Nothing

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
My subject is nothing. I don't understand it. I always think of "nothing" as empty space, but space as it turns out is something (what I don't know). What is on the "other side" of the universe? "Nothing" is the answer. This is incomprehensible to me.

​

An infinite universe makes more sense but does not fit with Big Bang Theory.

---

yeah, it might be impossible to wrap a thought around the concept 'absence of something'... as for the universe being infinite, i think that doesn't depend at all on bb... unless make believe numbers are used (hawking et al), an actual infinite can't really exist in nature (as opposed to a potential infinite)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Holland:
But Forgiven has it slightly wrong. The BB is not an explosion in space, with an expanding border to the universe. This would be creationist Humphrey's theory, discussed in other forums. The BB view is expanding space with no limit, like the surface of an inflating balloon, with all points moving away from each other, and no border.

​

Mike.

---

hi mike... i'm a little confused by the above... if we grant the singularity, then at the moment of the BIG bang, do not laws of thermodynamics operate? not arguing with you, asking you... i guess i can't quite grasp how an explosion *can't* result in an epicenter... if all parts are moving away from one another, from whence are they moving? thx

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Forgiven,

​

I didn't see this stated elswhere and I think it is important.

​

Consider the balloon analogy. Imagine a balloon shrunk down to a dot like a tiny rubber ball (yes, the analogy breaks here, but what comes next is the important part) Now, imagine that the rubber ball/balloon is inflated from the inside. Anyone standing on the SURFACE would see everything move away, giving the illusion that the observer is at the center. It doesn't matter where you stand, you get the same effect. Nor is there any epicenter on the SURFACE of the balloon, any more than there is a center of a spherical surface.

---

ok thx, i understand that i think... here's where i lose it... let me use a different analogy, not cause i think the balloon one is faulty but cause my mind sees it differentlytake a stick of dynamite encased in a tube of some sort... now imagine you drop it from an airplane.. it drops, oh 30, 40 feet and explodes... if a little bitty teensy weensy person was on the outside of the tube, yes i see that he'd see everything moving away from him, relative to his position... same for any number of little bitty teensy weensy people... but does this (relative) movement common to each mean there wasn't an epicenter? my mind is having trouble understanding how the exact location of the explosion can't be considered the center *of* that explosion... hope that makes sense

^^^ whew... i doubt if this'll ever make sense to me, it seems so anti-intuitive... even if i think of the singularity occupying a non-point in non-time, containing all that is, i can't understand how once it explodes (or whatever) that non-point fails to become a *real* point of reference for all time

ok, i'm a little less fuzzy on it, but you gotta admit it still seems anti-intuitive... almost as if we have to deny what we know from our senses... here's a hypothetical, see if it makes senseassume for the sake of argument that God exists... let's give him some of the attributes most christians (and even non-christians) think he has, such as omnipotence... given what you've all said about the singularity, it struck me that one thing it could be that i've never heard before is, a thought God had...the universe and all it contains at one time was a thought in the mind of God... this would fit in with joz's non-occupation of a non-point in non-time and also with mike's point of time (in an event horizon) pointing inward referenceGod, because of this incomprehensible power he possesses, can give "life" (as it were), can cause to be that which isn't, simply by willing it.. so could the singularity itself be the early stages of God's planning of the universe?inside this singularity, which has no boundary either (it can't else that very property would be transmitted to its culmination), what we know to be true now was made true thru the plans and workings of God... when and only when he was ready, he gave his thought freedom to express itself, and express itself it didthat would mean that whatever was *inside* the singularity (this thought, or even thoughts) wasn't always the same, it may have changed as God rejected this plan, accepted that, rejected this final universe, accepted that one, etc... but there came a "time" (lack of better word) when he was ready, when he examined for the last time his thoughts and declared to himself "it is good"... and the universe sprang forththe physical aspects given impetus, given motion, by the very will of Godoh well, it seems to fit, given the premise of an all powerful God... i can actually think of only one other theory i've ever read that can even come close to this, and that's the one that says there is an actual (not potential) infinity, and the singularity from which our universe came was itself a part of one etc etc ad infintum... i don't think that can stand up on philosophical or physical grounds

^^^ thx john... i'm reminded yet again how there's nothing new under the sun, even thoughts we might have that *seem* new or original heheheh... i like that particular thought tho, think i'll work on developing it... and i'll do a search now for 'kabbalists' and 'bishop berkeley'

^^^^ buy a book? BUY a book? surely you jest... i found both of 'em... berkeley was no dummy... course none of the philosophers were... still, i like the thought.. let's develop it, eh?we have this singularity that i'm calling the thought(s) of God... whew, this could get complicated... anyway, God planned the universe, all of creation... he foresaw all potentialities *and* all actualities of every possible universe he might create... that alone would show how awesome a SUPREME being would be, since he'd have to (using me as an example) know the destiny of me in any possible creation, no matter "when" or "where" he decided i should be bornnot only would he have to know that, he'd have to know how my intereaction with everyone else would end up should he foresee creating *them* in all possible universes.. oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universegranting free will (a given if we're to accept being created in his image, since to me that entails all attributes he possesses, just on a vastly smaller scale), he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals... so his foreknowledge and our predestination don't negate free will, since nobody who has ever been born and who finally spends eternity apart from God would have chosen differently in any possible universe he *might* have createdwhy create any of those trans-worldly damned at all? in order to maximize the ones who would be with him eternally (some of whom *may* have not chosen to believe him in all but one possible universe).. why not just create us with the knowledge that we'd all choose him? that takes away even the semblance of free will *and* it means we wouldn't be "in his image" (given free will as one of his attributes)the above isn't new (except for the singularity thingy, but even that isn't new as you pointed out), i believe it was first formulated by the spanish monk molina and championed by wm. lane craig... it's called "God's middle knowledge" and simply means he knew all that could be and all that would be... fascinating studythere's more to it, but i'll admit the singularity as the thought of God is brand new to me... sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be

---

​

Sorry to bear the bad news bud but its worse than that your concept of innate ideas over on the "Knowledge" thread reads pretty similarly to Descartes....

​

Nice to see you and John playing nice with each other BTW, isn`t it far more productive...

---

oh well, mack... i guess i'll sit back and await your original thoughts... and yes, john and i seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot... this is more productive, for both i hope

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe

---

​

How do you know this? Rather, how do you know the attributes of God? How do you know God is logical?

---

i guess any idea or definition or concept of God has to start somewhere, has to ascribe certain attributes... we're all free, i guess, to choose what we know (or think we know) from the sources we choose to trust... it's all a matter of choice... so given that, i believe that all transcendental entities, all things that exist but are not suspended in space and time, do exist because they're a part of God's character or nature...we can point to logic as one of those things... yeah i know it can be argued that the law of non-contradiction isn't really a law, but i'd hate to argue that point myself... but if it *is* real, if it does exist, it doesn't exist in space and time... the *results* of the law do exist materially, usually, but not the law itself... same goes for most anything one can point to as existing yet which has no materiality... i guess love would be one of those things... metaphysical, transcendental, i think those words describe the entities i'm speaking of

quote:

---

quote:

---

granting free will

---

​

What you outlined in you first paragraph is of a God who knows precisely what will happen before he creates. There is no free will in that universe. It is all locked in from the get-go.

---

ok, let's examine that... it might be better if you do a google for 'william lane craig middle knowledge', i'm sure he's far more understandable than i am... but here's an attempt at a synopsisassuming the singularity as God's thoughts (my non-original thought doncha know), we can say that the universe was thought out, planned... not only that, all possible worlds in which i might live, at all possible times, was seen by God... all possible interactions with all possible people... God, knowing that he wanted to create us in his image, with all the attributes he himself has, would take that into account in his planslet's use a number for the sake of clarity.. let's say God saw 100 possible universes he *might* create me in, at 100 different locations and 100 different eras... remember, this has to be done for each and every person who both *might* exist and who finally *did* exist... imagine that God saw in 99 of those universes that i'd choose not to believe what he had to say, no matter when or where i was born and no matter who surrounded me... but in *one* universe, he foresaw that i'd freely choose to believe his words... he'd have to compare that universe to all others, inhabiting it with people for whom the very same thing had been donethis is before he said 'let it be'... the universe is still in his thoughts only... now, the fact that he *knew*, before he actually created, the world in which i'd of my own free will choose to believe him in no way negates that free will... yes, he might have still chosen not to create that particular universe, and yes once he did create it all that he foresaw concerning it was destined to happen...so 'predestination' did occur at the moment God, by his will alone, allowed his thought to become material... foreknowledge has to be a given when we're talking about God, omniscience and omnipotence being two attributes most people are willing to grant as making up God's nature...even we have the ability, tho not perfectly, to "know" what another will do in certain situations... i might *know* what my child will do in a certain situation, given certain circumstances... but that knowledge doesn't mean my child wasn't free to choose differently... but we aren't God, so our knowledge of the choices a person will make aren't perfect.. then again, none of the attributes we possess which come because of being created in his image are perfectassuming things were as i wrote above, we might argue that God had no right to create a universe in which he chose to know what would happen... we might want to argue that it was wrong of him to create a universe in which he *knew* that some would freely choose to disbelieve him... but such arguments assume, for one thing, that God isn't really God... that he isn't all wise, all loving, that he isn't worthy of our trust... that's ultimately a choice we each have to make

quote:

---

quote:

---

he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...

---

​

As you outline this creation, God knows precisely what will happen. Therefore, we are damned or we are saved right from the beginning. Salvation is meaningless in this context. It is simply part of the script.

---

as i said, the "damned" are so because they chose to be so... to argue that such a person might, when speaking with God about it, say "well had i known that i'd have wanted you not even to create me" misses the point too... i believe that thruout history there are the very minimum number of trans-worldly damned necessary in order to maximize the ones who choose God... not one of them could *not* have been created without sacrificing many more who would choose God... arguing against his judgment is simply a sign of not trusting him...

quote:

---

quote:

---

he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals...

---

​

Apparently something is limiting God's ability to create. What is that something? Why not just write a script where we all die and go to heaven? Surely God can do that?

---

absolutely he can do that... i believe that was one of the possible universes he could have chosen, or that he thought about... but maybe no such universe is possible... maybe, given free will as a criteria, without creating exactly the number of trans-worldly damned needed *nobody* would be in eternity with God.. again we might argue that this was better, and again we set ourselves in a position of having the knowledge God has of all things

quote:

---

We are like God and have free will, yet God knows precisely what will happen when from the beginning to the end? It doesn't make sense.

---

he can't *not* know, john... but knowing and forcing us to choose aren't the same thing.. [quote]

quote:

---

sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be

---

Well, maybe you at least had an original sentence. Isn't that the same thing? [/B][/QUOTE]i'm not sure if it is or not, but i'll hold onto that thought and pretend it's the same thing lol