Originally posted by BananaKing
I don't know how consciousness works, I only know that you can't get something from nothing...
Zero point energy.
Something does come from nothing. As a matter of fact, empty space, as close to nothing as one can get, is filled with virtual partials coming in and out of existence.
Originally posted by BananaKing
I don't know how consciousness works...
Yet you're saying so much about it. This should really be your first red flag. Even a cursory reading into literature on consciousness renders many of your ideas incoherent.
Anyway, my rebuttals remain in force. Your definition is too watered down to be useful in any sense, and is at odds with the vast majority of definitions used in religion. If God is the universe, yes, we're all theists. But all you've done is successfully dumbed down "God" so that it ignores all the differences in belief that do exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Zero point energy.Something does come from nothing. As a matter of fact, empty space, as close to nothing as one can get, is filled with virtual partials coming in and out of existence.
If we call that nothing then yes, something can come from nothing.
But when something comes from nothing it means nothing has a quality (the quality of potential for things to come from it) and thus is arguably not really nothing.
The minute you give nothing qualities it becomes something.
Believing things can come from nothing at all is like the atheistic equivalent of non-pantheistic monotheism, it's believing that a universe can be made entirely from something without being made of it.
Originally posted by BananaKing
If we call that nothing then yes, something can come from nothing.But when something comes from nothing it means nothing has a quality (the quality of potential for things to come from it) and thus is arguably not really nothing.
The minute you give nothing qualities it becomes something.
Believing things can come from nothing at all is like the atheistic equivalent of non-pantheistic monotheism, it's believing that a universe can be made entirely from something without being made of it.
Nothingness cannot exist. Therefore, nothingness is very unstable, and will always become something.
Originally posted by BananaKingIt's paradoxical logic like that that is likely the closest to the "true nature" of existence. The simplicity of our deities is a quaint, anthropocentric thing. We're likely far too small and localized/isolated to ever be able to comprehend the totality of existence. The Flatland allegory is probably the closest we've come to conceptualizing that limit.
Believing things can come from nothing at all is like the atheistic equivalent of non-pantheistic monotheism, it's believing that a universe can be made entirely from something without being made of it.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's paradoxical logic like that that is likely the closest to the "true nature" of existence. The simplicity of our deities is a quaint, anthropocentric thing. We're likely far too small and localized/isolated to ever be able to comprehend the totality of existence. The Flatland allegory is probably the closest we've come to conceptualizing that limit.
I'm not sure how you concluded that to be the probable case, the most observed phenomenon is raw mathematics, it forms the entirety of science, both complex and simple.
I think treating spawning from nothing like it was true would be like acting as though the entire history of the world all appeared from nowhere only yesterday from nothing. Because we would have to abandon the predicting reliability of science if we abandon the predicting reliability of math. I wouldn't bet my life on it, and not my afterlife either.
In the end, without some kind of omnipresent, all powerful and eternal law of nature or potentiality, nothing can't do anything.
Originally posted by BananaKing
I'm not sure how you concluded that to be the probable case, the most observed phenomenon is raw mathematics, it forms the entirety of science, both complex and simple.I think treating spawning from nothing like it was true would be like acting as though the entire history of the world all appeared from nowhere only yesterday from nothing. Because we would have to abandon the predicting reliability of science if we abandon the predicting reliability of math. I wouldn't bet my life on it, and not my afterlife either.
In the end, without some kind of omnipresent, all powerful and eternal law of nature or potentiality, nothing can't do anything.
Well, if a god created the universe just 6,000 years ago, we would not be able to see billions of light-years into space. Unless this god created the universe to look old. So, if that was the case, how do you know the universe was not created 2 hours ago with all history in tact?
Your argument defeats itself.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, if a god created the universe just 6,000 years ago, we would not be able to see billions of light-years into space. Unless this god created the universe to look old. So, if that was the case, how do you know the universe was not created 2 hours ago with all history in tact?Your argument defeats itself.
I'm not entirely sure you got my argument, because I was actually saying that in support of an older earth, not against it.
I was saying that something coming from nothing in the beginning really isn't different to something from nothing today. Both of them imply great complexity and laws arising from literally 0 causation.
Originally posted by BananaKing
I'm not entirely sure you got my argument, because I was actually saying that in support of an older earth, not against it.I was saying that something coming from nothing in the beginning really isn't different to something from nothing today. Both of them imply great complexity and laws arising from literally 0 causation.
Nothingness cannot exist, therefore the universe did not come from nothingness. That being said, there is no proof in that statement for a god.
Originally posted by BananaKingPanentheism subsumes pantheism. One can say that God = the physical universe (pantheism), or, God = the physical universe plus (panentheism). "God", as generally understood in mystical literature, is panentheistic. God = {Dream/Dreamer}.
To be honest, I'm often asking myself the same question.
I think I'm somewhere between the two.
Do you think there is a Dreamer?
Originally posted by Mindship
Panentheism subsumes pantheism. One can say that God = the physical universe (pantheism), or, God = the physical universe plus (panentheism). "God", as generally understood in mystical literature, is panentheistic. God = {Dream/Dreamer}.Do you think there is a Dreamer?
I am the dreamer! 😛
Originally posted by BananaKingIn this universe, perhaps. In this small corner of all existence, perhaps. In this tiny speck of infinity, perhaps. But regarding absolutely everything--perhaps not.
In the end, without some kind of omnipresent, all powerful and eternal law of nature or potentiality, nothing can't do anything.