from nothing to something (Darwin, virtual, creation, God, verse)

[(Q)]

All I am saying is that something must exist. Whatever that 'something' is is not the question.

But what science IS saying is that in lieu of the fact that "something" did not exist at a particular point in time and at a particular location, "something" suddenly came into existence and promptly dissapeared leaving only the effects of its existence behind. The only "thing" that was present prior to its existence was a vacuum, which is loosely defined as a region of space empty of matter; ie. nothing.

We could be treading on the area of semantics here.

then they should conclude that... SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG.

They HAVE made that conclusion.

My only point is in addressing the idea that something comes from nothing.

I hope you can now understand how it does.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Damn, I was typing a reply and got disconnected....then Zero Faith beat me to the punch! Ah well I'll be brief...

Prapraktri--Those are not the only two options, silly. Things don't have to exist at all points in space....there can be places where there are no "things" existing at that time. We can say "nothing" exists in those places just as we can say "darkness" exists in the absence of light.

I have already addressed this. The concept of "nothing" is relative. My example was how it is relative to space. You now bring up how it is relative to time, as well. I have no disagreement. Yes, when asked about light in a dark room one might refer to there being 'nothing'. But this 'nothing' is relative to the existence of light. There is no need for me to go further in this, we agree.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

At any rate, "from nothing to something" is a bit of a strawman argument. It should say something like "the universe/big bang came from virtual particles which came from a vacuum". We know virtual particles can appear randomly in a vacuum, so this is perfectly reasonable.

The theists' question is always, "then where did this 'vacuum' come from?", which of course cannot be answered. Atheistic people do not accept the concept of God seeing that they have no experimental ability in this department. Ultimately something must come from something, and the 'something' we term God is, in concept, the only absolutely plausible conclusion to answering wherefrom all sensually perceived reality comes.
Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts? The Vedas call this Maya, the illusionary material energy. We, the spirit-souls, are engaging one fleeting existence (the senses) upon another (the surrounding environment) and then attempting to arrive at any real concrete conclusions. It is thus not so hard to understand the necessity of God and the necessity of the soul.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Some people seem to think that in order to be valid, a theory has to leave no question unanswered. The truth is, the Big Bang theory does not claim to be the end all, final explanation of everything. We don't know everything there is to know about how our universe came into being--not scientists, not theologians--no one. We know the Big Bang occurred by studying the dopplar effect--that's not really disputable. It remains open as to how, exactly, it occurred, but there are plausible theories.

It will remain theories upon theories upon theories. If "God" is only a theory, then it is a perfect theory. It is actually the final conclusion. To think that any other theory will ultimately explain the "end all" reason for being is futile.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Let's talk about the idea of something coming from nothing. This seems illogical to us, because we have the misconception that time is an infinite, linear continuum--it isn't. Time is relative, not absolute, and is used to describe the position of a point in space. If there is zero relative motion, zero time has passed. Therefore, any theoretical universe that existed "before" our universe/the Big Bang had a lifespan of exactly 0 seconds. The universe didn't come from nothing, so much as we live in a universe where time has a beginning. Get it? Neither do I, lol

Either way time goes, we do not accept that something comes from nothing. I say "we" because we are talking about it. If something does come from nothing, absolutely, then all things are essentially nothing and thus nothing is really being said now. In this case, why keep conversing on nothing?

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by (Q)

All I am saying is that something must exist. Whatever that 'something' is is not the question.

But what science IS saying is that in lieu of the fact that "something" did not exist at a particular point in time and at a particular location, "something" suddenly came into existence and promptly dissapeared leaving only the effects of its existence behind. The only "thing" that was present prior to its existence was a vacuum, which is loosely defined as a region of space empty of matter; ie. nothing.

We could be treading on the area of semantics here.

then they should conclude that... SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG.

They HAVE made that conclusion.

My only point is in addressing the idea that something comes from nothing.

I hope you can now understand how it does.

I know and have already addressed this concept of "nothing" in relation to space and time. I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

[Ceridwen018]

The theists' question is always, "then where did this 'vacuum' come from?", which of course cannot be answered.

Where did god come from?

Atheistic people do not accept the concept of God seeing that they have no experimental ability in this department.

Experimental ability? What do you mean by this?

Ultimately something must come from something

Says who?

Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts? The Vedas calls this Maya, the illusionary material energy. We, the spirit-souls, are engaging one fleeting existence (the senses) upon another (the surrounding environment) and then attempting to arrive at any real concrete conclusions. It is thus not so hard to understand the necessity of God and the necessity of the soul.

I can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. Could you explain?

It will remain theories upon theories upon theories. If "God" is only a theory, then it is a perfect theory. It is actually the final conclusion. To think that any other theory will ultimately explain the "end all" reason for being is futile.

Except that god isn't a theory, because it is backed up by zero evidence of any kind.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Where did god come from?

God constitutes the eternal 'something' that underlies all things. Now, we are getting back into the debate of whether there is something or there is nothing, in an absolute sense. If you reply with, "then why can't this vacuum be eternally existing?", then I will reply that this vacuum does not constitute a 'something' and therefore is insufficient in describing the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. The concept of God suggests a 'something' that exists transcendental to any conception of 'nothing', 'void' or 'vacuum', which are all relative terms relating to either the lack of perceiving any quality present or to the lack of a specific quality in question.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Experimental ability? What do you mean by this?

I mean that God cannot be experimented on. Sorry if I worded it wierd.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Says who?

Says logic. If, at the point you accept that from nothing comes all things, then these so-called "things" are essentially no-things. Furthermore, any discussion of these 'no-things' are no-things as well. So why keep conversing? The premise that something comes from something, (speaking in an absolute sense of course), is beneficial to all viewpoints in this discussion, scientific or religious.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

I can't figure out what you're trying to get at here. Could you explain?

I am trying to explain how all conclusions are futilely endeavored after by a method that is essentially fleeting. Actually, if it weren't for the symptom of consciousness we would have no ability to observe these points. But somehow or other this transcendental ability has fallen subject to these fleeting senses. Now we are attempting to find our way by engaging the fleeting senses with the fleeting objects of the senses. I was more or less being analytical toward the human endeavor of objectifyingly understanding reality in a God-like manner, yet doing so with such apparently flawed tools.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Except that god isn't a theory, because it is backed up by zero evidence of any kind.

I use the word "theory" as opposed to referring to it as "fact", seeing that I know many people here will only try to debate whether it is or not. Perhaps I can just stick with "concept" or "idea". Nevertheless, I hope you understand the point I am trying to get across.

[Mr Spinkles]

Either way time goes, we do not accept that something comes from nothing.

So you're saying you don't have a problem with Big Bang theory?

Consider that what we perceive is only a fleeting interaction of the senses and the objects of the senses. Also, that the senses themselves are fleeting. How can we then think that any conclusions thereof are absolute, concrete, stand-alone facts?

Easily--the conclusions we have made using the scientific method, so far, have yeilded huge success. We now have computers, telephones, the internet, artificial intelligence, gene therapy, and so forth. We have reaped the benefits of our "fleeting senses" for some time now....looks like they might not be so fleeting after all.

At any rate, how can you say that, and then say that the existence of a sentient, all powerful, invisible being is an absolute, stand-alone, concrete fact? Would you concede that is it POSSIBLE God doesn't exist?

Another thing--you say that logically, something has to come from something. Then you say that logically, there must be something you call "God" which did not come from something. Hmm....looks like either a) you concede that God must come from something or b) you concede that it logically possible for something to not come from something else. It seems to me you cannot have it both ways.

What if three dimensional space itself is the "something" from which virtual particles "come"? That way, this conversation is still "something"....also, it's not difficult to grasp three dimensional space never having to come from something else, which would mean God = three dimensional space. Problem solved!

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bob

just think now, the universe had to have come, have started, from something. and the scientific theory, that the big bang, etc, started it, seems a bit untrue to me.

And it seems that many scientists thought so too. There has been great effort to reconcile the Therory of General Relativity, quantum physics and the singularity of the Big Bang. Cosmologists today seem to have solved the problem and the answer is that nothing comes from nothing - that something preceded the Big Bang. And that "something" lies in String Theroy and Membrane Theroy

See God is not in the Big Bang, a new thread.

-pah-

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

So you're saying you don't have a problem with Big Bang theory?

I'm not so much interested in it. Obviously It doesn't try to be the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. So I suppose in that sense, no I don't have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Easily--the conclusions we have made using the scientific method, so far, have yeilded huge success. We now have computers, telephones, the internet, artificial intelligence, gene therapy, and so forth. We have reaped the benefits of our "fleeting senses" for some time now....looks like they might not be so fleeting after all.

That which has a beginning, has also an end. "For some time now" still means fleeting. Also, computers, telephones, internet, etc, etc, are not the 'end all', 'final conclusion'. We make lots of neato toys, and then...?

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

At any rate, how can you say that, and then say that the existence of a sentient, all powerful, invisible being is an absolute, stand-alone, concrete fact? Would you concede that is it POSSIBLE God doesn't exist?

At this point we must decide in this argument what we do accept to exist, quality wise. If there is intelligence then is it reasonable in what would be an intelligent conversation to say that intelligence has come from non-intelligence? This is a more specific example of saying 'something comes from nothing'. The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Another thing--you say that logically, something has to come from something. Then you say that logically, there must be something you call "God" which did not come from something. Hmm....looks like either a) you concede that God must come from something or b) you concede that it logically possible for something to not come from something else. It seems to me you cannot have it both ways.

'Something comes from something' is referring to all such knowledge that is not 'end all', 'final conclusion'. Obviously, since it is that 'God' is the eternal and supreme 'something', It does not require to have come at all. In other words, something is not coming from nothing in this case because this 'something' is not coming at all. God is not a link in the chain. He is the proprietor of the chain itself. As the Bible puts it, the alpha and omega, beginning and end. God pervades all space and time.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

What if three dimensional space itself is the "something" from which virtual particles "come"? That way, this conversation is still "something"....also, it's not difficult to grasp three dimensional space never having to come from something else, which would mean God = three dimensional space. Problem solved!

Refer back to my reply to your third paragraph in this post.
This only works if 'three dimensional space' is not itself bereft of intelligence. Otherwise I'll come back to the, 'then everything discussed is essentially non-intelligent, so why should we continue?' point.
Actually, God is simultaneously one and different with the universe. That is the perfect reconciliation of God's transcendental nature. We cannot completely separate God from His energies (the universe in this example) and we cannot completely equate Him to His energies to say that the universe is God. An analogy, the sun globe and the sunshine. They are one in a sense that one cannot divorce the two from each other. But yet, one would only be foolish to think that sunshine is the sun globe.

[(Q)]

I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

It may sound illogical to you, but that doesn't mean it has not been shown to be the way our universe works, it has. If you do not accept that which has been observed from experimentation, then you have no reason to accept any other observed phenomena.

The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Then by your logic, god and intelligence would have had to come from something, what was that something?

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by (Q)

I am speaking in an absolute sense of something coming from nothing. It is absolutely illogical.

It may sound illogical to you, but that doesn't mean it has not been shown to be the way our universe works, it has. If you do not accept that which has been observed from experimentation, then you have no reason to accept any other observed phenomena.

"Nothing" is never observed. "Nothing", in an absolute sense means the lack of observing. You can observe a "vacuum of space", that is still not a "nothing". Nothing in all actuality doesn't exist. It's usage is relative. This is simple logic. If nothing is the cause then nothing is the effect. "Observed phenomena" constitutes a 'something'. No one observes, measures, takes photographs or fondles a 'nothing'.

Originally Posted by (Q)

The concept of God as an existing, supremely intelligent and powerful Being is portraying the 'something' that must exist from which all cherished qualities have deduced. Otherwise, quality has come from non-quality, yet we continue to cherish an intelligence that is essentially nothing. If this is our premise then I can't see us going any further.

Then by your logic, god and intelligence would have had to come from something, what was that something?

I have already addressed this either in this thread or in the "tasteless man" thread. Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing. I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal. I also addressed the typical debate, "then the universe is eternal and so a God would be superfluous". Is the sun globe superfluous to the sunshine? In this sense, God means the reservoir of energies. This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.