When you think about it, the idea of a beginning is more absurd and confusing then the idea of an infinite past. If there was ever nothing, it is only logical to assume that a state of nothingness would persist. Nothing begets nothing. Many people are confused by the bibles explanation of god having no beginning and no end but if there is a god it would only be logical that he have no beginning. conduct this mental experiment. imagine a special container. the container is sealed and nothing can enter or exit. now imagine a billion years has past. what is in the container? nothing. a billion more years and what is in the container?the answer again is nothing. because nothing can come from nothing. so in order for anything to exist something has to have always existed.
No Beggining
- Thread starter BigHead
- Start date
Having a beginning is indeed the doom of any ToE theory, yet 'nothing' is ever gotten down to as the continuing and eternal cause of all, for, like your 'container', it would indeed take a God to contain it, for 'the lack of anything' proves to be a perfectly unstable state.
See 'The Theory of Nothing', a recently begun thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I picked "yes", "no" and "maybe". Though I lean strongly away from any creationist tale, in the end we simply do not know, nor do I claim to know. And anyone who does need not be taken seriously; at least not until we can prove, repeatedly, one way or another. If there so happens to be a "beginning", then so be it. But as it stands currently, there is no evidence to support an ultimate beginning. Scientists lean toward the big-bang theory as a likely possibility for the formation (and constant expansion) of our universe. However, that is not the beginning but rather a "check point" of which to start from - just as one could say "Since November 1st of 1942...".
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
If I may, in objection...
If there is such a beginning, the theory of evolution is far from doomed. It really depends on what type of beginning you are referring to. If it's biblical, then yes, the theory of evolution would not be likely (though we have a ton of evidence that says otherwise). Now, consider the Deist stance. It concludes that God had set all laws of physics into motion and literally let it do it's own thing. Thus the universe, our soloar system and our earth was formed. Most Deists are firmly apted in believing in evolution even with a "creator".
The true fact of evolution goes to how life evolved on Earth to where it is now.
Everything is another matter, which must have had no beginning, for that would have bounded it, making it not everything. One must show the causeless to have ever been going on, requiring nothing before it.
A Deity is just as impossible as a Theity; can't have complexity as the First Forever, much less an ultimate one. Can't even have stuff as the first, not even a tiny electron, for there's nothing to make it of, and so that is what all is made of.
Evolution is true. The fossils even match the 'junk' DNA. Its method of natural selection is under study for extension, and so it may not be complete.
A Theity is a God who intervenes and controls everything. A Deity does not.
The rest I explain in my other threads.
I was meaning a begining to everything and all things, and that I beleive there can be no starting point becouse a starting point implies nothingness before it. and what would cause the start if there is nothing. and I do feel if there is a creator he has always existed with an infinite past along with the laws the govern everything, but god or no god there in my opinion can be no begining.
Yes. And?
I was querying what you meant by that sentence.
Making up your own definitions? Considering that the Christian god is called The Deity you appear to be out on a limb here. And zero sensible Google hits for "theity".
"Explaining" them doesn't stop them from being suppositions.
Last edited:
So you didn't check either of the links I gave in my first post?
Right. You have a feeling. And an opinion. Any evidence?
Perhaps look up 'theist' and 'deist'.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I partly agree. (See post #4).
But I'm merely stating that even with a Deity (no such thing as theity), evolution, in theory, can happen. If God created the first spark of life, so-to-speak, other forms can (and have) evolve from it. That is evolution. In all sense of the word and definition, evolution, except at it's starting point, is completely unintertwined with a theory of creation unless otherwise stated (like in the Bible).
So what?
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?
why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang. Is it possable for the laws that govern everything to being the cause of a big bang. maybe inflation and deflation, expansion then retraction. imagine all the matter in the universe retracting rapidly all the matter getting closer and closer together causing more and more friction and energy until bam big bang and cycle repeated, just an idea, I do not claim to know a thing.
Are you applying the laws of the universe as they are now to a period we're reasonably certain didn't have them?
why does science assume the laws of the universe started at the big bang. Is it possable for the laws that govern everything to being the cause of a big bang. maybe inflation and deflation, expansion then retraction. imagine all the matter in the universe retracting rapidly all the matter getting closer and closer together causing more and more friction and energy until bam big bang and cycle repeated, just an idea, I do not claim to know a thing.
The state of nothing is evidently unstable; no other recourse for stuff to be.
This basis of the 'lack of anything' becoming' becoming positive/negative balances of somethings is itself eternal, and even unbounded, being the only candidate for the prime mover. We may not like it, intuitively, but what is the other choice? None.
Claiming things forever is not only an incomplete theory, but also fails since one cannot have something already defined and made in all of its very specific particulars without it ever having been made in the first place that never was.
Apparently, the state of the 'lack of anything' is not exactly what we think it is.
So you are inventing your own words.
Still doesn't tie in with the actual meaning of deity.
Sure it does. The founding fathers of the U.S. even stressed a deity over a theity.
Agreed that some may use 'Deity' to cover all types of gods.
However, a distinction is even being used in this thread.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Who is this directed to?
Regardless, I will respond in itemized detail....
No, the laws of physics do change. It's in correlation with the changes.
Now, we're getting into cosmology, physics, quantum physics and astronomy.
The laws of physics are relative. The law of gravity on earth is different from that of Mars. And both, again, change over time due to many different factors.
Secondly, we need to clarify something here. Yes, scientists lean toward the big-bang theory as the expanion aka creation of our universe. But they don't say, as far as I'm aware, that it is the beginning of creation and existence itself.
Yes, it's a theory like any other. But the big-bang is a reference point, not the ultimate beginning of existence/matter.