| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Nothing and the Big Bang | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Nothing and the Big Bang |
| Posted By: Pachomius Posted On: Feb 20, 2011 Views: 1011 | Nothing and the Big Bang In your article "Where deos the universe come from", you mention only once about "absolute nothing", then you absolutely forget to bring that phrase up again. From that point onward you spin and spin to weave a scenario where the universe has always existed -- in your scenario, no longer with absolute nothing as a starting point, but with many hypothetical things existing already, and one actual thing, yourself actually existing to talk about your idea. Why do you wriggle out of that phrase absolute nothing? In order to avoid the logical conclusion that if you start with absolute nothing, then you must stop there and disappear and never return anymore, except to tell your readers that if anyone starts any discourse whatever with that first premise, absolute nothing, then that is the last statement he makes and he will have to just evaporate into absolute nothingness. Coming now to your finding that the universe has always existed, you are aware that man has not always existed, of course. Then once man has started to exist and to delve into the origin of the universe, he came to the idea of the Big Bang as the beginning of the unverse outside which Big Bang man cannot see anything. But man though not seeing with his eye can still think with his brain, and come to the conclusion that although he cannot see a universe that has always existed (according to your speculation), it is indeed always existing, and that phase of the universe with the beginning in the Big Bang just happens to accessible to man's eye directly and also the greater part indirectly by instrumention and also by mathematical inference. Making a long discourse short, I will just say that if the universe has always existed even though only in that phase introduced at the point of the Big Bang it is accessible to man's eye directly and indirectly, yet by pure reasoning without even mathematics man can be certain that, what you say to be the universe that has always existed though not accessible directly or indirectl to man's eye, that phase of the universe is God all by Himself or with already the universe made by him 'beside' Himself, yet still in its non-accessible phase to man's eye, directly or indirectly. I think it is together reasonable to say that God has always existed as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning, and God is the medium and the containment shell of the universe he is creating all the time and in all the space (now in the phase introduced by God when God triggered the Big Bang. So, is there a distinction between God and the universe? Yes, of course, because God creates the universe by thinking the universe into existence, if and when he decides to stop and does stop thinking as to create the universe, then the universe will go out of existence. But God will still be around. Can God think Himself out of existence? Of course not, because that is the only thing God cannot do, and that is His essence, the necessary existence. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2011 Views: 1010 | RE: Nothing and the Big Bang I have to say I do not understand what your problem is. The article sets out to describe where the universe came from. I start with absolutely nothing, an infinite void, and take it from there. The entire article is of course hypothetical based on my thoughts. You seem to have a problem with this regarding "absolutely nothing" and that I move my argument forward from that starting point and don't go back to it again. I fail to see what is wrong with moving my argument forward, you, for some reason, think I should mention "absolutely nothing" a lot more? |