The paradox of The Miracle of Existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Sieger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence Paradox
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the paradox of existence, specifically addressing the questions of how the universe originated from nothing prior to the Big Bang and how God could create Himself from nothing. Participants argue that both science and religion grapple with this fundamental paradox, which challenges rational logic. The conversation highlights various theories, including the idea of infinite probabilities and the nature of time, suggesting that our understanding of existence may be limited by our physical perceptions and consciousness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Big Bang theory and its implications.
  • Familiarity with metaphysical concepts related to existence and consciousness.
  • Knowledge of cosmological theories regarding the origin of the universe.
  • Basic comprehension of philosophical arguments surrounding creation and existence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research G. Spencer-Brown’s "Laws of Form" and its implications on the emergence of consciousness.
  • Explore the philosophical arguments of Martin Heidegger regarding metaphysical questions.
  • Investigate theories of infinite probabilities and their relation to time perception.
  • Study the intersection of cosmology and philosophy in understanding the universe's origins.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for philosophers, cosmologists, and anyone interested in the intersection of science and spirituality, particularly those exploring the origins of existence and consciousness.

  • #31
We can't ever demonstrate nothing or eternity because as soon as we observe nothing it becomes something... Eternity is even more complex because you would never see the end of it, therefore it could never be proven enternity. At the level our thinking/scientific knowledge is currently I don't think that this question is answerable... yet... I enjoy reading this thread though :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Yes, eternity can be viewed as both more complex and, yet, equally nonsensical. Like ex nihlio creation from nothing, it is an effect without a cause or a cause without an effect depending upon how you choose to look at it. You can also treat ex nihlio creation as an effect without a cause that eventually leads to the destruction of everything with, of course, nothing left.

The big bang presents an example of this last. If spacetime was created in the big bang there was no time before the event. If the big bang had no seed but was a completely random event from out of the blue, then it was ex nihlio creation. If the universe collapses again and all the matter and energy in universe cancel each other out, then there will be nothing left. Ex nihlio creation leading back to nothing and starting the cycle all over again.

Note that my example is very similar to the idea of eternity. Logically and mathematically or whatever, both eternity and ex nihlio creation inevitably lead to the concept of a singularity, a paradox.
 
  • #33
I don't think time has a beginning, if it has a beginning then it must have an end which means that universe is not forever.
 
  • #34
I honestly doubt we can ever know. Anything postulated ends in paradox. Some things may just be beyond our comprehension.
 
  • #35
loseyourname said:
I honestly doubt we can ever know. Anything postulated ends in paradox. Some things may just be beyond our comprehension.

Exactly, once you break anything down to some kind of "ultimate" paradox and the ineffable become obvious. For example, just what the heck is "pure" energy, pure consciousness, or whatever.

The natural tendency is, of course, to look for reasonable sounding explanations even when none is apparently possible. For example, you could create any number of reasonable sounding explanations for what I have just typed, but what is the real reason? No one can prove any explanation beyond a shadow of a doubt and every possible explanation might at least have some reasonable aspects.

Just as words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context, concepts themselves apparently only have demonstrable rationalization and reason (ie meaning!) according to their use in a given context.
 

Similar threads

High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
538
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
653
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 276 ·
10
Replies
276
Views
27K