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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
what was it aware of? and how was it aware? how could it have always been aware?
Originally posted by ImaFungi
nothing is not scientifically endorsed? what is the main composition of area between galaxies?
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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??
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!
Aren't you both saying the same thing? That there is no such thing as nothing?
I must be tired.
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..
Originally posted by Astyanax
I must be tired.
You must be.
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!