N
Nullasalus
Guest
Actually, an addendum: Yes, virtual particles are considered to ‘exist’. I was confusing them.
An appropriate sciam.com link: tinyurl.com/macpq
An appropriate sciam.com link: tinyurl.com/macpq
- Status
R
raikou
Guest
Yeah, got my username from the Pokémon game.
I never really read (at least not in detail) anything from the previous posts. What I meant from my previous post is that I try to reason out my belief in God in the light of reality, existence, and truth. For me, the question of God’s existence boils down to existence itself, regardless of the mechanisms, and that the notion of existence already points to the existence of “the One who is.”
Why do things exist as well as the mechanisms of existence? What is existence per se? How come some things are real and some aren’t? One may question and propose mechanisms regarding how the universe came to be (resorting to perceived laws), yet will not be able to explain or relate to the very essence of be-ing. Relating to the quote, one may still ask, why is there such a law/principle such as vacuum fluctuation or a concept such as eternal inflation? Do they just really have to be? Is it just necessary to have things like that? Seeing that there are questions still unanswered, it seems that there is still a lot of explaining to do.
I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said (or at least emphasized) that “God is Truth” (which is also supported by the Sacred Scriptures). I mentioned this because I find this notion the best explanation that satisfy my question regarding existence. Since truth is a necessary element for be-ing, it is also by truth that we can explain existence.
God is Truth. Truth is a person (a rational being with an intellect and will) that confers being to all existence, by the assertion of his will and the governance of his wisdom and intellect. I may try to explain/support/make sense of this by expounding on the human notion of truth and some similarities between the nature of God and truth, but that might make a lengthy post.
R
raikou
Guest
If you’d come to believe and grasp that God is truth, then it won’t be long for you to appreciate that God, your Creator, loves you.
Truth wills harmony of (sub)truths, and abhors evil, falsity, and contradiction. In other words, God wills the good of all creation, which includes you. To sum it up in three words, God loves you - in the most assertive sort of way (without violating your freedom, of course).
R
ribozyme
Guest
Here is an interesting description of inflationary cosmology that I recently found on a creationist website. Surprising, I actually agree with it.
Danny Faulkner:
Anyone who disagrees with Faulkner? He acknowledges that inflation makes a creator unnecessary.
Danny Faulkner:
creationontheweb.com/content/view/1665
Anyone who disagrees with Faulkner? He acknowledges that inflation makes a creator unnecessary.
M
mchale
Guest
Only certain formulations of inflation makes the concept of an uncaused, apparently unnecessary. Until we can actually prove that new universes are being created all the time, and until we can show evidence that such a chain actually is perpetual this is pure speculation. Remember when we start to deail with the more exotic versions of inflation and String theory, we are no longer dealing with hypothesis that we are currently capable of testing, and therefore, it is rather dangerous to hang an intellectual position on them.
–
Bill
N
Nullasalus
Guest
Considering most of the replies in this thread have been by people who accept the big bang (Which Faulkner rejects as well) and evolution (Again, Faulkner rejects it), I’d say the odds of many disagreeing with Faulkner are very high. This is getting into the theistic evolution - creationist - intelligent design knife-fight.
That more or less sums up my take on it as well. Anthropic fine-tuning is very interesting - I think we’ve seen here that noteworthiness of it hasn’t really been discarded with yet, even if proposals may discard that particular interpretation in the future if they turn out to be correct - but it isn’t central to a need for God or faith.
Oh, and regarding virtual particles one more time - anyone interested should also check up on vacuum energy and zero-point energy. To make it short, ‘The nothingness that VPs emerge from is not empty.’
R
ribozyme
Guest
I meant his view on inflationary cosmology (especially the aspect that it does not involve a creator), not evolution or the big bang.
W
wjp984
Guest
Thank you for admitting your correction. I was just about to state all the reasons why I was right but I guess you already realize that.
W
wjp984
Guest
I thougth it was common knowledge that he did but I was not using this as an argument for the existence of God. I was simply making a justification for beleiving in quantam mechanics, the Big Bang, inflation etc. while still being able to God. Einstein was a heck of a lot smarter than me, and considering he came up with the theories and answers, if he was still able to believe in God then I don’t see any reason why others who understand the nature of the universe can’t also. Should they? Well that is their choice. But I’d like to hear any of you tell Eninstein he was crazy for believing in God.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
Still, there’s more to virtual particles than that. Again, look up vacuum energy - it is my understanding, and again I could be wrong, that the ‘nothingness’ virtual particles emerge from is not ‘nothingness’ at all, or at least not as we know the term. (IE: Utterly devoid of anything whatsoever.) There is a floor of energy that even vacuum must contain, but it’s still called vacuum. Something to consider.
But that’s all related. He believes that the big bang is effectively proof that there is no creator - others disagree. He considers evolution to be proof that there is no creator - others disagree. So when he argues that eternal inflation (Even while acknowledging past-eternal is a more difficult ‘bet’) is proof that there is no creator… don’t be surprised if others disagree.
Anthropic fine-tuning has been an interesting philosophical argument for modern christians, but the faith persisted before it - it’s a fairly recent observation. If the observation falls (and it’s worth noting that it hasn’t yet), the creator hasn’t been done away with - the specifics of the argument changes. You can talk about occam’s razor, but really, if that were intellectually sufficient, people wouldn’t need to get into new, speculative specifics so far argued.
M
mchale
Guest
Actually for the record I am not going to agree with it. Infinities always make Physicist’s Nervous. And to me, in a strange sense, speak to the creative power of God.
–
Bill
R
ribozyme
Guest
I did not call Einstein crazy for believing in God. Show some evidence that he did believe in a God, much less a personal God. He used God as a metaphor… “God” to him meant the laws of physics or universe, not some benevolent Creator. Look at wiki…
N
Nullasalus
Guest
He believed in the ‘God of Spinoza’ - pantheism. But no, that isn’t a metaphor in the way you’re describing it - there’s a reason wiki doesn’t list him as an atheist.
Einstein certainly didn’t believe in a personal god and said as much - I think that’s been admitted here. But he believed in an intelligible force beyond human reckoning, and never placed himself in the atheist camp.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Call it deism, call it pantheism. But calling it ‘a metaphor’ is deceptive.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Ok fine, I just wanted to point out he did not believe in a God in the usual sense. Well, I think Dawkins used the metaphor argument in the opening pages of The God Delusion.
I didn’t call him an atheist though.
W
wjp984
Guest
I never said you did. Here is a link: ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm
Although people can argue all they want, the fact is Einstein believed in some sort of God and mostlikely the Judeo-Christian one. Regardless of what god Einstein believed in the point is he beleived that even with the laws of the universe and quantam mechanics, God had to be responsible for it.
R
ribozyme
Guest
You should look up what pantheism really is… it does not imply a personal God, much less the Judeo-Christian one. I am arguing against the idea he believed in the Judeo-Christian God.
J
john_doran
Guest
he acknowledges the tautological nature of a tautology: if a cosmological model admits of no divine first cause, and it is true, then there is no divine first cause.
but this is hardly what you require in order to carry the day…
look, scientists on the bleeding edge of physical theory often (read: usually) conflate science with the philosophy of science; the data of their experiments with the interpretive lense through which they understand those data…
the quantum vacuum is not “nothing” - it is a statistical manifold. which is most definitively something; so your reference to papers that assume its existence begs the question: if the universe came into being from the quantum vacuum, where exactly did the quantum vacuum come from?
can you make a specific argument? for example, that a first cause is not necessary? or that an inifinite number of successive temporal moments may already have passed prior to the occurrence of this moment? or that everything that begins to exist does not require a cause?
thanks,
- jd
W
wjp984
Guest
well as you saw in the link, he was raised Jewish and had a lto fo respect for Christianity. He liked the faith. I highly doubt it was another God he believed in. However, I am arguing that what difference does it make what god he believed in. The fact of the matter is he beleived in a god and that a god created everything in the universe and was responsible for the quantam ohysics and bin bang etc.
- Status