Notices

View Poll Results: Can something be created from nothing?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 53.85%
  • No

    5 38.46%
  • Only God can

    1 7.69%
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: The Nothingness

  1. #1 The Nothingness 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    100 civil lines hyderabad pakistan
    Posts
    1
    This is my first essay and I have choosen a topic which troubled me alot. The topic is "The Nothingness". Close your eyes and try to thik of nothing. It might look very easy but actually it isn`t. You must be thinking of a complete blank space where there is complete darkness but this space is also some thing. Your imagination is also something. It is a brainteaser actually which have teased me alot and now I want you to be teased. I hope you understand what am I try to say.
    Most of the great scientists and philosophers spent their entire lives thinking of What is it everything is created from? How it has been created? and most importantly Who created it? There are two different perspectives about these fundamental questions about the universe. One of them says that the matter existed from the bigenning, it can be changed into different shapes but there is no answer for how and who chaged the matter into what we see like. This view is agreed by many of the mordern scientists as it agrees with the law of conservation which says that matter can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be changed from one form to other. There is still a place for the creater who is not found by the observations or by the theories of the scientists.
    The second view is what is apreciated by many of the religious parties because there is a place for a God. According to this view every thing is created by some one who has been existing from the bigenning. Suppose for baking a cake you need it`s ingrediants but where the ingrediant to create this whole universe came from and if it came from some place how that place came into existance. This is mysterious because It is not possible to create something from nothing.
    To summarise this short essay I will want to share my views and they are that There must have been someone and something from the bigenning and that is probably the God.

    I will want you to share your views about this topic ..................


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    hello hassanamjad.

    I have discussed the same topic on another forum; http://www.sciencechatforum.com/ on the Metaphysics section under the topic of SuperUniverse Dimension. You may want to view that before continuing here. Also the thread here, What is outside of our Universe? Vacuum? deals with some aspects of this same question. In the SuperUniverse dimension topic at the other forum I have also provided a few links which may be of interest to you as they too are resolving the question more in the fashion of a superior being, or God in their math speculations. I would however, point out something which you yourself (given that you certainly do not lack imagination) should have arrived at; If you resolve the beginning of the Universe in this way, since something cannot come out of nothing as you say, than who created this being that created everything else in its turn???


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore wretched's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BakomGaller
    Posts
    108
    Err, the nothing is something actually. It is an abstract concept but still it exists. Death is nothing, dark is nothing, black is nothing so we create opposites, life, light, white... we are the creators of everything, including the nothingness...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    of course it can, something comes from nothing all the time. you see that in action when radioactive isotpes sends out radioactive radiation
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I did not vote, because the I feel that each answer is correct in its own way. By the way this thread belongs under religion or at least philosophy and not under Astronomy & Cosmology.

    I do not buy into the hollywood special effects idea of the power of God to make things appear out of nothing by snapping His fingers or saying the magic words. I believe that this is a childish view of power that appeals to a another agency (parent, engineer or God) with the knowledge and ability that we lack, to do everything for us at our request. God requires no other agency, for He has all the power and knowledge to do or create anything He desires.

    Now some people have complained about this sort of explanation, saying that if God cannot make things appear out of nothing at a mere word from His mouth then this would limit God and deny that He is omnipotent. But this is nonsense. Omnipotence is simply the power to accomplish any result and NOT to accomplish any result by whatever method you might dictate, that will lead to contradictions. Suppose we ask if God can teach a child to love his fellow man by putting a gun in his hand and forcing the child to shoot and kill all of his family and fellow students at school?

    I believe that the omnipotence of God includes an infinite supply of energy which He can give any form He chooses according to His unlimited knowldege of everything that is and could be. So consider the three answers again.

    1. Yes, Something can be created from nothing.
    Creativity is real and things which never existed before can be created.

    2. No, something cannot be created from nothing.
    Everthing is a form of energy and so when something is created it merely means that energy has been given that form. So in this sense it is not created from nothing but from the energy of it is made and the knowledge which gave it its form.

    3. Only God can create something from nothing.
    God is the source of all energy from which all things derive their being. Therefore only God can create something with no material being supplied from some other source.

    Now again, some people may complain that if God created from energy rather than from nothing then either He created the energy from nothing or there is something in existence which He did not create, or you have some kind of panentheism where everything is a part of God. This is nonsense, because it insists on an unrealistic view of the nature of God's existence. Any being with the complexity that include being a person is not simply itself but has things by its very nature which are a part of it or belong to it, while not actually being it. For example, a person can certainly think which means that he will have a thought or an idea, but the idea is not the person. A person can have abilities like locomotion, but this ability is not the person and the ability can be lost while person, though changed in ability is still the same person. God is a person of infinite complexity and infinite ability. Thus God has an infinity of things by His very nature which are not Him, and an infinite supply of energy is only one of these things. This energy is not Him and when He gives it a new form then He has created something.

    Now whether something which God creates in this manner is a seperate being or merely a part of Him, is a more difficult question. If this thing which He has created is fully in His power and responsive to His will, being whatever He wills it to be, or ceasing to be if He ceases to will it so, then I do not think that this thing He has created is in any meaningful way a seperate being, but for all intents and purposes is indeed merely a part of Him, like a thought or an idea. Therefore to truly create something outside of Himself, God must give what He creates some independence of existence and being - to exist whether He wills it or not and to be what it is apart from His will. But if He creates such a being, then it is still what He created it to be and even if it exists independent of His will it still cannot depart from His will for His will created it (I believe that the angels are such an order of being). So to create something which is more truly other than Himself, He must devise a means to create something which is not wholly a creation of His will, but which in fact, has something which is usually referred to as "free will" and is thus (at least in some sense) a product of its own will. I believe that this is the purpose of the physical universe and the nature of living things.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    dEdT >= h/2pi
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    Very interesting religious philosophical analysis mitchellmckain, but I wonder why is it that you never went to the question that I put forward, that is who created God? Answer that for me please, will you? Because if God exists in the childish way that people seem to believe in him (why not her?) I would not care any longer about how he made things. I would be satisfied with his existene. You are now explaining how he may have created something out of nothing or not, but that leaves his own existence unexplained. The reason I am repeating this in more than one way, is that religious people usually have a way of not ecognizing the question in the other. That is they only recognize their own questions, which kind of leave me incomplete.

    P.S. I could discuss this topic under a philosophical thread but not under a religious one. In the religious thread thee is nothing to be discussed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    god can not have a gender.

    god is there for everyone who believes. they will gain strenght and courage from him.

    living in the name of god is useless, because god did not told you to.

    visions and mental illness are never proven to be different.

    all that is left for us are 2 rules..

    1 ) is to have fun while living!
    2 ) allow others to have fun living!

    all that is... the answer to life, the universe and everything else.....
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    dont talk philosophy here, this is in astronomy/cosmology therefor should be talked about strict scientific things
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver
    god can not have a gender.
    All gods have a gender. Name one who does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    dont talk philosophy here, this is in astronomy/cosmology therefor should be talked about strict scientific things
    A moderator should move the thread to philosophy or religion, for from the poll by including the option about God and from the content of the first post, this topic has religious and philosophical content that does not really belong to Astronomy/cosmology as I already mentioned in my first response. But while the thread is here I will pursue the topic as it has been outlined by the person who started the thread.

    Edit note: I seem to have confused rrushius with hassanamjad, for in a previous edit of this post I said that the thread starter agreed to move this thread to philosophy. In my defense, the tenor of the post by rrushius acted like this was his/her thread so strongly that I didn't even notice that the names were different.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Hermes, maybe god is a trimale, the mysteries third sex we humans never evolved
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Very interesting religious philosophical analysis mitchellmckain, but I wonder why is it that you never went to the question that I put forward, that is who created God? Answer that for me please, will you? Because if God exists in the childish way that people seem to believe in him (why not her?) I would not care any longer about how he made things. I would be satisfied with his existene. You are now explaining how he may have created something out of nothing or not, but that leaves his own existence unexplained. The reason I am repeating this in more than one way, is that religious people usually have a way of not ecognizing the question in the other. That is they only recognize their own questions, which kind of leave me incomplete.
    The is an old question that has been considered many times including by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (although from a different perspective). The perspective from which your question is posed presupposes that nothingness is somehow a more likely or natural state of existence than something. Logic, however, suggests that this is incorrect. If there was ever truly only nothingness then there is no way to logically get from there to the present state of reality where there is something. So that is the proper place to start - the here and now in this state of reality where there is something. So this is where Aristotle starts and following the chain of cause and effect backwards comes to the logical conclusion that there must be a first cause - an "unmoved mover" as he called it (or uncaused cause to be more precise). Clearly the uncaused cause could not be nothingness, for nothing proceeds from nothingness. However as you suggested in your post there is a bit of a contradiction in the idea of only nothingness, or at least, it seems a bit impossible to concieve of it purely. In any case, Christianity identifies God with Aristotle's unmoved mover, the cause of everything which itself does not have a cause. Theology often puts it another way by ascribing to God the property it names "self-existing".

    Here is another way to think about it. One reason that people tend to think that nothingness is the natural state of existence is because there is nothing about it to explain. But perhaps there is an "everything-ness" that also requires no explanation because it has nothing "peculiar" to it. That is, like nothingness, it has nothing about it (like brown hair) which could be otherwise. Then we could identify this "everything-ness" as a being which is everything, which a Christian could identify with an infinite, all powerful and all knowing God. If God had brown hair then we could ask why brown hair and not blond. (If God were male then we could ask why male and not female.) The everything-ness of God eliminates peculiarity by makng Him all things, both brown haired and blond, and both male and female. This tends to make God a bit of a paradoxical being since it would mean that everything specific that you say about him is in reality no more true of him than its opposite. Of course if this is to really work for Christianity, then to uphold the idea of God as the ultimate good and as loving, then we must affirm that these attributes have no true opposites (in other words, it implies that evil and hate are not true opposites of goodness and love, but that the opposition is only apparent and derives from deficiency rather than a true negation). Regardless, this would also tend to make God something which defies logic in many ways.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    May I remind you that while you are claiming that God is neither male nor female you keep refering to IT as him? And that it has been this way since the beginning of religions, that is, since the break from the old female deities? I won't repeat here what I have said elsewhere, but I will point out that I do not think Nothingness to be a a more basic element that Somethingness or the everything. In fact even if it were there would be no way for us to point to it as (and here I will take for granted what we have now learned from quantum mechanics, that something can come out of nothing) in a timeless (and also spaceless as would be demanded in total nothingness) singularity if something appears, this something would also be the begining of time and thus it would right from that begining be intertwined with Nothingness so that one could not any longer divide them and have the pure forms. In fact for all practical purposes, it would be impossible to speak about a Timeless Nothingness before time was actually introduced by the existence of this being, or Somethingness. There simply is no time to speak of. As for your discussions about God, I really am no interested and there's nothing i could add to what have already said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    I think he is using "he" due to convention. Im sure he isnt assuming "god" to be male. It sure sounds a lot nicer than "it".
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    And Vroomfondel, why do you suppose we should be nice to God? And in that case and spirit, wouldn't she sound just as nice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Very interesting religious philosophical analysis mitchellmckain, but I wonder why is it that you never went to the question that I put forward, that is who created God? Answer that for me please, will you?
    I was responding to the poll and the post at the start of the thread. This question by you, presuming that I should have read and responded to your post was so strange that I automatically assumed that you were the thread starter and I failed to notice that the names were different.
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Because if God exists in the childish way that people seem to believe in him (why not her?) I would not care any longer about how he made things. I would be satisfied with his existene. You are now explaining how he may have created something out of nothing or not, but that leaves his own existence unexplained. The reason I am repeating this in more than one way, is that religious people usually have a way of not ecognizing the question in the other. That is they only recognize their own questions, which kind of leave me incomplete.
    Communication is not easy. It has many difficulties like this. But my inability to clearly comprehend your question suggests that rather than not considering your questions important, these people you are talking about may simply not understand what it is that you are asking.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    May I remind you that while you are claiming that God is neither male nor female you keep refering to IT as him?
    I have made posts using He/She, Her/Him and such but it slows down my typing considerably, so it is easier to use the convention of the english language to use male pronouns for persons whose gender is ambiguous. You may not like this convention, but we must use the conventions of the language in order to communicate. The pronoun "it" is not used for persons, therefore I will not use "it" for God (anymore than I have used "it" for any of my children before I knew their gender), since I believe that God is a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    but I will point out that I do not think Nothingness to be a a more basic element that Somethingness or the everything. In fact even if it were there would be no way for us to point to it as (and here I will take for granted what we have now learned from quantum mechanics, that something can come out of nothing) in a timeless (and also spaceless as would be demanded in total nothingness) singularity if something appears, this something would also be the begining of time and thus it would right from that begining be intertwined with Nothingness so that one could not any longer divide them and have the pure forms. In fact for all practical purposes, it would be impossible to speak about a Timeless Nothingness before time was actually introduced by the existence of this being, or Somethingness.
    Well I cannot really comment on the gist of your arguement since I am having trouble understanding what that is, so I will restrict myself to commenting on the physics which you mention since that is my speciality anyway. I presume that you are talking about vacuum fluctuations. Well the physics community is hardly agreed that this represents that this is a case of something from nothing. My proffessor (Dr. Karl Kuchar) was of the opinion that vacuum fluctuations were merely an artifact of the use of the mathematical method of perturbation theory. People already have difficulty in believing in an invisible God that provides no objective evidence for Her/His existence. Energy which conveniently disappears before it can be measured strains credulity in the same way.

    Physicists do not postulate that any kind of nothingness preceded the big bang. Hawkings may have attempted to explain the cause of the big bang as a kind of vacuum fluctuation, but he cannot do so if the state which preceded the big bang is truly nothing. In quantum field theory the vacuum state is not nothing, and it can have a great deal of energy in it. Even a vacuum state is a form of energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    There simply is no time to speak of. As for your discussions about God, I really am no interested and there's nothing i could add to what have already said.
    Well that is a rather peculiar thing to say after you have said the following.
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Very interesting religious philosophical analysis mitchellmckain, but I wonder why is it that you never went to the question that I put forward, that is who created God?
    First you demand that I respond to your post and answer your question as if you owned this thread, and then you declare that you are not interested, when I answer it. Besides being incredibly rude, the contradiction suggests that either one post or the other is dishonest, and I would have to assume that it is the first post that is dishonest. This suggests that your first post was merely a lure, hoping that my response would provide you opportunities for ridicule. I have apparently disappointed you, but if you would like to hide your obvious defeat I would reccomend not replying at all. You display obvious hostilities towards religious people, and that is something which I can sympathize with, but your reply shows how easy it is for human beings to become just like what we hate the most. In any case, if you are truly not interested in God then I would suggest that you refrain from asking questions about God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    My posts which you are now considering so rude were not meant in the way way you took them. I did not have any aggressive feelings against religious people, but I would be a liar to negate that I may have such feelings against people who skip questions and simply go directly to where they feel more secure. And this is not so much because of their inability to answer my questions rather than their presumptious way of throwing at one's face their own beliefs as if these were a Universal truth that we other mortals are failing to recognize. The childish way of religious beliefs refers to the Father figure that is found in God (the father literally) which is not even hidden in their scripts where IT is in fact referred to as the father, and not the mother, or simply the creator. That is why I think that your usage of he is biased, and even if it weren't and you were using those words which are conventional in English, it is the way of going about that convention without questioning it that shows an acceptance for lack of something better. I do not understand what defeat you are talking about. The reason why I said that I no longer was interested in this discussion (that of God anyway) was that I did not receive a response to my question, not even in the post where you pointed out the old existence of my question, which by the way is no reason why we should not keep asking it. I see nothing odd in it, I simply asked how do you account for the existence of God in the first place, since you seem to be looking about an origin of the Universe. If you account for the creation of the Universe by God, then all I am asking is, how do you account for that of God. And if the "unmoved mover" was really your answer why can't we apply that to the Universe directly? Isn't this puting the rabbit in the hat so then when you need it you can pull it back out again? Also the unmoved mover does not mean anythin at all, it is just an expression that in a supposedly philosophical way reinserts the old religious rule that we should not go about questioning the existence of God or ask IT for proof. Just like the term intelligent designer is to a biblical creationist. I lost interest in this because I saw that we simply would not arrive to any conclusion.
    However, I should probably add here, and not simply let it be understood, that I had no intention of ridiculing whatever you might say, as I am not about to do now. But it is obvious that you yourself have had in mind the intention of winning the conversation and not discuse it honestly since you were so quick to point that out in others. You were looking for an adversary with the qualities that you would like to now lay on me and then destroy that adversary and show your greateness. I will not abandon the forum just because that is your wish, I advise you to reconsider your words and think deeper within yourself before finding deeper meaning in another being.
    Regards rrushius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    My posts which you are now considering so rude were not meant in the way way you took them.
    Yet you asked a question about God of me... no you demanded an answer of me and when I responded you reply that you are not interested. This rudeness is not a matter of how I took them, it is what you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    I did not have any aggressive feelings against religious people, but I would be a liar to negate that I may have such feelings against people who skip questions and simply go directly to where they feel more secure.
    But I did not skip anything. I started at the top with the first post. I was not obligated to read your post at all and you were not obligated to read mine. If I felt any lack of security in your question I could have ignored it and yet I did not. I answered it as you requested. Next time you ask me a question, I will expect you say please.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    And this is not so much because of their inability to answer my questions rather than their presumptious way of throwing at one's face their own beliefs as if these were a Universal truth that we other mortals are failing to recognize.
    Curious. But of course, they are a universal truth, and apparently at least some part of you does recognize this, for you said this not I. I am sorry that you are so insecure that you require everyone to affirm your right to believe as you choose in everything they say and every post they make. I do believe that you are, of course, entitled to believe anything you choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    The childish way of religious beliefs refers to the Father figure that is found in God (the father literally) which is not even hidden in their scripts where IT is in fact referred to as the father, and not the mother, or simply the creator. That is why I think that your usage of he is biased, and even if it weren't and you were using those words which are conventional in English, it is the way of going about that convention without questioning it that shows an acceptance for lack of something better.
    All language has its limitations, but alas, it is all we have with which to communicate.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    The reason why I said that I no longer was interested in this discussion (that of God anyway) was that I did not receive a response to my question, not even in the post where you pointed out the old existence of my question, which by the way is no reason why we should not keep asking it. I see nothing odd in it, I simply asked how do you account for the existence of God in the first place, since you seem to be looking about an origin of the Universe.
    How should you answer a question like "When did you stop molesting children?" If you say that you never molested children, can I say that you haven't answered the question? Christians believe that God is the cause and creator of everything. Therefore when you ask, "what created or caused God?" They must answer that God was not created nor did He have a cause because answering your question in the manner that you demand would contradict their belief. If God was caused by something else then God could not be the creator and cause of everything and thus He would not be God.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    If you account for the creation of the Universe by God, then all I am asking is, how do you account for that of God.
    Ahhh, but I did no such thing. I have said numerous times in other threads that God is not an adequate explanation of anything. He is in fact a black box in which we can hide a neverending list of unanswered questions. Therefore I do not like the pseudoscience of Creationism. It is pure rhetoric dressed to look like science, by people who really do not understand what science is all about.

    I believe in God, but not because He is a good explanation for anything. I believe that God created all things, but not because this is a good explanation for the universe. For good explanations of the things we can objectively observe and measure I look to science. But since I believe in a spiritual aspect to existence, including God as the creator, I do attempt to explain all this as well by the means of reason. And that is all that I indended in my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    And if the "unmoved mover" was really your answer why can't we apply that to the Universe directly?
    Some people have. I think this is why many people like the idea of a steady state universe that has always existed. The evidence for the big bang requires some explaining if the steady state universe is to be accepted but some people do try.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Also the unmoved mover does not mean anythin at all, it is just an expression that in a supposedly philosophical way reinserts the old religious rule that we should not go about questioning the existence of God or ask IT for proof.
    Indeed some people think that the word "God" has no meaning. Some people have even argued that the word "meaning" has no meaning. I believe in finding meaning in all things, not in this program of denial. It is your choice to see meaning in whatever you wish or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    You were looking for an adversary with the qualities that you would like to now lay on me and then destroy that adversary and show your greateness. I will not abandon the forum just because that is your wish, I advise you to reconsider your words and think deeper within yourself before finding deeper meaning in another being.
    Actually I am not looking for an adversary, at least not consciously. I dislike debate for I think it promotes meaningless rhetoric. I believe in discussion, but I am not a councelor or a facillitator. I am an opinionated participant in discussion. It is true that pride is a weakness of mine that I have struggled with all my life. Such battles are two steps forward and one step backwards (or visa versa at times). A wish that you would abandon this forum never entered my mind. I really thought that you were trying to pick a fight, and I applaud your defense of the ideals of discussion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Well lets look at it this way.

    If our universe is held together and constructed by elements we can not detect and never will be able to detect as it would break the very laws of reality that we live in, then sure something could be created out of nothing. The difference being that our perception would be that nothing physical exists. Say 1 cubic yard of space (for lack of a better word) that contained absolutely no form of matter and or energy. This area relative to our existence would be considered to contain nothing.

    The truth of the matter may be that that very "nothingness" is still held in place and constructed out of building blocks we will never know about.

    A good example is a computer simulation. A certain area in the memory of a computer might start out in say a state of all zeros. When a program runs and populates that area it goes from a state of null to a state of something. That something might be a work of art or a piece of music.

    The universe may have that same behind the scenes area to hold information.

    Let's say you created true artificial intelligence on a computer but you did not give the machine eyes or ears or the ability to touch what we know as our physical universe. We could have created a preset building area that governs the laws of physics in the computers world. It would only be able to add or build objects that fit these laws. This same computer living out it's life would never be able to know no matter how hard it tried to be able to see that it was really living inside a microchip that was housed inside another form of reality totally alien to itself.

    The Matrix movies may be somewhat on this idea, the difference is they didn't take it far enough. Inside the matrix still had the same laws and rules or physics as the outside did, well at least to those that did not know how to break these laws.

    Now picture the matrix as being what we know but outside the matrix as being something so completely different we would not be able to comprehend any of it or even exist. Just as the AI computer program I discussed would not be able to manifest itself in to a physical shape outside of it's little box. It would be stuck in that box forever living it's life unless "God" interfered and gave it more abilities. In this case we would be the God's. The computer itself may formulate ideas of what it is and who created it, chances are it would be completely wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    The Matrix movies may be somewhat on this idea, the difference is they didn't take it far enough. Inside the matrix still had the same laws and rules or physics as the outside did, well at least to those that did not know how to break these laws.

    Now picture the matrix as being what we know but outside the matrix as being something so completely different we would not be able to comprehend any of it or even exist. Just as the AI computer program I discussed would not be able to manifest itself in to a physical shape outside of it's little box. It would be stuck in that box forever living it's life unless "God" interfered and gave it more abilities. In this case we would be the God's. The computer itself may formulate ideas of what it is and who created it, chances are it would be completely wrong.
    The Matrix is a very good notion to explain what I had in mind. We are so situated within language that the Real is imperceptible to us, it is always in the background exerting its influence but never clearly seen, (Lacan). I have explained this idea in the behavioral section under the Borromean Knots topic since it is a psychological issue more than anything else.
    As for the computer's speculations about its creator (I like this example a lot) even if it did guess the right answer, that is, that a human God created it, then wouldn't the computer have the right to ask the further very natural question, that is, who created this human God in the first place?

    Mitchellmckain, I did not go the religious thread as you are saying, the reigious thread came to me. Don't forget that it was posted in the astronomy section, you never see me going about the theology, or religious theads around here, just so I can start meaningless endless discussions with people who will naturally make different assumptions than me, and you, I don;t doubt should be aware of the impossibility of such discussions (between two people with totally different axioms, assumptions, or first principles). I appologize, if I offended you in any way, I think I should have not said anything at all in that direction (that of God) but I just wanted to point out what I thought to be an obvious question. Because it is obvious since it is offered in a scientific forum. I am fully aware of the christians' assumptions and that for them it would make no sense to ask who created God, the creator of everything, but in a scientific thread where this creator is offered as an explanation, don't you think I have a right to ask that question? And that is the resaon why I might have demanded to have it answered, thing which sounded rude to you. And yes sir, rudeness is a matter of perception like when you are angry and ready to pick a fight. In those cases whatever a person says or does, it may easily be taken for an offense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    Mitchellmckain, I did not go the religious thread as you are saying, the reigious thread came to me. Don't forget that it was posted in the astronomy section, you never see me going about the theology, or religious theads around here, just so I can start meaningless endless discussions with people who will naturally make different assumptions than me, and you, I don;t doubt should be aware of the impossibility of such discussions (between two people with totally different axioms, assumptions, or first principles).
    Yes I realized my error just before reading your post. This thread should have been posted in the religion or philosophy section, but it was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    I appologize, if I offended you in any way, I think I should have not said anything at all in that direction (that of God)
    Apology gratefully accepted. I shall never mention it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrushius
    but I just wanted to point out what I thought to be an obvious question. Because it is obvious since it is offered in a scientific forum. I am fully aware of the christians' assumptions and that for them it would make no sense to ask who created God, the creator of everything, but in a scientific thread where this creator is offered as an explanation, don't you think I have a right to ask that question?
    Yes indeed. You are absolutely right. If God is offered as an explanation for things your question does indeed point out the complete failure of God as an explanation for anything. And this does indeed clear up my misunderstanding of your intentions as well. And may I offer my apology for any accusations or insinuations that my misunderstanding has misled me to write.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    Well I am grateful everything is cleared up. Take it easy, RRushius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    65
    How do you define "Nothingness".
    My answer depends on that. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if someone says empty space dont do it becuase there is somethign there allways even when no molecules are present
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •