Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really think "nothing" makes more sense than a creator (of some sort)? Seriously?
A lot of scientific discoveries have been made that don't "make sense" to typical human experience - especially after the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Matter spontaneously coming into existence and going out of existence is one of them. That is happening everywhere all of the time.
In fact, I don't think it is even known whether there is a distinction between something and nothing. These are relative concepts that are constructs of our minds. From a scientific standpoint, nothing cannot be shown to exist anywhere, because even empty space is literally made up of matter.
As with thunder, the Black Plague, the coming of summer and winter and UV-induced cancer, it's likely that some day we will indeed know the natural cause.
Why can't a creator be the source of the natural cause? Why do you reject that?
That's just another way of asking what came "before" the BB -- which, as I've already indicated, can readily be "there IS no before". The BB may well be birthed from another part of the multiverse, and/or is simply cyclic.
Another aspect of this is that you are reflexively demanding an answer, whether or not a definitive and justified one can be produced, which will lead back to your declaration that there "must" be "something". The real situation is that there "may or may not" be "something" but rather than engage in sheer speculation we seek actual data that will tell us whether there is something and if so, what it is. We all must learn to accept and sit with uncertainty where it actually exists. Otherwise you end up making up things (or borrowing other people's speculative ideas) to fill gaps.
IMO, a creator makes sense. "Nothing" is illogical. Not sure why you reject the idea of a creator. Did you have a bad experience with religion?
Again. Who created the creator if "everything has a source"? There is no thing as a anti religion bias. There is only a religious bias. YOu saying that the universe sparking out of nothing just highlights your lack of knowledge of science. There are theories that point to answers of what created the universe and if the universe even needs a creator that are above your head. To compensate for this your plug in "God" and "religion" to fill in the blanks.
Perhaps the idea of a creator is "above your head".
A lot of scientific discoveries have been made that don't "make sense" to typical human experience - especially after the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Matter spontaneously coming into existence and going out of existence is one of them. That is happening everywhere all of the time.
In fact, I don't think it is even known whether there is a distinction between something and nothing. These are relative concepts that are constructs of our minds. From a scientific standpoint, nothing cannot be shown to exist anywhere, because even empty space is literally made up of matter.
I have no problem with the idea of "nothing", but nothing can't start something.
The same place eternal matter came from. Perhaps our creator (eternal matter) exists outside of time.
*What god are you speaking of?
The same place eternal matter came from...what do you mean by eternal matter?
I am speaking of any God, any "intelligent designer", including your semantic version, "creator."
What is "eternal matter"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.