What would you call my new beliefs?

[Mystic]

You neither decide reality, neither God, neither what your potential truly is. You rather should seek to discover that.

[Simon Moon]

I believe the entire universe was once one whole. The whole exploded into everything we are today after billions of years of cosmological and biological evolution. The fact that we were once a whole is what connects us together in a visceral way. That is why we see so much awe and wonder when we observe the cosmos. And, for me, it explains the collective conscious theory. Is that a better TL;DR?

You seem to be describing a form of pantheism.

Its not just emotionally unsatisfying, its also logically unsatisfying. I am reading Kraus's book right now to try and understand the concept of our universe coming from nothing, but it still just doesn't make sense to me that nothing could ever produce anything.

If reality and your requirement to be 'emotionally satisfied' don't line up, guess which one wins?

As far as being 'logically satisfying' goes, if Krauss's theories are supported by evidence (which they are), they are 'logically satisfying' be definition. That is not to say he is right, only that his theories are logically satisfying. Maybe the term you are looking for instead of 'logic', is 'common sense'. I see many people confusing these terms.

By the way, the definition that physicists use for the word 'nothing' is not the same as used by the general public. The physicists' definition does not mean absolute nothingness, as in non-being. I believe that Krauss should not have used the word 'nothing' in the title of the book for this exact reason.

"There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing."

[Won2blv]

I believe the entire universe was once one whole. The whole exploded into everything we are today after billions of years of cosmological and biological evolution. The fact that we were once a whole is what connects us together in a visceral way. That is why we see so much awe and wonder when we observe the cosmos. And, for me, it explains the collective conscious theory. Is that a better TL;DR?

You seem to be describing a form of pantheism.

Its not just emotionally unsatisfying, its also logically unsatisfying. I am reading Kraus's book right now to try and understand the concept of our universe coming from nothing, but it still just doesn't make sense to me that nothing could ever produce anything.

If reality and your requirement to be 'emotionally satisfied' don't line up, guess which one wins?

As far as being 'logically satisfying' goes, if Krauss's theories are supported by evidence (which they are), they are 'logically satisfying' be definition. That is not to say he is right, only that his theories are logically satisfying. Maybe the term you are looking for instead of 'logic', is 'common sense'. I see many people confusing these terms.

By the way, the definition that physicists use for the word 'nothing' is not the same as used by the general public. The physicists' definition does not mean absolute nothingness, as in non-being. I believe that Krauss should not have used the word 'nothing' in the title of the book for this exact reason.

"There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing."

If nothing can mean something, then it isn't nothing, IMO. I still just can't believe that something can come from nothing, no matter what the definition is. If scientists say nothing in science means something different, then they're moving the goal posts

---

You neither decide reality, neither God, neither what your potential truly is. You rather should seek to discover that.

I truly don't know what that means

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

You neither decide reality, neither God, neither what your potential truly is. You rather should seek to discover that.

I truly don't know what that means

Don't feel alone, I've read many of MysticKnight's posts and I've never really been able to follow his reasoning.

[SteveII]

Its not just emotionally unsatisfying, its also logically unsatisfying. I am reading Kraus's book right now to try and understand the concept of our universe coming from nothing, but it still just doesn't make sense to me that nothing could ever produce anything.

If reality and your requirement to be 'emotionally satisfied' don't line up, guess which one wins?

As far as being 'logically satisfying' goes, if Krauss's theories are supported by evidence (which they are), they are 'logically satisfying' be definition. That is not to say he is right, only that his theories are logically satisfying. Maybe the term you are looking for instead of 'logic', is 'common sense'. I see many people confusing these terms.

By the way, the definition that physicists use for the word 'nothing' is not the same as used by the general public. The physicists' definition does not mean absolute nothingness, as in non-being. I believe that Krauss should not have used the word 'nothing' in the title of the book for this exact reason.

"There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing."

So, in your first paragraph tell us that Krauss's theory about the universe coming from nothing is supported by evidence, then in the second paragraph you tell us that 'nothing' us really something. This isn't just emotionally unsatisfying, this is logically unsatisfying. Did the universe come from nothing or not?

[Simon Moon]

If reality and your requirement to be 'emotionally satisfied' don't line up, guess which one wins?

As far as being 'logically satisfying' goes, if Krauss's theories are supported by evidence (which they are), they are 'logically satisfying' be definition. That is not to say he is right, only that his theories are logically satisfying. Maybe the term you are looking for instead of 'logic', is 'common sense'. I see many people confusing these terms.

By the way, the definition that physicists use for the word 'nothing' is not the same as used by the general public. The physicists' definition does not mean absolute nothingness, as in non-being. I believe that Krauss should not have used the word 'nothing' in the title of the book for this exact reason.

"There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing."

So, in your first paragraph tell us that Krauss's theory about the universe coming from nothing is supported by evidence, then in the second paragraph you tell us that 'nothing' us really something. This isn't just emotionally unsatisfying, this is logically unsatisfying. Did the universe come from nothing or not?

As I already stated, the definition that physicists use for 'nothing' is not the same as used colloquially.

You do understand that many words have several different meanings depending on whether they are used by scientists or the general public, right? There's actually a word for this, it is "polysemy".

Examples:

Abstract, chaotic, confidence, constraint, flux, perturb, power, theory, salt, critical point...should I go on?

Sorry you fail to understand this, but it is the way things are.

Did the universe come from nothing or not?

Not if you are defining 'nothing' as, non existence. That is not how Krauss and other physicists define it.

[SteveII]

So, in your first paragraph tell us that Krauss's theory about the universe coming from nothing is supported by evidence, then in the second paragraph you tell us that 'nothing' us really something. This isn't just emotionally unsatisfying, this is logically unsatisfying. Did the universe come from nothing or not?

As I already stated, the definition that physicists use for 'nothing' is not the same as used colloquially.

You do understand that many words have several different meanings depending on whether they are used by scientists or the general public, right? There's actually a word for this, it is "polysemy".

Examples:

Abstract, chaotic, confidence, constraint, flux, perturb, power, theory, salt, critical point...should I go on?

Sorry you fail to understand this, but it is the way things are.

Did the universe come from nothing or not?

Not if you are defining 'nothing' as, non existence. That is not how Krauss and other physicists define it.

Sorry, you are buying into a load of crap. 'Nothing' simply means not anything. It will never mean something else--for the simple fact that we need a word that describes not anything. 

Krauss's theory is that the universe originated in a quantum vacuum, which is empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure. This is something. To redefine this as 'nothing' is a failed attempt to avoid the question of "where did the vacuum field come from" and the infinite regress that results in a logical absurdity. This is not complicated and Krauss has been called on it by other scientists. 

So, it seems we are back to pondering why there is anything rather than nothing.

[Simon Moon]

As I already stated, the definition that physicists use for 'nothing' is not the same as used colloquially.

You do understand that many words have several different meanings depending on whether they are used by scientists or the general public, right? There's actually a word for this, it is "polysemy".

Examples:

Abstract, chaotic, confidence, constraint, flux, perturb, power, theory, salt, critical point...should I go on?

Sorry you fail to understand this, but it is the way things are.



Not if you are defining 'nothing' as, non existence. That is not how Krauss and other physicists define it.

Sorry, you are buying into a load of crap. 'Nothing' simply means not anything. It will never mean something else--for the simple fact that we need a word that describes not anything. 

Krauss's theory is that the universe originated in a quantum vacuum, which is empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure. This is something. To redefine this as 'nothing' is a failed attempt to avoid the question of "where did the vacuum field come from" and the infinite regress that results in a logical absurdity. This is not complicated and Krauss has been called on it by other scientists. 

So, it seems we are back to pondering why there is anything rather than nothing.

When Krauss says the universe came from nothing, he means that if you add up all the forces, mass, energy in the universe, they equal zero. But he does not say that existence, in some form, did not already exist.

So, it seems we are back to pondering why there is anything rather than nothing.

Yes, we are.

But Krauss's theory is not meant to answer that. It is only meant to answer why our universe, in its present form, exists.

Problem is, your answer does not have any explanatory power. It has plenty of explanatory scope, but no power.

Explaining a mystery (why the universe exists), by appealing to a bigger mystery (a universe creating god), does not actually EXPLAIN anything. And it only creates more questions. Positing a panacea to explain a mystery, explains nothing.

In other words, a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.

[SteveII]

So, it seems we are back to pondering why there is anything rather than nothing.

Yes, we are.

But Krauss's theory is not meant to answer that. It is only meant to answer why our universe, in its present form, exists.

Problem is, your answer does not have any explanatory power. It has plenty of explanatory scope, but no power.

Explaining a mystery (why the universe exists), by appealing to a bigger mystery (a universe creating god), does not actually EXPLAIN anything. And it only creates more questions. Positing a panacea to explain a mystery, explains nothing.  

In other words, a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.

Inductively, to escape the logical absurdity that physical matter always existed, what we are left with as an explanation is a non-physical, timeless, un-caused, force that was powerful enough to bring matter into existence out of nothing. 

The problem that I see constantly here is that most of you are missing the fact that the case for God is a cumulative case. No one thing is meant to be the defining argument. Here is just the list from Natural Theology (as opposed to revealed theology in the Bible or personal experience in people's lives)

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

[GUBU]

I believe the entire universe was once one whole. The whole exploded into everything we are today after billions of years of cosmological and biological evolution. The fact that we were once a whole is what connects us together in a visceral way. That is why we see so much awe and wonder when we observe the cosmos. And, for me, it explains the collective conscious theory. Is that a better TL;DR?

---

The tl;dr didn't help much, but I think I grock what you mean.

Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with what grock means

My reckoning is that you're approaching something akin to Spinozan pantheism.