• 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!

Explain No-thing = Some-thing

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstraps.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?


 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Hawking should probably have refrained from dabbling in philosophy, as he did. It was not his area of expertise, and he wasn't very good at it.

He should simply have left the question of existential origin stand as a mystery, instead of trying to interject his own bias on it.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Hawking should probably have refrained from dabbling in philosophy, as he did. It was not his area of expertise, and he wasn't very good at it.

He should simply have left the question of existential origin stand as a mystery, instead of trying to interject his own bias on it.

Agreed. When one gets into the origin of the universe there is no science involved that explains it. We are getting into the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics which is not science at all. Many people don't see this.
 

chinu

chinu
So to those to adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?
Because No-thing = Something-very-important. Isn't it ?

Hence, the better word that we can replace here with Some-thing is Something-very-important!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstrap." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstrap.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?


We only see things as nothing because we can't detect past a certain threshold due to our limitations as humans and the limitations of our technology.

Nothing would likely mean something that is so small (or even conversely large) to the point that we don't have the capability to detect what essentially has been there all along. Mathematically we could say we live in a continuum, a never ending and enternal universe that is equally as multifaceted and forever expansive.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstrap." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstrap.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?


You stumbled over an inaccuracy of the English language. You equivocate the thing in no-thing with the thing in something. In the first case it can mean "no physical thing", in the later "something that is not necessarily physical" (i.e. a law, that is a concept).
I don't know if Hawking meant it that way, but it is entirely possible.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
We only see things as nothing because we can't detect past a certain threshold due to our limitations as humans and the limitations of our technology.

Nothing would likely mean something that is so small (or even conversely large) to the point that we don't have the capability to detect what essentially has been there all along. Mathematically we could say we live in a continuum, a never ending and eternal universe that is equally as multifaceted and forever expansive.

So there is no such thing as nothing.

I agree with that. Nothing does not exist.

So we are in agreement also that something is eternal. Without a doubt. Science, that is observational experience has shown that the universe did indeed have a beginning, it is not eternal, or forever expanding. If that was the case we would not be able to define that the universe is expanding or that it is 93 billion light years across. This is much less than forever expanding and eternal universe.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
You stumbled over an inaccuracy of the English language. You equivocate the thing in no-thing with the thing in something. In the first case it can mean "no physical thing", in the later "something that is not necessarily physical" (i.e. a law, that is a concept).
I don't know if Hawking meant it that way, but it is entirely possible.

He used the word nothing. The definition to the word "nothing" is:

"Nothing", used as a pronoun subject, is the absence of a something or particular thing that one might expect or desire to be present or the inactivity of a thing or things that are usually or could be active. As a predicate or complement "nothing" is the absence of meaning, value, worth, relevance, standing, or significance.

Further definitions of the word nothing:

as a pronoun:

not any thing : no thing
no part

As a noun:
something that does not exist
the absence of all magnitude or quantity

The word does not seem to be inaccurate. It accurately depicts something that does not exist. That is not any thing, that is no thing.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Because No-thing = Something-very-important. Isn't it ?

Hence, the better word that we can replace here with Some-thing is Something-very-important!
How does "God did it" explain anything?

I then want to know, "Where did God come from?"

Scientists just omit that worthless step
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
How does "God did it" explain anything?

I then want to know, "Where did God come from?"

Scientists just omit that worthless step

Ok. I understand that.

Now, to make the assertion that God is "worthless" as scientific is also pseudoscience. As there is no observable evidence of how the universe came to be or what caused it.

To say you know God didn't cause it is also false. Because you do not know that. And science cannot state it. If you make that statement it is metaphysical in nature.

It is interesting that the word science as the study of things is a recent invention. Isaac Newton was not even referred to as a scientist. He was known as a natural philosopher. And that is I believe a more accurate definition of the profession.

Isn't much of science today really just philosophy disguising itself as supposed known facts that are not known at all? ETA: I should state that I am referring to the existence of things and how we came to be.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?

I have been on the fence for this for year's

1)Imagine something forever and only change effecting it.

2)Imagine nothing until something new forms and then continues to form randomly.

Without magic which makes more sense.

For me right now I make more sense from nothing to something. The something is incredibly simple and small. The properties that built up came because of it and as it became multitudes. Today these somethings are still randomly being created which is why everything still changes.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
I have been on the fence for this for year's

1)Imagine something forever and only change effecting it.

2)Imagine nothing until something new forms and then continues to form randomly.

Without magic which makes more sense.

For me right now I make more sense from nothing to something. The something is incredibly simple and small. The properties that built up came because of it and as it became multitudes. Today these somethings are still randomly being created which is why everything still changes.

Ok. You do realize that to a rational mind this sounds entirely fairy-tale and fantasy based? I do not mean to bash your beliefs. You say it took you many years to get to this stage of thought process, that nothing became something very small, and then it gradually became more complex.

Science deals with the state of observable knowledge that can be proven. Since what you state is not observable and has never been proven it is not a scientific statement. And if it is peddled as scientific it is pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ok. I understand that.

Now, to make the assertion that God is "worthless" as scientific is also pseudoscience. As there is no observable evidence of how the universe came to be or what caused it.

To say you know God didn't cause it is also false. Because you do not know that. And science cannot state it. If you make that statement it is metaphysical in nature.

It is interesting that the word science as the study of things is a recent invention. Isaac Newton was not even referred to as a scientist. He was known as a natural philosopher. And that is I believe a more accurate definition of the profession.

Isn't much of science today really just philosophy disguising itself as supposed known facts that are not known at all? ETA: I should state that I am referring to the existence of things and how we came to be.
The philosophy underpinning science makes sense precisely because it does not rely on supernatural assumptions.

The flip side of it being pseudoscience to say we know that God did not do it is that it is also pseudoscience to say we know that God did do it.

We cannot argue from ignorance for God.

For example in biblical times it was not known how ice was formed so the ignorants who wrote the Bible said the breath of God produced ice.

Job 37:10 (NWT) “By the breath of God, the ice is produced”

So we can make the same mistake with the origins of the earth (in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and say, “we don’t know how the earth was formed therefore God must have poofed it into existence”. Or with the origins of the universe and say “we don’t know how the universe was formed therefore God must have poofed it into existence”.

In either case as science progresses God would be made to look like the concept of an ignorant primitive mind just as the Bible writers did by making their suggestion about ice being the product of God’s breath.
 
Top