Philosophy of god, science, and nothing

reply to post by jiggerj


From our prospective the Universe has always existed because we cannot really fathom the creation. The Universe also has to have been created at one point by something outside of the Universe that we know. So our universe is just part of something bigger, something incomprehensible. Everything has a beginning, even the thing that created our universe. In a half a million years mankind will never find the real answer to the Universes creation. I don't understand why there is so much desire to learn what we have no way of truly learning. There have been trillions of people in history who have looked at the heavens and tried to say what is out there. Maybe one of them is right.

reply to post by jiggerj

Take a balloon filled with air (or water, or anything else) and empty the space inside. The balloon completely collapses. There cannot be a space that is empty.

A infinite space can not be isolated like air or water inside a balloon. You have to take away the balloon. A infinite empty space is not isolated inside anything. So you cant compare this to water or air inside a balloon.

It is our universe that is inside this empty space. It is our universe that is isolated not the empty space. So you have to look at this differently than you are doing now.

You are talking about a vacuum inside a chamber/balloon. That is also like trying to empty space of matter and energies inside our universe. It will create the same affect. This vacuum can not be related to the empty space surrounding our universe.

If you think more about this you should be able to figure out why the universe is expanding and not contracting/collapsing.

Hint. If you create a empty space inside our universe the universe will collapse. But if the vacuum is outside our universe. Our universe will expand.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Everything has a beginning, even the thing that created our universe.

If everything has a beginning, then this would bring everything (our universe, multiverses, other dimensions) right back to zero. Here's the problem with the idea of starting from nothing: 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0

At no point can zero plus zero equal one. It can't happen. It's impossible. If zero plus zero ever did equal one, then it would always equal one. But, it's impossible. It can't happen.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jiggerj
[
Hint. If you create a empty space inside our universe the universe will collapse. But if the vacuum is outside our universe. Our universe will expand.

I'm a little tired, so maybe I'm not reading this right. I think you just agreed with me. Empty space inside the universe will collapse the universe - I agree.

A vacuum outside our universe (pulling on our universe) is energy. Energy is SOMETHING. We can't say there was a time when there was nothing if energy existed in that time.

reply to post by jiggerj


But we aren't talking about zeros here and we aren't talking about math. We are talking about the universe. Everything has a beginning. God could have only created this universe if he existed outside of the Universe but if the universe is everything that exists than this doesn't make sense. There has to be a beginning or there would never be anything. Face it, a Zero is nothing and what we have in the universe is something. The elements that form everything in this universe had to come from something. Maybe a gas. Maybe someone lit a match.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jiggerj
[
Hint. If you create a empty space inside our universe the universe will collapse. But if the vacuum is outside our universe. Our universe will expand.

I'm a little tired, so maybe I'm not reading this right. I think you just agreed with me. Empty space inside the universe will collapse the universe - I agree.

A vacuum outside our universe (pulling on our universe) is energy. Energy is SOMETHING. We can't say there was a time when there was nothing if energy existed in that time.

The void out side our universe is not like any of the energies within our universe. "Because" our universe is still a compressed void that is expanding. That is the big difference between our universe and the surrounding space/void.
When our universe has "expanded" enough it will become like the infinite void. Because, its that "outside" void that formed our universe by a compression.

Our universe will totally disappear when it has expanded and become like the void that formed it.

There is no way our universe will collapse ever. Because the vacuum outside our universe is greater than any vacuum we can form within our universe.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rickymouse
Everything has a beginning, even the thing that created our universe.

If everything has a beginning, then this would bring everything (our universe, multiverses, other dimensions) right back to zero. Here's the problem with the idea of starting from nothing: 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0
0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0

At no point can zero plus zero equal one. It can't happen. It's impossible. If zero plus zero ever did equal one, then it would always equal one. But, it's impossible. It can't happen.

The only problem here is our acceptance.

Lets say that the first dimension is A. If A is the first dimension it must be infinite. A must be a constant. Just like 0 would be.

In reality 0 would be 1 and not 0. Because the first dimension exists. It must exist.

But how would A change and form B. The second dimension?

Mathematically that is impossible because there is no physical causes present in A except A it self. Ref. A is a mathematical constant.

That means A must have a will of its own to create a cause. To create B. The second dimension.

The problem we have with this is acceptance.

In this image: Which dimension would be A (the first dimension) and B (the second dimension) ?



Where do you think the red dot came from?

Originally posted by spy66

The only problem here is our acceptance.

That means A must have a will of its own to create a cause.

There is no valid argument that can cause one to conclude that a non-material (or for that matter, a material) state has a will (consciousness) of its own. If (and that's a big IF) a state could have consciousness then it was formed from and by something.

So, yes, I would agree that acceptance is the problem. To just have a leap of faith that something came from a state of absolute nothing, and to have a leap of faith that consciousness-without-form (god) is how everything got its start, is an acceptance based on the wholly illogical.

I will not accept a premise as fact solely because that premise is the only game in town.

In no way does this universe prove a consciousness created it, and in no way does the Big Bang prove there was nothing before it.

Originally posted by spy66

Where do you think the red dot came from?

I thought one dimension was a straight line (length)? If so, then it would help my argument in that there is no such thing as a perfect state. This means that at some point a flaw would occur. If the straight line bends in any way at any point, then a second dimension would explode into existence (length, height). If that second dimension bends in anyway we would get length, height, width. 3D.

Then again, I could just be talkin' out of my a$$.

reply to post by jiggerj


Which "religious belief"? I know many of them, and some are as you suggest. Many are not.

What about the thought that God became self aware while awakening suddenly (or possibly even slowly), bringing reality on board at the same time (or subsequently). All of the above are "religious beliefs" to someone.

I, personally, believe that God exists in a timeless state, beyond spacetime. I also believe that Gods "forward facing" side is our universe, and we are a part of him. My beliefs don't have him "creating" the universe insomuch as "being" the universe.

To me, God existed before the universe, manifesting this universe/reality in this "time". It is what has always been for our God. We are created to be a small part of something eternal.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by jiggerj

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.

What do you mean "The" religious belief? As if one religion was some sort of authority. You say that your understanding of 'the' religious belief is that "God created everything" and I am saying that this is not what every religious person believe, therefore it is not 'the' religious belief.

God is energy consciousness and he formed everything from himself, this is why some call him The Architect. He is FORMING things out of material (in this case energy) already there (himself). This is why the universe does not need to be created' it is an eternal part of the creator although it is ever changing.

I'm just saying the common religious belief is that god looks like man. As for your description, I believe it's much closer to the truth, minus the consciousness part, which is impossible.

Oh, I see. In response to "consciousness", I guess it does seem pretty impossible if you are comparing it to the human quality of consciousness. I'm sure some people from long ago would laugh, if we believed that a tree is a living thing. "How can they be alive if they don't move"? , "How can it be alive if they don't feel emotion"?, I guess from their perspective it would seem impossible.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Which "religious belief"? I know many of them, and some are as you suggest. Many are not.

What about the thought that God became self aware while awakening suddenly (or possibly even slowly), bringing reality on board at the same time (or subsequently). All of the above are "religious beliefs" to someone.

I, personally, believe that God exists in a timeless state, beyond spacetime. I also believe that Gods "forward facing" side is our universe, and we are a part of him. My beliefs don't have him "creating" the universe insomuch as "being" the universe.

To me, God existed before the universe, manifesting this universe/reality in this "time". It is what has always been for our God. We are created to be a small part of something eternal.

Oh no, in this thread I don't want to debate on whether or not a god exists, or what leaps of faith one holds to. I'm more interested in finding some logical reason why the religious AND the scientific both believe that there was a state of nothingness before the Big Bang; that everything in this realm of 'Something' started from nothing.

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by jiggerj

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.

What do you mean "The" religious belief? As if one religion was some sort of authority. You say that your understanding of 'the' religious belief is that "God created everything" and I am saying that this is not what every religious person believe, therefore it is not 'the' religious belief.

God is energy consciousness and he formed everything from himself, this is why some call him The Architect. He is FORMING things out of material (in this case energy) already there (himself). This is why the universe does not need to be created' it is an eternal part of the creator although it is ever changing.

I'm just saying the common religious belief is that god looks like man. As for your description, I believe it's much closer to the truth, minus the consciousness part, which is impossible.

Oh, I see. In response to "consciousness", I guess it does seem pretty impossible if you are comparing it to the human quality of consciousness. I'm sure some people from long ago would laugh, if we believed that a tree is a living thing. "How can they be alive if they don't move"? , "How can it be alive if they don't feel emotion"?, I guess from their perspective it would seem impossible.

Sounds right to me. It's a pity we can't take a word and make it nail down exactly what everyone means by it. To some, consciousness (god) is a being with a body, and a mind capable of forming thought. To others, god is a perfect equation without form, or a consciousness much like a computer program without flaws.

Just like, to some, the idea of 'Nothing' doesn't mean exactly zero. They believe that nothingness is a realm in a state of emptiness. Yet, they claim that out of this nothingness, our material universe was created. Well, in order for this universe to be created from nothing, it would've taken massive amounts of energy. Energy is not nothing, therefore the idea of a realm of nothingness is false.

reply to post by jiggerj

I thought one dimension was a straight line (length)? If so, then it would help my argument in that there is no such thing as a perfect state. This means that at some point a flaw would occur. If the straight line bends in any way at any point, then a second dimension would explode into existence (length, height). If that second dimension bends in anyway we would get length, height, width. 3D.

Then again, I could just be talkin' out of my a$$.

I know you think the first dimension is a straight line. Its how you are thought to think.

I will give a a new image.
In this image; is the straight line the first physical dimension?



If so; What dimension would the physical dark background be?

Which physical dimension was the first. The straight line or the dark background? They are both physical.

-Can you have the physical straight line before you have a physical space to have the straight line inside?

If so; how?


I will give you a new image. This is the first dimension. The first dimension is a infinite volume of space.
You can draw lines in every direction. You can draw what ever dimension you can think of inside this volume of space. Because it is the first, and its infinite in all directions. Its a infinite volume of space.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by spy66

The only problem here is our acceptance.

That means A must have a will of its own to create a cause.

There is no valid argument that can cause one to conclude that a non-material (or for that matter, a material) state has a will (consciousness) of its own. If (and that's a big IF) a state could have consciousness then it was formed from and by something.

So, yes, I would agree that acceptance is the problem. To just have a leap of faith that something came from a state of absolute nothing, and to have a leap of faith that consciousness-without-form (god) is how everything got its start, is an acceptance based on the wholly illogical.

I will not accept a premise as fact solely because that premise is the only game in town.

In no way does this universe prove a consciousness created it, and in no way does the Big Bang prove there was nothing before it.

edit on 7/2/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

I know its hard to convince people to accept that the first dimension/void can have a mind of its own.

I usually tell people that we can not have something the infinite void dosent have. Because that is not possible.
The only difference between the infinite void and us; Is that we are limited and the infinite void is not.

Because of our limitations we have a limited understanding. Our understanding is only based on our experiences within our universe of physical laws.

reply to post by jiggerj


What I call "God", you would call "existence". If we exist, in my view, then God exists.

But that digression aside, you are looking for philosophical answers. I believe that the answer to your question lies in whether or not 0 or 1 can ever exist by itself. I think if you understood the significance of the number 3, in the mind of the ancient philosopher, you would have an answer to your question.

Originally posted by spy66
I usually tell people that we can not have something the infinite void dosent have. Because that is not possible.

Excellent thought.

The only difference between the infinite void and us; Is that we are limited and the infinite void is not.

Because of our limitations we have a limited understanding. Our understanding is only based on our experiences within our universe of physical laws.

Ooh, I like that! I remember hearing that there's no way for someone in the first dimension to comprehend more dimensions.

Originally posted by spy66

I will give a a new image.
In this image; is the straight line the first physical dimension?

If so; What dimension would the physical dark background be?

Is this premise even possible? If there is an exterior condition to one dimension, then no matter how flat, short, and narrow it is, it would still be a three-dimensional proposition. That dark void would have to allow for the line's length, width, and height, so the void itself would also be 3-D.

So I'm thinking that either a single dimension isn't possible, or if there were a single dimension, then that's all that could exist.

reply to post by jiggerj


This is the "flatlander" story. I think you can read the book for free online. If you can't find it, i should have it somewhere on this hard drive. You can U2U me.

RE: a single dimension "space"....this would seem to be the real of "God". If consciousness could exist without form, it would exist in this place. It could be aware, but its awareness would be only self aware. The reason for this is, in a single dimension space, there is nothing else that can exist but "self", as you are the entirety of that space. You are infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously.

Nothing would preclude a single dimension space. I would actually tend to support such thinking, at least until I can meditate on it, as it would make more sense as to how/why God, the "Creator", can be the Universe in our reality. If "he" existed in a one dimensional space, or rather AS a one dimensional space, then the timeless state that he would find himself in would mean that he exists in such a state at this very moment. That, my friend, brings up all sorts of philosophical questions, like whether or not we are currently existing in this 1 dimensional state in the form of what could only be described as "a dream".?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

If we exist, in my view, then God exists.

Can you see how the first idea (we exist) in no way validates the second idea (god exists)? It's like saying that our ability to light a fire proves that the sun exists. So, okay, fire exists, and the sun exists, but one idea does not prove the other. Again, this isn't a debate about god, so I won't argue on your belief. I'm just saying that our existence doesn't prove the existence of a god.

But that digression aside, you are looking for philosophical answers. I believe that the answer to your question lies in whether or not 0 or 1 can ever exist by itself. I think if you understood the significance of the number 3, in the mind of the ancient philosopher, you would have an answer to your question.

Not sure what you mean here, but that number three is interesting: Length, height, and width gives us our 3-D universe and everything in it.