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

[(Q)]

"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'.

That is merely semantics. You ignore the fact that 'something' came into existence where there was no 'something' before.

Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing.

That's nice, but you can't show that, you can only make an assumption, unfounded at best. What you don't address is from where god came?

I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal.

You have just been arguing to death the fact that something MUST come from something. If you claim god exists, then god is a something and that something MUST have come from something else. Can you venture to propose from where god came?

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

Does that imply that god is not of this universe but instead is outside of our universe? Does that imply other such universes exist?

[Lightkeeper]

Some people believe that God is Nothingness. Some religions strive for emptiness.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

You seem quite full of knowledge about the inconceivable. Can you verify any of this, or is it simply empty preaching?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Some people believe that God is Nothingness. Some religions strive for emptiness.

How nice for them. Since "some people" can be found to believe all sorts of nonsense, what possible relevance could this have?

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by (Q)

"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'.

That is merely semantics. You ignore the fact that 'something' came into existence where there was no 'something' before.

Call it what you want. One cannot 'ignore nothing' if there is nothing to be ignored. I may perceive something seemingly popping into existence but this does not mean that I should conclude that it has come from nothing. That is nonsensical. To ignore constitutes an object being ignored. Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Allow me to clarify here that when I refer to the fact that God is "existing", I mean that He really is existing.

That's nice, but you can't show that, you can only make an assumption, unfounded at best. What you don't address is from where god came?

My showing that is not the debate. You asked a question on the premise of the existence of God. The term "God" comes with a concept. The concept is that God is eternal. That is the premise. God did not come at all. That is your answer.

Originally Posted by (Q)

I am sure you already knew my answer was going to be that God is eternal.

You have just been arguing to death the fact that something MUST come from something. If you claim god exists, then god is a something and that something MUST have come from something else. Can you venture to propose from where god came?

God does not come from something or nothing because GOD DOES NOT COME AT ALL. Thus allow me to clarify my position:
Something that comes must come from something. Therefore, something that does not come is not required to follow this logic. This should have been obvious from the get go, as soon as I made it apparent that God does not come at all.

Originally Posted by (Q)

This universe is but a tiny particle of God's inconceivable energies emanating from Him.

Does that imply that god is not of this universe but instead is outside of our universe? Does that imply other such universes exist?

God is simultaneously one and different from His energies. Yes to your second question. But this is pointless to debate seeing that I accept such knowledge as it has been revealed to me through Sastra. I was simply trying to convey how insignificant we are in comparison to God.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

God does not come from something or nothing because GOD DOES NOT COME AT ALL.

The mind reels ...

Again, you claim to know a great deal about God(s). Do you have any evidence to offer?

[Zero Faith]

Paraprakrti:

I believe I am beginning to see the heart of your argument (which escaped me before). You're trying to grasp what 'nothing' means; the very fact that we can refer to it implies that it is, in fact, 'something'; that true, absolute nothing can't possibly exist, because if it wasn't there, how could we refer to it, ignore it, claim its presence, etc? Refering to nothing seems to imply that it is, in fact, something.

Am I getting close?

Stephen Hawking best explained the nothingness 'before' the Big Bang by relating time to cardinal directions on Earth.

What exists directly north of the North Pole? Nothing. Absolute nothing. 'North' of the North Pole doesn't even exist. The only way absolute nothing can be true is if the environment "containing" this nothingness also does not exist.

The exact same parallel is drawn with time before the Big Bang (in fact, time lines drawn back to the Big Bang, called 'light cones', actually resemble a planetary hemisphere approaching a north (or, usually, south) pole). Saying that nothing exists before the Big Bang is theoretically identical to saying that nothing exists north of the North Pole (or south of the South Pole). The environment itself is nonexistant.

It is extremely difficult to intuitively grasp the birth of time, since absolutely everything we have experienced takes place in time. We are prisoners of the timestream; our very perception is irrevocably bound to it. Attempting to intuit the birth of time is equivalent to attempting to imagine the fourth (or fifth, sixth, seventh, all the way up to twenty-first) spacial dimension espoused by string theory.

The only thing you can do is trust the math, if the math has proven itself to be reliable in other areas that we are better equipped to intuit.

The fact of the matter is that we as humans are moving forward into areas of science that defy our abilities to comprehend them. This should be expected; obviously, the building blocks of reality and the very nature of our existence are not going to be things easily understood. Rejecting these well-supported theories because they seem intuitively incorrect is irresponsible, narrow-minded and short-sighted.

[iwilliam]

There is no way you can get something from nothing. Even a simple atom comes from a smaller form of matter called a quark.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

The mind reels ...

Again, you claim to know a great deal about God(s). Do you have any evidence to offer?

Are you a Christian? It would be wrong for me to assume, but your name seems to imply that you are. But then, considering that you question when I explain that God is eternally existing, I am not so sure.

How do I know that God is eternally existing? That is the entire concept. I have yet to refer to a personal conception of God. I am speaking of God as a general concept. That concept consitutes eternality.

[Ceridwen018]

Alright then, Paraprakrti. What is your evidence for this 'entire concept'?