Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[harvey1]

What question???? The meaningless "Why?" If so, I did - "Why not"?

Wuntext, you made a claim so I asked why it must be so. I didn't make a claim so "why not" is not applicable.

Don't you want God to exist? Most human beings do.

Wishin' don't make it so. I remember as a kid wanting a fat guy in a red suit to exist. I soon realised I preferred evidence based reality. I don't believe in "magick", so that's the fat guy and god out of the frame pending further evidence. And the fact "most human beings do" believe in god is irrelevant. What god - Allah? Shiva? Or just yours?

Of course wishing doesn't make it so, but your lack of evidence to show why nothing is naturally not stable suggests that you want atheism to be true and that's why you believe that nothing is not stable. (Btw, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this is just how it strikes me when someone believes something very strongly without evidence.)

I'm here and not there.

But you could be there with hardly any effort. And I'd really like you to be there, I don't appreciate having my honesty questioned.

How have I questioned your honesty? I assume that you are an honest person. In fact, I don't know of one dishonest atheist on this board. I might be wrong, but this is what I assume.

As for going to other sites, I prefer this one because the atheists here are pretty smart and most are willing to consider philosophical issues. That's probably true of other places, but I really lack the time to visit other sites. I can barely keep up with the threads I started not to mention the ones that I did not start.

The atmosphere is not a "blue thing", the atmosphere is a 'thing' that can be a number of colours that because of Rayleigh scattering happens to be perceived as blue more often than not. Anyone who believes the absolute proposition that "the sky is blue" is speaking from a position of ignorance.

Good. Then we agree that the universe is not a Newtonian thing. Anyone who says it is is speaking from a position of ignorance. Or, they are just wrong since the proposition is false.

[harvey1]

I think the truthmaker theory has a very deep connection in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and the process of maintain truth is so important in Christianity that it is given the main reason as to why Jesus died for our sins (i.e., this was the way in which God could redeem humanity without sacrificing God's highest standards of moral truth).

Harvey, please don't bring this up unless you can explain to me how the enactment of the execution of an immortal is supposed to be any sort of sacrifice that can atone for anything. I opened the topic titled Questioning the Crucifixion because I hear this said all the time yet it fails to make the slightest bit of sense. If I am to be convinced that Christianity has the sort of basis in the ultimate truths of the Cosmos, foundational elements like this one will have to make sense to me.

Well, I didn't mean to change the subject of this thread, but didn't I respond to you on that thread? Did you reply to my last post and I didn't reply to it? (It's possible since I am very far behind in responding lately. Not to mention it's tough anyway keeping up with all the people who make their comments. Hopefully I can catch up in the coming weeks.)

[wuntext]

Wuntext, you made a claim so I asked why it must be so. I didn't make a claim so "why not" is not applicable.

No, I did not make a claim. Prof Stenger made a claim that I referenced for the purpose of debate.
A claim which you responded to with a series of flippant "why's", with no attempt to address the points Stenger made. Stenger has given us a "why" and a "how" to your question in Post 20

Code: Select all

"I want to know why is nothing unstable. It seems like an assumption that I'd like to know the reason for making that assumption". 

If you think Stengers explanations as to "why" and "how" are wrong, explain your reasoning - preferably, like Prof Stenger, backed up with scientific evidence.

Of course wishing doesn't make it so, but your lack of evidence to show why nothing is naturally not stable suggests that you want atheism to be true and that's why you believe that nothing is not stable. (Btw, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this is just how it strikes me when someone believes something very strongly without evidence.)

You have been given evidence - you have been given evidence that has been available on the Internet at Stenger's website for at least a year without once being challenged by his scientific peers. You just don't like this evidence. You can't refute this evidence of course, so you'll go on insisting you haven't been given any.
If you think Prof Stenger's elegant and parsimonious work isn't 'evidence', read Alan Guth's The Inflationary Universe, available on Amazon, or Edward Tryon's "Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?" published in Nature magazine, Issue 246.

How have I questioned your honesty?

Code: Select all

Me: 
"Incidentally, Newton wasn't 'wrong'. Newtonian physics was used by NASA to get the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. It just isn't applicable on all scales." 
 
You: 
"Is this a true statement, "The sky is blue"? My answer is that the sky is mostly blue, but it is not always blue, so this statement has to be considered false."

Why do you give an example of a statement that you consider to be false as a direct reply to me if you were not implying that you also consider my statement false?

Good. Then we agree that the universe is not a Newtonian thing. Anyone who says it is is speaking from a position of ignorance. Or, they are just wrong since the proposition is false.

Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level. So what? We don't experience our lives on the Planck scale. As I pointed out in an earlier post, classical physics works well enough to describe and predict the world we live in.
Quantum physics is doing a good job describing the quantum realm - including predicting the "stuff out of nothing" phenomena you had trouble accepting in Post 6.

[harvey1]

No, I did not make a claim. Prof Stenger made a claim that I referenced for the purpose of debate.

This is what I'm referring to:

I guess I'm trying to figure out how you think "stuff out of nothing" can exist in a rational world.

Easy Harvey! Read some of the work by Stenger at Colorado University, particularly his model that describes a non-supernatural beginning of the universe from nothing. A beginning that doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and comes complete with mathematical equations.

This is not just referencing someone else's claim. It is making a claim: "Easy Harvey..."

A claim which you responded to with a series of flippant "why's", with no attempt to address the points Stenger made. Stenger has given us a "why" and a "how" to your question in Post 20

Maybe I missed the argument. Why is nothing necessarily unstable? (Btw, this is not a flippant set of "why's" since I really want to know why. This will help support your statement that something out of nothing is easy.

If you think Stengers explanations as to "why" and "how" are wrong, explain your reasoning - preferably, like Prof Stenger, backed up with scientific evidence.

I haven't seen any explanation or scientific evidence. Please present some. (Btw, it is really awkward that you keep referring me to read Stenger or visit this other website to debate the issue. Is the evidence for "nothing being unstable" so paltry that you cannot state this supposed evidence for the impossibility of a stable topology having no energy-matter?)

You have been given evidence - you have been given evidence that has been available on the Internet at Stenger's website for at least a year without once being challenged by his scientific peers.

I have no idea what evidence that you are referring to which scientific peers have not challenged. All I read is that a state of nothing is unstable.

You just don't like this evidence. You can't refute this evidence of course, so you'll go on insisting you haven't been given any.

What evidence??

If you think Prof Stenger's elegant and parsimonious work isn't 'evidence', read Alan Guth's The Inflationary Universe...

I read Guth's book. Here's what it states:

Inflation, therefore, is seen by some as a new hope for a universe without a beginning. Is it possible that there was never a first patch of false vacuum, but instead false vacuum has existed forever, creating pocket universes indefinitely far into the past? The debate on this question is probably not over, but it is pretty clear which side is winning. At the beginning of 1994, Arvind Borde of the Brookhaven National Laboratory and Alexander Vilenkin proved that if a certain set of technical hypotheses is accepted, then the universe cannot avoid having a beginning, even if the universe is eternal into the future. (Alan Guth, "The Inflationary Universe", Helix Books, 1997, p. 249)

In this paper Guth says that probably the universe has a beginning. So, I don't see how this reference leads us to believe that nothing is "unstable."

or Edward Tryon's "Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?" published in Nature magazine, Issue 246.

There's a quantum cosmological hypothesis that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation, but this of course assumes that the laws of physics exist prior to spacetime.

How have I questioned your honesty?

Code: Select all

Me: 
"Incidentally, Newton wasn't 'wrong'. Newtonian physics was used by NASA to get the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. It just isn't applicable on all scales." 
 
You: 
"Is this a true statement, "The sky is blue"? My answer is that the sky is mostly blue, but it is not always blue, so this statement has to be considered false."

Why do you give an example of a statement that you consider to be false as a direct reply to me if you were not implying that you also consider my statement false?

I agree that I think that your statement: "Incidentally, Newton wasn't 'wrong.'" is incorrect about the nature of reality. But, that is not suggesting that you are dishonest. You can be mistaken and be as honest as Abe.

Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level. So what? We don't experience our lives on the Planck scale. As I pointed out in an earlier post, classical physics works well enough to describe and predict the world we live in.

Ptolemy's predictions worked pretty well on a certain scale too, but he was wrong too. The main difference, though, is that Newtonian science is an approximation of the equations of GR and QM, whereas Ptolemy's equations are not even rough approximations of modern planetary motion. Nonetheless, you can't use approximation of equations as an argument for Newton being right.

Quantum physics is doing a good job describing the quantum realm - including predicting the "stuff out of nothing" phenomena you had trouble accepting in Post 6.

I have no trouble with "stuff out of nothing" as a free lunch (i.e., where the total energy of the universe cancels itself out between positive and negative energy), rather I have trouble if "God were to create stuff out of nothing as a magic act." My argument against your point is the view that nothing is unstable without telling us why nothing is unstable. It might be right, but then some logical structure in the world must make nothing unstable. Otherwise, nothing is just the absence of those things that lead to an unstable world.

[wuntext]

I haven't seen any explanation or scientific evidence. Please present some. (Btw, it is really awkward that you keep referring me to read Stenger or visit this other website to debate the issue.

Makes me wonder why this site bothers with URL tags.

Is the evidence for "nothing being unstable" so paltry that you cannot state this supposed evidence for the impossibility of a stable topology having no energy-matter?

My argument against your point is the view that nothing is unstable without telling us why nothing is unstable.

I have no idea what evidence that you are referring to which scientific peers have not challenged. All I read is that a state of nothing is unstable.

Did you bother to read Stenger's mathematics's at all?

"At the earliest definable moment, the Planck time. We estimate from the uncertainty principle that ρ will be on the order of the Planck density, ρ = 1/G2 = 3x10129 electronvolts per cubic meter. In that case, the tunnelling probability is exp(-3/8) = 68.7 percent. This suggests that the unphysical region is highly unstable and that 68.7 percent of all universes will be found in the physical state."

You show me area of stable 'nothing' in this universe. Just one patch of stable nothing anywhere in the universe and I'll concede your god exists - because your god would be necessary to ringfence this stable 'nothing' from the universe. Quantum tunnelling would enough to break the symmetry of this state of 'nothing' - Guth has likened it to a pencil balanced exactly on it's tip, the slightest perturbation will collapse the symmetry.


Even the god fearin' astrophysicist's Hugh Ross agrees with the "nothing is unstable" concept, and to defend it he cites some of the leading authorities in the field:

"As far back as 1973 Ed Tryon suggested that a quantum mechanical fluctuation in "the vacuum" created the universe. Later he was joined by several other American and Russian theoreticians, (David Atkatz, Heinz Pagels, Alexander Vilenkin, Yakob B. Zel'dovich, and L. P Grishchuk), all of whom have posited that by the laws of physics "nothing is unstable”.

I read Guth's book. Here's what it states:

Inflation, therefore...snip... "unstable."

And here's a quote from Guth you seemed to have missed.

"The false vacuum is unstable, however, so at some point it "decayed," converting its energy to a hot soup of ordinary particles."
An Eternity of Bubbles
Alan Guth

I agree that I think that your statement: "Incidentally, Newton wasn't 'wrong.'" is incorrect about the nature of reality. But, that is not suggesting that you are dishonest. You can be mistaken and be as honest as Abe.

Where the hell was the "nature of reality" mentioned in your previous post? If you are saying Newton was wrong about the nature of reality why not just say it, instead of the irrelevant blather about the colour of the sky?

Nonetheless, you can't use approximation of equations as an argument for Newton being right.

As I said before, we do not live in the quantum realm, if Newton was good enough to get Neil Armstrong to the moon, he good enough for anything we may need his classical interpretation of physics for.

Usually I'd say you are needlessly nitpicking, but having seen you slip in your "nature of reality" remark, you motive seems to becoming clearer - (1) Newtonian physics is not applicable at all levels of observation. (2) Therefore science can be declared to be only 'approximate', therefore, because of (2) there is a deeper "nature of reality" where my invisible friend can exist.

[harvey1]

Makes me wonder why this site bothers with URL tags.

Perhaps to provide a credible reference for the evidence that the poster is citing...?

"At the earliest definable moment, the Planck time. We estimate from the uncertainty principle that ρ will be on the order of the Planck density, ρ = 1/G2 = 3x10129 electronvolts per cubic meter. In that case, the tunnelling probability is exp(-3/8) = 68.7 percent. This suggests that the unphysical region is highly unstable and that 68.7 percent of all universes will be found in the physical state."

If there's an uncertainty principle existing when there is nothing, then you are arguing for the existence of the laws of physics apart from the universe itself. That's fine, but let's keep in mind that this is a hypothesis. In addition, it commits you to platonism (i.e., the laws of physics are universals).

And here's a quote from Guth you seemed to have missed.

"The false vacuum is unstable, however, so at some point it "decayed," converting its energy to a hot soup of ordinary particles."
An Eternity of Bubbles
Alan Guth

If the laws "exist" then it is quite possible that nothing is "unstable," but platonism is a philosophical theory, it is not a scientific theory.

Where the hell was the "nature of reality" mentioned in your previous post? If you are saying Newton was wrong about the nature of reality why not just say it, instead of the irrelevant blather about the colour of the sky?

I said Newtonian physics is wrong. I said the proposition that the "sky is actually blue" is false. If I'm not talking about the nature of reality what else could I be referring to when I say "actually"?

Therefore science can be declared to be only 'approximate', therefore, because of (2) there is a deeper "nature of reality" where my invisible friend can exist.

If I remember the context it was in response to Grumpy's argument that science can be treated as real facts about the world whereas philosophy cannot. The argument against that is that science is not always correct, but we have good philosophical arguments as to why we should for the most part treat the models of science as more than "just models." So, philosophy can be about the world without necessarily referencing scientific methods of discovery.

[wuntext]

Perhaps to provide a credible reference for the evidence that the poster is citing...?

Which you then complain about reading, or don't bother to read thoroughly. Until we reach the stage where I have to lead you by the hand to the exact equation and exact statement. It won't happen again. I'm not your P.A. If you can't be bothered to read what is presented to you, then you won't get an answers any questions you may have about the source.

If there's an uncertainty principle existing when there is nothing, then you are arguing for the existence of the laws of physics apart from the universe itself. That's fine, but let's keep in mind that this is a hypothesis.
In addition, it commits you to platonism (i.e., the laws of physics are universals).

You'd better define what you mean by "laws of physics" before we go any further with this.

If the laws "exist" then it is quite possible that nothing is "unstable," but platonism is a philosophical theory, it is not a scientific theory.

Guth is Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not once was Plato or philosophy mentioned in the article. So why do you think he was talking as a philosopher rather than a physicist?

I said Newtonian physics is wrong. I said the proposition that the "sky is actually blue" is false. If I'm not talking about the nature of reality what else could I be referring to when I say "actually"?

What you were doing was quite obvious. You were trying to conflate a simple optical illusion and the inaccuracies of classical physics at the quantum level into a philosophical argument based on the unreliability of science that would allow a foot in the door for your god.

If I remember the context it was in response to Grumpy's argument that science can be treated as real facts about the world whereas philosophy cannot.

And I agree with Grumpy. Philosophy is a haven for self-opinionated individuals who have found themselves an indoor job with no heavy lifting. With the added luxury of being paid to spout their opinions - as you put it - "without necessarily referencing scientific methods of discovery".

[harvey1]

Which you then complain about reading, or don't bother to read thoroughly. Until we reach the stage where I have to lead you by the hand to the exact equation and exact statement. It won't happen again. I'm not your P.A. If you can't be bothered to read what is presented to you, then you won't get an answers any questions you may have about the source.

That's not how debate forums work. If I ask for reasons for a specific statement, then you ought to be able to answer those questions plain and simple. Or, if you don't know the answer because it is on the technical side, then you ought to provide information that this statement you made is widely accepted as a fact. Just referencing books without citations, etc., is not good enough since I may not have access to the book. In the case of Guth's book, I had that book and I could discuss the issues you raised. However, you should provide quotes as evidence (i.e., since I asked specific "why" questions) so that I can understand exactly what it is that you are talking about and why I should treat that statement as a fact. As it turns out, quantum cosmology is nowhere near treated as a fact. Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world. (But, don't get me wrong, I love quantum cosmology and believe this approach to be the right one.)

You'd better define what you mean by "laws of physics" before we go any further with this.

I can't define the fundamental laws since they are not yet formulated by the physics community that is engaged in understanding the fundamental laws (e.g., particle physicists, cosmologists, etc.). However, by "laws existing" I mean any physical behavior that is said to exist (or potentially exist) prior to spacetime. So, for example, quantum fluctuations happening "out of nothing" is a reference to quantum behavior and therefore that would be a reference to the "laws of physics." If there are no behaviors prior to spacetime (i.e., the laws do not exist), then the world would have no behavior other than being nothing.

If the laws "exist" then it is quite possible that nothing is "unstable," but platonism is a philosophical theory, it is not a scientific theory.

Guth is Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not once was Plato or philosophy mentioned in the article. So why do you think he was talking as a philosopher rather than a physicist?

As a scientist Guth, et al. are of course able to propose any quantum condition, law or behavior in the physical domain and create hypotheses such as quantum cosmology. That's just science. However, science cannot say that a metaphysical law exists. Hartle and Hawking, for example, have argued for imaginary time. Hawking has said that he's a positivist with respect to whether imaginary time should be treated as a real occurrence in the world, and therefore is not concerned with the physical meaning of this term. I think that science could take a completely positivist stance toward quantum cosmology in general, and just state that the world is as if it emerged "out of nothing" without committing to it actually emerging "out of nothing." An example of this could be a world that begins at the point of a quantum fluctation versus prior to a quantum fluctuation. A cosmologist need not commit to a more primitive view--such as the fluctuation was due to some set of laws (or law) that must necessarily make "nothing" unstable. Of course, the cosmologist might believe firmly that the laws exist prior to the quantum event to make sense of there being a quantum fluctuation or tunneling or instanton that exists at the beginning.

What you were doing was quite obvious. You were trying to conflate a simple optical illusion and the inaccuracies of classical physics at the quantum level into a philosophical argument based on the unreliability of science that would allow a foot in the door for your god.

I was stating a fact of Newtonian science being wrong. Why would you be against this fact giving God a foot in the door? Wouldn't you like it if there were a God who saved you and those you love? I would think that you'd be happy that there were such possibilities.

And I agree with Grumpy. Philosophy is a haven for self-opinionated individuals who have found themselves an indoor job with no heavy lifting. With the added luxury of being paid to spout their opinions - as you put it - "without necessarily referencing scientific methods of discovery".

Ah, but notice how fast you and others revert to philosophical argument to support your beliefs. It always amazes me how those who are most against philosophy tend to rely on philosophical introspection the most.

[wuntext]

That's not how debate forums work. If I ask for reasons for a specific statement, then you ought to be able to answer those questions plain and simple. Or, if you don't know the answer because it is on the technical side, then you ought to provide information that this statement you made is widely accepted as a fact.

So, QED posting a link to information that would have been impossible to cut and paste (due to the fact some of the equations contained symbols and superscript that cannot be reproduced in the message board format) upsets you? Not much I can do about that. Like QED, if necessary, I will post links to information I belive is relevant, because I am not going to abandon acceptable message forum pratice that other contributors to this thread such as QED have no problem with.

Just referencing books without citations, etc., is not good enough since I may not have access to the book. In the case of Guth's book, I had that book and I could discuss the issues you raised. However, you should provide quotes as evidence (i.e., since I asked specific "why" questions) so that I can understand exactly what it is that you are talking about and why I should treat that statement as a fact.

And I'll endevdour to do so in future. Talking of which...

As it turns out, quantum cosmology is nowhere near as a fact. Penrose, for example, doesn't even think quantum mechanics is a fundamental description of the world.

Care to cite the source you got this from? As far as I'm aware Penrose has not - as you are trying to imply - questioned quantum mechanics because it generally fails to adequately describe quantum level events. Penrose has got his bowels knotted because quantum mechanics doesn't support his pet theory of quantum consciousness - which I'd like to point out has nothing to do with quantum cosmology being "nowhere near as a fact".

I can't define the fundamental laws since they are not yet formulated by the physics community that is engaged in understanding the fundamental laws (e.g., particle physicists, cosmologists, etc.).
However, by "laws existing" I mean any physical behavior that is said to exist (or potentially exist) prior to spacetime. So, for example, quantum fluctuations happening "out of nothing" is a reference to quantum behavior and therefore that would be a reference to the "laws of physics."

I personally don't think there were any existing or even potential laws/behaviors before spacetime. The universal constants on which we base our observations of the universe i.e; our "Laws" are the product of the universe, not some separate entity. Talking about their existence before the universe is akin to discussing the characteristics of a baby before it is conceived, because there are so many possible outcomes, it is an exercise in futility.

If there are no behaviors prior to spacetime (i.e., the laws do not exist), then the world would have no behavior other than being nothing.

As I said above, the "laws" of any possible universe are inherent in that universe. They are not some essential external prerequistite. Your question is typical of the theist mind-set. You require a prime mover to first set the "behaviors" prior to creation.

As a scientist Guth, et al. are of course able to propose any quantum condition, law or behavior in the physical domain and create hypotheses such as quantum cosmology. That's just science.

Thats right. It's "just science". Not philosophy or thesism. The difference being that "just science" requires more than "just opinion" or "just faith".

However, science cannot say that a metaphysical law exists. Hartle and Hawking, for example, have argued for imaginary time. Hawking has said that he's a positivist with respect to whether imaginary time should be treated as a real occurrence in the world, and therefore is not concerned with the physical meaning of this term.

Once again, is this an attempt to hightlight the deficiencies of science to provide a bit of leg room for your god? Imaginary time isn't a good example of a "law". It is not a "law", it is a scientific concept introduced to avoid singularities, so Hawking really has no need to agonize over whether it has physical "meaning" as long as it works for his theory.
Ask a scienctist for a thoughtful answer to the question whether "laws exist" and they would tell you that scientific laws are - because they work - the best available descriptions of the way our universe operates. They are not set in stone and this is the reason science progresses. If you want ultimate truths, stick to theism, then you can have the luxury of choosing any one of the countless creation myths that human inventiveness has come up with and declare it to be 'true' - for a given value of 'true' of course.

I think that science could take a completely positivist stance toward quantum cosmology in general, and just state that the world is as if it emerged "out of nothing" without committing to it actually emerging "out of nothing."

And if science did that, it would no longer be science. Making a claim such as " it is as if it emerged out of nothing" and then shrugging your shoulders and not bothering to investigate and explain why you think that way and produce evidence for your conclusions is the antithesis of science.

An example of this could be a world that begins at the point of a quantum fluctation versus prior to a quantum fluctuation. A cosmologist need not commit to a more primitive view--such as the fluctuation was due to some set of laws (or law) that must necessarily make "nothing" unstable. Of course, the cosmologist might believe firmly that the laws exist prior to the quantum event to make sense of there being a quantum fluctuation or tunneling or instanton that exists at the beginning.

"Believing firmly" is meaningless without evidence. I'm sure Hartle/Hawking "belive firmly" in the calculations that support their no boundary proposal. I'm sure Kaku "believes firmly" in M-theory. And I'm sure Hoyle "believes firmly" that his calculations that proved that the chances of life emerging sponateously were in the region of 10^40000 against. The difference being that HH's/ Kaku's beliefs are contingent, they have at least some evidence to back up their positions. Hoyle's belief is non-contingent, he has no evidence to back up his position.

I was stating a fact of Newtonian science being wrong.

I'll repeat my assertion. Newtonian physics are not wrong, but some areas of it are not applicable in all circumstances. You seem stuck on the idea that because Newtons physics do not work at the quantum level in all cases it must be 'wrong'. However, as Newton's Gravitional Constant - a piece of classical physics - does work on the quantum level, does that mean he is 'right' and 'wrong'?

Why would you be against this fact giving God a foot in the door?

Pointing out apparent flaws in science and our perception of reality does not in any way support the existence of your god, or any god. If your evidence for the existence of your god is so paltry that you have to try to hide him/it in the gap's of our knowledge, then we have no rational reason to assume his existence in the first place.

Wouldn't you like it if there were a God who saved you and those you love? I would think that you'd be happy that there were such possibilities.

Of course I would like it! I assume any sane person would like to have the security of knowing they have an invisible sky daddy who loves them, protects them, and rewards them for obedience with the promise of everlasting life. The problem is, throughout history this form of self delusion has never been shown to have any basis in fact.

Ah, but notice how fast you and others revert to philosophical argument to support your beliefs.

I gave you my opinion, not a philosophical treatise. When I start spewing garbage about how many angel's can dance on the head of a pin, then you can claim I'm being philosophical.

[Cathar1950]

Why would you be against this fact giving God a foot in the door? Wouldn't you like it if there were a God who saved you and those you love? I would think that you'd be happy that there were such possibilities.

Harvey I would love unicorns prancing around in my yard but I live in an apartment and so I don’t have a yard. You are making an appeal to desire.

Many atheists do not like the concept of God because it is confusing and contrary to your beliefs irrational. If you look at the Bible YHWH is hardly likeable. Salvation seems arbitrary and should repulse both the natural mind and the unnatural spiritual mind you claim to have.

My feelings are if there is a God that judges and saves it should include everyone or it seems a failure and the designer made some poor designs or is building a building and made to many poorly constructed bricks. It may be nothing against God but instead a rejection of your God. You might want to try and discern the difference.

Ah, but notice how fast you and others revert to philosophical argument to support your beliefs. It always amazes me how those who are most against philosophy tend to rely on philosophical introspection the most.

I think the objections usually follow a philosophy that often seems strained from the world and cosmology. I often object to your groundless abstractions that you take as reality even over and opposed at times to the phenomena we call reality.
I can’t speak for every one but I am trying to get back to you in another thread concerning Tarski. Because Tarski’s truth theories are often meaningless and devoid of connection to what others study you seem to have a need for a “truthmaker” that imposes your sense of truth upon the subject rather then clarify or explain.
I am not say it isn’t interesting but it become often tedious.