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.

[Cathar1950]

It seems we have a stalemate. On one hand there is Harvey that says in order for they’re to be something there has to be God and then on the other hand we have to have God for there to be nothing.

I have always maintained God did not create out of nothing at least from a biblical position. But I am not a biblicalist. I don't think Harvey is either but he likes to pretend it has some hidden meaning and truth.

http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2005/0 ... erber.html

The proof of creationism according to Jim Bendewald:

First, the Bible states that God created out of nothing (“ex nilo[sic]”)
Second, wherever one observes information, whether in a book, on a sign or from the words “I love you” in the sand, one intuitively knows the information came from an intelligent source.

While evolutionists provide rhetoric that evolution is true they really have very little evidence.

Well there you go. Where is Herbert Spencer when you need him?

On his three points in favor of creationism:

First, it is "ex nihilo" not "ex nilo." Creation ex nihilo is a doctrine of the Christian Church not a doctrine of the Bible. It is based on a specific interpretation of Genesis 1:1, 2 that is reflected more in the translations, including the Septuagint, than in the original Hebrew. While its not clear what Hebrew תהו ובהו (often translated, "without form and void") means, it clearly is not ex nihilo. So, "when god began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was תהו ובהו (Genesis 1:1, 2)". This is the stuff God created from according to the Hebrew Bible, not total emptiness. But of course, anyone who has read any ancient literature knows that this is a creation myth and not a scientific account. You don't have to "believe" in evolution to know this. All you have to do is read something like, the Enúma eliš, an Akkadean (Babylonian) creation myth and a few others like it and you will know the nature of the language in Genesis.

[A digression: nilum is an alternative for nihilum in some Latin authors. But, a) this reduced form is not used in the history of the theological discussion and b) I doubt Mr. Bendewald knows or cares about this.]

I quote from the first four lines of Tablet I from a 102 year old translation of the Enúma eliš by Leonard William King. The age of this translation shows how long these things have been known and how little influence they have had on those who should most read them.

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both, . . .

Does this sound at all familiar? I'm not claiming that the Genesis account came for this creation myth. I'm only claiming that they are exactly the same literary genre.

[harvey1]

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. You can download the math as a PDF file.

Referring to this quote...:

What this example illustrates is that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be very stable. This is consistent with the estimate given above that a universe is about twice as likely to be found in the physical state than the unphysical state we are identifying with nothing. The unphysical state undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothingto-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that "nothing" is unstable."

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention—not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.

Let me respond to each point in that quote:

Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be very stable.

Why??

The unphysical state undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter.

Why??

As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that "nothing" is unstable."

Why??

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing.

Why??

Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained.

Why??

Sorry for the lengthy response.

[harvey1]

Harvey don't need no stinking scientific evidence

If you remember that movie, they really didn't need badges.

[harvey1]

As I understand it it's drawn directly from observation e.g. investigations into background microwave anisotropy and the apparent close proximity of the universe to a critical density.

Quantum cosmology is still just a hypothesis, though. A hypothesis, obviously, that I like a lot.

Yet philosophers of a theistic persuasion have traditionally shunned the concept of nothing (I'm working through John Barrow's book of nothing at the moment if you hadn't guessed!) ...to the extent of excluding zero from many early counting systems.

It depends on which philosophers. For example, the most important Christian philosopher was Augustine who taught creation ex nihilo ("time itself was made by God").

[Grumpy]

Harvey1

It depends on which philosophers. For example, the most important Christian philosopher was Augustine who taught creation ex nihilo ("time itself was made by God").

And he used which telescopes to root his philosophy in the real world??? Did he have prescient understanding of particle physics or cosmology??? None??? Then why should we listen to his unsubstantiated blather??? Or did he operate on the same principles as Aristotle, who could not be bothered to count the number of teeth a horse has, but pontificated on it anyway???

Philosophy without science(evidence tying it to the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of the mind)is a totally useless thing(aside from entertainment value, that is). Without that link to reality, philosophy has as little scientific value as last weeks episode of "Star Trek".

Grumpy

[harvey1]

And he used which telescopes to root his philosophy in the real world??? Did he have prescient understanding of particle physics or cosmology??? None??? Then why should we listen to his unsubstantiated blather???

Well, why should we treat the models of science as real when even Newtonian science was wrong? The answer is that we have good philosophical arguments as to why we should treat the models of science as more than "just models." I'm not saying that Augustine's arguments are infallible, however it is important to understand the reasons given for a belief before just scoofing at the conclusion.

Philosophy without science(evidence tying it to the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of the mind)is a totally useless thing(aside from entertainment value, that is).

Science is not built upon itself. Scientific knowledge comes from our common sense views of the world which we use to judge the success of a scientific theory. So, philosophy can certainly utilize the success of scientific models, but philosophy can also base its theories on very common-sensical notions (e.g., there are regularities in nature, there is a later than earlier than relation to events, etc., etc.). These are just common-sensical observations which philosophy can be based.

Without that link to reality, philosophy has as little scientific value as last weeks episode of "Star Trek".

Philosophy is not science so why would you expect it to have scientific value?

[QED]

Why??

Do you mean ultimately Why? ...perhaps to imply that it needs something like God to make all this so (your standard argument I believe).

[wuntext]

Harvey.

In response to your question. Why not? Why not accept the existence of the universe as a brute fact without reason or motive?

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.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Science is not built upon itself. Scientific knowledge comes from our common sense views of the world which we use to judge the success of a scientific theory.

No, and this is one point you don't seem to get, science is based on testing those "common sense" things to find out if they are as sensical as we thought. Trust nothing without evidence. The rules of logic are a very useful tool, as is math, but they can only accieve certainty because of the rigid rule based structure that man invented. There is no such thing as certainty in the real world.

So, philosophy can certainly utilize the success of scientific models, but philosophy can also base its theories on very common-sensical notions (e.g., there are regularities in nature, there is a later than earlier than relation to events, etc., etc.). These are just common-sensical observations which philosophy can be based.

But as Einstein showed us, nature can be very different than our "common sense" ideas would have us believe. And as Shrodinger,Hawking and many others are showing us, nature is sometimes stranger than our most fevered imaginings, much moreso than your so called "common sense" notions.

So when you speak of this or that philosophical arguement means there must be a deity, laughter at your hubris and your complete lack of understanding of man's ignorance is the first reaction, I must admit.

Philosophy is not science so why would you expect it to have scientific value?

Frankly, you have been the one in these fori who insisted you had proof of a god's existence(CA rules, I believe) and, you have belittled all who profess to be Atheists, to the point of trying to tell us what we believe and again insisting on how illogical our beliefs are.

If you had NOT done so, that would be a good question. As a scientist, I use reason often and follow the rules of logic, I even have philisophical moments, but for forward progress in reliable understanding the output must be tested against reality at all times. And reality is all we have.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Do you mean ultimately Why? ...perhaps to imply that it needs something like God to make all this so (your standard argument I believe).

I mean "why" in the very traditional terms. Nothing is said to be unstable, and 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.