Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[buffalo]

To quote a better cosmologist than I:There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of Time

todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Quotations.htmIf the total energy of the universe is zero then we have nothing from nothing, which is much less of a logical problem.

rossum

1 + (-1) = 0

Someone had to come up with the equation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If the total energy of the universe is zero then we have nothing from nothing,
rossum

The idea that the universe is nothing is not a scientific conclusion. You are reading metaphysical concepts of being and reality in to a scientific mathematical context. Thats why you have ended up with the irrational statement you made above.

 

[rossum]

The idea that the universe is nothing is not a scientific conclusion. You are reading metaphysical concepts of being and reality in to a scientific mathematical context. Thats why you have ended up with the irrational statement you made above.

Zero overall energy is a reasonable approximation to the philosophical ideal of “nothing”. What would you propose as “reality” apart from the physical universe as expressed in mass-energy and space-time?

Are you proposing the God, as Creator, created some immaterial universe that has no intersect with the material universe we observe?

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

If the total energy of the universe is zero then we have nothing from nothing, which is much less of a logical problem.

rossum

Nonsense.

From my artcle “Cosmological arguments for the existence of God”:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

2.3. A universe from nothing?

This article,

astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

makes highly questionable claims.Not only are there no observational and experimental links, whatsoever, between quantum fluctuations and the birth of our macroscopic universe, even if it started at the sub-microscopic level, the authors also make an incredible blunder in defining nothing:

" In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts."

Perhaps the total energy (the sum of positive and negative energy) of the universe is zero. Also Martin Rees suggests that possibility – yet does not postulate it as fact – in his book Just Six Numbers, p. 145.

Yet it is quite a strange ‘nothing’ when both ‘the positive and negative parts’ that constitute it are most definitely something. Let me illustrate the problem with an example from numbers: while the sum of +5 and -5 is 0, nobody in their right mind would ever argue that 0 can produce +5 and -5 (or make that +1 million and -1 million, or any other number, if you will). This shows just how utterly absurd the naturalistic claim of a universe from nothing as being ‘zero energy’ really is (Stenger uses the ‘zero energy’ argument too).

The Big Bang was certainly an extreme-energy event – see above for temperatures involved. Only now, with the Large Hadron Collider, will we be able to recreate, on a small scale, enormous energies as they existed miniscule fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Zero overall energy is a reasonable approximation to the philosophical ideal of “nothing”.

Nonsense.

The philosophical “nothing” is literally “no thing”: it has no properties whatsoever. The “zero overall energy” concept, however, has clearly defined properties that most emphatically make it Some-Thing.

See also this post by cosmologist Luke Barnes, who also quotes other cosmologists who like him are aware of what real “nothing” is:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

Rossum, you know that I like and admire a lot of your posts, but when it comes to philosophy you really have to work on your concepts. I was puzzled by your contributions and manner of debating on the recent “First Cause” thread as well.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, you know that I like and admire a lot of your posts, but when it comes to philosophy you really have to work on your concepts. I was puzzled by your contributions and manner of debating on the recent “First Cause” thread as well.

I take an Indian approach to philosophy, not a Greek approach. Nagarjuna does not share many of the assumptions that underlie Greek philosophy, and were taken into Christianity by such as Thomas Aquinas.
Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life. All such assumptions are called into fundamental question by Nagarjuna’s unique perspective

Source: iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/

rossum

 

[razredge]

Nonsense.

See also this post by cosmologist Luke Barnes, who also quotes other cosmologists who like him are aware of what real “nothing” is:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

.

Yes, I was actually watching a lot of the WLC debates including that one with Krauss which Barnes is commenting on.

Obviously the belief that the quantum vacuum is nothing is completely absurd.
However, if the universe did not actually come into existence at the time of the Big Bang from nothing, ie. if it came into existence due to a fluctuation in the preexisting quantum vacuum, then the universe really just came from a pre-existing something and so there would be less reason to invoke God? As we could just say that the quantum vacuum has always existed rather than God always existing.

Of course, the fine tuning of the cosmos presents an objection to this but apart from that, it seems a perfectly valid response to the cosmological argument?

 

[Dan_Daly]

The primary unreasonable position held by all atheists…is that they don’t believe in God. It’s either that or anyone who does believe in him is unreasonable.

Pax and God bless.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The primary unreasonable position held by all atheists…is that they don’t believe in God. It’s either that or anyone who does believe in him is unreasonable.

Pax and God bless.

Athiests will not say that God is impossible. They may say it’s so bloody unlikely it may as well be impossible, yet they will always be open to it if evidence comes along.
That is not unreasonable.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It is unreasonable in that it misses all the evidence that HAS come along.

Reason is a gift from God that helps us to understand Him. Of course Faith is a gift, and no man will come to know God by reason alone. However, reason is an aid on the spiritual journey, not a hinderance.

How does a reasonable man see Jesus walking around and talking with people, AFTER he was crucified, died and buried, and not believe? But many men did not believe.

Of course God believes in all of us, even when we don’t believe in Him. So there is hope for us all.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[inocente]

Your personal preference for a universe that has its existential roots in a scientifically verifiable explanation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that what ever the cause of physical reality is i can at least know for absolute certain that it is not logically possible (and not scientifically valid) for it to be defined as physical (a dynamic quantifiable reality), without distorting the true meaning of physics. Its quite simply pseudo-science to look for a physical absolute.

It’s not a lack of scientific verification but the logic that’s worrying. It’s a kind of semantic dualism to say physical reality must have a non-physical precursor, since it presupposes that there can be anything other than physical reality, in a way similar to arguing that the mind can’t be explained even in principle, when really all we can say is it hasn’t been explained yet. We run out of physical evidence at the moment of the big bang, but absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

So long as one accepts that out of nothing comes nothing, Its not simply unsatisfying epistemologically speaking; its in every respect metaphysically impossible for the universe to be the cause of its own nature or potential existence.

It does seem that the sum of energy in the universe is and always has been exactly a big fat zero, and really it’s hard to see why it might be otherwise.

But the word universe is confusingly used in two ways, either to mean “the known universe” or “the totality of all”. The second definition would include whatever our known universe came out of, and agreed that saying it was a quantum vacuum is just turtles all the way down.

 

[inocente]

In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• A Brief History of Time

todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_…Quotations.htm

Personally I’ve no problem with zero-sum energy, it’s an aesthetically pleasing piece of arithmetic and provides a route by which everything got constructed. But after that, so what? It doesn’t say why the universe has the physical law that it has, the rather large number of components it has, etc., etc.

At that point guys like Hawking just mumble and pile speculation on top of speculation. Call me bitter and twisted but that’s not science, it’s just a way to sell books.

 

[razredge]

The second definition would include whatever our known universe came out of, and agreed that saying it was a quantum vacuum is just turtles all the way down.

I disagree, apart from my earlier objection I see no reason why the quantum vacuum or a similar physical system couldn’t be timeless and the first cause and necessary being for which there is no explanation.

It certainly seems more plausible to me at least, ceteris paribus to postulate some kind of physical system as the ground of all being rather than an intelligence

 

[Al_Moritz]

Obviously the belief that the quantum vacuum is nothing is completely absurd.

However, if the universe did not actually come into existence at the time of the Big Bang from nothing, ie. if it came into existence due to a fluctuation in the preexisting quantum vacuum, then the universe really just came from a pre-existing something and so there would be less reason to invoke God? As we could just say that the quantum vacuum has always existed rather than God always existing.

Of course, the fine tuning of the cosmos presents an objection to this but apart from that, it seems a perfectly valid response to the cosmological argument?

I had answered you already on p. 39 of the thread:

Yes, a quantum vacuum which always existed makes some sense. Something must always have existed, be it matter, fields, e.g. a quantum vacuum, or God (leaving aside metaphysical considerations about act, potency and actus purus that argue in favor of the God hypothesis). One problem here is that we have no observational evidence whatsoever for the idea that a quantum vacuum could produce universes. This is purely hypothetical, speculative physics, as renowned cosmologist George Eliis points out, based on an outlandish, completely evidence-free extrapolation from know physics.

As a biochemist I am appalled at what sometimes counts as “scientific evidence” in cosmology (and there are cosmologists who feel just as uncomfortable with the speculative nature of much of their discipline). And before any creationist here shouts “hurrah”: no, the Big Bang is an extraordinarily well established scientific theory. And no scientist in their right mind would claim that the same holds for generation of universes from quantum vacua, so everything is fine after all, I guess.

The problem is that, in order to produce universes, both eternal fields (quantum vacuum) and eternal matter would have to have truly miraculous properties that we do not observe from actual matter and fields. I argue in more detail on the issue in chapter 2 of my cosmological article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Atheists pride themselves not to believe in “magic”. Well, that is precisely what they do.

---

And obviously, apart from that, the fine-tuning issue remains an enormous – I would say, insurmountable – problem for atheism, especially since the multiverse does not solve the design problem, see chapter 1.4. of my article.

 

[buffalo]

Athiests will not say that God is impossible. They may say it’s so bloody unlikely it may as well be impossible, yet they will always be open to it if evidence comes along.
That is not unreasonable.

But, there is plenty of evidence. What they want is empirical lab table proof. Yet they accept far fetched ideas to remain in their own comfort zone. That is irrational.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

It’s interesting to see how the lines of argument have developed in this and similar threads:

Those speaking in favor of trusting Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible, can and do cite Church teachings found in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Many of those speaking in favor of rejecting Church teaching argue that refusing to do so is:
-an unpopular minority view
-stupid
-out of step with the times
-narrowminded
-not in alignment with what our secular culture says

It’s an interesting observation that a view which talks so much about “following the evidence” it resorts to personal attacks, bullying, and popularity contests.

I am fully aware that people sometimes don’t know what the Church teaches. I had no idea polygenism was heresy for most of my life. This is where we all have a responsibility to educate, starting with ourselves, then our families, and then our neighbors. Hopefully, some of that is going on in these threads- which is my goal in participation- the education of myself and others.

However, what has come up a good bit here that is greatly disturbing, is that someone says:

Yes, I know what the Church teaching is…but I know better.

That isn’t ignorance. It’s willful disobedience.

Pax and God bless.

===============Where does Pius X11 condemn polygenism please. Do not include me among those who try to out-smart the defined doctrine of the Church. A papal encylical is not necessarily the last word on a teaching. and the understanding of the entire Bible is still in process Did you read my posts about the Babylonian texts?. See my posts and have some humility about your viewpoints please Dan. Peace Francis

 

[StAnastasia]

Athiests will not say that God is impossible. They may say it’s so bloody unlikely it may as well be impossible, yet they will always be open to it if evidence comes along. That is not unreasonable.

Perhaps, but they are looking in the wrong direction if they wish to find scientific evidence for God. Religious faith is not based on the same kind of evidence that substantiates theories in chemistry, physics, or biology. To look for a chemical change in the eucharistic elements is to misunderstand eucharistic theology.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Perhaps, but they are looking in the wrong direction if they wish to find scientific evidence for God. Religious faith is not based on the same kind of evidence that substantiates theories in chemistry, physics, or biology. To look for a chemical change in the eucharistic elements is to misunderstand eucharistic theology.

Precisely.

 

[razredge]

I had answered you already on p. 39 of the thread:

Oh -sorry, didn’t see that

The problem is that, in order to produce universes, both eternal fields (quantum vacuum) and eternal matter would have to have truly miraculous properties that we do not observe from actual matter and fields. I argue in more detail on the issue in chapter 2 of my cosmological article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Yeah, thermodynamics seems to be the kicker to that argument.
But couldn’t there be some kind of physical system which does not follow the laws of physics (eg thermodynamics) as we know, which just exists necessarily? In much the same way that God does not follow our laws of physics and also justs exists necessarily.

To me, all other things being equal (ie. excluding fine tuning for life) it seems much more sensible to posit some kind of physical entity or even a transcedent (but not sentient) entity as the one necessary being rather than suggesting an intelligence - which to me at least seems a bit strange as

And obviously, apart from that, the fine-tuning issue remains an enormous – I would say, insurmountable – problem for atheism, especially since the multiverse does not solve the design problem, see chapter 1.4. of my article.

Yes, the fine tuning issue necessitates a multiverse or God to account for it. And while the multiverse doesn’t solve the design problem, it does lessen its potency somewhat (as compared to only a single universe) and it could be said that such questions about the creation and nature of the multiverse are ultimately beyond our ability to answer (which is what most physicists seem to say).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yeah, thermodynamics seems to be the kicker to that argument.
But couldn’t there be some kind of physical system which does not follow the laws of physics (eg thermodynamics) as we know, which just exists necessarily? In much the same way that God does not follow our laws of physics and also justs exists necessarily.

Yes, but that is exactly what I meant with atheists believing in magic – they must believe in miraculous properties of matter that science has not shown to exist in actual matter. We know how matter behaves, and it does not behave that way.

And if some kind of physical system existed which does not follow the second law of thermodynamics, why should it turn into something where the law does hold?

Moreover, consider the law of conservation of matter and energy. If the system constantly cranks out universes where the second law of thermodynamics does hold (even if those are just a fraction of all universes produced at a given time), some of it constantly is turned into something that decays over time. This constantly diminishes the portion of matter and energy in the system that does not decay. So if the system was in the business of cranking out universes from all eternity (here to be understood as an infinite amount of time – time as measure of motion --, not changeless timelessness), where even small fractions of the whole tremendously accumulate over time if the process gets repeated over and over, it would all have become worn down into decay eventually.

Of course, you could invoke a physical system where the law of conservation of matter and energy does not hold. But you see that we come here from one special pleading invoking miraculous properties to another, with no end in sight.

To me, all other things being equal (ie. excluding fine tuning for life) it seems much more sensible to posit some kind of physical entity or even a transcedent (but not sentient) entity as the one necessary being rather than suggesting an intelligence - which to me at least seems a bit strange as

Given what I said above, there are severe caveats to this, but you mentioned “all other things being equal (ie. excluding fine tuning for life)”, and this of course is the problem, the fine-tuning issue.

Yes, the fine tuning issue necessitates a multiverse or God to account for it. And while the multiverse doesn’t solve the design problem, it does lessen its potency somewhat (as compared to only a single universe)

It barely lessens its potency. It would have to be an incredibly sophisticated device if it would be able to crank out universes varying from one another with such fine-graded differences in physical parameters that our universe would become statistically inevitable on a purely random basis, without someone/something that makes the choices. Such a device would shout out for design.

As physicist Stephen Barr says:

“having laws that lead to the existence of domains of a sufficiently rich variety to make life inevitable would *itself *qualify as an anthropic coincidence. There seems to be no escape. Every way of explaining anthropic coincidences scientifically involves assuming the universe has some sort of very special characteristics that can be thought of as constituting in themselves another set of anthropic coincidences.”

I agree that the physical system as necessary being sounds attractive at first. Yet while such a system sounds superficially attractive – and I agree with you that it does – ultimately it simply does not work. Eternal matter has tremendous difficulties, and a designing intelligence is required.

So when you sum up all the issues, It is not even remotely a contest between a necessary physical system and God. The final nail in the coffin of atheism then is the argument from reason, that rationality is impossible without free will.

That is how I see it.