Creation ex nihilo?

[greylorn]

Greylorn, your answer is a little overly patronizing for my tastes, and the more unseemly since I am indeed on the side of the majority of cosmologists on the issue. What part of my thinking do you consider dishonest? That’s a rather strong statement to make.

**Reply 1 of 2 **

It would be, had I actually made it. My words are easy enough to read. I never used the word dishonest or accused you of dishonest thinking. However, I do now. Don’t make things up that aren’t there.

The word “patronize” means, Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. I thought that I was being fairly direct— polite, but certainly not kind. If you inferred that I know more, or differently, about this particular subject than you do, you were correct. That is simple expertise, not superiority. Don’t grow a strange hair over it.

There are billions of people who know more than you do, and more than I do. My most valuable learning experiences come from meeting one of them.

Now can we get over personal problems and get to work on the information you’ve set forth?

As far as evidence for the Big Bang:
1). In 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the light from distant galaxies is systematically shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This redshift is taken to be a dopplar effect indicating that light sources were receding in the line of sight. This is evidence for the expansion of the universe.

Note your own honest and correct statement: "*This redshift is **taken to be *a doppler effect … “Taken to be,” means interpreted. Various thinkers have interpreted it differently, such as a reddening effect from intergalactic dust. It could also be a reddening effect (energy loss) caused by the passage of light through dark energy, undiscovered in Hubble’s time.

Personally, IMO if reddening effects are removed, we will still observe an expansion of the universe.

However, we clearly observe, reddening effects notwithstanding, an acceleration of the expansion. The Big Bang cannot account for this, which is why its discovery came as a surprise. Remember this for later.

2). Evidence for primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements. Stellar nucleo-synthesis could not manufacture the abundant light elements like helium and deutrium. These could only be created in the extreme conditions present in the first moment of the Big Bang.

Evidence? Since when does the legitimate observation as to where atoms cannot be manufactured prove that they were necessarily manufactured in an hypothesized but unobservable event? That’s religion, not science, no matter which nitwit proclaims it.

3). In 1965 a discovery revealed the existence of cosmic background radiation. This consisted of photons emitted during a very hot and dense phase of the universe.

You conveniently left out the conventional cosmological interpretation, that the “hot and dense phase” refers to “shortly after the big bang.”

In that context, here’s an interesting question to ask yourself. Then give me the answer.

According to theory, all the atoms in our planet, those which comprise our eyes and space probes, were created in the big bang. According to the same theory, the microwave radiation observed by WMAP and other instruments was produced in the same big bang.

Consider some basic relativistic physics. Light travels at the speed of light. Matter travels less than the speed of light.

Then, how is it that matter-based instruments can see light which was created at the same time the matter was created? All the light from the big bang will have long since passed the matter created in the big bang. We cannot see it anymore.

Simple experiment, outside, at night. Shine a flashlight into your face. You can see that light. Then shine it into deep space. You might see some of it reflected from dust in the air, but that’s all. Were the same experiment performed in outer space, the observer would see nothing reflected back. No instrument would do any better.

Whatever the old 1965 accidental experiment and the modern, deliberate WMAP probe is looking at is not light from the Big Bang.

 

[greylorn]

4). In 1998, a meeting of teams from Princeton, Berkely national Laboratory, Yale, and the Harvard Smithsonian astrophysics institute reported that their tests all showed that the universe would expand forever.

Reply 2 of 2 to post 17

Omygod! The atheist nits at Harvard, the communist jerks at Berkely, and clowns from the same university that conceals President B.O.'s records, the finest authority figures in the world, think that they actually know something? BFD. No wonder you are sucked in by authority. Make up whatever passes for mind in which group of authority figures you prefer, because those university atheists are not on the Church’s side.

The agreement of nitwits is oh, sooo relevant. I would be impressed if physicists from M.I.T. and the consortium of state universities behind Kitt Peak Observatory had made those claims.

By the way, do you happen to know what “tests” they performed on the universe? Last I heard, no one had quite figured out how to get the universe into a laboratory.

By the way, if they are right that the universe will expand forever, so what?

5). Red-shift data shows that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing.

I covered that. This observation is inconsistent with big bang theory.

6). The Borde, Gunth, and Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe that on average has been globally expanding at a positive rate must have a past boundary. This does not apply to all other models than the Big Bang, but it would apply to a great many of them.

I analyzed my last theorem, solved my last serious physics problem, and threw my last touchdown pass about 40 years ago. All of those skills have gone, from disuse.

I’m not good enough to analyze theorems, so have not heard of this one and would not know if it applied to my ideas, or even if its proof is mathematically correct. So you’ve passed that ball way over my head. Obviously you understand this stuff, so please describe the physical arguments. Meaning, the physics behind their theorem.

Unless you deliberately threw the ball into the stands, figuring on blaming me for being unable to jump high enough. Otherwise, you’re just doing a cheap snow job, supported by name-dropping.

I agree, this is absurd. But it is not what I or others mean when they say that God is responsible for the Big Bang, and that fact that you think we mean this makes me wonder if your understanding of the Big Bang is faulty.

Why question my understanding? I’m not the dogmatist in this discussion.

The truth is, I don’t understand the Big Bang. The mechanisms behind it are not expressed. There is no cause given for it. There is no mathematical description of whatever was its source. How can I understand nonsense which has no roots, no physics? You might as well accuse me of not understanding how Dracula transforms from a quasi-human into a little bat, shedding the excess mass without blowing up himself and the entire planet in the process.

If you don’t mean what I proposed, what do you mean? Spell it out. Can you tell us why God would have started the universe from a cosmic micropea, or from Dr. Caca’s absurd “nothing?” I’ll bet that you cannot invent, or quote, a credible explanation for such drivel.

You suggested a resource (mostly pop sources), now I will suggest a scholarly source. The article on the Kalam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig and Sinclair in the recent Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

The Kalam argument is just a rewrite of Hermes Trismegistus’ faulty argument, absorbed by Judaism and Christianity and modern cosmologists as well. It invalidates Newton’s cause-effect laws by hypothesizing effect without cause (God, micropea). Its just erudite, ancient, antiquated mental garbage. I guess that’s what you mean by “scholarly.” I am not impressed.

Craig’s material is to religion what Discover is to science. The difference is that the non-speculative stuff in Discover has been verified, and the speculative stuff could be.

The Big Bang does not describe a dense ball of matter that “blew up,” as you seem to think. Nor does it mean that God gathered together pre-existing matter. It literally describes the “expansion” of matter out of nothing. Rather like a balloon blowing up, if you like.

I don’t like. Looks to me that you’ve been watching the Dr. Caca show on the Science channel, watching some convincing old authority figure proclaim that the big bang came out of nothing. You are gullible beyond belief.

Did you get an explanation of how that happened, contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Do you really imagine that the glass-screened or blackboarded equations that the Dr. Caca show flashes on screen to impress the rubes contains a mathematical explanation of how nothing became something?

I’m guessing that all it takes to convince you of something is some photons and phonons coming out of a TV set, showing an image of a convincing authority figure, being convincing. I read physics books and think for myself. Why are we even trying to communicate?

I see no reason to think that God can’t do this. I agree that he cannot do contradictions, but there is no contradiction entailed in saying that a Greatest Conceivable Being created the universe from nothing.

None whatsoever, except for the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Finally, since you scorn the Big Bang, what alternative do you propose?

That’s too complex for CAF, and off topic. It requires background which you do not have. It is in my book, which you’ll not be able to understand.

 

[Qoeleth]

Would you settle for existence as the property of not being nothing?

Not really.
We might say “X is nothing”, but in saying this we are still saying that “X is”.
Does something have to be a “thing” to exist? What about the number. Zero is nothing. Yet the number zero exists. We might say that the answer to a mathematical problem is zero. Therefore zero IS.

St. John of the Cross says God is nothing (nada): no thing. This opens up a whole area of meontotheology.

But I am still perplexed by what existence actually means.

Now, if God’s creation is understood as the Word of God, does this affirm linguistic idealism?

 

[danserr]

Reply 2 of 2 to post 17
Don’t grow a strange hair over it.
That’s religion, not science, no matter which nitwit proclaims it.
The atheist nits at Harvard, the communist jerks at Berkely, and clowns from the same university
Otherwise, you’re just doing a cheap snow job, supported by name-dropping.
I’ll bet that you cannot invent, or quote, a credible explanation for such drivel.
You are gullible beyond belief
It is in my book, which you’ll not be able to understand
I read physics books and think for myself. Why are we even trying to communicate?
.

I assumed we were trying to communicate to try to make sense of an interesting and difficult puzzle, but you are really being rather unpleasant and impolite. I am sorry for that. Either drop the scorn and ridicule or please stop posting.

Now I offered six pieces of evidence that offer some support for the Big Bang, some you offered concrete ideas against, which I appreciate, others you merely mocked and ignored.
1). The red-shift data. It is not enough for you to claim that other explanations have been suggested. I never claimed that other explanations are not conceivable, only that the most probable explanation accepted by most cosmologists is that the red shift data indicates the expansion of the universe. And this is true.

2). Evidence for primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements. You objected:

Evidence? Since when does the legitimate observation as to where atoms cannot be manufactured prove that they were necessarily manufactured in an hypothesized but unobservable event? That’s religion, not science, no matter which nitwit proclaims it.

Such light elements cannot be manufactured under any known situation except the hot and dense conditions present in the Big Bang. There is not a plausible alternative given. This confirms the Big Bang theory.

3).In 1965 a discovery revealed the existence of cosmic background radiation. This consisted of photons emitted during a very hot and dense phase of the universe.

Here I have a hard time following you. As I understand this piece of evidence, this radiation was found to be made of protons that could only have been emitted during a hot and dense phase of the universe. You do not offer an alternative explanation of their formation, so I seem justified in accepting that the most plausible explanation is that the were formed in a hot dense phase of the universe, of which the Big bang seems an excellent candidate.
– Your proposed problem for this hypothesis is quite interesting. The thing is, your problem for this seems so obvious, that I wonder that no (or so few) physicists have discovered it. This makes me rather suspicious as to whether your supposed problem is really a problem after all. I will think about this part of your answer more; but for now I don’t have the expertise to say.

I am beginning to believe 2 things. First, that you do know more than me about physics; Second, that you do not know so much as you believe that you know. See some of my remarks below.

4). In 1998, a meeting of teams from Princeton, Berkely national Laboratory, Yale, and the Harvard Smithsonian astrophysics institute reported that their tests all showed that the universe would expand forever.

• Here you have no other contribution to make other than calling these people atheist nitwits. And anyway, that even atheists agree with the beginning of the universe is important because atheists typically try to escape this conclusion fearing that beginning implies someone (God) to begin it (Since nothing (naturally) pops into existence out of nothing).
• The expansion of the universe implies a beginning for several reasons, but first of all, if it will expand forever, then it probably always has been expanding. And according to the BGV theorem (and common sense at this point), you cannot trace this expansion back into the infinite past; there must have been a beginning.

5). 5). Red-shift data shows that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing.

I covered that. This observation is inconsistent with big bang theory.

You have not covered it; you have made the unsupported assertion that the increasing rate of the universe is inconsistent with the Big Bang (or more properly, the Stand Model/ Freidmann-Lemaitre model). Why is this so? It is simply further evidence that the universe has probably always been expanding.

6). The Borde, Gunth, and Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe that on average has been globally expanding at a positive rate must have a past boundary. This does not apply to all other models than the Big Bang, but it would apply to a great many of them.

Here you are being particularly unpleasant and frankly rude. You admit to ignorance, say you have no intention of remedying that, and then mock me by accusing me of a cheap snow job and name-dropping. You may know more than me about this, but I am afraid if you are not familiar with this theorem, then your knowledge on the subject is not sufficiently up to date. Their first version of the theorem was in 1994, their second and stronger version in 2003.
cdsweb.cern.ch/record/521154
I have not read the whole article, mainly interpreters of it. I find it difficult to follow, but if you are familiar with physics, it may be easier for you to follow. It is primarily directed against inflationary cosmology, but the 2003 version also applies to many other (though not all) models).

 

[danserr]

The Kalam argument is just a rewrite of Hermes Trismegistus’ faulty argument, absorbed by Judaism and Christianity and modern cosmologists as well. It invalidates Newton’s cause-effect laws by hypothesizing effect without cause (God, micropea). Its just erudite, ancient, antiquated mental garbage. I guess that’s what you mean by “scholarly.” I am not impressed.

Craig’s material is to religion what Discover is to science. The difference is that the non-speculative stuff in Discover has been verified, and the speculative stuff could be.

You appear also incapable of raising a serious objection to the Kalam Argument and so result to mockery. Very well this is your prerogative, but then spare me the self-congratulatory nonsense about thinking for yourself. And at any rate, I am not defending the entire argument here, but referring you to the section on cosmology and the Big Bang. I still refer you to the article, the section on the scientific arguments and the Big Bang is written by James Sinclair.

I’ll ignore you later insults and move to your refusal to offer an alternative hypothesis.

Finally, since you scorn the Big Bang, what alternative do you propose?

That’s too complex for CAF, and off topic. It requires background which you do not have. It is in my book, which you’ll not be able to understand.

It is certainly not off topic. I have offered evidence commonly believed to support the Big Bang. You have objected to some of it, mocked other parts, and steadfastly refused to offer an alternative. Now the test of understanding anything is being able to explain it. If you do understand your own ideas, you should be able to make your ideas understandable to someone like me, or else, there is no reason for me to take them seriously.

As for violating the first law of thermodynamics. The fact that something is naturally impossible does not mean that it is supernaturally impossible. It is naturally impossible that a man walk on water. It does not follow form this that it is supernaturally impossible.
The first law of thermodynamics only holds once the natural realm starts. It governs everything in space-time, but not the origins of space-time.

 

[inocente]

However, #2 is one which humans interfere with every day. Every time you have a thought, for example. Whenever dirt is carved from the earth and smelted into iron and other elements, then formed by man into another car, the second law is violated. Whenever information is created which did not previously exist, or order is formed from chaos, the second law is violated.

It looks like you’re making a common mistake about the second law.

The second law says that in a closed system you can never finish any process with as much useful energy as you started – while energy can be neither created nor destroyed, work of any kind will always result in energy being converted to a less useful form.

The law applies to a closed system and you must always include everything relevant in the system. Suppose we smelt ore into iron by burning oil, we can’t just look at the iron, we must remember the energy in the waste heat is less useful than the energy that was locked up in the oil. Overall there is now less useful energy in the system. If that weren’t the case we could make perpetual motion machines and time could run backwards.

Some creationists argue along similar woefully mistaken lines that life violates the second law. It doesn’t, they forget that we need to eat food, food needs sunlight to grow, so energy from the Sun must be included in the system, and the Sun will eventually run out of useful energy. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Next, for a moment, please suspend your belief that God created energy, if only on the physical grounds that by the first law, energy cannot be created. If God did not create energy, He did not create any principles of its innate behavior, such as the three laws we’ve discovered.

I don’t believe God needed to create energy. If we take the entire universe to be our closed system, the most likely case is the overall energy is, always has been, and always will be zero. This fits with observation and is mathematically the purest solution. It happens to fit neatly with creation from nothing and doesn’t require God to create energy.

Then suppose that God is a natural counterforce to the second law of thermodynamics. This is his superpower, one which humans share.

Just as we can’t violate the second law, we never need to suppose God does either, even in creating the universe. For ease here we can introduce the concept of entropy, the energy not available to do useful work, and then restate the second law as saying entropy in a closed system will never fall.

The following shows that even the big bang doesn’t violate the second law: (a) The big bang is the origin of time so there can be no previous state with higher entropy (b) Even ignoring that, the maximum allowable entropy rises as the universe expands, so it could be maximal at the big bang and still rise over time (c) Even ignoring that, the known universe may not be a closed system after all, buying its initial entropy state from something bigger.

However, you can learn a great deal by stepping outside your programmed doctrines for a few moments and taking the trouble to at least understand an alternative perspective.

Everything above is standard physics, it works with or without faith in God. I used “big bang” to mean the point of creation but it doesn’t have to be the standard model version either.

 

[inocente]

According to theory, all the atoms in our planet, those which comprise our eyes and space probes, were created in the big bang.

That’s not at all what theory says, heavy elements weren’t created in the big bang, we’re space dust, aka nuclear waste from old stars.

Then, how is it that matter-based instruments can see light which was created at the same time the matter was created?

Errrm … Take one hundred galaxies, each pair separating at 0.1 the speed of light. The furthest two galaxies are then moving apart at 10 times the speed of light. Nothing and no one is breaking any rules.

 

[Betterave]

I do not understand how God can *be *existence. As far as I can see, existence is really only is-ness, and ''is" is only a linguistic indicator (like ‘the’ or ‘and’), in this case, linking subject to predicate, e.g. This IS a sentence.

Perhaps someone can explain more clearly what “existence” actually is (if it is anything at all).

You’re referring to a copular ‘is’ - but we also say simply “God is.” There is no linking of subject and predicate here, unless we supply the predicate “a being.” But in this case “being” simply refers to whatever is, so that is still clearly not simply a copular use of is. In terms of Catholic theology, formless matter does not exist. To say that God created the world “from formless matter” simply indicates that God created a material world, in which perfectly unformed matter is a principle of things, never a thing itself, which could exist in itself.

 

[smichhertz]

Yay! A philosophy thread that isn’t hundreds of posts in by the time I check it. I can actually participate for once!

Here’s how I see it: Since everything material has a beginning and an end, that means that there must be a time when nothing existed in the past. Therefore, material creation had to have started from nothing.

 

[greylorn]

Yay! A philosophy thread that isn’t hundreds of posts in by the time I check it. I can actually participate for once!

Here’s how I see it: Since everything material has a beginning and an end, that means that there must be a time when nothing existed in the past. Therefore, material creation had to have started from nothing.

You’ve waited a long time for the opportunity to offer such an impressive contribution, another reiteration of dogma.

I imagine that you’ve been looking for short threads so that you would not have to read any of them before offering your brilliant insights.

How you see something is irrelevant, except to a poll. Why you see it that way could be interesting, but probably won’t be.

 

[greylorn]

That’s not at all what theory says, heavy elements weren’t created in the big bang, we’re space dust, aka nuclear waste from old stars.

Errrm … Take one hundred galaxies, each pair separating at 0.1 the speed of light. The furthest two galaxies are then moving apart at 10 times the speed of light. Nothing and no one is breaking any rules.

According to BB theory, all matter was created in the BB, Mostly hydrogen, a bit of helium. All this stuff got kicked out into space at a velocity < c, while the e/m radiation emitted as a result of the BB passed it and disappeared into the nether regions of space.

Later, according to the theory, some of these atoms self-assembled into stars on their way into the nether regions of space. Those stars did not create new protons, but assembled existing hydrogen and helium into larger elements.

While this was happening, all the atoms would still have been zinging out into the universe away from the point of the BB, at a velocity < c.

Your hundred galaxy statement is meaningless. Pairs? Why pairs? Whatever, it is unrelated to my argument, just some irrelevant drivel.

 

[greylorn]

It looks like you’re making a common mistake about the second law.

The second law says that in a closed system you can never finish any process with as much useful energy as you started – while energy can be neither created nor destroyed, work of any kind will always result in energy being converted to a less useful form.

The law applies to a closed system and you must always include everything relevant in the system. Suppose we smelt ore into iron by burning oil, we can’t just look at the iron, we must remember the energy in the waste heat is less useful than the energy that was locked up in the oil. Overall there is now less useful energy in the system. If that weren’t the case we could make perpetual motion machines and time could run backwards.

Some creationists argue along similar woefully mistaken lines that life violates the second law. It doesn’t, they forget that we need to eat food, food needs sunlight to grow, so energy from the Sun must be included in the system, and the Sun will eventually run out of useful energy. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

I don’t believe God needed to create energy. If we take the entire universe to be our closed system, the most likely case is the overall energy is, always has been, and always will be zero. This fits with observation and is mathematically the purest solution. It happens to fit neatly with creation from nothing and doesn’t require God to create energy.

Just as we can’t violate the second law, we never need to suppose God does either, even in creating the universe. For ease here we can introduce the concept of entropy, the energy not available to do useful work, and then restate the second law as saying entropy in a closed system will never fall.

The following shows that even the big bang doesn’t violate the second law: (a) The big bang is the origin of time so there can be no previous state with higher entropy (b) Even ignoring that, the maximum allowable entropy rises as the universe expands, so it could be maximal at the big bang and still rise over time (c) Even ignoring that, the known universe may not be a closed system after all, buying its initial entropy state from something bigger.

Everything above is standard physics, it works with or without faith in God. I used “big bang” to mean the point of creation but it doesn’t have to be the standard model version either.

I understand your position. While generally correct, it has nothing to do with what I wrote. If nothing else this thread has been a useful lesson, showing me how difficult it is to express very simple ideas which contradict either religious or physics dogma. I’ll keep trying until the impossibility of success hits me over the head hard enough.

Try stepping aside from your understanding about the 2nd Law with respect to either open or closed systems. Neither is relevant to my point.

The crux of the entropy argument is that when energy forms are left to their own devices, they tend to produce disorder rather than order.

For example, imagine trying to build a brick outhouse by piling up the requisite number of bricks, and enough mortar to do the job, then, with your back turned to the outhouse location, pick up a brick and toss it behind you in the general direction of that location. Follow it with a trowel full of mortar, and repeat the process.

I promise that when your bricks are used up and the mortar bucket is empty, if you turn around expecting to admire your fine brick outhouse, you will be disappointed at the useless pile of rubble waiting for men with shovels and a garbage truck. You will have observed the 2nd law at work.

Yes, I know that probability theory predicts that if you do this a few trillion-triliion times, there is a finite probability that a fine, perfectly constructed brick outhouse will be there one time. Don’t count on it. Math applies best to ideal real-world situations.

The truth is, the randomly thrown outhouse will never materialize. Never! But, guess what? There is a better way, which requires much less work, meaning much less energy. Instead of tossing the bricks and mortar, lay the bricks and set the mortar, using strings and levels and a few tools to trim things properly. Whereas the random-throwing process can be done by monkeys, senators, or Nancy Pelosi, this alternative technique requires the guidance of a functional mind.

The random-throwing process is subject to the 2nd Law, but the deliberate laying and mortaring process bypasses the 2nd Law. It will make its appearance long after you’ve installed a roof and a door, but will manifest gradually. Your ancestors returning to the site of their great-great-great-grandfather’s outhouse will find a pile of weathered bricks and some degraded mortar.

Next, extend this analogy to Creation.

There is an omitted subject, of course. Some physical processes/mechanisms appear to operate forever, A hydrogen atom can exist forever if left undisturbed, its electron circling its proton however many trillion times per second, for as many seconds as the universe has existed.

 

[inocente]

Your hundred galaxy statement is meaningless. Pairs? Why pairs? Whatever, it is unrelated to my argument, just some irrelevant drivel.

Let’s try to correct a number of things.

Special relativity constrains causality, it doesn’t constrain relative motion at great distances in expanding space.

The observable universe is everything we can see in principle, i.e. the light has had time to reach us. Due to expansion the edge of the observable universe is around 46 billion light-years away even though the universe is only around 13 billion years old.

This is simple geometry. Imagine expanding the circle in the diagram. You should find it easy to see that no two adjacent lines on the scale will move apart anywhere near as fast as the first and last lines.



Now, separately, the spectrum of light from hydrogen has a very specific absorption line “finger print”. This is how we know the Sun burns hydrogen. When we look at other stars we see the same finger print and know they too burn hydrogen. This in itself is very remarkable, the fact that by human ingenuity we can know such a thing so certainly.

All the more remarkable is that when we look at distant galaxies we see the same fingerprint, but for most galaxies all the lines move towards the red end of the spectrum, and the further the galaxy is from us, the greater this red shift, which is how we know the universe is expanding (and if we look at whether the red shift changes over time, we find the expansion is accelerating).

http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/article_images/6_c01dfaf162273609e19b80ea97407cf5.jpg

Then if we think about the early universe, initially it was so hot there was a particle soup opaque to radiation, but when expansion cooled it to around 3000 K the plasma condensed into hydrogen atoms and the universe became transparent to radiation. This point is marked by the cosmic background radiation, red shifted so much by expansion that its temperature is now only 3 K. If you find an old analog tube TV and tune it off-station, about 1% of the static you see is that very same cosmic background.

The random-throwing process is subject to the 2nd Law, but the deliberate laying and mortaring process bypasses the 2nd Law.

No way. You can’t just ignore that it takes more effort to make strings and levels and then use them to do things properly than throwing the bricks around. The second law always holds, brick layers can’t disobey physical laws.

Are you getting this stuff from comic books? A challenge - go talk to any physicist, for that matter any sixteen year-old taking school physics. For that matter sign up at physicsforums.com and see if you can get even one person to agree with you.

Do note however that when in uncharitable mood physicists tend to use the put-down dilettante - a person who is or seems to be interested in a subject, but whose understanding of it is not very deep

There is an omitted subject, of course. Some physical processes/mechanisms appear to operate forever, A hydrogen atom can exist forever if left undisturbed, its electron circling its proton however many trillion times per second, for as many seconds as the universe has existed.

There’s no friction, it’s not drawing energy, why wouldn’t it?

 

[greylorn]

Let’s try to correct a number of things.

Interesting post. Upon analysis, I’m thinking that we ought to get along better, am hoping that we do, and trying to further this conversation, but in a different direction.

Thank you for the physics/astronomy instruction. My degree was in physics and EE, but it never hurts to be reminded of the basics. My career included 15 years in support of astronomy, the only place to go after religious disagreements with QM killed any chance of becoming a serious physicist. In the process I wrote the pointing code, telemetry processing code, and instrument control code for the first astronomical space telescope. Digital cameras did not exist then, so the entire observing mission employed spectrometry. It included 4 8" telescopes and a pair of spectrometers. In the meantime we mounted a test telescope in a little steel shed and constructed the world’s first totally automatic computer controlled telescope, which netted me two papers in Astronomical Journal (behind the name of our Dept. Chairman, of course). Later I wrote the control code for the first echelle spectrograph, which, attached to a 36" ground instrument, netted astronomers dozens of good papers.

Thanks for the tip about the PhysicsForums, where I’ve been a member for almost 2 years. I’ve found the physicists there to be extremely helpful and polite, quite unlike the general run of posters here.

The only time I ran into trouble was about a year ago when initiated a thread designed to take an honest mathematical look at the real probabilities needed to make Darwinism work. I’d done my own calculations first, coming up with odds of 1.4x10[sup]-542[/sup] for the self-assembly probability of a single, small, 900 base-pair human gene. I thought that there must be something amiss with my calculations, for surely, given that the average gene contains about 1200 base-pairs and there are at least 23,000 in the human body, Darwinists would have long ago performed more precise calculations and determined the obvious, that random processes cannot account for the existence of the human body.

So I initiated a thread on the math section asking others to perform the calculation. (Not wanting to prejudice the results, I did not disclose my own method and result, which was right out of Math 312a.)

A couple of posters quickly noted that this is the kind of question a nutty creationist would ask, and became nasty and accusative without answering the question. Naturally I replied in my customary style, with great sensitivity for these nitwits’ narrow minded opinions. Before long I had two moderators on my case, loudly chastizing me for trying to introduce religious doctrine into their forum. I was a little more politic in replying to them, trying to convince them that I had no “religious” agenda, which is kind of true, but was reprimanded a couple of times. My thread was shut down and deleted without a trace, but not before its final post. Someone had actually done the calculation, politely (and correctly) noting its simplicity, and came up with the exact same result.

All I’m trying to do, both there and here and in my personal writings, is to completely integrate the idea of a creator with sound principles of physics. I would love some help, and throughout the course of 50 years have sought assistance from those who know more than I do. My math skills are particularly weak, and my physics/engineering training little used.

I’ve had no success at this. It turns out that the conventional God concept and the standard models of atomic physics and cosmology are all terribly flawed. Trying to reconcile multiple bad ideas is like combining Darwinism with phlogiston theory to explain abiogenesis. The only way that I’ve been able to integrate God and physics is to revise both the God concept and some fundamental ideas from physics and cosmology as well. One more chapter to go.

I use the CAF as a learning tool, trying to find ways to express unusual concepts to people who are already programmed to believe differently. I’m not having much luck-- none whatsoever with you. If I’ve already annoyed you so much that you will arbitrarily blow off everything I write, there’s no point in continuing, is there?

But if you might consider the possibility that my goal could be a way to forestall the transformation of intelligent, educated people into atheists, we might continue. In that case I’d like you to re-examine the 2nd Law with only one immediate goal: To at least understand what I am proposing. So far, you’ve reacted dogmatically, according to all the standard models. If that’s all you are willing to do, with respect to both theology and physics, then further interactive postings will be a waste of time.

Your choice, whatever.

 

[runningdude]

Interesting post. Upon analysis, I’m thinking that we ought to get along better, am hoping that we do, and trying to further this conversation, but in a different direction.

Thank you for the physics/astronomy instruction. My degree was in physics and EE, but it never hurts to be reminded of the basics. My career included 15 years in support of astronomy, the only place to go after religious disagreements with QM killed any chance of becoming a serious physicist. [redacted to meet character limit]

Thanks for the tip about the PhysicsForums, where I’ve been a member for almost 2 years. I’ve found the physicists there to be extremely helpful and polite, quite unlike the general run of posters here.

The only time I ran into trouble was about a year ago when initiated a thread designed to take an honest mathematical look at the real probabilities needed to make Darwinism work. [redacted to meet character limit]

All I’m trying to do, both there and here and in my personal writings, is to completely integrate the idea of a creator with sound principles of physics. I would love some help, and throughout the course of 50 years have sought assistance from those who know more than I do. My math skills are particularly weak, and my physics/engineering training little used.

I’ve had no success at this. It turns out that the conventional God concept and the standard models of atomic physics and cosmology are all terribly flawed. Trying to reconcile multiple bad ideas is like combining Darwinism with phlogiston theory to explain abiogenesis. The only way that I’ve been able to integrate God and physics is to revise both the God concept and some fundamental ideas from physics and cosmology as well. One more chapter to go.

I use the CAF as a learning tool, trying to find ways to express unusual concepts to people who are already programmed to believe differently. I’m not having much luck-- none whatsoever with you. If I’ve already annoyed you so much that you will arbitrarily blow off everything I write, there’s no point in continuing, is there?

Understanding where your coming from, I think I tend to sympathize with your position, though I believe I approach the reconciliation of science and religion differently.

I have an engineering degree, and am firmly rooted in science with no nonsense. I also take my religion with no nonsense. The Catholic Church teaches that Objective Truth exists, and that any open and honest means of thought will uncover that truth.

As a side note, your study of probability regarding Darwinism is rather intriguing,

But back to the matter at hand, which is creation ex-nililho, I believe understanding the Catholic teaching about God is important before attempting to have people reach beyond this understanding.

The church teaches that God is the creator of all things - by necessity this means that he is the creator of energy, as a unit of energy is equal a unit of mass times the square of the speed of light.

The Nicene creed states

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

Now “earth” is simply church speak for the physical realm. If it exists, its ultimate origin is God. This applies equally to “spiritual” beings in Catholic theology - even Satan, considered the Father of Evil, is a created being, whose continued existence is dependent on God. Nothing exists apart from God’s creation.

By the very definition of the Catholic God, God had to have created the universe from nothing. Anything other than this definition, simply can’t be considered God within Catholic thought.

In contrast, you believe that their is some kind of primordial energy that “God” brought order to. In your belief construct, God couldn’t be the origin of this energy, but some intelligent agent(s) that violated the second law of thermodynamics to bring about a vastly complicated universe, populated with intelligent life. You even support this with your study of probability, which concluded that intelligent life through random chance is statistically impossible.

This is where I think our theories might converge. Within Catholic thought, the “intelligent agent” describe above would either be a created being (such as an Angel), or possibly God Himself manipulating a finite energy that God created the “beginning of time” within the physical realm.

Obviously, creating matter and energy “from nothing (ex-nilihio)” violates every law of thermodynamics, but this is because the laws of physics exist solely within the “physical realm”, a realm that exists solely because God created it, according to Catholic Doctrine.

So far, you’ve reacted dogmatically, according to all the standard models. If that’s all you are willing to do, with respect to both theology and physics, then further interactive postings will be a waste of time.

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I hope I might have explained why within Catholic thought, proposing that God did not create all energy will lead to dead-end conversations. It is simply do to the fact that the very definition of God necessitates that He did. However, once this hurdle is crossed, I find that in general what you are proposing regarding the laws of physics might be fairly solid, or at least concur with my own thoughts and musings about the “physical realm”.

I’d like to dive further into these musings, but I thought we’d need to at least establish a baseline regarding God from a Catholic perspective.

 

[greylorn]

Understanding where your coming from, I think I tend to sympathize with your position, though I believe I approach the reconciliation of science and religion differently.

I have an engineering degree, and am firmly rooted in science with no nonsense. I also take my religion with no nonsense. The Catholic Church teaches that Objective Truth exists, and that any open and honest means of thought will uncover that truth.

As a side note, your study of probability regarding Darwinism is rather intriguing,

But back to the matter at hand, which is creation ex-nililho, I believe understanding the Catholic teaching about God is important before attempting to have people reach beyond this understanding.

The church teaches that God is the creator of all things - by necessity this means that he is the creator of energy, as a unit of energy is equal a unit of mass times the square of the speed of light.

The Nicene creed states

Now “earth” is simply church speak for the physical realm. If it exists, its ultimate origin is God. This applies equally to “spiritual” beings in Catholic theology - even Satan, considered the Father of Evil, is a created being, whose continued existence is dependent on God. Nothing exists apart from God’s creation.

By the very definition of the Catholic God, God had to have created the universe from nothing. Anything other than this definition, simply can’t be considered God within Catholic thought.

In contrast, you believe that their is some kind of primordial energy that “God” brought order to. In your belief construct, God couldn’t be the origin of this energy, but some intelligent agent(s) that violated the second law of thermodynamics to bring about a vastly complicated universe, populated with intelligent life. You even support this with your study of probability, which concluded that intelligent life through random chance is statistically impossible.

This is where I think our theories might converge. Within Catholic thought, the “intelligent agent” describe above would either be a created being (such as an Angel), or possibly God Himself manipulating a finite energy that God created the “beginning of time” within the physical realm.

Obviously, creating matter and energy “from nothing (ex-nilihio)” violates every law of thermodynamics, but this is because the laws of physics exist solely within the “physical realm”, a realm that exists solely because God created it, according to Catholic Doctrine.

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I hope I might have explained why within Catholic thought, proposing that God did not create all energy will lead to dead-end conversations. It is simply do to the fact that the very definition of God necessitates that He did. However, once this hurdle is crossed, I find that in general what you are proposing regarding the laws of physics might be fairly solid, or at least concur with my own thoughts and musings about the “physical realm”.

I’d like to dive further into these musings, but I thought we’d need to at least establish a baseline regarding God from a Catholic perspective.

Reply 1 of 2

RD,
Thank you for a cogent and thoughtful post. Let’s establish an even broader baseline before proceeding. I was once a very devout Catholic, well educated through high school, altar boy from 5th grade through university (I could still fake the rudimentary service of a traditional Latin mass) and had considered the priesthood. I can still recite the Nicene Creed, from rosary practice. I was ridiculed then for taking my religion way too seriously.

In college I was faced with an intellectual crisis because of the contradictions between physics and theology and would have become an atheist if not for previous psychic experiences which the scientists whom I was trying to trust assured me were absolutely impossible. I’ve discussed my ideas (long ago) with very intelligent Norbertine priests and had them beaten down by a professional theologian. My last close encounter was with a Jesuit astronomer over breakfast on Kitt Peak. So I know the Church imperfectly, but perhaps better than Catholics who’ve not chosen to challenge it.

Moreover, I like Christ. These days my working-idea base uses J.C.'s ideas as a standard for behavior (except for the “turn other cheek” teaching, which got me regularly beaten by fellow Catholic students), and my own best-understanding of metaphysics, theology, and physics as an explanation for, “why bother?”

IMO the Church was charged by Christ to promulgate HIS teachings, which did not involve theology, metaphysics, etc. The Church had no business, IMO, ever getting into theology and metaphysics and science, for lack of qualifications. Galileo tried to get it out of that business and failed. Since the Church seems determined to remain in the theology business, IMO it needs to handle the job more competently, learning from science that it really is okay to let loose of a belief that does not make sense.

IMO the physical universe and its laws and principles are a higher law than anything written by men because they were written by God, rather than men. All my thoughts come from these principles.

None of my ideas conflict with Christ’s teachings. All of my ideas conflict with scientific cosmology and all theologies. From that cheery background I’ll venture a reply to your questions and comments.

With respect to creation, either God created all things, or He did not. Does the answer to this question affect your moral code? If so, I’d like to know why.

Incidentally, I sincerely hope that you will read my book when published. It will clarify quite a lot and give us excellent grounds for more conversation. (Continued…)

 

[greylorn]

Understanding where your coming from, I think I tend to sympathize with your position, though I believe I approach the reconciliation of science and religion differently.

Reply 2 of 3 to Post 34

RD,

I am certain that you have a different approach, without having the slightest idea what it might be.

For the first five years after getting my first glimpse into a theory that would connect science and religion, I kept trying to stuff every tidbit of the dogma I’d memorized into the package, creating a conceptual blivet. Eventually it popped.

I have an engineering degree, and am firmly rooted in science with no nonsense. I also take my religion with no nonsense. The Catholic Church teaches that Objective Truth exists, and that any open and honest means of thought will uncover that truth.

If your science is “no nonsense,” as you claim, why are you spinning the First Law of Thermodynamics to fit your beliefs?

How is it that a no-nonsense religion seeking “Objective Truth” keeps sticking to ancient ideas developed by Catholic authority figures like Aquinas?

As a side note, your study of probability regarding Darwinism is rather intriguing,

I’m delighted to find someone willing to recognize the implications of that ugly little number. The relevant section of the book for which I did that research occupies about 3% of my chapter on the flaws and idiocies inherent in Darwinism.

But back to the matter at hand, which is creation ex-nililho, I believe understanding the Catholic teaching about God is important before attempting to have people reach beyond this understanding.

The church teaches that God is the creator of all things - by necessity this means that he is the creator of energy, as a unit of energy is equal a unit of mass times the square of the speed of light.

If the Church is going to embrace physics, it doesn’t get to pick and choose the laws of physics it likes. The First Law is one of the few absolute principles, and like it or not, it violates the notion that God created everything.

Giving up the old notion that God created everything, which was invented by ancient people who knew no physics, costs nothing except the simple admission that some of the old time Catholics like Aquinas tried their best but got it wrong. Even Einstein made mistakes. You just talked about the Church seeking truth. It’s just that, talk. No action. Dogma is the attack dog of truth, and here you are, growling at the gates.

There is another way to look at this. When the Church said, “all things,” it literally meant things. Like rocks and bunnies. Its thinkers had no concept of the possibility that there might exist an infinite space containing an amorphous substance from which things might be created. In that sense, energy transcends the notion of “thing.”

The Nicene creed states…

Now “earth” is simply church speak for the physical realm. If it exists, its ultimate origin is God. This applies equally to “spiritual” beings in Catholic theology - even Satan, considered the Father of Evil, is a created being, whose continued existence is dependent on God. Nothing exists apart from God’s creation.

By the very definition of the Catholic God, God had to have created the universe from nothing. Anything other than this definition, simply can’t be considered God within Catholic thought.

Well, yes. That’s Catholic thought. And their definition of God was devised to be the most superior possible definition of God, so as to beat out the inferior pagan gods. It was a, Hah! Trump that! notion, not a well-considered definition. I’m not proposing any extensions to Catholic thought in these areas, being more interested in thoughts that answer honest questions and resolve real problems.

The omniscient God cannot think, and that notion simply seems to me, to be wrong. I insist upon a Creator capable of imaginative thought. True or not, I do not know. Belief in a thinking God is simply a personal preference. .

In contrast, you believe that their is some kind of primordial energy that “God” brought order to. In your belief construct, God couldn’t be the origin of this energy, but some intelligent agent(s) that violated the second law of thermodynamics to bring about a vastly complicated universe, populated with intelligent life. You even support this with your study of probability, which concluded that intelligent life through random chance is statistically impossible.

This seems a generally correct assessment of my ideas. Thank you for taking the time to get it right! However, I could not make sense of sentence #2. There are words missing, needed to complete the statement, and it is not my business to read your mind and fill them in.

 

[greylorn]

This is where I think our theories might converge. Within Catholic thought, the “intelligent agent” describe above would either be a created being (such as an Angel), or possibly God Himself manipulating a finite energy that God created the “beginning of time” within the physical realm.

Reply 3 of 3 to Post 34

Unless all conscious, intelligent beings, angels included, are like God— uncreated.

Obviously, creating matter and energy “from nothing (ex-nilihio)” violates every law of thermodynamics, but this is because the laws of physics exist solely within the “physical realm”, a realm that exists solely because God created it, according to Catholic Doctrine.

Remember that at the time the Church fathers settled upon these concepts, the concept of energy was unknown. They knew about “matter,” and some general manifestations of matter like earth, air, wind, and fire. Their only place to put God and the soul, which were clearly not made of these things, was “spiritual.”

Creation from nada is about the only place that intelligent Christians trying to explain the universe (not their job!) could have found an answer that no one could possibly refute, because “nothing” is inaccessible. Anyone watching the Science documentary channel knows that, very recently, Dr. Caca has stopped claiming that the Big Bang arose from a singularity (which cannot exist), and has taken to declaring, with the same authoritative tone he previously used to declare “singularity!”, that it came from nothing. Morgan Freeman intones the same crud even more effectively, as in, “From a place of no where, a time of no when.”

Do you see that as science finally agreeing with religion? If so, I happen to own 35% of a profitable Brooklyn toll bridge and would like to sell you my shares, cheaply.

For those who have taken on the job of explaining how the universe came to be, but are unqualified for that job, non-real places like “nowhere,” undiscoverable states like “nothing,” and undefinable times like “no when,” are their origins of last resort.

Let’s take a separate look at the “physical realm” silliness. By definition, whatever is physical is that which interacts with anything else which is physical. That includes invisible energy forms and unseen forces as well as matter, The soul must interact with the physical brain, and is therefore physical. God cannot have created a single atom without somehow shaping it from the energy fields which compose it; therefore God is physical. To hypothesize the existence of something which is non-physical yet interacts with the physical universe denies the meaning of “physical,” becoming irrelevant in the process.

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I hope I might have explained why within Catholic thought, proposing that God did not create all energy will lead to dead-end conversations.

It is simply do to the fact that the very definition of God necessitates that He did. However, once this hurdle is crossed, I find that in general what you are proposing regarding the laws of physics might be fairly solid, or at least concur with my own thoughts and musings about the “physical realm”.

You don’t need to tell me about dead-end conversations. Every conversation with a closed-minded dogmatist is a dead end, whether he be steeped in religious, pseudo-scientific, or political dogma. Or if he thinks that Ford makes great cars and trucks.

I’d like to dive further into these musings, but I thought we’d need to at least establish a baseline regarding God from a Catholic perspective.

You are, IMO, an excellent person with a first-rate mind. You seem to have beliefs which you value, and which work for you. I see no traces of the ego, or the need to be right for the sake of being right— none of the righteous anger found in so many religious individuals. Unlike me, you’re a nice guy. This implies that you have a life, and earn your living by making the world a better place than it would be without you. So why bother with these questions? What is the point for you in arguing metaphysical theology?

We’ve both clarified where we come from, and I sure do appreciate your willingness to participate in the process. IMO, Catholic theology represents dogma which cannot be changed, and which cannot be reconciled with physical reality. Exploring alternative ideas does not seem something that you are ready for, or that you even need. Stick with the Church. Do not read my book. Forget theology and simply follow Christ’s teachings and IMO you’ll do just fine.

 

[inocente]

All I’m trying to do, both there and here and in my personal writings, is to completely integrate the idea of a creator with sound principles of physics. I would love some help, and throughout the course of 50 years have sought assistance from those who know more than I do. My math skills are particularly weak, and my physics/engineering training little used.

Then I applaud your motives, we may well be on the same side. I have to rush today so the following is just as it comes out, apologies, but it may explain my angle.

I use the CAF as a learning tool, trying to find ways to express unusual concepts to people who are already programmed to believe differently. I’m not having much luck-- none whatsoever with you. If I’ve already annoyed you so much that you will arbitrarily blow off everything I write, there’s no point in continuing, is there?

Hey don’t take your bat home, you don’t annoy me, I’m fine and dandy with unusual concepts.

But …

I have an engineering background so dogma is nada to me, either something works or it doesn’t, theory for theory’s sake goes straight in my bin. One of my issues with some creationists is they insist on messing around with good science to shoe-horn in the Creator. For instance the YEC folk who change the speed of light to make their theory come out right, but never go back over all the science involving c to see what happens, and of course if they did they’d find they’d made a right old mess. I think they probably generate quite a few atheists by being so vocal – if the choice is a gospel of bad science or walk away, many will run.

I used to be one of those running until someone taught me a bit of the real gospel, then I realized it stands on its own two feet. As far as the second law is concerned, this practical guy thinks no way, where’s the experiments, where’s the evidence? I’d look for that in your book, and if you don’t cite peer reviewed papers detailing the work it would go straight in the bin, and as the second law is so well grounded there will have to be a whole lot of citing going on. Sorry and all, but Stephen Hawking also goes in the bin when he steps over into speculation.

So imho you may get plaudits from an existing choir, and make some converts from those without a science background, but you’ll turn off all those who have. There are a lot of Christians who appear compelled to make their religion fit with science. The big problem is they don’t really understand what science is, they get caught up in whatever Hawking or whoever says in his books, not appreciating there’s a difference between that and real science.

What is really needed is a book for Christians that tells them how to read science, tells them that scientific knowledge is provisional, and puts science in its place. Then I think a lot of problems might melt away. Something on the lines of Fenyman’s lectures to generalists but from a Christian perspective.

In support of this idea, I found the following for another thread. Lemaître (Catholic priest and originator of big bang theory for those who don’t know) says things a million miles away from many Christians’ view of science.

*He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.

… Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.

… The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

I have to leave for the rest of the day but one last thought. The big science of the 20th century was physics, but I think it will be replaced by the science of the mind in the 21st. That may be the saving grace, by understanding ourselves better we may move towards a new spirituality and away from this old conflict.

 

[smichhertz]

You’ve waited a long time for the opportunity to offer such an impressive contribution, another reiteration of dogma.

I imagine that you’ve been looking for short threads so that you would not have to read any of them before offering your brilliant insights.

How you see something is irrelevant, except to a poll. Why you see it that way could be interesting, but probably won’t be.

If you can’t provide a logical argument against mine, or are unable to come up with any constructive criticism, then keep your personal opinions to yourself. You have been added to my ignore list. You are also the only user to date I have ever had to do this to.