Light photons, warped space time, particles, dark energy, even time itself?
You can not find or examine “nothing” within this known universe because everything in this known universe is influenced by gravity, light photons are passing through, etc.
So how can we examine “nothing”?
Your right, we can’t examine nothing because it’s a concept. It’s simply just the opposite of something. That’s why I’m saying that the universe had to have come from something.
That depends on to whom one is speaking.
A philosophical nothing is different from the nothing of a physicist.
About a year or so ago ,I stumbled upon a video from physicist Lawrence Krauss: " A universe from nothing" . I was thrilled, I can tell you. Until I watched it. He has a different notion of ‘nothing’ from my understanding.
Below the short version.
I’m gonna watch the video, then I’ll reply.
That isn’t enough to guarantee that conclusion.
And it is an equivocation fallacy to assume “Beginning” means “magically appear where once there was nothing.” The universe arose from a singularity and all we know about that is that physics breaks down, time breaks down, and we have no idea at all what may happen next.
Go check out virtual particles and join a site where people discuss such things. You are on an ATHEIST forum.
The notion of nothing he’s talking about in my understanding is something.
How is it not enough to guarantee that?
That’s what I’m saying, the universe didn’t magically appear, it had to have come from something.
Simple: knowing something is expanding now, isn’t enough to guarantee it at some point it began to expand.
It does because the definition of expansion is, become or make larger or more extensive.
But that is exactly what every theist says…the universe magically appeared, made out of nothing, but they add a totally unevidenced god thing in.
No, theists say that the universe came from something and that something is God. This contention is false, it implies that God is nothing. God is a unique entity with the potential to create and bring things into existence through will and power. Therefore, it is not the case of something magically appearing from nothing.
I understand what you mean Cranky and I think you would have to be a stronger philosopher than me. This whole thread is tending to unravel slightly because there seems to be different shades of meaning being applied to the small range of simple words we amateurs are using to explain profound concepts. The history itself is rather confusing as well.
Aristotle is usually credited, although not altogether accurately, with the earliest discussions about causality and the idea of a prime mover within a finite universe, because he actually favoured a concept involving several prime movers within a pre-existing and eternal universe and rejected assertions of a non-eternal, created universe with a beginning and an end which also required a first uncaused cause as a creator god, as being a complete nonsense.
The Islamic (as per Al-Ghazali) and then later Christian (as per Aquinus) treatments of Aristotle’s original ideas, shoe-horned their chosen gods into the mix and enjoyed the misappropriated authority of the old Greek philosopher and built up a complex theological edifice of circular reasonings based on the hijacking.
Science, astrophysics, physical cosmology, quantum field fluctuations, and all the other specialised areas of research have provided greater understanding and revealed greater mysteries about the nature and character of the Universe that led J.B.S. Haldane to observe:
“Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple.”.
So with Haldane’s view in mind I look beyond the “much too simple” theist view of creator gods and the limp-wristed philosophical aversion to ‘infinite regressions’ and instead allow myself to imagine the universe itself as just a part of an eternal cosmological cycle of causations that might well reach an eternity back beyond Planck’s Time and the big bang. I see no reason why the universe could not be thought of as having existed in various forms at different intervals during an eternal “pre-big bang” past, which might include variations of Einstein’s shrinking and expanding steady state universes or as infinite periods involving incomprehensible collections of brooding black holes - who the hell really knows? That certainly puts an end to specious concepts like ‘special conscious acts of divine creation ex nihilo’.
Agreed, t’is all merely bullshit speculation, but no more fantastic or irrational than current monotheistic cosmologies. (Please keep in mind I have not been stoned since 1992.)
Your definition doesn’t even mention starts. You are chasing your own tale.
Your right, it doesn’t mention start.
And your evidence for this assertion? NOTHING. YOU>DO NOT KNOW THIS>
No and no.
All beliefs are based on reason, it’s the only faculty we have, this doesn’t mean your reasoning is sound or even rational, as we have seen you use known logical fallacies more than once.
You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy here again. If we don’t know how the universe IN ITS CURRENT FORM came to exist, then you cannot rationally make any assertions about it.
It is axiomatic you can make no assertions about nothing, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that nothing is even possible?
We know exactly where the universe came from… a singularity. So says the very best evidence we have to date. If you want to assert something else GO VISIT A COSMOLOGY FORUM. You are in the wrong place.