Philosophy of god, science, and nothing

The religious belief is that a god created everything. This means that there had to have been a State of Absolute Nothing from which this god started with in order to create everything.

Science suggests that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

With both fields agreeing on a point of nothing, then why is it that we cannot return a something BACK into nothing?

For something to become a scientific fact, a formula must work both frontwards and backwards. If a Something cannot be reduced to absolute nothing, then the idea of nothingness before the Big Bang must be false.

In order to prove a god, the religious must also find a way to return something to its nothingness. If this cannot be done, then the material in this universe has always existed. Hence, no god.

Originally posted by jiggerj
For something to become a scientific fact, a formula must work both frontwards and backwards.

Hi again, Jigger

A noticed a few things about your post, and thought I'd offer some of what traditional philosophy has to say on the matter.

You needn't invoke the term, 'religious,' when making an objection to the real matter at hand, which is Theism (traditional Buddhist religions do not include the belief in a supreme Deity). Theism is ONLY the belief that at least one Deity exists, and that Deity is responsible, in some way or another, for the creation of the Universe. More specifically, Deism does not set forth that a Deity created everything; rather, that this being was only responsible for the initial spark that set everything else in motion (the Big Bang).

The argument which is relevant to your post:
I. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
II. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
III. The universe has a cause of its existence.
IV. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is a supreme creator.
Therefore:
V. A supreme creator exists.

This is where the terrain gets strange (and if one has even a cursory study of quantum theory, which arose from philosophical considerations, then the following should seem too weird); We may appeal to premise 1 and say something along the lines of, 'well, doesn't God also have a beginning of existence, and therefore subject to the same criteria as everything else?' This would unravel the argument, and ultimately lead to an infinite regress.
The Theist solves this problem by accounting for the nature of the Supreme Being as existing outside space or time & by classifying all beings that exist into two categories: Independent Beings, and Dependent Beings.

Dependent Beings are like us - our very existence was initially dependent upon our parents making the decision to park the Dodge Charger after the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance, and polish off a bottle of Peppermint Schnapps. Simply put, we appeal to what is known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. PRS states that for any given X, there must be a reason for X, so as to account for its existence.

Independent Beings are also subject to PRS, but the very definition of an Independent Being satisfies its criteria. An independent being is one that wasn't dependent upon a chain of being preceding it, so as to account for its existence. Rather, an Independent being is one that may exist outside of space and time, and has theoretically, always existed. An independent Being has no parents, for it is known as a 'Casua Sui,' or, 'a thing caused in itself.'

Really, the only difference between Theists an Atheists in a strictly philosophical sense, is that the Theist believes that some conscious energy set forth the big-bang, while the Atheist does not. Further, the Theist can account for the reason for the Big-Bang, whereas the Atheist may have a difficult time explaining just how something (the energy which culminated in the Big Bang) came from nothing. Again, the argument above rests upon the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and if rejected, the argument fails. Yet, one must cook up some clever ways of explaining how exactly PRS fails, or is untrue, but to subscribe to that philosophy leads one into some exceedingly unpleasant complications.

A second objection to the argument may be had by appealing to premise 2, and concluding that the universe has always existed, and thus never required a beginning. In doing this, one must reject some basic principles of modern astronomy (the Big Bang) - but to do this requires an extensive amount of technical knowledge that really goes against the grain of what modern astronomy offers.

In any event, of one is attracted to Theism in a philosophical sense, nothing follows about the nature of morality. Such a conclusion (that there exists a source of consciousness that, at very least, created the conditions which gave birth to the big-bang), demands nothing further from the one it persuades (e.g., beliefs about abortion, gun-control, hand-jobs, gay-marriage, terrorism, tolerance, KISS's disco record, etc). Religion is based upon Theism, yet the Theist need not be religious. Some religious fanatics might try to tell you differently, but . . . they're wrong. Moral Philosophy does not appeal to the existence (or lack thereof) of a Deity to account for moral facts, but that is another matter entirely.

Anyhow, it's good to see someone using philosophy to make claims with regard to Theism, rather than people pointing to scripture to undermine Theism.

This may be of value to you:
www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Included are many classical arguments for (and against) Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism.
Arm Thyself, for Knowledge is Power.

Best,
kissy

reply to post by kissy princess


awesome post!!!




one of the only things i could think to comment on,,, if you give gods existence up to "Casua Sui,' or, 'a thing caused in itself.'"

isnt that the same as an atheist saying,, the universe caused itself?

every human thats ever lived with their philosophies have been attempting at describing the same thing,,,, something did happen,,,, there is a cause or reason as to why now is occurring,..,,

its all a matter on how a human can view this reality,,,,., some view it as a chaotic and ugly mess,, where everything is free and separate and only responsible for themselves,,,, some see the beauty, and potential, and see the other side,,,,, all these views perhaps can be contained in the truth of the matter,,, maybe its a little bit of everything,,,,,,,,,

I really think people against the belief in god,,, really want to be free,,,, they dont want that father figure to have to worry about them,,,, and worry that it knows its thoughts and such,..... they dont understand how,, if this father figure does exist he would make such an ugly chaotic universe,,, so they figure this perfect father of the universe that idealists believe in doesnt exist,,, because the universe isnt that ideal,,,,

Originally posted by jiggerj
The religious belief is that a god created everything. This means that there had to have been a State of Absolute Nothing from which this god started with in order to create everything.

Science suggests that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

With both fields agreeing on a point of nothing, then why is it that we cannot return a something BACK into nothing?

For something to become a scientific fact, a formula must work both frontwards and backwards. If a Something cannot be reduced to absolute nothing, then the idea of nothingness before the Big Bang must be false.

In order to prove a god, the religious must also find a way to return something to its nothingness. If this cannot be done, then the material in this universe has always existed. Hence, no god.

God is not a person. God is not a finite. God always was and always is. That makes God infinite.

A absolute empty "space" is a constant. NB. Don't confuse a absolute empty "space" with a vacuum. NB. Because a absolute empty "space" is not a vacuum. Because there are no finite inside this space. And the space is not inside a chamber.

To grasp this you have to know the difference between a empty space and a universe. A empty space is absolutely empty. A universe is not. A universe takes up empty space. This means that the universe must be inside the empty space. Smack in the middle of the empty space. Because the empty space is infinite.

If you keep this in mind and think back to the empty space without a universe. You have a absolute neutral space. NOT A VACUUM.

This means that this space has no physical laws. Because there is no gravity there. The empty space is a constant. That means it can't change by a physical law that we know of. Because there are no physical laws present.

A empty space "nothingness" can only form something that is not like it self. This is logical. A infinite dimension can not create a new infinite. This means that finite and energy is NOT infinite. We can not destroy finite matter and make it non existent inside the universe we live in. But we can speed up the process by melting solids and burn fossil fuel. In other words we can speed up the expansion time of matter.

All solids that exists are formed by energies that have been compressed together by a force. Water is a liquid because of the force of gravity of 1 bar. If we alter the gravity force on water "High or low pressure" The water will either freeze or evaporate. If we apply pressure in the form of heat to more solids like rocks. The rocks will give of gasses and melt. We can heat a rock until it has expanded to just gasses.

Originally posted by jiggerj
The religious belief is that a god created everything. This means that there had to have been a State of Absolute Nothing from which this god started with in order to create everything.

Science suggests that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

With both fields agreeing on a point of nothing, then why is it that we cannot return a something BACK into nothing?

For something to become a scientific fact, a formula must work both frontwards and backwards. If a Something cannot be reduced to absolute nothing, then the idea of nothingness before the Big Bang must be false.

In order to prove a god, the religious must also find a way to return something to its nothingness. If this cannot be done, then the material in this universe has always existed. Hence, no god.

Only when you find the nothing will you understand until then bad luck.

reply to post by jiggerj


Even if everything already did exist, that does not mean there is no god. God is energy and everything is formed from the infinite energy of him/her self.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Even if everything already did exist, that does not mean there is no god. God is energy and everything is formed from the infinite energy of him/her self.

Then your definition of a god isn't aligned with the religious belief.

reply to post by spy66

God always was and always is. That makes God infinite.

Who told you that? What part of it makes sense to you?

absolute empty "space" is a constant.

Empty space is a conflict in terms. There cannot be a space filled with nothing. Space would collapse.

A empty space "nothingness" can only form something that is not like it self. This is logical.

LOL You want to read that again? Nothing can't form anything whether like itself or something else.

But the point is, if everything came from this nothingness, then we should be able to return something back into the nothingness. No material can be reduced to that point.

This may help you understand.
Emptiness is form:
youtu.be...

reply to post by jiggerj


Everything appears out of nothing and returns to nothing. Nothing is the source and nothing sees what appears to be something but the something only appears to exist. Only nothing is.

reply to post by kissy princess

II. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

This is what I am calling into question. If the beginning of the universe started from a state of absolute nothing, then we should be able to reduce matter back into that state. So far, science comes close to this with its claim that matter and antimatter annihilates each other when they come into contact. I just don't know if this is total annihilation or if new material is created from this (gas, carbon, any residue of energy). If the movies have it right, then when antimatter is exposed to matter, a great explosion occurs; this is a release of energy and not total annihilation.

The way I see it, science is claiming that at some point, zero plus zero must have equaled one. While the theist camp claims that a One has always existed, and is without form or substance, but with omni-intelligence.

This thread is not about voting for either side of the argument, but to point out the flaw (that I see) in both, the religious and scientific camps.

Interesting post, kp. Thanks.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
This may help you understand.
Emptiness is form:
youtu.be...

Emptiness is form? Can't you see the extreme ridiculousness of this statement? It claims that zero is one. If this mumbo jumbo were true, then all logic goes right out the window. We could make the claim that 15 is 37, that banana equals wind. Where do we draw the line and demand logic in all statements that we base our reality on?

In that clip, the man started with the statement 'Emptiness is form'. Then at the end of the clip he breaks everything down to pure energy, but goes no further (meaning he didn't break the energy down into nothing). This energy is in this realm, this universe. This energy is something, not nothing.

The non-existence existing is a self annihilating domain activated when any degree of consciousness engages attention toward it. Thus the problem encountered by omnipresence that by definition MUST be even inside of absolute non-existence to be true to the definition.

The kinetic effort to "go there" is purely a geometrically represented structure that is the Singularity. Spherical division and subtraction at an infinite "rate". Since this fails (not failed, past tense) placing the Singularity into angular infinite kinetics at every possible angle (infinite), where the Singularity IS, as a result of that "flight path" is the infinite expanse for the kinetics of the Singularity to take place within.

That is the spatial dimension of height. The desired other result is the other half of the "flight path" of where the Singularity IS NOT. This is the generated non-existence dimension that can be entered into by consciousness. This "Null" is the infinite impedance. The function of this "Null" is to convert time (current "radiation" from the equation of the presence of the infinite expanse) into space when that time current impacts it. This is responsible for the spatial dimension of width as it does just that. The one infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal Singularity is itself containing the spatial dimension of depth.

All this happens at constant Planck rate. The implosion from infinite expanse of time current from everywhere, towards everywhere. The explosion caused by the impact upon the NULL, from everywhere, towards everywhere to make width. The the collapse of width space once it achieves infinite space, there is no time left inside of its structure. It implodes to convert back into time current to continue to flood down and inward from everywhere, towards everywhere aimed at the one infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal Singularity.

The time prior to the impact on the Null is all the future, The impact point in the present. After time has completed conversion into infinite width, the present has completed. The implosion away from existing as infinite width, converting back into pure time current is all the past.

All of space and time (regardless of contents within space and time) is omniscience working to be true to self as an omnipresent existence. All that is finite contained within the very narrow bandwidth of WHILE space (the present) is converting back into time (all the past) is our Universe. Finites (us) are consciousness sensors that can detect, witness and understand nothingness. We are all tools used by omniscience to have that awareness of "The Nothing" drawn out of us. This achieves the original goal of being able to exist inside of absolute non-existence. It is through us, the proxies. We aren't here for us, never have been. But there is a side effect to existence as a finite. It requires eternity for each finite to attain infinite consciousness, dwelling in eternal newness and the victory of evermore "learning". Think of it as a thank you note.

reply to post by jiggerj

God always was and always is. That makes God infinite.

Who told you that? What part of it makes sense to you?

Empty space "nothingness" is God. The first dimension is empty and infinite. It must be.
The infinite dimension must be a constant. Can you imagine why?

absolute empty "space" is a constant.

Empty space is a conflict in terms. There cannot be a space filled with nothing. Space would collapse.

You make it a conflicting term. A empty space is empty. It is not filled with nothing; its empty. There is no finite.

A empty space can not collapse; there is no gravity. A empty space is absolutely neutral.

LOL You want to read that again? Nothing can't form anything whether like itself or something else.

Well it has. Its just that we cant use our physical laws to describe it. Because nothingness "empty space" dosent have the attributes of our finite universe. Nothingness "empty space" don't posses our physical laws. You should know that by now. Nothingness "empty space" is a totally different dimension. its not a finite: it is infinite.

But the point is, if everything came from this nothingness, then we should be able to return something back into the nothingness. No material can be reduced to that point.

By a expansion, matter can become what it used to be: Infinite. That means it wont expand any more. It will become stationary/static like it used to be.

If matter is formed by a compression caused by the infinite "nothingness. Matter will become infinite and be like the dimension of nothingness, when it has expanded back to its original form. That is the only way matter will disappear.

There is no way we can take matter and put it out of existence. Because nothingness "empty space" is a physical dimension that takes up all space possible. So there is nowhere to put the matter. Matter must expand/change/dissolve/evaporate until it becomes emptiness. That is possible if compressed matter was created by a compression, which it must have been.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
This may help you understand.
Emptiness is form:
youtu.be...

Emptiness is form? Can't you see the extreme ridiculousness of this statement? It claims that zero is one. If this mumbo jumbo were true, then all logic goes right out the window. We could make the claim that 15 is 37, that banana equals wind. Where do we draw the line and demand logic in all statements that we base our reality on?

In that clip, the man started with the statement 'Emptiness is form'. Then at the end of the clip he breaks everything down to pure energy, but goes no further (meaning he didn't break the energy down into nothing). This energy is in this realm, this universe. This energy is something, not nothing.

No thing is not one, it is one without a second - non dual.
One essence (which is not a thing) shaping and patterning and forming as everything.
youtu.be...

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jiggerj

 

God always was and always is. That makes God infinite.

Who told you that? What part of it makes sense to you?

Empty space "nothingness" is God. The first dimension is empty and infinite. It must be.
The infinite dimension must be a constant. Can you imagine why?

absolute empty "space" is a constant.

Empty space is a conflict in terms. There cannot be a space filled with nothing. Space would collapse.

You make it a conflicting term. A empty space is empty. It is not filled with nothing; its empty. There is no finite.

A empty space can not collapse; there is no gravity. A empty space is absolutely neutral.

LOL You want to read that again? Nothing can't form anything whether like itself or something else.

Well it has. Its just that we cant use our physical laws to describe it. Because nothingness "empty space" dosent have the attributes of our finite universe. Nothingness "empty space" don't posses our physical laws. You should know that by now. Nothingness "empty space" is a totally different dimension. its not a finite: it is infinite.

But the point is, if everything came from this nothingness, then we should be able to return something back into the nothingness. No material can be reduced to that point.

By a expansion, matter can become what it used to be: Infinite. That means it wont expand any more. It will become stationary/static like it used to be.

If matter is formed by a compression caused by the infinite "nothingness. Matter will become infinite and be like the dimension of nothingness, when it has expanded back to its original form. That is the only way matter will disappear.

There is no way we can take matter and put it out of existence. Because nothingness "empty space" is a physical dimension that takes up all space possible. So there is nowhere to put the matter. Matter must expand/change/dissolve/evaporate until it becomes emptiness. That is possible if compressed matter was created by a compression, which it must have been.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Everything you've posted is a matter of: If there's no other explanation then it must be this way. If there was once nothing, then everything is created from nothing.

No. Just no.

Matter must expand/change/dissolve/evaporate until it becomes emptiness.

No. Just no.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
This may help you understand.
Emptiness is form:
youtu.be...

Emptiness is form? Can't you see the extreme ridiculousness of this statement? It claims that zero is one. If this mumbo jumbo were true, then all logic goes right out the window. We could make the claim that 15 is 37, that banana equals wind. Where do we draw the line and demand logic in all statements that we base our reality on?

In that clip, the man started with the statement 'Emptiness is form'. Then at the end of the clip he breaks everything down to pure energy, but goes no further (meaning he didn't break the energy down into nothing). This energy is in this realm, this universe. This energy is something, not nothing.

No thing is not one, it is one without a second - non dual.
One essence (which is not a thing) shaping and patterning and forming as everything.
youtu.be...

edit on 1-7-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The person in the clip is too hard to follow (accent and talks too fast). But there are a bunch of clips there so I'm going to watch them. Thanks for that, seeing as I'm bored out of my mind.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What we call the mind cannot understand that which surpass it hence the concept of nothingness. But what you are, at the base, isn't a concept. Above the mind is That which is aware of the mind and right now, as you read this post, you (and everyone else) are aware of that and if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that this higher principle isn't nothing... You are That and That is everything.

Originally posted by tkwasny
The non-existence existing is a self annihilating domain activated when any degree of consciousness engages attention toward it. Thus the problem encountered by omnipresence that by definition MUST be even inside of absolute non-existence to be true to the definition.

See! This "MUST" you speak of is the problem. Because we have brought the question of how things were made down to the most basic physical, elemental level, and because our math cannot break it down any further, we jump to a degree of consciousness and accept it as though it MUST be true. Because we cannot work out any formula to explain this existence then 'omnipresence that by definition MUST be' true.

But, what if we put these basic premises aside (something came from nothing, or a pre-existing consciousness) and call them false?

And we start the test all over again without any idea of a god:

We take something (anything), say, a piece of hard candy. We crack it. Then we smash it. Then pulverize it, atomize it, boil it, burn it... No matter what we do we find that everything that was that piece of candy is still here, still in this realm. Absolutely nothing is lost. Wouldn't the obvious answer be that everything exists simply because a realm of nothing cannot exist?