The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing

originally posted by: Barcs


I don't consider myself materialist, but I'm a skeptic and there is no evidence of a non material anything existing without a material cause.

Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

The very idea of debating the source of the universe is strange in that if there was one universe there can be many more. What can we know about the first or last universe?

probably nothing

originally posted by: Willtell
The very idea of debating the source of the universe is strange in that if there was one universe there can be many more. What can we know about the first or last universe?

probably nothing

Uni means one.
Uni verse means the 'one unfolding'.

The one is unfolding and it appears as what is appearing to happen....... just this that is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs


I don't consider myself materialist, but I'm a skeptic and there is no evidence of a non material anything existing without a material cause.

Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

The material that is appearing is the visible image of the invisible God.... there is nothing else.

The body is simply part of the show...... it belongs to no one.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs


I don't consider myself materialist, but I'm a skeptic and there is no evidence of a non material anything existing without a material cause.

Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

Invisible to the naked eye you mean. Not invisible as in completely undetectable. We know these subatomic properties exist because we have tested and verified them using other tools.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Could anything be visible without eyes?
Have you ever seen what is doing the seeing?

Are the seer and seen two separate things? Or are they one inseparable happening?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Nothin

The philosophy of Materialism may have been slayed by QM, but am not convinced at all that QM leads us to Creationism.

Materialism has not been slayed by anything. Too much is still unknown in QM at this time, hence why there are so many different interpretations. Only the woowoo interpretation goes against materialism, like when people jump to invalid conclusions for example the long misinterpreted observer effect, which actually is NOT about consciousness.

Bumping for relevance

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TzarChasm
Could anything be visible without eyes?
Have you ever seen what is doing the seeing?

Are the seer and seen two separate things? Or are they one inseparable happening?

No disrespect intended, but you literally have nothing useful to bring to this discussion. Bye.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TzarChasm
Could anything be visible without eyes?
Have you ever seen what is doing the seeing?

Are the seer and seen two separate things? Or are they one inseparable happening?

No disrespect intended, but you literally have nothing useful to bring to this discussion. Bye.

Good luck in finding something useful...

Season 4 Episode 1 of Rick & Morty.

Very intriguing parallels I'm seeing here with your thread.

Great subject 👌


The word, was what religion says created everything. Sound, a 🌊 or vibration. It was that act, of creating something with nothing. Or something none physical, we interpret it as nothing because it has no physical form. That isn't nothing.


Sounds or words are something, and yet are nothing. They are no thing, yet are powerful. Our words can hurt, or heal.

That, is true magic.

Once our words were used with reference and respect.

Show me today, where that's the standard...

a reply to: ADVISOR
Words tell stories about things in time and space...... but words can only appear presently, as they appear they are disappearing.

Words make believe there is a me that is separate from all there is, simply because the story of time is believed.

There is only ever what is happening..... there is no separation.

If there are no things.... then this is nothing appearing to happen.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes, agreed.

That is where Iconos comes in, and all else that was written, stamped, pressed, cut, carved, transferred, or otherwise scribed, scribbled and scratched. Etc and etc...

These things, which are made were once taboo or forbidden.

There's great debate in this topic. One I can see being greatly educational for everyone if we can maintain an open enough mind to accept the exchange. I look forward to seeing this threads potential.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes, agreed.

That is where Iconos comes in, and all else that was written, stamped, pressed, cut, carved, transferred, or otherwise scribed, scribbled and scratched. Etc and etc...

The indent, i dent ity...... is the mark of the beast lol.

Thou shall not make idols.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"Materialism has not been slayed by anything. Too much is still unknown in QM at this time, hence why there are so many different interpretations. Only the woowoo interpretation goes against materialism, like when people jump to invalid conclusions for example the long misinterpreted observer effect, which actually is NOT about consciousness."

Bumping for relevance

I'm repeating the following because it is part of the foundation of physics which shows material reductionism is a backwards philosophy:

Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

originally posted by: Barcs

Because people constantly claim the observer effect is caused by consciousness when its caused by the electron microscope affecting the readings it takes, which has nothing to do with consciousness. And I never said consciousness is definitely NOT involved, just that there's no reason / evidence to think such. I don't jump to conclusions about unknowns, I admit they are unknown.

I don't consider myself materialist, but I'm a skeptic and there is no evidence of a non material anything existing without a material cause. Once that is discovered, then and only then will materialism be "slayed." As of now, it's still a viable / valid possibility.

Well: one could be a little less dismissive of the things that they admit they don't know, alright?
Eventually: it is consciousness that observes, and interprets most experiments, no ?

Have wondered how consciousness may be implicated in the 'Double-Slit-Experiment', and was looking into it a couple of years ago. Remember seeing some reports of how they tried to prove, or disprove the relevance of consciousness, but after a while, to the unscientific person, it all starts to get really fuzzy.

Have personally gotten so confused over the 'Delayed-Choice-Experiment'; the loophole that was found in it; then the closing of the loophole...
Quanta Magazine: Closed Loophole Confirms the Unreality of the Quantum World

If you are willing to say: 'We don't know'; then we can agree.

Perhaps you are right about there being no evidence of a non-material anything existing, especially if we are looking for said evidence within the universe of things.
Materialism, if it has been slayed, or if it ever will become diminished: perhaps it won't be from 'something' within the material world of 'thingness' ?
But you see: that 'non-material anything', is not a thing ?

Nothing, is not a thing, and doesn't exist: capiche ?
Nothingness is not a place, nor a thing, nor something that will do something, and give us material evidence.
Science, Materialism, and any other 'ism', aren't involved.
They're on furlough ! LoL !

originally posted by: cooperton
Matter as we know it wouldn't even exist without intramolecular forces (force within molecules), intermolecular forces (force between molecules), electrical repulsion from electrons within atoms and molecules, and so on. All matter relies on invisible forces to keep it perpetuating. These forces were not created by matter, matter is created by these forces.

Dude, stop. You just keep stating presuppositions as fact. Prove that matter wouldn't exist without a god and absolutely cannot have material sources. Go ahead. LOL @ invisible forces. Your understanding physics is that of a 7 year old.

originally posted by: Barcs

Dude, stop. You just keep stating presuppositions as fact.

They are not presuppositions, they are 2 of The 4 fundamental forces of existence - intramolecular forces and intermolecular forces. There two forces are necessary for matter to exist as we know it. Without intermolecular forces, molecules would not be attracted to eachother and everything would exist as a molecular dust cloud with no solid or liquid substances. Without intramolecular forces, the forces that hold atoms together to make molecules, there wouldn't be molecules at all.

Without these forces there is no such thing as matter as we know it. It's a shame you don't understand this, despite claiming to be so logical and science-minded.

originally posted by: Nothin
Well: one could be a little less dismissive of the things that they admit they don't know, alright?
Eventually: it is consciousness that observes, and interprets most experiments, no ?

Have wondered how consciousness may be implicated in the 'Double-Slit-Experiment', and was looking into it a couple of years ago. Remember seeing some reports of how they tried to prove, or disprove the relevance of consciousness, but after a while, to the unscientific person, it all starts to get really fuzzy.

People are claiming that QM indicates a god, so yeah, I'm dismissing that claim because it's not backed by anything other than personal opinion. A consciousness can observe something, but that has nothing to do with electron microscope readings causing interference with what they are measuring. The observer effect doesn't change when somebody is physically watching something, ONLY when readings are taken with the microscope. If it was consciousness, you could take reading after reading after reading, and change the result, simply by looking at it, and that's not what happens. There is no link to consciousness there, it is all wishful thinking and woowoo as I said. In reality, we don't know enough about QM to make such conclusions yet.

If you are willing to say: 'We don't know'; then we can agree.

That is precisely what I'm saying. We don't know, and there's no evidence to suggest consciousness is responsible for it, thus no reason for me to believe claims like that. It's an unfalsifiable claim. I agree we don't know, I just get tired of people repeatedly claiming that it is evidence for god or that it "slays" materialism.

originally posted by: cooperton
They are not presuppositions, they are 2 of The 4 fundamental forces of existence - intramolecular forces and intermolecular forces. There two forces are necessary for matter to exist as we know it. Without intermolecular forces, molecules would not be attracted to eachother and everything would exist as a molecular dust cloud with no solid or liquid substances. Without intramolecular forces, the forces that hold atoms together to make molecules, there wouldn't be molecules at all.

Without these forces there is no such thing as matter as we know it. It's a shame you don't understand this, despite claiming to be so logical and science-minded.

LOL! You are pretending they automatically are designed just because we don't know the origin of such forces. They could have material causes, we simply don't know, so stop jumping to conclusions about it. Why not use the proper terminology and say weak nuclear force? Of course things would be much different without those forces, but it has nothing to do with materialism or the existence of god. You are ASSUMING out of ignorance, which is a fallacy. One day, we might understand what causes those forces, but we don't currently know.

a reply to: Barcs
You just described yourself there buddy, jumping to conclusions and showing your ignorance on the gender fluidity thread. Why are you going after people today, what's up man chill out and be more thorough with your research when making your claims, just some friendly advice.