Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something From Nothing?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 124 (76353)
01-03-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by sidelined
01-03-2004 3:22 AM


Something From Nada
OK..one last post before bed. Sidelined,my homie! You say that
"I am sorry but for the creation theory do you have an explanation of how God created something from nothing that explains things?"
Alas! No. I can only point to that dang blasted book of "fables". I can offer quotes from the book that address the discussion, but apart from the book, I have no concrete proof to present to you. Note my post over in the forum, Where Did God Come From? For the sake of our discussions, I won't claim that Absolute(God) must exist. I will only say that He can exist. Also...as to your assertion that perhaps it is amiss to suggest that at one point in time, nothing was.
OK. lets ask another question..What force caused simple non living elements to become complex (hopefully) thinking systems such as ourselves? We are assuming, of course, that the early times of the universe had only simple non living systems. Or am I wrong in THAT assumption?
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2004 3:22 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2004 11:29 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 124 (76359)
01-03-2004 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
12-30-2003 9:31 AM


Re: Something From Nothing? Reply#7
When you ask, can minds imagine infinity, I would have to say that in a very real sense the answer is no. Generally people can't get beyond the point of "really really big". Mathematically infinity is so strange that a leading Christian apologist (William Lane Craig) has declared actual infinities to be impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 12-30-2003 9:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 18 of 124 (76365)
01-03-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
01-03-2004 5:31 AM


Re: Something From Nada
Phatboy
In response to your question
What force caused simple non living elements to become complex (hopefully) thinking systems such as ourselves?
The electromagnetic force is most likely the best candidate to be considered as the means by which conscious thought propagates.Alterations induced on the brain by instruments which disrupt the normal electrical pathways result in changes in the brain and in our thought processes. If you have ever been in a fight and caught a shot upside the head you are aware of this phenomena.
I believe you may also be hinting at what possible means do chemical elements combine to allow for life to exist. Of course we do not yet know.But since we are made up of these elements it seems safe to bet that the way in which these elements combine under the influence of atomic forces does allow for this to happen.Is there some force that you are aware of that science does not take into account? Do you have evidence that allows you to make the otherwise unnecessary additonal assumption of God? Remember that in order to bring God into the picture you must give at least some way of determining HOW God operates on the world. That is to say, what 'force' does he use to accomplish His work. Why can we find no evidence of such manipulation?
You also make the following point.
For the sake of our discussions, I won't claim that Absolute(God) must exist. I will only say that He can exist.
How can He exist?As in your something from nothing arguement you make assertions that you do not explain. Ask yourself What does it mean to say something exists? Do we not base existence upon our own existence? Of course we do. Now we are creatures of flesh and blood and a lot more.But the basic fact remains our existence is based on matter and the interaction of that matter in complex ways according to simple laws.Does God operate in the same way?What is He composed of. Spirit? What is spirit? Is it something actual or is it a convenient means of avoiding the issue of explaining direct questions of God's existence?
It is not the assertion of a God that is the issue but the lack of rigor in putting together a case to substantiate the existence of God. Is this clear? If you cannot then we must relegate the concept to the land of fairies and other such whimsical thoughts.Just because we can imagine them does not mean they have an existence. It just means we have no way of proving them.

...people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself.
G. A. Wells, 1991

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 01-03-2004 5:31 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 3:24 PM sidelined has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 124 (76841)
01-06-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by sidelined
01-03-2004 11:29 AM


Re: Something From Nada
the nothing you speak of is GOD ! ! !
It is conscious and it created and sustains the universe by pure thought.
Our perceptions of reality, absolute and personal are subjective thoughts and are part of the totality of GOD and the universe.
nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing
SEEK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2004 11:29 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MisterOpus1, posted 01-06-2004 4:30 PM RingoKid has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 124 (76858)
01-06-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RingoKid
01-06-2004 3:24 PM


Re: Something From Nada
quote:
the nothing you speak of is GOD ! ! !
It is conscious and it created and sustains the universe by pure thought.
Do you have any methodology of sorts to test your assertions?
quote:
Our perceptions of reality, absolute and personal are subjective thoughts and are part of the totality of GOD and the universe.
Okay seriously, where'd you come up with that one?
quote:
nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing
SEEK
Is that a lyric from the band "Yes"? Just sounds darned familiar.
I'm just curious where you find evidence for your assertions. So far I have yet to come up to "nothing" and see God's name tag on it. The only unexplained "nothing" I'm aware of is dark matter, but that's a little off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 3:24 PM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 5:44 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 124 (76883)
01-06-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by MisterOpus1
01-06-2004 4:30 PM


Re: Something From Nada
methodology...
accept NOTHING as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality
but understand your truth and reality exists within an absolute truth and ultimate reality of which we can only speculate about. Your truth may differ from another's but it makes it no less valid as ulitmately it is only your subjective perception and therefore an opinion.
The unverse was created out of "nothing" and is still expanding into it. This pre bigbang "nothing" was/is only relative to itself due to it's singular nature. Instil the nothing with conscious thought and a will to create and for lack of a better WORD call it god. The process is the big bang and the rest is nature evolving which is aught but the will of GOD.
The evidence lies at the frontier of the expanding universe where physical laws breakdown and where dark matter exists in it's purest form and where by energy transference it is converted to black holes and wormholes which then get distributed throughout the universe as tendrils rippling back thru and across spacetime.
besides the onus is on you to disprove it for it is by faith alone that my universe is sustained. Faith in GOD as nothing and belief in GOD as something.
contradictory ???
no...complementarity actually. works for me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MisterOpus1, posted 01-06-2004 4:30 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 01-06-2004 6:01 PM RingoKid has replied
 Message 24 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 2:18 PM RingoKid has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 22 of 124 (76884)
01-06-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RingoKid
01-06-2004 5:44 PM


Re: Something From Nada
...or, all possible basic sets of rules could exist at the same time, each occupying their own universe.
Besides, your notion of the big bang expanding into a sea of nothingness isn't exactly correct. As to your tendrils line, are you referring to brane theory? It's hard to tell what you mean.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 5:44 PM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 6:37 PM Rei has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 124 (76891)
01-06-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rei
01-06-2004 6:01 PM


Re: Something From Nada
...if all possible universes have a central starting point it would be like each universe exists as a membrane of a bubble expanding outwards at different frequencies and wave lengths travelling thru the same medium of "nothingness"
making it possible to occupy the same space and yet undetectable to each separate universe with black holes and wormholes leading to variously the edge, another place or another space.
so if each resonant wave/bubble is recreating itself for every instant and allowing for chaos then minor permutations would ensure infinite variations...yeah ?
how do you see the universe expanding and into what if not the singular "nothingness" ?
I'm of the opinion that it is getting blown out from the middle and sucked out from the edge by a force which let's call GOD and because it's not expanding uniformly or constantly then the black holes and wormholes act as energy overload and dispersal mechanisms.
It's hard to tell what I mean because as we all know words are such an inefficient means of describing concepts of higher meaning especially if you lack the formal training.
eg...Given our current vocabulary and in light of events described in genesis in particular we all would have wrote things a little differently but still meaning the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 01-06-2004 6:01 PM Rei has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 124 (76999)
01-07-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RingoKid
01-06-2004 5:44 PM


Re: Something From Nada
A few misconceptions here, Ringokid:
quote:
The unverse was created out of "nothing" and is still expanding into it.
Not quite. The volume of the universe is increasing over time (IOW space is expanding) but the universe is not expanding into anything at all. That's because the universe is all of space to begin with. This doesn't mean matter is flying apart from an explosion into an empty void. Rather, the void itself expanding.
However, the void is still something. Space does not have any independent existence of it's own, but is the volume of the gravitational field. So in that sense, there is no such thing as completely empty space at all. Space expands, but the universe is not embedded in any larger volume.
On another note, "nothing" is merely the linguistic negation of "things", in the same context of words like "nowhere" and "nobody". IOW, the word is short form for "not anything". Saying "not anything" is a thing in it's own right is not profound or philosophically deep, but pure nonsense. Such statements shows a lack of basic logic and even a misunderstanding of basic english.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RingoKid, posted 01-06-2004 5:44 PM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RingoKid, posted 01-07-2004 3:37 PM Beercules has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 124 (77015)
01-07-2004 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Beercules
01-07-2004 2:18 PM


Re: Something From Nada
so Beercules...
...substitute GOD or the much more mysterious sounding "the void" for "nothing" and you still get the same result...yeah ?
aren't you just quibbling over semantics ?
quote:
This doesn't mean matter is flying apart from an explosion into an empty void. Rather, the void itself expanding.
So the big bang wasn't an explosion of matter into a void ? And the singularity existed as "the void" or was it surrounded by it, thereby making it non singular as there would then be two things, it and the medium it existed in
quote:
but the universe is not embedded in any larger volume
can you prove this ?
surely an expansion needs a medium to expand into
I'm actually trying to follow a logical chain of simple events in laymans terms, apologies if it seems naive, but something from nothing can only happen if that nothing is actually a something or was surrounded by it...
oops... now there goes my basic understanding of english out the window as well
please enlighten me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 2:18 PM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 4:49 PM RingoKid has not replied
 Message 28 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 5:07 PM RingoKid has replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 124 (77028)
01-07-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RingoKid
01-07-2004 3:37 PM


Re: Something From Nada
quote:
...substitute GOD or the much more mysterious sounding "the void" for "nothing" and you still get the same result...yeah ?
Nope. The void is just a relatively flat region of the gravitational field. Nothing musterious sounding about that. God on the other hand, is a being with supernatural powers. I don't see how the 2 are even remotely similar.
quote:
So the big bang wasn't an explosion of matter into a void ? And the singularity existed as "the void" or was it surrounded by it, thereby making it non singular as there would then be two things, it and the medium it existed in.
As I said, the expanding universe refers to the expansion of space itself. If it helps, imagine a universe that is empty of matter that is expanding. Wind the clock back on this expanding void, and you find that the density at each point becomes very high. At the classic big bang singularity, this density becomes infinite. However, this expanding universe is not contained in any medium.
quote:
can you prove this?
Yes, if you accept the validity of general relativity as a description of space and time. In GR, space is just the volume of the gravitational field. If you were to somehow take away the field, then space (as defined here) would vanish with it. Because of this, an expanding universe is not expanding into any larger spaces.
Even if you assume the existence of some kind of external space, that space would still be something. After all, it has properties just like any other object does.
quote:
surely an expansion needs a medium to expand into
Logically, it does not.
quote:
I'm actually trying to follow a logical chain of simple events in laymans terms, apologies if it seems naive, but something from nothing can only happen if that nothing is actually a something or was surrounded by it...
But you're not using logic, you're using intuition. It may seem that empty space is somehow ontologically different from everyday objects, but that is only because of the way depth perception works. If you take the time to break things down into logical arguments, you'll find that there is no reason that a finite space must be embedded in a larger space.
As well, another misconception that has come up is that the big bang implies the universe is finite. This is also incorrect, as the universe may well be infinite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RingoKid, posted 01-07-2004 3:37 PM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2004 4:58 PM Beercules has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 124 (77030)
01-07-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Beercules
01-07-2004 4:49 PM


This is also incorrect, as the universe may well be infinite.
Do you mean that it has infinite volume, or that its volume is finite but unbounded? I confess I have a hard time wrapping my head around how a universe could go from infinitely small to infinitely large without being finitely large in-between.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 4:49 PM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 8:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 28 of 124 (77034)
01-07-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RingoKid
01-07-2004 3:37 PM


Re: Something From Nada
Ringo Kid writes:
surely an expansion needs a medium to expand into
Not really, because there aren't necessarily any boundaries to the universe. There aren't "edges" to the universe, on the other side of which we might imagine some place "outside" the universe. We say that the universe is expanding because we observe celestial objects moving away from eachother in all directions, however this quite possible without requiring an "outer edge" to the universe, nor a center to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RingoKid, posted 01-07-2004 3:37 PM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RingoKid, posted 01-07-2004 5:54 PM :æ: has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 124 (77047)
01-07-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by :æ:
01-07-2004 5:07 PM


Re: Something From Nada
space takes time to expand meaning distance is involved so doesn't that mean the possibility exists that it does have an edge and a centre and a medium which it is expanding into ?
thus it is expanding possibly to infinity and not infinite in itself.
I'm not talking about some "place" outside of the universe because that requires a point in spacetime as a reference point I'm talking about some "thing" of which we don't have a frame of reference so let's call it "nothing" yet instil it with conscious thought and power the universe with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 5:07 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Abshalom, posted 01-07-2004 6:09 PM RingoKid has not replied
 Message 31 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 6:23 PM RingoKid has replied
 Message 37 by Beercules, posted 01-07-2004 9:09 PM RingoKid has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 124 (77048)
01-07-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RingoKid
01-07-2004 5:54 PM


Re: Outside Force
To someone who understands all this, please provide any possible explanation to those of us who don't grasp it yet:
1) If in fact the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate; and
2) If in fact all the objects of lesser mass in the universe should be attracted by gravitational pull to objects of greater mass ...
What gives?
Shouldn't the speed at which the universe is expanding gradually slow rather than accelerate?
Is it possible (and I've been told both here and elsewhere in my life that I'm blatantly ignorant, so WTF, here goes ...) that something exists outside and surrounding the bounds of our universe that has a mass greater than the entire mass of our universe?
Actually, if this only serves to reveal my ignorance and there is still a cooler full of brewskies on the porch when I get home ... I'll live through it.
[editted portion]: By the way, I have read all of the following information regarding this subject and more, but still cannot grasp it from a practical point of view. It all seems like recent theories are formulated to explain rapidly changing viewpoints due to one new discovery after another.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0104/03supernova/
Expansion of the Universe Is Accelerating, Data Suggests - The Tech
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RingoKid, posted 01-07-2004 5:54 PM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 6:40 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024