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?

[FWI]

This is far more in line with typical theistic beliefs, I was shocked with what you wrote earlier that God needed other things to be pre-existent to make the universe.

Sorry, but many will still be "shocked." Before, the "supposed" big-bang, God would have needed to create a type of space, which would be able to contain the physical. This type of space is not the same as Infinity…It would be like hanging a sphere in an open area, which had no dimensions. Where, the space, within the sphere was not the same type of "Space" in the open area. This type of space or sphere would then contain the natural laws, natural forces, life, all natural elements, minerals and rocks, etc. Which, would come to be during the "supposed" big-bang (I say supposed, because there is no actual proof that God created the inter-working of the universe this way). Therefore, I doubt that my understandings are typical among the theist community.

Is this anything other than speculation and conjecture?

Of course, there is, because it's not speculation or conjecture…He, listed a few of the causes of death himself and there are many others, which are related to human activities and interactions. Check out the statistics. The reality is that many of these causes of death are related to a lack of virtue. As far as, death being eradicated, if virtue was the mainstay among all human societies, this premise couldn't be speculation or conjecture, until it was tried. Yet, we need to ask the question: Why hasn't it been tried? The bible clearly explains the life spans of the human race. Now, those who may not accept the bible, this doesn't matter…So, it doesn't seem that he has produced any valid evidence to suggest that my comments, in this section, are speculation or conjecture.

What is the alternative?

Every individual needs to eventually figure that out for themselves. But, trying to blame God for the problems humans have created, surely is unreasonable. Yet, this idea is commonplace among those who reject that God exists. What is that all about?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 40 by DrNoGods]

I appreciate your detailed responses and they deserve a more in-depth response when I have time.. but taking just this point for now

Gods were invented by humans long before any of the recent events you are describing. Many of these gods were invented to explain things that science could not such as thunder and lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, famines, the movement of celestial bodies, etc. Virtually all of these things are now explained by science, thus eliminating the need to invoke a god being as the explanation. And the most popular god today was conceived over 2000 years ago when science could still not explain any of these things. Gaps that need a god explanation are shrinking, not expanding, and your handful of bad examples (or rather, badly described) doesn't change that fact.

People also invented naturalism to try to explain the world in the simplest natural 'no God needed' fashion- that's fine, we are all curious about what's really going on here, and we all believe in something:

It has long existed in some form. but experienced a surge in popularity in the Victorian age when superficial scientific learning appeared to show hope for a simple 'reductionist' model of natural laws

This world view gave us steady state, static models, big crunch: - no creation = no creator

That physics was ruled by a handful of simple, directly observable, superficial & 'immutable' classical laws

Also inherent to naturalism was the idea that all life developed in smooth gradual incremental steps, and that the mechanisms operating life itself were relatively simple



While skeptics of this belief maintained that:

As a creation, the universe did indeed have a specific creation event, a beginning, a source

There was a lot more to physical reality than met the eye, the 'simplicity' was an illusion underwritten by far more elaborate 'mysterious/ unpredictable' forces

that life appeared in abrupt sudden stages, and remained in relative stasis with little change thereafter

that underneath, biology contained an extremely sophisticated design that could not be easily explained or replicated


So you tell me, which hypothesis has better weathered the rigors of 21st Century v. 19th C science?

do we still believe in static models? classical physics? simple biology with no sign of ID & gradualism?

or a beginning, unpredictable physical forces, a system of biology that is 'uncannily computer like' and 'punctuated equilibrium'?


i.e. which world view's beliefs turned out to be more 'supernatural' ? and so by your rationale 'implausible'?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by Guy Threepwood]

So you tell me, which hypothesis has better survived the rigors of 21st Century v. 19th C science?

You're casting this as if science's first attempts at explaining things have to be correct and never modified or they are wrong. Of course physics has advanced over time as has every other subject. When I was in college there had never been an observation of an exoplanet. Science predicted there should be a huge number of them, but none had been positively observed because the technology wasn't there yet. Now we have observed thousands. Gravity waves were predicted by Relativity, but only observed recently when the technology had advanced to the point where it was possible. Those observations confirmed a prediction by ToR and was a big deal.

New observations like this get folded into current theories and they get refined, modified, etc. as needed based on the evidence. The general idea that mutations and natural selection cause adaptation in living things, and over enough time speciation, has been confirmed countless times over by observation. But no one has ever claimed that every aspect of the process is known 100% down to the smallest detail That isn't true for most subjects and there is always more to learn, more refinement, etc., and it doesn't mean the whole subject can be discarded if a new observation causes some detail to be refined or modified. It makes no difference whatsoever whether Darwin thought evolution was a smooth process that didn't occur in fits and starts. That was 150+ years ago. Observations between then and now have refined ToE and continue to do so, but they don't negate the general theory which you seem to be implying just because Darwin's original idea of a smooth process wasn't exactly correct.

Science is a never ending process of observation, tweaking, experimentation, etc. to try and get to the correct answer. When these processes show that a wrong path has been taken then that is acknowledged and a new path is taken, or a branch from the original path taken, and the process continues. Quantum mechanics arose from classical physics because new observations (from new technology that enabled observations that weren't possible before) needed explanation. But it doesn't negate classical physics in any way or suggest that all physics is wrong because some additional observations needed new physics to explain them. This stuff isn't static, and every scientific explanation does not have to be 100% correct the first time around or it is false.

do we still believe in static models? classical physics? simple biology with no sign of ID & gradualism?

We believe in static models where they apply. We believe in classical physics where it is applicable and useful (eg. we don't apply relativistic corrections to predicted home run lengths in baseball games). And there is no sign of ID in biology ... at least not by experiment and observation.

[Filthy Tugboat]

This is far more in line with typical theistic beliefs, I was shocked with what you wrote earlier that God needed other things to be pre-existent to make the universe.

Sorry, but many will still be "shocked." Before, the "supposed" big-bang, God would have needed to create a type of space, which would be able to contain the physical. This type of space is not the same as Infinity…It would be like hanging a sphere in an open area, which had no dimensions. Where, the space, within the sphere was not the same type of "Space" in the open area. This type of space or sphere would then contain the natural laws, natural forces, life, all natural elements, minerals and rocks, etc. Which, would come to be during the "supposed" big-bang (I say supposed, because there is no actual proof that God created the inter-working of the universe this way). Therefore, I doubt that my understandings are typical among the theist community.

It definitely sounds very typical but you all do tend to use different words than are conventionally understood and jumble around the order and try to insert meaning into the method used.

Is this anything other than speculation and conjecture?

Of course, there is, because it's not speculation or conjecture…He, listed a few of the causes of death himself and there are many others, which are related to human activities and interactions. Check out the statistics. The reality is that many of these causes of death are related to a lack of virtue. As far as, death being eradicated, if virtue was the mainstay among all human societies, this premise couldn't be speculation or conjecture, until it was tried. Yet, we need to ask the question: Why hasn't it been tried? The bible clearly explains the life spans of the human race. Now, those who may not accept the bible, this doesn't matter…So, it doesn't seem that he has produced any valid evidence to suggest that my comments, in this section, are speculation or conjecture.

They read like speculation and conjecture. Do you have any reasonable supporting evidence that "many of these causes of deaths are related to a lack of virtue"?

What is the alternative?

Every individual needs to eventually figure that out for themselves. But, trying to blame God for the problems humans have created, surely is unreasonable. Yet, this idea is commonplace among those who reject that God exists. What is that all about?

Of course each individual does reach varying conclusions but I was asking you what you were inferring about God.

[FWI]

And the idea that the universe was created by a highly intelligent sophisticated God is not "just a hypothetical"?

No, it isn't…It's the most logical explanation. Intelligence is nothing new and through it, we have the world we live in today. I surely haven't seen buildings, cars, planes and just about anything else, just pop into existence. Have you?

You have absolutely no credible argument for your theological position. Your theological hopes and dreams are just as hypothetical as anything else.

Well, my credible argument for God is much more viable than the anti-God position. Where, I have about 5.5 billion others (alongside me), who accept that God/gods exists. And, in this case, this is extremely compelling. It doesn't matter that some disagree! It just shows that an anti-God position is in the "extreme" minority and isn't taken seriously by the masses…

You have nothing but an absolutely absurd argument. A universe from nothing makes far more sense than a universe having been created by a jealous immature ignorant God who himself would have had to have come from nothing.

Well, several keep writing such things, yet they don't seem to be getting much support, even from the scientific community. But, when individuals use derogatory adjectives to address God, they are actually acknowledging that God exists. This by itself is confusing. Why, are they taking this type of approach? What benefits are they receiving?

And you're going to pretend that you actually have some sort of credible argument? You can't be serious.

No, I'm not pretending and my argument "surely" is credible, if it wasn't God wouldn't be attacked because of my claims. So, yes! I'm quite serious…

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 43 by DrNoGods]

You're casting this as if science's first attempts at explaining things have to be correct and never modified or they are wrong

Not at all!

That's the power of the method, it encourages modification- following the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how academically fashionable the implications. Academic consensus and peer pressure review.. not always so much..

which is why those theories that were considered favorable to materialism; like steady state, Piltdown man, Big Crunch, were quickly accepted, and were able to persist so much longer than the evidence itself permitted

While theories perceived to be problematic for materialism, like the primeval atom, were dismissed and rejected out of hand as 'religious pseudoscience' for decades, even while in the face of overwhelming supportive scientific evidence in some cases


I don't think we should approach science with any arbitrary rejection of materialism either

I think materialists and atheists are (overwhelmingly) honest, intelligent, thoughtful people, perfectly capable of critical thought - and I hope you feel the same about the majority of humanity who have come to a different conclusion

Objectively meanwhile:, in 2019, -& as the title of the OP reflects-explaining reality comes down to explaining it's sophisticated information systems. And undirected/ materialistic forces have never been observed to construct information systems. While such systems being created through ID are part of our routine scientific knowledge, from the Rosetta stone to (hypothetical) SETI signals, to this forum software.

And I am perfectly open to somebody presenting a materialistic mechanism which can be likewise directly scientifically observed, measured, tested, proven to be capable of the same- no 'world views' needed for this test either way- it permits BOTH theories and tests them both against the objective evidence.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 43 by DrNoGods]

..it must be supernatural ... it doesn\'t exist in the natural world that we know of. It is purely a hypothesis that so far has no experimental evidence for its existence, or any other method whereby it can be identified to actually exist.

so you just defined multiverses as supernatural

which is fine by me, because were are looking for something that can EXPLAIN the natural world we know of, so it must be able to transcend it in some form. i.e. in this sense 'super-natural' is a box you are probably going to want to be able to check-


But if you want to define 'supernatural' as 'invalid' by transcending the known natural world, there is no distinction here that gives materialistic explanations a special waiver from this law

both are real phenomena within our universe, you have no basis to let one transcend while restraining the other. And a skeptic of materialism has no need to , simply let both compete as possible explanations, we cannot do otherwise

supernatural explanations have [u:bdbfa5892a]never[/u:bdbfa5892a] been shown to be a correct explanation. Never. Not once.

I agree, the rabbit never spontaneously appears in the hat, Rosetta stones never magically write themselves, neither do hierarchical digital information systems ever

There is always a perfectly rational explanation for such things; intelligent design

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 40 by DrNoGods]

In my opinion, intelligence in any animal, including humans, is the product of normal brain activity and not something supernatural or magic.

so that's one of the principles you accept, there is nothing inherently 'supernatural', by your definition, about the mechanism of intelligence, human or non human..

and there is nothing inherently supernatural about proposing hypothetical mechanisms existing 'beyond' our known reality as we can directly observe it, in order to be able to account for it


but for some reason, combining these two accepted principles creates an unacceptable 'supernatural' conclusion for you, assuming there is a reason beyond personal preference for this, what is it?


Andrei Linde, key in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we can one day reverse engineer our own universe, to the point that we can create one ourselves. And that of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that this is how our's came into existence- an experiment in an 'alien universe'- his argument, not mine.


put aside for now the 'likelihood' of this scenario- that's not the question-

the question is, how would you explain to Linde, what makes his speculation inherently 'supernatural' ?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 48 by Guy Threepwood]

so you just defined multiverses as supernatural

I did? I believe that is a physics theory that has not been confirmed, so it is a hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the concept of supernatural.

but for some reason, combining these two accepted principles creates an unacceptable 'supernatural' conclusion for you, assuming there is a reason beyond personal preference for this, what is it?

My point is that we know the intelligence behind all of the examples that you always give (rosetta stone, etc.). It is either a human being, a beaver for beaver dams, a spider for spider webs, termites for termite mounds, etc. You seem to be taking the observation that intelligent creatures (with varying levels of intelligence) can create complex things, or information systems, and then extrapolating far beyond what is reasonable to claim that some other kind of intelligent being created life on earth, or the universe, or whatever. The problem is that we don't know what this creature is and there is no evidence that it exists at all. You are just inferring its existence, and my argument is that you're doing that by extrapolating far beyond the data to the point that it is in the realm of philosophical pondering.

the question is, how would you explain to Linde, what makes his speculation inherently 'supernatural' ?

I'd suggest he head to the philosophy section.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 49 by DrNoGods]

I did? I believe that is a physics theory that has not been confirmed, so it is a hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the concept of supernatural.

it doesn't exist in the natural world that we know of. It is purely a hypothesis that so far has no experimental evidence for its existence, or any other method whereby it can be identified to actually exist.

so yes, i think you did!

only now by calling God a hypothesis, you are, by your above rationale, defining him as also having ' nothing to do with the concept of supernatural.' - are you not?

either way we get to the same point- there is absolutely no objective distinction that allows a materialistic hypothesis to transcend testable reality, while forbidding an intelligent one from doing the same.

Both are real phenomena 'here', & we can only allow both as possibilities 'there'

My point is that we know the intelligence behind all of the examples that you always give (rosetta stone, etc.). It is either a human being, a beaver for beaver dams, a spider for spider webs, termites for termite mounds, etc. You seem to be taking the observation that intelligent creatures (with varying levels of intelligence) can create [strike]complex things, [/strike] information or information systems, and then extrapolating [strike]far beyond what is reasonable[/strike] to claim that some other kind of intelligent being created life on earth, [strike]or[/strike] and the universe,

^ with a couple of revisions, yes-

The problem is that we don't know what this creature is and there is no evidence that it exists at all. You are just inferring its existence, and my argument is that you're doing that by extrapolating far beyond the data to the point that it is in the realm of philosophical pondering.

the same would apply to a sophisticated SETI signal though, but knowing nothing about the creature that originated the information, does not alter the evidence for ID, which is the information itself. BUT, if we were able to start decoding that information, then yes- we start to learn something of the creature by that information it is providing, right?

Likewise we can learn something about Tolkien from Lord of the Rings, and something about God from ourselves and the world around us.

But it's not simply because information is merely a familiar product/ commonly associated with intelligence, we can all use that to intuitively deduce ID in a book, but the scientific evidence for ID in the book, Rosetta stone or hypothetical SETI signal, or anywhere else, (including the universe) is derived from something far more objective:

information denotes anticipation.. the information in a book shows us the author's capacity to anticipate- the specified v (shannon) information is created in anticipation of a future consequence- that the information will be processed- and it would not exist in the absence of this capacity

Anticipation can only exist in a conscious mind, and that's where the objective fingerprint lies.

It's the only phenomena which can ultimately solve the infinite regression paradox, by being able to act in accordance with FUTURE events, rather than being restrained to act according to PAST events. It's not clear that anything can be truly created any other way