Why is there something rather than nothing?

[steko]

But why?

'Why' implies a prior cause to that which has no cause.

There is no 'why'.

There is only 'is'.

 

[OCTOBER23]

NOTHING FROM NOTHING LEAVES NOTHING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

--Were NOT Made of Things which do Appear ???

--What things do NOT appear = AIR containing Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen

--That is what Stars are made of but later the Hydrogen fuses to Helium, then Oxygen,

then Carbon and Finally IRON just like our IRON Core Planet that it cools down to

over millions of years and just add water and you have the Earth.

 

[Zeke]

Closer, but still far, far away.

______________________________________________

Ok, now that I have commented from my 'party line' and you have done the same, let me say that I understand, in general terms, your reasoning and beliefs. It is rather common these days. There was a time when I gave all this airy fairy stuff the time of day but no longer. In my opinion it is just another way to deny Jesus and look clever.

The war is between objectivism and subjectivism. I am on one side and you are on the other. Subjectivism is a license to print your own religious currency and sell shares in a religion/worldview. History attests to an almost infinite number of 'right religions'.

But they are counterfeits of the original. Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it. The way is shut up in Jesus only. My hope is that you will sell all that you have acquired and count it as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus.

Not really, the faith needed to be-lie-eve the things you have come to except is based on a lot of hear say and historical glasses that are darkly colored, the stand that the bi-bull is literal history is being revealed to be false, the death of that letter is the first step to grasping that there is no fear in Love.

Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, Genesis 32:30, the God you want to put in a box, "temples made with hands in history" is the false on, the only Christ conscience that anyone can experience is in the temples made without hands, All things become one when that light comes on within us, labels become intellectual barriers and theology breeds mental egocentric wedges that prevent the camel from passing through the gate called the eye of the needle.

The Bi-Bull is all about the human mind not some historically based nation that is disputed to have done the things recorded in symbols and figurative allegory based on prior legends and myths meant to teach the inner truth perverted and hid by exclusive religion.

 

[Damian]

In one sense, 'God' is necessary,.....in another 'God' is not. Only what is truly necessary or essential to being itself, is intrinsically so, yet a created 'God' or 'god-concept' may be totally 'unnecessary', 'problematic' or in the extreme....'insane'.

Sounds like you're wavering between theism and atheism (o ye of little faith).

The "my god is better than your god" looks rather dismal a party line, since it is by one's own criteria and qualifications that he enamors and worships his 'god', however defined.

"God is that being of whom no greater can be conceived." - St. Anselm

That's the basis for "perfect being" theology. So, if I can rationally demonstrate that my concept of God is more perfect than yours, then my theology trumps yours. That's how it works. (If you don't like the rules, then you shouldn't play the game.)

 

[WizardofOz]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Great article :thumb:

 

[freelight]

all things arising in consciousness........

all things arising in consciousness........

Then we will continue to disagree. If anything is self-evident, there is no need for God.

Consciousness itself is self-evident, self-reflecting and self-authenticating. It is in fact the only 'thing' we can know as existing most fundamental to any existence or reality we are experiencing. The "I" of consciousness is first cognizer of all,...all other objects or subjects arise within relationship to and within the reflection of the light of that "I". This light of consciousness is all there is. 'God' is the Light and substance of thereof.

I don't get your logic above, since we are affirming the truth of awareness, as the proof of 'being'. We can only fundamentally know our own 'being', which exists because of 'God' its source, as 'God' is the Universal Consciousness pervading all, we being individual expressions thereof, facet-points thru which the One Light experiences itself. 'God' is the light and reality of the 'Self', the "I" behind all consciousness and creation, in all its forms and modifications. 'God' or 'Consciousness' is the sole reality. Recognzing the 'atman' (individual soul-awareness) within one's own being as being non-separate or non-different from 'Brahman' (the universal consciousness) is not so much a need, as much as it is a 'realization' that there is Only One Reality, no matter what variations of perception and interpretation arise.

All that is would still exist without your awareness or the awareness of any and all humans on the earth if God wills it to be so. Your whole point is not self-awareness, it is self-worship.

This is a misconception on your part, since true self-awareness of one's real source does not serve a false-worship of the ego-self, but only the truest appreciation and realization of the divine Self (atman). To correct your 'assumption' of a negative spin on 'self-worship',....recognizing one's true nature as 'pure consciousness' enhances one's recognition of 'worth', which is what worship(worth-ship) is. When I realize 'God', I innately and naturally serve Him and His will, seeing that 'God' in one and all as the sole and divine value. Living from the view of 'God-consciousness', I radiate only God.

You can believe that if you want. I prefer to believe God when He speaks. He spoke everything into existence, He didn't dream it. It happened for real. When I became a man, I put away childish things.

How do you know when God speaks or has spoken? How do you know that God has not spoken other worlds into existence besides this one, and even all these are still an endless string of pearls unfolding in eternity, without beginning or end, as a ceaseless procession of cyclic existence.

Ok, now that I have commented from my 'party line' and you have done the same, let me say that I understand, in general terms, your reasoning and beliefs. It is rather common these days. There was a time when I gave all this airy fairy stuff the time of day but no longer. In my opinion it is just another way to deny Jesus and look clever.

I can hold and explore these observations of reality and NOT deny Jesus,...it is only your religious interpretation and assumption that my philosophic liberties might do that, but that's according to your definitions and qualifications how I might be "denying" him. A good chunk of religious mythology and Christian soteriology could be dismissed by a purely non-dualistic perspective, since if I assume that consciousness is all there is,...and that I Am already one with God, or of the same essence, energy and awareness that God is, then there is no one needing to be saved, neither is a blood-atonement necessary by any means.

The war is between objectivism and subjectivism. I am on one side and you are on the other. Subjectivism is a license to print your own religious currency and sell shares in a religion/worldview. History attests to an almost infinite number of 'right religions'.

I recognize that consciousness is the fundamental reality, the basis of all existence, experience, perception, knowledge. Creation is an information-play, that is all....its an illusion of light in motion. Truth itself is prior to and beyond any human concept of 'right' or 'wrong'.

But they are counterfeits of the original.

Only 'God' is original by nature and identity.

Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it.

Truth is only narrow in that it is precisely what it is, and is nothing else or in addition to. Its all-inclusive, immediately being, fully present as Life itself.

The way is shut up in Jesus only.

Can you show evidence for this? I don't think truth is 'shut' up anywhere, neither limited to one personality.

My hope is that you will sell all that you have acquired and count it as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus.

I appreciate the concern, with the Pauline nomenclature and all, but I've my own views on Paul shared amply elsewhere.



pj

 

[freelight]

Monopoly.......

Monopoly.......

Sounds like you're wavering between theism and atheism (o ye of little faith).

No wavering, just being courageous enough to see the possibilities based in the observations presented. My statements stand. While we can identify pure consciousness as 'God', we must recognize that this cannot necessarily compare or be identical in definition or conception with a traditional-orthodox Christian 'image' of 'God', or other 'god-concepts' that may be more or less imaginary, problematic or insane.

Where 'faith' enters into the equation is debatable

"God is that being of whom no greater can be conceived." - St. Anselm

Well, all that tells us is that 'God' is 'inconceivable'

That's the basis for "perfect being" theology. So, if I can rationally demonstrate that my concept of God is more perfect than yours, then my theology trumps yours. That's how it works. (If you don't like the rules, then you shouldn't play the game.)

But that's just it, ...its a 'game'...with some slight modifications given to the rules per your definitions. My contributions to the discussion are not me playing along,...but engaging a better exploration thereof.



pj

 

[freelight]

The

The

Not really, the faith needed to be-lie-eve the things you have come to except is based on a lot of hear say and historical glasses that are darkly colored, the stand that the bi-bull is literal history is being revealed to be false, the death of that letter is the first step to grasping that there is no fear in Love.

Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, Genesis 32:30, the God you want to put in a box, "temples made with hands in history" is the false on, the only Christ conscience that anyone can experience is in the temples made without hands, All things become one when that light comes on within us, labels become intellectual barriers and theology breeds mental egocentric wedges that prevent the camel from passing through the gate called the eye of the needle.

The Bi-Bull is all about the human mind not some historically based nation that is disputed to have done the things recorded in symbols and figurative allegory based on prior legends and myths meant to teach the inner truth perverted and hid by exclusive religion.

gotta love those acronyms.

It all depends on how consciousness interprets and relates the information.





pj

 

[Damian]

No wavering, just being courageous enough to see the possibilities based in the observations presented. My statements stand. While we can identify pure consciousness as 'God', we must recognize that this cannot necessarily compare or be identical in definition or conception with a traditional-orthodox Christian 'image' of 'God', or other 'god-concepts' that may be more or less imaginary, problematic or insane.

You either believe in God or you don't. If you can't make up your mind on this issue, then you're wavering. (It actually appears to me that you are trying to play both sides of the fence on this issue by not actually taking a position.)

Where 'faith' enters into the equation is debatable

Faith enters the equation in regards to the "Urantia Papers." That's the real reason you're upset. I clearly demonstrated that its doctrine of annihilation renders its concept of God as less than perfect.

Well, all that tells us is that 'God' is 'inconceivable'

The concept of infinity is inconceivable, but that doesn't preclude us us from employing it in mathematics. In like manner, while Anselm's statement may be construed as depicting God as inconceivable, it doesn't preclude us from employing it in theology. In fact, it is the basis for doing "perfect being" theology.

But that's just it, ...its a 'game'...with some slight modifications given to the rules per your definitions. My contributions to the discussion are not me playing along,...but engaging a better exploration thereof.

You want to play the game by playing by both sides of the ball. I afraid that will not be permitted. If you can't take a position, then you will be relegated to the sidelines. There you can act as a passive spectator, but you're barred from actively participating in the debate.

 

[Damian]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Great article :thumb:

A couple of points:

1) I asked "why there is something rather than nothing." I did not ask "how nothing became something." These are entirely two different issues.

2) Nothing is actually nothing, not something. "Nothing" in the arcticle actually refers to "something" because "nothing" cannot be inherently unstable.

"Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable."

(source: "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" by Robert Adler, "Earth," BBC.com)

 

[WizardofOz]

No such thing as nothing

No such thing as nothing

A couple of points:

1) I asked "why there is something rather than nothing." I did not ask "how nothing became something." These are entirely two different issues.

Strange, since the title of the article is literally "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Just like your thread title...:think:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable.

2) Nothing is actually nothing, not something.

Define nothing. It's not that simple.

"Nothing" in the arcticle actually refers to "something" because "nothing" cannot be inherently unstable.

On the contrary - "Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of.""

Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness... ...So it's not just particles and antiparticles that can snap in and out of nothingness: bubbles of space-time can do the same...

It's not our known quantum field that is nothing as there is no such thing as "nothing" in the known physical universe. Where these particles, etc pop from and back to is as close to an actual nothing as they are simply gone.

...Inflation also gave cosmologists the measuring tool they needed to determine the underlying geometry of the universe. It turns out this is also crucial for understanding how the cosmos came from nothing... ...It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing...

Or to sum it up succinctly; the unmoved mover.

See my motto...

It seems that my motto would apply to your back and forth with freelight as well; whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name :think:

 

[Damian]

Strange, since the title of the article is literally "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Just like your thread title...:think:

The question that I posed in the OP is actually beyond the purview of science. Science asks "how" questions, not "why" questions. "Why" questions are the domain of philosophy and religion, not science. :think:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable.

It is not possible to provide a physical explanation for how nothing became something (not even in theory).

Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything").[5]

(source: Wikipedia: A Universe from Nothing)

Define nothing. It's not that simple.

I already have. Nothing is nothing, it is not anything. It's that simple. And if you cannot intellectually grasp that, then there is no point to continue this discussion. It would prove to be nothing but an exercise in futility.

It's not our known quantum field that is nothing as there is no such thing as "nothing" in the known physical universe. Where these particles, etc pop from and back to is as close to an actual nothing as they are simply gone.

That's exactly my point. If you actually have evidence that physical things are spontaneously popping in and out from nothing at all, then you have evidence for a supernatural event. (In theology, this is called "creation ex nihilo" - i.e. creation out of nothing.)

It seems that my motto would apply to your back and forth with freelight as well; whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name :think:

He's confused; I'm not.

 

[WizardofOz]

The question that I posed in the OP is actually beyond the purview of science. Science asks "how" questions, not "why" questions. "Why" questions are the domain of philosophy and religion, not science. :think:

Your OP was rather simple and the question posed is one that scientists seek to answer per my linked article. They might not explain why philosophically but they will certainly seek to explain why scientifically.

Can science tell us why the earth rotates around the sun? Of course. Facts are facts.

It is not possible to provide a physical explanation for how nothing became something (not even in theory).

I disagree. The picture may be incomplete at this time but that doesn't mean there are not physical mechanics behind what we observe.

I already have. Nothing is nothing, it is not anything. It's that simple.

No, that's just circular logic and explains nothing. Pun intended.

And if you cannot intellectually grasp that, then there is no point to continue this discussion.

I'm trying to get you to "intellectually grasp" that there is no such thing as nothing. More on that in a bit when we get to the Krauss critic.

It would prove to be nothing but an exercise in futility.

An exercise in futility is something and not nothing. This reminds me of the Never Ending Story.

That's exactly my point. If you actually have evidence that physical things are spontaneously popping in and out from nothing at all, then you have evidence for a supernatural event. (In theology, this is called "creation ex nihilo" - i.e. creation out of nothing.)

And now it is being observed scientifically. Exciting, no?

He's confused, I am not.

Meh, you're just talking past each other.

Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything").[5] (source: Wikipedia: A Universe from Nothing)

See my own critique of Krauss' "nothing" theory Here

Quantum fluctuations are Krauss' "god". While a brilliant scientist his theological views leave much to be desired. He's another Dawkins-esque blowhard in that regard.

We likely agree on more than not, you're :box: demeanor notwithstanding. :cheers:

 

[Damian]

WizardofOz,

You haven't refuted anything that I have argued. And since you seem incapable of understanding what "nothing" means, there is no point to continue this debate.

 

[WizardofOz]

WizardofOz,

You haven't refuted anything that I have argued.

:idea: Oh! You're here to argue. Here I thought we were having a conversation.

Silly me.

And since you seem incapable of understanding I am incapable of defining what "nothing" means, there is no point to continue this debate.

:wave: Suit yourself.

 

[freelight]

Terms vary...............

Terms vary...............

You either believe in God or you don't. If you can't make up your mind on this issue, then you're wavering. (It actually appears to me that you are trying to play both sides of the fence on this issue by not actually taking a position.)

Being non-committal in a 'belief' or 'non-belief', but approaching and playing with the subject as a fun exploration, does not necessarily indicate wavering or 'confusion',...since its an exploratory exercise. It might be that your 'insistence' for definite terms or conclusions might be at issue here (stressing 'logic' over other tenable methods of analysis), when you could lighten up a little. I'm about 'creative dialogue' remember? Being more flexible, I'm free to give up 'positionalities' as these can have their own 'trappings'. I don't know anything, but that there is awareness. This 'awareness' includes all concepts of 'nothing' and 'everything'. I'm not stressing over it. Could you relax and just enjoy the dialogue, wherever it goes?

Faith enters the equation in regards to the "Urantia Papers." That's the real reason you're upset. I clearly demonstrated that its doctrine of annihilation renders its concept of God as less than perfect.

Oh yes,..the Urantia Papers champion the principle of faith in 'God', and my 'faith' would be more appropriately directed to God himself, rather than a book, although there are many good religious writings out there to be inspired by.

I'm not upset over your claim of conquest over the concept of 'soul-death',...because its just a 'concept' among other concepts of soul-destiny, even if it might appear I favor or prefer one 'view' over another (at any point in time or reference-context),...I'm not so 'positional' over things, as points of view are subject to change. A thing may be more or less true, or unknowable. The Urantia Book just happens to offer a detailed view of soul-death. I could also reference other religious sources for a similar view.

I've maintained a respectful level of communication over the years, as a fellow theist having some similar and familiar education and spiritualist tendencies among the various schools, so would never 'breach' that trust (of original goodness, integrity), although recently for sport and a bit of 'zest' am proposing a bit of 'tweaking' on your 'terms' of the game-rules here. In the matter of constructive dialogue, I'd welcome such, and challenge my own points of view and assumptions about things.

The concept of infinity is inconceivable, but that doesn't preclude us us from employing it in mathematics. In like manner, while Anselm's statement may be construed as depicting God as inconceivable, it doesn't preclude us from employing it in theology. In fact, it is the basis for doing "perfect being" theology.

I agree, .......was just prompting some humor towards the quote, to get a rise out of you,...a playful gesture. While theology can be a serious subject, I'd hope you can enjoy some humor and fun too. Is that permissible? Or is proving that your 'God' is greater than another's 'God' more important? You can see how that looks on a superficial level, even if you have your own logic, rationale, and presupposition pre-loaded in the conclusion.

You want to play the game by playing by both sides of the ball. I afraid that will not be permitted. If you can't take a position, then you will be relegated to the sidelines. There you can act as a passive spectator, but you're barred from actively participating in the debate.

Well, hows that for one-upmanship of the discussion? I see this as a trend as of late.....as the rule-maker becomes a 'dictator' of sorts. There are reasonable grounds for establishing some rules or guidelines for a discussion or 'game' of course, but at some point amendments are bound to be made.





pj

 

[Zeke]

gotta love those acronyms.

It all depends on how consciousness interprets and relates the information.





pj

I heard Kate use it first, it is a telling type of phonics when one sounds out words and breaks the restrictive spell of spelling, seeing sounds can be used to create emotional responses within a certain culture to control minds, and produce a false sense of fear for easier control of the herd.

 

[Damian]

Being non-committal in a 'belief' or 'non-belief', but approaching and playing with the subject as a fun exploration, does not necessarily indicate wavering or 'confusion',...since its an exploratory exercise. It might be that your 'insistence' for definite terms or conclusions might be at issue here (stressing 'logic' over other tenable methods of analysis), when you could lighten up a little.

Analysis requires rational thought. That's the only tenable method here.

I don't know anything, but that there is awareness.

We're having a metaphysical debate. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. The methodology of philosophy is rational analysis. If you believe that metaphysics is a waste of time, then I suggest you find another forum to share your "knowledge."

 

[freelight]

Creative logos...............

Creative logos...............

I heard Kate use it first, it is a telling type of phonics when one sounds out words and breaks the restrictive spell of spelling, seeing sounds can be used to create emotional responses within a certain culture to control minds, and produce a false sense of fear for easier control of the herd.

Yes,.....the creativity of 'logos' is at the heart of all information-exchange, with powers and potentials thereof, to guide and influence along any chosen course, good or evil. Hence our power as 'speakers' and 'writers' is intrinsic in the phonics of language, which shows our responsibility in 'creation'. How words affect our experience of reality or fashions its conditions is a wonderful study, if we would harness the power of logos



pj

 

[musterion]

The idea that the Bible is inerrant is just ridiculous.

-- Damien