Coming from nothing

[Huntun]

I remember watching a show on the Science channel where he brought up the idea that the bang might have been a vacuum fluctuation and that the total energy of the universe might be zero. I didn't realize he said the vacuum of space counted as negative energy but I might have just missed that part.

Reminds me a bit of Taoist and Confucian Yin/Yang cosmology. They even have the Yin and Yang energy manifested from the limitless void (Wuji) and all that.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I remember watching a show on the Science channel where he brought up the idea that the bang might have been a vacuum fluctuation and that the total energy of the universe might be zero. I didn't realize he said the vacuum of space counted as negative energy but I might have just missed that part.

This is not germane to the question of creation though. The quantum vacuum is not a true state of nothing. The laws of physics exist in such a state. In a true state of nothing the laws of physics do not exist.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

How many times are you going to cut and paste that paragraph when it doesn't back up your argument?

You keep asking the same question to which my reply is the correct answer.

 

[Davian]

It came on a program called 'Curiosity', in which Stephen Hawking explained his notions from the ground up.
He also orchestrated this idea at Oxford.

Your rendition did not appear to line up with this:

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Hawking notes in his 2010 book The Grand Design: "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." (p. 180)

(my bold)

 

[Huntun]

This is not germane to the question of creation though. The quantum vacuum is not a true state of nothing. The laws of physics exist in such a state. In a true state of nothing the laws of physics do not exist.

So if it were true the universe didn't come into being. It was always there in the form of the vaccum. I guess that would be another theory adding weight to what I said about the need to prove that universe "came into existence" in the first place before you demand a reason or mechanism. There are numerous other possibilities.

 

[Huntun]

.......gravitational energy is negative.......

I knew the vacuum being negative energy didn't ring a bell.

 

[bhsmte]

That's all just misdirection.

The textbook definition of an agnostic is one who is ignorant of the knowledge of origin.

I seriously could run laps around this all day. You're talking to somebody who once an agnostic

Do you even know that the concept of agnosticism is what dissuaded the Church from persecuting non-believers?

Technically you are correct, an agnostic means it is unknowable whether a God exists, but everyone uses the definition a little bit different. Clearly though, an agnostic does not believe a God exists, or they would not be an agnostic.

Most folks I believe, use agnostic as a weaker non-belief in a God and an atheist is a stronger non-belief in a God.

For example, I would call myself an atheist towards the Christian God and an agnostic towards a non-personal God, like the type of God Einstein left the door open to.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Normal experience shows that immaterial gods don't create stuff from nothingness. If we're going to be consistent and allow "demonstrated by normal experience" to count as evidence for a premise, it is only fair to carry that through and say your conclusion is contradicted by normal experience and therefore isn't justified.

Then you agree P1 holds, good. Yet, we see the Universe as it is, and science extrapolates back to a point infinitesimally close to a true nothing.

P1 applies to the universal behavior as governed by the laws of Physics. It says nothing about the metaphysical question prior to creation. When I claim God created the universe I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm making a meta-physical claim.

But anyway, why would one look to "normal experience" for intuitive understanding when talking about a time before physics as we know it existed? Seems that it kind of the exact opposite of what anyone would consider normal.

The intuition applies only to the physical world. Not to God, which is all that existed prior to creation.. Again, I'm not saying that creation occurred because of some neccessity. On the contrary, I'm saying God through a free will choice created the universe.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So if it were true the universe didn't come into being. It was always there in the form of the vaccum. I guess that would be another theory adding weight to what I said about the need to prove that universe "came into existence" in the first place before you demand a reason or mechanism. There are numerous other possibilities.

One, There is no theory that the vacuum is past eternal. Two, there is no experimental science supporting Hawkin's theory. The actual scientific evidence says all the universe, including the quantum vacuum, came into existence with the expansion of the singularity.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It flatly refutes that conclusion. Any cause would have to exist.

Ergo, God is the best explanation, as the cause has to be timeless, spaceless and sentient. The cause must be sentient in order to explain our being at our current point in time in our universe. If the cause were not the result of a choice by a sentient mind it would have to be out of necessity, which means there would be no rational reason for the universe to be 13.7 byrs old as opposed to having already died a heat death or 50 byrs old, or, etc ...

The only question is if that cause is material or "immaterial" (whatever that is). We only have experience with material causes (efficient or not), and so the existence of "immaterial causes" must be substantiated, at least if we aren't just pretending to care what science has to say on the subject.

Obviously it has to be immaterial as there was no matter prior to creation.

 

[Huntun]

One, There is no theory that the vacuum is past eternal. T

I never claimed that the theory was accurate. Even it were inaccurate one would still need to verify that the universe did in fact come into being before they demand someone explain it.

The actual scientific evidence says all the universe, including the quantum vacuum, came into existence with the expansion of the singularity.

"The universe came into existence" is speculation plain and simple. The fact that the visible galaxies are racing away from one another and we appear to be able to trace all that matter and energy to a single small point of "near infinite" concentration doesn't prove "the universe came into being." The term universe implies all of existence not just all visible matter.

Did the singularity exist before it expanded?

It's a leap to go from "Most scientist don't know what, if anything, existed before the big bang... or even if it makes sense to speak of "before" " to " therefore prior to the big bang nothing existed." If anything existed then the universe didn't come into being. Who knows if something did or didn't. Pre-big bang is so speculative many scientists aren't even willing to a venture a guess.

 

[Huntun]

Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang: An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano

It’s not usually put like this, but the discovery of primordial gravitational waves two weeks ago has given us our first direct glimpse of a period before the big bang...

But cosmologists don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. The term “big bang” really refers to the beginning of the universe as we know it—that is, an expanding universe filled with matter that has cooled and coagulated into galaxies. Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition. The universe during inflation was a deeply alien place, devoid of matter, governed by primeval ur-forces, and thoroughly quantum.

 

[Skybringr]

Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang: An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano

It’s not usually put like this, but the discovery of primordial gravitational waves two weeks ago has given us our first direct glimpse of a period before the big bang...

But cosmologists don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. The term “big bang” really refers to the beginning of the universe as we know it—that is, an expanding universe filled with matter that has cooled and coagulated into galaxies. Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition. The universe during inflation was a deeply alien place, devoid of matter, governed by primeval ur-forces, and thoroughly quantum.

Isn't there a recent development in the scientific community which puts the Big Bang altogether into question?
Haven't looked into it myself- honestly, I haven't stayed current with physics since the last 9 months or so.
*been knee deep in Catholic theology*

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang: An Interview with Physicist Gabriele Veneziano

It’s not usually put like this, but the discovery of primordial gravitational waves two weeks ago has given us our first direct glimpse of a period before the big bang...

But cosmologists don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. The term “big bang” really refers to the beginning of the universe as we know it—that is, an expanding universe filled with matter that has cooled and coagulated into galaxies. Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition. The universe during inflation was a deeply alien place, devoid of matter, governed by primeval ur-forces, and thoroughly quantum.

"Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition. "

This is talking about the period of hyperinflation as predicted by Guth. Guth and Vilenkin have proven mathematically that there is a past boundary which means the universe is not past eternal. (I've shown the quote multiple times in this thread.) The unavoidable logical conclusion is that there was a beginning. We cannot demonstrate with the laws of physics that there was a beginning because the laws of physics break down at that point, which is consistent with the idea of creation. The math does say that it is not past eternal. If something is not past eternal that means it began.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Isn't there a recent development in the scientific community which puts the Big Bang altogether into question?

No.

 

[Skybringr]

No.

I'm pretty sure there is, and it has something to do with the movement of the universe- which isn't exactly adding up to what the Big Bang initially proposed.

Let me do a bit of digging around

 

[Huntun]

"Cosmic inflation, the process the BICEP2 results appear to have vindicated, occurred before the big bang by this definition. "

This is talking about the period of hyperinflation as predicted by Guth. Guth and Vilenkin have proven mathematically that there is a past boundary which means the universe is not past eternal. (I've shown the quote multiple times in this thread.) The unavoidable logical conclusion is that there was a beginning. We cannot demonstrate with the laws of physics that there was a beginning because the laws of physics break down at that point, which is consistent with the idea of creation. The math does say that it is not past eternal. If something is not past eternal that means it began.

It's easy to just make the claim that someone "proved" that the universe came into being but that doesn't necessarily make it so.


You could say " Time is finite and Before the big bang the unvierse didn't exist". Well before the big bang would be a contradiction in terms then so it doesn't make sense to speak of existence or non existence before it. For all of time it would have existed. Thus there would be no time in which it came into being and no time in which it didn't exist. Finite time doesn't necessarily = everything came into being from non being. That's assuming they even "proved" that.

It also appears the scientist I quoted doesn't agree with you because he says the Big Bang merely describes the beginning of the universe "as we know it" and he refused to rule out it's existence in a different manner prior. In fact he even said that before the big bang the universe existed (not didn't exist) as "a deeply alien place, devoid of matter, governed by primeval ur-forces, and thoroughly quantum." He said this inflation existed BEFORE the Big Bang. He admits to the fact that scientists do not know if the universe came into being or if it didn't. Saying otherwise is speculation. It's more a matter of philosophy then science at this point.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The math does say that it is not past eternal. If something is not past eternal that means it began.

No, it means that change began. It doesn't mean that the universe had popped into existence out of nothing, a la "creation ex nihilo".

In any case, I don't think that the math has quite been settled yet.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't have any quarrel with that.

The Church teaches that even an atheist can potentially be saved. It's much harder because Christ augments the soul- but it's possible, as God looks into the hearts of men.

But if God is omniscient, then why does he need to look into the hearts of men? Wouldn't he already know what's going to happen to them?

I am fully aware that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are in truth synonymous. This site does not make that connection, being that you can choose between the two in one's profile.

Well, not in all situations... While I'd accept that most people who identify as agnostic are atheists as well, it is also quite possible to be an agnostic theist.

Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, Atheism is a position about beliefs.

But I also know agnostic philosophy, and that it does not mesh with anti-theism. Therefore one cannot have a bias against God, at least not in the general principle of a sentient Creator.

Eh, I also don't think I accept your claim about agnosticism not meshing with anti-theism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ergo, God is the best explanation, as the cause has to be timeless, spaceless and sentient.

That's certainly not the best explanation, it's a purely invented one that begs for yet more explanations for itself. It also conveniently places itself completely outside of any scientific investigation.

The cause must be sentient in order to explain our being at our current point in time in our universe. If the cause were not the result of a choice by a sentient mind it would have to be out of necessity, which means there would be no rational reason for the universe to be 13.7 byrs old as opposed to having already died a heat death or 50 byrs old, or, etc ...

That's a silly argument. No cosmic necessity is required. If it only takes 10 or so billion years for intelligent life to evolve, then that is all that it takes.


eudaimonia,

Mark