A Universe from Nothing

[David]

Outside of space and time is meaningless and actually means non-existent.

On what basis do you assert that God is outside space and time in the first place?

Time is an element of the universe. Until the universe was created, there was no time.

Peace
David

 

[ChairmanBill]

Time is an element of the universe. Until the universe was created, there was no time.

Peace
David

There was no thing - nowhere for God to be - at least in our universe. Unless He existed in another universe from which ours possibly budded, in which case He cannot interact with this universe and may as well not exist. A bit like a scientist in another spacetime conducting an experiment to create a mini black hole, the other side of which he cannot observe.

We’re not far off doing that ourselves, but it won’t make us gods.

 

[cerad2]

I’ve read it. Indeed, Krauss is no dummy, but he’s no philosopher either. His answer is indeed to redefine “nothing” to mean “quantum vacuum, described by the laws as we know them in quantum theory.” Once “nothing” is redefined in this way, the rest is just a matter of showing that it’s unstable and so a universe is highly likely, if not inevitable.

But William Lane Craig and other critics are correct to point out that Krauss can’t simply help himself to a new definition of “nothing” and pretend to be in the same conversation with others who use the word in its established sense, which is the utter absence of anything at all.

Agreed. Now all folks like Craig need to do is to establish that their version of “nothing” actually exists.

 

[clmowry]

There was no thing - nowhere for God to be - at least in our universe. Unless He existed in another universe from which ours possibly budded, in which case He cannot interact with this universe and may as well not exist. A bit like a scientist in another spacetime conducting an experiment to create a mini black hole, the other side of which he cannot observe.

We’re not far off doing that ourselves, but it won’t make us gods.

You are presuming that God has a physical existence are you not?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

You are presuming that God has a physical existence are you not?

Chuck

You are assuming He doesn’t. Knowledge requires matter in order to exist, and knowledge is limited by light speed. Evidence supports that.

A personal God in this universe demands presence and existence, which in turn demands matter. Any suggestion God is not matter is pure speculation (in fact, any statement about the attributes of God is pure speculation).

Any omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God in this universe demands that everything within this universe be part of God - unless, of course, God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent.

 

[clmowry]

You are assuming He doesn’t. Knowledge requires matter in order to exist, and knowledge is limited by light speed. Evidence supports that.

A personal God in this universe demands presence and existence, which in turn demands matter. Any suggestion God is not matter is pure speculation (in fact, any statement about the attributes of God is pure speculation).

Any omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God in this universe demands that everything within this universe be part of God - unless, of course, God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent.

And all of the above is not pure speculation why?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

And all of the above is not pure speculation why?

Chuck

Which bits? Information and knowledge only being transmitted by matter? That’s just a scientific fact.

 

[clmowry]

Information and knowledge only being transmitted by matter? That’s just a scientific fact.

And how was this proven?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

And how was this proven?

Chuck

Try looking it up, or proving otherwise and getting a Nobel Prize.

 

[clmowry]

Try looking it up, or proving otherwise and getting a Nobel Prize.

No thanks. Not intrested in trying to prove your assertion to myself, or “disproving” something that is outside of the realm of the physical sciences.

How could science comment at all on what happens outside of the physical realm? That is the subject of philosophy and theology, not the physical sciences.

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

No thanks. Not intrested in trying to prove your assertion to myself, or “disproving” something that is outside of the realm of the physical sciences.

How could science comment at all on what happens outside of the physical realm? That is the subject of philosophy and theology, not the physical sciences.

Chuck

But there is validity to scientific theology whereby paradoxes occasioned by dogma are investigated and analysed by the use of reason.

 

[clmowry]

But there is validity to scientific theology whereby paradoxes occasioned by dogma are investigated and analysed by the use of reason.

I’m not sure how this differs from “Theology” or “Philosophy”?

Theology is the “science” of studying God, but I’ve got no idea what scientific theology would be.

Define “scientific theology.” (That’s another new one for me.)

Is it the attempt to support or refute theological speculations with scientific data. i.e. Nothing existed before the Big Bang as a support of Creation. That kind of thing?

I see a book of that name, is that what you are refering too?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

I’m not sure how this differs from “Theology” or “Philosophy”?

Theology is the “science” of studying God, but I’ve got no idea what scientific theology would be.

Theology itself does not use the scientific method, therefore it cannot be said to be a science per se. Scientific theology does use the scientific method, or at the very least, logic and reason.

Define “scientific theology.” (That’s another new one for me.)

Is it the attempt to support or refute theological speculations with scientific data. i.e. Nothing existed before the Big Bang as a support of Creation. That kind of thing?

I see a book of that name, is that what you are refering too?

Chuck

Not aware of the book, but you’re on the right track. Wild speculation results in a myriad paradoxes which end up making religion look a laughing stock. Scientific theology attempts to rationalise dogma into a coherent whole - or not, as the case may be.

 

[clmowry]

Theology itself does not use the scientific method, therefore it cannot be said to be a science per se. Scientific theology does use the scientific method, or at the very least, logic and reason.

I’m neither a Theologian nor a Philosopher, but I “think” they would beg to differ.

If I remember correctly this would involve Making an Observation, Making a Conjecture that Explains that Observation, Predict the implicaitons of that Conjecture in certian Situations, Perform a Test to Determine if those predictions are validated or not. (Or something to that effect.)

What part of the “scientific method” to you think they ignore?

In their case the “Tests” would frequently involve Logical Analysis or Scriptural / Historical Analysis.

Are you saying since the tests do not involve the physical sciences they are not following a scientific method?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

Scripture is not scientific. It’s revelation on the part of one person, and thus hearsay at best.

Everyone’s experience of the infinite is personal and different. All glimpses of the infinite are as valid as any other and to presume your glimpse has any more validity (while natural, due to it being subjective and totally personal) is both presumptuous and hubristic. Therefore the polytheist’s view is as valid as that of the monotheist – they are merely different views of the same psychological phenomenon, mediated through cultural and personal filters.

Organised religions are philosophically “rationalised”, unnecessarily extrapolated (well beyond the reach of Occam’s Razor) interpretations of the founder’s search for a personal relationship with God. However, if you accept that God is beyond human comprehension - as so many believe - then much of what we call dogma falls by the wayside.

Spirituality is man’s attempt to define his relationship with the infinite universe. Thus atheists can be as spiritual as the theist, if not more so due to the absence of needlessly extrapolated religious dogma based on a foundation of sand through the search for a non-existent personal God and a philosophical focus on the nature and attributes of God, rather than His essence.

If God is present in everything (including us), then the laws of nature necessarily flow from God with the consequence that there can be no such phenomena as miracles, prophesy or anything we call the supernatural – they would be against the natural order (or ‘will of God’, if you prefer a theological metaphor).

I’m rambling… What was the question?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m rambling… What was the question?

Indeed you are. Thank you for the opportunity to return the conversation to the topic at hand.

The question is: Is it logical to postulate that the entire universe originated from nothing?

This idea is at the heart of the “Big Bang theory” which postulates that all of the matter in the entire universe originated from a zero-dimensional point (which, from our perspective, is “nothing”). The theory falls on its face (mathematically) if all (or any) of this matter had mass to begin with - it had to acquire mass at some point (generally thought to be a fraction of a second after the Bang).

The notion of “space” is not so easily qualified. Is empty space truly infinite? The math is not so clear - but most modern physicists (who generally dislike the concept of anything that is measurable being infinite) believe that “space” is created as matter (or energy - same thing) expands into it - so objects at the edge of the universe (racing away from the point of origin of the Bang) are “creating” space as they go.

I don’t know how to answer the question, “is this logical?” It is mathematically consistent (if we exclude mass from the original state). It is NOT mathematically inevitable (which seems to be what the author in question is suggesting). A universe of matter (devoid of mass) could occupy a zero-dimensional singularity for all eternity (no modern physicist would disagree with this statement). *Something *had to cause the Bang.

 

[ChairmanBill]

Indeed you are. Thank you for the opportunity to return the conversation to the topic at hand.

*Something *had to cause the Bang.

And no-one currently knows. To replace that unknown with God is simply to replace one unknown with another.

We do know particles are constantly winking into and out of existence - but where the come from and where they disappear to is a mystery. Calling that mystery heaven, is another exercise in replacing an unknown with a word, as no-one knows what heaven is.

 

[DavidFilmer]

And no-one currently knows. To replace that unknown with God is simply to replace one unknown with another.

But if we choose to call that unknown (whatever it is) “God” then we have not replaced anything - we have simply given a name to this unknown. Whatever this unknown thing is - it is remarkably similar (in property) to what Christians (and others) call “God.”

Personally, I don’t believe that the Large Hadron Collider will ever prove the existence of the Higgs Boson - because I don’t believe that this (aptly named “God particle”) is how matter acquires mass. I favor an alternative idea - which neatly accounts for mass (within Newtonian gravity) and fits neatly into the mathematics of the Big Bang. And it also accounts for an odd characteristic of the mathematics of entropy. Do you happen to know what I am talking about, and do you agree?

 

[ChairmanBill]

But if we choose to call that unknown (whatever it is) “God” then we have not replaced anything - we have simply given a name to this unknown. Whatever this unknown thing is - it is remarkably similar (in property) to what Christians (and others) call “God.”

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?

Personally, I don’t believe that the Large Hadron Collider will ever prove the existence of the Higgs Boson - because I don’t believe that this (aptly named “God particle”) is how matter acquires mass. I favor an alternative idea - which neatly accounts for mass (within Newtonian gravity) and fits neatly into the mathematics of the Big Bang. And it also accounts for an odd characteristic of the mathematics of entropy. Do you happen to know what I am talking about, and do you agree?

For a start, I intensely dislike the media’s term of “God particle”. I favour whichever can be backed up by observation and experiment. I have no “faith” when it comes to science - although I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t have irrational bias, but I recognise it as such.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I do not believe you can truly say there is one Christian God, else why the plethora of denominations?

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.

For a start, I intensely dislike the media’s term of “God particle”.

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 watching Star Trek. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Answer my question.