Please, Help Me Understand,How Does Somethng come from Nothing.

by Blueblades 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Ian

  But someone will say that God put the spark there that started all Creation.

  Which is why I phrased what I said the way I did. I can't 'prove' abiogenesis as being mechanistic, although I think it was. However, I do believe that divine intervention was not neccesary for life, once present, to develop as the prehistorical record indicates.

  Questions Dominic asks are typical of what we've all asked: "If there is a God why does he allow so much suffering?"

  Because the idea of god as a big skyman who kisses it all better is silly and primative, even though it might comfort some.

  "Why doesn't he prove he is there?"

  Because 'god' is abstract, and exists in our minds, and we are part of it. There is no way to prove it, nor is there a personality in 'god' to conceive the neccesity of proving itself.

  "Why do we have to die?", etc.

  We question this because we have been lied to. Everything ends. Only religious superstition makes us wonder why, combined with the fact we CAN wonder why.

  The whole aspect of the Universe and life is absolutely fascinating. What reason(s) for its existence?
• 

  DannyBloem

  Re: Please, Help Me Understand,How Does Somethng come from Nothing.

  This whole concept of what started the big bang, will probably always be a mystery. We probably have to accept that on some question we will never been able to find an answer. I think this is one of those questions (regarding the origin of the big bang). this does not in any way show that there must be a God though. The question can equally be applied to God. "What caused God to exists?" And the answer "he always existed, he is eternal", causes the same kind of unanswerable questions. If we look inside the universe then what we think of as action, cause and results are very subjective. We look to those in our dayly live and think there are an absolute truth. Quantum mechanics has however given an much more different view on action, cause and results. In ways that sometimes contadicts with all logic as we know it. Then yes, someting can happen without cause, and something can come into existance without cause. How? this is the way nature works. Why. I do not know. When talking about life, it did not came from nothing. It came from something different, and that is an alltogether different question. DB
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  The point that I made is logically valid as well- an eternal being could not have "come from" "nothing"

  yes, if you accept the premise that he exists, and that the bible is his word, without question.
• 

  Country_Woman

  that is something like : what came first, the chicken or the egg ?

  no answer is ever provided
• 

  gaiagirl

  Basically, science has shown that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. Think of matter as "condensed" energy. The universe has always had either energy, or energy plus matter. There has never been a time when the universe contained "nothing", and probably no time when it contained only matter. The universe has "evolved" over time, as the balance of energy and matter changed, energy first becoming one type of matter, then another, then another, each step building on the previous step to form more complex types of matter. As to where it is going, science would say "toward more complex forms".
• 

  DannyBloem

  that is something like : what came first, the chicken or the egg ?

  no answer is ever provided

  Actually the answer is quite simple: the egg.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hi country woman,

  he he, yes this is a question that i started thinking about for fun when i started learning a little biology.

  i see it like this: the egg came first. in an abstracted sense, the first chicken egg (dna and morphology) was actually the slightly mutated offspring of a proto-chicken.

  so the proto-chicken came before the chicken egg. but technically, cladistically, the egg came first since the proto-chicken was not a true chicken, in the terms that a biologist would define it as being the same species.

  then again, even this is not true, because evolution occurs among populations, not individuals, right? so, somewhere in the history of the modern chicken, a group of it ancestors became gentically (and probably physically) separated from their ancestors and cousins, and they became the first chickens.

  so again, i have not even answered the question, based on my understanding. hee hee, sorry. but i think it illustrates well how there is no such thing, technically, in nature, as macro-evolution. in the scientific sense, there IS indeed such a thing, because science needs the abstraction of "species" for research and organizational purposes. but to actually pinpoint the exact place in the tree of life where one species becomes a different/similar one, is a moot question since everything is in a constant state of evolution. there is no such thing as a true chicken, except what we call a true chicken right now, in 2006. of course this means nothing in nature. some proto-chicken way back, was technically a "real chicken" at that point in time.

  hmmm... wonder if i am making sense now? lol

  cheers,

  TS
• 

  Kaput

  hmmm... wonder if i am making sense now?

  a few more of these and you will be.
• 

  Tuesday

  Isn't there some sort of expiriment in the 60's that showed with just light a single molecule could turn into an amino acid? Evolutionists can site the exact expiriment.
• 

  Satanus

  Along the lines of what gaiagirl said, only i would not say that there was always energy in the energy form. I would call it latent or potential energy. In that form, it was inert. However, the slightest internal disturbance caused it to release some of that. Next, comes the question, what caused or was the disturbance. Possibly random chance disturbed it's isotropy.

  S