Nothingness

[Violet]

Question:
Atheist believes Universe pops out of nothing.

Is there any atheist in the world who can explain what exactly is “NOTHINGNESS or NIHILISM?”

Cheers

False presupposition... observe: Scientologists are atheists, but don't necessarily believe that the universe 'came from' nothing.

To answer your question though: yes Not that you should listen to them, of course

---

Nothingness would have to do with the absence of anything.

Nothingness is always relative. Even the vacuum of space -devoid of any sort of mysterious ether- seems to dance in and out of substance in some strange way that I am not able to explain.

Except itself, of course

Everything's relative... indeed: why would nothing be exempt from this?

[Harris]

Whilst I'm interested in theories of nothingness to somethingness, I have no need to discuss it. Why do you? Are you making a scientific claim from Islam?

Does Islam = science to you? Which one is most correct?


Please link your reply to Little_Monkey. I've just read the whole thread... I don't remember it and I have no desire to re-read. Thanks.

Ah ok I found it. here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18672-po...#pid441699
You think that science and theology can be combined. You are deluded.

second part of the discussion see below

little-monkey wrote
I understand you are talking from a philosophy POV. I'm no philosopher. I can only give you a physicist POV. So bear with me.

Now, you are comparing nothingness with space. In GR, that would be incorrect. In relativistic classical physics, time is another dimension with space, why we use space-time (sometimes without a hypen), and space-time can have dynamical properties. That means it does interact with matter/energy.

Secondly, if you mean nothingness is vacuum energy, then it is something. So continuing in labelling it as "nothingness" will bring confusion.

You are also asking, Is there a substitution for God? I'm not sure if I understand your question. For instance, why would there be a necessity for a substitution? It could be that the universe always existed, and what we are witnessing is its present state. At some earlier times, it might have been in a completely different state, and our job is to find that out. And so you have many theories on the market trying to answer that - cyclic theories, multiverse theories, fecund theories, conformal theories, to name a few. Which one will prevail, only time will tell as we will require new discoveries to filter out the incorrect ones.

At present, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing paradigm. But it has deficiencies, the primary one being that it has a singularity. A singularity is a mathematical entity, not a real one. If it is present in a theory, it's a red flag that either the theory is not applied correctly, or it is invalid at a certain scale. In the case of the BBT, we think that we need a new theory that will combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, as none of them can deal with the Planck scale. And so this is another thing that physicists are trying to work out.


little monkey
"Now, you are comparing nothingness with space. In GR, that would be incorrect. In relativistic classical physics, time is another dimension with space, why we use space-time (sometimes without a hypen), and space-time can have dynamical properties. That means it does interact with matter/energy."

my response
In my previous response, I have clearly mentioned for me, space and nothingness are two different entities. You can check my previous response I had given many quotes of different authors to back up my idea. I never tried to compare space with nothingness.
Therefore, your physical point of view is a perfect match to my philosophical point of view.

little monkey
"Secondly, if you mean nothingness is vacuum energy, then it is something. So continuing in labelling it as "nothingness" will bring confusion."

my response
I don’t mean nothingness is vacuum or vacuum energy. I again ask you to refer my previous response especially the quotations that I have provided.

little monkey
"You are also asking, Is there a substitution for God? I'm not sure if I understand your question. For instance, why would there be a necessity for a substitution? It could be that the universe always existed, and what we are witnessing is its present state. At some earlier times, it might have been in a completely different state, and our job is to find that out. And so you have many theories on the market trying to answer that - cyclic theories, multiverse theories, fecund theories, conformal theories, to name a few. Which one will prevail, only time will tell as we will require new discoveries to filter out the incorrect ones."

my response
Certainly multiverse theory can be possible but I totally disagree and factually, it is incorrect if someone tries to say that multiverse is eternal in past. It is incorrect because no mathematically consistent and empirically adequate physical model of the universe is capable of being extrapolated past infinity. The Lankan theorem shows if even there is a multiverse it too must have had a beginning at some time in the finite past. All the evidences say there is a beginning of the universe and there is no evidence about the universe is beginning less.
It seems for many atheist physicists multiverse is some kind of a substitute of God. It is their kind of doing metaphysics without using the letter G.
Multiverse theory is an attempt to a marriage between string theory and inflationary cosmology both of which have extremely speculative boundary area of science. But the important thing is even given the inflating Universe that uses string theory for its fundamental physics, such a universe still cannot be eternal in the past.
When you say Multiverse is eternal that really highlights atheists believe that there has to be something eternal because universe can’t come from nothing and you seem to agree with that.

little monkey
"At present, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing paradigm. But it has deficiencies, the primary one being that it has a singularity. A singularity is a mathematical entity, not a real one. If it is present in a theory, it's a red flag that either the theory is not applied correctly, or it is invalid at a certain scale. In the case of the BBT, we think that we need a new theory that will combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, as none of them can deal with the Planck scale. And so this is another thing that physicists are trying to work out."

my response
It’s a physical fact that quantum vacuum is not stable and because it is not stable it can’t persist for infinite time. It is I think a sufficient argument that quantum vacuum state is itself has a beginning, that’s why universe is not infinitely old, and big bang theory is one of the more stable theory among other models available on universe.

[Mister Agenda]

First of all, you fucktard, Stalin and Mao did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism, so your argument completely fails.

Those women and children are dying because of MUSLIM terrorists that attacked the United States. Isn't it interesting how EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY you named is muslim? It is you, my retarded little friend, that is responsible for those deaths.

I hope you enjoy the blood of innocents on your hands. Then again, you are a muslim. Having the blood of innocents on your hands is a fucking requirement.

Some outrageous and inflammatory generalisations here. You're exactly the kind of person that makes the "New Atheism" movement remarkably unappealing; your aggressive, unfounded assertions would be utterly ridiculed by anybody who is not ignorant on this particular topic of discussion. In your next reply, I request two things: (1) endeavour to write a paragraph in which you refrain from insulting the recipient, and (2) endeavour to not come across as ignorant and immature.

Why should Baalzebutt write a post without insulting the recipient when you didn't?

---

Thank you for the suggestions concerning use of language. I think use of false language is the main cause of animosity.

I find the main cause of my animosity is when people assert things about me that are insulting and untrue, especially if they think it's okay because they didn't use any 'bad' words.

If someone is using abusive language it is understood that he is not the one who wants friendly environment therefore its better to leave him on his own or try to calm him down by use of polite language.

Your idea of abusive language is child-like. You've been taught certain words are 'bad' and if you don't use them, you're being polite, even if you're telling people they're aggressive and angry and impolite in your first post, it's okay because you didn't say 'fuck', right?

[Sal]

Question:
Atheist believes Universe pops out of nothing.

I don't, and I'm one atheist - but I don't speak for every atheist.

Is there any atheist in the world who can explain what exactly is “NOTHINGNESS or NIHILISM?”

Cheers

"nothingness" is an unintelligible definition that "nothing" is able to exist. Of course, "nothing" is used to define empty sets of something, zero amount of something, then "nothing" has its uses. It's the non-existence bit that is impossible to grasp when talking about "nothing".

Nihilism is the untenable position that, similar to radical skepticism, that there exists no meaning in existence. This is patently false, because if you say there is no meaning you have by uttering "there is no meaning" used a phrase that incurs a concept of its denial. Only way nihilism could be true, would be if nothing could be said and everything was unintelligible and chaotic. But there does exist some level of order and regularity in the Universe, so nihilism is false.

[Gnosis]

It depends on what your definition of nothing is a lot of people think of nothing as literally nothing. But nothing could in fact actually be something. Lawrence Krauss and his team are working on the origins project which is pretty exciting, check out his book on A Universe from Nothing . if your interested http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...145162445X

[Violet]

It depends on what your definition of nothing is a lot of people think of nothing as literally nothing. But nothing could in fact actually be something. Lawrence Krauss and his team are working on the origins project which is pretty exciting, check out his book on A Universe from Nothing . if your interested http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...145162445X

Even literally nothing is something.

What's your point?

[Gnosis]

It depends on what your definition of nothing is a lot of people think of nothing as literally nothing. But nothing could in fact actually be something. Lawrence Krauss and his team are working on the origins project which is pretty exciting, check out his book on A Universe from Nothing . if your interested http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...145162445X

Even literally nothing is something.

What's your point?

Well that is my point, it is something. But the majority of people would assume nothing means the lack of anything or not anything. Nothing can't be something. Its counter intuitive.

[Whateverist]

Well, can't it just be the idea of nothing, an item in our subjective experience but not physically extant so far as we can tell?

[fr0d0]

So will you guys come work for me? I'll pay you something: nothing in fact, which is something, not nothing. No one would work for nothing right? That would be daft.

[Gnosis]

So will you guys come work for me? I'll pay you something: nothing in fact, which is something, not nothing. No one would work for nothing right? That would be daft.

Using an example of working for 'nothing' to relate to a Plausible theory in quantum physics that states nothing is actually something is daft.