I guess it depends on which of the many definitions of the term you are using. See the two I was discussing in an earlier post.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God
- Thread starter Illuminaughty
- Start date
They come from the kinetic energy interactions between existing forms of kinetic energy that are present, like photons and neutrinos. In actual spacetime, there are potentially high speed particles passing through as well. They are the result of the existence of the kinetic energy that always exists in even the best 'vacuums' on Earth, and sometimes interact locally at certain points. All of spacetime contains some amount of kinetic energy. That existing kinetic energy has the potential to form massive particles at some point along the way. For instance, high energy gamma rays can form electron/positron pairs.
In my experience, the scientists tend to fully comprehend the issues, but the "news articles" and/or readers digest versions of VP's are typically "oversimplified" in most cases.
All vacuums, even the very best vacuums we might ever create on Earth will contain and do contain some amount of kinetic energy, with a few atoms and with trillions of neutrinos passing through it. Spacetime vacuums include high energy light, and high speed particles that pass on through. These particles of kinetic energy can and do "interact" at points in spacetime to produce "fluxes" in the energy field at certain points. At no point however is there 'nothing' to work with. There is always some amount of kinetic energy in constant motion through every "vacuum" we might create, and through every "vacuum" of spacetime. None of it is 'empty'.
I'd have to say that notion of getting something from nothing, is just silly IMO. It simply defies the very laws of physics as we understand them. I have no idea why anyone would promote this idea, but I've seen very intelligent individuals 'try' to justify it for a while. What always inevitably happens however is some sort of an appeal to authority scenario (the person making the claim is usually important to them for some reason), and a complete lack of empirical verification.
All it would take to verify such a claim is for an individual to create a half dozen complete atoms out of "nothing", but alas, that will never happen.
Upvote
0
Yes, I'm pointing out that how you are using definitions and labels is incorrect, and is violating the first rule of logic. Using words like this will produce an incorrect understanding when compared to what you are actually saying. Continuing the mistake of calling that theory something out of nothing is incorrect, and the thing that is called nothing needs to be correctly labeled for the theory that is being promoted to actually be articulated by the individual.
Upvote
0
Yes, they arise from another substantial form of kinetic energy. In other words, if you look up particle production on WIKI, you'll notice that gamma rays will decay into positron/electron pairs. Existing kinetic energy can and will occasionally interact locally, but the original source of kinetic energy(ies) may be a very distant object. For instance, that original high energy photon might have been a quasar in a distant part of spacetime, but it only forms into an electron/positron pair somewhere "locally" when it interacts with other matter, or with other photons or EM fields. The original kinetic energy may have been billions of light years away from the point of particle production.
Upvote
0
Michael, interesting responses. You may be right but all the books I've read explain it differently. None of them attributed all the virtual particles to interactions like that. If your right Wikipedia needs a big clean up too but I guess that isn't to uncommon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It doesn't matter where you get your definitions or justification from, calling something "nothing" is illogical. I would hope that isn't difficult to see.
Upvote
0
After reading how plasma redshift/tired light theories are portayed on WIKI, I'm definitely not impressed by WIKI content. I've literally been in the middle of debate when someone (not me) changed the very sentence we were arguing about on WIKI.
Regardless of how hard we try to remove all the kinetic energy from any system, we will certainly fail. We will fail to remove every atom, let alone every neutrino, every photon, every particle from the very best 'vacuums' we will ever create. The very "best" we can do is find a "low energy state" vacuum that is relatively consistent, and relatively devoid of massive changes. We can set that low (but not zero) energy state in the vacuum as a relative "zero" point for the purpose of QM.
We will not however be able to prevent occasional deviations from our 'non zero' energy state due to the kinetic energy changes that occur over time, and because of the interactions of the particles of kinetic energy. We will see "higher" fluxes, and "lower" fluxes in our vacuum, but this all related to the energy that traverses the system and interacts with the system. There are relative 'higher" energy spikes, and relatively 'lower' energy spikes at various times and points in the vacuum that are the result of the kinetic energy changes and exchanges in our vacuum.
Upvote
0
When I read some of the definitions of the term *thing* it makes me very skeptical of it ever being truly applicable. For starters some of the defenitions require substance which is no where to be found. Some of them seem to imply simple location. Many of them also seem to imply self subsistence and separation when in reality we see interdependence and interpenetration. I'm not so sure the word really corresponds well with reality. It seems to be more an artifact of linguistics and our limited manner of thinking. If process counts as a thing according to a certain definition of the term (because I know according to some it wouldn't) then maybe it could still be salvaged though.
Upvote
0
What is being described as “nothing” may not have the attributes that make something a “thing” but that makes it a "non-thing", not nothing. This is a huge difference. If it has attributes then it is something, regardless if it fits the definition of a thing. What is being described has existence because it has properties.
From wiki on nothing “In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.”
When that isn’t done by the people putting the theory forward, you have to question why.
From wiki on nothing “In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.”
When that isn’t done by the people putting the theory forward, you have to question why.
Upvote
0
Yeah, I've heard Hawking is a real moron so it's always best to dismiss anything he says as silly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is a silly error to commit. Don't assume a person understands a subject because they are considered experts in another subject. If the person isn't arguing for the universe having always existed then the person isn't arguing against God, and if the person is unaware of that then it is because they aren't informed on the subject. They are assuming an irrational understanding of the term God, and that is the concept they are actually arguing against, which in reality is a simple straw-man construction.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
If atheists discovered some new feature, but it was suggested long time ago by Christians, how would you look at this situation?
Upvote
0
If the version of the theory that includes a Creator is accurate** then the folks who took early Christian theology in the ex nihilio direction (like the Gnostic Basilides and later St Augustine) might have been on to something.
** Personally I'm not so sure either version is correct I just thought it was interesting to think about.
Upvote
0
I fail to see the value in an "ex-nihilo" creation process in the first place. God might 'create' the heavens and the Earth in a myriad of ways that have nothing to do with getting something from nothing. I fail to see the value in believing that something came from nothing, regardless of one's theistic or atheistic tendencies. God could turn light into electrons to create a universe for all I know, but I see no evidence that it came from "nothing".
Upvote
0
Similar threads
