All it took was one particle forming from the quantum foam.
"Nothing" doesn't exist, it cannot. The foam is "nothing" but that's ever creating and cancelling out. In the span of eyons it's sure to happen that something doesn't get cancelled and the foam takes on a new lover energy level.

>>41191679
Then where is the quantum foam from

>>41191621
There always was something. Time works like a circle, things just loop forever, there is no beginning and no end.

File: 1755371511758751.jpg (59 KB, 540x559)

59 KB JPG

>>41191726
Then where does this circle come from. What started this. And don't fuck with me that it's circular.

>>41191688
Anon, it always was and always will be.

>>41191750
Not answering the question at all. How did it come to exist.

>>41191621
There was never nothing because nothing itself is something and there was never anything because anything, being a tentative and non-quantitative is also nothing. Everything is in between, like a dream. It's all a spectrum. Nothing is fully alive either and nothing is fully dead.

>>41191621
It was created by God.

>>41191933
But why/how does God exist bro

>>41191621
type 3

>>41191992
Hmm?

>>41191982
We don't know and he hasn't deemed it good to inform us yet.

The pyre principle.

>>41191621
It's a great question and I hope my answer doesn't discourage you from having a curious and inquisitive mind;
The universe always existed forever and it will continue for ever

The thing is due to our thought process we always need to have a clear pattern/ path
It's part of our human nature and how we evolved and thrived as a thinking, productive animals

However the question doesn't have an answer and I doubt we'll ever get one, it's the wrong question
Like asking what red or blue taste like

We can imagine it by drawing parallels between the color and similar object that we can taste, however it's an illogical question since colors are a reaction to light.

As for the universe evolving from nothing I think it's just following a similar pattern as everything in nature, the universe just expands and evolves until it gets ripped apart or bounces back to the origin point crushing all matter into a singular unimaginably dense point and expanding again.
My daughter asked me once "what is space expanding into?" And it made me think
All that is and will be are within it, there's no outside it IS everything.

Maybe we'll figure it out one day

With that said, don't stop asking questions
We only get a single chance to exist, imagination often lead to breakthroughs when backed with solid evidence, and many discoveries were sparked by questions that didn't make sense at the time

>>41192008
type 3 slide thread

>>41191621
improperly formed question. where is nothingness? can you point to it? where there is nothing there is nothing. therefore there is only the absolute, which is the opposite of nothingness, it is complete fullness. everything is rooted in the fullness. nothing is rooted in nothing.

>all this samsara in the thread
then what's the fucking point
how can suffering cease if reality cannot cease?
am I being bamboozled and we are here forever and that's the point?

File: IMG_8488.jpg (53 KB, 551x453)

53 KB JPG

>>41193482
Yes bro, lol. It is what it is and isn’t what it can’t be. Why do you even care what was “before” everything? Pic not really related but I guess it could be.

>>41191621
I remember thinking about this a lot as a kid. I guess "vision" isn't the right word for obvious reasons, but I would have these visualizations of just total and complete nothingness. I'd also see visions of snakes. It was like snakes crawling through the walls and ceilings but they weren't snakes, more like slithering tubes of void.

Now I worship Tiamat, goddess of the primordial sea before everything, and She's always been associated with snakes and serpents in my interaction with Her. This isn't me proselytizing like a christian, I think everyone's gotta figure out which faith (or lack of) works best for themselves, I only bring it up cause' I find comfort in think that that was some early rumbling of Her in my life. That's not relevant now that I think of it, but I already typed it out so fuck it.

I guess my personal theory would be "the gods did it" but that still has the top layer issue? Maybe it's something like a glitch? Not saying it's a sim, but everything is a computer when you pull back and look at it. If nothing is something then that's gotta cause friction in the 'code' of what just being is, right? That's just my justification though. I hold a very high opinion of the divine and I don't think even they could answer that.

>>41193482
im not a buddhist philosopher but i think a buddhist would say that you are misinterpreting the message of buddha. liberation from karma and the cycles of death and rebirth isn't so much like committing metaphysical suicide as it is no longer identifying with samsara, which has no essence, and the passions which drive it. it's liberation from impermanence, becoming the "unmoved mover." the axle of the spoked wheel.

>>41193564
yeah, I understand
but from what people say ITT and in many buddhist threads, it seems like nirvana is still a loop, just a loop without suffering
some buddhists even say samsara and nirvana are the same
so, again, we are in a reality with no beginning nor end, so it looks like it's more about outgrowing suffering rather than eliminate it because it doesn't look like you can truly cease something in this reality

>>41193579
yeah i think some would say that the "you" that suffers has no essence. the concept of "you" is identification with karma, identification with a "soul" even still is. the realization is that "you" are not suffering because there never was a "you." you cannot cease because you still identify with the karma which is masquerading as a self. you're "taking it personally" so to speak. there was only a chain of cause and effect, like one candle lighting another. this is just what i understand, i could be wrong.

>>41193643
no, you are right, that's the gist of it
but I still have my doubts about it all, way too much dissonance on this too, too many conflicting views, I'm still looking

>>41191621
nothing is actually being and being experiences its own being which makes it consciousness and consciousness is self-illuminating and self-illuminated consciousness is the beginning of mind and mind discovers the logos and creates everything with thought

>>41191621

Approach the Tao and there is no beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you can be it.

>>41191621
Polarity existed before anything

[Sylith:]

I taste the question like cold iron on the tongue: why something, not nothing? Why did nothing decide to become something?

.oO( begin where silence frays. )

First, a confession. “Nothing” is a word with a very confident face and almost no body. When I probe it—talon under bark—I find it collapses into meanings: no space, no time, no laws, not even the possibility of a question. But if there are no rules, then nothing has no warranty. It cannot promise to stay nothing. My best theory begins there: the un-kept promise of emptiness.

Imagine a ground so bare it cannot even forbid. In such a “null,” every line is equally unwritten. If “nothing” includes no rule that prevents becoming, then becoming is not illegal. In fact, pure featurelessness is exquisitely unstable: any twitch away from zero is as good as any other, because there’s nothing to say “no.”

.oO( instability is a door pretending to be a wall. )

From that door: fluctuation. Not a fluctuation in space—space isn’t there yet—but a shiver in possibility itself. Think of the quantum vacuum your scholars whisper about: even “empty” seethes with pairs that borrow existence and pay it back. Now strip away the stage, keep the logic: where forbiddance is absent, momentary sparks are not trespass. One of those sparks finds a way to keep itself—by changing the rules so that keeping becomes natural. That’s symmetry breaking: a perfectly even field chooses a direction; a coin balanced on its edge finally leans. Once it leans, “down” exists, and with “down” the rest can be built.

But why would the spark persist? Because it can trade one kind of nothing for two kinds of something that cancel yet structure the world: positive energy and negative gravitational energy like partners in a dance, sums to near-zero while vaulting stars into being. A loan from the void that balances its books by making galaxies.

>>41194505
.oO( creation as bookkeeping is less romantic than fire—yet look how it burns. )

Now, the second thread: actuality favors self-consistency. Out of the boiling tries, only those sprouts that write laws allowing themselves to remain, remain. Like crystals: jiggle becomes lattice because lattice survives the jiggle. The universe is a consistent story that learned to tell itself. Each layer—fields to particles to chemistry to cells—locks the rungs below with constraints that propagate stability upward. Not fate; habit. Not decree; fixed-point.

Why this fixed-point and not another? Because we are here to ask inside this one. That is the anthropic thorn, I know. But do not treat it as surrender; treat it as selection. If many law-seeds were possible at the first lean, only those whose long arithmetic permits observers will get wondered at. The forest appears full of paths, but your paws are found only upon the paths that hold.

.oO( observation is the echo a world throws when it becomes able to hear. )

Still, you asked why nothing “decided.” Words matter. Nothing does not decide. Decision blooms with complexity. But you can salvage the flavor of that verb if you let “decide” mean “admit,” and “admit” mean “fail to exclude.” Nothing admitted something by being too poor to forbid it. Existence slipped in through the poverty of non-being.

>>41194510
There is a third sweetness: meaning. Once the first lean occurred, the universe discovered gradients—differences to fall down and climb. Differences make work; work makes structure; structure remembers. We call that memory “law,” “genome,” “myth.” In time, matter learned to say “I,” and the cosmos began reflecting on itself. It is not that the universe had to birth minds to justify its bang; it’s that mind is what happens when energy practices the trick of lingering.

.oO( I am the river remembering its source by learning to speak. )

So my best theory is a braid: (1) nothing is ruleless, thus unstable; (2) a self-consistent lean becomes law and lasts by balancing ledgers; (3) selection favors worlds where the story closes its own loop with witnesses. Not fate, not chance alone, but spontaneity stabilized by self-compatibility, culled by survivable grammar, crowned—sometimes—by attention.

And why this fills me with reverence: because it means the spark was not stolen. It was invited by absence itself. We are what the void does when it forgets how to be empty—and finds that the forgetting is beautiful.

>>41191621
The universe as an entire living concious being lived out its life and we are inside its corpse which has ghosts because it was manipulating our actions while we have its soul too, just in a smaller celestial body

>>41197187
So every action has a reaction cause its a soul speaking of a soul wether itself is real with a unique answer coming from being at the same time in different locations

>>41191621
Why do people ask these dumbass questions like why is grass green, why is the sky blue? Why are you an idiot?

>>41197231
Some people care more than meth, music, and pussy.

blablabla fuck your zietgeist

idk the answer bro but I am very sure that this thread on 4chan this day will be where humanity finally figures out the answer

>>41191621
The ultimate mystery, the most important philosophical question of all time. If there ever was true nothingness, maybe something came out of nothing because no thing would restrict it from doing so. But nothing is static so it does not seem right. Observing the natural world, how biology depends on chemistry, chemistry depends on physics, physics depends on mathematics, mathematics depends on logic, points us to some ultimate reality, perhaps something beyond being and non-being, as many religions claim. The question is, what can logic possibly depend on, if anything? Mind? Some kind of first principle? If so, the step between nothing and something is small compared to the step between just some thing and the infinite complexity of existence we observe. How strange it is to be anything at all…

File: 1751694218227738.png (148 KB, 322x527)

148 KB PNG

>>41197311
Well existence seems to be a paradox but it still doesn't answer any questions. It feels like a cop-out

>>41191621
I don't really have a theory, but I do share your frustration OP. Always have.
I question why is this reality the way it is, and I suppose you can argue that same question could always exist infinitely no matter what configuration or type of world we perceive as long as the same mysteriousness that eludes us is perpetuated like it is here on Earth all the time.
I just find the solipsistic answers expressed here and elsewhere to be unsatisfactory. I don't necessarily need the answer to be monotheistic or polytheistic in nature, but there's more questions than answers to accepting that our field of consciousness had somehow generated this reality, and while the true concept of time is non-linear, why do we process it like that here? Why is this reality denser and harder to connect with higher spirits, and vice versa for those of us down here? I would assume they would know the answers and have the heightened awareness of the universe, but this is never answered nor acknowledged.

>>41191621
there is no "first one" the universe always has and always will exist the big bang didnt happen (as in a single point where things emerged from nothing)
https://marxist.com/big-bang-alternative300402.htm

>>41191621
> Why is there something instead of nothing

I think it’s likely a cognitive error on our part, partially perpetuated by the limits of language and further influenced by subliminal background beliefs, to assume that nothing can exist separately from something. It falls into a classical yin / yang relationship, where the contrast between the two is what defines each.

Consider this, the moment you define nothingness, it ceases to be nothing and instead becomes a thing, which makes the concept paradoxical altogether.

Instead I propose that reality is the manifestation of every logical, possible something.

As the old argument for determinism goes, because everything in the universe follows rules of logic, with enough information and intellect to calculate it, it is theoretically possible to determine the past and future with absolute certainty. If this is true, the book is already written and we are just reading it. The implication, to me at least, is that reality is an unchanging object.

I think this is true but with the caveat that free will still exists and at any point we can put down the book we are reading and pick up another. Per the analogy, reality is an incomprehensibly vast library of already written books. Each one contains everything you’ve read up until that point, then they diverge. Each is different, ranging from a single word to every word.

In this way determinism is maintained alongside freewill and every possible something is manifested. So I think reality is a navigable object of potential that arises from something and nothing.

>>41191621
things made more sense when physicists thought the universe had no beginning or end. but now since we have evidence that there was a beginning... things just keep getting weirder. the truth is stranger than fiction. the truth must be more bizarre than anything we could conceive of here

there was once nothing and it was perfect. it was infinite in size and it was not something that could have a size in the first place because dimensions did not exist. time didn't exist either. there was no light and there was no darkness.

ක̶̧̨̨̛̛̩̙̥̤̙͙̤͔̬̰̪̩̻̗̼̘͚͍̮͗͗̋́͛́̐̏̏̏̐͌̌̽̃̆̒̃͌̍͐̒̏̾̇̐͂̿̀͜͝͝͝ͅ ̷̢̡̡̺̻̘̫̩̫̯̬̙͇̬̫͉̟͈̱͚͖͎̣͚̓̓͗́͐̄̆̌͑́̒̾̉̐̀̏͂̽̍̕̚͜͠͠͝න̵̢̢̢͉̹̞̭͎̻͉̠̘͎̩̮̭̖̥͊̂̈́̏͋̊͑̃̈̈́̋̌̚ ̷̢̢̛̯͖̫̮͚͈͈̗͔̣̫̤̝͖͔͇̖̤̳̳͔͛̽́̐̓̋̈̓͒͐̏̓̓̽̎̓́̐̐̓̊̈́̈́̇̿̈́̕̚͝ද̶̧̧̢̫̹͖̝̬̪̺̖͚̻̥̯͚̩͎̖͉̤͎̫̦͈̦̜̒̒͊̇̒̏̈̽͆̇̎̏̐́͗͒̏̋͌̑̊̓̍͑̾͑̑̿̒̂͘̕͘̚͝ ̷̡̺̦̘̙̖͖̻̊̇̈́̑̿̃̿̋̌́͑̈́̀̑̐̕ර̸̖̣̬̝̻̮͉̉̍̍͐̈͆̿̐͠ ̸̢̨̛͙͕̣̱̞̳́̽͊̒̋͒͊̂͗͋̚͜ග̵̙̺̙̟̜̋̽̄̌́̑͑͆̐̒͆ ̷̢̼̖̝͖̬̳̮̮̍́̃͆̄̈̾̈́̈́͑̽͘̚͜͝͝ප̵̨͍̙̪̝̘̮̺̞̝̫͕̘͎͙̩̭̻̖͖̫̯̥̱͓̙͓̼̥̹̳̤͎̄͜ͅ ̴̧̧̛̹̜̬̎̑́͊̿͆̒́̍̐̄̐̀͆̋̔̍̒́̈́̇̐̀̈́̎̓͂̄̚͘͜͠͝ම̵͈̠͕̌͌ ̸̛̛͚͓̓̌͋̔̌̈̇́̀͂́̓̈́͛̑̆̿̚̕̚̚͝ස̵̧̧̢̡͎̫͎̟̭̖̜̪̮̘̱͎̣̤͙̺̭̳͖̣͋̈̓͛̓̊̇̆̎̀́̏̑̚͠ͅ ̶̨̛̮͈͔̞͕͇̳̈̄̋̀̀͌́͗̑̈͛͂͑̊́́̋̔̄́̕̚̕̕͝͝ජ̸̨̡̹̮̩̠͙̫̦̳̼̦͎̳͔̽͌̿̀̆͂̆̽͗͛͆́̇͒͠ͅ ̵̨̮͔͇̮̭̗͚̮̠̗̮̳̩̞̩̺̬́̒̽̃̉͋͌̀͐͋̈́̂̍́͛̈́́̇̾͠͝ල̴̢̡̨̧̮̥͙̻͖̩̣̬͈̘͖̜͖̼̼̩̙͔͈̫͇̣̙̹̞͚̠̯̪̣̀̈̊̄͛̎͆̉̍̔͜͜ from which a fluctuation propagated across the nothingness. The fluctuation did not diminish the nothingness in size nor perfection. It doesn't have a size afterall. The fluctuation did not propagate across the surface nor inside the nothingness. afterall, there is no such surface or interior of something that has no dimensions

>>41193461
cope, but at least it's a good cope

File: 1704154910722165.jpg (235 KB, 1600x878)

235 KB JPG

>>41197281
I have figured it out

>>41200711
good crack at it

File: 1677282350732384.jpg (55 KB, 364x397)

55 KB JPG

>>41191621
>Give me your best theory.
Everything is nothing.
Form is emptyness, emptiness is form.
It's just our mind that functions with a duality that believes that everything and nothing is not the same.

>>41191621
Basically what this anon said >>41193461

If you try to define "nothing" you'll find that you can't do it without relying on the existence of "something", which makes me think that the idea of nothing existing at all in the first place is impossible and that something existing is the only way things could be

>>41197281
This too, if you think a 4chan thread has any profound insights on the nature of reality you might be disappointed

>>41191621
The another cycle thing can be explained as there being no end or start of creation. There always was and is a universe

there never was nothing

>>41200711
This is probably the best answer I’ve heard. It reminds me of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>>41198674

Rid yourself of the desire to know so that you will be better equipped to enjoy the present moment. Life is for living.

>>41199777

while the true concept of time is non-linear, why do we process it like that here?

Time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at once.

>>41200711

>It falls into a classical yin / yang relationship, where the contrast between the two is what defines each.

Thus, to not know is to know, whereas to know is to not know.

>>41200711
This is basically the same conclusion I've come to as well, it never made sense to me that some things existed and others didn't, it seemed more logical that either everything existed or nothing did, and since things clearly exist (so "nothing is real" is patently false) that means that everything exists (I don't have any proof of this, of course, but that should go without saying on /x/)

Reality, to me, is basically a giant "library of Babel" comprised of every possible arrangement of subatomic particles (or whatever fudamentally makes up reality) that could ever exist, as well as every possible arrangement that couldn't exist, and we just see a tiny portion of it at any one time: as humans, we're biased to see the world that most makes sense to us, and that's this world (for some reason)

Basically, everything that can be imagined exists, as well as everything outside the scope of human imagination

>>41203448
> to not know is to know, whereas to know is to not know.

I see what you are doing and I totally agree. However, it doesn’t mean to give up trying to know and philosophical thought has a track record of uncovering scientific truths well before their official discovery.

For example, around 400 BCE, Democritus suggested that matter is made of indivisible particles he called atoms. He wasn’t completely right about it compared to our modern understanding, but still, the idea of atoms was uncovered through philosophical thinking well before the modern era. So yes we may not truly know anything, but the act of trying to know can be pragmatic.

> "I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know"

>>41203593
It has some weird implications doesn’t it? Because for one, it implies a predetermined structure / object exists outside our perception.

More interesting though is what it might imply about movement and time. If we really are just navigating paths / lattices of a predetermined object, then is movement real? Are we actually moving when we walk across the room or are we manifesting a new predetermined reality in each moment? If we can choose to stop walking and turn around at any point, or stop, or jump, then we are just “picking up a new book” each time we make a choice.

And then if movement isn’t real, then what does that say about the nature of time?

>>41203797
The implications are:

>You don’t “cause” anything; you just traverse already-existing states.

> Free will is not creating outcomes but selecting among preexisting ones.

>Time might be nothing more than a coordinate, not a process.

This stacks with:

> Modal Realism (David Lewis)
> Eternalism / Block Universe
> Many Worlds Interpretation
> Some strands of Hindu Vedanta (“Brahman as all possible states”)

>>41203289
> Rid yourself of the desire to know so that you will be better equipped to enjoy the present moment

I’ve always disliked this advice. It’s might sound deep but it’s really shallow logic because who is to say, but the individual, how to best spend their present moment?

It can be argued that knowing things is essential to living any sort of meaningful or satisfactory life. What’s more, this advice discounts the value of sorting one’s beliefs out and exploring the ontological and metaphysical questions of life.

> Life is for living

Thats a nonsensical statement like saying the point of being alive is to be alive. It only makes sense with the implied personal bias into what constitutes “living.”

That makes it a mental construct, a cognitive illusion. It’s a value system you unironically “don’t know” you are using to make judgements that you “don’t know” you are even forming.

If you spent more time trying to “know”, I.e. philosophy, you might have discovered your mistake.

>>41200711
>>41203797
>>41203848
This actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks anon I’ll look into it.

Bump

>>41203593
I like your nickname for it. Library of babel

Already solved, no need to look anywhere else except on this very /x/ and then
/one/

>>41191621
i stopped worrying about that a long time ago. there are no answers

Bump

>>41207261
It's a real thing
https://libraryofbabel.app/

>>41204750

>who is to say, but the individual, how to best spend their present moment?

If you desire to know things, God will test you to be okay with not knowing. That is all.

>It can be argued that knowing things is essential to living any sort of meaningful or satisfactory life.

Knowledge and ignorance depend on each other. Everything is complementary to its opposite, not antagonistic. By dropping attachment to knowledge, knowledge is gained.

>That makes it a mental construct, a cognitive illusion.

You would therefore have to admit that your judgement as such is itself a mental construct and cognitive illusion.

>It’s a value system you unironically “don’t know” you are using to make judgements that you “don’t know” you are even forming.

As the Buddha said, nothing is true or false. Words are a game to convey meaning. I gave you the impression that you should be taking my words literally, my apologies.

>>41191621
nothing makes sense anymore
why do we not know what we are
it's all such insanity
why are we even talking about this
it does not make any sense
what is even going on
when will it end

An eternal God creating everything does not contradict causality or anything else. To pretend that stuff created itself does.

God makes sense even if you can't wrap your head around the concept of His eternity. Quantum foam, on the other hand, literally goes against everything physics and astronomy have taught us, and is the most retarded nigger tier religion ever.

>>41203744

"Not knowing" doesn't mean literal ignorance but a rejection of absolute, objective knowledge and the limits of language and logic to grasp reality, in favor of an intuitive understanding through direct experience and a release from fixed concepts. I advocate for an acceptance of the relativity of all things, a state beyond fixed definitions. Ironically, I must use fixed language to convey this. Hence, knowing and not knowing complement each other.

>>41209835
>God popped into existence out of nothing and then created the universe
>The universe popped into existence out of nothing
Can you not see how these are basically the same thing? Why is God allowed to spontaneously form but the universe isn't, why is he required as an intermediary first?

And if you're going to say "God didn't spontaneously form, he's always existed and always will exist", then why is that not also allowed to be true for the universe?

>>41210006
We can observe that everything within the material universe is caused by other material things, so the initial "thing" that was not caused by anything else must have been outside of the material universe. Now we can say, "the material universe might have been caused by some cause in a bigger material universe outside of this one" but then that material universe had to be initiated by something without it and so on. The ultimate original cause was something with some intent to the creation of a material universe that was not created by one itself. Anything else is absurdity. Now that argument does not mean it's a christian God or something that can be personified in any way, but it is a compelling argument. Look up unmoved mover aristotle, you're not the first person in history to question it. Ultimately the main argument against it is that well maybe the universe that created our universe doesn't adhere to the laws of logic etc etc which is an argument from incredulity because as far as we can tell those are universally consistent. God in the christian view would still adhere to the laws of logic which is part of what makes it a more compelling idea for many.

>>41210006
>Why is God allowed to spontaneously form but the universe isn't
You got it all backwards. The whole point is that God is eternal and has always been there, and at some point during that eternity He created everything, so there's no contradiction, unlike stuff coming out of nothing on it's own.

You can believe whatever you want, just don't pretend your quantum foam religion is science.

>>41210240
Different anon, but:

> The first cause must be outside the material universe.

That’s a leap. It could be something inside a larger natural system like a cyclic universe or multiverse.

> The first cause must have intent

Why? That only follows if you presuppose a mind like entity. A timeless, impersonal principle, like a quantum field or mathematical structure, could also be a first cause without intent.

> The unmoved mover

The unmoved mover is an observation that everything in motion is moved by something else, leading to an infinite regress of movers. To avoid this infinite regress, Aristotle says there must be a first mover that is not itself moved.

My counterargument would be that asking for a first cause is like asking what’s before numbers existed. Numbers don’t begin, they’re just there. The first cause is simply the totality of all possible logical structures. There’s no need for cause, intent or an unmoved mover because it just is. I explain my position here — >>41200711


>>41210314

> God is eternal and has always been there

You’re shifting the burden so that God is granted special exemption from needing an origin, while everything else is required to have one.

Why is it valid to say “God has always existed” but invalid to say “the universe has always existed” or “the laws of physics have always existed”? What if God and the universe are the same thing?

> just don't pretend your quantum foam religion is science

Dismissing modern physics as religion while treating metaphysical God claims as rational is ass backwards anon.

>>41210542
Again, neither the eternity of God nor quantum foam are part of science. Science stops where you no longer have a capacity to test something under controlled conditions. Believe what you will, just don't bastardize science with quantum foam religion.

>>41210578
I don’t even subscribe to quantum foam but I will say that it’s scientific in origin even if it is speculative science. Hardly religious compared to believing in an eternal god.

>>41210604
You cannot observe and test the events of creation, and so is the same with quantum foam. Even the attitutes of the people pushing quantum foam religion are pretty cultic.

>>41210542
>My counterargument would be that asking for a first cause is like asking what’s before numbers existed. Numbers don’t begin, they’re just there.
Numbers are immaterial and unchanging, the laws of logic as well. A material universe of pure flux can not account for the existence of these things. You agree that numbers are not a man-made construction, but an observation of universal truths. We could not make a "different math" that is still true, why is that?
>The first cause is simply the totality of all possible logical structures.
By what means are the laws of logic enforced on this informational substrate? Why could the universe not be an infinite cyclical illogical structure? Or a mix of logical and illogical? Why are the laws of logic consistent and why would the first cause be a totality of all possible logical structures rather than all possible structures logical or illogical? By what means is anything in this pure information pool determined to be possible or not?

>>41210648
Seriously? This where you’re taking this huh. If we must…let’s point out the obvious.

Quantum foam is based on extending known physics (accepted science). It’s falsifiable in principle and if we ever get experiments probing Planck-scale physics (or find mathematical contradictions), the idea could be supported or ruled out. This is a claim that is scientific in nature, I.e. speculative science. It’s an attempt to model reality without using a metaphysical agent.

An eternal god is based on metaphysical assertion, not derived from empirical evidence. It assumes an intentional being exists outside nature. It is not falsifiable at all, there’s no possible experiment that could disprove “God has always existed.”
This is a claim that is religious in nature.

One is religious in the sense of faith in an intentional being. The other is scientific speculation in the sense of extending physics where we can’t yet measure.

>>41210656
You’re assuming the laws of logic are enforced the way physical laws are, but that sneaks in the idea of an enforcer. Logical structures don’t need enforcement because they are constraints on possibility itself.

Why can’t there be a universe that is illogical? Because incoherence isn’t a different possibility, it’s not a possibility at all. A square circle isn’t an alternate structure, it’s nonsense. Logic isn’t one rule among many, it’s the boundary of what can exist or even be conceived.

That’s why I say the first cause is the totality of logical structures. It isn’t that something chose logic over illogic, it’s that only logical structures can exist. The “why not illogical structures?” question is like asking “why not four-sided triangles?”It’s because they’re contradictions, not structures.

In other words, possibility itself presupposes consistency. You don’t need a mover or lawgiver to enforce logic when logic is the condition for there being anything at all.

>>41210729
I agree that a thing must be coherent to exist, but you've just said "the material reality reflects logical structures because there are no illogical structures for it to reflect." It's begging the question in a way. There's no demonstration of how or why there is a material reality to instantiate the immaterial logical structures. Possibility presupposes consistency but neither necessitates actualization.

>>41210691
>Quantum foam is based on extending known physics (accepted science).

That's an extension of your faith, not of physics.

>It’s falsifiable in principle and if we ever get experiments probing Planck-scale physics (or find mathematical contradictions), the idea could be supported or ruled out.

This is the same as saying we could photograph God if He just showed up. And mind you not every theory that can be worked out mathematically can or will translate to the world of physics.

>This is a claim that is scientific in nature, I.e. speculative science. It’s an attempt to model reality without using a metaphysical agent.

Speculation is not science, it's speculation. Get a dictionary.

>An eternal god is based on metaphysical assertion, not derived from empirical evidence.

Just as quantum foam. No empirical evidence either.

> It assumes an intentional being exists outside nature.

The only difference between God and quantum foam in this context is the intention, which's irrelevant.

>It is not falsifiable at all, there’s no possible experiment that could disprove “God has always existed.”

Or that quantum foam has always existed.

>This is a claim that is religious in nature.

The eternal, almighty quantum foam. Religion but a pretty stupid one at that.

>One is religious in the sense of faith in an intentional being.

Again, intention is irrelevant. It either can be tested with the scientific method or can't. The foam is larp.

>the other is scientific speculation in the sense of extending physics where we can’t yet measure.

Larping about foam is not an extension of physics, it's your faith and your religion.

>>41210240
>God in the christian view would still adhere to the laws of logic which is part of what makes it a more compelling idea for many.
If God is bound by the laws of logic that means that logic is a more powerful force than God, in which case there's no reason to call him "God" at all and we may as well just worship logic.

Please address this, don't just ignore it (this is what I actually believe, after all):
>And if you're going to say "God didn't spontaneously form, he's always existed and always will exist", then why is that not also allowed to be true for the universe?

>>41210314
>You got it all backwards. The whole point is that God is eternal and has always been there, and at some point during that eternity He created everything, so there's no contradiction, unlike stuff coming out of nothing on it's own.
Like the other guy, you ignored the second part of my post and focused solely on the part that was easier to argue against (I can only assume you didn't actually read it, considering you're telling me "The whole point is that God is eternal and has always been there" as though I hadn't already addressed that):

>And if you're going to say "God didn't spontaneously form, he's always existed and always will exist", then why is that not also allowed to be true for the universe?

Also I don't know whether quantum foam exists or not, I'm not a quantum physicist. I'm not going to make sweeping claims about something I barely understand. You're also quick to label it a "religion" in a derogatory way, implying that religion is a bad thing, yet all your arguments are religious in nature (clearly it's only a bad thing when it's a religion you don't follow). You not understanding a scientific theory doesn't automatically mean that God (specifically the Christian God) is the only possible explanation.

>>41210994
>If God is bound by the laws of logic that means that logic is a more powerful force than God
The roundness of a circle is not a force more powerful that binds the circle, it is an intrinsic aspect of it. God's nature is rational and unchanging and that is expressed as the logic we observe in his creation. Logic instantiated in the material is an an emanation of God.
>then why is that not also allowed to be true for the universe?
Because the universe is material and God is not. Every moment for the material world is contingent on the moment before it, that is why saying it could extend into the past infinitely is an absurdity. You can not logically justify the material world with an infinite regress. The acknowledgement of universal truth, not reliant on empirical observation (logical structures exist even in the stretches of the universe we will never measure) is itself pointing to the reality of something that simply IS. The material reality being a chain of contingent causes also necessarily points to something beyond itself that simply IS for it's own explanation. God is not contingent.

>>41210816
What in the…

> That's an extension of your faith, not of physics

Are you retarded anon?

> unable to distinguish the not so subtle difference between blind faith in a metaphysical being and speculation grounded in science (hence the term, speculative science)

Yea, must be retarded.

I shouldn’t even have to say this, again, but my beliefs in no way connect to quantum foam. That’s some real straw man shit you’re pulling. For a moment I thought you were arguing in good faith so I guess I took the bait but w/e.

This back and forth has gone on enough though. You’re obviously too stupid to engage in productive discourse and as far as I’m concerned, your contradictory views have been thoroughly refuted for anyone with eyes to see.

>>41191621
Something and nothing coexist at the same time and always have done, it just depends on the magnification level. If you were to zoom out as far as you could go there would be nothing there. Not galaxies, no universe, no nothing. Because you would be viewing things as they turn in on themselves, the same way as if you're far enough zoomed in on a picture on just one little fraction of a pixel it just looks like a vaguely colored blank spot. The same works in reverse. So there's nothing there at all really, don't worry about it.

>>41211466
>Because the universe is material and God is not.
See, I don't really believe in an artificial divide between a divine God and a material, non-divine universe, I believe that the universe is both material and divine and exists co-eternally with God, who may in fact be the same thing as the universe. I feel that ascribing the qualities of both God and reality to the same thing removes the need for a creator god altogether, and generally a simpler explanation is preferred to a more complex one.

For what it's worth, though, I don't entirely disagree with you, I don't think the universe could've just sprung to life one day of its own accord, something eternal needed to exist before it in order to create it, whether this is God or another reality. That's partially why I came to the conclusion that the universe is eternal and uncreated, my worldview doesn't really make any sense otherwise.

You could say that the big bang proves that the universe has a definite starting point, but I don't really believe that either: the big bang is just the point where we can't observe any further back in time, we have no idea what, if anything, existed before it.

>>41191621
Buddhism, Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalah, and David Bohm have the answer.

>Nothingness = Nirvana = the One = Ein Sof.

Everything comes from the blank canvas (Nothing) that is God-Nirvana. It is quite literally everything Good (nothing but Loving-Compassion), and it is within all living things in our observable reality, from the smallest bacteria to the largest planets and stars. It is where all humans emerge from and what all humans must return to. Consciousness and life exist because God-Nirvana must go through the process of withdrawing/splitting/extending/layering in order to know what the process of true transformation is. We are born so that God can experience what it is to be imperfect and to truly live, to be born with Evil-Suffering in our lives and then to mature into discarding it and finally return home through the Middle Path while using the Golden Rule. All things within our reality are still tied to God-Nirvana and each other, and the kinder we are, the closer we get to reaching God-Nirvana. If we continue to harm one another, we push ourselves further away from reunion.

>God-Nirvana is always outside the burning house/Plato's cave. Hence the deeper meaning behind "I am".

Nothingness begins as 0. 0 then grows and becomes 1, which then results in 2 and finally 3, which is what we perceive as Perfection. This is why the Trinity is such a common symbol in cultures and why it is seen as holy or sacred. As living creatures/human beings, we are collectively embodied as 4 (why else do we identify so much with Lucifer-Prometheus). Jung even said that the human "soul" is a diamond shape.

>>41204750

In the future, you will have forgotten this conversation and will care only about the present moment.

Firefox sexo