• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

gnostic

The Lost One
Stretching out by God's power does indicate some sort of expansion - Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 32:17 ( <- great power )
Heavens in Scripture is used in connection to near by heavens ' sky ' and including the ' heaven of heavens ' where God dwells - 1 Kings 8:27; 1 Kings 8:39,30,49
So, heavens ( plural ) could include more than just the material heavens.

You are ignoring my posts, in which I indicate that other religions that pre-dated all Hebrew Scriptures, described or defined the sky as "expanse", meaning that your selected passages of Jeremiah and Isaiah presented nothing special or unique.

And this stretching out of heavens doesn't mean the UNIVERSE; what it does describe is the sky.

And the sky doesn't mean "universe". You are just putting modern concept of the universe on to selected passages.

The heaven or heavens as desribed by every ancient literature, whether of religious nature or not, always confine itself to the sky.

The sky is always confine to what people can see when they look up. And what they see are only the clouds, the sun, moon and a limited amount of stars. They didn't know anything about galaxies, supernovae or the universe.

When Jeremiah or Isaiah or Genesis mentioned anything about the stretching out of heavens, they are only referring to sky, and not to the universe. This stretched out heavens are sometimes referred to as the EXPANSE.

Why do you keep ignoring my point when I say the sky is sometimes called the EXPANSE?

As to the passages from 1 Kings 8 you have cited, about the heavenly abode. Again, there are nothing special or unique about what Solomon saying about the heavenly abode being in the sky.

Other ancient cultures and civilisations also make that faulty assumptions about where the deities lived - their heavenly abodes.

Do you seriously think Solomon is the first to assume that god's abode is in the sky? That God in the bible is the only one to have house built in the sky?

If you do, then your reading range have been seriously limited.

In Egyptian myth, a lot of gods have their homes in the sky, and the most prominent one is the sun god Re (or Ra) and the sky god Horus. The Old Kingdom Egypt started building pyramids as tombs for their kings and queens, so that they may ascends to the sky and dwell with the gods. The pyramids were built the way they were built, because the pyramids symbolised the ladders or stairways to heavens.

Re was more important than Osiris, as the figure ruling the afterlife, during this period (Old Kingdom) from the 3rd dynasty to the 6th dynasty.

The Canaanite deities are similar or the same as those worshipped in the Bronze Age city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra). Most of these deities have their own palaces in heavens, or more precisely, in the sky. There is even story about the young god Ba'al being angry and upset that every deities have palaces except him, so to placate the angry God, they had one built, that was even large and more magnificent than that of El, the king of the gods.

In the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian myths, the gods dwell in temples built in each city, but they also dwell in the sky. There is a myth called the epic of Etana, in which the young king's wife was barren. And the only way to make her fertile is to gain herbs from a goddess.

The story actually started with a snake and an eagle, who chose to become allies, hunting and sharing food together. But the eagle betrayed the snake by killing and eating the snake's young. In revenge, the serpent crippled the eagle and stripped off its feathers. Etana saved this eagle, nurse it back to health, until it was strong enough to fly again. Etana told the eagle about his vision of obtaining the cure for his wife's barren, of flying to heavens and receiving the magic herbs from a goddess. The goddess is unnamed, but it could be Inanna (Ishtar) goddess of love or it could be Ninhursag mother goddess and goddess of childbirth. Anyway, the eagle promised to aid Etana in retrieving the herbs.

So they flew to the heavens to meet the goddess. But the first flight was unsuccessful because Etana got scare when they flew so high, but they tried again the second time. Because part of the tablet is missing, we do not know if Etana and the eagle was successful. The assumption is they were, because Etana is a king of Kish, in the King Lists of Sumer, and his son (Balih) is mentioned as being Etana's successor. The oldest tablets to this epic, is written in Old Babylonian, none of them written in Sumerian, but the myth is older than these tablets, because of the discovering of Sumerian stone figurine of man mounted on a large bird, which we could assume to be Etana and his eagle friend.

My point is that according to the myth of Etana, is that the heavenly abodes of the gods could be reach by flying there.

In Exodus, Moses met God on Mount Horeb. And in Genesis, people were trying to built a tower to reach the heavens.
Genesis 11:4 NIV said:
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth .”

In the KJV translation, it used the singular heaven, but the NJPS, a lot more precise word used - "sky".

The question to you is this, was this tower (of Babel) meant to reach the "sky" or to the "universe"?
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
ben d,

As to the cause of the big bang. I have no idea. It might have been caused by a unicorn sneeze, though. Do you think that is a better answer than "I don't know?"

I could always apply faith to believe it was a unicorn sneeze, I guess.

Science isn't able to measure anything outside the universe, so it can't explain the reason for the Big Bang. Do you think it's more honest for science to admit that it doesn't know (as it goes currently), or should science make up an answer that might be completely wrong and ask people to believe that answer by faith?
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
ben d,

As to the cause of the big bang. I have no idea. It might have been caused by a unicorn sneeze, though. Do you think that is a better answer than "I don't know?"

I could always apply faith to believe it was a unicorn sneeze, I guess.

Science isn't able to measure anything outside the universe, so it can't explain the reason for the Big Bang. Do you think it's more honest for science to admit that it doesn't know (as it goes currently), or should science make up an answer that might be completely wrong and ask people to believe that answer by faith?
So because you take it on faith that there was a beginning of which there is no proof...do you expect me to also?

The difference between our respective understandings is that while you admit that you do not know how something came from nothing, but believe it did nevertheless....iow.. in faith...I on the other hand can say with absolute certainly that something can not come from nothing....ever....
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
So because you take it on faith that there was a beginning of which there is no proof...do you expect me to also?

The difference between our respective understandings is that while you admit that you do not know how something came from nothing, but believe it did nevertheless....iow.. in faith...I on the other hand can say with absolute certainly that something can not come from nothing....ever....

I do NOT take it on faith that the universe has a beginning.

I have no idea if the universe had a beginning.

Who is saying they something could ever come from nothing? Nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I do NOT take it on faith that the universe has a beginning.
I have no idea if the universe had a beginning.
Who is saying they something could ever come from nothing? Nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from.

We don't have to take it on faith or credulity (blind faith ) that the universe had a beginning.
Because microwaves are so accurate CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation ) gives us the starting date for the physical/material realm.
God, according to Scripture, is Not nothing. God's power and strength ( His energy ) was used to create the visible realm of existence. - Isaiah 40:26; Psalms 104:30
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I do NOT take it on faith that the universe has a beginning.

I have no idea if the universe had a beginning.

Who is saying they something could ever come from nothing? Nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from.
Good...then if you actually know that "nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from".....we are in agreement..for that understanding means that you must also agree with an eternal universe...yes?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Jeremiah 10:11-13 Heavens and earth - heavens could include both the spiritual heavens - 1 Kings 8:27 - and the physical heavens which include the mid-heavens where birds fly.
Abraham - Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17-18 - had No hubble telescope but with his naked eye could have seen thousands of stars. Abraham could see a googleplex of the grains of sand into the billions in connection to the number of heavenly stars.
1985 or the April 2013 edition of the Tanach which uses the word heavens and Not the word sky. General Editors.Rabbi Nosson Scheman and Rabbi Meir Ziotowitz

The ^above ^ for gnostic ^
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I do NOT take it on faith that the universe has a beginning.
I have no idea if the universe had a beginning.
Who is saying they something could ever come from nothing? Nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from.
Here one is faced with another aspect where science becomes gibberish or its wings of flight into reality get burnt or in other words it says "I was never designed for that". Please
Regards
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Good...then if you actually know that "nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from".....we are in agreement..for that understanding means that you must also agree with an eternal universe...yes?

As I said, I have no idea. I don't know if the universe is eternal or not. There is not enough evidence to make a determination.

You believe without evidence, so no, we are not in agreement.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
We don't have to take it on faith or credulity (blind faith ) that the universe had a beginning.
Because microwaves are so accurate CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation ) gives us the starting date for the physical/material realm.
God, according to Scripture, is Not nothing. God's power and strength ( His energy ) was used to create the visible realm of existence. - Isaiah 40:26; Psalms 104:30

Nope.

The microwave background radiation provides proof that the singularity expanded. We have no idea if the universe came into being or just changed state.

The one thing we know for certain is that the universe is NOT in a "steady state,"
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
As I said, I have no idea. I don't know if the universe is eternal or not. There is not enough evidence to make a determination.

You believe without evidence, so no, we are not in agreement.
But I do have evidence, so do you.. it is self evident.....the universe exists, you exist, I exist....if 'nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from'...then the universe, you, and I did not come from nothing?

Logically, if you did not come from nothing, you came from something pre-existent....and that pre-existing something also did not come form nothing.....and so on ad infinitum.....

Any claim that the universe came for nothing, that requires students of science to take it on faith to accept, without the right to ever get an explanation as to why or how, that there was a beginning of the universe.....is an outrageous misunderstanding of how science is meant to work....
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
But I do have evidence, so do you.. it is self evident.....the universe exists, you exist, I exist....if 'nothing doesn't exist for anything to come from'...then the universe, you, and I did not come from nothing?

Logically, if you did not come from nothing, you came from something pre-existent....and that pre-existing something also did not come form nothing.....and so on ad infinitum.....

Any claim that the universe came for nothing, that requires students of science to take it on faith to accept, without the right to ever get an explanation as to why or how, that there was a beginning of the universe.....is an outrageous misunderstanding of how science is meant to work....

Science doesn't say that the universe came from nothing.

Scientists and I don't take a position on the matter. We are honest and say that we don't know.

Just like if I was in front of a math equation the size of a billboard. I would not argue that the answer was "2" on faith because any number was more satisfying than admitting I don't know.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Science doesn't say that the universe came from nothing.

Scientists and I don't take a position on the matter. We are honest and say that we don't know.

Just like if I was in front of a math equation the size of a billboard. I would not argue that the answer was "2" on faith because any number was more satisfying than admitting I don't know.
But did not you say something could not come from nothing a few posts back? But now you say science does not take a position, and that you honestly don't know...
What am I missing ? ....
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
You know ThePainefulTruth....the first thing I notice when someone responds to one of my posts with an ad hom of sorts, is to quickly read on to see if they actually addressed the main point I was making.....mostly they don't...and so you don't disappoint...

If you are serious.then, instead of talking about the Flat Earth Society, answer me this....what caused the big bang....I mean really....this whole universe, if it had a beginning, there had to be a cause that science can explain ...[/quote}

Unless, as I have oft suggested, God doesn't want us to know, therefore there is no evidence at all. And I only used the FES as an example of blind faith which was the only possible basis for your assertion since there is no evidence either way. And my accusing you of blind faith is not ad hominem, unless you can show a reasonable basis--at which point I'll be glad to print a retraction.

at least that seems a logical and reasonable assumption to make.....yes? So what was the cause as understood by science?

Again, no evidence either way.

Another ad hom, talking about post big bang evidence, or non-response....all would indicate you are unable to provide a scientific reason for the cause of the beginning of the universe...:)

The Big Bang is an apparent perfect firewall for any information from "before" or from "outside" of our universe. But our universe is rational, though the theists say otherwise with nothing to support their claims but hearsay.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
As I said, I have no idea. I don't know if the universe is eternal or not. There is not enough evidence to make a determination.

You believe without evidence, so no, we are not in agreement.
He is referring to Icarus flying to close to the sun.....metaphorically the fact the duality (objective science) can not ever understand non-duality (your singularity)....but it nevertheless creates an imagined fantasy known as the big bang to pretend to its followers it does...
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
But did not you say something could not come from nothing a few posts back? But now you say science does not take a position, and that you honestly don't know...
What am I missing ? ....

No. I said that nothing doesn't exist by virtue of it being no thing. So it's impossible for nothing to do anything at all.

As to where the universe "came from" science does not know and cannot/will not speculate. It is honest, and says "we don't know."

I am not going to share with you my beliefs about "what you are missing." That would be rude.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
He is referring to Icarus flying to close to the sun.....metaphorically the fact the duality (objective science) can not ever understand non-duality (your singularity)....but it nevertheless creates an imagined fantasy known as the big bang to pretend to its followers it does...

Do you believe that you are making sense, or do you just take it on faith?
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Again, no evidence either way.

The Big Bang is an apparent perfect firewall for any information from "before" or from "outside" of our universe. But our universe is rational, though the theists say otherwise with nothing to support their claims but hearsay.
Staying at the moment on the big bang singularity....I really can't see any difference between your view and the Theist's view of a creation of something from nothing by command from on high... It is the "before" firewall that is the same in that it is unknowable...and most theists also believe in big bang theory btw...
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
No. I said that nothing doesn't exist by virtue of it being no thing. So it's impossible for nothing to do anything at all.

As to where the universe "came from" science does not know and cannot/will not speculate. It is honest, and says "we don't know."

I am not going to share with you my beliefs about "what you are missing." That would be rude.
I know what nothing is, it is as you say...and if this was not the source of the singularity...what was?
 
Top