Ask Me Help Desk - Nothing from nothing is nothing

Nothing from nothing is nothing

Question for atheists but all are invited to join the discussion, especially Lobster mobster.

I don't want you to think I'm tricking you or anything. This is a serious question and one of the questions, the answer to which, helped me become Christian.

Now, Lob seems to like logic. And logically speaking, nothing from nothing is nothing. If there were no God where did everything come from? As I see it, nothing from nothing is nothing. If we had nothing before anything then we should have nothing now.

Sincerely,

Where did god come from? Nothing from nothing is nothing remember and as far as I'm concerned if god was to exist (which I am convinced he doesnt) then where did he come from. He had to come from something too as far as my logic works.

Your logic doesn't work as far as I'm concerned.

Im sure some other atheists who are better versed than me at arguing their point will come along and give you even better reasons. Nice try though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

Where did god come from?

God was always here. And always will be. That is the point.

Quote:

Nothing from nothing is nothing remember and as far as I'm concerned if god was to exist (which I am convinced he doesnt) then where did he come from. He had to come from something too as far as my logic works.

And there your logic fails. Because nothing can come from nothing. To put it differently, in order to have something today, you must have something then. And that something must be eternal, with no beginning because if nothing was first, there could be nothing after. That is an absolute.

So, something can come from something, but something can't come from nothing. It is impossible.

Quote:

Your logic doesn't work as far as I'm concerned.

Im sure some other atheists who are better versed than me at arguing their point will come along and give you even better reasons. Nice try though!

Well, I hope they post. Lalala lala la la. Still waiting.

Sincerely,

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Well, I hope they post. Lalala lala la la. Still waiting.

Sincerely,
De Maria

If you post it, they will come! :)

Because I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who seeks the truth deserves nothing, I have joined the Zeroastrianism religion, a religion that has nothing at its core. It involves the worship of the God Zeroaster, whom we believe never existed. Our motto, “Not seeing is believing.” It is our ultimate goal to achieve nothing. We make no effort to violate our one commandment, “Thou shall not.”

We do however believe that nothingness can be attained by:

Listening to bowling on the radio
Getting a government job
Picnicking on the lawn of the Embassy of Atlantis in Washington D.C.
Watching FOX News

Absolutely all Nothingness to you and yours and remember, there is no place like OM.

To assume that a state of nothingness ever existed is faulty. If it were so, how long was it that way? Could it be measured in time? Of course not. If there were no beginning of the nothingness, how then could it have been?

If God did create all matter, did God create an end to the nothingness that never had a beginning and therefore can not be? It would be impossible to end something that never was.

When then did God first get credit for this action? When was the first awareness of God? Only after the appearance of higher animals. In fact, man. What gives man the knowledge of this God? That which is in the mind of man. Why did this belief form of God? To explain the creation of all things or the beginning of matter for which there is no logical need for because there could never have been a state of nothingness which has no beginning.

What then accounts for matter that does exist? Consider E=MC(squared) for which Einstein's logic shows how energy and matter are different forms of the same thing. Energy could have therefore changed to matter. With this in mind, it is easier to view God as a "powerful" creator that is ever present within all people and places, as well as providing reasonable insights into positive and negative forms of energy equating to good and evil that compell one in different directions. Further examination of this pushes one toward an awareness of an afterlife such as when the soul of a person leaves the body upon death since we also know that energy is not destroyed. The energy or soul within only leaves the body to return to the whole of what some refer to as heaven or hell depending on positive or negative energies stored within the being.

In the religion of Zeroastrianism, we perfer to think of it as 0=00 (circled). That is purely Oinstein's logic. Since we have never seen Oinstein, we believe that he, like Zeroaster, never existed. Since 0 and 0 are nothing, we believe that they are the same form of nothing or, nothing nothing. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that nothing squared is in fact not square at all but 0. Our Messiah, The Lord Billy Preston, said it best: "Nothin from nothin leaves nothin, ya gotta have nothin, if ya wanna be with me." Book of Zeroaster. Page 000000 Chapter 000 Verse 0000000000000000000

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

God was always here. And always will be. That is the point.

Close but way off. :) Actually the singularity that started the big bang had always been there. Now we have this wonderful expanding universe.

Next question?

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal? This is the flaw in your argument.

If there was a GodAlmighty, then there never was "nothing".

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal? This is the flaw in your argument.

My point! Thanks Cap. I knew you'd be able to simplify. I bet its still hard for some to comprehend though! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

If there was a GodAlmighty, then there never was "nothing".

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.

Exactly! A similar comment I was formulating as reading this post.

We will all each find out the real story once we pass on to wherever, and certainly all will when the Sun runs out of fuel.

Not sure where the nothingness concept came from. Scientists theorize there was a small, albeit, powerful, speck of matter, that expanded to what we see today.

Seems to them the universe is expanding still, what with the observations and measurements that confirm this fact. However, please note that scientists still call it the Big Bang "Theory", as the facts they seek for the beginning are still unreachable, and possibly unfathomable.

Perhaps there is some sort of natural cycle, expanding and contracting energy and matter. Who really knows?

One observation is that scientists offer only theories, as the facts or proof are so impossible to produce. Why are the religious so sure of their concept?

No one really knows for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.

Well, another correct answer that is actually better because it's easier to support is "I don't know", but that's a minor point. It does seem like a perfectly good answer to me. Why do you think so many people are unsatisfied with it?

Man's quest for answers does not rest with I don't know. Trying to solve the questions and arrive at some conclusion, making sense of the universe, appears to give man purpose.

Chasing after another paradox like, “which came first, the chicken or the egg” uh, DM. Of course one had to come first, but which one?:p

Egg first

The first chicken hatched from an egg as a mutation or diversification from some other species, otherwise it would not have been a chicken, but some other closely related animal.

Think about it... if a tiger and a lion mate, the offspring is not a lion and it is not a tiger.

Everything is expanding, hummmm, so I can say I am not reallly getting fat, it is only the universe expanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

everything is expanding, hummmm, so I can say I am not reallly getting fat, it is only the universe expanding.

How come clothes don't seem to expand at the same rate? Not enough elastic??

So, I see we all agree on nothing. I knew you would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Close but way off. :) Actually the singularity that started the big bang had always been there. Now we have this wonderful expanding universe.

You just proved my point. Something had to always be here.

Sincerely,
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal?

Because nothing else is God. Anything which is eternal is God. In Christianity we believe that there are three Divine Persons who are eternal and therefore God. But that is besides the point on this question.

Quote:

This is the flaw in your argument.

Nope. You haven't even addressed the argument. The argument is that nothing can come of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something had to be there from all eternity.

Sincerely,

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

To assume that a state of nothingness ever existed is faulty.

Beautiful! Because if nothingness ever existed in the past, then nothing could be today.

Sincerely,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkrussell

Exactly! A similar comment I was formulating as reading this post.

We will all each find out the real story once we pass on to wherever, and certainly all will when the Sun runs out of fuel.

Not sure where the nothingness concept came from. Scientists theorize there was a small, albeit, powerful, speck of matter, that expanded to what we see today.

It's the theory I've heard since I was a child:

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.....
Big Bang Theory

Quote:

Seems to them the universe is expanding still, what with the observations and measurements that confirm this fact. However, please note that scientists still call it the Big Bang "Theory", as the facts they seek for the beginning are still unreachable, and possibly unfathomable.

Perhaps there is some sort of natural cycle, expanding and contracting energy and matter. Who really knows?

One observation is that scientists offer only theories, as the facts or proof are so impossible to produce. Why are the religious so sure of their concept?

No one really knows for sure.

That all seems besides the point. The point is that science points to a time of nothingess. If that ever were true, nothingness would still be the case.

Sincerely,

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Exactly. Perhaps even a better definition of "nothing" is what is between the ears of the people who must relentlessly argue this garbage!

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

And logically speaking, nothing from nothing is nothing.

And mathematically speaking, zero minus zero equals zero.

These are good examples of a whole class of statements that are "true" in a mathematical and logical sense, but have no actual meaning or significance outside that context. They certainly have no bearing on the question of whether the universe had a beginning, what might have existed before that, or why it exists at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

The argument is that nothing can come of nothing.

It's not an argument, it's an assertion which is devoid of meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

It's "The Seinfeld Thread"!

What time is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by magprob

What time is it?

If you are at your computer then you can see the time at the bottom right of your screen.

Actually--COULD nothing have ever existed?

Isn't everything either energy or mass?

Forgive me if I don't have the scientific information right, but that's what I thought.

So... if there was nothing before our universe (no mass, I mean) wouldn't that mean there had been energy?

So... let the Christians call energy "God". I certainly don't care.

That's my assertion synnen (although energy is certainly something and not nothing). But I'm not sure how many Christians would be happy with god being unintelligent and bound by the laws of physics, as energy is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capuchin

That's my assertion synnen (although energy is certainly something and not nothing). But I'm not sure how many Christians would be happy with god being unintelligent and bound by the laws of physics, as energy is.

I am in the same belief boat with you, and trying to reason out if energy and matter are all tnere is, and people are a combination of energy and matter, is it the energy or the matter that enable the thought process? That thought process is what allows for an acknowledgement of some power. If both energy and matter are involved in thought, is thought then limited to the laws of physics as well?

The process certainly could be, where as the outcome not. Thus the God who is not bound by any laws is created through a process that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

If we had nothing before anything then we should have nothing now.

Hello De Maria:

Makes sense - if there was nothing. But we had something. It was called the singularity.

excon

I'm with you De Maria. God is not contained by matter. If there was ever a time when there was nothing, then something "out side" of matter had to create the mater that we have.

Matter and energy are interchangeable... Einstein's E=MC squared.

If there was always a god, then there was never a time when there was "NOTHING".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

Exactly. Perhaps even a better definition of "nothing" is what is between the ears of the people who must relentlessly argue this garbage!

Sour grapes anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello De Maria:

Makes sense - if there was nothing. But we had something. It was called the singularity.

excon

That's not what these guys say:
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.....
Big Bang Theory

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air

Nah. Just from one guy in Ohio.

Quote:

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Again, just the messages from one guy in Ohio.

De Maria do you have the knowledge to respond appropriately to any of the posts I made other than the one where I asserted the stupidity and lack of substance related to any real debate related to the thoughts and opiniond of others, or is all your knowledge about nothing? I was intending no personal attacks toward anyone when I posted that comment, but rather felt that it was a comment on people making a lot of blind assertions, without addressing the points made by others.
If you must single me out for your personal attacks, it would seem that you must disagree? Can you show me anywhere in the posts where my logic was addressed by anyone prior to my post which you seem to have taken aim at? Or is it the case that you choose to dismiss logical thought that does not fit into you schema? Surely you must agree with me in part, because it would seem that you would have gotten "a lot of laughs" out of your last post. If you are unable to debate logic, attack the presenter personally. It does little to support your assertions, but if it makes you feel better, I suppose that is what your God would have you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

De Maria do you have the knowledge to respond appropriately to any of the posts I made other than the one where I asserted the stupidity and lack of substance related to any real debate related to the thoughts and opiniond of others, or is all your knowledge about nothing?.

Sorry. I took this as an insult:

Quote:

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

I actually liked your first post on this thread (#6).

Sincerely,

Nothing will give you piece of mind?