Infinity versus nothing

by Fisherman 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • anointed1

    Fisherman and smiddy,

    The concept that universe causing itself is no more difficult to understand. Today, with more advances in astro and particle physics we've come to realize it which immediately led to a wild search for verification. Thus physicists went out of their trodden ways seeking the so-called God particle while psychologists claimed they had located the God part of the brain. The idea was to enfold divinity in an empirical mould. But cosmologists are fairly certain now that the coming into being of the universe was due to something called a `vacuum fluctuation' because a void is not the same thing as no-thing. It teems with virtual particles that come in and go out of existence all the time. It teems with potential. It causes universes at will.

  • freddo

    I sometimes wonder if "life" has simply always been. Not an all powerful creator, but just life in some form. If there is/was an all powerful creator then I do not believe it has any interest in humans or other inhabitants on Earth beyond - at the very most - an observational, hands completely off interest.

    I certainly do not believe it wants to be worshipped and that it would reward those that do.

    If it did want to be worshipped in the jw way and would reward those that do in the jw way then I see little point for within a month, or a year or ten years or one hundred years or whenever I or more importantly a loved one would upset it or its "appointed representatives and get zapped.

    Over all I don't know and don't mind really. I'm content to take what I have and enjoy it and help my family and others along the way.

    Shrugs and reaches for an early morning coffee glad not to be dancing to the "must go on the Saturday morning "ministry"" (cart minding/not homes/no thank yous) tune.

  • Rainbow_Troll
    If something always existed then that something always had properties and drive. If nothing always existed then that nothing is really something.

    I am NOT a credentialed physicist, so take everything I am about to say with a big mountain of salt, but this is my take on it:

    'Nothing' is a very misleading word that I really wish physicists and cosmologists would stop using. What they really seem to be describing is not some ontological absence of anything at all, but a mathematical 'nothing' or zero. Despite what your teacher may have told you, zero is NOT nothing. In fact, zero is everything! Zero is the sum of infinity. If you add all the positive integers to all the negative ones what do you get? They cancel out to zero!

    As for your other questions? I'm clueless. Some physicists have speculated that the impetus and substance came from another universe, but that is just an ad hoc hypothesis that pushes the question back ad infinitum.

    To be honest, I'm one of those crackpots whose very skeptical of Big Bang cosmology. If the universe is expanding, I haven't seen it. All we have for it is the word of folks who get paid to come up with theories, form conjectures, and push numbers around all day. There are several rival theories, like Plasma Cosmology and Null Physics, which do their best to explain Hubble's Law in the context of either an eternal, beginingless cosmos or a much older one. When so many intelligent people disagree on this subject, it tells you how little evidence we truly have to go on.

  • The Searcher
    The Searcher

    "Some people like to believe in something, others believe in nothing."

    A straightforward choice for most people: God & eternal life, or Darwinism & eternal death after 70 years or so.

    Both demand an acceptance that something/s always existed.

  • Fisherman

    Smid and A1

    My point is that properties of the relationships between time, space, mass, energy inside an existing universe do not touch the OP.

  • Fisherman
    In fact, zero is everything! Zero is the sum of infinity. If you add all the positive integers to all the negative ones what do you get? They cancel out to zero!

    Enjoyed reading that!

  • anointed1


    I touched only your first two questions. Your third question (How did the substance that became the big bang change from being inert and sterile and come to life to having the properties and drive that it does?) only God can answer.

  • cofty
    only God can answer

    That's a non-answer. It's no different from the way our ancestors believed that thunder was caused by the gods.

    It's also the best you can hope for from a Brahma Kumaris apologist.

  • slimboyfat

    Saying there is no God isn't an answer either. Because even if you say there is no God, you still have the problem of why there is something rather than nothing. Why does anything exist at all? The very fact of existence is mysterious. Because if there is no greater intelligence, or being outside of being, then why should anything ever arise naturally from nothing? Or why has something always been? Excluding God from the picture doesn't solve that central problem or mystery.

  • anointed1

    I know that’s a “That's a non-answer.” I said so because we can only make an attempt on answer. We saw universe can cause itself endlessly. And at some point something immaterial has to start its operation! It is interesting to see some trying to explain consciousness in terms of the neural network of the brain, which may remind us about studying a radio but being unaware the power source, the battery, and coming to the conclusion that the wires generate the current which makes them function. Or It is like looking at the way the horse occasionally behave independently or disobediently, or stop, and ignoring the rider who is in control most of the time!

    It seems many things about the mind/consciousness will remain as a mystery! For mind is not meant to know its own make-up, it is a subject, and all other things—including the brain which are obviously the object of study by the mind! From where does the ingenuity of Mind come? Why it thinks the way it does, especially in terms of time and space? For example we have a sense of past and future! When I remember something, I explicitly reach out of the present to something that is explicitly past. In the same way weighing the matters carefully and wisely, I can calculate certain things into the future! Strictly speaking, the sense of the past cannot exist in a physical system. This is consistent with the fact that the physics of time does not allow for tenses: Einstein called the distinction between past, present and future a “stubbornly persistent illusion”.

    At what point immaterial entity comes into picture to make ‘inert and sterile bubble with life and the properties” may not be fully understand now. That is understandable. Yet, how far do we know what really happens within our own minds. Suppose you went to a shop in a commercial street in the evening, and are having a dream of it later in the night. And in the dream, you correctly read the name board of the shop you visited yesterday. However, name boards of the nearby shop you see in your dream may not match with reality! This means mind simply recalled what it could and completed the picture with imaginary details (which obviously means that mind is engaged in some creation work). Not only in dream, even in real life mind acts in the same manner. Try to remember a big gathering you attended in the past, and your mind would supply both truth and fabricated information—picture of some people around you in the gathering will be correct and others will be mind’s creation. Then there is another interesting situation. Someone passed a harmful gossip about another, and I passed it to another. Now unlike we always do, pause for a moment and ask “Why did I do that?” and listen for the answer. If you put your mind into real silence, it will tell you: “You passed that harmful information about Mr X because he did not support your ego sometime back.” From where did come this godly answer? Not from the mind which joyfully prompted you to pass the gossip in the first place. But it came from an immaterial part within me which resembles the Supreme Soul without.

Share this