It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Philosophy of god, science, and nothing

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
The one issue I have about this is that "nothing" is not scientifically endorsed. It may be assumed by some because of our linear understanding of time, however there is no evidence to suggest that "nothing" ever existed. Cosmic censorship doesn't allow us to go back that far. It is widely believed by scientists that it was an extremely dense singularity of energy that exploded, not that it magically poofed into existence out of nothing. Where did the singularity come from? That's the real question. Was it always there? Was it part of another universe or dimension? Too much to think about.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



nothing is not scientifically endorsed? what is the main composition of area between galaxies? where the big bang began,,, if all energy expanded accelartingly wouldn't the largest area ( by now) of the universe be where the universe began? if all energy spread away from that point?




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





you think God ( the infinite void) was ?fortunate? enough to to be given a self ( from whom or what? from nothing?) and this god could realize it selgoogolplexes times,,, and then created the universe we live in,,,, out of compressed absence,,,, using nothing as its only toolf,,, an,,,,, d was an individual? and this infinite void just existed undisturbed unexistingly forevers beyond forevers,, eternities,,, eons,,, infinities of


The infinite always was and always is. And so was its awareness. This dimension can never have been created, because its a constant; its infinite.

A constant that can form finite must be intelligent.

You have to be quite intelligent when you can get 0 to form a 1. Or a nothing to make something appear. To you and me this is impossible. Because we are limited, the infinite is not.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

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



what was it aware of? and how was it aware? how could it have always been aware?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I was using sarcasm to make the same point. Sorry if i seemed rude. It wasn't intended.


What I meant is, once you locate "nothing" then you have transformed it into "something". It is the whole axiom of "there can never be nothing. And you cannot have 1 without other".

I think we are confusing two separate issues. We are confusing the philosophical with the scientific. I know they are related, and they always should be. But i would also posit that until science can fully grasp where consciousness emanates from, its contributions to this subject may be of limited value.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maes9
there has been always one existence. and we are all nothings. how!?
it is logical that nothing can not cause something(existence) since it should have a cause. and chance is not a good word. it refers to an event that we can not understand the causes of that.
so there should be always an existence. and when the imperfections(nothings) of that existence gets together and make a something.
that existence is the God. and we are the creatures the collections of nothings.
for example God is the most compassionate and merciful and we are also compassionate and merciful but not the most.


This is an example of how religion and philosophy are incompatable

What makes you say God is merciful and compassionate? I see God as being utterly indifferent. Not compassionate by any means, yet not malevolent either. Regarding us, this universe, our reality....God does not care.

I believe that reality shows the hand of God. And, since reality is rules based, strict, and regimented, I would say that God is as well. Therefore, once this system was set in motion, Gods involvement ended. Our framework of reality was provided, and the Universal Law of Consequence locked us into a cause and effect relational universe.

Of course, this may all be wrong. But using the axiom of "As above, so below", to find the hand of God the first place to look for clues is in the reality that God created. This reality is anything but merciful and compassionate.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





But i would also posit that until science can fully grasp where consciousness emanates from, its contributions to this subject may be of limited value


Why is it a limited value. We all have a brain to think with. Personally; i don't want to wait on science to figure something out that i already know. Why do i have to wait on them?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by maes9
there has been always one existence. and we are all nothings. how!?
it is logical that nothing can not cause something(existence) since it should have a cause. and chance is not a good word. it refers to an event that we can not understand the causes of that.
so there should be always an existence. and when the imperfections(nothings) of that existence gets together and make a something.
that existence is the God. and we are the creatures the collections of nothings.
for example God is the most compassionate and merciful and we are also compassionate and merciful but not the most.


This is an example of how religion and philosophy are incompatable

What makes you say God is merciful and compassionate? I see God as being utterly indifferent. Not compassionate by any means, yet not malevolent either. Regarding us, this universe, our reality....God does not care.

I believe that reality shows the hand of God. And, since reality is rules based, strict, and regimented, I would say that God is as well. Therefore, once this system was set in motion, Gods involvement ended. Our framework of reality was provided, and the Universal Law of Consequence locked us into a cause and effect relational universe.

Of course, this may all be wrong. But using the axiom of "As above, so below", to find the hand of God the first place to look for clues is in the reality that God created. This reality is anything but merciful and compassionate.



well about the end of God's involvement. It is not necessary true logically. Universal Law of Consequence is itself the involvement of God. God can do anything it desires by this law. as a master or supervisor. and even it can someday ruin this rule and invent other rules. for example energy conservation can be altered and I see this the meaning of heaven!
I mean that existence (God) is the most everything, the ultimate of anything. and it is cumbersome to digest that how such existence can exist as it is difficult to think about amazing universe no doubt the greatness of the creator.
I can not understand your points about merciful and compassionate I just mentioned them as examples?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Well, lets more clearly state that the Institution known as "Science". It is a closed minded, dogmatic segment of humanity that has sought to place man at the pinnacle (as per its European roots). I see it as an institution so full of cognitive dissonance and sensitive toes that nothing will ever happen of value until it kicks its way through their clenched teeth. It is an institution full of fully vested individuals ready to shout down anything that threatens their sense of self.

This is why i feel that way. Any discipline that will allow itself to cut off its nose to spite its face is not one i find of high value when discussing matters of philosophy. Then again, like Christianity, what passes for science is sometimes so far from actual science as to be depressing.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





what was it aware of? and how was it aware? how could it have always been aware?


What was it aware of?
I have no idea. I cant speak on behalf of someone else's awareness. Just like i cant speak on your behalf.

But i have thought a lot about this topic as well.

The infinite awareness must be our awareness. Because where else would we get our awareness from?

- The only difference between your awareness and mine, is that you are in a different dimension/body than i am.

- You experiance time from a different body and location than i do.


How can the infinite be aware?

- How can you be? - You and the infinite are just two different dimensions, that is all. You are a finite the infinite is not.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

And how are the pre-Copernican watchers of the sky doing this morning? Still arguing away over your epicycles, I see...


Originally posted by ImaFungi
nothing is not scientifically endorsed? what is the main composition of area between galaxies?

Space, also known to physicists as 'the metric'.

Space isn't nothing. It expands. It has energy. It is permeated by electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Barcs is correct. Nothing is no thing, and no thing does not exist.


If all energy expanded accelartingly wouldn't the largest area (by now) of the universe be where the universe began? if all energy spread away from that point?

No, it wouldn't. jiggerj has a thread going on that subject, too. Check out the replies by MissSmartypants on pg1 and FOXMULDER147 on pg2 for the correct answer to your question.


edit on 6/7/12 by Astyanax because: a new planet swam into my ken.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...


Oh I love comments like this. You probably can't think past the bible, but how would anyone know seeing as you offer no intelligent argument? Go ahead, throw some biblical quotes up to show how brainwashed you are. You know you want to.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

And how are the pre-Copernican watchers of the sky doing this morning? Still arguing away over your epicycles, I see...


Originally posted by ImaFungi
nothing is not scientifically endorsed? what is the main composition of area between galaxies?

Space, also known to physicists as 'the metric'.

Space isn't nothing. It expands. It has energy. It is permeated by electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Barcs is correct. Nothing is no thing, and no thing does not exist.


If all energy expanded accelartingly wouldn't the largest area (by now) of the universe be where the universe began? if all energy spread away from that point?

No, it wouldn't. jiggerj has a thread going on that subject, too. Check out the replies by MissSmartypants on pg1 and FOXMULDER147 on pg2 for the correct answer to your question.


edit on 6/7/12 by Astyanax because: a new planet swam into my ken.


I must be tired. Aren't you both saying the same thing? That there is no such thing as nothing?
edit on 7/6/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...


Oh I love comments like this. You probably can't think past the bible, but how would anyone know seeing as you offer no intelligent argument? Go ahead, throw some biblical quotes up to show how brainwashed you are. You know you want to.


You'd love that, wouldn't you? I won't give you the satisfaction. Why should I say anything, having seen no intelligent argument here yet? Anyway, what would be the point??



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...


Oh I love comments like this. You probably can't think past the bible, but how would anyone know seeing as you offer no intelligent argument? Go ahead, throw some biblical quotes up to show how brainwashed you are. You know you want to.


You'd love that, wouldn't you? I won't give you the satisfaction. Why should I say anything, having seen no intelligent argument here yet? Anyway, what would be the point??


The point would be that maybe you'd learn to trust your own mind. If you'd take the time to notice I even question the big brains of science. No one should just accept something because:

A. The bible tells me so, or
B. Scientists are smart so they must be right.

If the bible or a scientist told you to jump off a bridge, would you? I won't accept yes for an answer!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...


Oh I love comments like this. You probably can't think past the bible, but how would anyone know seeing as you offer no intelligent argument? Go ahead, throw some biblical quotes up to show how brainwashed you are. You know you want to.


You'd love that, wouldn't you? I won't give you the satisfaction. Why should I say anything, having seen no intelligent argument here yet? Anyway, what would be the point??


The point would be that maybe you'd learn to trust your own mind. If you'd take the time to notice I even question the big brains of science. No one should just accept something because:

A. The bible tells me so, or
B. Scientists are smart so they must be right.

If the bible or a scientist told you to jump off a bridge, would you? I won't accept yes for an answer!


you can not mimic others to realize the existence of God it is on your own on your wisdom and feelings.
when you reach the truth (the God nad his prophets and the last day) then you can use bible or other sources to discover more details..



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Aren't you both saying the same thing? That there is no such thing as nothing?

No, ImaFungi thinks space is nothing.


I must be tired.

You must be.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by maes9

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

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.




More deep logic and shallow understanding...


Oh I love comments like this. You probably can't think past the bible, but how would anyone know seeing as you offer no intelligent argument? Go ahead, throw some biblical quotes up to show how brainwashed you are. You know you want to.


You'd love that, wouldn't you? I won't give you the satisfaction. Why should I say anything, having seen no intelligent argument here yet? Anyway, what would be the point??


The point would be that maybe you'd learn to trust your own mind. If you'd take the time to notice I even question the big brains of science. No one should just accept something because:

A. The bible tells me so, or
B. Scientists are smart so they must be right.

If the bible or a scientist told you to jump off a bridge, would you? I won't accept yes for an answer!


you can not mimic others to realize the existence of God it is on your own on your wisdom and feelings.
when you reach the truth (the God nad his prophets and the last day) then you can use bible or other sources to discover more details..



We see planets orbiting the sun. We see leaves falling from trees. We see rain falling from clouds. Even though we can't see it, the things I mentioned lead us directly to the conclusion that there must be gravity. Please give one example of something you've observed in the entire universe that would directly lead to the conclusion that a god exists and created everything? Mind you, ya can't use the bible, you have to use the wisdom you've attained by observing the universe.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax



I must be tired.

You must be.


That must be why I've said ten time already, "Why am I still up!"



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


existence of GOD is basic and simple! If you see a wheel of a vehicle you think that somebody may have built that, do not you? so how this amazing and complicated universe is built? just by chance? I have read the atheist philosophers book in the east and west, none of them believe in any chance. chance is a word to call what we can not perceive it's reasons.
one can not directly see the electricity and electromagnetic waves but with it's signs.
can nothing causes anything!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by maes9
reply to post by jiggerj
 


existence of GOD is basic and simple! If you see a wheel of a vehicle you think that somebody may have built that, do not you? so how this amazing and complicated universe is built? just by chance? I have read the atheist philosophers book in the east and west, none of them believe in any chance. chance is a word to call what we can not perceive it's reasons.
one can not directly see the electricity and electromagnetic waves but with it's signs.
can nothing causes anything!


We plug a light into a socket. When the lamp lights up do we say, "Hmm, must be electric eels in the wall." No, because if we follow the wires we'll eventually come to a direct source: an electric generator at the utilities company. I'm just saying that nowhere in the universe is there an event or action that directly points to a god. Sure, we could say, "Hey, maybe a god did it." But at the same time we could say, "Hey, maybe a frog did it." There's just no direct connection to an almighty being.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join