Zak -
By cosmos I do mean universe. But the cosmos/universe can only exist in space/time, so yes we are talking about the origin of space and time.
I'm pleased to hear the question blew your mind, as this means you are perfectly normal . If your mind is not blown, then you really aren't thinking.
I think the thing to recognise is that while there is a problem with a "clockwork" universe starting from nothing, the same does not apply to the God concept.
The idea is that God stands outside space and time and so does not need something else to "kickstart" it.
Of course one could argue that all this matter and energy (the cosmos) started off from something outside space and time which we don't yet understnad, but it seems ot me that is simply another wya of saying "God" or the "Absolute" or something else.
David
I belive that there is a God. But saying that god came from nothing and is the "aboslute" i think is just a way for us as humans to explain somthing that would otherwise make your brians hurt so much that we would be forced to blow them out. Try to think about the world and its origins, then try to think about the solar system and it oragins, then think about the galaxie and its origins, then think about the universe and its origins, the think about space/time and its orgins (this particular question is the most difficult of all and the most mind blowing). Its alot easier for us to say that "God did it" then try to analyse it all and figure out how it accutally happened (if it did even happen)if we can even comprehend it all to even start to figure it out. The other day my math teacher brought up dimensions and she said you cant explain to a two dimensional creature (assuming that there are any) what a three dimensional world is like. Mabey this is the same to us with what is beyond space (we just cant comprehend it.)
both possibilities are just as likeley, although it is very tempting to rule out the possibility that the universe, all we know, came from absolutely nothing.
If we want to think from an astronomical point of view, we can see what we know of black holes. A black hole is a star that has grown so dense that gravity wins over matter and the star collapses into istelf and forms a singularity where matter is so super-concentrated, it barely occupies space (if any at all) and becomes a sort of light lens that bends space itself around it. (we know this because we can see what is spatially exactly behind a black hole because it bends the light from anything that's behind it around itself rather than blocking it from view). If we think of nothing and then envision a black hole in reverse (i.e. big bang or any other prevalent theory) it is concievable that something may indeed arise from nothing because it only existed as an undetectable pocket in space that ripped apart. It is also curious to point out that it has been proven that all matter plus all gravity is very near zero, which mathematically leaves the possibility that when all was one, all was nothing.
there are three possibilities as i see it.
1) we were created from nothing
2) we do not really exist
3) we have always existed
one: logically, something cannot come from nothing. i am using the term logically very loosely, and i hope it gets across that way.
two: this is for people who think they're philosophical. i don't know who said "i think therefore i am" but i agree.
three: this is the one i'm going to go with.
why did we have to be created? why did information have to start? i believe in evolution. evolution is a process like fractals, it just keeps getting more complicated and advanced the more it iterates.
haven't talked in a while. and i'm eating cocoa krispies!
Cocoa Krispies were invented in 1958 by the Kellogg company. They have not always existed.
Biological evolution as initially described by Darwin, also appears to have a beginning as it operates on biological life which has not always existed on this planet.
I agree with Heden, I really don't like #1 or #2, but #3 has it's drawbacks as well. I don't see a single natural precedent for any of the choices.
How could we have existed forever? Do you mean that there has allways been somthing, and never nothing? Sorry i am confused.
Heden -
I think you need to define "we" (do you mean human beings or "everything" - if humans then do you mena that we have always existed with our physical bodies intact?)
I think you need to define "have always". Do you mean for the whole run of time - or do you think that there is something beyond time?
I think you need to define what you mean by "existed". do you mean existed in the space-time continuum we understand or do you mean existed in some more fundamental sense?
David
I think that if God exsisted out of time then he would be dead, or as good as dead. If there was no time then nothing would dictate order to movements or actions, there would be nothing seperating actions. That would mean all actions would just happen, they would just exsist. If God created us then he has performed all his actions, we were created out of nothing because God has performed all his actions and therefore ceases in need to exsist and is nothing now. The universe appears out of nowhere and God ceases to exsist.
Forgive me if this is a little fragmented.You cannot have SOMETHING from NOTHING,not god or universe, IF (for the sake of my point) god existed what did he come from?
a supergod?
we can only work backwards so far then it all becomes so dense that the mind cannot cut through, and that becomes the only point we can start from.
Maybe im missing the point though.
Raymond -
I think you are missing this point:
God is supposed to be SELF-SUFFICIENT i.e. it is part of the religious concept of God that He/She/It doesn't need to be caused by anything.
Most orthodox scientists/materialists cannot offer an equivalent - that is they can;t work back to a self-sufficient original cause because that would put them fair and square in God territory. They have to avoid the question, simply by asserting either that the cosmos originated out of nothing (how?) or that in some other way the causal circle can be completed (e.g. ideas of an infinite causal chain, possibly in a repeating cycle).
Now, you may fairly object to the God concept but I think you have to admit it is not the same as the scientist's "original" cause which itseld must be caused.
DF
