question? Nothing. So, you are basically spamming the thread.
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
The one the church calls Jesus is the fleshly manifestation of the creator God the First and Last
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.
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).
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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?
Nonsense. How do you know the future exactly? Everything that exists - clearly - has not ended. 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?"
*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...
-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.
Yes, now you're starting to get it.
Evolution is motion of matter (organisms having sex, etc, etc). So evolution works perfectly with 'perpetual existence'. God creating out of nothing is obviously incompatible with an eternal/perpetual universe.
You said 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.
How is eternal existence not exactly that? All you have basically done is ignore the question. It doesn't make it go away. I have no problem with stating that, by our perception, existence appears to be eternal. That time is a factor in creating this appearance.
But, these statements do not negate the fact that you can't get something from nothing. All they do is make the concept of time that much more of a curiosity. That much more of a riddle to solve.
Erm...Emile? I don't know how to put this kindly, but you seem to have some comprehension issues. Eternal matter is INCOMPATIBLE with creation from nothing lunacy. What part of "things just exist and move. They cannot be conjured out of nothing." didn't you understand?
The only reason you are ignoring the obvious is because eternal matter is boring. You'd rather have entertaining 'mysteries' that warm your soul and make you feel good.
You know, the funny thing is; I find the concept insanely interesting. It is not an end answer. It is an incredibly interesting question.
To think something came from nothing; and that is what you are suggesting. Something has always existed; is foolish.
If, by our perception, something appears to have always existed; we need to understand why it would appear that way.
Your lack of courtesy does not negate the fact that stating something has always existed is a pointless statement, as presented by your argument. If you can't see that 'something' existing forever still means that something simply appeared; the comprehension problems are yours.
No - you are the one not comprehending. What part of "always" do you not understand?
No one is suggesting that something came from nothing because it has always existed. Therefore - there was never a time when it did not exist. We understand precisely why the building blocks of the Universe "appear" to have always existed. This is because they have always existed.
You are the one making a claim that there was a time when they did not exist. Therefore you are the one making a claim that something was made from nothing.
How do you draw this conclusion?
Ok. You believe in magic. I don't. It takes all kinds.
Back to trolling I see. Just because it is a concept you do not understand - does not make it majik. Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself?
Did not answer my questions though.
Trolls rarely do.
And again, the zealots cry foul. Not unexpected, but incredibly boring.
Cry foul? Not at all. Just pointing out that you are a troll.
I have seen you referred to as the same. It appears people say this when they don't appreciate another viewpoint. I guess I'm interested in opposing views, so it is difficult for me to accept that argument.
Anyway, I have no problem, and am actually happy, with the fact that existence appears to appear to be eternal. I simply don't like it presented as if it is an end all answer when it should be the beginning of an interesting dialogue.
Sorry you don't understand. It must be very frustrating for you.
Not really. You have every right to be a zealot. I don't have to understand what motivates you.
So - you don't understand that either. No wonder you are so aggressive.
Oddly, you began the exchange, you have been agressive and you appear to be hostile. However, since you consider me doing the same to you, I'll apologize if you have misunderstood my intent.
This should complete my portion of this exchange.
I have not misunderstood your intent. I asked you some questions and attempted to have a reasonable dialog and you told me I believe in magic and did not bother answering. Presumably in order to try and inflame me and illicit an attack. You are a troll.
Inflame you? I'm at a loss. I suppose, the only logical explanation for this ludicrous exchange is better left unsaid. I don't want to upset your delicate sensibilities anymore than has already been done. Sheesh.
If you think I'm going to grovel, when you are the aggressor; you are sorely mistaken. You began an exchange in a manner that appeared to want to abrogate dialogue. You were going to tell me what is right. Since there are multiple theories and schools of thought on this subject, you don't get to decide what anyone thinks on the matter; except yourself.
Calling people who disagree trolls is sophomoric at best. The only reason I referenced magic was because your attitude, at the outset, was haughty. Write a hub, if you consider yourself to be an authority. But learn to accept the fact that people disagree. That's life.
Interesting how you have come to conclude the universe "always" was.
That being so, what relevance is there in trying to determine its age?
If it's been here "always", then it is ETERNAL. IE unaffected by time.
For your perusal.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ … verse-age/
Time is observer dependent and - not eternal. LOL
Is that supposed to be an intelligent answer?
We, the observers, are asking these questions.
If the answer was self evident, we would not be asking.
"The Questions must continue until the answers make sense...
to the one asking the questions."
(Not to the one answering them. If your answers create more questions and do not point the questioner to the same conclusion as you either you haven't explained yourself well enough, or you are mistaken in your conclusion.)
Yes, that is what you are claiming if you claim that the universe had a beginning.
I'm going to say this one more time. Matter did NOT and CANNOT appear out of nothing. YOU are the one who is claiming this, if you claim that the universe had a beginning. If you still do not understand this, then I'm sorry but you are officially a dummy. I highly suggest that you actually put the effort into understanding what I said, because if you don't then you'll say something stupid like, "Oh, but something always existing and never appearing out of nothing still means that something appeared out of nothing".
Well, rudeness is usually a sign of a lack of understanding. I find it counterproductive, so; enjoy your fantasies
I have no choice but to be 'rude' when someone refuses to understand anything.
There are always choices. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying, but I don't see it as cause to react in kind.
Look, you have to admit that you made a stupid statement when you said that eternal matter which never appeared out of nothing still somehow involves something coming out of nothing. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are not being honest with yourself.
Don't complain that I hurt your feelings if you say something stupid.
I don't consider it is something stupid. I find it somewhat naive and grasping to simply state things have always been. We can't prove this, even if background radiation implies it. For you to so adamantly insist that anyone is ignorant for questioning it shows a lack of thought on the matter.
I like the idea that it appears that the universe is eternal. I think it opens up to a wide variety of questions. But not any you appear to be willing to ask. And if you see this as the end all answer that's little more than a belief.
Do you have any evidence that something can come from nothing? Creation from nothing is the unverified claim here. You're the one who should either explain or demonstrate that creation from nothing is possible. Eternal matter is the default position.
I'll take that as a no.
Yelling about how stupid you believe Emlie R is for doubting you is silly. Provide her with the reasons why you believe your opinion to be correct. Don't expect her to capitulate to your way of thinking simply because you verbally abuse her. Bullying her into compliance is not an option in an online environment.
I am not 'bulling'. You have to understand that when someone deliberately misunderstands what is being said to them that that can very obnoxious. I have repeatedly stated my very simple to understand position that 'things just exist and move'. Why neither of you are able comprehend this is quite unfathomable to me. If you want to ACTUALLY debate this position then that would be good. I'm just tired of these ridiculous straw men.
I'll restate a very simple concept...
"The Questions must continue until the answers make sense...
to the one asking the questions."
(Not to the one answering them. If your answers create more questions and do not point the questioner to the same conclusion as you either you haven't explained yourself well enough, or you are mistaken in your conclusion.)
I don't have a problem with questions. I have a problem with straw men.
Why do you believe what you believe? (about something from nothing)
'Believe' is not the right word. Creation from nothing has never been demonstrated or even theoretically explained. Therefore, I have no reason to make this irrational assumption. The rational assumption is that 'matter just exists'(i.e. matter is eternal) It was never created and cannot be destroyed. When we look around at the world, then all we see are things moving. My position is that that's all there is in the objective universe. Perpetual motion of matter. Objects eternally disintegrate and then form together again into other material objects. Unless someone can rationally explain creation from nothing, then this is the default position.
What is the right word? Assumption?
Has 'Perpetual Existence' been demonstrated or theoretically explained?
Your 'rational' assumption...
***Implying your position is the position of choice or the most popular choice, without providing proof of it's popularity, in order to give it more weight doesn't work. It comes across simply as "I believe it therefore it is correct." If it is the most popular position it may still be the incorrect one. ('The World is Flat' was very popular at one time.)
So basically since no one has explained/proven creation from nothing to you, that makes it untrue? Unbelievable/Unrealistic/Impossible?
Yes, I 'assume' that matter does not appear out of nowhere. Do you claim otherwise? Then don't say another word. Go get your magic wand and show me how it's done. Abracadabra!
Motion of matter is demonstrated to you right now. Look around. Do you see anything popping out of nowhere?
I haven't a clue where you got that idea from. The most popular choice is clearly "creation from nothing". This is what most modern religious people believe and this is also what the mathematical physicists claim with their Big Bang theory. Anyone who invokes an argument from authority is an idiot. 'Authority' has nothing to do with these issues. The reason why eternal matter is rational is because that's all we can really conceive of. Can you explain how an object can instantly appear from nowhere? Yes or no?
Exactly, flat earth and creation have a lot in common. Both were popular and both are ridiculous.
Only idiots try to prove and it's especially stupid to try to prove a negative. YOU are the one who's claiming that matter can be created or destroyed (positive), not me.
Unless you can either explain or demonstrate creation from nothing, then I have no reason whatsoever to think that this can occur.
This statement seems to imply you believe that you have more knowledge about this topic than someone else. If you do possess a deeper understanding it works better to simply state that deeper understanding's facts. Your approach here makes you come across as a person searching for positve affirmation of self-worth.
Evolution = changes, beginings and endings... (Godunnit)
Perpetual Existence = no changes, no motion, eternal sameness.
It appears you are mixing the characteristics of the two concepts as needed to provide the result you're wanting, rather than keeping the facts straight and following those to the conclusion objectively.
Maybe the two concepts are intertwined, Perpetual Existence (a God concept) is outside matter (made up of something that never changes and exists eternally).
Perhaps the eternal existant "created" or mutated into matter, a substance that evolves and changes...
But that would mean a non-changing entity changed....
There is no proof that our matter based reality doesn't have an end... It is possible that our reality is akin to a flat planet with an edge (event horizon) where matter un-creates (becomes non-existant), like falling off the edge of that flat hypothetical planet.
Did you honestly think I was claiming that the universe is motionless? No, I'm saying that the universe is 'timeless' (eternal). All matter does is move/change/evolve. But there is no past or future. These concepts were invented by man.
How do you draw these irrational conclusions?
Evolution does not go against the theme of perpetual existence. Evolution = change, not beginnings and ends.
Perpetual existence requires no god dunnit.
You do know what "perpetual" and "eternal" mean - right? No beginning. No end. No god dunnit because there was nothing dun.
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.
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.
I've had a premonition dreams before so I fully agree with Infinite712.
the miracles happen here and there are the mystery to science, but are the proofs shown us to remember us the Almighty's presence.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 15 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Alan 3 years ago
In other words, does the existence of "God" depend upon the mind of Man to support that existence?
by nightwork4 7 years ago
How long before the myth that god exists becomes nothing more then a tale?people more and more are realising how silly religion and god beliefs are but how much longer before it is considered to be a myth by most everyone?
by Kathryn L Hill 6 months ago
Q. What does Jesus know? A. He knew that the kingdom of God is found within.The New Testament, originally written in Greek, includes many accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus and all these accounts have the same narrative. From these accounts we can assume certain things about the appearance...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 2 years ago
There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that is material in the universe, but the DNA molecule in its sublime complexity...
by Neil Coulson 5 years ago
Is it wrong NOT to believe in God?For every positive there is a negative, so if you do not believe in God, there would be no Devil. If there is no Devil, would this world be a better place?
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|