A Universe from Nothing…

[FWI]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

[Divine Insight]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

This theory doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. To the contrary it says that it came from a quantum fluctuation. The key thing to note here is that there is no reason to speculate, assume, or propose that a quantum fluctuation is intelligent or had any purpose in mind when it fluctuated.

So all this theory says is that our universe is a result of perfectly natural processes.

To go further and suggest that our universe was created by an already highly intelligent creature that had a desire and purpose for creating it is totally unwarranted. Not only this but the universe doesn't appear to have been intelligently designed. Unless of course, a person thinks that the way things are appears to be an intelligent design.

What I find extremely absurd about theists is that they proclaim that the world is terribly designed. They claim the world is filled with nasty evil things and they can hardly wait to die so they can move on to a "better place". Yet they still hold that this universe was supposedly intelligently designed. No only this, but they also seem to think that dying is the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone. They morn heavily when someone they love dies. So they clearly don't believe in the better afterlife that they constantly proclaim to believe in.

How does that make any sense?

A universe from a quantum fluctuation is not a universe from nothing. It just doesn't require an already sophisticated highly designed intelligence to preexist the universe. Who would have designed that intelligence? The creationists claim that an intelligence must have existed in order for intelligence to come into being already doesn't make any sense. How would the first intelligent being have come into existence then?

That's just a hypothesis that doesn't even make any sense at all.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Firstly, you are correct that God is all powerful and able to do anything. However, God's created beings (celestial and human), which aren't and they have limits to their understandings of the essence of God…Thus, a proper order of things was used so that the necessary wisdom, given to each group, would sustain them in their quest for the knowledge of why they exist.

Therefore, space is a rudimentary first step. Since, celestial and humans beings are limited in understandings, they/we cannot go back any further than the reality that God is infinite or is not confined by space. But, it is understood that created life is confined by space or at the least, physical life is…Without space, no celestial beings or physical life could exist.

As far as, minerals are concerned: They are the building blocks of certain types of creativity. They can be manipulated into varies shapes and forms. They can be used to make life interesting, by bringing about new and reshaping older physical objects.

Are you saying these things pre-existed? God didn't create minerals and space? I am very confused at your standpoint. If God exists but didn't create minerals and space, where did they come from?

Hence, I implied: If an individual reaches a level of moral excellence and righteousness; why do they die?

Because death comes to everyone. The human body can only regenerate for so long before it's genetic material degrades and it reproduces itself worse and worse to the point of in-viability. Sometimes people are murdered, and sometimes accidents take them, there is disease and hunger. There are many reasons why people die, it has very little to do with virtue.

So, what are the rules for moral excellence and righteousness (virtue) and who determines them?

Society at large of course, who else?

[Kenisaw]

Firstly, you are correct that God is all powerful and able to do anything.

If a god is all powerful and able to do anything, than it can know the future. In fact, it would HAVE to know the future, because it is all powerful and able to do anything, right? So can that same god change the future? I don't see how. If the all powerful, able to do anything god already knows the future, then it would already know if it was going to change the future. So the god in question can't change anything that it already knows, because it would have already known that before it decided to change the future...

Your particular god, as you've defined it, is illogical and can't exist.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

It supports skepticism of naturalism; the universe boils down to information, as opposed to simple classical 'immutable' laws of physics as once believed

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

It supports skepticism of naturalism; the universe boils down to information, as opposed to simple classical 'immutable' laws of physics as once believed

The claim supports skepticism of naturalism? I fail to see how. Perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on that comment and detailing out why you believe this is the case.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

The claim supports skepticism of naturalism? I fail to see how. Perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on that comment and detailing out why you believe this is the case.

Again because reality boils down to information, 'specified' v 'Shannon' information. i.e. information which specifies something beyond itself

This is how we can tell the Rosetta stone is an artifact, not the result of purely materialistic mechanisms.

Likewise you can imagine a digital information storage system where bits are represented by positive and negative charges. They may all add up to zero, but if the information in those bits translates into a movie instead of white noise- you know the arrangement is not random

In our case, the information is organized in such a way as to be able to literally ponder it's own very existence... not the sort of thing that is likely to spontaneously emerge from a sequence of random information by chance.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

The claim supports skepticism of naturalism? I fail to see how. Perhaps you wouldn't mind expounding on that comment and detailing out why you believe this is the case.

Again because reality boils down to information, 'specified' v 'Shannon' information. i.e. information which specifies something beyond itself

This is how we can tell the Rosetta stone is an artifact, not the result of purely materialistic mechanisms.

Likewise you can imagine a digital information storage system where bits are represented by positive and negative charges. They may all add up to zero, but if the information in those bits translates into a movie instead of white noise- you know the arrangement is not random

In our case, the information is organized in such a way as to be able to literally ponder it's own very existence... not the sort of thing that is likely to spontaneously emerge from a sequence of random information by chance.

But we didn't spontaneously emerge, and we aren't a result of sequences of random information by chance. So, again, I fail to see how the claim supports skepticism of naturalism.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 17 by Kenisaw]

But we didn't spontaneously emerge, and we aren't a result of sequences of random information by chance.

We agree entirely on this part then, but what fun is that?

So, again, I fail to see how the claim supports skepticism of naturalism.

naturalists disagree- they believe we are ultimately a consequence of spontaneous/ materialistic/ undirected mechanisms v. a consequence of intelligent agency, purpose, foresight, creativity- two entirely different world views are they not?

As above, we now know that physics, chemistry, biology, all boils down to an extremely sophisticated and finely tuned hierarchical information system, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws as once believed. i.e. a better argument for naturalism could be made in the classical/ Victorian age model of reality which Darwinism was also born out of, that's when the belief in naturalism became popular.

But we have come a long way since then, in the information age, we only have one known means by which such systems are created, not to say chance is technically impossible.. but certainly not a 'default' explanation

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 17 by Kenisaw]

But we didn't spontaneously emerge, and we aren't a result of sequences of random information by chance.

We agree entirely on this part then, but what fun is that?

So, again, I fail to see how the claim supports skepticism of naturalism.

naturalists disagree- they believe we are ultimately a consequence of spontaneous/ materialistic/ undirected mechanisms v. a consequence of intelligent agency, purpose, foresight, creativity- two entirely different world views are they not?

As above, we now know that physics, chemistry, biology, all boils down to an extremely sophisticated and finely tuned hierarchical information system, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws as once believed. i.e. a better argument for naturalism could be made in the classical/ Victorian age model of reality which Darwinism was also born out of, that's when the belief in naturalism became popular.

But we have come a long way since then, in the information age, we only have one known means by which such systems are created, not to say chance is technically impossible.. but certainly not a 'default' explanation

Hmm. I hear what you re saying, but I disagree. The universe is actually a very simple thing. 4 fundamental particles (neutrino, photon, electron, quark) and 4 fundamental forces. That's all it is. Some mistake enormity for complexity, but it really is as simple as all that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

This theory has actually been put forward 3 times. 1st with Tryon, next in the late eighties and now again in 2010, I think, by Lawrence Krauss. The problem with this theory is that it does not solve anything because it does not answer the question where does this quantum fluctuation take place.

First if the universe is expanding then there had to be a time when the universe was not in existence according to the second law of thermodynamics. So where did this fluctuation happen. Modern cosmologist try to solve this problem with hypothesising other universes that spawned this universe. But other universes is beyond the realm of proof at this time or in the foreseeable future.

A second problem with this theory is that it does describe why the universe was in such an ordered state to start with and moving to disordered.

A third problem that this theory does not answer is why the arrow of time points in the direction that it does.

So as you can see this "theory" does not answer any of the basic questions of origins.