Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 132 of 132

Thread: A Universe From Nothing

  1. #101  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by litewave
    For those who understand quantum mechanics, here is how physicist Victor Stenger derived quantum mechanical laws from nothing:

    Something from nothing - according to Victor Stenger

    I am not a physicist but this is my understanding of it:

    1. At the beginning there is nothingness.
    2. Nothingness prefers no state, including the state of nothingness (otherwise it would not be nothingness).
    3. A state is randomly selected (randomly because nothingness has no preference).
    4. The selected state may be different from the initial state of nothingness, thus something can randomly come from nothing.
    I see we subscribe to the same email List
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by litewave
    For those who understand quantum mechanics, here is how physicist Victor Stenger derived quantum mechanical laws from nothing:

    Something from nothing - according to Victor Stenger

    I am not a physicist but this is my understanding of it:

    1. At the beginning there is nothingness.
    2. Nothingness prefers no state, including the state of nothingness (otherwise it would not be nothingness).
    3. A state is randomly selected (randomly because nothingness has no preference).
    4. The selected state may be different from the initial state of nothingness, thus something can randomly come from nothing.
    I see we subscribe to the same email List
    Yes, I posted a similar version of this argument on Vic's list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103 Universe Ex Nihilo? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1
    This question is based on the principle of cause and effect. But, it is a philosophical question that pertains to metaphysics, or the philosophy of being. Some had mentioned earlier about quantum mechanics. QM has often been proposed as a way to get around the cause and effect argument because QM events are not necessarily determined by preceding causes because micro events are indeterministic.

    Unfortunately for these proponents, it does not follow that quantum occurrences do not have a preceding cause, even if the very small world is indeterminate. Ultimately, the relationship between cause and effect must remain or else breaking this relationship will seriously compromise scientific inquiry. So, there is no easy way to get around the origin of the universe debate.

    The reality is that science is incapable of answering such a question. In fact, the cause and effect relationship is not objective, as Hume pointed out. Cause and effect are known, but not perceived. Knowledge is completed through the use of intellect, above sensory perception.

    Put simply, nothing can cause nothing. It is illogical to say that something came into being from nothing, which implies that something preceded itself, which is absurd. Things are coming into being all the time, but not knowing the cause is not the same as not having one.
    My latest web designs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by litewave
    1. At the beginning there is nothingness.
    2. Nothingness prefers no state, including the state of nothingness (otherwise it would not be nothingness).
    3. A state is randomly selected (randomly because nothingness has no preference).
    4. The selected state may be different from the initial state of nothingness, thus something can randomly come from nothing.
    This sounds precisely as convincing as all the arguments I have seen for the existence of God. These serve well to convince oneself that what one already believes is correct but they don't even begin to convince a skeptic. Such arguments simply don't have any real objectivity at all.

    Shall I point out the absurdities here?

    Number 2 says nothingness has a preference and 3 says it has no preference. Contradiciton aside, both of these sound pretty absurd. Nothing has nothing and does nothing and it certainly has no preference to make it do it do anything -- let alone do something without preference for what particular thing.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by litewave
    1. At the beginning there is nothingness.
    2. Nothingness prefers no state, including the state of nothingness (otherwise it would not be nothingness).
    3. A state is randomly selected (randomly because nothingness has no preference).
    4. The selected state may be different from the initial state of nothingness, thus something can randomly come from nothing.
    This sounds precisely as convincing as all the arguments I have seen for the existence of God. These serve well to convince oneself that what one already believes is correct but they don't even begin to convince a skeptic. Such arguments simply don't have any real objectivity at all.

    Shall I point out the absurdities here?

    Number 2 says nothingness has a preference and 3 says it has no preference. Contradiciton aside, both of these sound pretty absurd. Nothing has nothing and does nothing and it certainly has no preference to make it do it do anything -- let alone do something without preference for what particular thing.
    number 2 could be rewritten, nothingness has no preference of state. It wasn't saying that nothingness has a preference.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Long time since I posted. I have been out of the country for a couple of months. While gone, this particular topic (independent of this thread) came up as I read a book by Timothy Keller. In it, he was commenting on something totally different in which he included this phrase: ". . . if God could make a world from nothing. . ."

    It sort of stopped me and made me think, "Is that what Christians believe? Is that what the Bible says -- that God made the world from nothing?"

    I first considered, "What is it that non-believers think?" It seems to me that non-believers have two basic speculations: 1. First there was nothing and suddenly there was everything -- affectionately called The Big Bang. 2. Second, everything has always been here. Just about everything in this thread is based on one of those two ideas and there seems to be some thought that these two ideas are diametrically opposed or, at least, incompatible.

    So then I tried to figure out what the Bible says. First of all, we have Genesis 1:1 which says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This seems to agree with The Big Bang idea that first there was nothing and then there was everything. (Anything after Gen 1:1 has nothing to do with creation, but deals with development and refinement of the creation.)

    But I was also aware of Hebrews 11:3 which says, in part, ". . .so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear." -- RSV Now this would seem to agree with the idea that everything was here in a non material form and God merely changed into something that is material.

    My next thought was does science have any concepts that agree with this. I immediatly thought of dark energy and dark matter which we know and pretty much agree exist even though they cannot be seen or measured and which, for no reason other than there is nothing to refute it, could easily have pre-exited the material world. (I find it interesting, if not sort of funny, that non religous people can believe this dark energy and matter stuff because we are able to detect it only because we can perceive its effects which actually sort of sounds like what we believers find to be somewhat descriptive of God.)

    Then there is string theory, which in my oversimplified understanding, suggests that material things are made up of strings of energy which are not perceptable until are arranged in a specific way. This, again, suggests that there is something not visible which could have pre-existed creation and from which the material world is made.

    About the only difference I see here between what the Bible says and what non-believers believe is that we believers say God did it with meaning and purpose while non-believers feel it happened by chance with neither meaning nor purpose.

    When it comes to the who, what, when. where, why and how of creation we all seem to be in the same boat in that we do not know exactly what happened or how it happened. Where does not seem to be an issue. When, I must agree appears to have been somewhere around 13.5 to 14.5 billion years ago (although some believers think God changed the speed of light). The only real disagreement comes from the questions of who and why which we believers seem to be satisfied with our answer. Meanwhile, non-believers seem to consider these questions irrelevant, probably because they have no answers to them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman boson31415's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Joburg, South Africa
    Posts
    24
    You derive the majority of your arguement from the bible many believers (as you would put it) do. You take the bible as some concrete representation of reality, what about the torah or koran? Are they then not equally capable of describing the origins of the universe? No.

    All religious texts are written by man, different scholars over centuries putting together their holy books, with no sense of trying to create a viable theory as to why the universe began.

    Secondly it is insulting to assume a scientist's belief in dark matter or dark energy is equivalent to a faithful person's belief in religion. Physical calculations do not require the introduction of god, but the observable universe requires extra mass hence dark matter. Yes, we are not entirely sure what this is right now, but isnt that what science is about, discovering new things?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, I think you are a little oversensitive to any use of the Bible. I merely pointed out what the Bible says about the beginning of the Universe and compared it to what the non-religious are currently saying about the beginning of the Univerae.

    My point was neither that the Bible proves sciece nor that science proves the Bible -- only that the two sort of seem to be saying the same thing. If you can't handle that, you have as much of a problem with religion as many religious people have with science. And, as such, you are no more helpful to the discussion than they are.

    I agree that part of the purpose of life is finding the answers to questions about our environment and how it came to be what it is. I find it interesting, however, that when science seems to explain something in the Bible, some in both the religious community and scientific community have violent conniption fits and try to figure out some way to put them at odds again.

    (edited to correct spelling error)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Oops! Forgot.

    Gen 1:1 is in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). I do not know what the Koran says about the beginning of the Universe. If it also says the Universe suddently appeared where nothing had been before and that Allah made it from stuff that was already there, I would say it, like the Bible, accurately described something long before we understood it.

    Nor am I aware of what other ancient writings had to say about the beginning of the Universe.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by boson31415
    You derive the majority of your arguement from the bible many believers (as you would put it) do. You take the bible as some concrete representation of reality, what about the torah or koran? Are they then not equally capable of describing the origins of the universe? No.

    All religious texts are written by man, different scholars over centuries putting together their holy books, with no sense of trying to create a viable theory as to why the universe began.

    Secondly it is insulting to assume a scientist's belief in dark matter or dark energy is equivalent to a faithful person's belief in religion. Physical calculations do not require the introduction of god, but the observable universe requires extra mass hence dark matter. Yes, we are not entirely sure what this is right now, but isnt that what science is about, discovering new things?!
    I don't see the issue boson. The Torah and the Old testament are one and the same on this particular point. Likewise the Koran speaks of the authority of the Torah and Bible and again on these particular points. Now while astrophysics and particle physics do not require introduction of god, they both require a source for the cause of the universe since nearly all current evidence suggests a beginning to the universe as we know it. The religious of course label this source god, while the materialist continues to look for an unplanned inanimate material cause adequate to explain what we observe.

    Second you seem to read too much into dayton's point which is that the brief descriptions in the text (while not scientific) are consistent with the current range of scientific understanding of the cause for the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

    The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something.
    to have 'nothing' in quantum mechanics is to have 'nothing' in 'something'.

    the real question then is why is there quantum mechanics?
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by litewave
    1. At the beginning there is nothingness.
    2. Nothingness prefers no state, including the state of nothingness (otherwise it would not be nothingness).
    3. A state is randomly selected (randomly because nothingness has no preference).
    4. The selected state may be different from the initial state of nothingness, thus something can randomly come from nothing.
    This sounds precisely as convincing as all the arguments I have seen for the existence of God. These serve well to convince oneself that what one already believes is correct but they don't even begin to convince a skeptic. Such arguments simply don't have any real objectivity at all.

    Shall I point out the absurdities here?

    Number 2 says nothingness has a preference and 3 says it has no preference. Contradiciton aside, both of these sound pretty absurd. Nothing has nothing and does nothing and it certainly has no preference to make it do it do anything -- let alone do something without preference for what particular thing.
    number 2 could be rewritten, nothingness has no preference of state. It wasn't saying that nothingness has a preference.
    Yet there is still the error Mitchell seems to be alluding to in that being completely indifferent seems most definitely a preference and it is this inserted presumption that gives rise to the ability to work in possibilities including the quantum possibility that something could arise from nothing without external influence.

    The true attribute of nothingness, would also include no capability for change and no causal power (nothing being what it is and having nothing) indicating that even while nothingness may very well have no preference, then the number of possibilities of its next state would have no limit, the probability of each would approach zero, and in the case of nothingness would be zero with the exception of the probability of remaining nothingness by process of elimination being one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113 Re: A Universe From Nothing 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    We can go back to the topic of the thread and take it in a different direction

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The universe came from nothing.
    It is Christian doctrine that God create the universe "ex-nihilo" or out of nothing.

    However, I think that creation-ex-nihilo is often taken to an irrational extreme of pure magic which I am very much opposed to. In this sense what God created DID NOT come from nothing, but from His understanding and knowledge of how to accomplish things, and since I believe that ultimate substance of things is energy then I think we can learn something from the fact that energy is a substance that annihilates the distinction between thing and action.

    In physics we KNOW that motion can be converted into mass and thus an action can be transformed into a thing. Thus to say that the substance of the physical universe came from an action of God does not mean that its substance came from nothing in any magical sense, but only in the same sense that our use of particle accelerators to create massive particles are a creation of something from nothing.

    Thus just as the form of physical universe came from the understanding and knowledge of God so also did the energy of the physical universe come from the energy of God's action of creation. Thus I support creation ex-nihilo only in the sense that God required no previously existing materials out of which to create the physical universe, but that the physical universe did come entirely from His act of creation.

    But God's energy is infinite and I do not think that the physical universe is any more infinite in energy or size than its past is infinite, and so God's creation of the physical universe would not deplete God in any way whatsoever. Thus I do not think that God in any part became the universe He created any more than the metaphorical sense in which any human artist becomes his creation -- though in that metaphorical sense God did become His creation far far more than in the case of any human artist.

    This is just one of the intriguing ways in which modern physics can suggest a resolution of old theological controversies which the great theologians of Christian history never imagined. It comes from this wonderful ability that science has of reaching beyond what we can imagine to tell us things about the world around us that contradict what we assume must be the case.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    And where then did god come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning and prior to the beginning its attributes were undefined. We cannot speak of time before time existed, nor of space before space existed, nor matter, nor energy. Therefore these could not be the cause since they were undefined, and something other than these had to have been the cause.

    However, what act or attribute requires the cause of the universe to have come from somewhere? Your question only makes sense if there is a requirement. Otherwise it is asking "where was something that always was before it was?"

    So how can we establish that the cause of the universe requires a cause?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And where then did god come from?
    I think you know that answer. He didn't.

    No the cosmological argument has no objective validity. You cannot objectively establish that God is the only possible explanation for the universe.

    Either there was a beginning or there wasn't. Science certainly suggests that there was. If there was a beginning then there is a cause or event that itself does not have a cause. The question is what is the nature of that cause?

    We know from quantum physics that there are causes or events usually called quantum fluctuations that have no physical cause themselves and they are numerous. Stephen Hawking's concusion that the first cause or event in the beginning of the Universe was itself one of these quantum events that have no physical cause, is a perfectly natural conclusion. I have no doubt that this was in fact the case.

    But to imagine that this settles the question of whether God exists and whether God created the Universe is foolish. Of course the physical unverse has no physical cause, and God being spirit obviously could not be such a physical cause, anyway. But most of those who believe in God don't just believe that He is the ultimate non-physical cause of the universe but that God is also the ultimate non-physical cause of many of the events in life.

    If you simply want to believe like Stephen Hawking that the Universe began with a quantum fluctuation and that this was not only an event without physical cause but an event without any cause whatsoever, then I will agree that this is a logically consistent belief. This is a natural conclusion for the metaphysical naturalist who presumes that only what science can study is real. That at least makes a great deal more sense than this nonsense about the preferences of "nothing".

    But make no mistake in thinking that this actually proves anything.

    Likewise the religious person who rejects the metaphysical naturalist premise and believes that there is a spiritual aspect to reality cannot think that extending causality into this spiritual realm changes the basic logic of the situation. He simply attributes the ultimate cause to different thing that does not have a cause -- God.

    Cosmological arguments do not serve to prove the case of either the theist or the atheist. Each simply proposes and accepts the uncaused cause that seems most reasonable to them.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    So you're both (mitch and, especially, cypress) basically arguing a god from ignorance. You assume the universe had a beginning and requires a cause, but assume that a god hasn't the same requirements. There's no way to demonstrate this or other assumptions (that a universe or multiple universes have always existed or that gods require causes, etc.), so you settle on goddidit.

    I'd rather just say, "I don't know." If there were a god (or many gods for that matter), there doesn't seem to be a shred of empirical evidence. I'm happy to include gods as possibly existing in the cosmos, but until one is demonstrable and testable, I see no good reason to accept it as true.

    I certainly don't see any reason to make the ENORMOUS leap from a possible creator god to the god characters that are present in biblical, koranic, or vedic mythologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    So you're both (mitch and, especially, cypress) basically arguing a god from ignorance. You assume the universe had a beginning and requires a cause, but assume that a god hasn't the same requirements. There's no way to demonstrate this or other assumptions (that a universe or multiple universes have always existed or that gods require causes, etc.), so you settle on goddidit.
    Nonsense. We have substantial evidence that the universe had a beginning. This is not an assumption. Likewise we have substantial evidence that the universe had its beginnings in a singularity that precludes existence of space, time, matter and energy except after the singularity. I do not assume the cause is God, I define the cause as god. All that is remaining is what is the nature of this creator? Inow and you (I have seen you speak of this in the past) attempt to claim this cause must also have a cause, your claim is the assumption.

    I'd rather just say, "I don't know." If there were a god (or many gods for that matter), there doesn't seem to be a shred of empirical evidence. I'm happy to include gods as possibly existing in the cosmos, but until one is demonstrable and testable, I see no good reason to accept it as true.
    Here again this is demonstrably incorrect. There is ample evidence that the universe was created and has a cause. There is also significant evidence to suggest the characteristics of that cause. It is difficult to see why you choose to ignore this, but this tendency toward denial is the subject of the past several posts. Not only do you deny the evidence, you also choose to mislead by pretending to "not know" when it is clear from your writings that you have faith in materialism.

    I certainly don't see any reason to make the ENORMOUS leap from a possible creator god to the god characters that are present in biblical, koranic, or vedic mythologies.
    No, there would be little point in discussing characteristics assigned to a deity by doctrine with one who reject the idea in principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    There is ample evidence that the universe was created and has a cause. There is also significant evidence to suggest the characteristics of that cause.
    In your mind there is. Please cite it here. Even as far back as Hawking's A Brief History of Time, he's revised his and Penrose's stance on a singularity. In it he states, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe" (Hawking 1988: 50). This is something that Penrose then agreed with. And it follows from the research in quantum mechanics -of which I have read into a bit but am far from an expert. I understand it enough to know that your assumptions above are not just pure bunk, but standard fare repeated again and again on fundamentalist Christian websites devoted in the "culture war" on atheism, science, and all things that are anti-superstitious.

    The basics are this: general relativity breaks down at under 6.4 x 10-44 second, which is Planck Time. It also breaks down at distances under a Planck length. Therefore, general relativity cannot be used to predict a singularity as it once was. The singularity claim is a popular one among apologists like William Lane Craig, who refuse to update their intellectual and academic toolkits with new data. It then gets repeated by apologist drones.

    I certainly don't see any reason to make the ENORMOUS leap from a possible creator god to the god characters that are present in biblical, koranic, or vedic mythologies.
    No, there would be little point in discussing characteristics assigned to a deity by doctrine with one who reject the idea in principle.
    Which is to your advantage because it would allow me to rip your argument(s) to shreds. So I commend you on your choice to avoid such discussion.

    Reference:

    Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam, p. 50.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    There is ample evidence that the universe was created and has a cause. There is also significant evidence to suggest the characteristics of that cause.
    In your mind there is. Please cite it here. Even as far back as Hawking's A Brief History of Time, he's revised his and Penrose's stance on a singularity. In it he states, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe" (Hawking 1988: 50). This is something that Penrose then agreed with.
    Hawking employed imaginary numbers to eliminate the singularity and he has since admitted it. Hawking has had to retract his statement and since then the capacity for gravitational singularities have been demonstrated repeatedly.

    And it follows from the research in quantum mechanics -of which I have read into a bit but am far from an expert. I understand it enough to know that your assumptions above are not just pure bunk, but standard fare repeated again and again on fundamentalist Christian websites devoted in the "culture war" on atheism, science, and all things that are anti-superstitious.
    NO, it does not follow from QM. They at least get a few things right.

    The basics are this: general relativity breaks down at under 6.4 x 10-44 second, which is Planck Time. It also breaks down at distances under a Planck length. Therefore, general relativity cannot be used to predict a singularity as it once was. The singularity claim is a popular one among apologists like William Lane Craig, who refuse to update their intellectual and academic toolkits with new data.
    That macro events occur outside the quantum realm has been understood for quite some time. Certainly prior to 1987 when Hawking had a change of mind. However, there is no new data. Absence of a singularity has not been shown, and not by noting that macro events occur in timeframes (and distances) greater than plank time/distance . Our current understanding of astrophysics, quantum physics and general relativity still predicts a singularity. The term continues to be the better description of the situation. No other term I know of is as clear or as accurate.

    The demonstration of gravitational singularities and other evidence for the beginning of this universe and a cause that transcends this universe are readily available on the web. It is quite complex and does not lend itself to simple posts. I encourage the interested and fair minded reader to look at all sides of this argument. Google at will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    So you're both (mitch and, especially, cypress) basically arguing a god from ignorance.
    Not only incorrect but complete BS. Where do I say, "you cannot know therefore God exists." Where? I have made the rather clear observation that the arguments either way have no objective validity. It is a simple fact, so why do you find that observation to be so objectionable, that you have to lie about me making an argument when I have already denied that there is any such thing? It is because it is rather obvious that this is YOU making YOUR argument from ignorance. Otherwise you would simply accept that this is a matter of opinion and leave it there. So why can't you?

    The fact is that people have different experiences in life and therefore come to different conclusions when they make sense of those experiences as they can. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why you have to believe that people who believe differently than you do are defective or inferior in some way. This is not even rational.

    If you have no experience to support a conclusion either way then by all means say that you do not know. If you have experiences which contradict the existence of God, then by all means say that you do not believe there is any such thing. But none of this will change the fact that those who do have experiences of God will in complete rationality assert the existence of God.

    The fact is that since people have different experiences in life they can know things which others do not. Some of those things they can provide objective evidnece for and some things they cannot. In the latter case, they cannot expect you to take their word for it, but that does not mean that it isn't true and that they do not know it for a fact. It is only reasonable to expect you to believe that which is consistent with your experiences and not someone elses, but that goes both ways and for both experiences of God and for the lack of those experiences.

    As for your replacement of what I actually said with your silly strawman, people can just read what I wrote and ignore your innane revision.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    You concede that you cannot know, and in the very next sentence remind us all that you KNOW there is a god. Ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Hawking employed imaginary numbers to eliminate the singularity and he has since admitted it. Hawking has had to retract his statement and since then the capacity for gravitational singularities have been demonstrated repeatedly.
    That Hawking employed imaginary numbers isn't a point of contention. But I'd like to see a citation of Hawking where he's "retracted" his statement. A statement which continues to be published in A Brief History of Time as part of a larger explanation around page 50 or so.

    In fact, I don't think he "retracted" anything of the sort, though I stand ready to be corrected. What Hawking has proposed, and continues to develop along with many other physicists, are models of the universe. Some models include a singularity. Others do not. Some models include universes that are cyclical and develop only to
    either collapse or be empty should their rates of expansion been a bit less or more than by one part in 10^10. And in his 3rd lecture on The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking reasserts his criticism of the singularity model of the Big Bang and he states classical general relativity can't predict the beginning of the universe whereas quantum theory along with the boundary proposal can.

    You're still trying to obfuscate and copy/paste arguments of superstitious apologists. A tact you take in thread after thread, topic after topic.

    NO, it does not follow from QM. They at least get a few things right.
    Hawking and nearly every physicist would disagree with your superstitious apologists. I think I'll listen to the realists over the superstitious on this one.

    Absence of a singularity has not been shown,
    Very little of the Big Bang or other early Universe data have been shown. It was all over 13 billion years ago and doesn't really lend itself to laboratory experiment. But there are more than one model that don't include a singularity event. Regardless, even granting a singularity falls short of demonstrating a god; demonstrating a god falls far short of demonstrating a god that gives two shits about life on a speck of dust among the billions of stars among one of the trillions of galaxies in a universe that might well be infinitely old (and thus with no beginning anyway).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Here are all research showing that a singularity is unnecessary and a universe that comes from nothing is an expected outcome. No god required.

    And it all follows from quantum theory.

    http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

    http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Zero-...se-98861.shtml

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_Universe

    If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/357757q4g88144p0/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/83v823l7846g56g1/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    skinwalker, I see nothing in your posts that warrants a response. And your relentless tactic of making up lies about the character and beliefs of your opponents is tiresome.

    so instead I urge the interested reader to look carefully at the current discussion relative to gravitational singularities. There are numerous sites that discuss this topic in depth. I am confident that they will reach the conclusion I described.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    skinwalker, I see nothing in your posts that warrants a response. And your relentless tactic of making up lies about the character and beliefs of your opponents is tiresome.

    so instead I urge the interested reader to look carefully at the current discussion relative to gravitational singularities. There are numerous sites that discuss this topic in depth. I am confident that they will reach the conclusion I described.
    Translation?

    I know if I actually attempt to make a real argument on these points, it will get torn to shreds because I am arguing an untenable position and I will look foolish, so instead I will unsubstantiatedly declare that I've won the argument and run away.

    Like I said, at least you're consistent, Cypress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    skinwalker, I see nothing in your posts that warrants a response. And your relentless tactic of making up lies about the character and beliefs of your opponents is tiresome.

    so instead I urge the interested reader to look carefully at the current discussion relative to gravitational singularities. There are numerous sites that discuss this topic in depth. I am confident that they will reach the conclusion I described.
    Translation?

    I know if I actually attempt to make a real argument on these points, it will get torn to shreds because I am arguing an untenable position and I will look foolish, so instead I will unsubstantiatedly declare that I've won the argument and run away.

    Like I said, at least you're consistent, Cypress.
    Speak for yourself Inow, if you even can.

    There is no win or lose with the tactics you and skinwalker employ. there is only continue or stop. I find it pointless. However there are a number of people who are likely interested in this question of the universes beginnings and the singularity implied by QM, astrophysics and General Relativity. The discussion are everywhere on the web and I urge those interested to have a look for themselves.

    To review, skinwalker pretended to be interested in evidence for a creator. I began by presenting a very short summary of the best current understanding of the universes beginnings. He claimed that understanding had been overturned by Stephen Hawking. He cited "A Brief History of Time" from 1988. Several years ago Stephen followed up his concept of an alternate beginning that did not require a transcending cause with a mathematical proof of his concept. Shortly afterward it was shown that Hawking cheated his math by inclusion of imaginary numbers. He recanted that proof but continues this day to advocate for a physical model that does not require a transcending cause. skinwalker was incorrect that Hawking disproved the singularity and the need for a transcending cause and I stated such. Hawking has not given up on his theory and Inow and skinwalker have not given up on reframing their opponent's argument into something they can defend against. However in the process of reframing it, they must lie. I find it disappointing and I suspect many who read this will too. This is why I choose to stop addressing this argument or defending current theory. Again if you are interested in current theory, go have a look on the web. There is a treasure trove of information where all sides are fairly represented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    What are the lies I'm alleged to have told in this thread? Failing to list them will reveal more about you than I.

    In addition, please cite the evidence that Hawking "cheated" and "recanted."

    I think the "lies" may yet reveal themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Cosmological arguments do not serve to prove the case of either the theist or the atheist. Each simply proposes and accepts the uncaused cause that seems most reasonable to them.
    Yes, as the previous pages demonstrate, it was a sucker's game to think those with a clear prior commitment might accept cosmological arguments as evidence never mind proof. I won't make that mistake again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130 Re: A Universe From Nothing 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I put this here, but it could potentially have also been shared in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum. It’s just a super cool talk, on many levels. I personally found the most interest in this context, so put it here… The universe came from nothing.


    Got an hour? Don't waste it. Watch this.

    Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

    Watch here --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Imvl...layer_embedded


    From the talk:

    The universe must be flat.

    <...>

    It turns out, that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero...Because gravity can have negative energy. So, the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter.

    What’s so beautiful about a universe with total energy of zero?

    Well, ONLY such a universe can begin from nothing… And that is remarkable… Because, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing… zero total energy… and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.

    <…>

    Right now, we know it to an accuracy of better than 1%. The universe IS flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. … And, I’ve written this piece (and, of course, I got a lot of hate mail) saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out… Which is:

    “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

    The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something. It’s that simple. It doesn’t convince any of those people, but it’s true.

    What are your thoughts?
    Discuss.


    We humans believe that everything that happens to us is special... and significant. And that... Carl Sagan wrote beautifully about that in Demon Haunted World... That is MUCH of the source of religion. Okay... Every event that happens is unusual and unexpected. <...> Everything that happens has small probability... but, it happens. <...> The thing that physics tells us about the universe is that it's big, rare events happen all the time (including life), and that doesn't mean it's special.
    How can the quantums fluxtuate if there are no quantum's to fluxuate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    What are you describing as a "quantum?" That doesn't make much sense to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I consider it a play on words. He is correct quantum fluctuations theoretically can only produce particles from a quantum vacuum if there is a energy field. It is not something from nothing. While we are clearing up misconceptions, it is not accurate to say that the net energy of the Universe is zero. It may be true that the universe is gravitationally flat meaning that the mass energy balances gravitational potential, consider that after a very long time, the mass of the universe will still exist, will be nearly motionless with respect to space/time thus the universe will contain positive energy in perpetuity. Considered another way the sum of the energy eminating from the the singularity is mass energy plus sufficient kinetic energy to overcome gravitational attraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •