Question of the universe?

  1. How can we be created out of nothing, lets say our parents created us, our grandparents created my parents so on and so forth.

    Some say the universe is created by the big bang. Then what created the big bang? What created what? (<---i know this seems:confused: but think about it; it makes sense)

    Any opinion would be greatly appreciated.
  2. jcsd
  3. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 7,521
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Some of the greatest minds of history have brooded over this topic.

    Aristotle found the idea of an infinite regression of causes, as you have suggested unwelcome. Whether because he was a Classical Greek and as Spengler would say, the secret of their thought was completed form, or just personally, he was offended by it and so proposed an Unmoved Mover. An example of such in modern Cosmology woud be a Big Bang with everything else because of it, but it not itself because of anything.

    Kant found BOTH the infinite regress and Aristotle's unmoved mover ridiculous (technical term: incoherent). He had no answer, but just noted this as an example of dialectic (two sides of an argument, you pays your money and takes your choice).

    With one exception modern science has no answer for "what was before the big bang". The one exception is quantum gravity, a theory which is far from complete yet, but which two of its practicioners have used to propose "before the big bang" scenarios.

    Martin Bojowald using a simplified "cosmological" version of LQG, one of the proposed quantum gravity theories, finds that it predicts a "mirror world", like the negative numbers going backward from zero, this world goes backward in time from the big bang.

    And Lee Smolin proposes an evolutionary scenario which he claims is open to observational falsification. He conjectures that new universes are born in supernova collapses to black holes, and that selection would have favored universes that were rich in such actions, hence rich in stars, hence favorable to the evolution of life.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2006
  4. o_O i dont understand.
  5. That probably means you understood. :cool:
  6. Nothing does not exist. There has been and always will be existence. Accept and behold the answers of the universe.
  7. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 7,521
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    And your evidence for this large statement? Suppose someone were to behold and not see what you do?
  8. My evidence, oxymoronically, is in the lack thereof. Nothing is non-existent. To behold is to see the answers, when there is nothing to see, that is when I will give in. Fortunately, nothing cannot be seen(EVER, in any way).
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2006
  9. So because nothing cannot be measured in any shape or form it is therefore non-existant? That is a logical fallacy.
  10. Either a "thing" exists or it does not exist. One can only measure the attributes of that which exists--e.g. a thing. Thus it is a logical fallacy to claim the ability to measure nothing.
  11. My reply is to the both of you. (Nothing exist) by conceptual means only, and it is measured by the shape of it's conceptual form. All of reality is conceptual in nature. Thusly you and everything else can be regarded as the Reality Of Non-Existence.
    In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of, and one represents the conceptual form of nothing.
  12. Don't go fooling yourself through means of assiduous egocentric opinion. You'll never see any truth that way. Let's stick to the answers. Nothing does not exist. That IS the concept of nothing. ONE cannot make something of nothing. Just as nothing cannot be made of something. Enjoy your day, Sir.

    There is no reality of non-existence. Perhaps it is time I revised the English language as well? Words and concepts so loosely thrown around that no one will ever understand any bit of truth.

    We are discussing a means of existence here, not that of reality and illusion... the two are a subset of the former.

    What we are seeing here is not only a logical fallacy, yet a conceptual fallacy.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  13. I didn't claim that you could measure nothing. I said you couldn't.

    And Outlandish_Existance I think we may have a different concept/definition of nothingness and existance.

    "Nothing" is the description of the absense of existance. But for the word nothing to be aplicable, and the concept of nothing to be valid, "Nothing" would have to exist, even if it describes the absense of existance. If "Nothing" didn't exist then it wouldn't be coherent.

    To elaborate; Imagine if you will, a place "outside" the universe, outside the universe which is expanding. Outside the universe there is nothing, not a thing at all. The word nothing is used to describe the fact that there is only the absense of existance there. But that doesn't mean that "nothing" doesn't exist? The existance of the possibility of the absense of existance shouldn't be to hard to comprehend.
  14. No, see, your fallacy once again is that you are allowing nothing to exist. It doesn't exist. One cannot imagine an existence of non-existence. There is NO "outside the universe". The universe and existence are eternal.

    Yes, we have a different understanding of nothingness, mine doesn't exist and yours does. Yours is not truly nothingness, rather it is somethingness. Accept the concept of nothing and all things will become lucid.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  15. You havn't proven anything so far. All you've said is "Nothing doesn't exist" with no logical structure or following to show how you've come to that conclusion.

    You claim that non-existance cannot exist? So everything exists then? Even purple monkeys with pink poker-dots. Nope, they don't exist. So they are non-existant. Wow, I just labeled something non-existant and the label was correct, so non-existance does exist!

    Again the claim that there is no outside of the universe, and that the universe are eternal are so far not backed up at all.

    While I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you cannot take your proofless stance without considering my proofless stance as possibily being true as well. Thats the thing with stuff that can't be falsified.
  16. They exist in your imagination. If it exists in your imagination then it can be manifested into fruition. All one has to do is believe. Existence is of the imagination. Non-existence cannot be imagined, therefore it cannot and will not exist.

    Stop trying to win, and start understanding truth. I'm not here to battle, I'm here to share.

    There is no logical proof requiring presentation. The proof is you and I, now must come acceptance. I will wait no longer for humanity to wisen up.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  17. "Stop trying to win"? I don't understand the logicity behind this statement. Do you think this is a game, or compitition?

    I have to ask you more questions because I won't understand your stance untill you explain it to me, and as you seem unwilling to just spill it all out I'll ask you questions to see how your came to your position.

    What do you mean by "All one has to do is believe" that sounds very ambiguous and psuedo-scientific.
  18. Accept... believe... nothing is NOTHING. I cannot and will not explain it any further. Acceptance is in the "heart" of the beholder, when one wishes to understand, one will.

    The philosophy of philosophy is not in winning a position or upholding a prejudiced belief, rather it lies in finding truth. Two must work together.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2006
  19. There is a difference between "Nothing is Nothing" which is a tautology, and "Nothing does not exist". The concept of Nothing is not autonomous!
  20. Nothing is nothing and nothing does not exist are one and the same my friend. First you must accept nothing for what it is to see the unison between the two statements. Large flashy words are pretty to look at, but that's about it when it comes to defending a fallacy.
  21. Obviously we have different interpretations of the phrases.

    So to say "Nothing is Nothing" is to say that Something that has no existance, has no existance. Which again is tautology.

    To say "Nothing does not exist" is to say Nothing itself (the concept) is non-existant. If the Nothing truely does not exist then it is silly to argue over something that isn't real and doesn't exist. Why are you arguing about it?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?