• val p miranda
    146
    Prior to presenting my view of the origin of the universe, discovering why there is anything rather than
    nothing should be determined. Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? Why, then, is there something rather than nothing? Those are questions that can be answered as follows: either nothing exists or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist; that something is the first existent which was located in a timeless pre-universe. Philosophers have been searching for this first existent which is immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual. We know that actual space is a requirement for mass and that it preceeded mass, the existence of which is undisputed since Idealism is dead and the Standard Model is triumphant. Immaterial space in the pre-universe became actual space in accordance with Aristotle's view of potential and actual. Immaterial space in the
    pre-universe had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space would have been potential since it is now actual. Potential immaterial space became actual space liberating the energy of the big bang and that is what originated the universe. Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.

    Space meets the Kantian transcendental requirements by being absolute, necessary and universal; therefore, space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else?

    VPM
  • SpaceDweller
    434
    God is the easiest answer obviously, hence it's definition states that God's existence is "necessary".

    But scientists don't use God as an explanation.
    if God is excluded then the question is how something come out of nothing?
  • javi2541997
    1.5k
    Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.val p miranda

    Interesting text and points of view. But I guess you end up with a contradictory conclusion: God being the first existent. Previously you have shared that either the universe where we live in exists or doesn't not exist as basic primarily principle of the "Universe's origin"
    For some religious God is "omnipotent", thus God is the maximum power. "Whether God can create a spherical cube, or make a stone so massive that he cannot move it" Omnipotence
    So, the omnipotence of God should not be a handicap about "existant or not existant"
  • Haglund
    802
    Immaterial space in the
    pre-universe had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space would have been potential since it is now actual. Potential immaterial space became actual space liberating the energy of the big bang and that is what originated the universe. Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.
    val p miranda

    You're close...
  • I like sushi
    3.7k
    Study physics instead of consulting naval gazers maybe? If Aristotle is your first point of reference I should not need to inform you that things have moved on in the last 2000 years.

    Some questions are philosophical and some are not.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.val p miranda

    I don't think science (or anyone) can determined if there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews.
  • Haglund
    802
    Hawking in "Godel and the end of physics" wrote:

    "In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed, and can contain an arbitrary amount of information, without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models, are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory, is self referencing, like in Gödel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent, or incomplete. The theories we have so far, are both inconsistent, and incomplete."

    Which is nonsense. We can imagine ourselves outside of that universe and contemplate the happenings while time proceeds for us.
  • Haglund
    802
    I don't think science has ever determined that there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews.Tom Storm

    If the universe is eternal, which, in my calmly reasoned, humbly humbleness, seems to be the case, then who created eternity? Why can't a cause lay infinitely far away in the past? What is time if not experienced by their eternal creations? Eternity might take the blink of an eye.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    If the universe is eternal, which, in my calmly reasoned, humbly humbleness, seems to be the case, then who created eternity?Haglund

    I have no reason to ask 'who' or use the word 'created' for anything. I think you may be right about eternity but this may be beyond human understanding for now.
  • SpaceDweller
    434
    I don't think science (or anyone) can determined if there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews.Tom Storm

    I think you're wrong on that because scientists are trying to answer something from nothing rather than avoiding it.

    I posted 2 videos some time ago which shows sceitsts trying to explain their efforts about something from nothing:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12061/can-theory-of-nothing-challenge-god/p1
  • Haglund
    802
    I have no reason to ask 'who' or use the word 'created' for anything. I think you may be right about eternity but this may be beyond human understanding for now.Tom Storm

    Can't we have an innate, a priori divine, religious knowledge? If beyond human understanding for now, when will we know? When we die?
  • Haglund
    802
    I think you're wrong on that because scientists are trying to answer something from nothing rather than avoiding it.SpaceDweller

    Krauss and grassy Tyson offer no theory of something from nothing here. They say nothing is empty space. Filled with virtual possibility. From which the real flashes into existence. Which is different frome something from nothing, as it is falsely claimed.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    Has science ever been able to describe what nothing 'is'? But it wouldn't surprise me if there is some range of views when it comes to this kind of cosmological speculation. My own view is that I have no grounds to accept the proposition that once there was nothing - nothing can't even be defined.

    Can't we have an innate, a priori divine, religious knowledge? If beyond human understanding for now, when will we know? When we die?Haglund

    No, I can't see that. How would you demonstrate this?
  • SpaceDweller
    434

    If you think there never was nothing then that implies matter is eternal?
    if matter is eternal then that's a big problem.
  • Haglund
    802
    No, I can't see that. How would you demonstrate this?Tom Storm

    I don't mean to demonstrate it, but ask if it could be. Isn't religious knowledge proof? Isn't theology taught at our universities. To which I might add, on the highest floor, normally, with lifts with one button only. "I wanna go down".
  • Haglund
    802
    if matter is eternal then that's a big problem.SpaceDweller

    Why's that?
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k

    The actual question is probably 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Not 'Did something come from nothing?' I don't think humans can answer this yet - certainly not by using wonky science on an internet forum.
  • SpaceDweller
    434
    Why's that?Haglund
    question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
    in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    Isn't religious knowledge proof? Isn't theology taught at our universitiesHaglund

    I don't know what you mean by religious knowledge.

    question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
    in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God.
    SpaceDweller

    What does this mean? I had no idea scientists were even talking to god let alone trying to defeat it - do explain this.
  • Haglund
    802
    question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
    in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God.
    SpaceDweller

    Ah yes! Science can describe the universe but not explain it. I had an epiphanistic experience about an infinite series of big bangs on a bulk space. But from where does this infinite series come? Only god(s) know(s).
  • SpaceDweller
    434

    I believe some scientists are shaking out of desire to prove there is no God, for example they are in search of so called "God's particle", as if the ultimate goal is to prove or disprove God's creation.

    Why didn't they name it something else? something which would sound more scientific.
  • Haglund
    802
    I don't know what you mean by religious knowledge.Tom Storm

    That's because that knowledge is suppressed from the time you were a kid. It's simple though. It's knowledge about the heaven and the gods in it. About their reasons to create life based on matter. Knowledge to talk to them, or how or if they contact us. It's not moral knowledge Though It's related and the divine knowledge has influence on the scientific knowledge (material knowledge) or knowledge of the soul and mind.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    I hear you. I think part of the problem is scientists often use the term god ironically. It's irresistible, especially for an atheist. People also call rock guitarists and great sporting stars 'god' too.
  • Tom Storm
    4.3k
    That's because that knowledge is suppressed from the time you were a kid. It's simple though. It's knowledge about the heaven and the gods in it.Haglund

    Well I know you believe that, but I have no reason to. I'm not in the secret, suppressed knowledge business.
  • Philosophim
    1.2k
    I go into a little proof here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

    To sum it up, there is existence without prior explanation. This is not a possibility, this is a logical certainty. This means there could have been nothing, then something without any cause or explanation. A God, while a statistical possibility, is only one out of an infinite possible number of alternatives and is in no way necessary.
  • Haglund
    802
    Well I know you believe that, but I have no reason to. I'm not in the secret, suppressed knowledge business.Tom Storm

    Then straighten up, head full in the wind, and walk proudly and tall. If you don't need the knowledge it's up to you. Material knowledge can't explain the origin of that matter. Or impose boundaries on that knowledge.
  • SpaceDweller
    434

    can you please name few alternatives to God?
  • Philosophim
    1.2k
    can you please name few alternatives to God?SpaceDweller

    Certainly. With the proof that there must be at least one first cause, we realize that a first cause could be anything. When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. So anything you can imagine.

    Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God, or a reason for why there is existence. The conclusion is, "There simply is."
  • chiknsld
    195
    Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God...Philosophim

    :rofl:

    What do you call that Philosophim? Logical atheism?
  • Philosophim
    1.2k
    What do you call that Philosophim? Logical atheism?chiknsld

    Interestingly enough, its not atheism. I'm not denying the possibility that there could be a God. Logically, a God is possible. Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary. To claim a God's existence, one would need some type of evidence of that existence. The fact that there is existence, is not an argument for there being a God.
  • Jackson
    1.6k
    Certainly. With the proof that there must be at least one first c

    Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God, or a reason for why there is existence. The conclusion is, "There simply is."
    Philosophim

    Agree. The world exists. Any cause needs to be explained by a cause.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.