Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 132

Thread: A Universe From Nothing

  1. #1 A Universe From Nothing 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Lawrence Krauss is a Flat Universer?


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Lawrence Krauss is a Flat Universer?
    Yes... As are most cosmologists who work with empirical evidence as their guide. Analysis of data from WMAP confirmed the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
    The universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.

    Did you get a chance to review the talk?
    Any thoughts about the universe coming from nothing? Any commentary regarding how this impacts the religious claims and questions so many of us hear each day?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Haven't watched it yet, although I will try to soon.

    The idea that a quantum fluctuation in nothing caused the universe kind of belies what I would understand nothing to be. However, talking about nothing puts us in a realm where we have to accept without understanding or, presumably, proof. When the mathematics leads to an inescapable conclusion that cannot be empirically tested we have to become believers. The difference between this belief and a religious belief is that the latter does not lie at the end of a logical trail; it can lie literally anywhere you want it to.

    Besides, nothing can be highly entertaining as Seinfeld proved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Thanks, inow, for posting the link. This was indeed well worth the hour or so. It seems to me, though, that it does not answer the question that I raised in my post above, and which perhaps is being raised for other reasons by another poster.

    My question has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It is simply the issue of the definition of nothing: that particles can arise from the energy of the vacuum seems to be established – no problem there. This is predicted by quantum mechanics. The problem arises when we go on to say that this allows the universe to arise in the same way, because before the universe (if that has any meaning) there was no quantum mechanics; we are on very thin ice indeed if we assume that the physics that allows particles to be created within our universe also allowed the same process to occur when there was no universe. The “nothing” that existed “before” the universe should not glibly be assumed to be the same “nothing” that exists now between the “somethings” in our universe. Indeed we do not know what physics was like in the instants after the big bang. Why assume that before the big bang physics was the same as it is today?

    Let me phrase it differently: physics may be defined as the study of matter in motion through space time (yep, a wiki def, for convenience, but that was jsut to confirm my prior thought about it). If spacetime didn't yet exist then neither did physics...

    So, what do you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    To get us back on track, I sadly don't have an hour, though I will be checking the video when I can.

    Why is it important the shape of the universe, and what exactly is "flat" in terms of cosmology?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The “nothing” that existed “before” the universe should not glibly be assumed to be the same “nothing” that exists now between the “somethings” in our universe.
    You might be right, but is there any reason to suspect that there ever was some "ultimate nothingness" that the universe somehow sprang from? Is there any reason to suspect that such an "ultimate nothingness" is even possible, or physically meaningful? It makes little sense to complain "Things don't just appear from nothing!" if "nothing" has never actually been observed. If "nothing" has never been observed, then how could one ever expect to see whether or not anything can spontaneously spring from it? If you're going to argue that a quantum vacuum doesn't constitute "nothing," then apparently we have never studied "nothing," and so we really don't know one way or the other whether or not something can spontaneously arise from it.

    I rather doubt that one could even define that sort of "nothingness" in a meaningful or useful way. Apparently it's something different from a quantum vacuum. So how specifically would it be different? It's fine to posit some alternate state of reality that's different from the quantum vacuum we observe around us, but any alternate reality you care to concoct will be arbitrary, won't it? No one would be able to provide any evidence that their version of "nothing," whatever properties it might have, was actually the "nothing" that existed "before the universe."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    To get us back on track, I sadly don't have an hour, though I will be checking the video when I can.

    Why is it important the shape of the universe, and what exactly is "flat" in terms of cosmology?
    The way I understand it, having a flat universe is important because it is the only one of the three geometries which allow zero total energy... and zero total energy is the condition on which the argument rests.



    From a link I shared earlier:

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
    The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). If the density of the universe is less than the critical density, then the geometry of space is open, negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper. Thus, there is a direct link between the geometry of the universe and its fate.

    The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper. That is the result confirmed by the WMAP science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    You might be right, but is there any reason to suspect that there ever was some "ultimate nothingness" that the universe somehow sprang from? Is there any reason to suspect that such an "ultimate nothingness" is even possible, or physically meaningful?
    No, and that's my point. Krauss seems to assume that the universe sprang from the same sort of nothingness that we know a bout today - one that includes vacuum energy. He doesn't justify this assumption.

    He also mentions string theory, somewhat disparagingly, as (if I remember correctly) metaphysics. This struck me as a bit of the old pot and kettle syndrome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    TBH, guys... I think this "what is nothing" semantic debate is rather meaningless. It was explicitly defined in the talk as, "zero total energy." That's my take. I suppose I could be mistaken. It has happened to me once before... It was a Tuesday. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    No, and that's my point. Krauss seems to assume that the universe sprang from the same sort of nothingness that we know a bout today - one that includes vacuum energy. He doesn't justify this assumption.
    The people who need to justify their assumptions are the ones assuming that 1) there was some alternate-reality "nothing" that the universe sprang from, and 2) this "springing from nothing" would be logically impossible (and could therefor only have happened if some agent with special powers was around to cause it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    TBH, guys... I think this "what is nothing" semantic debate is rather meaningless. It was explicitly defined in the talk as, "zero total energy." That's my take. I suppose I could be mistaken. It has happened to me once before... It was a Tuesday. 8)
    Well, I would think that if the whole thesis is that the universe came from nothing, then it is incumbent upon the author to clearly define what he means by nothing.

    I'm not disputing the idea - just asking for clarification. The definition of nothing as "zero total energy" could apply to our universe today and so implies the existence of a realm possessing the same physics existing before the big bang occcurred. If we are taking this as axiomatic, then fine, but let's admit that that is what we're doing.

    In response to Scifor Refugee, I'd suggest that the ones who need to justify their assumptions are the ones making the claim, not the ones suggesting possible weaknesses in the claim. As for the "agent with special powers", please don't associate me with that nonsense. It's of "zero total interest" to me. I'm a bit sorry that inow decided to post in this forum rather than Physics. The alternative to "coming from nothing" might be "always existed" but not "God dunnit".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    okay, first things first, we do not know, and we will NEVER know exactly how the universe came into existence. All arguments about it are speculation and theoretical "could have been's". We can't reproduce a universe. I must say, though, that with regards to the 'flat universe' that is actually pretty interesting. Although, it's hard to say exactly HOW flat the universe is, eh? As your linked data says we are close to critical density, meaning we could be off by just a tiny bit, making a slight curvature to the universe, no?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    In one of Krauss’s New Scientist commentaries http://genesis1.asu.edu/~krauss/newscinov19.html he addresses the issues we have been discussing, and ends up thus:
    “The key point, however, is that with zero total energy, Aquinas's puzzle is resolvable. And once the energy fluctuations of quantum mechanics are thrown into the mix, the idea of something arising from nothing can become not just possible, but necessary.
    Purists will argue that this begs the question of how the physical laws that make it all possible arose. Nevertheless, science has once again altered the playing field for such metaphysical speculations in a dramatic and beautiful way.”
    Reading this, it seems to put me in the purist camp, but he neglects to answer the purists’ objections. It is apparently mathematically necessary that the universe arose from nothing (no real problem with this), but at the same time it is metaphysical speculation to say that the same quantum fluctuations that exist in the universe were available to create the universe. He acknowledges a problem but doesn’t attempt to address it.
    Perhaps we just have to get used to being at the end of the empirical road and learn to love metaphysical speculation. But metaphysical speculation isn’t physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I must say, though, that with regards to the 'flat universe' that is actually pretty interesting. Although, it's hard to say exactly HOW flat the universe is, eh? As your linked data says we are close to critical density, meaning we could be off by just a tiny bit, making a slight curvature to the universe, no?
    There will always be some local perturbations and "dimples," but overall it's really quite flat. When cosmologists assert a flat universe, it's not the best idea to think about it as "flat" like a piece of paper is flat. What they generally mean is that the geometry of the universe is such that parallel lines will never cross, the angles in a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees, and the corners of cubes will always make right angles. We can have all of those despite local variances.

    From what I've read, they use a variable (Ω) to describe the curvature. They calculate it as the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density. From the studies I've seen, we're about 99% confident that Ω = 1, and the odds are about 200:1 that the universe is flat and spatially infinite (not open).

    When taken together, this shows that the total energy is zero, despite all of the stuff we like to point at and smile in awe, wonder, and bewilderment and say is "special."

    Here's a good site with more about Ω:
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm


    As for the argument above from Bunbury... Are there any compelling reasons to seriously think that the way we define "nothing" now was different in any way, shape, or form as to how it would be defined pre-BB? In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I would think the most rational and reasonable position would be to assume that it was the same. To do otherwise (absent a compelling reason) seems to be nothing (pun intended) more than a rationalization to justify a faith-based belief in a fairy tale written by barely literate tribal peoples in the desert during the Bronze age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Are there any compelling reasons to seriously think that the way we define "nothing" now was different in any way, shape, or form as to how it would be defined pre-BB?
    Of course there are! That's the whole point. Physics defines how we deifne "nothing" now. Physics is the science of particles in spacetime. Spacetime began at the big bang. If "before BB" means anything it means physics as we know it did not exist. This is why Krauss called it metaphysics.

    In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I would think the most rational and reasonable position would be to assume that it was the same.
    How on Earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?

    To do otherwise (absent a compelling reason) seems to be nothing (pun intended) more than a rationalization to justify a faith-based belief in a fairy tale written by barely literate tribal peoples in the desert during the Bronze age.
    I take this as a pathetic cheap shot. I don't usually engage in one-upmanship, but I am betting I have been an atheist since before you were born and will be one when I die. You introduced an interesting topic and made the mistake of putting it in the religion forum. I have asked questions that no one has yet answered, and you response is invoke faith-based belief. Please - I expected better having read your posts on other topics. I don't care about religion, believers, God, and all the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Red herring. Drop it. Try to address the issues I have raised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    How on Earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?
    This is exactly right of course. Things can only exist or happen within a "place", space. The full definition of nothing precludes even thinking about its properties. There aren't any.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The alternative to "coming from nothing" might be "always existed" but not "God dunnit".
    Why ? just because you wish so ?
    Because if you theorise the universe always existed, the only thing you are assuming to exist is the universe, which almost certainly does exist. By claiming god created the universe, and god always existed, you are assuming both the existance of the universe, which almost certainly exists, and the existance of god, for whom there is no evidence to support his existance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    the universe had a absolute beginning, this is supported by empirical evidence.
    Yes, to an extent. There is no evidence that shows nothing existed before the theorised beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    From nothing, nothing derives, therefor, God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
    No.

    From nothing, nothing derives, therefore neither god nor the universe can exist, because they can never have come into existance.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How on Earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?
    That's a fair point, but having read on a lot of the work being conducted right now with loop quantum gravity, I'm not entirely confident that the BB was the start. There is a growing confluence of publications which suggest it was more of a bounce. However, even if it was not, there's really no serious cosmologists who think that the BB was the start of it all, or that there was a singularity. Most people in this field seem to recognize that it's just the point at which our calculations break down... that the models we use are limited when we get to those epochs, and that we need new math to describe it more accurately... not that the universe was actually a singularity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    To do otherwise (absent a compelling reason) seems to be nothing (pun intended) more than a rationalization to justify a faith-based belief in a fairy tale written by barely literate tribal peoples in the desert during the Bronze age.
    I take this as a pathetic cheap shot. I don't usually engage in one-upmanship, but I am betting I have been an atheist since before you were born and will be one when I die. You introduced an interesting topic and made the mistake of putting it in the religion forum. I have asked questions that no one has yet answered, and you response is invoke faith-based belief. Please - I expected better having read your posts on other topics. I don't care about religion, believers, God, and all the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Red herring. Drop it. Try to address the issues I have raised.
    You'll have to please forgive me. I'm simply exasperated at the religious idiocy which still runs so rampant in our culture. It blows my mind that it's nearly 2010 and we have people with 0010 belief systems. While I did soften my comment by using the term "seems to be, my aforementioned frustration and disgust with the god-fog which has enveloped our culutre seems to have caused me to set my rhetorical target on to a false positive, and for that I apologize.

    Also... Don't be so sure you've been an atheist since before I was born. I'm not that old, but I'm also not that young anymore. 8)




    As for Zebaoth888's comment about nothing coming from nothing, we can reject that premise as false on its face. We see it all of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How on Earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?
    That's a fair point, but having read on a lot of the work being conducted right now with loop quantum gravity, I'm not entirely confident that the BB was the start. There is a growing confluence of publications which suggest it was more of a bounce. However, even if it was not, there's really no serious cosmologists who think that the BB was the start of it all, or that there was a singularity..
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...ter_friendly=1

    Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

    It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big...ity_where_did_ the_singularity_come_from

    Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Vilenkin has published once in the last 30 years, it was about strings (not the BB), and it was in a non-peer-reviewed book. Any monkey can write any damned thing into a book. So... Sorry, but that doesn't seem to meet my criteria of "serious cosmologists." Maybe you could try again using people who have published something peer-reviewed within the last 5 years?

    Also, we've learned quite a lot in the last 30 years... Hell... even many of the things in Hawkings book BHoT are considered far out-dated, and that was written and updated a mere 12 years ago.

    Either way... Of course there will be a handful of people who have differing beliefs, but my point is that the largest consensus in cosmology is that there wasn't actually a singularity... That it's merely an artifact of the mathematical models we use.

    And... did you really just cite reasonablefaith.org as a reference? Wait... Of course you did... you also cited creationwiki as a reference earlier. Are creationists really this laughably ignorant, or are they intentionally obtuse? For the love of Thor, man... Give me a break. You're too old to have imaginary friends and believe this silly nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Zebaoth888,

    Preaching is not welcome here. One way or another it will discontinue. Please accept this as a kind warning to stop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Either way... Of course there will be a handful of people who have differing beliefs, but my point is that the largest consensus in cosmology is that there wasn't actually a singularity... .
    that is new for me. please show me where you know this from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There is a growing confluence of publications which suggest it was more of a bounce. However, even if it was not, there's really no serious cosmologists who think that the BB was the start of it all, or that there was a singularity. Most people in this field seem to recognize that it's just the point at which our calculations break down... that the models we use are limited when we get to those epochs, and that we need new math to describe it more accurately... not that the universe was actually a singularity.
    That's fair enough. I've read some of this too. However, that did not seem to be the gist of the lecture (getting back to Krauss). I 'd have to go back for the exact quote, but I think he essentially said the universe "began" with a quantum fluctuation in spacetime, which I will say again, seems nonsensical to me, since the universe and spacetime are basically synonymous. If in fact he meant that this was a bounce, or part of a cycle, he could have said that. I believe he was addressing scientists, so why did he pull his punches?

    Regarding your exasperation with religious idiocy, I've gone beyond that point. Being frustrated is pointless. I look for "science" forums and am then chagrined to find a religious sub forum under the heading of science. I generally ignore it but your name was a magnet - having read your nice arguments about the health care issue (but then we probably shouldn't have politics in a science forum either).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I look for "science" forums and am then chagrined to find a religious sub forum under the heading of science
    . I agree fully, Bunbury. I'm in here to learn some science, and there's precious few threads to instantly snap my interest as this one has. Instead I allow myself to get drawn into the religion threads and and then try to throw some light on the most ridiculous of premises. What a pointless waste of time.

    It's far more interesting to "grapple with the ineffible:"
    Why assume that before the big bang physics was the same as it is today?
    "and see if we cannot eff it after all."

    I would like a direction to the idea that if there was 'ultimate nothing' then you could not have quantum fluctuations - physics itself would not exist; so quanta of "anything" could not exist. Reality would not exist. Neither Space nor Singularity would exist. "Everything" would be UNexistance.
    I even have a hard time finding words to describe it!

    I'm hoping for more comments on this, and I sure hope it won't be one of the weak brained that shut down their thinking and say "You see! You proved there needed to be gahhhhd!!!"

    It is also much to my chagrin that we live in a time when these questions are just in the dawn of being understood and grappled with. I mean the first line of my sig. Although I should probably change it to "Why couldn't I be born in an interstellar-faring civilization?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    [quote="C_Sensei]
    It's far more interesting to "grapple with the ineffible:"
    Why assume that before the big bang physics was the same as it is today?
    "and see if we cannot eff it after all."
    So, eff it or eff off?

    I would like a direction to the idea that if there was 'ultimate nothing' then you could not have quantum fluctuations - physics itself would not exist; so quanta of "anything" could not exist. Reality would not exist. Neither Space nor Singularity would exist. "Everything" would be UNexistance.
    I even have a hard time finding words to describe it!

    I'm hoping for more comments on this, and I sure hope it won't be one of the weak brained that shut down their thinking and say "You see! You proved there needed to be gahhhhd!!!"
    Or just ignore the ideas that involve magic and respond to those that involve metaphysics...
    8)

    It is also much to my chagrin that we live in a time when these questions are just in the dawn of being understood and grappled with. I mean the first line of my sig. Although I should probably change it to "Why couldn't I be born in an interstellar-faring civilization?"
    Be thankful you weren't born 200 years ago. You could have been burnt at the stake for thinking such things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    okay, first things first, we do not know, and we will NEVER know exactly how the universe came into existence. All arguments about it are speculation and theoretical "could have been's". We can't reproduce a universe.
    I don't think it makes any sense to predict, for example, the limits of technology based on the level of technology in the early 21st century.
    Equally, I don't believe that one can set limits to scientific knowledge about anything, including the existence of the universe.
    Maybe humans will never know the answers to the "why" and "how" questions but nobody, living today, could possibly predict the advances which will be made in science during the next 1000 years and beyond.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Either way... Of course there will be a handful of people who have differing beliefs, but my point is that the largest consensus in cosmology is that there wasn't actually a singularity... .
    that is new for me. please show me where you know this from.
    Hawking, Stephen W. (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam p. 129

    Faraoni and Cooperstock (2003). "On the Total Energy of Open Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universes," Astrophysical Journal 587, pp. 483-86

    Hawking, Stephen W. and Roger Penrose (1970). "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314, pp. 529-48.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Thanks, SkinWalker. Additionally:


    http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline...ngs/index.html
    Whether or not there really was a big bang singularity is a totally different question. Most cosmologists would be very surprised if it turned out that our universe really did have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved beginning. Commonly, the fact that a model predicts infinite values for some physical quantity indicates that the model is too simple and fails to include some crucial aspect of the real world. In fact, we already know what the usual cosmological models fail to include: At ultra-high densities, with the whole of the observable universe squeezed into a volume much smaller than that of an atom, we would expect quantum effects to become crucially important. But the cosmological standard models do not include full quantum versions of space, time and geometry - they are not based on a quantum theory of gravity. However, at the present time we do not yet have a reliable theory of quantum gravity. While there are promising candidates for such a theory, none are developed far enough to yield reliable predictions for the very early universe.

    Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    This is perhaps something of a digression, but it has never been clear to me why theists even bother to make this sort of "something must have caused the universe" argument as evidence for a god's existence. I mean, let's suppose we totally buy into it and agree that something must have "caused" (whatever that means) the universe to come into existence. Ok, now what? How does that get you to "god"? I mean, I guess you can just choose to define "god" as "that which caused the universe," but that doesn't tell you anything about "god" other than that he caused the universe - and that's only because you defined the term to mean that. You have no idea if this "god" was an entity, is it still exists, or anything else. You merely know the definition that you assigned to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    it has never been clear to me why theists even bother to make this sort of "something must have caused the universe" argument as evidence for a god's existence. I mean, let's suppose we totally buy into it and agree that something must have "caused" (whatever that means) the universe to come into existence. Ok, now what? How does that get you to "god"? I mean, I guess you can just choose to define "god" as "that which caused the universe," but that doesn't tell you anything about "god" other than that he caused the universe - and that's only because you defined the term to mean that. You have no idea if this "god" was an entity, if it still exists, or anything else. You merely know the definition that you assigned to it.
    Indeed. It also suffers from an infinite regression ("what came before that, then? and what came before that, then? and before that?" ... ad infinitum). I think Drowsy Turtle touched on this briefly above.

    If nothing comes from nothing, then god cannot come from nothing either. Their own logic... their own opening axiom... defeats their own argument/assertion, and hence is a total waste of time and completely without merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    If nothing comes from nothing, then god cannot come from nothing either. Their own logic... their own opening axiom... defeats their own argument/assertion, and hence is a total waste of time and completely without merit.
    Since God had no beginning, he had no cause. I believe God lives in a timeless eternity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Why does God get to be the exception to everything having a begging?
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Since God had no beginning, he had no cause. I believe God lives in a timeless eternity.
    Yes, I know you believe that, but it is still counter to your own logical axiom, and hence completely flawed and without merit.

    The set of "nothing" is absolute in the context which you used it... It is equivalent to stating "Not one single thing" and hence includes (by definition) god, as god is a "thing." Ergo, you cannot logically state that "NOTHING can come from nothing" and in the next sentence assert that "God did."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    He is trying to state, like most theists do, that God does not exist in the visible universe, he exists outside it, thus he can exist while the universe does not. However that still doesn't do anything for the point that if the universe could not have always existed in some form or another, then neither could God. Nor for the fact that their argument of, something cannot come from nothing, defeats their own belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Since God had no beginning, he had no cause. I believe God lives in a timeless eternity.
    Is the standard cop-out for "I can't answer your question so I will make a statement you can't prove is wrong, to prove that I am right."
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    He is trying to state, like most theists do, that God does not exist in the visible universe, he exists outside it, thus he can exist while the universe does not. However that still doesn't do anything for the point that if the universe could not have always existed in some form or another, then neither could God. Nor for the fact that their argument of, something cannot come from nothing, defeats their own belief system.
    And even ignoring all that, as I pointed out before that line of reasoning only gets you to "there was something outside the universe before it was created." You can choose to label that "something" as "god" if you want, but you don't actually know anything about this god, other than the fact that it is (or at least was) an extra-universe something. There is no reason to believe it's an entity etc. Perhaps this "god" is merely some extra-universe reality that has always existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Why does God get to be the exception to everything having a begging?
    That's what makes her God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Or perhaps this 'god' of yours is nothing but a fantasy you invent that breaks the logic entirely of what we're discussing here. But you turn around and beg for special consideration of your god because - well, it's gahhhhd!!

    Nope. You don't get any special consideration. If your god exists, then by definition it is part of the universe. Your god is nothing more than a fantasy and a cop-out.

    All you do in inventing your god is add an extra step into how the universe began. But that was covered some posts ago already . See 'infinite regression'.

    If anyone wants to comment at the level of religion, why don't they posit the flying spaghetti monster as the only thing that existed before the BB?!
    Or how about the great green arkleseizure? It was the only thing that existed OUTSIDE of this universe! FEAR THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHIEF!

    This is how utterly foolish your talk of a god sounds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Since God had no beginning, he had no cause. I believe God lives in a timeless eternity.
    Yes, I know you believe that, but it is still counter to your own logical axiom, and hence completely flawed and without merit.
    why is that ?

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The set of "nothing" is absolute in the context which you used it... It is equivalent to stating "Not one single thing" and hence includes (by definition) god, as god is a "thing." Ergo, you cannot logically state that "NOTHING can come from nothing" and in the next sentence assert that "God did."
    everything cannot come from nothing. How about that ? If you cancel God as efficient cause out, what remains , is a metaphysical inefficient cause, which is double counter-intuitive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    He is trying to state, like most theists do, that God does not exist in the visible universe, he exists outside it, thus he can exist while the universe does not. However that still doesn't do anything for the point that if the universe could not have always existed in some form or another, then neither could God. Nor for the fact that their argument of, something cannot come from nothing, defeats their own belief system.
    why that ? why could God not have existed outside of time, and uncaused, if the universe has not ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Is the standard cop-out for "I can't answer your question so I will make a statement you can't prove is wrong, to prove that I am right."
    which question i cannot answer ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    And even ignoring all that, as I pointed out before that line of reasoning only gets you to "there was something outside the universe before it was created." You can choose to label that "something" as "god" if you want, but you don't actually know anything about this god, other than the fact that it is (or at least was) an extra-universe something. There is no reason to believe it's an entity etc. Perhaps this "god" is merely some extra-universe reality that has always existed.
    there is no evidence that a extra-universe existed prior our universe, and you push the question just more back: what caused that extra-universe ? and what made it cause our universe,and how ? by what mechanism ? and why did it tune our universe to life ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Why does God get to be the exception to everything having a begging?
    That's what makes her God.
    why should God be a exception over a other cause ? a alternative, other cause, would have to be metaphysical as well, thus be a exception, since prior the Big Bang, nothing physical existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Or perhaps this 'god' of yours is nothing but a fantasy you invent that breaks the logic entirely of what we're discussing here. But you turn around and beg for special consideration of your god because - well, it's gahhhhd!!

    Nope. You don't get any special consideration. If your god exists, then by definition it is part of the universe. Your god is nothing more than a fantasy and a cop-out.

    All you do in inventing your god is add an extra step into how the universe began. But that was covered some posts ago already . See 'infinite regression'.

    If anyone wants to comment at the level of religion, why don't they posit the flying spaghetti monster as the only thing that existed before the BB?!
    Or how about the great green arkleseizure? It was the only thing that existed OUTSIDE of this universe! FEAR THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHIEF!

    This is how utterly foolish your talk of a god sounds.
    the spontaneous origination of the universe ex nihilo is doubly counter–intuitive in that it denies of the universe both a material and (especially) an efficient cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    All you do in adding your god is to add an extra step to that last statement. It's like adding +1 to both sides of an equation. It does NOTHING but clutter up what you're investigating.
    Add your god and you have the same problem. Where did your god come from then? "Oh it came from somewhere else!" (Which only goes and screws your original argument of "nothing", but I doubt anyone religious would even notice.) Well, then remove your god and say our reality came from somewhere else!

    "Well the somewhere else is gaaahhhddd!!" No, the somewhere else is another dimension that is therefore 'something' instead of 'nothing'.

    Just because the question we investigate is counter-intuitive does NOT mean it therefore cannot possibly happen, nor does it mean we STOP our thinking and give a transparent and supremely weak answer "gahhhddd!" If you can't see that you do nothing more than add a useless (and indeed, contradictory) step in adding your god, then we can't help you.



    How many other people in here are saying
    "It gives me a headache just thinking down to your level."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    there is no evidence that a extra-universe existed prior our universe
    Zebaoth888, even a God has to be somewhere. For God to have existed before our universe, there MUST have been a somewhere for him/her/it to exist in. This is not a matter physics (well, not only ), but a matter of inescapable logic. If this somewhere had to exist for it to contain a God, then where did that originate from? As you say, this becomes an infinite regression. Where would a creation act of a God fit into such an infinite regression? You might say that everything must have a cause, but saying that simply because it makes you feel better does not make it true, especially when the selfcreated paradox of saying in the same breath that a God has no cause is solved by injecting illogical magic.

    Edit: One way to solve this, of course, would be if a "true universe" have always existed and that "our universe" is the result of a big bang event in the "true universe". This universe need not be isolated from the infinite one either. Inflation included a period of expansion that exceeded light speed (not a violation of relativity), so our universe might be open ended, even without the earth needing to be at the centre, if our local universe is big enough. Alternatively this universe might be isolated geometrically (similar to how the inside of a black hole is isolated from the outside), so no edge could never be reached from the inside (though things could enter from outside). This is conjecture though and not supported (nor negated) by evidence AFAIK. It might be undiluted nonsense.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Or perhaps this 'god' of yours is nothing but a fantasy you invent that breaks the logic entirely of what we're discussing here.
    I don't have a god, as far as I know. (Which admittedly is not very far.)
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    If your god exists, then by definition it is part of the universe.
    Try not to be overly silly. Cosmologists already recognise that there is likely something 'beyond' our universe. It looks as if universe was a bad name choice. So it is entirely possible (I didn't say probable, or plausible) that any God exists outwith what we perceive of as the universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Your god is nothing more than a fantasy and a cop-out. ....waffle, waffle....rant.... minor rave... waffle....This is how utterly foolish your talk of a god sounds.
    If that post really was directed to me I think you rather missed the mix of humour and philosophy it was intended to convey. That was doubtless my fault for mischaracterising my audience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    there is no evidence that a extra-universe existed prior our universe
    Zebaoth888, even a God has to be somewhere.
    As a spiritual entity, God does not need any space to live in.

    http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlet...reatedGod.html

    From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted; but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator. Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?

    The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:

    John 4: 24
    God is a Spirit: ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    From a purely scientific standpoint,
    and then:

    John 4: 24
    God is a Spirit: ...
    What does "Spirit" mean? You might say "that which is not physical", but what does that mean exactly? Is it a vague concept of patterned energy?

    I am well aware of the whole heat death thing and I agree with it. What I am saying is that one possibility is that the big bang happened in an infinite universe, but the local universe it created could be isolated from the outside. Entropy can go its merry path in this universe. Or the new universe is not isolated geometrically, but the additive nature of expanding space could take care of any incoming radiation from the ouside universe and we would never see it.

    Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?
    If this universe is the only one, then he could not have existed before the big bang. You don't seem to understand the concept of space-time. Any "thing" needs space to exist in, no matter how you care to define this "thing", be it as spirit or whatever. Nothing can violate logical consistency. Not even God can create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force at the same time as an example. Similarly, something cannot exist without having to be some place.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You don't seem to understand the concept of space-time. Any "thing" needs space to exist in, no matter how you care to define this "thing", be it as spirit or whatever. Nothing can violate logical consistency. Not even God can create both an immovable object and an unstoppable force at the same time as an example. Similarly, something cannot exist without having to be some place.
    It's rather obvious what the next reply will be... "Oh yeah? God can, so there."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Similarly, something cannot exist without having to be some place.
    Your soul and spirit is trapped in your body, but it is not physical. Otherwise somebody could show it and say : this is your soul, and present something physical. This is evidenced also by many after life experience, of people who apparently died, but came back and reported experiences outside of their body, like fluctuating above their body, and looking at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Similarly, something cannot exist without having to be some place.
    Your soul and spirit is trapped in your body, but it is not physical. Otherwise somebody could show it and say : this is your soul, and present something physical. This is evidenced also by many after life experience, of people who apparently died, but came back and reported experiences outside of their body, like fluctuating above their body, and looking at it.
    I really expected more than that. Same old same old. Fail. :|
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    there is no evidence that a extra-universe existed prior our universe, and you push the question just more back: what caused that extra-universe ? and what made it cause our universe,and how ? by what mechanism ? and why did it tune our universe to life ?
    You need to explain why your god doesn't require an origin/cause/etc. Do you believe that everything requires a cause, or not? If not, how do you know what does and does not require a cause? Apparently you believe that your god does not require a cause, but that everything else does. You need to justify this assertion with some sort of evidence - otherwise you too are simply "pushing the question just more back." Why do you assume that our reality must have had some exterior cause, but that your god didn't?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    You need to explain why your god doesn't require an origin/cause/etc. Do you believe that everything requires a cause, or not? If not, how do you know what does and does not require a cause? Apparently you believe that your god does not require a cause, but that everything else does. You need to justify this assertion with some sort of evidence - otherwise you too are simply "pushing the question just more back." Why do you assume that our reality must have had some exterior cause, but that your god didn't?
    I cannot answer you that question. Does that fact shift the best explanation to
    spontaneous origination ex nihilo ? if you think so, please explain, why.
    You have the choice between a efficient cause, God, and a inefficient one, chance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Same old same old. Fail. :|
    why does my answer fail ? just because you do not WANT to accept it ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Same old same old. Fail. :|
    why does my answer fail ? just because you do not WANT to accept it ?
    There are people that truly believe they have been abducted by aliens and were experimented on with crude shiny instruments. There are people that truly believe that they can move objects with their minds, people that truly believe in reincarnation, people that believe they have seen Bigfoot, I personally know people that think they can see the future in tea leaves, others really believe that walking under a ladder is "bad luck", etc etc. What all of these have in common, including yours, is the total absence of good evidence for their claims and the existence of much more likely alternative explanations. You don't seem to realize this, but eyewitness accounts are NOT good evidence. Do you simply accept it because you WANT to?

    You have not given me ANY real explanation of what exactly a "spirit" is supposed to be in any kind of terms remotely approaching a scientific one. You are the one that is claiming it can exist where there is not even a place for it to exist and the rationalization you give me is based solely on the word of others. You are handwaving. There is no reason at all for me to believe your say-so.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    You have not given me ANY real explanation of what exactly a "spirit" is supposed to be in any kind of terms remotely approaching a scientific one. You are the one that is claiming it can exist where there is not even a place for it to exist and the rationalization you give me is based solely on the word of others. You are handwaving. There is no reason at all for me to believe your say-so.
    your argument is based on unjustified incredulity. there are thousands of testimonies all over the world of people, that made similar experiences, and these are well documented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    That's not evidence. There are thousands of testimonies of anal probing aliens. It doesn't mean that people have been anal probed by aliens.
    He asked for concret evidence. You have displayed inane hear say.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    That's not evidence. There are thousands of testimonies of anal probing aliens. It doesn't mean that people have been anal probed by aliens.
    He asked for concret evidence. You have displayed inane hear say.
    http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...l#74gNTNlhXbmx

    In the September 2006 issue of Science, Dr. Owen and his colleagues published a study entitled "Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State." Owen and his colleagues studied the responses of a woman who was in a persistent vegetative state, which was the consequence of severe diffuse brain damage that she had suffered in an automobile accident the year before.

    The patient had no evidence of any mental function. Based on a battery of standard tests, including MRI scans, electroencephalograms (EEG’s — brain wave tests), and careful bedside examinations by neurologists and neurosurgeons, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Persistent vegetative state means that she had no mental state — no consciousness. She was, in a sense, a shell, a human body without a mind. That’s what "vegetative" means.

    Owen and his colleagues did a fascinating series of tests. First, they asked a group of normal volunteers to have a kind of research MRI scan of their brain, called a functional MRI (fMRI). fMRI doesn’t measure the actual activity of the neurons in the brain, but it measures the blood flow and brain metabolism in specific regions of the brain. It has been found to correlate to some extent with mental activity. Thinking about things can make the metabolism in certain parts of the brain increase, and fMRI can detect this. The observation that brain activity can locally increase brain blood flow and metabolism was originally made a century ago, in animals in the lab, so it’s not new. What is new is that we can now measure it in living people non-invasively, using fMRI.

    The Cambridge researchers asked the volunteers to think of things, like playing tennis or walking across the room, and they recorded their fMRI brain responses. They also presented the volunteers with nonsense words, to distinguish understanding in the brain from the mere reflex to sounds. The response to understanding was different from the response to sound. The fMRI test seemed to test understanding, not just reflexes.

    They did the same tests to the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. They asked her to imagine playing tennis or imagine walking across the room, and they did the sham test with random words as well.

    When they examined her fMRI responses, they found that her fMRI patterns were identical to those of the normal awake volunteers. By fMRI criteria, she understood. In fact, by fMRI criteria, she was as conscious as the normal volunteers. Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet the blood flow and metabolism patterns in her brain were those of a normal person. And just like normal people, she showed different fMRI responses to nonsense words. So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    So? You automatically conclude that this proves or counts as evidence for a soul?

    Look HERE.

    "Owen et al. (1) attempted to determine the level of awareness of a patient in a vegetative state. They claimed that their results "confirmed beyond any doubt that she was consciously aware." Unfortunately, the study suffers from substantial flaws and does not merit such extraordinarily strong conclusions.

    In their experiment, Owen et al. gave their patient instructions ("Imagine playing tennis" or "Imagine visiting the rooms in your home"). Analyses showed that the resultant brain activation was no different from that of controls. The authors thus concluded that the patient made a "decision to cooperate" that "represents a clear act of intention." Yet it is unclear whether she made any conscious decisions whatsoever. How do the authors know that she interpreted the stimulus as instructions rather than as a simple sentence? Could it be that the brain activity was unconsciously triggered by the last word of the instructions, which always referred to the item to be imagined, and that no decision was involved at all? As the authors acknowledged, words and sentences can induce activation in people who are clearly unconscious. These ambiguities could be addressed empirically. For example, what would happen if they presented a similar noninstructive sentence such as "Sharleen was playing tennis"? Alternatively, suppose they presented a sentence such as "Imagine visiting the rooms in your home after playing tennis." Would the patient show activation associated with home (suggesting she had understood the instructions), activation associated with tennis (suggesting she had not), or something else entirely? Would her results differ from those of controls on these tasks? Without answers to such questions, the Owen et al. study is difficult to interpret. Although the authors have examined an important issue, a more detailed study is required to determine the extent of awareness in the vegetative state."

    Fail!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Zebaoth888 do you believe only one religion is true? If so, which one do you subscribe to being the "true" religion? Why do you believe this? You have previously quoted from John, so I assume you are a christian, if that is true, why do you believe Christianity is true? Explain it without "proof" from the bible. "The bible is true, because it says in the bible that it is true and the word of God," doesn't work.

    Thousands of people claim to have had NDE's (near death experiences) where they talked with God, or an angle or some other being. However this in itself refutes current religions all over the world. This is because these people who have the NDE's, almost always become very, very religious after their experience, but there is one common theme. They never convert to a different religion after their experience. A professed christian has a NDE and comes back and becomes a super christian, a Muslim has a NDE and comes back a super Muslim. You never have these people coming back and going, "shit I had the wrong religion ______ is right, I need to convert."

    If one religion was right and the others were wrong, and these people actually had NDE's coupled with out of body experiences, where they met God. You would think they would covert to whatever religion is the correct one. If every person who had a NDE came back and all converted to one religion, maybe people would be more inclined to believe something else is out there.


    My question to you is this:
    How can they all be right (religions), when they all state they are right and everyone else is wrong?

    They also all state killing is wrong, but then go on to say you should kill anyone who isn't in your religion.

    "Love thy neighbor." Apparently they forgot the caveat "unless he is of a different religion then you should murder him."
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Clearly Zebaoth888 has a delusion to which he/she will not see past and notice his/her own irrational stand.

    With each rational argument, he/she responds with the supernatural. There can be, therefore, no intellectual discussion with such a person and that person's fall back position will always be nonsensical shit like "spirit" and "soul" for which there is no empirical data.

    In the end, the cultural delusion Zebaoth888 is afflicted by drives the special circumstances he/she applies to his god which cannot apply to the universe itself: a god can have always existed; a universe cannot. Never mind that this god hasn't a universe or a cosmos to contain it -special pleading allows it to be a "spirit" (whatever that is) and non-material. Yet this "spirit" is able to manipulate reality.

    Delusion. Never mind that accepting such a "god" says nothing about it except that it existed before the cosmos it created, perhaps hoisting itself by its own "spiritual" bootstraps, only to "create" the cosmos. One is left to wonder how the advantage of being a "spirit" that needs no reality then translates to physical ability to interact with a reality -but that's the beauty of web woven by delusion and imagination. One can simply imagine away reality, compartmentalizing it away in a dark corner of one's mind that never sees the enlightenment of day.

    I suppose science boards like this will always have the superstitious visiting wanting to blow the smoke of ignorance up our collective asses, all the while trying to convince us that it's the sunshine of wisdom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Perfect post. Sums it up entirely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I cannot answer you that question. Does that fact shift the best explanation to
    spontaneous origination ex nihilo ?
    I never said that it makes the best explanation creation ex nihilo. My point is that claiming "god did it" is just as much "pushing back the issue" as any other explanation for where everything came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I cannot answer you that question. Does that fact shift the best explanation to
    spontaneous origination ex nihilo ?
    I never said that it makes the best explanation creation ex nihilo. My point is that claiming "god did it" is just as much "pushing back the issue" as any other explanation for where everything came from.
    the BIG difference is that God is a EFFICIENT cause, while chance is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Clearly Zebaoth888 has a delusion to which he/she will not see past and notice his/her own irrational stand.

    With each rational argument, he/she responds with the supernatural.
    the cause of the universe is super natural either way, with God, or without, since it happened external our physical, natural universe


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    There can be, therefore, no intellectual discussion with such a person and that person's fall back position will always be nonsensical shit like "spirit" and "soul" for which there is no empirical data.
    is there empirical data for unitarism ? if yes, please show me materially your thoughts. Where are they located at your brain ?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    In the end, the cultural delusion Zebaoth888 is afflicted by drives the special circumstances he/she applies to his god which cannot apply to the universe itself: a god can have always existed; a universe cannot.
    all empirical, scientific data hints to that position. why do you dismiss it ? just because it does not fit your pre established world view ?


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Never mind that this god hasn't a universe or a cosmos to contain it -special pleading allows it to be a "spirit" (whatever that is) and non-material. Yet this "spirit" is able to manipulate reality.
    if God is special pleading, " nothing " as cause of the universe would be it similarly, since it would be outside of space and time.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Delusion. Never mind that accepting such a "god" says nothing about it except that it existed before the cosmos it created, perhaps hoisting itself by its own "spiritual" bootstraps, only to "create" the cosmos. One is left to wonder how the advantage of being a "spirit" that needs no reality then translates to physical ability to interact with a reality -but that's the beauty of web woven by delusion and imagination. One can simply imagine away reality, compartmentalizing it away in a dark corner of one's mind that never sees the enlightenment of day.
    please present a better explanation of the origin of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    if God is special pleading, " nothing " as cause of the universe would be it similarly, since it would be outside of space and time.
    Wrong. The reason this is wrong mainly stems from your lack of understanding on what special pleading is. Special pleading states that everything must follow a rule except for whatever you are biased toward. If everything needs an intelligent creator EXCEPT FOR God, than that would be special pleading. By saying that NOTHING needs an intelligent creator, not even the universe, is not special pleading because EVERYTHING is following the same set of laws or code. Make sense?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    the cause of the universe is super natural either way, with God, or without, since it happened external our physical, natural universe
    Not according to astrophysics. But I concede that the supernatural nature of the universe is readily apparent in your own mind.

    is there empirical data for unitarism ? if yes, please show me materially your thoughts. Where are they located at your brain ?
    Strawman.

    all empirical, scientific data hints to that position. why do you dismiss it ? just because it does not fit your pre established world view ?
    So when confronted with rationality, you invent a pseudo-rationale. And when preconceived conclusions are pointed out to you, you accuse others of doing the same. All without the smallest amount of evidence to support. Well done. And typical of the religiously deluded.

    if God is special pleading, " nothing " as cause of the universe would be it similarly, since it would be outside of space and time.
    Tu quoque: another logical fallacy. And like most logical fallacies it fails. I don't know the cause of the universe. It could have been a god -or it might be that the universe just might have always been here. But I'm at least big enough to say I don't know without inventing magical beings to explain it all.

    please present a better explanation of the origin of the universe.
    And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the rub. Those culturally deluded by religious superstitions will resort to the mythology of their culture (or an adopted culture) rather than rely on rational thought.

    I have no explanation for the universe. Nor do I truly care how it came to be. But I'll never stoop so intellectually low as to blindly follow the superstitions of others simply because I lack the knowledge.

    Mod Note: zeboath's preaching post was deleted. This is warning number 2 of 3.[/ Mod Note]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    if God is special pleading, " nothing " as cause of the universe would be it similarly, since it would be outside of space and time.
    Wrong. The reason this is wrong mainly stems from your lack of understanding on what special pleading is. Special pleading states that everything must follow a rule except for whatever you are biased toward. If everything needs an intelligent creator EXCEPT FOR God, than that would be special pleading. By saying that NOTHING needs an intelligent creator, not even the universe, is not special pleading because EVERYTHING is following the same set of laws or code. Make sense?
    the special pleading argument cannot be applied by physics. If you get a fine , because you drove your car faster than aloud, and someone else does the same, but asks not to be fined, this is special pleading. God as eternal being has never been created, and therefor does not need a cause.

    http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...ument-t226.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    I have no explanation for the universe. Nor do I truly care how it came to be. But I'll never stoop so intellectually low as to blindly follow the superstitions of others simply because I lack the knowledge.
    If you have no explanation of the universe, do you not think it would be better, not to criticise, who has at least a believe, even if it does not correspond to your expectation ?

    one more time my posts are deleted without a true reason, i will go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    one more time my posts are deleted without a true reason, i will go.
    I believe they were moved, not deleted.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...071&highlight=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    if God is special pleading, " nothing " as cause of the universe would be it similarly, since it would be outside of space and time.
    Wrong. The reason this is wrong mainly stems from your lack of understanding on what special pleading is. Special pleading states that everything must follow a rule except for whatever you are biased toward. If everything needs an intelligent creator EXCEPT FOR God, than that would be special pleading. By saying that NOTHING needs an intelligent creator, not even the universe, is not special pleading because EVERYTHING is following the same set of laws or code. Make sense?
    the special pleading argument cannot be applied by physics. If you get a fine , because you drove your car faster than aloud, and someone else does the same, but asks not to be fined, this is special pleading. God as eternal being has never been created, and therefor does not need a cause.

    http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...ument-t226.htm
    If you keep up this charade, I will start to think that you are a moron sir. Physics.. all of physics.. applies general, constant rules within the universe. Nothing in physics makes exceptions to the rules to anything. So why is your God special? If physics wasn't constant, life would not be here because gravity would fail on occasion and our orbit would collapse.
    Thus, all of physics follows rules and regulations. God is not outside of these rules and regulations. Either everything needs to be created, God included, or nothing needs to be created. If nothing needs to be created, why the need for God?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    one more time my posts are deleted without a true reason, i will go.
    I am sorry, but you are in no position to issue ultimatums. If you want to go, go. This forum has certain guidelines/rules that are designed to encourage the best experience possible. That means there are specific sections for specific content and the whole shebang is maintained by a small staff that offer their time for free. If you had not noticed, this is a science forum and this section is the Scientific Study of Religion section, which means entirely unscientific handwaving will not do. As Inow commented, your posts were not deleted, but simply moved. If you want to continue your specific points, continue them there.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    No.. inow mentioned that. Verzen did not.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    No.. inow mentioned that. Verzen did not.
    Damn. Changed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    I have no explanation for the universe. Nor do I truly care how it came to be. But I'll never stoop so intellectually low as to blindly follow the superstitions of others simply because I lack the knowledge.
    If you have no explanation of the universe, do you not think it would be better, not to criticise, who has at least a believe, even if it does not correspond to your expectation ?

    one more time my posts are deleted without a true reason, i will go.
    I believe his point, is that he is perfectly fine with saying he doesn't know where the universe came from. Does he want to know? Likely, I am sure any good scientific mind would want to know.

    But we aren't going to jump to some conclusion who's idea of existence comes from the only "evidence" of it's existence, who defies the laws of physics, and who is self-contradictory. Science thrives on "I don't know how that happened." If we knew everything, science, in the aspect of trying to further knowlege would be useless. The only point to science would be to make sure future generations could understand how things work and why, or we would fall back into the dark ages.

    The goal of science is to convince those who criticize your opinion, and theories, that you're right, or at least on the right track.

    You can't just expect people to believe you in science, you have to be able to convince them. So far, you are simply saying "I don't know how the universe began." and instead of trying to figure out HOW, or WHY it began, you say some super being that defies all laws of physics created it. Normally, if your theory requires breaking other laws of science, it isn't going to hold much weight unless you have some massive evidence to support it, and no, the bible is not evidence.

    It is not evidence because without it, your current notion of who/what God is, would not exist.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    It's not evidence also because it's a bronze-age text written by men (who knew nothing of science,) that had to control their population enough to depend on them in time of war...which was often. They also needed the population to obey their societal laws.

    Modern, Space Age G8 nation people who make the choice to refuse to see this are just....mind-numbingly stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker


    I have no explanation for the universe. Nor do I truly care how it came to be. But I'll never stoop so intellectually low as to blindly follow the superstitions of others simply because I lack the knowledge.
    Interesting thread, altho' I'm slightly puzzled as to why it was put into the "Scientific Study of Religion" sub forum.
    I don't have any "explanation for the universe" either, and I haven't heard of anyone who has.
    As for "how it came to be" I suppose some scientists, and others, might consider someone thinking, about that question, was wasting his/her time on pointless, at least at the moment, speculation.
    However, I am surprised you say you really don't care about the answer!
    Surely the "how" and "why" of the universe are the biggest questions of all, whether you are talking about science or philosophy, and it would be an absolute triumph, for humanity, if we could ever get close to answering these questions.
    I'm pretty sure we would have to journey a hell of a long way before we ran into another species that had a hope of answering them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Interesting thread altho' I'm slightly puzzled as to why it was put into the "Scientific study of Religion" sub forum.
    It was my intention to specifically address the claims that "God did it" and also the assertions that, "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore god."

    Also, I think people are reading too much into SkinWalkers post. It was made in exasperation against a creationist who claimed to KNOW the answer to the question regarding the beginning of the universe... And that answer was "God did it."

    SkinWalkers point when taken in context was (IINM) that he's okay with not being sure of the answer, and it doesn't bother him to any great extent that he doesn't know. He was making the argument that it's better to say "I don't know" and keep searching using evidence and science than it is to say you do know when you're just making something up with zero evidence based on a bronze aged fairy tale. In sum, that admitting to having NO answer is better than discontinuing the search for one because you've found and comforted yourself with a WORTHLESS answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Interesting thread altho' I'm slightly puzzled as to why it was put into the "Scientific study of Religion" sub forum.
    It was my intention to specifically address the claims that "God did it" and also the assertions that, "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore god."

    Also, I think people are reading too much into SkinWalkers post. It was made in exasperation against a creationist who claimed to KNOW the answer to the question regarding the beginning of the universe... And that answer was "God did it."

    SkinWalkers point when taken in context was (IINM) that he's okay with not being sure of the answer, and it doesn't bother him to any great extent that he doesn't know. He was making the argument that it's better to say "I don't know" and keep searching using evidence and science than it is to say you do know when you're just making something up with zero evidence based on a bronze aged fairy tale. In sum, that admitting to having NO answer is better than discontinuing the search for one because you've found and comforted yourself with a WORTHLESS answer.
    I think , only who does want to avoid " nothing " , and " God " , as origin of the universe, uses the " i don't know " escape, showing bias against the possibility, God did it.

    i think , if the bible put on side, only observing the universe and creation, it is more than obvious, a designer was the origin. No proves needed to come to that conclusion. We have today more scientific data than ever, we know the over 120 fine tune constants needed to make life on our planet possible. The solar system, and the earth, are finely organized and tuned to life. This all is a more than clear evidence of a creator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    i think , if the bible put on side, only observing the universe and creation, it is more than obvious, a designer was the origin. No proves needed to come to that conclusion. We have today more scientific data than ever, we know the over 120 fine tune constants needed to make life on our planet possible. The solar system, and the earth, are finely organized and tuned to life. This all is a more than clear evidence of a creator
    Ever heard of the anthropic principle?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    i think , if the bible put on side, only observing the universe and creation, it is more than obvious, a designer was the origin. No proves needed to come to that conclusion. We have today more scientific data than ever, we know the over 120 fine tune constants needed to make life on our planet possible. The solar system, and the earth, are finely organized and tuned to life. This all is a more than clear evidence of a creator
    Ever heard of the anthropic principle?
    yes, sure i have, why ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Interesting thread altho' I'm slightly puzzled as to why it was put into the "Scientific study of Religion" sub forum.
    It was my intention to specifically address the claims that "God did it" and also the assertions that, "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore god."

    Also, I think people are reading too much into SkinWalkers post. It was made in exasperation against a creationist who claimed to KNOW the answer to the question regarding the beginning of the universe... And that answer was "God did it."

    SkinWalkers point when taken in context was (IINM) that he's okay with not being sure of the answer, and it doesn't bother him to any great extent that he doesn't know. He was making the argument that it's better to say "I don't know" and keep searching using evidence and science than it is to say you do know when you're just making something up with zero evidence based on a bronze aged fairy tale. In sum, that admitting to having NO answer is better than discontinuing the search for one because you've found and comforted yourself with a WORTHLESS answer.
    I think , only who does want to avoid " nothing " , and " God " , as origin of the universe, uses the " i don't know " escape, showing bias against the possibility, God did it.

    i think , if the bible put on side, only observing the universe and creation, it is more than obvious, a designer was the origin. No proves needed to come to that conclusion. We have today more scientific data than ever, we know the over 120 fine tune constants needed to make life on our planet possible. The solar system, and the earth, are finely organized and tuned to life. This all is a more than clear evidence of a creator.
    If the 'universe' is fine tuned for life, I would expect to see life on more planets than just earth by way of the hubble.. So far we have not succeeded.

    If the earth was the only one fine tuned for life, I would expect diseases to take no effect on life. Otherwise it is like an engineer purposefully putting suger in the gas container before shipping off a car. It just doesn't work when you use the fine tuning argument.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Interesting thread altho' I'm slightly puzzled as to why it was put into the "Scientific study of Religion" sub forum.
    It was my intention to specifically address the claims that "God did it" and also the assertions that, "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore god."

    Also, I think people are reading too much into SkinWalkers post. It was made in exasperation against a creationist who claimed to KNOW the answer to the question regarding the beginning of the universe... And that answer was "God did it."
    I found the beginning of the thread more interesting, but I don't believe anyone (creationist or otherwise) answered Bunbury's question when he asked
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How on earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?
    Maybe I have this wrong, but that appeared to be the tentative explanation, at the early stages of the thread, as to how something (the universe) arose from "nothing".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I don't believe anyone (creationist or otherwise) answered Bunbury's question when he asked
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How on earth can one assume that quantum fluctuations in spacetime occurred before spacetime existed?
    Maybe I have this wrong, but that appeared to be the tentative explanation, at the early stages of the thread, as to how something (the universe) arose from "nothing".
    I find the assumption of the question rather flawed, myself. I think folks are making the common mistake of assuming spacetime to be some sort of tangible substance. It's not. It's just a word we use to help aid our understanding... essentially a manifold which we can use in our calculations when we are mathematically modeling the universe, but it is not something which itself has any physical or temporal properties. For that reason, I find the argument/question put forth to be somewhat misplaced.


    It is a metric. It is a manifold. It is spacetime. It is not something we can touch and feel and see, but the way we model our universe with our mathematics. We can only measure the relationships of objects, the way they interact, and how those relationships change. In sum, spacetime is a shorthand we use to understand those relationships. It is not tangible like a piece of cheese or a bed linen or a pool of water, nor is it some sort of ether as the question itself seems to suggest.



    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein, foreword to Jammer, Concepts of Space
    If two different authors use the word "red," "hard," or "disappointed," no one doubts that they mean approximately the same thing... But in the case of words such as 'place' or 'space', whose relationship with psychological experience is less direct, there exists a far-reaching uncertainty of interpretation.
    The above was true when he wrote that, but not anymore. The debate was one of spacetime substantialism... but that debate has long since been quieted and the consensus supports the position that spacetime is not itself something, just a shorthand used in our models and descriptions of nature.



    For further reading, people might consider looking the Hole Argument.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_argument
    In 1915, Einstein realized that the hole argument makes an assumption about the nature of spacetime, it presumes that the gravitational field as a function of the coordinate labels is physically meaningful by itself. By dropping this assumption general covariance became compatible with determinism, but now the gravitational field is only physically meaningful to the extent that it alters the trajectories of material particles. While two fields that differ by a coordinate transformation look different mathematically, after the trajectories of all the particles are relabeled in the new coordinates, their interactions are manifestly unchanged. This was the first clear statement of the principle of gauge invariance in physical law.

    Einstein believed that the hole argument implies that the only meaningful definition of location and time is through matter. A point in spacetime is meaningless in itself, because the label which one gives to such a point is undetermined. Spacetime points only acquire their physical significance because matter is moving through them. In his words:
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
    "All our spacetime verifications invariably amount to a determination of spacetime coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but the meeting of two or more of these points." (Einstein, 1916, p.117)
    He considered this the deepest insight of general relativity. When asked by reporters to summarize his theory, he said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
    "People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Freshman Holbenilord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27
    The anthropic principle is simple and beautiful, and yet again has no need for an Intelligent Designer, whether a non-corporeal being or an alien in a shiny UFO.

    If the Earth wasn't suitable for life, we wouldn't be here to say it wasn't, and so our existence here means it must have been, and if it hadn't we wouldn't be here to say it wasn't.
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/index/

    Is the new address for speculative evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    From a pragmatic standpoint, I find the fine-tuning argument to be robustly silly. I mean, if the universe is so fine-tuned for life, then how come there seems to be so little of it in this universe? That's not fine-tuning, that's wildly out-of-tune and tone deaf.



    http://atheistexperience.blogspot.co...ns-part-2.html
    There is hardly any kind of scientific consensus on the universe being "fine-tuned for life," a common mantra of the scientifically-minded apologist. As a scientific layman, I'd have to say, if this were in fact the case, where is all the life? That we know of, there is but one planet in all the universe bearing life (although really earnest efforts to find those elusive Martian microbes continue). I think it would be far more accurate to say that life has been fine-tuned for its environment on Earth, and that fine-tuning mechanism is evolution by natural selection.

    Moreover, as physicist Victor Stenger has pointed out, if the universe were indeed created by the God of Christianity for the purpose of containing life to worship him, why would God need to "fine tune" it? For Pete's sake, he's supposed to be omnipotent. If all it took was an act of will in Genesis 1 to get the ball rolling, why should any "fine tuning" need to be done? I mean, they can't even claim that this one is scripturally supported. It's not as if Genesis says, "And finally on the seventh day, God rested, having pulled two all-nighters in a row to get the fine-tuning right." The whole "fine tuning" argument from apologists makes it sound as if God really worked his ass off to get this darn universe just so. Again, it seems Christianity's God is omnipotent when it's convenient for him to be. But once science begins taking a close look at his alleged "creation," he's a dedicated if imperfect hard worker who's just done the very best he can, and all of his "bad" design is in fact really "elegant" design that we puny humans are too dim to comprehend. (I've actually heard Hugh Ross make a pitch very like that one.)

    This was an interesting article in that regard, too:


    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900
    The idea that certain aspects of our universe make it uniquely suited to life has never been properly tested, says Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You hear people say our universe is fine-tuned for life, that stars are rare and couldn't form if certain things were different," he says. "The truth is, no one has done the calculations." Adams has now rectified that situation and found that it is not unusual for stars to form that can support life.

    Claims of fine-tuning have generally been based on what happens when you vary a single characteristic of the universe, say the strength of gravity, while holding all others constant. That, says Adams, is too artificial a scenario to tell you anything about whether there are other universes that can support life. "The right way to do the problem is to start from scratch," he says. "You have to turn all the knobs and find out what happens."

    To do this, Adams started with a simple definition of a star: a massive body held together by its own gravity that is stable, long-lived and generates energy through nuclear processes. Just three constants are involved in the formation of such stars. One is the gravitational constant. The second is alpha, the fine structure constant that determines the strength of interactions between radiation and matter. The third is a composite of constants that determines the reaction rates of nuclear processes.

    Adams selected a range of possible values for each of these constants, then put them into a computer model that created a multitude of universes, or a virtual "multiverse". Each universe within the multiverse used different values for the three constants and was subject to slightly different laws of physics.

    About a quarter of the resulting universes turned out to be populated by energy-generating stars. "You can change alpha or the gravitational constant by a factor of 100 and stars still form," Adams says, suggesting that stars can exist in universes in which at least some fundamental constants are wildly different than in our universe.

    <...>

    Adams reckons his results, which will be published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, suggest that the "specialness" of our universe could well be an illusion. And this is only the very beginning of what can be probed to undermine the idea that our universe is fine-tuned for life. There are plenty more constants and processes that can be tinkered with, he says.

    Adams's approach is "extremely interesting", says Michael Murphy of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. "I've long had a suspicion that this talk of fine-tuning needs constant questioning and re-examination," he says. "It's sometimes hard to recognise that living somewhere else in a different way might be just as easy."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman Holbenilord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27
    The reason we can see so little life in the universe is because our technology is really primitive. Although we could build a Death Star with sufficient money, no-one will.
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/index/

    Is the new address for speculative evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If the 'universe' is fine tuned for life, I would expect to see life on more planets than just earth by way of the hubble.. So far we have not succeeded.
    the fact that we did not find life on any other planet in the universe, does not change the fact that our solar system is finely tuned to life, so this makes your argument baseless.

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If the earth was the only one fine tuned for life, I would expect diseases to take no effect on life. Otherwise it is like an engineer purposefully putting suger in the gas container before shipping off a car. It just doesn't work when you use the fine tuning argument.
    If you know Genesis, you know why there are diseases on earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If you know Genesis, you know why there are diseases on earth.
    Really... this is getting rather old and tiresome. I know Genesis, and I know it well enough to realize it does not provide an accurate answer to the question of disease on earth.

    Finally, what in the name of Thor does that have to do with a universe coming from nothing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If you know Genesis, you know why there are diseases on earth.
    So Sin is more powerful than God?

    Hmm...

    I wonder if you realize that all diseases are caused by creatures smaller than we can see and not by some unknown force or entity...
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If you know Genesis, you know why there are diseases on earth.
    Oh come on! Do you really believe that? So God is punishing the whole of humanity with all kinds of the most horrible diseases you can imagine, all because one bloke and his idiot girlfriend ate forbidden fruit?

    The anthropic principle is simple and beautiful, and yet again has no need for an Intelligent Designer, whether a non-corporeal being or an alien in a shiny UFO.

    If the Earth wasn't suitable for life, we wouldn't be here to say it wasn't, and so our existence here means it must have been, and if it hadn't we wouldn't be here to say it wasn't.
    Exactly. If the universe had not been conducive to life, we would not have been here to philosophise about it in the first place.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If you know Genesis, you know why there are diseases on earth.
    So Sin is more powerful than God?

    Hmm...

    I wonder if you realize that all diseases are caused by creatures smaller than we can see and not by some unknown force or entity...
    Clearly, God is the microbes! He is punishing us for disobeying his miniature greatness, by causing us all kinds of disease.

    Why would a creator in his/her omnipotent nature, create a universe SO incredibly vast, so incredibly deadly and dangerous, to life while also making only one planet in the whole thing have life? You realize I am sure that there are an insane amount of things needed for life to form on Earth the way it did, this is why you say it is fine tuned. However that also defeats itself, because the fact that they are all required, means if even one thing gets thrown off, life as we know it is done.

    In a universe, or solar system, or even planet, actually fine tuned for life, would you not believe that all of these things wouldn't need to be in place? Most of these things are to protect us from threats outside of our planet. If there weren't a untold number of things in the universe that could kill us, life would be much better off in the universe.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman Holbenilord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27
    i don't think life forming conditions are that rare.
    I personally think there are multitudes of life out there.
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/index/

    Is the new address for speculative evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Holbenilord
    i don't think life forming conditions are that rare.
    I personally think there are multitudes of life out there.
    I think you would have to be crazy to actually think Earth is the ONLY planet in the universe with life on it. The sheer vastness of it, and the overwhelming numbers of stars and planets, Earth being the only one is likely a statistical impossibility.

    But that doesn't negate the fact that there are quite a few mechanisms in place that help life thrive on Earth. That doesn't mean life could not have formed without them, we find life on Earth in places we never thought we would. Microbes that freeze to death at (I could have my temp wrong, but it is in the range) 120 degrees F, some that live in acidic pools of water, and some in places where there is NO light and live off of eating rocks, etc.

    I also do not think life forming conditions are rare, but even if they are, the sheer vastness of the universe still guarantees other life forms. We just have trouble, at present, detecting planets that would be capable of supporting life. It is only a matter of time before we start finding them though, and I suspect when we do, we will be finding them all over the place.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    How is it possible to call quantum fluctuations as "nothing"? What does it "fluctuate", some form of energy; that is an "activity" of something. Where did this "nothing" come from? Just because we can not currently answer some questions about the nature of things, should we recruit the help of nothingness, as well as infinity?

    In observable universe, there is no such a thing called "nothing", "zero", or "infinity", gods or superheroes. We invent them in our imagination to describe and understand things. Nothing, zero or infinity could be useful tools for mathematics, we can think with them; yet we can not observe them (they become something or finite as soon as we measure) anywhere in reality.

    If everything has an history, background, reason, cause, origin; Big Bang should also have a similar previous state, force, or object, simply "something". And it should be physical. It doesn't matter if we can not measure or formulate it now, because we have recently started to realise certain forces in universe that we previously (let's say two hundred years ago) didn't know their existence at all, such as subatomic forces, or DNA.

    Nothing and infinity are human concepts; it has nothing to do with observed universe and origins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    How is it possible to call quantum fluctuations as "nothing"? What does it "fluctuate", some form of energy; that is an "activity" of something. Where did this "nothing" come from? Just because we can not currently answer some questions about the nature of things, should we recruit the help of nothingness, as well as infinity?

    In observable universe, there is no such a thing called "nothing", "zero", or "infinity", gods or superheroes. We invent them in our imagination to describe and understand things. Nothing, zero or infinity could be useful tools for mathematics, we can think with them; yet we can not observe them (they become something or finite as soon as we measure) anywhere in reality.

    If everything has an history, background, reason, cause, origin; Big Bang should also have a similar previous state, force, or object, simply "something". And it should be physical. It doesn't matter if we can not measure or formulate it now, because we have recently started to realise certain forces in universe that we previously (let's say two hundred years ago) didn't know their existence at all, such as subatomic forces, or DNA.

    Nothing and infinity are human concepts; it has nothing to do with observed universe and origins.
    and why should there be something, rather than nothing ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97 Re: A Universe From Nothing 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    and why should there be something, rather than nothing?
    How about you watch the video which inspired the thread, or... at the very least... read the OP.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Watch here --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Imvl...layer_embedded


    From the talk:

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The “nothing” that existed “before” the universe should not glibly be assumed to be the same “nothing” that exists now between the “somethings” in our universe.
    You might be right, but is there any reason to suspect that there ever was some "ultimate nothingness" that the universe somehow sprang from? Is there any reason to suspect that such an "ultimate nothingness" is even possible, or physically meaningful? It makes little sense to complain "Things don't just appear from nothing!" if "nothing" has never actually been observed. If "nothing" has never been observed, then how could one ever expect to see whether or not anything can spontaneously spring from it? If you're going to argue that a quantum vacuum doesn't constitute "nothing," then apparently we have never studied "nothing," and so we really don't know one way or the other whether or not something can spontaneously arise from it.

    I rather doubt that one could even define that sort of "nothingness" in a meaningful or useful way. Apparently it's something different from a quantum vacuum. So how specifically would it be different? It's fine to posit some alternate state of reality that's different from the quantum vacuum we observe around us, but any alternate reality you care to concoct will be arbitrary, won't it? No one would be able to provide any evidence that their version of "nothing," whatever properties it might have, was actually the "nothing" that existed "before the universe."
    On page one of this thread Bunbury mentioned an article, from the New Scientist, in which Lawrence Krauss addresses the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"
    I'm sure a great many scientists and philosophers, with very fine minds, have thought about this question, and failed to answer it. However, I don't believe their major difficulty was defining "nothing".
    Clearly the "something" in the question refers to the universe-a place or space, with time, which also contains stuff or matter. Given that, the "nothing" must refer to a situation where time, space, and matter did not exist.
    If the BB was the first event then space, time or matter did not exist "before" the BB, and this is what is meant by "nothing".
    If our universe was formed by the BB and the BB was caused by some event in another universe, our universe was therefore an offshoot of that other universe, (no real evidence for this) and presumably the BB created space, time and matter where "nothing" existed before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    and why should there be something, rather than nothing ?
    Maybe the word "nothing" is already there in order to describe the non-existence. And when we say "there is", we necessarily describe "something" that exists. You can tell us how can nothing exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •