Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[paarsurrey]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theist and Atheists alike.

Regards

This "ONE who created/evolved them" you're suggesting: is it something or nothing?

 

[BSM1]

Yes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

Nothing doesnt just appear into something; something disapear. Something always existed. In combination of some sort like creating a baby, more "somethings" evolved. Its all one continuum. Nothing special.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Brahman is 'something' and is eternal in the past and future in our finite way of thinking about time. Ultimately, it's beyond the finite to understand the infinite.

 

[Gambit]

Dialectical thought is required to resolve this dilemma.

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[39]
(source: Wikipedia: Dialectic)

Where the theist perceives "being," the atheist perceives "nothing," while the pantheist perceives "becoming."

 

[Ouroboros]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

Something always existed. Even when it was nothing, it was something.

The whole problem really comes from our use and understanding of nothing and something. When science talks about "nothing", it might not talk about the same nothing as you and I think of. And when we say something, what kind of "thing" are we thinking of?

 

[Parsimony]

"Nothing", by its very definition, does not exist. It is a lack of existence.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Nothing", by its very definition, does not exist. It is a lack of existence.

But if at one point nothing is all that exists, then by definition it does exist at that point and is not nothing.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת

In the Beginning there was G-d ... (perhaps a simple statement)

 

[paarsurrey]

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת

In the Beginning there was G-d ... (perhaps a simple statement)

Instead of the gibberish attributed in the name of science between <something , nothing and something> a simple statement that G-d did it all is most sensible and convenient.
Do you agree?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Something always existed. Even when it was nothing, it was something.

The whole problem really comes from our use and understanding of nothing and something. When science talks about "nothing", it might not talk about the same nothing as you and I think of. And when we say something, what kind of "thing" are we thinking of?

I get you. Religion and science are both useful in their own realms. One need not interfere with one or the other inappropriately.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes.

Do you agree with me (the OP)?

Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Instead of the gibberish attributed in the name of science between <something , nothing and something> a simple statement that G-d did it all is most sensible and convenient.

Sensible and convenient to a theist perhaps, but not to anyone else.

 

[ArtieE]

Instead of the gibberish attributed in the name of science between <something , nothing and something> a simple statement that G-d did it all is most sensible and convenient.
Do you agree?

I disagree. An atheist only has to accept that "Matter and/or energy has always existed (in some form or another), and occasionally give rise to more complex things made of the same eternal stuff." A theist has to accept that:

1. Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
2. Spiritual beings can exist eternally.
3. Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
4. Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
5. Spiritual beings can think and store information.
6. Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.
7. Spiritual beings can have knowledge without ever being educated.

6. How could God or the Universe just always exist? | 500 Questions about God & Christianity

The weird theist reasoning claiming that since humans make sandwiches a bigger and more powerful equivalent of a human is required to make universes maybe sounded logical to our ancestors but in this day and age...?

 

[Yerda]

There is something. This something was caused by a previous something. That something was caused by a previous something. And so so. There was never not something.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I disagree. An atheist only has to accept that "Matter and/or energy has always existed (in some form or another), and occasionally give rise to more complex things made of the same eternal stuff." A theist has to accept that:

1. Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
2. Spiritual beings can exist eternally.
3. Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
4. Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
5. Spiritual beings can think and store information.
6. Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.
7. Spiritual beings can have knowledge without ever being educated.

6. How could God or the Universe just always exist? | 500 Questions about God & Christianity

The weird theist reasoning claiming that since humans make sandwiches a bigger and more powerful equivalent of a human is required to make universes maybe sounded logical to our ancestors but in this day and age...?

The Bible says 'in the beginning God created... ' The concept of a specific beginning, a singular creation event, was considered 'religious pseudoscience' by most atheists, who rejected and mocked Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'Big Bang' for that explicit reason. They overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

It's understandable why people might have believed in uncreated universes back then, but in this day and age?!

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't like the concept of "first".

 

[ArtieE]

The Bible says 'in the beginning God created... '

Illogical. In the beginning of what? If God already existed "before" he created then you might as well say that something always existed and turned into our universe with no need for a god.

The concept of a specific beginning, a singular creation event, was considered 'religious pseudoscience' by most atheists, who rejected and mocked Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'Big Bang' for that explicit reason. They overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

You are confusing the "beginning" of our universe with the beginning of "something". "Something" has "always existed", it just turned into our universe for some natural reason we don't know yet.

 

[Willamena]

Nothing entirely fails to exist, except in the magical world of language.

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Yes: I would choose neither, but then it would also be both.