1. 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!

Featured Explain No-thing = Some-thing

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Eyes to See, Jun 25, 2020.

  1. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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?


     
    #1 Eyes to See, Jun 25, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2020
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,566
    Ratings:
    +7,516
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
  4. chinu

    chinu Passenger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,577
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    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!
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    Indeed.

    So something-very-important = no-thing.
     
  6. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,930
    Ratings:
    +12,908
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    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.
     
  7. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,405
    Ratings:
    +4,423
    Religion:
    none
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  8. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  9. chinu

    chinu Passenger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,577
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    So, can we also say..

    No-thing = Something-very-important that is being missed ?
     
  10. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    Sure why not. In fact we can just say that no-thing = everything while we're at it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. chinu

    chinu Passenger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,577
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    Congratulations! you are true theist.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,551
    Ratings:
    +9,074
    Religion:
    Humanist
    How does "God did it" explain anything?

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

    Scientists just omit that worthless step
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. bobhikes

    bobhikes AntiRepublican
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,809
    Ratings:
    +2,541
    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.
     
  16. Eyes to See

    Eyes to See Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    698
    Ratings:
    +552
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  17. chinu

    chinu Passenger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,577
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    Ready to know ? Okay.
    First tell me, how much time can you spend on knowing ?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. danieldemol

    danieldemol Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,153
    Ratings:
    +3,531
    Religion:
    Spiritual but not religious
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    29,007
    Ratings:
    +23,485
    Religion:
    None
    • Informative Informative x 2
  20. bobhikes

    bobhikes AntiRepublican
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,809
    Ratings:
    +2,541
    Ok scientifically prove either.
     
Loading...