How could first big-bang explode?

[paarsurrey]

"nothing" is a concept that we can't understand with our human mind

Do you mean that "Nothing" is a concept like "Trinity" that was invented by Paul, mythically?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It's One. But not "Creating". Nothing is just nothing. All something comes from something else. We are part of that something. And that something was, is, and will always be The One. We are part of The One. This world is part of The One. There never was a specific beginning of The One. The only beginning we can see, is the beginning of our specific time line. It's not creating, but becoming. God, us, the world, all of it, is constantly becoming.

--edit

Dang. I did it anyway. I brought in my own personal view of what God is, and my view of pantheism... really tried not to.

How does one know that ONE is not creating?

Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you mean that "Nothing" is a concept like "Trinity" that was invented by Paul, mythically?
Regards

It's a concept, for sure. What nothing is, must be something that isn't. Since something isn't nothing, and as soon as we ask what nothing is, we're asking what kind of thing is nothing, which makes it a something. A nothing can't be a something, unless it's everything.

 

[Ouroboros]

How does one know that ONE is not creating?

One doesn't.

Here's an interesting view of the Big Bang. We're still banging. The universe is still in the "bang" process. Not only is it "banging" still, but it's speeding up and becoming an even larger bang than before. The fact is that the universe is currently expanding in an increasing speed. Is God "creating" still? He's not finished yet? Or is this "creating" just a matter of a long, infinite, eternal process of constant change?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Could you put that into plain English please? That reads like something William Lane Craig would have said.

What does "...the underlying unity of Cosmic existence" mean?
"...natural anthropocentric fashion..." I know what 'anthropocentric' means but what does that phrase mean?
"the Cosmos at large is birthless and deathless" - is it, how do we know?

There is one Cosmos yes...? You share the same Cosmos as all else in existence yes? There is, despite the apparent separation between beings...an underlying unity...yes?

Human beings have perception and conceptions yes? It is through these perceptions and conceptions that ideas are formed as to what constitutes the Cosmos yes? This is a natural anthropocentric view of the Cosmos yes? What the Cosmos really is humans do not really know, just anthropocentric theories....

Otherwise it would have had to have a beginning just like all manifested forms that have beginnings and endings yes? Where would all the stuff that constitutes the Cosmos come from to make it in the first place....from nothing? No, that is not logical...there are no magic tricks needed as all that exists has always existed...but the transformation of form go on eternally....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In that last post, I said nothing whatsoever about time. You said that it followed logically that because the big bang is expanding "into" nothing, that "'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated".

All I explained was that this isn't necessarily true as per the "nature" of nothing. "Nothing" is not a space that something can "expand into" like a balloon inflating in an empty room. It is literally nothing. The universe is expanding, but it not expanding "into" nothing, it is simply expanding. There is nothing outside of the Universe for it to expand "into", so there was not necessarily any state that somehow preceded the existence of the Universe in any form. How is that not a logical addressing of your points or a skirting of the issue? It is a direct, plain-English response to your assertion that "'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated".


See above. The Universe isn't "expanding into" nothingness, and I have no basis on which to assert therefore that this "nothingness" preceded the big bang (if, indeed, anything did precede the big bang). Again, you appear to be viewing "nothing" as comparative to "emptiness", like the empty space inside a room being filled by an inflating balloon. But emptiness is not nothing. I'm not sure I can adequately communicate the concept effectively in words, but it is more useful not to think of the Universe as expanding "into" something, but merely the Universe expanding. Again, I am not a physicist or a cosmologist so my understanding of these subjects can very generously be described as dramatic oversimplifications, but I'm trying the best I can to explain what little I understand.

So we know that the Cosmos is real because it exists....of this there is no theory necessary to prove it yes? But you say that this realness came from nothingness, which is only a theory because it can't be proven yes?

So you believe in a theory of absolute nothing that can't be proven in preference to my logical assumption that Cosmic reality never had a beginning because to claim so requires some leap of faith into the magic of pulling a Cosmic rabbit out of a non existent hat....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's One. But not "Creating". Nothing is just nothing. All something comes from something else. We are part of that something. And that something was, is, and will always be The One. We are part of The One. This world is part of The One. There never was a specific beginning of The One. The only beginning we can see, is the beginning of our specific time line. It's not creating, but becoming. God, us, the world, all of it, is constantly becoming.

--edit

Dang. I did it anyway. I brought in my own personal view of what God is, and my view of pantheism... really tried not to.

Ok...understood...

 

[paarsurrey]

It's a concept, for sure. What nothing is, must be something that isn't. Since something isn't nothing, and as soon as we ask what nothing is, we're asking what kind of thing is nothing, which makes it a something. A nothing can't be a something, unless it's everything.

So you are at science for fun! It is round and round yet not circular.

 

[Bunyip]

So we know that the Cosmos is real because it exists....of this there is no theory necessary to prove it yes? But you say that this realness came from nothingness, which is only a theory because it can't be proven yes?

So you believe in a theory of absolute nothing that can't be proven in preference to my logical assumption that Cosmic reality never had a beginning because to claim so requires some leap of faith into the magic of pulling a Cosmic rabbit out of a non existent hat....

Only if you confuse scientific hypothesis for beliefs.

 

[Maponos]

We don't actually know what happened at all because we weren't there. We can only guess and speculate from very minimal observations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Only if you confuse scientific hypothesis for beliefs.

What do you mean...I was responding to the claim of ImmortalFlame wrt nothing...?.

 

[Bunyip]

What do you mean...I was responding to the claim of ImmortalFlame wrt nothing...?.

What I mean is the the big bang is not a belief mate. You confused it for one and said it required faith.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you are at science for fun! It is round and round yet not circular.

Again, if you say that nothing must be something, then it can't be nothing, can it? Nothing is not the same as something, is it? So if there was something instead of nothing for the space to expand into, then that something must've been put within something too. Or was that something that space expanded into a something that was created inside a nothing? If you say that's impossible, then it is impossible regardless if God did it or not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I mean is the the big bang is not a belief mate. You confused it for one and said it required faith.

No confusion here....it is you who does not understand....I have referred to big bang theory as a theory consistently....and I do not believe it is credible. There are others who believe the theory is credible, and others again who are agnostic...

Are you denying that there aren't people who believe in the big bang theory as a scientific fact?

 

[Bunyip]

No confusion here....it is you who does not understand....I have referred to big bang theory as a theory consistently....and I do not believe it is credible. There are others who believe the theory is credible, and others again who are agnostic...

Are you denying that there aren't people who believe in the big bang theory as a scientific fact?

No, plenty of people fail to grasp the simple point that theories EXPLAIN the facts and are not beliefs. You appear to be one of them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, plenty of people fail to grasp the simple point that theories EXPLAIN the facts and are not beliefs. You appear to be one of them.

Theory....A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena..

 

[The Enlightened One]

So we know that the Cosmos is real because it exists....of this there is no theory necessary to prove it yes? But you say that this realness came from nothingness, which is only a theory because it can't be proven yes?

So you believe in a theory of absolute nothing that can't be proven in preference to my logical assumption that Cosmic reality never had a beginning because to claim so requires some leap of faith into the magic of pulling a Cosmic rabbit out of a non existent hat....

I think there might only be a leap of faith here if one was to suppose what happened before the beginning. And that we aren't brains in vats

 

[The Enlightened One]

Theory....A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena..

This is a hypothesis. A theory involves one or more hypotheses and must explain processes and make predictions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think there might only be a leap of faith here if one was to suppose what happened before the beginning. And that we aren't brains in vats

What beginning...there was no beginning ...you just suppose there was.. If you have proof there was a beginning, please explain how all that exists come from nothing....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is a hypothesis. A theory involves one or more hypotheses and must explain processes and make predictions.

Argue with the editors of WordWeb...that is straight from the dictionary...