|Dec30-10, 10:43 PM||#1|
The argument of something from nothing
Science AND logic both dictate that we deal with what we know through observation and testing.
Science has observed phenominon(sic) that indicates this universe had a specific starting point.
Science has indicated that, before that starting point, there was nothing - absolute nothing.
Science has observed that the universe started from a singularity.
EVERY test to date has confirmed the "Big Bang" theory, NOTHING has ever provided evidence to counter it (to date).
It is a universal constant and a logical dictate that anything that has a start or beginning MUST have a cause.
It is also a universal constant and logical dictate that it is impossible for something to come from nothing.
By definition, a singularity is NOTHING.
This means that the universe started or came from NOTHING.
Thus, science has already suggested that the creation of the universe was a miracle as it violated BOTH the universal constants of something from nothing and first cause.
Logic also dictates that, for something to come from nothing, there must be a Creator.
Can someone with a greater understanding of cosmology and physics refute this for me in laymen's terms? If not, then why not? This was brought up in a debate over proof of God's existence.
|Dec30-10, 11:02 PM||#2|
I guess you could ask yourself another question assuming that there universe had no beginning or an end, then how did it come into existence? Logically for most people, this thinking that the universe has always existed also presents a problem.
I myself had a few spiritual books of which some give theories behind the creation of the universe and how it happened, but I guess attempting to answer something like this will take new investigations, paradigms of thought, and insight like we have seen in our modern history including that of science and its development.
|Dec30-10, 11:18 PM||#3|
Personally I think microsoft exchange server is unfathomable by a rational mind but it's quite a leap from this to a belief in Krishna.
|Dec30-10, 11:49 PM||#4|
The argument of something from nothing
Causality is absolutely a fundamental concept in physics.
|Dec31-10, 12:25 AM||#5|
everything came from everything not from nothing
time itself has a beginning.
you can only go so far back in time just like you can only go so far north.
eventually you reach a point where you simply cant go any further north.
in the beginning everything was a singularity but it wasnt nothing.
nonexistence does not now nor has it ever existed.
the 'event' is the indivisible atom of existence.
at a deep quantum level events are not caused.
rather they are 'influenced' by previous events.
the first event was not influenced by any previous event.
it didnt need to be.
|Dec31-10, 12:42 AM||#6|
|Dec31-10, 12:45 AM||#7|
Lets say that you have a number line. Traditionally the line has an origin and extends in two directions where every value is considered unique and the domain is essentially unbounded.
This is basically a euclidean type of system.
But what if took that line and transformed it into a circle where there uniqueness no longer exists, and that now there exists periodicity in value.
In the new example we could travel on a line in both directions and given some interval of traversal, end up back where we started.
An example of this kind of system is a sphere in two dimensions. You might define north/south and east/west but with the geometry of a sphere these things create chaos because lets say you are at the equator and go north, up until you reach the north pole you are going 'north' but when you pass the north pole you are now going south and not north.
So in the above example, a person may have gone north for millions of miles but due to the periodicity, they have not discovered one million unique miles but rather a much smaller figure.
The generalization of geometry has given us insights of how to think about systems like this, and they are found in nature which gives us more of a reason to think about them.
|Dec31-10, 03:29 AM||#8|
Science, the logical quantification of human experience, is simply the least ambiguous method for communicating our collective apprehensions of our shared sensory reality that mankind has so far developed, in the realization that numerical accounts are less ambiguous, even as they might be less conceptually understandable, than pictorial accounts of evolutions and events.
|Similar Threads for: The argument of something from nothing|
|Help with my argument||Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics||5|
|Argument for god||General Discussion||3|
|Would I win this argument?||Academic Guidance||11|
|Third-law Argument||Introductory Physics Homework||5|