Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').
For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?
Something can't come from nothing
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2672
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #131Correction: we know mind as integrated with living organisms-----but "mind" is consciousness, and living and "nonliving" matter are made of the same stuff. Any individual atom in a brain is presumably unconscious, but the atoms of the brain make up the seat of our consciousness. Still, from the perspective of that single atom, the universe of the brain would seem unconscious.brunumb wrote:We know that mind is integrated with living organisms, not just any matter.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."brunumb wrote:There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.
--Albert Einstein
Applying causality to both the universe and a creator is one thing. A problem comes up when you want to apply causality to a creator to get out of applying it to the universe.JoeyKnothead wrote:For me it goes back to "creation" implying a creator- where said creator, a thing proposed to exist as surely as the universe, not being held to the same requirement.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5992
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6606 times
- Been thanked: 3208 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #132So, basically your 'evidence' to support that all you contend is true consists of asking for evidence that demonstrates that it is not true. Sheesh. Talk about the ultimate dodge. I think I will step back out of the Twilight Zone and leave you to communicate with the 'Creator' instead.William wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 1:42 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #121]
No more than calling that which germinated, "The big bang".You can identify the object which expanded as anything you like, but calling it "The Seed of Origin" seems to imply something more than just the beginning of this universe.
And since it is very apparent that seeding is involved - not only here on this planet, but in relation to Sol and The Milky Way Galaxy - referring to it as such, is in line with how nature does things.
Furthermore, information is held within seeds which - when germinated - unfolds as whatever the information held within the seed, dictates...so seeds are very reflective of natural enough events.
Why do you say that?The more important part is whether or not something preexisted that.
What stuff is being made up? [Specifically in relation to what I am writing. What others 'make up' has nothing to do with my own argument].We don't kno.. That shouldm't allow us to simply make stuff up.
We know that mind is integrated with matter. Thus we have clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, even if that creator-mind is unfolding from the Seed of Origin which birthed the universe we are witnessing through experience.Not quite. We know that mind is integrated with living organisms, not just any matter.
Are you saying that the fundamental building blocks of universe forms are made up of different stuff?
There is no clear evidence that it is just imaginative thinking at work. If there is, then present it.There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.
Being that it has emerged since the germination {Big Bang} it has had a great amount of time in which to learn to effect the matter to whatever it wills, even to the point of doing so here on this planet, as we ourself bear witness, even to the degree that we refer to that as "reality".The fact of its reality demonstrates the truth of it.Quite a fanciful proposition, but please present something that demonstrates the truth of it.
There is always somewhere to go. Testing it out for starters.
If:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so.In the persona own subjective experience. As Morpheus said to Neo - "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."Alright then, when and where has any of this communication taken place?
It's all just imaginative speculation.How do you know that? Or are you imagining that is all that it is?In order for anyone to write what you wrote there, they have to ignore that it has already been established that the universe cannot have just popped out of nowhere.I guess I am basing it on the fact that there is no substantiation of the claims being made. It therefore seems most logical to conclude that it comes from the imagination like so many fanciful ideas humans have thought up through the ages.
If you have evidence to support the notion that it did, I am more than happy to see it.
That is very understandable. However, even being that it is hard to imagine, it is not impossible. I haven't had any insurmountable problem in at least subjectively verifying It exists, or finding ways in which to communicate with It.Please demonstrate that it is just self-delusion. If you cannot do so, then your argument therein can be viewed as simply unsupported opinion and thus, invalid speculation, which can be shoved back into whatever hole it came from...Not impossible does not equate with probable. Please demonstrate that your communications with 'It' are not just self-delusion.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5992
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6606 times
- Been thanked: 3208 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #133OK. Nice quote. Are you using it to suggest that there is clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved? If so, could you please present it.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:57 pm“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."brunumb wrote:There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.
--Albert Einstein
Last edited by brunumb on Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #134Please demonstrate that your communications with 'It' are not just self-delusion.
Please demonstrate that it is just self-delusion. If you cannot do so, then your argument therein can be viewed as simply unsupported opinion and thus, invalid speculation, which can be shoved back into whatever hole it came from...
I continue to provide evidence for those interested.So, basically your 'evidence' to support that all you contend is true consists of asking for evidence that demonstrates that it is not true.
My comment - obviously enough I thought - had to do with your implying self-delusion. Do you have any evidence that I am self deluded?
Apparently not - as you responded with more woo-slinging
As I wrote...invalid speculation can be shoved back into whatever hole it came from...please desist with such tactic as it adds nothing to the communication process re honest argument.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #135[Replying to William in post #123]
Hey friend, here's hoping you ain't never met a biscuit you couldn't whoop.
I want to acknowledge your post, but can't put together the time it deserves for your effort.
Got a bunch of work to do on the farm, with a dang mule laughing at me all day
Definitely owe ya as thorough and thoughtful reply!
Hey friend, here's hoping you ain't never met a biscuit you couldn't whoop.
I want to acknowledge your post, but can't put together the time it deserves for your effort.
Got a bunch of work to do on the farm, with a dang mule laughing at me all day
Definitely owe ya as thorough and thoughtful reply!
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #136[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #135]
Search "Whoop"
a loud cry of joy or excitement. give or make a whoop.
"all at once they were whooping with laughter"
That reminds me of a song I writ.
Check out the image @ 1:48
Hey friend, here's hoping you ain't never met a biscuit you couldn't whoop.
Search "Whoop"
a loud cry of joy or excitement. give or make a whoop.
"all at once they were whooping with laughter"
As ever, I look forward to your replies my Friend - and perhaps old mule simply has something to whoop about...have you thought about whooping along?I want to acknowledge your post, but can't put together the time it deserves for your effort.
Got a bunch of work to do on the farm, with a dang mule laughing at me all day
Definitely owe ya as thorough and thoughtful reply!
That reminds me of a song I writ.
Check out the image @ 1:48
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2672
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #137I'm using it to point out that imaginative thinking is more respectable than you give it credit for being.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:44 pmOK. Nice quote. Are you using it to suggest that there is clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved? If so, could you please present it.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:57 pm“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."brunumb wrote:There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.
--Albert Einstein
Consider this hypothetical scenario:
Scientists struggled for years to figure out how the sliding stones of Death Valley managed to move across that flat valley floor, leaving trails in the soil behind them. Someone finally came up with a notion which seemed to make sense; they figured that winter frost condensing on the ground and then melting would make the valley floor slippery enough for high winds to push the rocks around.
But suppose someone were to say, "Wait a minute; I have a better explanation. The sliding stones move because they just move themselves."
The first explanation invokes ice, solar energy and wind to explain the rocks' movement, while the second invokes no agency outside the rocks at all. So the second explanation is the simpler one, but which one is more likely correct?
Think of the movement of the rocks as the existence of the universe. Yes, it obviously happens. But does the material universe explain itself merely by existing, or is a more complex explanation necessary?
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20490
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #138Moderator Comment
This would be starting to cross the line into incivility. Please avoid insinuating self-delusion or shoving anything into a hole.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #139[Replying to Athetotheist in post #137]
The second explanation is not simpler and better. This is because it has no 'following of natural events' being that there is no science which has ever shown that rocks have minds and moving parts of their own. The second explanation is an example of using imagination inappropriately.
Therefore to use imagination in such a way as to suggest the second explanation more likely because it is simpler, would be misuse of said imagination. The first explanation is not even really using imagination, other than in the appropriate manner of imagining ways in which the rocks might move but then observing said rocks in relation to the real circumstances one may have imagined as the possible reason...imagination is therefore being used appropriately in relation to known natural events.
This - of course - doesn't excluded therefore, that the universe does not have a mind of its own...but certainly it can be said that the moving rocks on the desert sand do not have minds of their own by way of explaining their movement.
It is therefore, not a very good analogy of the universes unfolding, because the flat valley floor, the frost condensing on the ground and then melting and the high winds and the moving rocks are all part of the mechanism of said universes unfolding, but the moving rocks analogy does not consist of a complexity in itself, anywhere near to that of what the universe has been able to so far produce - a complexity in which it is not inappropriate to imagine would require mindfulness to make happen.
What IS a great analogy of the universe mindfully unfolding is The Planet Earth - A living stone of complexity ... as one cannot explain away the complexity of biological life forms as the result of mindless acts of nature in which the complex movement of said life forms is due to "flat slippery surfaces and strong winds."
Mind therefore, can suitable be inserted as the simplest explanation of agency for movement and consequent complex shaping, which then can be more readily accepted as a likely agency for why the universe is unfolding as it is...into Galaxies and in relation to what is going on within said Galaxies.
I think that Mind is a great explanation for 'why' what goes on in this universe, on macro and on micro levels alike, as the explanation itself comes from the mind and so the mind should be able to recognize the connections therein, even through [appropriately] imagining it most likely.
As mysterious as the universe still is, the mind is just as mysterious...and therein is where imagination has its legitimate place - as long as imagination not being used inappropriately by claiming as certainty that it is a mind outside of the universe which caused the universe to unfold while ignoring or downplaying the idea that the universe itself has a mind and is its own agency of its own unfolding.
I agree. We are essentially minds within/experiencing matter. Many folk appear to be quite afraid of imagination. There may be many reasons for why that is, but one legitimate reason is that when imagination is used inappropriately, harm is - not always - but often the result. So one must be careful how one uses imagination, but not so afraid of it as to think disrespectfully of its usefulness at all.I'm using it to point out that imaginative thinking is more respectable than you give it credit for being.
The first explanation is the simpler one because it follows events of nature as the agency by which the rocks move, whereas the second suggests that the rocks have some type of minds of their own and moving parts which allow for them to move themselves...Scientists struggled for years to figure out how the sliding stones of Death Valley managed to move across that flat valley floor, leaving trails in the soil behind them. Someone finally came up with a notion which seemed to make sense; they figured that winter frost condensing on the ground and then melting would make the valley floor slippery enough for high winds to push the rocks around.
But suppose someone were to say, "Wait a minute; I have a better explanation. The sliding stones move because they just move themselves."
The first explanation invokes ice, solar energy and wind to explain the rocks' movement, while the second invokes no agency outside the rocks at all. So the second explanation is the simpler one, but which one is more likely correct?
The second explanation is not simpler and better. This is because it has no 'following of natural events' being that there is no science which has ever shown that rocks have minds and moving parts of their own. The second explanation is an example of using imagination inappropriately.
Therefore to use imagination in such a way as to suggest the second explanation more likely because it is simpler, would be misuse of said imagination. The first explanation is not even really using imagination, other than in the appropriate manner of imagining ways in which the rocks might move but then observing said rocks in relation to the real circumstances one may have imagined as the possible reason...imagination is therefore being used appropriately in relation to known natural events.
Given the more complex explanation is that the rocks move themselves through some unspecified mechanism, it is better to accept that the universe is unfolding [moving] through some unknown but not unnatural mechanism to do with itself.Think of the movement of the rocks as the existence of the universe. Yes, it obviously happens. But does the material universe explain itself merely by existing, or is a more complex explanation necessary?
This - of course - doesn't excluded therefore, that the universe does not have a mind of its own...but certainly it can be said that the moving rocks on the desert sand do not have minds of their own by way of explaining their movement.
It is therefore, not a very good analogy of the universes unfolding, because the flat valley floor, the frost condensing on the ground and then melting and the high winds and the moving rocks are all part of the mechanism of said universes unfolding, but the moving rocks analogy does not consist of a complexity in itself, anywhere near to that of what the universe has been able to so far produce - a complexity in which it is not inappropriate to imagine would require mindfulness to make happen.
What IS a great analogy of the universe mindfully unfolding is The Planet Earth - A living stone of complexity ... as one cannot explain away the complexity of biological life forms as the result of mindless acts of nature in which the complex movement of said life forms is due to "flat slippery surfaces and strong winds."
Mind therefore, can suitable be inserted as the simplest explanation of agency for movement and consequent complex shaping, which then can be more readily accepted as a likely agency for why the universe is unfolding as it is...into Galaxies and in relation to what is going on within said Galaxies.
I think that Mind is a great explanation for 'why' what goes on in this universe, on macro and on micro levels alike, as the explanation itself comes from the mind and so the mind should be able to recognize the connections therein, even through [appropriately] imagining it most likely.
As mysterious as the universe still is, the mind is just as mysterious...and therein is where imagination has its legitimate place - as long as imagination not being used inappropriately by claiming as certainty that it is a mind outside of the universe which caused the universe to unfold while ignoring or downplaying the idea that the universe itself has a mind and is its own agency of its own unfolding.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5992
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6606 times
- Been thanked: 3208 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #140I value the imagination enormously. When it is used to create scenarios that have no basis in reality and present them as real, then not so much.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 1:17 pmI'm using it to point out that imaginative thinking is more respectable than you give it credit for being.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:44 pmOK. Nice quote. Are you using it to suggest that there is clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved? If so, could you please present it.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:57 pm“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."brunumb wrote:There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.
--Albert Einstein
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.