I think you missed the sarcasm.
If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
That's very nice for you, but suffice it to say your 'dislike' for something doesn't mean it is ultimately 'cruel'. I prefer honesty and love to lies and delusion.
They eat a chocolate egg sure, but over here it's not a big thing with a promoted set of beliefs.
Is there something wrong with an "ahh, baby your tooth has come out. Here's £20 lets go get you some toys"?
I think you missed the sarcasm.
Whoops
Although in my poor defense, sometimes you never know these days. I've heard the same thing said before in complete seriousness!
Even if you believe in any particular religion, you still have to deal with the fact that most of the rest of the world thinks you are wrong. An atheist has to deal with most people believing in god, a Christian has to deal with most people not believing in Jesus, a Buddhist has to deal with most people not believing in reincarnation, etc.
Again, this goes back to the fact that just because your religion provides you with answers it doesn't mean that those answeres are actually true.
That's one of the few things I cannot imagine.
IMO, it would require far more explanation than *something*. Given that we objectively know there is *something*, how could *nothing* possibly exist?
Matter is *something*. An 'aspect' is *something*. Reality basically contradicts the notion you proposed.
The fault of equating matter and space with *nothing* is that its simply not true.
Logically, it does not make sense that such an event can occur nor is there evidence that such an event has ever occured or that a state of *nothing* exists. This is why *something* would appear to have always been.
That explanation doesn't make any sense. The only way for *nothing* to be *something* is if it is *something* to begin with.
A very good point.
The moment *nothing* gains aspect, property, behavior, position, dimension, context, etc... it is no longer *nothing*. By calling *something* *nothing*, all that is being done is performing a mental trick. It's like calling a *dog* *cat* or a *photon* *watermellon*.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Forget about the fact that nothingness does not appear to exist. Think of it hypothetically. What explanation would nothingness require? None. Only somethingness requires explanation. Indeed, it seems nothingness would be the preferred state as it requires no explanation. And yet, it's not. Good thing for us. However, if matter and space were simply an aspect of nothingness, you can see how this solves the problem of the existence of anything at all. Of course, there are still other thorny issues, like why this particular universe or are there an infinite number of universes? It's not a mental trick. I'm just pointing out the obvious, i.e. the preferred state is nothingness which must exist - therefore, what we perceive as matter and space must be an aspect of nothingness.
Why? I would think that from an observer's point of view in *somethingland*, a pretty big question would be opened about *nothingland*s existence.
Either of them don't *require* explanation, but if both of them existed then it would certainly be interesting about how that could be (for both of them).
I think it would raise more questions. For example, how could *nothing* have an 'aspect'?
I can entertain the thought till the cows come home, but it doesn't make any sense.
*************
M*W: There are more atheists out there than one might think. We just don't go elaborating on the absence of Jesus, as a rule, because he never was.
M*W: There are more atheists out there than one might think. We just don't go elaborating on the absence of Jesus, as a rule, because he never was.
*************
M*W: What is "nothingness?" We are, but what is "nothingness?" Nothingness is nothing. Liveliness is something. Atheism believes in nothing. Christians believe in something. Christianity doesn't exist. You people defy being. Therefore, believing in something is nothing. It's a big zero. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
As our universe works on cause and effect, the existence of something does require explanation. What caused that something? What caused the cause? And so on. Nothingness does not require an explanation, as it does not require a cause. Are you so sure matter is more than just nothingness? What is it then? String theory suggests matter may be tiny curled up balls of higher dimension. What exactly is dimension? Seems like a good case for claiming dimension really is nothingness curled up on itself.
John J. Bannan: You seem to have invented or read about this nothing concept and it seems cute to you.
Considering the semantics of the words nothing and something, there is just no way for nothing to become something. Your concept is merely cute, not meaningful.
Of course nothingness requires no explanation. If there were nothing, there would be no conscious entity to desire or think about an explanation.
Have you really thought about what you are posting. Since we have a universe and consciousness, there is something. Perhaps it formed from some other something unimaginably different, but the existence of something implies that something always existed. There is no basis for believing that nothingness could exist.
Contrary to your view, something is a more natural state (and thus more more fundamental) than nothing
Considering the semantics of the words nothing and something, there is just no way for nothing to become something. Your concept is merely cute, not meaningful.
Of course nothingness requires no explanation. If there were nothing, there would be no conscious entity to desire or think about an explanation.
Have you really thought about what you are posting. Since we have a universe and consciousness, there is something. Perhaps it formed from some other something unimaginably different, but the existence of something implies that something always existed. There is no basis for believing that nothingness could exist.
Contrary to your view, something is a more natural state (and thus more more fundamental) than nothing
Is the originator of this post trying to justify the theist vew by appealing to vote of all concerned?
If that is his agenda, I say:
If that is his agenda, I say:
- If a billion people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea.
- If truth was determined by the view point of the majority, we would still be hunter gatherers.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
You are only saying that somethingness is a more natural state because it exists. However, you can't explain its existence. Instead, you claim it is comprised of "something unimaginably different". Like what? All you are really saying is that you don't know what somethingness is made of - but you wish to believe it is a more natural state. In comparison to nothingness, somethingness appears to be anything but a more natural state. How the heck did this stuff get here? That doesn't seem like the sort of question you would ask of something if it were a natural state. On the other hand, if someone said there's nothing - well I can at least understand that. Why should there be anything at all? I can't think of a good reason, except that somethingness is really nothingness. I'm not sure what you mean by "cute". I guess you mean it's a trick. It's not a trick. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Nothingness is a preferred state because it requires no explanation. Therefore, nothingness does exist - it's just that we have a hard time seeing matter and space as the aspect of nothingness it really is. String theory suggests matter is made of tiny curled up higher dimension. That certainly seems to fit the bill of what amounts to nothing, i.e. dimension. How is this concept not meaningful?
Einstein was atheist, essentially - although the matter was complex, for him. He certainly did not believe in the God of Abraham or Jesus. Galileo never gave the slightest sign of believing in a God, but in his time admitted atheism in prominent individuals was punished rather spectacularly. Claiming him as a theist is dishonest. Newton was not quite sane - he may have believed in God, he most certainly believed in all manner of astrological spirits and mystical beings or properties.
The question of whether and when belief in some kind of tree-spirit is a god is interesting, but not all of them are. Angels aren't, right? Surely the number of atheistic religions is large, and their adherents numerous. Buddhism, for example.
And I once saw a survey that put the percentage of atheist Catholic priests at least as high as 4, and maybe in double figures.
Anyway, there are a lot of atheists of various kinds, and they behave themselves in general.
Although the OP question does provide an answer for one mystery - the actual desire to convert (as opposed to the religious requirement or urging that one do so). If someone really believes that numbers in agreement lend truth to the belief, converts actually reassure them - even converts they themselves made !
John J. Bannan: Are you serious in this belief in nothingness being a natural state? Is there any evidence that such a state ever existed? Since something obviously exists, there is no reason to suggest that nothingness ever existed unless you can come up with a theory of how something evolved from nothing.
Nothingness might be simple to define or understand, but that does not make it a natural state if such a state never existed. The complexity of our environment might make it difficult to understand, but that does not make it in any sense unnatural.
Something obviously exists. Nothingness does not seem to have ever existed. How could a state that never existed be more natural than a state that exists?
Nothingness might be simple to define or understand, but that does not make it a natural state if such a state never existed. The complexity of our environment might make it difficult to understand, but that does not make it in any sense unnatural.
Something obviously exists. Nothingness does not seem to have ever existed. How could a state that never existed be more natural than a state that exists?
And as time as well as space were created at the moment of the big bang, how can John answer how long there was nothing before something, .... ;-)
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Ah, you're both still looking at somethingness as being distinct from nothingness, instead of looking at somethingness as nothingness. You won't open your eyes to the possibility that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing. The theory is quite simple. Nothing is something. Nothingness is a natural state because it requires no explanation for its existence. On the other hand, somethingness does require an explanation - which neither of you nor I have. Seems that a state that doesn't require an explanation is a better candidate for a natural state than a state that needs but does not have an explanation. The question is not what caused the universe? The question is how can nothingness be something?
John, I'm an ex physicist, well versed in such concepts of particle wave duality, and recognising that the sum of a wave is zero. I just don't dress it up in pseudo speak.
I do think you are not distinguishing between 'space' and a 'void' however.
Last edited:
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
I am certainly aware that "space" does have an underlying energy, and by "void" I guess you mean no underlying energy. What is energy made of? Even an ex physicist doesn't know. Well, isn't it true that String Theory suggests matter is comprised of curled up dimension? And what is dimension? Again, even an ex physicist doesn't know. But, dimension surely looks like nothingness curled up on itself. The only important question is why does nothingness do this? The answer may be that this is an aspect of nothingness itself. Physicists have been trying to figure out why the universe exists for a long time without success. Maybe this is because there is no answer. The universe is simply an aspect of nothingness, which frankly isn't all that surprising given the lack of any alternative plausible explanation. Ask yourself, why should there be anything at all? The obvious answer is there shouldn't be anything at all. Any yet, we reject that answer - even though it might be right. Why do you reject it? Because you can't get over the fact that things exist - and that therefore you believe nothingness can't exist. Your assumption may be wrong.