Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 You're absolutely right in saying that nothing is indeed something: No. No it's not! Why is this such a hard concept to fathom? It's been explained several times on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 You're absolutely right in saying that nothing is indeed something: No. No it's not! Why is this such a hard concept to fathom? It's been explained several times on this thread. Adding the words "Full Stop" does not give your statement any more weight (in fact, it's a wholly bizarre practice)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 No. No it's not! Why is this such a hard concept to fathom? It's been explained several times on this thread. Due to the fact that nature abhors a vacuum how can there have been nothing? I know you will say there was no nature or physics or whatever but for there to have been absolutely nothing, zero, is a very hard concept to swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 There was no space OR time, so there wasn't a before to go back to. You are trying to imagine something that literally cannot exist in time. It's a human desire to want to imagine a before, but in this case, such concepts are meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 18, 2010 Author Share Posted September 18, 2010 No. No it's not! Why is this such a hard concept to fathom? It's been explained several times on this thread. Adding the words "Full Stop" does not give your statement any more weight (in fact, it's a wholly bizarre practice! So is applying human logic to something we have no understanding of; in fact.. it's even more so. To acknowledge that it would be foolish to apply the laws of science(which we more commonly refer to as 'the laws of the universe' in which we exist)to the "nothing"(what ever it was)that preceded it, is most bizarre, especially since it is human logic that is being used to discredit the possibility of something having existed before the universe. Therefore, if we are to consider it foolish to apply the laws of science to something that exists outside of our universe, it must be more foolish to then apply the rules of human logic to determine whether it is 'something' or 'nothing'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Danot, your posts make absolutely no sense and are impossible to follow. I have no idea why you emboldened that part of my sentence... Perhaps you should consider giving up on this topic as it's clear you cannot fathom the concepts put forward to you and you just want to argue the point ad infinitum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 There was no space OR time, so there wasn't a before to go back to. You are trying to imagine something that literally cannot exist in time. It's a human desire to want to imagine a before, but in this case, such concepts are meaningless. So what went "bang" if there was nothing to go "bang?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 The big bang was the start of everything. It has always existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 The big bang was the start of everything. It has always existed. So something existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Yes. The universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.