SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (51409)6/3/1999 1:38:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Well, you don't exactly invite my unbiased perusal with "if you can stand it," but...

"Nothing can come from nothing."

This is presented as if it were self-evident. I don't believe it is necessarily true.

If we posit a time or space outside of or before that which we know, we have simply pushed back the first cause. Sooner or later, we would almost certainly have to get back to a point where there was nothing, into which something came. That something is no more nor less likely to be the universe than it is to be God. If the statement is true, if it is indeed impossible for something to arise from nothing, it still does not convey anything about the possible existence of a creator. If anything, this statement being true would tend to imply that the universe itself is infinite and eternal, and thus without need of a creator.

"The Big Bang Theory points to a discrete moment when the universe began existence."

Actually, it only points to a discrete moment when our universe began existence. The theory also hinges on the ideas of conservation of mass and of energy, and of expansion and contraction. The current theory seems to be that once our current universe has reached the limits of its expansion, it will begin to contract until it is a single mass of matter. However, that single mass will contain all of the matter and all of the energy that has ever existed in our universe. The resultant stresses will be too great and there will be another "Big Bang," resulting in a new universe-- a universe composed of the matter and energy in our own universe, but reordered. Therefore the matter and energy is eternal, regardless of the duration of its arrangement into the universe that we know.

I don't necessarily buy this theory either, but I see it as no less compelling than any other.

"...that which has eternal existence outside of time and space we call "God"..."

This is semantics, not proof. This statement is really where the argument breaks down. Personally, I call "that which has eternal existence outside of time and space" void. But the belief that there indeed is something outside of time and space is just that, a belief. As I've expressed already, we don't know whether the universe that we inhabit is indeed infinite and eternal, or in some manner contained. If it is indeed eternal and infinite, then there is nothing outside of it, there is no beginning as we understand it and thus no need for a creator. If it is not eternal and infinite, and there is indeed something outside of our universe, there is no particular reason to consider that something to be God. It could just as easily be (with a nod to Stephen Hawking) typewriters.

Hanging a name on the unknown does not make it known.

The rest of the post hinges on these assumptions. So long as they remain assumptions, I will continue to withhold judgment.

But thank you for the exercise. I do appreciate the interest that it expresses.

-BLT