How can something come from nothing?

@cicerone imposter,

R.S.
Not through religion do I mention the Creator. Man is the creator of religion, its obvious, there are not just a few in the world.
Truth is exclusive and the heavens speak of it in every language.
If one says truth doesn't exist -- than one's statement about anything is meaningless. But if it does exist ... than truth is indeed exclusive.

All authentic philosophers know (if they are honest), that their best thinking through mathematics or an other ambling incremental processions of thought can only produce a round trip ticket back to square one.
What happened in the "beginning" is one of the most fascinating subjects ---Why? What does man hope to find there? If it's God, then His eternal now has always been and is the beginning of the next moment. Still creation is the first thing on record -- has to be. If you want to explore the possibility of inanimate objects deciding to move by themselves -- not a chance!
\
Mathematics can proceed into the realm of "religion" very easily as well. The numbers cease to exist and morph into philosophical rather than quotient driven curiosities. In fact this can result in not seeing the forest because of the trees in the way. Man has a long track record of being wrong about what he sees -- the earth is no longer flat anymore, however, I do appreciate you being round. :-) That's why I refer to truth as being absolutely exclusive and non-religious. True, God has allowed us to see into something and observe its wonder. But again, what man thinks he sees is highly negotiable. Perception and wonder go hand-in-hand though. Whether it's the fabric of space creating grooves in which objects settle in or not -- could be.

Every thought about existence in any realm which does not include "in the beginning God," is mere child's play. There's no such thing as chance if everything can be measured mathematically in the cosmos -- and it can be. We may be unable to do the calculations but never-the-less it's measurable. "Chance-dust," is the supposed "panacea" for all mind sciences that exclude the Creator (God) and everyone knows it. Going around in circles with "higher thinking," can make God's most precious creation (you and I), into repeaters of words that were spoken with chance-dust thickly layered on by someone's predecessor. Dare to consider God has much more precious things on His mind towards you.
I can guarantee it's so.

2 Replies

@Truth teller,

We are the product of evolution; our ancestors are the primates. All living organisms are impacted by the environment in which it lives.

The mystery of 'where it all began' is still a mystery to humans. Crediting a creator can't be proven, because you can produce the creator.

Science is still a young intellectual activity, and many of the information we have learned about our environment happened in the past two hundred years. We have many more technologies and information to develop before we can arrive at any conclusions - if that will ever become possible. There are just too many unknowns for humans to say we know when this all started.

From Wiki.

Quote:

Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.[10][11] Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species.[12][13][14] Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[15] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[16] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[17]

In other words, we evolved.

1 Reply

Adding something significant to this discussion it seems ex nihilo by fact did not happen until a poverty of intellect, after Nietzsche. 1900. I am not willing to trust it nor entertain the paradoxes of speech by these sage authors.

I mean...no. Nothing creates nothing.

Here now...more land, the land of plenty milk and honey seems to be the worthwhile thought.

That's the thing I don't believe in space travel as it is theoretically thought of. I just see this as ways of thinking about what we do with reality, meanwhile we need people to figure out "here now." Like Beatrix potter

0 Replies

@Truth teller,

Truth teller wrote:

Every thought about existence in any realm which does not include "in the beginning God," is mere child's play. There's no such thing as chance if everything can be measured mathematically in the cosmos -- and it can be. We may be unable to do the calculations but never-the-less it's measurable.

Chance can be measured "mathematically". It's called probability and statistics. Nice argument.

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

huh?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

As I see it: When I die I will become "nothing", as I was before I was born. But this notion of "nothing" is only the conceptual complement of "something". The Nothing that I was before birth and after death is what I actually am now, it's just that this transcendent state is eclipsed by the illusory Ego. At the same time that I am Nothing I am also Everything.
But this is only as I see it; Everything is opinion (much more than one of Frank's "guesses").

No, your consciousness will not exist. But everything else about you will. All those atoms and molecules that made a part of you will become something else. The nothing that you were before or after death is nonsense. You are what you are. And that includes your mind. No mind, no JLNobody. Basic law of identity.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

R.S.
The second law of thermo dynamics is a descending law. A species could never get better no matter what the vehicle through which it supposedly came was. The moths that stuck out like sore thumbs because of their color weren't lesser creatures, they were merely much more conspicuous to the birds who dined on them. First the moths were light colored and the darker moths were taken -- the trees became soiled through pollution and the lighter colored ones were taken. That's perfectly understandable -- but the whole line0up of lesser human-like beings depicted in the procession to present day man is clearly a hoax. God created man in His own image -- tri-fold -- body, soul, and spirit, just as He is in three persons as One. In Genesis, the first sentence states the plural-ness of God. The word God, in the first sentence of Genesis is Elohim, which denotes His triune nature. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth."

If one tried to disprove that a potter made a vase while the vase was present -- it would be extremely hard to convince someone that the potter didn't exist. We are not talking about a piece of mere hardened clay here. But when someone sees the things around them not to mention the things we've stumbled across through scientific strides and still we don't recognize a designer? It seems the more proof we are allowed to see makes it harder and harder to deny and yet many don't embrace the wonders and consider the Designer. We are mistaken to think the more we know the more proof we will have to debunk intelligent design -- on the contrary the more complex something is proves all the more that the Designer is there.

Once more I ask you "where did love come from?" One may say it's the result of cosmic-soup flying through the universe and crashing into earth -- sounds intelligent (perhaps?) until one considers personally the ones they may love. "Cosmic soup," not even Campbell's has taken the plunge on that one. Anyway, by now you know I'm long winded -- but it's hard to express truth without being much more specific -- it's not just my truth.
Jesus Christ is the truth.

2 Replies

@Truth teller,

Truth teller wrote:

. . . .The word God, in the first sentence of Genesis is Elohim, which denotes His triune nature. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth." . . . .

That the word ʼelo·him′ is a plural is not proof that God is plural. The word is used to denote excellence. Note that, particularly in the English language, monarchs refer to themselves as "we".

The word ʼelo·him′ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

The true God has only one name not shared with others. It is singular, Jehovah or Yahweh, meaning "He who causes to become".

1 Reply

@Truth teller,

You wrote (which made me laugh),

Quote:

God created man in His own image -- tri-fold -- body, soul, and spirit, just as He is in three persons as One.

Homo sapiens are descended from the primates through evolution. There is no way man is 'created in his own image,' unless god looks like a chimp. Does he?

Also, god (the father, son and holy ghost) impregnated Mary to be born as a human. Then he sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind. What kind of bull pucky is that supposed to be? Why did he have to sacrifice himself - for himself -to save humanity? There's no logical sequence in this story.

Love comes from the same natural instinct of humans that includes all the different positives and negatives that humans are able to describe. It's called nature or natural. Man also practice cannibalism as does many animals.

Quote:

Sand tiger sharks. The animal kingdom is no stranger to cannibalism, which often manifests itself in brutally merciless ways. ...
Polar bears. ...
Spiders. ...
Hamsters. ...
Parasitic wasps. ...
Chickens. ...
Tiger salamanders.

You need to study more about human and animal nature; it's not pretty.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

R.S.
Even flipping a coin to see heads or tails is not the product of chance.
The velocity of the force exerted to project the coin and every other aspect of the experiment -- again is measurable. The weight of the coin etc.
To the point of multiple produced results by exacting specifications and procedure.
(Most of the thoughts represented here are from a book called "Not a Chance.")
Not quoted here. I no longer have the book in my possession.

1 Reply

@Truth teller,

It's the product of chance, if the tosser doesn't make any effort to control the coin in any way. The statistical probability of a coin toss is 50/50 for every toss.

Quote:

Working out probabilies by counting
Once you have listed all possible outcomes, then you can work out the probabilities quite easily. Say that you are going to toss three coins, and you want to work out the probability of only one head (and so two tails). The possible outcomes are:

TTT, TTH, THT, THH, HTT, HTH, HHT, HHH

All these outcomes are different, and they are all equally likely. There are 8 of them. There are 3 tosses with only one head:

TTH, THT, HTT

So the probability is 3/8. You can convert this into a decimal 0.375 or a percentage 37.5%, which you can round to 38% if you wish. Or you can describe it as a three in eight chance. All these mean the same.

1 Reply

@neologist,

R.S.
There are many references throughout the old-covenant in which God clearly identifies himself as a plurality (tri-fold). If you can agree that He created us in His image -- then our tri-fold nature has a lot to say about Himself. When a famous rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan in the Midrah Rabbah gave an answer about a reference from Genesis 1 :26 concerning the clear mentioning there, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." Rabbi Samuel inferred that by divine communication Moses was told the scripture there was in error. The communication was spoken like this "God answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let him err." This is clearly extra biblical and surely God did not make Moses to write the whole Scriptures in order to make people err, but rather to show them the right way and the right revelation, namely that the One God is a triune God who calls Himself Elohim and says, Let us make man.

Obviously, I am talking about other places in scripture where God is being glorified and not places where he is not. The excellence of God is magnificent beyond all praises that are uttered in this world. Amen
Like I said there are many other references that clearly denote the triune nature of God. In keeping with the many references throughout the old-covenant another reference states it this way. In Ps. 110, the scripture reads, "The LORD says to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for you feet." The first word LORD is Yahweh the second rendering of Lord there is Adonai. It would actually be correct to say "God said to my God, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foot stool for your feet." The Adonai rendering speaks of Jesus Christ, whom God the Father will vindicate and empower to triumph over His foes. Now we also have the Holy Spirit imparting the scripture to David there as well.
Yahweh and Adonai are universally accept as equal in stature.

Jesus Christ spoke about this particular Psalm as well @ Matt.22:41-46

2 Replies

@Truth teller,

You are blind, and probably deaf and dumb.

Quote:

God's Not Pro-Life - Evil Bible
www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm
The Biblical God is NOT pro-life, he advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and ... the actions of righteous men” and god's commands of infanticide and child ... Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.
Murder in the Bible - Evil Bible
www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children. ..... More Rape and Baby Killing.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

R.S.
A machine could be built (theoretically), that could thrust the coin every time the same -- dealing with the coins weight and figuring all the things that would come into play -- atmosphere and everything that is calculable -- which it all is, you could have the same result every time. It's all measurable and chance then becomes a byword in the equation. The human thumb is nearly impossible or impossible to use in the experiment. But have you ever seen someone shoot 100 foul-shots in a row with a basket ball? Exceedingly measurable. It's really the same thing with the coin. The coin, however has much more stringent specificities.

1 Reply

@Truth teller,

There's nothing wrong with using the human thumb if no effort is made to influence the toss. The environment would naturally stay equal for all practical purposes that will not influence anything.

The greater number of toss, the results comes closer to 50/50. That's Statistics 101.

As the "Truth teller," you need to study more about statistics. I took statistics in college - over half a decade ago.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

For starters with the analogue hypothesis you have the Zeno's paradox to deal with.

... and for starters with studying the real world and its representation as knowledge there is nothing here to deal with. It is called imperfect representation. The clapping of the hands for example assumes that the hands themselves are ideal, they have no dimensions or at least their skin is ideally smooth and the plane of clapping is absolutely even ... which is not the case.
The very moment in which the distance from the representation series becomes less than the unevenness and the roughness of the hands it's game over - the hands clamp and there is no contradiction here, let alone impossibility.

0 Replies

@Syamsu,

Syamsu wrote:

Zero is reasonably nothingness, eventhough nothing is something. Nothing is something because the 0 (nothing) and 1 (something) fundamentally have a boolean relationship.

... and where do you represent the 3 dimensions of the Universe in your 1, or the Higgs bosons for example.
0 and 1 comprise mapping (representation) - in this case formal logical model - of some previous mapping (generalized knowledge of the world), which on its part is also some kind of mapping (of the objective reality as perception), which also is mapping (of the physical reality as presence) ... that we don't know what exactly is and how far it may go ... beyond the Higgs bosons and the String Theory and the Gravitational Continuum, etc.
So when claiming that you find a contradiction in the representation or between the representation and the things we think are comprising the objective reality you have to prove that the contradiction is not due to a 'cross-cultural misunderstanding' in the formal model of representation.

1 Reply

@Truth teller,

Truth teller wrote:

. . . There are many references throughout the old-covenant in which God clearly identifies himself as a plurality (tri-fold). If you can agree that He created us in His image -- then our tri-fold nature has a lot to say about Himself. When a famous rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan in the Midrah Rabbah gave an answer about a reference from Genesis 1 :26 concerning the clear mentioning there, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." Rabbi Samuel inferred that by divine communication Moses was told the scripture there was in error. The communication was spoken like this "God answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let him err." This is clearly extra biblical and surely God did not make Moses to write the whole Scriptures in order to make people err, but rather to show them the right way and the right revelation, namely that the One God is a triune God who calls Himself Elohim and says, Let us make man.

Tell the truth, then, Truth Teller How does this citation from Job explain who Jehovah may have been talking to?
" 4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38: 4-7)

And, who is the one speaking at Proverbs 8:22-31? Was not this individual also a witness to the creation of man?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

R.S.
The vicissitudes of human history are more than our minds can hold. And understanding the times in which these things happened are during horrible quagmires of human rebellion. The people(s) that were struck in these ways had absolutely incongruent life styles -- worshipping false gods which had them sacrificing their own children in fire. You know that if they were doing those types of things, most of their other ways were atrocious as well. Do a study on these false gods that were worshipped -- what an eye full. The children and babies were not held responsible for the atrocities the men and women were accountable for. The young were taken to God's care (so to speak) but the cities and the inhabitants thereof were ripe for judgment. Romans 1:32 says, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." God had to take matters into His own hands -- it could not continue. If we think God just waylaid people who were decent folks -- we haven't the foggiest understanding about human history and barbarism and/or worse.

Someone has said, if there were truly a God, why is there so much wrong in the world -- to which one could answer, Ok, for sake of argument -- there's no God, now whose fault is it?

I'm not sure what the claim is about child abuse but to my knowledge unless it is the rod that is to be used to discipline -- I don't know. I do know that I had my share of swats in school years ago -- the likelihood that I'd receive them if I got out of line kept my decisions on the mend. Discipline is crucial -- obviously not child abuse though. The Bible says loosely paraphrased, 'If you don't discipline a child you aren't really loving him."

No one is righteous no not one. I deserve judgment too, I've fallen short in more ways than I care to remember. God takes no pleasure in punishing anyone. There's a story of a women before a judge in a court room. The woman knows she is guilty and is expecting a stiff penalty -- perhaps one that is more than she can handle. Sure enough the gavel comes down and the penalty is leveled against her and it is indeed stiff. In the court room she breaks down and cries for mercy. To everyone's amazement the judge stands and takes off his judicial robe and walks down in front of the bench, takes out his check book and after writing a check and placing it before the woman, walks up behind the podium again -- brings the gavel down pronouncing her not guilty. Everyone found out later that the judge was the woman's father. He was a just judge but a loving father.
This is how it is with God -- He paid the penalty in full on Calvary in and through the person of His Son. Would anyone offer their son to die in place of a righteous man -- perhaps, but God gave His Son to pay the penalty for unrighteousness -- the just for the unjust. For God so loved the world.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

R.S.
What about a machine that would never miss a foul-shot -- possible?
A human would be sure to miss sometime. You might say we're all thumbs at times. A coin flipping machine could flip a coin exactly the same every time. Very possible -- but not with a human thumb in the offing.

0 Replies

How can something come from nothing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know