Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[greylorn]

Does Hawking think that protons and electrons come in and out of existence, and at a certain point, two actually connected?

No.

 

[greylorn]

Help me out here: how can you know that what you have is an electric field if you can’t determine that it exhibits effects (presumably on other charges)? Without other charges, you have no way to demonstrate effects, except via postulation.

Extrapolation from verified theory works well. If I build a circuit that generates an electric field, and verify that the field exists by running electrons through it, I can safely assume that the circuit will continue to generate an electric field when I stop running electrons through it. That’s why physics translates to technology.

Do I understand you correctly: you have a problem with virtual particles?

I’ve made it pretty clear that I am unfond of things that do not exist in the religious/mystical world. I feel the same way about nonsense that theoretical physicists make up.

Another question: you posit a dichotomy between matter (material substances, I suspect) and physical, pseudo-matter that can affect matter. Or?

I’ve no idea what you mean by “pseudo-matter.”

This does not seem to comport with any other definitions I have ever read. Is this a spot where the “other” definitions need more precision?

Yes.

Then what are his properties? Should I think of him as a field?

The Creator has only one necessary property, which does not include omnipotence. I’ve stated it on various CAF threads, but might as well have been writing to first-graders on Ritalin. I’m not even going to try again.

That is because this format does not allow for the necessary pre-presentation. The idea is simple, but depends upon a rudimentary understanding of fundamental physics. That’s why I wrote a darned book.

This is a very confusing statement to me: on the one hand, you “accept God and soul,” and, on the other hand, you “do not accept the Church’s explanation for the existence” of them. This sounds contradictory. What do you mean?

Again, I’m afraid that the best place to find that explanation is the darned book. Your question is excellent, and I don’t mean to put you off. Would it help to say that God had an origin, and did not create the soul? I’ll guess that within this limited presentation, such a statement just adds to the confusion.

So . . . a dogma (belief, hypothesis) must be workable?

If not, what is the point of it?

Read the first three gospels, again. You’ll find no dogmas (except for some ex post facto insertions), but plenty of teachings which apply to the reality of life.

It is the applicability, the wonderful workability of Christ’s teachings, which make him an inspired teacher.

OK. But I see contradictions here, too. On the one hand, you do believe in Creation, per se. And, you have said something to the effect that you recognize the enormous effort (for want of a better word) that such an endeavor would consist in - particularly for mere mortals (even a multiplicity of them) to attempt to accomplish. And you (it seems to me) have admitted to the extraordinary intelligence of whoever, or whatever, created the universe. Furthermore, you have suggested that god can flit around the universe, covering an enormous span of “time” (however you wish to define “time”) from time to time to “check up on angels.” And, I guess, finally, you are saying that god is not singular. Do you have a scenario as to how He co-exists with other gods, or others that make up a generalized "god)?

jd

Yes!

 

[greylorn]

You know yourself well Greylorn. Its surprising that you choose to project your inadequacies on to your opponents rather than finding a more mature outlet for your frustrations that doesn’t harm other peoples education (ever try punching a boxing bag instead of insulting people that disagree with your pseudo-science?).

Even more surprising is that i thought you were reasonable enough to answer my question about why you dogmatically appeal to the absolute metaphysical necessity of physical laws with out presenting physical or logical proof to back up your claim? It disturbs me that somebody who writes books for public consumption refuses to maturely address this issue. But i know why you can’t. It’s because there is no physical proof and there is no metaphysical proof; and certainly none that is worthy of being included in the echelons of scientific knowledge. Seems i was wasting my time with you. But then again perhaps your book sales are dependent upon your talented attempts to blur the lines between fiction and reality. I can only hope that your writing style makes up for what is evidently just pure speculation on your part.

And oh; don’t take this personally. This is just fighting talk.

What is more personal than fighting talk? I’ve been on the end of talk and fists in real life, coming out with a very respectable won-loss ratio, and am unafraid of either the talk or the reality. I still have some residual callouses and a broken finger from punching bag workouts, and there is a cheerfully colored fabric belt stowed in a back closet from practices and trials years ago, But it is tough to do spinning back kicks with titanium hips and steel foot screws, or properly torque a punch with a plastic wrist, so in my dotage I rely upon various equalizers.

More often than not, I have found it more interesting to converse than to resort to adverse action. So, let’s not think about going there. It is fine that you dislike me— this gives us a common point of agreement. But please, never again, even remotely imply adverse physical action. There is no value in it, and you would lose.

I hope that you are right about my writing style. It is very difficult to present an idea-set which offends scientists and religionists equally, so I will need all the help I can muster.

I do not think that our conversations will prove to be of no value to you in the long term, and having once been a dogmatist myself, I can certainly appreciate the short-term challenges they represent.

I’ve not had much luck presenting any of my ideas in a succinct format. Attempting to do so, or to find ways of doing so, was one of my reasons for CAF postings. A few very bright CAF members have seen the value of these basic ideas and struck up personal correspondences of mutual value, but most people require a lot more detail. (I am one. I could not absorb Einstein’s original papers, for example, without extensive auxiliary explanations.) Hence the book.

Surely you recognize that the CAF is not an appropriate forum in which to express the level of detail for which books are most appropriate?

Previous attempts to address your complaints have convinced me that you are dogmatically indisposed to understand anything I write, as are some other posters. When I get the sense that you are sufficiently interested in what I might have to say to actually want to understand it (irrespective of whether or not you like or agree with it), I will do my best to address your questions.

That time is clearly in the future.

 

[greylorn]

is this the common objection that God can’t create something that he can’t life so he isn’t all powerful

or God can’t create a square circle

well see the problem with your argument is that you can’t use an illogical statement to disprove a logical statement

It is illogical to say that if God was powerful he should be able to create a square circle.

well creating a square circle is intrinsically impossible mean that NOTHING can possible ever create something like this

So God in omipotent in that he can do anything that isn’t intrinsically impossible. Which would be God could never create a square circle, because a square circle can never exist. Or God can’t create something that exists and doesn’t exists at the same time. You get the idea. Pretty much God can’t create things that no matter the physics of the universe can’t exist. The classic example of this there is no possible universe where a square circle can exist.

we know these reasons through divine revelation, and we try to get an understanding of it

one example is we know from divine revelation that God is a Triune God, we know this to be the truth because well the truth told us it was the truth :lol: circular logic yes I know, but I’m sure one of us here can show you why Jesus must be the truth just might take a while.

I would respond to the rest but I have a test to study for that is in the morning and I need to get my sleep have a blessed night

Thank you for your post, although my comments were not addressed to you.

Over the course of some years on CAF I’ve re-learned a lesson from earlier times in rowdy taverns— there is no value whatsoever in conversing with individuals who are either ignorant of the grade-school rules of basic English grammar, or too intellectually lazy to employ those rules in their speech or writings. The inability to form coherent sentences is another negative.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But please, never again, even remotely imply adverse physical action. There is no value in it, and you would lose.

:slapfight:

The only person here that is insinuating a threat of violence is you; and i find it to be quite pathetic. Despite this, i don’t hate you. I don’t know you enough to hate you. I simply dislike your attitude. Its far from professional.

I hope that you are right about my writing style.

You tend to have a some what humorous, if a little disrespectful, style of expression. Its colorful and inventive and may even blind people to the real quality of your work. Apply some of those inventive stories to your book and some people may actually find it to be an enjoyable read, even if the core theory of the book is totally wrong.

I do not think that our conversations will prove to be of no value to you in the long term, and having once been a dogmatist myself, I can certainly appreciate the short-term challenges they represent.

You once explained to me why you think God is physical, which i evidently disagree with; i may even start a post called “The unnecessary existence of Greylorns God” (do you like the title). But you have never given me any explanation as to why you are dogmatic about the indestructibility of energy. Could it be because its at the very core of your philosophical theory? Yes, i think thats why you are so determined to insult and even threaten people who go near it.

Surely you recognize that the CAF is not an appropriate forum in which to express the level of detail for which books are most appropriate?

I do understand when a book is more appropriate. But it seems to me that you are using that as an excuse to dodge the question; since the nature of the question, if its truly metaphysical in nature, shouldn’t really require the kind of detail that you are implying. A simple syllogism should suffice. Or maybe its just that you don’t want your argument to be refuted before it comes out in book form?

That time is clearly in the future.

Ah. Yes. The future. I think that you don’t like it when i challenge your views. You want a listener; not criticism. If you ever want people to stop criticizing your ideas (which are probably not original), you are going to have to wipe out the whole human race; except for the 1% you deem worthy of being servants of course.

 

[catholictiger]

Thank you for your post, although my comments were not addressed to you.

Over the course of some years on CAF I’ve re-learned a lesson from earlier times in rowdy taverns— there is no value whatsoever in conversing with individuals who are either ignorant of the grade-school rules of basic English grammar, or too intellectually lazy to employ those rules in their speech or writings. The inability to form coherent sentences is another negative.

I still want to know, and my grammar doesn’t reflect my laziness my intelligence or anything. I actually have a disability that causes my spelling and grammar to be worse then the average person. Yes I should try and work to make my spelling and grammar better but when I forget to read over stuff my grammar can suffer.

I really want to discuss this with you

so again what is your problem with omipotance?

I’ll do a better job of reading over my posts in the future.

 

[JDaniel]

I almost missed this, since you neglected to address it to me.

No worries, mate. In fact, I almost missed this post!

I’ve never encountered the extensive, encompassing admonition, “Love God with all of our hearts, souls and minds and to Love our neighbors as ourselves.” There are abbreviated versions of it in various gospels.

From the The New American Bible: Matthew 22: 34 - 40:

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gather together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Nonetheless, this is a behavioral recommendation, not a religious belief.

Unless words don’t mean what they mean, it seems to me, at least, to be considerably more than a “behavioral recommendation!” It has been a critical part of Christian religious belief for centuries.

If you read even a little bit about other religions, you’ll find this recommendation repeated in all the great religions, including Confucianism, which has no theology and is as belief-independent as a religion can possibly be.

I am a bit familiar with Confucianism. I know that it it centered upon life and the living, but, I have never seen, nor read, anything like these two commandments from Christ. Although, obviously, we are all human beings, and there really isn’t anything so new that some aspects of it were not known, or explicated, to some extent, before it.

There are many other teachings from Christ which duplicate those found in other great religions. You might consider reading Gina Cerminara’s Insights for the Age of Aquarius. Yes, the title put me off too, but the book is required reading for anyone who wishes to defend his faith and remain intellectually honest.

I have not read Cerminara’s book. I will look for it.

Consequences of failure to love thy neighbor? People won’t like you, and can’t use you. You will have few phony friends and won’t get invited to parties populated by shmoos. People won’t try to borrow money from you that they hadn’t figured on repaying. People won’t pretend to like you when they don’t. Your transactions will be businesslike and honest. You can stop pretending to respect the inane utterances of mindless pinheads. Works for me!

As a critique of some people, from a particular perspective, that is quite funny! As to the essence of what Christ wanted to convey, well, we both know your perspective does not convey what He wanted, in my opinion. Be that as it may.

Yes, I’m not keen on John’s gospel. He introduces his own stuff and colors Christ’s teachings with his mystical theories.

Are you sure you want to say what you just said? I realize that John was not a contemporary of Christ, and that his disciples finished and published his work, but it appears that the only additions to John’s writings were a number of Johannine fragments. But to say that John “colored” his gospel with the further implication that such colorizing dramatically altered it, I think is incorrect. Most of his gospel was a clarification of the Synoptics. Anyway, we know he is to be read with these things in mind.

Note that he wrote it about 60 years ex-post crucifixion— three generations removed from the time and culture during which J.C. taught, long removed from any possible contact with an original disciple.

Actually, John bases much of his work on an unnamed apostle, who is thought to be one of Christ’s first two. Interestingly, you remind me of John, to an extent. Essentially what he wanted was more precision for the Synoptics. Furthermore, your time-line is not correct, unless a generation, in those days, was only 20 years. John could easily have met and conversed with an original apostle.

His only access to Christ’s teachings were human hearsay 60 years removed— worthless information.

I must disagree, as you knew I would. I don’t think another Apostle would have given him “worthless information.”

Having no real content to add to their works, all he could do was embellish. Yuk! He’d have made a perfect New York Times reporter.

Don’t let your rant slap you in the face!

Also, John writes flowery, in the Arabic tradition, obfuscating any real meaning. I do not trust him as a genuine representative of Christ’s teachings, which I do regard as insightful. No intelligence will be lost if John’s Gospel is purged from the Bible.

I could write a large paragraph, or two, on why this assessment is probably incorrect. But, then, it’s your opinion against mine.

So, we’ll disagree at least on John.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Extrapolation from verified theory works well. If I build a circuit that generates an electric field, and verify that the field exists by running electrons through it, I can safely assume that the circuit will continue to generate an electric field when I stop running electrons through it. That’s why physics translates to technology.

Greylorn, correct me if I am wrong, but electrons have a charge. So, if a field consists of, I assume, non-electrons, i.e., perhaps protons, the field should have a predominantly positive charge, correct? And if particles, such as electrons are run through it, well you get the rest. . .

I’ve made it pretty clear that I am unfond of things that do not exist in the religious/mystical world. I feel the same way about nonsense that theoretical physicists make up.

Is particle physics bogus science?

I’ve no idea what you mean by “pseudo-matter.”

OK; I’ll explain: pseudo means, “pretend, sham, contrived.” And, matter, well, that which consists of atoms and molecules and has mass.

That is because this format does not allow for the necessary pre-presentation. The idea is simple, but depends upon a rudimentary understanding of fundamental physics. That’s why I wrote a darned book.

Man! You’re really trying to sell one of them, aren’t you?

Again, I’m afraid that the best place to find that explanation is the darned book. Your question is excellent, and I don’t mean to put you off. Would it help to say that God had an origin, and did not create the soul? I’ll guess that within this limited presentation, such a statement just adds to the confusion.

That’s OK, but, it sort of halts my line of questioning until then. No problem, though.

Read the first three gospels, again. You’ll find no dogmas (except for some ex post facto insertions), but plenty of teachings which apply to the reality of life.

Whew! This sounds almost Gnostic!

It is the applicability, the wonderful workability of Christ’s teachings, which make him an inspired teacher.

So, how does workability work into happiness? I have heard - many times - that the dumbest people are usually the happiest. That seems antithetical to workability.

Question: If I pour a 1" x 1" cube of 18:8 stainless steel into a mold, then place it into a well-made bell jar, remove all of the air, is the cube therefore removed from the effects of time? If I hold onto this bell jar for a hundred years, is the cube, thereby, irrelevant as regards time? Or, does its 100 year untarnished duration not have relevance?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I still want to know, and my grammar doesn’t reflect my laziness my intelligence or anything. I actually have a disability that causes my spelling and grammar to be worse then the average person. Yes I should try and work to make my spelling and grammar better but when I forget to read over stuff my grammar can suffer.

I really want to discuss this with you

so again what is your problem with omipotance?

I’ll do a better job of reading over my posts in the future.

Tiger:

I, too, noticed your diction and spelling, but I just wrote it off to your probably being Cajun! I loved it! (Although you may not be cajun.)

God bless,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

Tiger:

I, too, noticed your diction and spelling, but I just wrote it off to your probably being Cajun! I loved it! (Although you may not be cajun.)

God bless,
jd

I’m not a cajun like you would see on swamp people lol

I’m just a normal southern boy from Louisiana.

 

[tonyrey]

Not that I can answer for Reivax, but I know a couple of people that call themselves “spiritual atheist.” The only thing common about them is that they don’t hold a belief in anything of the concepts that I’ve seen labeled as a god. One of them believes in “the power of prayer.” Not that she sees a personal god as intervening but that she thinks we all exert some amount of influence on the universe through our wills and that were exert fields through our emotional state ( like an “aura”).

How do they explain truth, goodness, freedom and love - if at all?

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, correct me if I am wrong, but electrons have a charge. So, if a field consists of, I assume, non-electrons, i.e., perhaps protons, the field should have a predominantly positive charge, correct? And if particles, such as electrons are run through it, well you get the rest. .

JD,

You must know by now that you do not need to request that I correct you when you are wrong. Correction is a gift which I freely offer to intelligent friends (and the occasional pinhead, so as not to discriminate), with the assumed condition that the friends bestow the same gift upon me, when appropriate.

And no, I do not “get the rest.” I am slow witted and unimaginative. Help me out. What is “the rest?”

I have not the slightest idea what a “field” does or does not consist of. Fields are some of the most vague and mysterious concepts of physics.

Your notion that a field might be composed of protons (or other particles) is inconsistent with the mathematics which seems to describe fields. Seems like you’ve made something up. Care to defend the notion? I’ll bet otherwise.

At this point in my primitive understanding, I regard fields as changes to space itself— not necessarily to your grandfather’s “space.”

No, I have no idea what “space” actually is, I’m working on some notions about space and fields as being different manifestations of the same thing, and conversing with a mathematician interested in such subjects. He may figure it out.

Is particle physics bogus science?

YES! In times awaiting our offspring, several generations removed, “particle” theory will be regarded as the other physics absurdity which retarded the progress of science throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

OK; I’ll explain: pseudo means, “pretend, sham, contrived.” And, matter, well, that which consists of atoms and molecules and has mass.

Drat! I should have been able to figure that out all my myself.

Now that I’m enlightened, I’m compelled to ask, what do you mean by pseudo-matter? I’m not so much interested in the words, as I am interested in whatever concept you imagine them to represent. In more mundane language, what are the properties of “pseudo-matter?”

This time, let’s not pretend to be a pseudo-intellectual jerk who did not understand what I meant the first time.

Man! You’re really trying to sell one of them, aren’t you?

You’ve got me all figured out. So I’ll fess up. Because of physical disabilities, my 50-year career as a professional bus terminal toilet cleaner went into the very receptacles I once enjoyed sanitizing. I just could not bend over to pick up truds that missed their target. That used to happen on Friday nights, maybe one or two each month. But the times have changed, and the population alongside. I live in Arizona, and there are too many of them for my aging back to handle. No support from my union, whose leaders declared that my complaint was racist. Now I am so impoverished that I need to sell books which I paid several thousand dollars to print, for a meager fifty cent per book profit, I hope that you will buy two, by way of assistance to the needy.

That’s OK, but, it sort of halts my line of questioning until then. No problem, though.

Reprieves are always welcome.

Whew! This sounds almost Gnostic!

I love Gnostic writers. First discovered them in the late seventies when I had access to university library stacks. I do not agree with them, but admire their imaginative willingness to fill in the blanks that Christ’s teachings left open to intelligent improvisation. I like to imagine that I was one of them, poorly requited by the Church when it employed the power granted by Constantine.

The only Gnostic writer I fully agree with is Mary Magdalene. Brilliant, insightful philosopher. My ideas are merely an extension of some of hers.

So, how does workability work into happiness? I have heard - many times - that the dumbest people are usually the happiest. That seems antithetical to workability.

What did I say about happiness? Have you been re-reading the stupid mantras from Jefferson’s “declaration of independence” and confusing his lies, intended to motivate a stupid populace to take up arms, so as to defend his lovely slave-supported plantation from the onslaughts of Brit tax collectors, as TRUTH?

“Happiness” is a bogus feel-good word inserted by those who wish to control your behavior into anything which they think you might be able to read, or which someone who actually can read might explain to you. The expectation of God-given happiness is part of your programming. It is not likely that you can even define it in realistic terms. Getting your jollies is something else entirely.

Question: If I pour a 1" x 1" cube of 18:8 stainless steel into a mold, then place it into a well-made bell jar, remove all of the air, is the cube therefore removed from the effects of time? If I hold onto this bell jar for a hundred years, is the cube, thereby, irrelevant as regards time? Or, does its 100 year untarnished duration not have relevance?
jd

Not relevant if the cube spent 13 billion years in a bell jar. Thank you for an easy question.

 

[greylorn]

I still want to know, and my grammar doesn’t reflect my laziness my intelligence or anything. I actually have a disability that causes my spelling and grammar to be worse then the average person. Yes I should try and work to make my spelling and grammar better but when I forget to read over stuff my grammar can suffer.

I really want to discuss this with you

so again what is your problem with omipotance?

I’ll do a better job of reading over my posts in the future.

You need to do a better job with your posts starting now. The CAF makes this easy for you. For example, when you type in a misspelled word, such as omipotance, you will find that it is underlined in red squiggles. The squiggles are visible even if you are colorblind. This is your clue to correct the spelling of the word.

So far, you’ve ignored these helpful cues. This suggests to me that your personal ego takes the “I’m right, you’re wrong,” position as a matter of everyday business. IOW it is more important for you to be right than to learn anything.

I do not believe that you are willing to do a better job. My writing career began with a paper I wrote in high school, which to everyone’s surprise, myself included, won a $50 contest prize. It was about handicapped people.

I have some handicaps myself, and enough aftermarket parts to provide several hours of convivial “look at this scar” exchanges with Dr. Frankenstein’s monster over some late night beers. Handicaps are things to overcome, not to hide behind as you are doing. So quit whining and learn English.

Are you really in a seminary, learning to teach people? Who will listen to someone who cannot speak at a level above them?
You might want to read about Demonsthenes.

I’ve posted many times on the subject of omnipotence, including an OP. You may use CAF’s excellent search facilities to find and read these posts, and query me accordingly. As demonstration of your intellectual integrity, I will expect first-rate English spelling and grammar. You can do it. But, will you?

 

[greylorn]

The only person here that is insinuating a threat of violence is you; and i find it to be quite pathetic. Despite this, i don’t hate you. I don’t know you enough to hate you. I simply dislike your attitude. Its far from professional.

Since no one pays me for my attitude, it is, by definition, unprofessional, whether you admire it or not. There is a lot of liberty in having a day job.

You tend to have a some what humorous, if a little disrespectful, style of expression. Its colorful and inventive and may even blind people to the real quality of your work. Apply some of those inventive stories to your book and some people may actually find it to be an enjoyable read, even if the core theory of the book is totally wrong.

If I did not know better I’d think that you’d read the book already. As for the core theory, I am the wrong person to judge its value. I’d not killed an otherwise highly profitable life to write it down unless I thought the ideas to be more important than I am.

When you read the book, which you may deny doing, you will find that its ideas engage your mind. That is inevitable, because you clearly have a mind, and a good one. But you will agree with none of them, because your programmed brain is far more powerful than your mind, and its programming determines your “thoughts.”

You once explained to me why you think God is physical, which i evidently disagree with; i may even start a post called “The unnecessary existence of Greylorns God” (do you like the title). But you have never given me any explanation as to why you are dogmatic about the indestructibility of energy. Could it be because its at the very core of your philosophical theory? Yes, i think thats why you are so determined to insult and even threaten people who go near it.

That is a darned good hit. The First Law of Thermodynamics is indeed central to my theories. It actually runs deeper than a personal theoretical attachment. As I explain in the book, this 18th century theoretical discovery is the first of three keys necessary to unlocking the secrets to the origin and purpose of the universe.

I reserve the right to freely insult pinheads, gently and in my customarily inoffensive manner of course, no matter which ideas they attack or defend. Failure to so would deprive pinheads of their value to society by leaving them unacknowledged. That would not be politically nice.

Do you not do the same by way of insulting? You clearly regard me as a pinhead, from your limited, dogmatic perspective, and have initiated a thread dedicated to my downfall. And here you accuse me of attacking my detractors.

Et tu, hypocrite.

As for starting another thread contrary to my ideas, I’d recommend waiting a bit. Your title is not catchy enough, for starters. I’ll be happy to recommend one which is at least half as good as my book title, later.

Waiting would give you the opportunity to actually read my book, so that in criticizing it you would not come across as a Nancy Pelosi clone. (“Let’s pass the bill so we can see what’s in it!” Which is exactly what the pinheads in Congress did.) You do not want to put yourself in that category of stupidity-induced ignorance. I do not want you to put yourself there.

Why? I won’t pretend to care about you personally, because I do not know you. I do not want obvious imbeciles criticizing my life’s work. I’d prefer that it be criticized by the most intelligent people on the planet. Since you have chosen to be one of my critics, I invite you to be the best informed of them.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… it is not true that something can come from nothing , although we oft use the word nothing the fact is that nothing is exactly what it says – it is nothing , and as such cannot exist at all , something can only come from something , it is the nature of something that it must do something , the ultimate something is god – the first cause , nothing cannot come from something , something cannot come from nothing , and nothing cannot come from nothing , it is a huge misunderstading that nothing is siomething and can actually exist , everything that is – is something , if nothing has some type of actual existence then that nothing has become something , you see – nothing cannot and does not exist , if it did it is no longer nothing but has become something …

… god must be the most imfinitely perfect something that can possibly be , and there can be no nothing / ness or it shows imperfection in god , and god being this most perfect something must do something – be creative , infinitely so , it is impossible for nothing / ness to exist , just because a scientist cannot understand hardly anything does not mean he is right when he makes presuymptions like this , and to finish : in my humble opine whenever anything atr all happens it is miraculous , science can oinly observe and explains very little , when you dig very deep the only explanation is all is miraculous by god , hope this helps dear friendss ??? …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[Sair]

… my dear friends ,

… it is not true that something can come from nothing , although we oft use the word nothing the fact is that nothing is exactly what it says – it is nothing , and as such cannot exist at all , something can only come from something , it is the nature of something that it must do something , the ultimate something is god – the first cause , nothing cannot come from something , something cannot come from nothing , and nothing cannot come from nothing , it is a huge misunderstading that nothing is siomething and can actually exist , everything that is – is something , if nothing has some type of actual existence then that nothing has become something , you see – nothing cannot and does not exist , if it did it is no longer nothing but has become something …

… god must be the most imfinitely perfect something that can possibly be , and there can be no nothing / ness or it shows imperfection in god , and god being this most perfect something must do something – be creative , infinitely so , it is impossible for nothing / ness to exist , just because a scientist cannot understand hardly anything does not mean he is right when he makes presuymptions like this , and to finish : in my humble opine whenever anything atr all happens it is miraculous , science can oinly observe and explains very little , when you dig very deep the only explanation is all is miraculous by god , hope this helps dear friendss ??? …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

Whilst I genuinely appreciate the absurdity of the ‘something from nothing’ premise, I am still struggling with the notion that the ‘something’ that has always existed has to be an intentional being - something like we have historically perceived ourselves, namely a God - a being with intentions and plans and a focus on the future.

Why does the vast variety of existence require a deliberate creator? Why not just a physical state, such as might give rise to particles and the interactions between particles, which might themselves set in motion a chain of cause-and-effect interactions that eventually give rise to all physical phenomena that we may observe, directly or indirectly? I would have thought that the latter was the simpler assumption, after all - it doesn’t require the complex processes (the ones of which, despite all our other accomplishments, we still lack understanding) that make up conscious intention. And what’s more, it also doesn’t invite the supposition that things ought to have been better when we judge by merely (and arrogantly) human standards.

Understanding often tends to yield appreciation - yet theistic believers often seem wedded to the idea that their god is necessarily beyond our understanding. Is this just an effort to deflect the encroachment of scientific understanding?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Whilst I genuinely appreciate the absurdity of the ‘something from nothing’ premise, I am still struggling with the notion that the ‘something’ that has always existed has to be an intentional being - something like we have historically perceived ourselves, namely a God - a being with intentions and plans and a focus on the future.

Why does the vast variety of existence require a deliberate creator? Why not just a physical state, such as might give rise to particles and the interactions between particles, which might themselves set in motion a chain of cause-and-effect interactions that eventually give rise to all physical phenomena that we may observe, directly or indirectly? I would have thought that the latter was the simpler assumption, after all - it doesn’t require the complex processes (the ones of which, despite all our other accomplishments, we still lack understanding) that make up conscious intention. And what’s more, it also doesn’t invite the supposition that things ought to have been better when we judge by merely (and arrogantly) human standards.

Understanding often tends to yield appreciation - yet theistic believers often seem wedded to the idea that their god is necessarily beyond our understanding. Is this just an effort to deflect the encroachment of scientific understanding?

… my dear fried ,

… thx for your reply and q’s , i’ll give my own opine briefly that may cover your q’s and patheism too perhaps , there is no time in our world or aywhere else for that matter , time is just a measuremet of change , and change is but an illusion , there is no time or change i reality , we are in eterity the momet we first exist ,in eterity there is no beginning , middle or end – there is just now , god is eternal and just " is " in " now " , this means god must do all his creativity " now " , and not over time as usually thought …

… god does set up a chain of events after the first cause but god is not absent at anytime at all , without god nothing exists , but we know something exists , so nothing existing is impossibility , all that is something cannot come from nothing , it must come from something , putting aside my faith and traditional understandings of god all i can say i know about god is " god is the most infinitely perfect soomething that can possibly be " , there is much more to this something than humans will ever know or understanbd or comprehend , we will never really know god , he is beyond infiniitely past human understanding and appreciation so we will never know him …

… but whenever anything exists , moves , intereacts , changes or does anything it requires miraculous intervention by god , it cannot exist or do anything independent of god at all , all creation is not god but it relies on god for its very existence etc , god is that something and the nature of that something is that it must do something as infinitely as possible , be creative , and infinitely creative …

… god must continue his work of creation in our world infinitely and eternally , it is the very nature of god and he must do this , something must do something , this is the nature of something , god cannot sit back from his creation and do nothing otherwise he is acting contrary to his very nature , he can set things in motion but must be responsible and behind and controlloiung that motion fully or he is not being the most absolutely infinitely perfect something that can poossibly be , god has done all his creativity " now " and not over time , he must as there is no time with god , but we experience this creativity in the form of change and time as necessity , how can we expewrience our whole existence or eternity all at once ??? , we cannot , we would be a baby , child , adult , dying , in hell or heaven etc etc etc all at once if we did , so we have and need this illusion of change and time , but it is just an illusion …

… as to pantheism , god must be the most absolutely infiniutely perfect something that can possibly be , and this means there is nothing lacking in goid , so there can be no nothing / ness in god or he is not perfect , he then has an amount or degree of imperfection if he lacks anything ever , if this is so god does not exist as he must be completely perfect , and this must be always in eternity " now " and god does not increase his perfection at all , but we know things come and go in our world , and even putting the illusion aside , if god was adding or making all these things that come and go in our world or changing himself then this shows god is imperfect and does not exist …

… as to the obvious imperfection in man and our world which is a reflection on the creator , this is a whole other story tied up with the loss of reality temporarily and how god is fixing this like nothing went wrong – this is the delusion we’re currently in , i can talk more on it if you desire , hope this helps with the discussion dear friend …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Whilst I genuinely appreciate the absurdity of the ‘something from nothing’ premise, I am still struggling with the notion that the ‘something’ that has always existed has to be an intentional being - something like we have historically perceived ourselves, namely a God - a being with intentions and plans and a focus on the future.

Why does the vast variety of existence require a deliberate creator? Why not just a physical state, such as might give rise to particles and the interactions between particles, which might themselves set in motion a chain of cause-and-effect interactions that eventually give rise to all physical phenomena that we may observe, directly or indirectly? I would have thought that the latter was the simpler assumption, after all - it doesn’t require the complex processes (the ones of which, despite all our other accomplishments, we still lack understanding) that make up conscious intention. And what’s more, it also doesn’t invite the supposition that things ought to have been better when we judge by merely (and arrogantly) human standards.

Understanding often tends to yield appreciation - yet theistic believers often seem wedded to the idea that their god is necessarily beyond our understanding. Is this just an effort to deflect the encroachment of scientific understanding?

… quik note : philosophy and theology are also sciences and all sciences are supposed to work together to solve all the problems , not see each other as competition …

 

[MindOverMatter2]

… quik note : philosophy and theology are also sciences and all sciences are supposed to work together to solve all the problems , not see each other as competition …

Not according to a modern conception of science. Theology is a science given a particular definition, assuming the truth of the revelation on which it is based.

 

[catholictiger]

… quik note : philosophy and theology are also sciences and all sciences are supposed to work together to solve all the problems , not see each other as competition …

yes but philosophy and theology can describe what natural science cannot

for example philosophy and theology can explain God

science never can