imaginary beings and stories and beliefs can also constrain us, capture and trap us in whatsoever we really need to be liberated from...
-
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!
Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What is "True nothingness" as compared to being nothingness itself without being true or false?
Why assume it has a cause? Why would the universe being contingent mean the cause is infinite and eternal? I don't see how f these follow.
I guess. I generally find that those who use the 'contingency' of objects in a philosophical context don't know much of actual science or what it really means to be a cause.
The only causes we know of are physical causes within the universe.
This is a common misunderstanding of what the Big Bang model says. No, it does NOT postulate that there is something outside that the universe is growing into. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: 'the universe' consists of *all* space, matter, energy, etc at a given time. There is literally no 'outside' of it.
We can go further. Modern science considers ALL of space and time together as a single entity. Since all of time is part of this, any causality happens *within* spacetime.
Well, this assumes that matter has to take up space. This is not as much the case with baryonic matter as it is with fermionic matter. In any case, the typical view is that space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent.
Not sure why this would be true. Can you explain?
As for the reason there is something rather than nothing, I don't think there is such a reason. A reason requires a law of logic of physics to apply. So, to have a reason requires at least laws of logic and physics. And that isn't nothing.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
For me even as a Christian, I believe that there is an objective reality of God within the realm of human psychology. In my view, God is not simply anthropomorphization but reflective of the structure and function of the human psyche. In this way what is God is not merely, exclusively a personality.
On some level i believe that our own sense of identity is also objectively limited in the same way.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Interesting. So I assume you believe God exists outside of the human psyche as well, or no?
Where is "outside of the human psyche" located?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Outside of the brain. Or, in other words, part of objective reality outside of humans.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I completely agree. All we know is that the universe exists and has always existed in one form or another. I am not a physicist but something coming from absolute nothing is without any meaning since nothing in its absolute meaning could not create something. Theories are interesting but what we have to go on is reality which gives no evidence that the universe continues even if it changes form.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
True...
...with great power comes great responsibility.
Literalist Christianity demonstrates in many ways how such things can go horribly wrong.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I just finished a book about the collaboration between Jung and Pauli...and in their collaborative view of psyche and physics your question is difficult to answer. But a straight forward answer is that God is mainly a psychological reality with significant neurobiological and cultural aspects.
Last edited:
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
What you outline here is actually the issue with the overuse of the later European-English word "God" in the first place which brings on it's own misconstrued cultural baggage, and is often used to describe many completely different ideas - but that's what you get with a 'once size fits all' English word that doesn't appear in any of these major religious scriptures in their original languages (as obvious as it should be) for the best part of their history. I don't like the word.
Following with my actual reply and not were you're trying to take this. "Sky fairies" or deities, are a complex topic in themselves when removed from superstition or parody. As I said with polytheism, Pagans in general tend to deify nature and worship it.
The image the devote themselves, they don't believe is physically a thing but what it represents to them they believe to be a legitimate force within nature. But of course, Paganism itself aligns more well with the Atheist world view making the Physical universe the absolute, so you should really have no issue with that, right?
The difference between the philosophy of the all-pervading Reality vs anthropomorphic deities is an incomparably massive leap of perspective. One is an image representing a more finite idea (even if it's reoccurring, such as the elements or the planets), the other is a more transcendent philosophy of existence that takes a leap outside of our immediate predisposition in a personal sense.
One grasps aspects (and personifies) of the universe, the other ascribes qualities to Reality itself as a transcendent IT.
No, I'm just repeating stuff atheists keep saying here every thread I visit. My views on things don't end at that but I am critical on a personal level, about the 'guy in the sky' view of reality (as you probably are too).
My comment was the opposite way around, I said:
"Many religions realized it, even if you didn't pick it up but it's not too soon to learn their methods of interpretation to learn something from them, even if you don't believe what they believe"
Absolutely not, why are you projecting onto what I've said? I made no conclusions about their own misinterpretations of their own religions but it isn't too late for them to get a deeper knowledge of their own history and intellectual knowledge from the intellectuals of their own early period history (aside from their scriptures themselves).
Again, false reading of my words. My comment states that common caricatures of polytheism tend to miss what polytheists actually tend to believe.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, i was referrimg to truth at hand from any given perspective. If one view holds a contradiction and the other does not, there is no need to believe the contradictory one.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That some may seem to hold a contradictory belief means little.
And while you can try to equivocate regarding "beliefs" and their equality, the proof is in one's actions.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
As for my remark:
At the very edge of expanding space its going to expand more. Its a matter of intuition that there is room available for space to expand.
I also was saying that if the universe is NOT contingent than cause and effect is infinite and eternal; something is always going to be happening in it, and something has always been going on in it. No end and no beginning to the doings of the universe. There by intuition is something perpetual about the universe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The correct answer is of course "We don't know".
And the correct attitude to that is "Let's find out". Choosing one side and demanding it is true without evidence is not rational.
In honesty, there are no words to describe the distinction. To put it simply, the moment humans put a word to "nothing" it is no longer nothing. It's a word, it's a concept, it's an idea. It represents something and means something. "True" nothingness cannot represent anything. If a word is put to it - or if it is known or understood in any way - it cannot be nothing.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The context in which you describe this makes Nothingness (with a caps) different than just the word and definition of nothingness itself. Is nothingness just a word or does it have a more deeper significance; and, if so, why?
What you're saying sounds like Dharma. There is a word but in itself there is no meaning/emptiness. Once someone puts a description and concept (true or false etc) to that word it's no longer nothing/emptiness.
That is fine until you put the word true and/or false as a quality of nothingness/emptiness. It throws it off because you just nullified the point you're making.
There could be an infinite number of ways in which there could be "something", but only one way there could be "nothing". So, by sheer probability alone, some sort of "something" would be overwhelmingly likely. Another way of saying this is that nothing is the lowest entropy state (as it requires 0 bits of information to specify) and any kind of something, requiring at least one bit of information to specify, would be a higher entropy state than nothing.
So, its no wonder we find that there is "something" rather than the far more unlikely "nothing".
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Curious George
Veteran Member
Seems like you are trying here. I would suggest that there wad no reason to believe that a particle could also be a wave until evidence presented itself.
Because it was believed that light could not be both described as a particle and described as a wave simultaneously, anything is true?
So let us recap. We have evidence to suggest that light is both particle and wave. But we have no evidence for belief in nothing existing. See the difference?