Timeline for How can something come from nothing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2018 at 5:47 | comment | added | Guill | @Saul: I see no contradiction with the statement that "mankind has been created in the image of the Creator." People that do see a contradiction, do not understand that at some "scale" everything has the same image and likeness, and it is also the "image and likeness" of the Creator! | |
| Apr 17, 2017 at 20:04 | history | edited | Guill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added conclusion.
|
| Apr 16, 2017 at 4:35 | history | edited | Guill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed some answers and expanded others.
|
| May 29, 2015 at 15:48 | comment | added | Saul | Hypothetically yes, but you cannot answer a question of metaphysics as a question of physics. The reason is that when physics accepts Creation as a valid possibility then it also accepts a Creator -- a mystery it cannot describe without accepting yet another mystery stating that mankind has been created in the image of the Creator. In other words, common physics cannot reason about a possible Genesis even if it wanted to. It would be self-contradictory. At any rate, the original question is of generic type. The possibility or inevitability of a Creator is a different and a more specific topic. | |
| May 26, 2015 at 4:26 | comment | added | Guill | Continuing with my comment, it is not the same thing to say "our universe was created by/from a vacuum fluctuation" as to say, "our universe was created from nothing." | |
| May 26, 2015 at 4:13 | comment | added | Guill | Saul, I reviewed your clarified statements and I come essentially to the same conclusions. It is precisely because "something" can not come from "nothing," that one thing (a Creator) that exists eternally, is required! Your statement, "The only way for our present reality to have an ultimate beginning is when something can in fact come from nothing," is in fact not true. Scientist use the term "vacuum" when referring to "nothing," philosophers use the term "nothing" when referring to the absence of every thing (including a Creator)! | |
| Mar 26, 2015 at 8:47 | comment | added | Saul | Yes, but that does not really answer the question. You're simply postulating that something (the Creator) is eternal. That, however, gives us very little information as to why such a postulate is correct or useful to adopt in the first place. If you happen to be interested in expanding your current thoughts even more, you might want to re-visit the question -- it has been clarified and (hopefully) improved since the time you posted your original answer. | |
| Mar 26, 2015 at 6:02 | history | edited | Guill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added paraghraph at the end.
|
| Mar 26, 2015 at 5:00 | comment | added | Guill | @Saul: From my perspective, I am addressing the Creation and its Creator as a "unified whole." The best way to explain this is that since infinity + 1 is still infinity, like wise the Creator + the Creation is still the Creator. This is a direct consequence of the Creator being eternal. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 22:30 | comment | added | Saul | Thank you. The thing is, my question addresses Creation and its Creator as a single unified whole. So, I am not sure if conclusions that pre-suppose a fundamental separation between the two can answer such an inquiry. Nevertheless, you are welcome to continue and improve on your initial thought, in case you feel like it. Cheers! | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 20:59 | history | answered | Guill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |