Nothingness, pre-Big Bang

[SpeedFreek]

An eternal God that exists in another dimension and created our universe?<br /><br />So you have tried to explain how something can come from nothing (when really it came from another dimension), can you now explain how something can be eternal?<br /><br />As for your eternal God (with all the complexities required to be a god, and the information to create a universe) creating our universe, again we can simplify this to universes being created from other universes eternally (which is far less complex).<br /><br />Obviously, the question still remains - whether a God or a system of universes is eternal, what caused them to be? How can they have always been there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />can you now explain how something can be eternal? </i><br /><br />I can't, but this link does. Please read it carefully:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity<br /><br />And my favorite part, which really hits the nail on the head:<br /><br />Related to the notion of eternal existence in the concept of God as Creator, as a being completely independent of "everything else" that exists because he created everything else. If this premise is true, then it follows that God is independent of both space and time, since these are properties of the universe. So according to this notion, God exists before time began, exists during all moments in time, and would continue to exist if somehow the universe and time itself were to cease to exist.<br /><i><br />Obviously, the question still remains - whether a God or a system of universes is eternal, what caused them to be? How can they have always been there? </i><br /><br />I said God was eternal. I'll steal your line: Don't complicate it, by including the universe. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Heheh, I am not complicating it by including a universe as my universe is all there is, you are complicating it by including a god who created a universe!<br /><br />You must realise, as I do, that our argument is circular. But mine requires less complexity <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />The wiki link explains the nature of eternity of course, but doesn't explain how something can come to be eternal. "It just is" isn't enough for me.<br /><br />But, if we choose to accept the concept of eternity without any explanation of how something can come to be eternal, then the idea of a universe being eternal is surely more simple and plausible than the idea of an eternal intelligence creating a universe.<br /><br />To me, the idea that <i> this </i> universe maybe just one <i> episode </i> in an eternal universe seems more likely than an eternal being creating this universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />but doesn't explain how something can come to be eternal. "It just is" isn't enough for me. </i><br /><br />Everything doesn't have to have an explanation. Some things just are the way they are. Reread the part about the atheist mathematician.<br /><br />And one need not believe in God in order to hold this concept of eternity: an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> Everything doesn't have to have an explanation. Reread the part about the atheist mathematician. </font><br /><br />Ahh but this is where we disagree. Everything does have to have an explanation! Without explanation, we can only guess using the available information and hope our guess is correct. At the moment we don't have an explanation and thus I am hoping my guess is more correct than your guess. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I do of course understand how numbers and their relationships can be considered eternal (after all, I am an atheist mathematician). The logic of numbers is pure and simple. It is easy for such an abstract concept to have eternal truth. 1+1 will equal 2 forever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Ok, this will be my last post, in this thread.<br /><i><br />The logic of numbers is pure and simple. It is easy for such an abstract concept to have eternal truth.</i><br /><br />The logic of God is pure and simple. It is easy for <br />such an abstract concept to have eternal truth. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

kyle_baron - Sorry for my absence and delay in responding.<br /><br />Thank you for the quote of Brian Green from "Fabric of the Cosmos."<br /><br />Was he aware of the illustration in Isaiah 40:22 describing the expansion of our universe as a stretching fine gauze or fabric?<br /><br />I should mention, though, that quantum theory and mechanics is not my forte'.<br /><br />But, yes, I also find how many scientific truths are alluded to in such simple, concise statements in the Bible.

 

[newtonian]

killium - Now, how do you propose the laws and properties of our universe were arrived at by trial and error rather than intelligent design?<br /><br />Take, for just one of the many examples, the fine tuned strength of gravity in relation to the other 3 main forces of physics.<br /><br />Zillions of tries by what mechanism - or do you propose zillions of miracles with no explanation whatsoever?<br /><br />Also, I do not believe that the fine tuning in biology was arrived at by chance in a trial and error fashion.<br /><br />I believe design in nature also proves that we have an intelligent Creator.<br /><br />God did not appear from nothing.<br /><br />I will start simple, and explain further if you would like:<br /><br />I believe in both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientifically observed principle of cause and effect.<br /><br />Taking those observed scientific facts to be correct, then there are only two basic choices:<br /><br />1. An infinite number of past causes and effects going back an infinity of time.<br /><br />2. A first cause.<br /><br />The Bible, which is remarkably scientifically accurate and has many other factors proving Divine authorship, settles this by stating a First Cause.<br /><br />In fact, the name of God found in the original Hebrew, translated Jehovah in English, comes from the Hebrew root verb for 'to be' in the causative sense, and one definition of God's name is: "He causes to be."<br /><br />Thus God's very name testifies to the truth of the scientific priniciple of cause and effect and indicates a First Cause, Jehovah, who causes to be.<br /><br />One reason why we (those of my faith) conclude why there was a God in the first place is the law of conservation of matter and energy - namely - that you cannot get something, anything, from nothing.<br /><br />Another scientific principle involved is the scientific observation of biogenesis - that all life precedes from previous life - therefore life always existed.<br /><br />Still an

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - Well, I'm not sure what kyle baron actually believes. Obviously if God appeared from another dimension he would not come from nothing, since dimensions involve something more than nothing.<br /><br />The Bible teaches that God is eternal with no beginning - as the First Cause he always existed - therefore He did not come from nothing.<br /><br />There are various religions and teachings, btw. I believe the Bible is God's Word, so I post in support of Biblical statements and models. (the former involve direct statements, the latter involves interpretation.)<br /><br />BTW - God is love. That is the prime reason creation was started.<br /><br />Love also does not come from nothing.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> The logic of God is pure and simple. It is easy for <br />such an abstract concept to have eternal truth. </font><br /><br />That's fine. As an abstract concept. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - I kind of agree - certainly totally agree that believing everything came from nothing violates what we know about reality - it therefore also violates science.<br /><br />I agree we cannot measure God - but I do not know that God is infinite at any given point in time.<br /><br />Since the Bible teaches that God is a spirit (John 4:24), and the Hebrew and Greek words for spirit involve invisible active force (or energy) - and since Isaiah 40:26 links the existence of stars with plural forms of God's dynamic energy and power, and since I like math:<br /><br />One can measure, at least approximately, the amount of energy that went into the creation of our universe - by adding the energy still contained in our universe plus the energy equivalent for the matter in our universe.<br /><br />Simply put, God's energy must be greater than that energy sum - and likely many times greater such that creating our universe would have involved only a tiny portion of God's energy, including btw, the holy spirit.<br /><br />Simply, God's e /> e of universe.<br /><br />Of course, it is far more complicated than that. We do not know how many plural forms of energy exist in our universe, let alone how many plural forms of energy are involved with the holy spirit.<br /><br />Interestingly, Isaiah 40:22 has God causing the expansion, or stretching out, of our universe. Scientists now postulate an unknown form of energy they call dark energy.<br /><br />While there are alternate models to explain how expansion got started, and how it accelerated (inflation) in the past, and why it is apparently accelerating now, one thing is certain: <br /><br />there are reasons and they involve cause and effect - and these should be able to be measured.<br /><br />Granted, that is likely infinitesimal compared with God's energy and power!

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - On your later post - we at least agree that our universe came from something rather than nothing.<br /><br />Like you, I am willing to wait for answers - and this is an exciting time for astronomy as new data keeps pouring in.<br /><br />As we scientifically discover more complexity and order, more laws and fine tuned properties, it becomes more and more obvious that intelligent design was involved in the creation of our universe.<br /><br />I also would not believe in anything without proof - however, there is plenty of proof both that God exists and also that the Bible is God's Word. <br /><br />The latter is off thread theme - but I will be glad to itemize some of the lines of evidence in another section of SDC - depending on which line of evidence you prefer to research.<br /><br />In this section I have started some threads on Biblical astronomy - it is one of many of the lines of evidence. <br /><br />Simply - the scientific accuracy of Biblical astronomy considering both the lack of scientific proofs extant at the time of writing plus the totally unscientific popular beliefs, both scientific and religious, that were extant at the time of writing.<br /><br />[E.g. Isaiah 40:22 - earth is round, heaven is being stretched out like a fine gauze.<br />Job 26:7 - earth is hung upon nothing<br />Job 26:10 - terminator between light and darknes is a circle on the face of earth's waters.<br />Genesis 1:1 - heaven and earth had a beginning<br />And many more if you would like to pursue the evidence.<br /><br />One more for now: the very existence of laws governing our universe, called statutes of the heavens:<br /><br />(Job 38:31-33) . . .Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put it

 

[SpeedFreek]

Ok, I know I shouldn't but.. I'll bite! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> As we scientifically discover more complexity and order, more laws and fine tuned properties, it becomes more and more obvious that intelligent design was involved in the creation of our universe. </font><br /><br />We have had this conversation before. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It's all based around differing opinions on the anthropic principle. I don't see it the way you do. You see fine-tuning as something extraordinary and highly unlikely unless intelligently designed. It <i> would </i> be extraordinary and highly unlikely if this was the only ever universe that had ever existed anywhere. But if many universes have come and gone, or there are multiple universes big-banging all the time, the "fine tuning" in this one is not so extraordinary.<br /><br />You have argued that even with billions of universes, the odds of the fine tuning happening at random are still astronomical. I have replied that astronomical doesn't mean impossible, and also that odds don't mean it happens on the last attempt! A one in a hundred chance doesn't mean you need 100 tries for it to happen, it it has just as much chance of happening on the 1st attempt as the last one! Odds and probabilities are only useful in describing the possibility of something happening, <b> before </b> it happens. After it has happened, the odds of it happening <i> were </i> 1:1 - it happened. What are the odds of a universe being here? 1:1 because it <b> is </b> here.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I also would not believe in anything without proof - however, there is plenty of proof both that God exists and also that the Bible is God's Word. </font><br /><br />There is no scientific proof that God exists or that the Bible is God's word. Its all assumption based on mythology. There is of course no proof God doesn't exist either. We have talked about this before.<br /><br />The bible m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[paintwoik]

Newtonian - Your crap is spreading thin.

 

[alkalin]

Newtonian,<br /><br />Applied math has many useful down to earth purposes, but when theoretical math is applied to theoretical and possibly erroneous concepts, very erroneous conclusions can be reached.<br /><br />A number of cosmologists in the past were looking for ‘simple’ solutions to the problems found in astronomy and they are still attempting to do this today even though the BB theory has failed again and again for its inability to predict. Theories are validated on their ability to predict something accurately.<br /><br />There are other theories such as a quasi-steady state that I prefer that requires more ‘math’ to make it work, so it is more complicated. QSS does not need fictional math, energies, or matter to make it work. But matter as we know it does have to have a beginning at some very distant time in the past, and from there the universe is growing in size slowly, or as you would put it Biblically, ‘stretching out’.<br /><br />In my view, the Bible makes some very general remarks that rightly are appropriate but there is no science detail in it. The Hebrews were not scientists in those days and would not have understood a universe as we now comprehend it. Theirs was a geocentric universe commonly accepted in ancient cultures which is evident in the Bible.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">There are reasons and they involve cause and effect - and these should be able to be measured.</font><br /><br />On this I totally disagree. The question of what caused the universe in the fist place is not something measurable. This is not a math issue but a philosophical or metaphysical one. The only issue here for me is how much I should rely on revelation.<br />

 

[alokmohan]

We dont want intelligent design men using Bible GOD.This is antiscience and design to misguide people.

 

[sammysoil]

How the universe could have created itself:<br /><br />Before the first cause there was Nothingness (Nothingness actually was the first cause, but for the purposes of this argument, the first cause comes after Nothingness). Nothingness is the lack of the existence of anything, including said lack of existence. Nothingness could be thought of as the opposite of infinity. Just as there's always something else infinity could have to actually be infinity, there's always something else Nothingness could lack.<br /><br />Now, when there was Nothingness before the first cause, there was nothing but Nothingness. There was infinite Nothingness. This is, itself, a paradox, for how could it have the property of being infinite when, by definition, it cannot have any properties at all? <br /><br />By letting the paradox eat itself. Nothingness would necessitate the existence of the property of being infinite. The existence of this property means that the Nothingness would not be infinite after all, and the infinite Nothingness would reduce to true Nothingness. Nothingness would create infinity and all the properties attributed to it, thereby creating all the properties attributed to those properties and so on and so forth into infinity. It would create the first cause and everything after that, including the universe and us (in some sort of state of conceptual quasi-existence), and in doing so it would create itself. So to speak.