Concept of Eternity.

[waynepii]

Could you explain, litewave, how matter (something) could come from nothing? How do the people who espouse this theory explain that?

Zero splitting into opposite values, that is + and -. Thus nothing splits into something. Obviously, it has no reason to do that, that's why it happens randomly -- without reason, just from nothing.

I've never heard anyone say before that there was some way of getting something from nothing. It seems very irrational (how can zero, or nothing, split? It makes no sense.). Not that we can understand how God himself did it. But this sounds like just some fantasy, some made-up thing, some just-so story. Lol. I think if there was anything serious behind it, it would've been plastered all over the news and I would have heard about it . . . eventually.

Zero (0) can be broken into -1 and +1. Likewise -1 and +1 can be recombined, giving zero. The premise is that matter and another entity (anti-matter, gravity, ... ) are opposites (like -1 and +1) and appeared simultaneously from nothing. Since they are opposites, the sum total of "everything" is still zero.

I've always found it interesting that people who readily accept that God always existed (or occurred from nothing) find it so difficult to accept that a few bazillion megatons of assorted matter and/or energy could likewise have always existed (or occurred from nothing).

[cslewislover]

Zero (0) can be broken into -1 and +1. Likewise -1 and +1 can be recombined, giving zero. The premise is that matter and another entity (anti-matter, gravity, ... ) are opposites (like -1 and +1) and appeared simultaneously from nothing. Since they are opposites, the sum total of "everything" is still zero.

I've always found it interesting that people who readily accept that God always existed (or occurred from nothing) find it so difficult to accept that a few bazillion megatons of assorted matter and/or energy could likewise have always existed (or occurred from nothing).

It's interesting that I think things should make sense; and the fact that you felt the need to explain my question more shows, to me, that the original explanation didn't really make enough sense. Darned if I do, darned if I don't, I guess. Now that you mention "anti-matter," it makes a bit more sense to me.

God is spirit, and to us that is materially nothing. You are making it sound like I should think of matter and His spiritual existence as the same. They clearly are not. Matter is perceived through our senses or through assisting machines, God's essence is not. So no, I don't think of their existence or beginning in the same way, and I don't know why I should.

[waynepii]

God is spirit, and to us that is materially nothing. You are making it sound like I should think of matter and His spiritual existence as the same. They clearly are not. Matter is perceived through our senses or through assisting machines, God's essence is not. So no, I don't think of their existence or beginning in the same way, and I don't know why I should.[/color]

True, God is spirit ... WITH the ability to create all matter from nothing - right?

My comment was ...

I've always found it interesting that people who readily accept that God always existed (or occurred from nothing) find it so difficult to accept that a few bazillion megatons of assorted matter and/or energy could likewise have always existed (or occurred from nothing).

Would you find an answer to the question "where did God come from?" that "He was created from nothing by SuperGod" to be in any way compelling? And on the off-chance anyone does, the obvious next question would be ""where did SuperGod come from?"

[cslewislover]

My comment was ...

I've always found it interesting that people who readily accept that God always existed (or occurred from nothing) find it so difficult to accept that a few bazillion megatons of assorted matter and/or energy could likewise have always existed (or occurred from nothing).

Would you find an answer to the question "where did God come from?" that "He was created from nothing by SuperGod" to be in any way compelling? And on the off-chance anyone does, the obvious next question would be ""where did SuperGod come from?"

No, not at all compelling. I'm not a totally practical person by any stretch of the imagination, but this seems to fit the definition of mental mxxxxxxxxxxn* to me. Maybe someone else would like to discuss it with you.

* Sorry this is crude. I was trying to find a synonym, but no luck so far. Maybe someone knows one.

[godslanguage]

And on the off-chance anyone does, the obvious next question would be ""where did SuperGod come from?"

Would you assume the laws of causality must chain and apply beyond the created universe, if God created it?

[WConn]

"where did God come from?" that "He was created from nothing by SuperGod" to be in any way compelling? And on the off-chance anyone does, the obvious next question would be ""where did SuperGod come from?"

Okay, since I started this, let me comment. SuperGod came from KRYPTON. (insert chuckle here.) Look Wayne, we are beating a dead horse. Faith and belief's are based on just that, faith and belief's. I was trying to explain something I understood relative to a scientifically accept concept. That matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form meaning that we have always existed since the beginning of time and will always exist, albeit in an altered manner unbeknownst to us. We can get into the concept of Zero and all the other theories but we will always come back to the same initial square. Some believe and some don't. Lets agree to disagree.

The idea of where the matter which makes up the universe came from is open for debate. If you believe that god created it, then God created it. If you don't, then you don't.

W

[Borkuf]

The zero energy proposition doesn't really answer any questions, merely transforms the question into something a little more acceptable so that other issues can be assessed.

For starters, if all of the energy balanced out to zero, you'd still have variations within. Even if all matter were compacted into an area as small as a basketball, it is still a three dimensional entity, and there is absolutely no reason, practically or theoretically, to assume that the gravitational force would equally distribute everything perfectly. And perfection is the key, because over time, any irregularity, no matter how minute, has the potential to compromise the balance.

Second, the Heisenburg principle establishes that the nature of an atom's electron is not fixed, that while the probable position of an electron's quantum jump can be calculated, it cannot be definitely predicted. That unpredictability imposes the need to calculate potential energy, as well as probability of where that energy flux will move to, accompanied by an instantaneous compensation by the "matter ball," so to speak, in order to maintain stability.

Now, even with all that aside, if the matter came out of "nothingness," even that nothingness is something in this instance, because the only reason it's classified as nothing is because of it's neutral energy. The energy must have come from what was at one time just potential energy, which is nonetheless something.

The absolute beginning is probably the biggest mystery out there, and always will be, at least until our entire logic process changes. Current logic dictates that time cannot be infinite because it's impossible to count from (negative) infinity (the beginning) to 0 (the present). Current laws in thermodynamics and physics dictate that time cannot be finite either, because matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

[jlay]

It is possible that the total energy of our Universe is exactly zero, because the positive energy of matter (mc^2) seems to be compensated by negative gravitational potential energy. So the universe could have arisen from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

Good grief. Some are so desperate in thier carnal minds to disprove God that they will suggest that everything came from nothing. Can you make a grain of sand from nothing? How about just one electron from nothing? No. Yet, some egg head wants to theorize that everything, everything, EVERYTHING came from nothing. And yet, creationists are the wackos. Got it.

"where did God come from?" that "He was created from nothing by SuperGod" to be in any way compelling? And on the off-chance anyone does, the obvious next question would be ""where did SuperGod come from?"

The question "where did God come from? assumes the wrong thing.
Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else. Everything that has a beginning has a creator. God is infinite, and never came into existence, but has always been. The uncaused, cause.

"Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalms 90:2

[Cactus]

My point was that if matter is eternal, and we are made up of matter, then in a science sense, we are eternal. Just an observation on my part.

Sorry to burst your bubble but no. Either creation by god or a "big bang" and matter has a beginning in time...So its never existed forever. Really if something is going to be eternal its not going to be matter, maybe energy...If not energy then how about the concept of 'spirit' which I suppose is a little bit far out. But who knows maybe god is made of energy? Pretty funny how these silly atheists are saying god(theres a hilarious yt vid that makes this assumption) has no matter or energy and therefore has no existence...which is silly because they are creating a straw man to attack, how do they know that god has no matter or energy?

[Borkuf]

Really if something is going to be eternal its not going to be matter, maybe energy...

At the quantum level there is no difference, merely the way it interacts with other things. Our current understanding of the universe is insufficient to say that there isn't a conversion, but thermodynamics state that the matter with which we are composed of cannot be destroyed, so logically we cannot be destroyed either, just materially redefined into different forms of matter and/or energy. The distinction between eternal matter or energy is a moot point, as it is the entirety that is the issue.

Out of curiosity, has anyone read anything about the (relatively) new movements for a different scientific paradigm in which consciousness begets matter, and not the other way around? It stems from quantum research of electrons and lesser quanta on how they behave differently depending on observational constraints. At the moment the two authors that come to mind are Grof and Micheal Talbot's "The Holographic Universe." The relevance is that in altered states of consciousness there are reports of "existing" as inanimate objects, such as bodies of water, geological structures, as well as trans-dimensional entities. I'd be interested to see what others think.

Borkuf

P.S. My apologies ahead of time for potentially diverging from the original thread.

[cslewislover]

Hey Borkuf. Well, that might be interesting to read. I was just looking up some information about it. Christians would explain much of the phenomena and experiences as spiritual, but can you say what the basic premise is? If the experiences aren't spiritual, and if they aren't just chemical (like atheists would say), then where do they come from in a holographic universe? I haven't read anything like that before, so I don't even know what it really means (I don't know how holograms work, so I haven't a clue what it would mean to have a holographic universe). I mean you mention consciousness begetting matter, but what does that mean exactly?

[Borkuf]

Essentially, and my reason for bringing it up, consciousness has for a long time been considered separate from the physical universe, if for no better reason than a lack of a reasonable explanation. However, with the aforementioned examples of people experiencing an existence as a conscious inanimate object, maybe there is some unmapped constituent that permits and parents both consciousness and matter--reality as defined by our sensory perceptions.

Now, if the universal entity, whether you classify it as God, Nirvana, or whatever else, is composed of an unmapped entity that transcends the matter/energy laws, possibly coinciding with the theoretical extra dimensions alluded to by current research and conjectures, maybe the whole concept of eternity is nothing more than a substrata of a cosmos that folds in upon itself.

It may sound like hosh-posh, but the fundamental precept for discussing our origin is the Big Bang, which doesn't necessarily equate to the true beginning, but maybe just a beginning of the current phase, as in there were Big Bangs before, and after implosion caused by expansion more will ensue. As stated before, current mathematics is inadequate in determining even the possibility of existence, much less the simplest existential questions. So could it be that we're missing something as "simple" as another building block, or maybe a relationship between matter, energy, and consciousness?

I'm not the best at explaining theories of physics as I'm not adequately or formally versed in the subject, merely someone who proverbially picked up the Physics for Dummies manual. My best attempt to allude to an explanation is that an electron can exist simultaneously in multiple positions, can dissipate instantaneously into wave form, and can communicate with its pair over distances that suggest a link faster than the speed of light, contradicting Einstein and subsequently all theories derived thereof.What seems to be the best explanation of this phenomenon is another entity, and forgive me for pulling the dreaded dark-matter alibi, but maybe it's a similar possibility. Also, electrons appear to behave differently, both mathematically and observationally, depending on whether or not they are being observed.

As far as consciousness begetting matter, roughly explained there is as of yet no definitive theory to shed light on what thoughts and memories are made of. I'm personally under the relatively unfounded supposition that metaphysical phenomenon are resultant of a continuous series of electronic pulses stimulated by neurotransmitters and the like, but that necessitates a relationship with particles in wave form as well, which completely complicates the question and yet again implies that there is some kind of bridging element that supersedes just the matter/energy gap. I suppose the saying holds true, "if the brain wasn't so complex that we couldn't explain it, we wouldn't need or be able to explain it to begin with."

Fatigue is injuring the desired explanations, but I suppose it shall have to suffice for this evening. Please keep in mind that I am by no means formally educated in these matters and they are merely an enthusiast's musings.

Borkuf

[ageofknowledge]

I've been unhappy with the secular books I've read on the subject. The last one was from a master's graduate of M.I.T. in a related area of study. He believed we were close to quantifying consciousness and that it was merely the result of evolution and that soon we would be able to digitize it and place it in robots or save it and insert it into human clones and all sorts of other possibilities. I thought he was deceived.

Now J. P. Moreland's view of consciousness makes a lot more sense to me. Here's something he wrote on the subject: http://books.google.com/books?id=p3dT6Z ... q=&f=false