|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dr Adequate writes: I, on the other had, asked you to explain why there was something rather than nothing. As God (if he exists) is something, then in order to answer my question, you have to explain God (if he exists). Thanks for laying out the ground rules. Very helpful We all know that I am not going to be able to explain God. What I can do is speculate on an answer to your question. It seems to me that we function in a world in a way that is dependent on our 5 senses. We have no idea what we might perceive with different senses. Science talks about other universes, (Scientific American recently led up an article with the headline - "An entire universe may be silently interwoven with our own) Brian Greene writes in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" page 145 the following:
quote: So just maybe there is a whole lot more around us than we are able to perceive. And just maybe in the part that we can’t perceive the laws of physics as stated by Greene actually apply, and there is another time dimension that allows us to experience time in 2 dimensions, (backward and forward), or maybe even 3 dimensions, (backward, forward or through). Maybe in that universe or the whole of this universe we would be able to move around in time the way that we move around in space in this one. From a theistic point of view this could be God’s dimension/universe. If this is bears any resemblance to reality it could answer the question. Why is there something instead of nothing — because something is infinite or has always existed meaning there never has been nothing. I again point out that this is wildly speculative and I have the shields up in preparation for the ridicule to come. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
None here have even begun to understood or taken up the issue as it should be.
Nothing is harder to exist than something, and requires greater input. The initiation of the universe must be imagined and seen without laws, science or any components whatsoever - not even energy, light, space, time or whatever exists in this universe. That is the meaning of a true finite; Dawkins knees shake when this is put to him, thus the fanciful inventions put forward which have no alignment with the manifest universe or science; this also includes the plank threshold - these are escapist manipulations to run from what is evident. It is easily seen that all the fanciful mechanisms posted here and by some scientists are bogus: those reasons cannot apply because it would mean the universe is not 14B but trillions of years old, if not infinite. Why would those fanciful manipulations not have occured trillions of light years ago - why precisely at the universe initiation point? It is thus clear they never occured pre-14B years ago because we know there were no stars or galaxies at that time; we know of nothing existing pre-14B years ago. This scenario is open to only one conclusion: something happened some 14B years ago, and whatever that was, caused a universe to happen. This in turn says the universe's occurence had to have an external trigger impact which was precedent and transcendent of the universe. Ultimately, the best proof of Creationism is science. Forget the nonesensical theologies - most are manifest and vindicated as bogus, in diabolical contradiction of each other even in mundane historical and geographical factors. The science and math best prove Creationism; there is no alternatives to it. True science minded folk must first be honest - the fear of boldly acknowledging scientific and mathematical veracity must not be denied as does all religionists. Today's atheist science is acting as if they found out how a car works and that is their proof there is no car maker; the reverse applies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is a better explanation to this issue. Both nothing and something are universe contained phenomena; no one knows or can identify nothing - it cannot exist in the absense of something. And there is an explanation how a transcendent force [Creator?] can exist in the absence of nothing and something. Here, an infinite is the transcendent factor; this is above both nothing and something. Why so? Because it is transcendent of both. How so? Consider what an infinite represents - we can only see this in abstract terms; the true meaning of infinite is that which is not subject to 'CHANGE' - what ever changes something is transcendent of what it changes; whatever is not subject to change remains forever unaffected by anything. There is magestic science in the Hebrew bible. When the question was asked by Moses, a question every red blooded scientist would ask, namely what is the source of the Creator - who created the Creator? The answer was absolutely brilliant and mind boggling: 'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'. Consider that in scientific terms: who or what can claim the same attribute? It means that what is unaffected by both nothing and something, yet able to cause both nothing and something. Here, one can ask, what was existing before the universe, if not nothing or something? This answer is also seen only in Genesis, anticipating the question for those who have considered this writings scientifically. The answer is seen in the first four opening words of genesis: "IN THE BEGINNING GOD." Not nothing; not something. Not science; not laws. Here, we have to accept what is very hard for us: we are given dominion of the universe - but this is limited by only one factor, which is represented by the first alphabet. Namely we are given the B to Z; the first opening alphabet in Genesis being the second alphabet; the first Alef is barred and elusive. This is also the meaning behind the metaphoric story of Adam & Eve: they are given the entire paradise, except one small measeley tree - yet they threw away all the gfts of paradise for the pursuit of the one singular forbidden. Its a brilliant strategy! For me, science proves there is no alternative to Creationism. Big bangs don't cut it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
These are the answers to the questions: "Who are you?" and: "Have you changed?". 'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'. Now try answering: "Why was there something rather than nothing?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I suggest this enigma must be considered outside of science and laws, which apply only to this universe. Here, the premise of nothing and something is aligned only with positive and negative, a duality system pervasive throughout the universe, but mute when applying it to how the universe was initiated. It is not possible to consider the thread's question via science or theology.We known zero about the origins of anything, including pineapples, stars or the universe. Science is post-universe, and well outside our considerations here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Don't get your panties in a knot. If you're going to get upset if people challenge your speculations, why are you bothering to post in this thread? I laid out my view in message 4. I think "speculation" on this is an exercise in utter pointlessness; we have no basis on which to make informed speculation or judge ideas so we are merely engaging in a game of mental masturbation in which the winner is simply the one who comes up with the most plausible sounding fantasy. The absolute best we can hope for in a speculation is that it doesn't contain a straightforward logical error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Hi Black Cat,
Welcome to EvC! I apologise for rude reception you've received from my fellow posters.
One doesn't need an explanation of the explanation for it to be the best explantion. Quite correct.
Therefore, God answers the question why there is something rather than nothing. No, this doesn't follow. The problem isn't that we can't explain God, it's that God is Himself something. So you're essentially answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing by asserting the existence of something; just moving which something you're talking about. That means it fails as an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
This is just my armchair philosophising:
There is something rather than nothing because there is no such 'thing' as nothing. Maybe 'nothing' cannot be part of the universe. There will always be something so there will never be (or have been) nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: How can you have purpose unless you first have something capable of intent? Well, purpose and intent are close in definition : Dictionary.com
intent1 [in-tent] —noun 1. something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds. From Wiki:
Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken,[1] or of an object being brought into use or existence, whether or not the purpose was a primary or secondary effect. It is possible that an intentional act may have multiple and hierarchisated purposes, only some of which is primary intentions while the remainder are secondary (or tertiary or more) intentions. First attested in c.1290, from earl Old French porpos "aim, intention", purpose is related to from porposer "to put forth," from Vulgar Latin corruption of por- "forth" (Latin pro- "forth") and Old French poser "to put, place".[2] Purpose is related to the term pose used from 1374 as to "put in a certain position," or "suggest, propose, suppose, assume," a term use in Late Latin debating (c.300—c.700) from pausare "to halt, rest, pause".[3] IMHO purpose seems to make the most sense to me. It's obviously unanswerable. When you look in your toilet and see it empty with nothing in itdoes that mean just because it's empty the toilet has no purpose? What's the definition of nothing? We use the word ALL the time. Why is there an empty toilet instead of something in it? We would say "nothing" is in it. Why is there "nothing" rather than something- because purpose isn't involved. When purpose gets involved you have crap in your toilet. My point about the toilet is that "nothing" can be described in a lot of ways. In order to have something,purpose is required. Without purpose, you have "nothing". So, There is something rather than nothing because of purpose. Without purpose what is there? NOTHING. Before you have something you need nothing. For there to be something from nothing there has to be purpose or there would always be nothing. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
For there to be something from nothing there has to be purpose or there would always be nothing. Or, there has never been, nor ever will be nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Before you have something you need nothing. Why?
For there to be something from nothing there has to be purpose or there would always be nothing. How can there be anything to have a purpose in order to get the something from nothing? Isn't whatever the purpose is, or whatever has the purpose, something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes: Chuck77 writes: Before you have something you need nothing. Why? Why? So then you think something always existed? And there was never nothing? Why?
Isn't whatever the purpose is, or whatever has the purpose, something? Are you a JACK of all trades and master of nothing? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So then you think something always existed? And there was never nothing? Why? We have plenty of evidence of "something". We have no evidence for "nothing". So why would we postulate that before something there was nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Why? So then you think something always existed? And there was never nothing? Actually I made no positive assertion either way; I just challenged your assertion. You've made no attempt to defend it, so I ask again: why do have you to have nothing before you have something?
Are you a JACK of all trades and master of nothing? Cute but it doesn't answer my question: why isn't the purpose, or whatever has the purpose, something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If you're going to get upset if people challenge your speculations, why are you bothering to post in this thread? Well they are not my speculations but sort of an amalgam of others I'd heard over the years. And you challenged one, quite well as I recall, and I agreed with your reasoning.
we are merely engaging in a game of mental masturbation in which the winner is simply the one who comes up with the most plausible sounding fantasy. That's part of the fun, Mr Jack. You got one you've heard somewhere haven't you? Just kick your shoes off, lean back, relax and join us.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024