A Universe from Nothing

[ChairmanBill]

Oh, c’mon. That’s like saying there is no Federal Government because there are a plethora of political parties. I had expected better from you.

I’m not aware of any federal government here in the UK. Wat you are saying is tantamount to saying all presidents (or kings) are the same.

Be that as it may, my question to you was a test of your scientific knowledge. You cite quantum physics, but you have led me to doubt your credentials because of your apparent lack of understanding of the merits of your own posts. I posed a question that should be easy to answer, but you did not answer it.

Do you happen to know what I was talking about in the alternative theory I referenced? Anybody with any minimally basic background in quantum theory should immediately know the answer to my question - it should be flippin’ obvious. Go ahead - I’ll give you all the time you like to Google it - but I will warn you that I did not use any useful phrases that would readily yield results in Google (I checked before I posted).

I suspect you learned quantum theory from Star Trek. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Answer my question.

I am not aware of any alternative theory - but there again I am not a scientist. I am, however, interested in science and have read a number of books on quantum theory. You seem to be interested more in scoring points, which is very unattractive. You have, however, whetted my appetite to discover more about this alternative theory.

 

[Heuchler]

To take your first point - you must first define which God you’re talking about, as the God of the OT is a very different character from that of the NT. He has evolved from a tribal deity (one of many) into the only deity, and then from a very anthropomorphic one to a more mystical one. I do not believe you can truly say there is one Christian God, else why the plethora of denominations?

You say that a false idea of God evolved over time. Every believer would respond that the understanding of a real God evolved over time. We really have no way of verifying which of us is right until we actually meet God and discover if he evolved or if we gained more understanding. The believer has faith though and trusts in all the prophets and most importantly in Christ. For the believer, this is evidence enough to support the claims about God in the Bible.

 

[ChairmanBill]

You say that a false idea of God evolved over time. Every believer would respond that the understanding of a real God evolved over time. We really have no way of verifying which of us is right until we actually meet God and discover if he evolved or if we gained more understanding. The believer has faith though and trusts in all the prophets and most importantly in Christ. For the believer, this is evidence enough to support the claims about God in the Bible.

But that’s my point - the God of the OT (and by implication the prophets) and the NT (that of Jesus) have two totally different characters, while allegedly being the same God and in the same sacred text.

In fact the God of the OT was two different Gods, according to many experts - “El” and “Yahweh” - with Yahweh being of lower status in a heaven headed by El.

I can recommend ‘The History of God’ by Karen Armstrong as a good text on the evolution of God - but I digress…

 

[Heuchler]

But that’s my point - the God of the OT (and by implication the prophets) and the NT (that of Jesus) have two totally different characters, while allegedly being the same God and in the same sacred text.

In fact the God of the OT was two different Gods, according to many experts - “El” and “Yahweh” - with Yahweh being of lower status in a heaven headed by El.

I can recommend ‘The History of God’ by Karen Armstrong as a good text on the evolution of God - but I digress…

(Sigh I knew I shouldn’t have erased the second part about God not appearing bipolar anyways)

You act as if God completely changed, that there was never any love or emotion or anything within the Old testament, only an overpowerd Zeus figure. Out of curiousity, have you even read the entire Bible? Do you base this off of a couple of verses where the Israelites destroy another nation or have you actually read the whole of the Old testament and decided God to be angry? I can’t see how you can read the old testament (especially psalms) and come out finding God to be completely different from the God of the New Testament.

But let’s look at this logically. Christ came preaching a God of love and repentance. The Jewish people never reacted saying this isn’t the kind of God we believe in, our God is nothing like that. No. They only refused to believe in Christ, not in his teachings. Even today the Jewish people find Jesus to have been a wise man. No one ever contests the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was also the God spoken of by Christ. No one ever claims that He fundamentally changed our view of God’s compassion. (There is even a verse saying "slow to anger and abounding in love and kindness)

And don’t try and say that God was actually multiple different deities. May I introduce you to the real scriptures:
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
“O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
“‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.” Isaiah 44:6
I’m sorry but there is simply no evidence that there were other gods. The israelites actually got in trouble a lot for worshipping the wrong gods. That’s why there is a whole commandment dedicated to only worshipping the one true God.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I am not aware of any alternative theory - but there again I am not a scientist. I am, however, interested in science and have read a number of books on quantum theory. You seem to be interested more in scoring points, which is very unattractive. You have, however, whetted my appetite to discover more about this alternative theory.

I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from. I would respond differently (and more technically) to someone who, say, knew how to read a Feynman diagram.

I was talking about the Holographic Principle. There’s an odd mathematical “quirk” in black hole entropy - the entropy is proportional to the square of the radius of the event horizon (not the cube, as we would expect). The Holographic Principle is our best explanation - but it’s a whole different way of looking at the entire universe (not just black holes), and it is very, very, very strange.

When we try to mix God and quantum theory, the Holographic Principle is a huge departure from more classical forms and arguments. It changes the very definition of what it means to be a hadron (and thus all matter and energy). It redefines the universe. I have desired to have a theological conversation within the context of the Holographic Principle.

 

[Heuchler]

I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from. I would respond differently (and more technically) to someone who, say, knew how to read a Feynman diagram.

I was talking about the Holographic Principle. There’s an odd mathematical “quirk” in black hole entropy - the entropy is proportional to the square of the radius of the event horizon (not the cube, as we would expect). The Holographic Principle is our best explanation - but it’s a whole different way of looking at the entire universe (not just black holes), and it is very, very, very strange.

When we try to mix God and quantum theory, the Holographic Principle is a huge departure from more classical forms and arguments. It changes the very definition of what it means to be a hadron (and thus all matter and energy). It redefines the universe. I have desired to have a theological conversation within the context of the Holographic Principle.

Could you explain in simple terms (as I know very little about physics) how this would affect our views of the universe if it’s true? What big changes in scientific thought would this bring about?

 

[ChairmanBill]

I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from. I would respond differently (and more technically) to someone who, say, knew how to read a Feynman diagram.

I was talking about the Holographic Principle. I have desired to have a theological conversation within the context of the Holographic Principle.

Ah - yes, I am aware of that. I thought you meant Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

 

[ChairmanBill]

(Sigh I knew I shouldn’t have erased the second part about God not appearing bipolar anyways)

You act as if God completely changed, that there was never any love or emotion or anything within the Old testament, only an overpowerd Zeus figure. Out of curiousity, have you even read the entire Bible? Do you base this off of a couple of verses where the Israelites destroy another nation or have you actually read the whole of the Old testament and decided God to be angry? I can’t see how you can read the old testament (especially psalms) and come out finding God to be completely different from the God of the New Testament…

Yes I have read the Bible. However, the problem is using the KJV bible as the only source - it’s been redacted too many times and much has been lost in the translation of a translation of a translation.

Try looking here, for example.Or here for an opposing view (purely as balance).

 

[jmvizanko]

It is one of the defining characteristics of God.

If He was created and did not always exists, then He is not God.

If He has always existed and was not created, then He is outside of space and time.

No?

Chuck

So god can exist without cause and outside of time because he is defined to. And the universe cannot be defined to have begun randomly or existed forever in much the same manner how exactly? Saying that’s what he is defined to be doesn’t really solve the problem of, once again, why is there a god and the universe? Why not just the universe? Either way what exists exists instead of something else or nothing at all, and regardless of whether god is in the mix or not, that is what is the ultimate puzzle.

 

[clmowry]

So god can exist without cause and outside of time because he is defined to.

Yes, it is a logical necessity. The alternative is an infinite regression of causes which is, I believe, logicaly absurd.

And the universe cannot be defined to have begun randomly or existed forever in much the same manner how exactly?

Because everything in the universe can be observed to have / need a cause. Everything points back to a point in time when there was nothing from which we are progressing into an ever expanding universe. There is nothing in the universe that indicates that it will colapse back upon itself. At t=0 m=0 e=0.

“Something” had to cause that to change and that Something had to not be caused or we go right back into the infinite regression.

I don’t suggest that this would “force” one to accept the Catholic God, but insisting that this “Something” does not exist, seems to me, simply to be denial supporting the need to avoid the possibility of God.

Saying that’s what he is defined to be doesn’t really solve the problem of, once again, why is there a god and the universe? Why not just the universe? Either way what exists exists instead of something else or nothing at all, and regardless of whether god is in the mix or not, that is what is the ultimate puzzle.

There doesn’t seem to be any puzzle to me. I guess I’m not smart enough to be confused by it.

Attempts to explain the alternative, now that confuses me.

These other explanations seem to demand either “physical” forces not observable in the universe or that we redifine “nothing” as some sort of potential energy source that’s part of the physical universe only is somehow neither mass nor energy and existed outside of our current time line.

All of which sounds alot like God to me.

Chuck

 

[jmvizanko]

I don’t suggest that this would “force” one to accept the Catholic God, but insisting that this “Something” does not exist, seems to me, simply to be denial supporting the need to avoid the possibility of God.

I’m not avoiding the possibility of a god. I just don’t see the reason his existence is necessary, and that extends to this argument.

There doesn’t seem to be any puzzle to me. I guess I’m not smart enough to be confused by it.

Attempts to explain the alternative, now that confuses me.

The cosmological argument essentially argues that god must exist because the universe exists. But imagine god had never created the universe. You just have a god, that’s it. What would be the reason that god exists? Just because? It is just a given that a god exists? I mean, why not nothing, or multiple gods, or timeless beings that are not really god like but are capable of creating universes?

These other explanations seem to demand either “physical” forces not observable in the universe or that we redifine “nothing” as some sort of potential energy source that’s part of the physical universe only is somehow neither mass nor energy and existed outside of our current time line.

All of which sounds alot like God to me.

It doesn’t sound like god, but it doesn’t sound like nothing either. It sounds like more of the universe, and I don’t know how anyone from the atheist camp can actually see this is as some sort of work around for the question we are debating. I’m totally with you in that aspect of it.

 

[Heuchler]

The cosmological argument essentially argues that god must exist because the universe exists. But imagine god had never created the universe. You just have a god, that’s it. What would be the reason that god exists? Just because? It is just a given that a god exists? I mean, why not nothing, or multiple gods, or timeless beings that are not really god like but are capable of creating universes?

(Don’t mean to intrude and latch on to one aspect but this particular point interests me.) The only reason is that there would be no differentiating the multiple gods. The only way to differentiate between things is to have time or space. So, take a penny. You can only have two pennies if you have multiple spots to put it in. However, if God is the creator of universe, outside of space, and omnipresent then there would be no differentiating between multiple gods who would be the same and have no different place to be to differentiate (sort of the reason it is a trinity and not a triune). You also don’t have time (this is not saying you don’t have a time to be in but you don’t have seperate moments of time. Everything is now, all time is at once). Time is another way to differentiate but God does not have that “luxury” either.

Now you could say that there are multiple Gods who are all diferent. But once again you don’t have space. You don’t have the room for multiple deities. They would in a sense jumble together into one being. To claim there are multiple gods would to be claim that in the space where my penny is, there are actually twenty pennies but they occupy the space of one and each holds a different quality of that one penny.

For there to be nothing before the universe, well to most Christians who agree with the cosmological argument, the universe exists, therefore this is wrong. It’s just a part of the evidence that we go along with

But then again, I could see the argument being put forward that maybe these beings do occupy some sort of space or something and that they don’t have to be spirit or that space /time is actually experienced by the deity/deities. However, I’m pretty sure that matter/time came along with the big bang (however, I only have a slight knowledge of science so this could be wrong or misused data, so if there are errors in this please correct me) and that the “spirit” would be the only option for this period in existence. So, I hopes this adds to the conversation and isn’t just me rambling…again.

Thanks
A. Heuchler