oui's picture

oui

image

Is God Nothing?

I watched "Curiousity" the other night, which was about Stephen Hawking's theory that the Universe came from nothing, and there is no God.  He states, "Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no Time for God to make the Universe."

 

Please watch the episodes FIRST, then add your thoughts.

 

 

Share this

Comments

oui's picture

oui

image

Part 2

oui's picture

oui

image

Part 3

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Sorry, oui, my downloading speed is slow, and my downloading capacity limited, except between 11:00 pm and 4:00 am PT, so I dare answer your question without having watched the episodes first.

 

Yes, God is Nothing, but it is that nothing that transcended its nothingness and became everything, In other words, there is no supernatural God outside the universe, but the universe itself is self-generative or self-creative. If the cosmic creative power or force is "God," then the universe is "self-godly."

Alex's picture

Alex

image

I have not watch these yet, but it has been my experience that Scientist are limited by the idea of cause and effect. Even when they known it is false, and at best we have have cause and probability, 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Alex wrote:

I have not watch these yet, but it has been my experience that Scientist are limited by the idea of cause and effect. Even when they known it is false, and at best we have have cause and probability, 

 

 

Citation, please.

Alex's picture

Alex

image

The film itself disputes cause and effect when it says nothing caused the big bang. So for something to happen, it does not need a cause.

 

Read David Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume.  

 

At best today in empiricism we have cause and probability. Not cause and effect, in the sense, that a will always cause b. At best a will usually cause b, perhaps even 99.9999999% but that is not cause and effect, it is cause and probability.

 

The film also does not explain, how non energy or non matter affects the world. It says that everything in the Universe is made up of space, energy and negative energy. It does not explain, how art, imagination, love and creativity affect the material* world/ The non material things do affect the world, and God is much like these things, in that God is non material, but it affects the world.

 

* I use material in the sense that the film uses energy and negative energy

 

Also the film does not rule out that nothing existed before the big bang. It just says time as we know it did not exists. Thus there was no time for anything to do anything.  However that leaves open the possibility that the big bang came from another universe that might have had different laws of nature. It is possible under the theory of evolution that each universe is created by a dark hole, which experiences a big bang, when it is too small. This big bang creates a Universe, and those that create universes that have laws of nature that create other black holes are going to survive and reproduce other universes with similar laws.

 

It also presumes that all theists believe God created the universe, thus God can only be from outside the universe. Some believe God came into existence at the same time as the universe, and that God is part of the universe.

 

It also only really rejects a deterministic God. Not all theists believe in that either.

 

 

Neo's picture

Neo

image

I did watch that the other night. It was interesting, to say the least. Hawking says that in order to create matter you would need only some anti-matter and the two would then cancel each other out, leaving out the need for a creator.

 

His example was to imagine a man walking in desert with a shovel. In order to create a mountain, which could be analogous to our physical Universe, the man could start to dig a hole, putting all the dirt from the hole onto the pile. As the mountain of dirt gets bigger, so does the hole, where the analogous anti-matter resides, gets deeper. There was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter.

 

Of course there was no mentioned or speculation as to where the anti-matter, which spewed out from the Big Bang in the form of posi-matter, came from in the first place. It was just there.

 

But I got his point and the problem is rooted in our way thinking. Saying that 'nothing" created the Universe seems heretical to us since we cannot imagine what "nothing" can be like.

 

God, "in the beginning", therefore, is considered as nothing but only in relative terms from our point of view. We can't image what a "formless and empty, darkness over the surface of the deep" could possibly be like since we have no frame of reference for such a state.

 

Hawking is saying the same thing that Buddhism and Hinduism has been saying for thousands of years. God only exists where there is consciousness to be aware of it. Without the physical Universe, e.g. before the Big Bang, there is no matter and therefore no forms to be conscious. Hence there was no God. Only "void" and "darkness"

 

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Neo wrote:

I did watch that the other night. It was interesting, to say the least. Hawking says that in order to create matter you would need only some anti-matter and the two would then cancel each other out, leaving out the need for a creator.

 

His example was to imagine a man walking in desert with a shovel. In order to create a mountain, which could be analogous to our physical Universe, the man could start to dig a hole, putting all the dirt from the hole onto the pile. As the mountain of dirt gets bigger, so does the hole, where the analogous anti-matter resides, gets deeper. There was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter.

 

Confess I haven't watched the videos, although I caught part of one episode while lying in bed on vacation in Virginia. Looking at the example you've cited above, though. Is it not incorrect to say that "there was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter"? Did not the man in the story transfer the negative anti-matter in the hole to the positive mountain of matter?

 

Haven't given this a lot of thought. My brain is really still in "vacation mode" as I prepare return to my office this morning. Just wondering.

Tyson's picture

Tyson

image

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing. Here's hoping that a new car will materialize in my driveway soon.

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

Neo wrote:

I did watch that the other night. It was interesting, to say the least. Hawking says that in order to create matter you would need only some anti-matter and the two would then cancel each other out, leaving out the need for a creator.

 

His example was to imagine a man walking in desert with a shovel. In order to create a mountain, which could be analogous to our physical Universe, the man could start to dig a hole, putting all the dirt from the hole onto the pile. As the mountain of dirt gets bigger, so does the hole, where the analogous anti-matter resides, gets deeper. There was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter.

 

Confess I haven't watched the videos, although I caught part of one episode while lying in bed on vacation in Virgi nia. Looking at the example you've cited above, though. Is it not incorrect to say that "there was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter"? Did not the man in the story transfer the negative anti-matter in the hole to the positive mountain of matter?

 

Haven't given this a lot of thought. My brain is really still in "vacation mode" as I prepare return to my office this morning. Just wondering.

Of course, and as I say the analogy only goes so far because there is no attempt to ask where the energy comes from initially or why the transfer began in the first place. The ancient Hindus believe that creation was just one of millions and millions of creations in the form of great out-breaths and subsequent in-breaths by a stupendous great being called Brahma.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

I am by no means a scientist, so possibly those of you that are more learned could enlighten me?

 

I watched all three videos and wondered about the analogy of the clock slowing down and stopping as it enters the black hole. Is this not a poor analogy based on the fact that the object is of a materialistic nature and only represents a humans measurement of time? What would happen to our minds if it entered a black hole? Would it adapt or be destroyed or recreated?

 

Also the man digging a hole to create the "hill". Positive and negative energy= zero

It seems (re)creation is still taking place.

 

At the end of the movie it states that time cannot exist in a black hole, yet it states that the universe was born out of a black hole. Is this not contradictory that time could even exist in a black hole for it to create the universe? or even to spew out the beginnings of life?

 

It then goes on to state that we must begin to think of the universe as having no beginning, much like the earth is round and has no beginning or end. REALLY? What about the actual "edge" of the earth that separates space from earth? Does a black hole have an "edge" that is separating it from something? Could time itself be the positive energy created by the black hole? And should we consider a black hole negative when we have never experienced it? If a black hole is considered the source of all creation by some scientists, why does it suck things in, instead of spitting things out?

 

 

 

 

 

Tyson's picture

Tyson

image

oui wrote:

 .....He states, "Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no Time for God to make the Universe."

 

 

That would depend on what one believes about God.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

Tyson's picture

Tyson

image

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true. However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true.

 

*blinks*

 

Tyson wrote:
However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

If you're interested, read and listen to Stephen Hawking.  The man is fascinating, though a lot of what he comes up with is completely over my head.  I'm not ashamed to say that I'm ill-prepared to debate the subject with Stephen.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true. However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

According to the video, the answer to these questions are lurking in the bottom of a cup of coffee. (spontaneous)

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

Neo wrote:

I did watch that the other night. It was interesting, to say the least. Hawking says that in order to create matter you would need only some anti-matter and the two would then cancel each other out, leaving out the need for a creator.

 

His example was to imagine a man walking in desert with a shovel. In order to create a mountain, which could be analogous to our physical Universe, the man could start to dig a hole, putting all the dirt from the hole onto the pile. As the mountain of dirt gets bigger, so does the hole, where the analogous anti-matter resides, gets deeper. There was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter.

 

Confess I haven't watched the videos, although I caught part of one episode while lying in bed on vacation in Virginia. Looking at the example you've cited above, though. Is it not incorrect to say that "there was no need for anything to create the mountain as the negative anti-matter in the hole was transfered to the positive mountain of matter"? Did not the man in the story transfer the negative anti-matter in the hole to the positive mountain of matter?

 

Haven't given this a lot of thought. My brain is really still in "vacation mode" as I prepare return to my office this morning. Just wondering.

 

Hope you had a nice vacation Rev Steven , anyhow , yes true, but also, of course, anti-matter would have to be in existence first for it to re create itself, 

 

another profound question is, if we did come from nothing ,  why is there something rather than nothing ?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

I can sense impending religious misrepresentation of a scientist's position coming on.  Trying to decide if I care enough to watch all 45 minutes of these episodes so I'll be in a better position to debunk the misconceptions.

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

Tyson wrote:

oui wrote:

 .....He states, "Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no Time for God to make the Universe."

 

 

That would depend on what one believes about God.

 

pure is-ness does not require time 

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true.

 

*blinks*

 

Tyson wrote:
However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

If you're interested, read and listen to Stephen Hawking.  The man is fascinating, though a lot of what he comes up with is completely over my head.  I'm not ashamed to say that I'm ill-prepared to debate the subject with Stephen.

 

you mean listen to a man who declares that philosophy is dead but uses philosophy in his books?

 

 

17 May 2011   “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

 

Stephen Hawkings

 

​sometimes one is so smart hes actually dum

 

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

waterfall wrote:

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true. However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

According to the video, the answer to these questions are lurking in the bottom of a cup of coffee. (spontaneous)

 

of course "bottom" wouldn't exist either 

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

There must be a correlation with scientists coming up with a definition for "time" (and there are many), to theists offering their definitions for God. Both can only be described from our limited perspective.

 

Can we comprehend that time only exists because "everything cannot happen at once" (Ray Cummings) But according to Hawkings, it can. According to evolution it can't.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true.

 

*blinks*

 

Tyson wrote:
However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

If you're interested, read and listen to Stephen Hawking.  The man is fascinating, though a lot of what he comes up with is completely over my head.  I'm not ashamed to say that I'm ill-prepared to debate the subject with Stephen.

 

you mean listen to a man who declares that philosophy is dead but uses philosophy in his books?

 

 

17 May 2011   “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

 

Stephen Hawkings

 

​sometimes one is so smart hes actually dum

 

 

I'm just going to quote this for posterity.  You calling Stephen Hawking "dum" has to be one of the most surreal criticisms I've ever seen.

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

chansen wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true.

 

*blinks*

 

Tyson wrote:
However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

If you're interested, read and listen to Stephen Hawking.  The man is fascinating, though a lot of what he comes up with is completely over my head.  I'm not ashamed to say that I'm ill-prepared to debate the subject with Stephen.

 

you mean listen to a man who declares that philosophy is dead but uses philosophy in his books?

 

 

17 May 2011   “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

 

Stephen Hawkings

 

​sometimes one is so smart hes actually dum

 

 

I'm just going to quote this for posterity.  You calling Stephen Hawking "dum" has to be one of the most surreal criticisms I've ever seen.

 

I didn't say hes totally dum, lean to read in context 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

blackbelt wrote:

I didn't say hes totally dum, lean to read in context 

 

I could read your posts while hanging upside-down.  They still wouldn't make any sense.

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

chansen wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

I didn't say hes totally dum, lean to read in context 

 

I could read your posts while hanging upside-down.  They still wouldn't make any sense.

of course to you they wouldn't wink

graeme's picture

graeme

image

There is no such thing as nothing. The word is a human construct. We cannot even imagine a state of nothingness. All science and reason can only be based on our capacity for perception - with is pretty limited.

That's why I pay no attention to people who offer me reasons that God exists - or doesn't exist.

Alex's picture

Alex

image

Tyson wrote:

chansen wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

Easy.  You just declare that God was always there.

 

That be true. However, I am also interested in the scientific explanation. If the universe was puked out by a black hole, where did the black hole come from? If the universe just popped into existence out of nothing, where did it all come from?

 

Some have suggested that certain types of black holes become so dense and small that they become nothing.  negative and positive energy combines  to cancel each other out, also  that it becomes so dense that there is no space, so the black hole becomes nothing (in the mathematical sense).

 

However Hawking presupposes that the Universe only has those three qualities, energy, negative energy, and space. If it does, than you understand how mathematically something becomes 0. as in x -x = 0

 

Some say that once a black hole explodes, it creates a new universe.

Alex's picture

Alex

image

Also suppose a black hole could became so massive that it's gravitational pull would force anti energy, and energy to not only cancel each other out, but to eliminate space. This would mean that the black hole would not only become nothing, but that being nothing it would go from having a massive gravity to having no gravity at all, being that it would have no mass, and no space. ( along with having no Other properties like time or attributes like laws of nature. ) now imagine a sling shot. All that mass and all the space, loosing it's gravitational pull in an instance, would allow it to real release everything inside of it at once. Boom, you have in essence a big bang. Nothing becomes, everything, however the nothingness was created by a bock hole. So while nothing created the universe. Nothing itself was created by a black hole that existed in another universe.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

I think I read somewhere that it's been observed that black holes have been observed to stop "eating" when they reach a certain mass. Not sure though.

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

If god was everything, or nothing, how -- from our point of view -- would we tell the difference?

blackbelt's picture

blackbelt

image

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

they do?

explain please 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Creationists (and many other Christians - including me) propose the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" - creation out of nothing. In other words, there was nothing and then there was something. The belief in an eternal God in essence puts God into that "place" (for lack of a better word) proposed by Hawking in which there exists neither time nor space (ie, eternity - which I would argue is a dimension or state of existence in which there is not so much no time as all time, but that's another discussion.) In other words, it isn't so much that there's "nothing" -  but that there's nothing which we would be even remotely able to comprehend. From the one episode I watched a part of I remember Hawking saying something like "this early universe (ie, the one that existed "before" the big bang) would have been an extremely strange place." Based on what I've heard about the series (and the little bit I saw) I don't really have too many arguments with Hawking, except that I believe God existed in that time before time and in that space before space.

giastorm's picture

giastorm

image

Funny ... I was talking about this subject this weekend with a religious studies professor.

 

I have always had trouble with a linear understanding of time, thus Hawking's cosmological views have sat well with me. We measure time to understand time: we respond to the human construct of time. In the same vein, Westerners tend to believe in dualities (beginning and end, pain and pleasure, dark and light) because that is what we were taught, and the frameworks instituted.

 

It doesn't mean these dualities exist as dualities: it's our lens.

 

Alex's picture

Alex

image

waterfall wrote:

I think I read somewhere that it's been observed that black holes have been observed to stop "eating" when they reach a certain mass. Not sure though.

 

That's very possible, but not all black whole are the same, nor are they in the same region of space.  Likely a black hole to collapse to nothing it would have to be both, the right type, and in the right context.

 

 

 

 

 

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

Oui,

 

fun fun fun :3  Thanks for the thread.  Here are some of my musings.

 

I put on my scientific hat

Simple conclusion:  Poppycock.

Slightly-less simple conclusion:  Unscientific poppycock.

More detailed explanation:  The video is based on the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow.  To make their claims where and how universe came aboot, they have to get two very different scientific theories which are very good at explaining what they explain, Quantum Mechanics & Relativity, to do the currently impossible:  agree with one another.  And how do the authors do this?  They do it with something called M-theory, which isn't science & isn't even a theory -- it is ideational musings that I am amazed that 'serious' scientists are accepting (I guess you just can't get rid of faith without evidence).

Now remember, a scientific theory is not an opinion or a thesis; a scientific theory is something that represents MANY human years of precise empirical (empirical meaning here tested against reality) observation that include all the nuanced observations that came before, so it is a collective and collaborative effort that is self-correcting (built upon the mistakes of the past).

Every other scientific bit in the show that isn't the bits that come from M-theory is pretty standard stuff, like virtual particles & black holes & the big bang.


I put on my sociologist's hat

Psychological exploration:  Stephen Hawking is a known practical joker, a trickster.  He is also quite precise and rational.

So, something is going on with this latest book of his that doesn't fit with his previous books.

He should know that his way of looking at universe is governed by his philosophy...so I suspect something tricky here, like jazz, or a zen koan that he has given out to us all (so that maybe the collective us, which is more wise than the individual us, can figger something out).

I put on my philosopher's hat

The two main ways of knowing, art & science, find things out in different ways and to confuse the two results in misleading results and, I think, accounts for a lot of trouble and confusion in our current age.

Science finds/discovers facts.  Art (of which religion is an art) is a way of knowing through which we CREATE MEANING (and from meaning comes purpose and so forth).  To say that 'G_d created universe' is an artistic statement.
 

I put on my reviewer's hat

Overall, an enjoyable coffee table book, but not something I would take literally (or scientifically).
 

The videos I found quite dramatic and I so LOVE the beginning sequence -- the Hawking, that's how he rolls :3

If this was targeted to a US audience, that would explain the choice in narrator, remember they find the British to be quite exotic.

 

The many jump-cuts, animations (the animated letterings of 'energy', 'matter', reminded me of Harry Potter), aggressive sounds, sound-bites, etc serve to keep the 'plot' going forward.

 

Note, sadly it seems that the videos have been 'removed by the user'.  If others want to search for them, just google or go to youtube "curosity did god create the universe".  Everything is impermanent :3

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

Speculation

 

Ok, on the scale that Relativity works, everything is analog, things have extension in time and space & are continuous.

 

On the scale of Quantum Mechanics, everything is digital, things don't have extension in time & space.  Electrons aren't 'fixed points' but rather are point charges with probablities as to 'where' they are.

 

And according to this digital view, there are smallest measures of everything.  There is a smallest extension of space, called the Planck length, which is roughly 1.6 x 10^-35 m.  There is nothing that is 'smaller' than that because the question becomes meaningless.  The smallest unit of time, then, would be the same, but in seconds.

 

So, that means, on the scale of QM, our universe is TURNING ON AND OFF very rapidly.  And we don't notice it.

 

So, where is it when it isn't there?  There is something and then there is nothing and then there is something again?

 

To go further into speculation, what does it mean, then, to say the Earth exists?  Is there some kind of inner essence that carries across when the Earth blinks out then blinks back on again?  Is every Earth just a copy, the original having been 'destroyed' in the previous blink?  Is there some kind of 'bank' that stores the identity of the Earth between blinks?  But then that would mean that there IS something between blinks, violating the Planck scales...

 

I love brains :3

BetteTheRed's picture

BetteTheRed

image

Hawking's explanation of these theories (and they're not just his, by the way, in that there is widespread agreement by theoretical physicists of his work), is that the creation of matter auto-creates an equal amount of anti-matter in the form of black holes. 

 

Each black hole is 'nothing' in that there is no time. Where there is no time, there cannot be creation, because there cannot be cause and effect. But, at the same time, each black hole is the potential 'seed' for another continually expanding universe, which would also comprise an equal and opposite 'amount' of black hole.

 

It is, mathematically, the most elegant solution ever. The penultimate equilibrium - the net of matter and anti-matter must always be zero.

 

This is exactly what Christianity has to come to grips with, and make a case for its continued existence in light of.

 

*claps delightedly* Thanks for highlighting this, oui!!!!! To my fellow panentheistic posters, how do these theorems work with the 'Godde as Everything and Then Some" paradigm? Godde as the animating breath?

Witch's picture

Witch

image

blackbelt wrote:

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

they do?

explain please 

Creationists generally claim that God created the Universe... out of nothing

oui's picture

oui

image

Wow, thanks to everyone for such a great discussion!  Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Arminius.  I like the idea of 1 -1= 0, that is, positive energy in the form of matter minus negative energy in the form of space equals Nothing.  However, at the same time it is Everything.  This model seems more balanced to me, versus the one God model.

 

But what about sentience, awareness, love, fear.....?  I think quantum physics subtly hints that matter is sentient, not quite the same way we are, but to a different degree.  Buddhism also hints at this concept.  If elemental matter is sentient, then its not a huge stretch that sentience has evolved just as physical life has evolved.  

 

In that case, perhaps God IS Everything, literally ALL matter, energy & space; IS every atom everywhere.  That makes dirt as much God as us, and vice versa.  That's a humbling thought.  We are all one.  However, as Hawking insists the laws of Nature cannot be broken, God is also Nothing.

 

In my opinion, our concepts of God are so very obviously HUMAN, the Truth is perhaps the exact opposite.  Instead of one God, there are untold gazillions!

 

 

oui's picture

oui

image

Since the original video links don't work now, here are some new ones:

 

 

oui's picture

oui

image

Part 2

 

 

oui's picture

oui

image

Part 3

 

oui's picture

oui

image

Part 4

Tyson's picture

Tyson

image

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

they do?

explain please 

Creationists generally claim that God created the Universe... out of nothing

 

I meant from a scientific view.

Alex's picture

Alex

image

BetteTheRed wrote:

Hawking's explanation of these theories (and they're not just his, by the way, in that there is widespread agreement by theoretical physicists of his work), is that the creation of matter auto-creates an equal amount of anti-matter in the form of black holes. 

 

 

I thought he believed that negative energy, which is trapped in dark matter is every where in space, and that we can not see it. The only reason we know it exists is that we see it;s mass affecting gravitation.  I also thought they believed that dark holes contained both matter and dark matter

 

Are you saying that he and others believe that there are black holes are the only things that contain dark matter, and that dark holes are not observable directly?

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

We humans, with our analytically thinking minds, tend to conceptualise reality in terms of opposites. But the reality we conceptualise actually is non-dualistic: an inseparable whole in a state of synthesis. In a state of non-dualism or synthesis, opposites complement each other, necessitate each other, and, ultimately, are each other. A state of synthesis is a zero state, a nothing, but it is not an absolute nothing. It is the nothing that is everything, the zero that is infinity.

 

To me, this Nothing is God. IT is un-quantified or non-quantified energy that possesses the transcendental quality to quantify ITself into an orderly quantification, to subject that orderly quantification to chaos, and to transcend both order and chaos along a fine line between the two in a process called "evolution." We humans are an outcome of that process, but we also are and forever will be the nothing that is everything.

 

We call this awareness "enlightenment," and regard it as the end of seeking, but it really is a beginning. It is the end of the narcissistic and selfish concerns of the ego and the beginning of becoming a physical and biological manifestation of the eternal God.

 

 

The one eternal God,

Whom heav'n and earth adore;

For thus it was, is now,

And shall be evermore.

 

-from the hymn 'NOW THANK WE ALL OUR GOD!'

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Tyson wrote:

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

they do?

explain please 

Creationists generally claim that God created the Universe... out of nothing

 

I meant from a scientific view.

 

Current thinking is not that the Universe came from nothing. The problem is that there's no way fro us to tell what was "before" or what the universe "came from" because that would require us to have a perspective "out side" of our own universe, which is not possible for us, since we are part of the universe itself.

 

The problem is that we simply don't have language or even concepts adequate to deal with things "outside" the origin of the universe. You can't realistically refer to "before" the big bang, since time itself did not exist "before" that.

Tyson's picture

Tyson

image

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

Witch wrote:

blackbelt wrote:

Witch wrote:

Tyson wrote:

I'm still curious as to how something can come from nothing.

 

That's what Creationists propose.... why would that be a problem?

they do?

explain please 

Creationists generally claim that God created the Universe... out of nothing

 

I meant from a scientific view.

 

Current thinking is not that the Universe came from nothing. The problem is that there's no way fro us to tell what was "before" or what the universe "came from" because that would require us to have a perspective "out side" of our own universe, which is not possible for us, since we are part of the universe itself.

 

The problem is that we simply don't have language or even concepts adequate to deal with things "outside" the origin of the universe. You can't realistically refer to "before" the big bang, since time itself did not exist "before" that.

 

Thank you for the explanation, Witch

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe