Christian Pipe Smokers
  Login or Register
Links
Site
· Home
· RSS Feed
· Contact Mods
· Contact Admins
Community
· Forums
Members List
Private Messages
· Donate
Account
· Your Account
· Edit Profile

Search CPS


 
Christian Pipe Smokers :: View topic - Something from nothing?

View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak


Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Posts: 14006
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:54 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Interesting stuff here---
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/01/why-do-physicists-talk-nonsense.html
View user's profile Send private message
jruegg
Mr. Eggs
Mr. Eggs


Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Posts: 23017
Location: Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:03 pm Reply with quote Back to top

And the chicks for free.

_________________
  Image  
View user's profile Send private message
Del
Crosby's squeeze toy
Crosby's squeeze toy


Joined: Mar 04, 2008
Posts: 26157
Location: Madison, WI

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:19 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I read something about this, a decade or so ago, when the theory of "virtual particles" was just coming into vogue.

The physicist writing the article commented rightly that this theory's concept of "vacuum" is a far richer substance than the philosopher's "void."

Which is good and fair to say. If scientists actually discover that vast expanses of deep, empty space are really "a bubbling, boiling soup of virtual particles," then the philosopher/theologian can still ask, "Where did the space and the virtual particles come from?"

If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!

_________________
This is a chastisement from God.
It is no longer Democrats v. Republicans; it's the Ruling Class v. the Rest of Us.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak


Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Posts: 14006
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 pm Reply with quote Back to top

jruegg wrote:
And the chicks for free.

Free checking? Cool! Cool
View user's profile Send private message
Onyx
Small nuts
Small nuts


Joined: Dec 02, 2008
Posts: 6300
Location: Skeptopolis

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:52 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Del wrote:
If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!
If that's your definition of God, then I suspect the physicist will have no argument.


Anyway, the core of this argument is:

Theist: You can't get something from nothing. We have something, so there must be a Creator.
Non-theist: Then how did we get the creator?
Theist: God is outside of creation. He is eternal, He is not created.
Non-theist: So... you can have something without a creator. If that's the case, then why not have a universe?
Theist: But the universe is not eternal, it had a start. What initiated it?
Non-theist: I don't know. But how do you imagine that you're answering that question by posing the preexistence of something even bigger and outside of the universe?
Theist : Well that's because God is not subject to the laws of the universe, those laws are all part of His creation.
Non-theist: Well that's fair enough, if you wanna start coming up with stuff outside the rules to explain the rules... but if you're gonna do that then any creation myth can do the job. So do you see how it proves nothing, clarifies nothing, and illuminates nothing?
Theist: ...

_________________
Bringing back the old CPS. One non sequitur at a time.
View user's profile Send private message
Del
Crosby's squeeze toy
Crosby's squeeze toy


Joined: Mar 04, 2008
Posts: 26157
Location: Madison, WI

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:11 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
Del wrote:
If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!


If that's your definition of God, then I suspect the physicist will have no argument.


Anyway, the core of this argument is:

Theist: You can't get something from nothing. We have something, so there must be a Creator.
Non-theist: Then how did we get the creator?
Theist: God is outside of creation. He is eternal, He is not created.
Non-theist: So... you can have something without a creator. If that's the case, then why not have a universe?
Theist: But the universe is not eternal, it had a start. What initiated it?
Non-theist: I don't know. But how do you imagine that you're answering that question by posing the preexistence of something even bigger and outside of the universe?
Theist : Well that's because God is not subject to the laws of the universe, those laws are all part of His creation.
Non-theist: Well that's fair enough, if you wanna start coming up with stuff outside the rules to explain the rules... but if you're gonna do that then any creation myth can do the job. So do you see how it proves nothing, clarifies nothing, and illuminates nothing?
Theist: ...


The philosopher always wins that argument.

Since existance exists, there must be an eternal, pre-existing thing -- the Maker and Be-er of all Things.

For many centuries, materialists were forced to suppose that the material universe was pre-eternal. Even Aristotle proposed this as a first principle.... he couldn't prove it, but he had no other evidence.

The problem is entropy. Stuff decays. And so no one is willing to believe that the universe is pre-eternal anymore, especially not scientists. And then the Big Bang came along, with hard evidence of a Moment of Beginning.

Meanwhile, the Christian Theist has a God who has revealed Himself to us. It is the materialist who refuses to look at the data. This shifts a great deal of the burden of proof over to the materialist, who must now demonstrate with hard evidence that there is no God.

That's a very difficult task.... the materialists can't even produce the godless Utopia that they promised, or signs of greater personal happiness in lives without God.

_________________
This is a chastisement from God.
It is no longer Democrats v. Republicans; it's the Ruling Class v. the Rest of Us.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Onyx
Small nuts
Small nuts


Joined: Dec 02, 2008
Posts: 6300
Location: Skeptopolis

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:49 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Del wrote:
The philosopher always wins that argument.

Since existance exists, there must be an eternal, pre-existing thing -- the Maker and Be-er of all Things.

Hmmm. Seems a bit like my point failed to hit the mark. It's like a philosophical thingy you do there to get that conclusion. But it doesn't point to God. The "existability" of the universe may itself be the preexisting thing.
Del wrote:


For many centuries, materialists were forced to suppose that the material universe was pre-eternal. Even Aristotle proposed this as a first principle.... he couldn't prove it, but he had no other evidence.

Yes ok.
Del wrote:


The problem is entropy. Stuff decays. And so no one is willing to believe that the universe is pre-eternal anymore, especially not scientists. And then the Big Bang came along, with hard evidence of a Moment of Beginning.

Yes again. Although it would be remiss not to point out the the Big Bang holds only the vaguest likeness to the narrative theists had been giving us all along. Theists may have embraced the big bang theory now, but it didn't come from religion.
Del wrote:

Meanwhile, the Christian Theist has a God who has revealed Himself to us. It is the materialist who refuses to look at the data. This shifts a great deal of the burden of proof over to the materialist, who must now demonstrate with hard evidence that there is no God.

Nonsense. And while I'm at it, don't use the words scientist and materialist as though they were interchangeable. You know that no one can prove the non-existence of something. It is perfectly acceptable to not know how the universe came about. After all, even if you say God did it, you still don't know how it was done.

Every natural phenomenon that has been credited to God may be explainable. I say may, because some have been explained, some surely will be in the future, and who knows which or how many phenomena man will or will not adequately explain. It may be that God blessed Abraham and Sarah with a child, but there is also a scientific explanation which can be made for the pregnancy occurring without reference to God. It may be that God caused the rainbow as a token of His covenant, but there is also a scientific explanation for the rainbow without reference to God. It may be that God initiated the Big Bang, but I trust you won't be offended if I hope for a scientific explanation. It is a tough one, because it's at the boundary of space and time, and therefore at the boundary of science. So I don't know how satisfactory the explanation will ever be. But I do know that your explanation adds nothing more than the Inuit or the Maori version.
Del wrote:

That's a very difficult task.... the materialists can't even produce the godless Utopia that they promised, or signs of greater personal happiness in lives without God.

I don't know why you think it's fair to pin this on the same crowd that researches cosmology. Really Del, it's just fuzzy mudslinging. Yes, utopias have failed. A few religious utopias have failed too. Nevertheless, my life is happier without God. I don't normally come right out and say that. But your clear implication is that life is not happier without God. I don't know how you know that. But I'm sure that for me, life is happier without God. Anyway, I'm just one guy, and that's not my real point. You seem like a happy guy too!

_________________
Bringing back the old CPS. One non sequitur at a time.
View user's profile Send private message
Rusty
Minister of the Gideons
Minister of the Gideons


Joined: May 02, 2008
Posts: 17405
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:49 am Reply with quote Back to top

Del wrote:
If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!


Why God? And which God? There have probably been thousands. As an answer what does it solve?

As soon as you say "Ah that's God!" then what does it explain? One doesn't need to go out into the Universe and back in time to say "Ah that's God!". You can start with "Ah that's God!". But then you're done. Science wouldn't exist and neither would all the technology. When you can calculate with God and solve real problems then you might have something.

In the meantime when you say "Ah that's God!" it's an end to inquiry. Knowing that answer means nothing. Testing it means everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

But I wanted to try your answer out in another context to see whether it provides any insight and explains anything.
http://christianpipesmokers.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=676063#676063

I think as an answer about things it always fails. Is that true?
Is there any question about things to which "Ah that's God!" is a useful answer?

_________________
Adam was a sloth and a moron. ~ Del
Adam was a Hermaphrodite. ~ ElgarAlienPooh
We are insane. ~ Del
View user's profile Send private message
tuttle
Gonna eat small
Gonna eat small


Joined: Dec 03, 2008
Posts: 8442
Location: Middle-west

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:43 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
Del wrote:
If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!
If that's your definition of God, then I suspect the physicist will have no argument.


Anyway, the core of this argument is:

Theist: You can't get something from nothing. We have something, so there must be a Creator.
Non-theist: Then how did we get the creator?
Theist: God is outside of creation. He is eternal, He is not created.
Non-theist: So... you can have something without a creator. If that's the case, then why not have a universe?
Theist: But the universe is not eternal, it had a start. What initiated it?
Non-theist: I don't know. But how do you imagine that you're answering that question by posing the preexistence of something even bigger and outside of the universe?
Theist : Well that's because God is not subject to the laws of the universe, those laws are all part of His creation.
Non-theist: Well that's fair enough, if you wanna start coming up with stuff outside the rules to explain the rules... but if you're gonna do that then any creation myth can do the job. So do you see how it proves nothing, clarifies nothing, and illuminates nothing?
Theist: ...


just a thought, and it may only reroute the above argument rather than break it, but wouldn't the Non-theist be speaking with the assumption that the 'something' is matter and the Theist speaking about God who is trans-matter ?

It's not that God is just 'something outside'. That would assume that the universe and God are equal 'somethings' or at least comparible 'somethings' which isn't the case at all.

Edit: I should add that both speakers are also assuming something different when they speak of how it 'proves, clarifies and illuminates'. If one is operating within a set of rules and is bound to not go beyond what he or others have determined are the rules, then it is silly to point at the guy who has not bound his thought (or argument) with the same rules and say that that persons theory proves, clarifies, and illuminates nothing.

It would be as if two men were locked in a dark room. One choses to use the nightvision goggles and the other choses to reject the goggles and opts for touch. Nightvision goggles are against the rules, you see. Let's say each investigates a chair in the middle of the room trying to determine who made it. The man who is blind does the grunt work. Feels every inch of the chair, takes in the smell, knocks against legs, sits in it even, but can not really know for sure where it was made, or by whom. On the other hand the man with nightvision doesn't even need to touch it. The chair has a stamp which says "Made In: USA by: JOE SMITH"

When the man who can see tells the other this information I can see a similar argument to the one above taking place.

_________________
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Murf
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar


Joined: Apr 20, 2011
Posts: 1137
Location: Inland Empire, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:16 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx's example conversation is sound the way it's presented. For me, though, if I were to acknowledge the odds, I could not explain how we came to be here by big bang/evolution any more than faith.

In an earlier thread many moons ago I stated that the universe is big enough and old enough to allow for the probability necessary to give those who wish to explain the genesis of life on earth from a evolutionary stance, some legs to stand on. But I have to say I really doubt it now, having tried to calculate them. It's incalculable. The odds expand just as fast and as long as the universe. It's so far in the realm of ridiculousness that I find the "rational" explanation of the genesis of the universe and life, sans Creator, to be the view that truly requires a leap of faith.... like an orbital drop without an enviro-suit leap of faith.

It's staggering.

My faith is not founded on scientific proofs, but I like to acknowledge truth when I see it, even if it's inconvenient to my presuppositions at the time.
I still hold to many principles of what we call natural selection and adaptation, but not without The God Who Is There. I still believe in a deeply ancient universe, but not without it's Creator.

_________________
It's easier to force feed people than it is to give 'em what they want. It makes more money.      -Merle Haggard
View user's profile Send private message
hogleg
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar


Joined: Jan 09, 2011
Posts: 7179
Location: Here

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:58 am Reply with quote Back to top

Rusty wrote:
Why God? And which God? There have probably been thousands.


That's one of the oldest lies out there, Rusty. The oldest being, "surely you will not die".

There's but one creator God.

The rest are created gods.

_________________
HE put the sweet in a peach, the twang in a lemon, the chill in a
summer rain, and the warmth in the morning sun. HE made and HE sustains all
things.
View user's profile Send private message
wosbald
What's the funny part?
What's the funny part?


Joined: Feb 26, 2008
Posts: 13136
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:13 am Reply with quote Back to top

+JMJ+
Rusty wrote:
Del wrote:
If virtual particles of mass and/or energy really do wink into existence from that which is truly "nothing," then I'll be curious how the scientist concludes that he has not discovered the creative mind of God!


Why God? And which God? There have probably been thousands.

Now, that's just silliness.

The moral universality of Man has always recognized a single, great creator God. The other gods were essentially creatures: angels or devils or demiurges or whatever. Most of the philosophers recognized a single God; Absolute Reality, Supreme Principle, Eternal Flame, or whatever.

They may have had erroneous ideas regarding God as well as the gods, devas, and asuras, but portraying Mankind as confused and divided regarding Being, Itself, on the existence of an Ultimate True Reality, seems little more than a way to dismissively wave off the issue.

_________________
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima
View user's profile Send private message
Jake
Sister of the Briar
Sister of the Briar


Joined: Apr 03, 2010
Posts: 3195
Location: Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:15 am Reply with quote Back to top

As creatures, we humans are pretty clever and intelligent. Some more so than others. But even the smartest of the smartest people cannot fully comprehend eternity. I think that is pretty remarkable, that we are just simply not programmed to understand where we came from or where we're going.

_________________
"It was a bit awkward at first but I soon got to be perfectly at home in men's clothes. " -- Calamity Jane
View user's profile Send private message
Roadmaster
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog
Ornery one-eyed tick farming weiner dog


Joined: Dec 30, 2007
Posts: 9567
Location: Missouri, God's Country and home of The Missouri Meerschaum Company

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:45 am Reply with quote Back to top

Murf wrote:


My faith is not founded on scientific proofs, but I like to acknowledge truth when I see it, even if it's inconvenient to my presuppositions at the time.
I still hold to many principles of what we call natural selection and adaptation, but not without The God Who Is There. I still believe in a deeply ancient universe, but not without it's Creator.


+1

I will add my theory is 'The Big Bang' may very well be followed by 'The Big Contraction.' This process may occur over and over. The souls that dwelt in the physical bodies survive in a spirit dimension and the whole operation is controlled by God.
View user's profile Send private message
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!


Joined: Aug 30, 2009
Posts: 10000
Location: Woodstock, IL

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:10 am Reply with quote Back to top

The very best explanation offered thus far (and it's been offered by the materialists and the judeo-Christian theists) is that there was nothing and then there was light.

_________________
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic   Reply to topic

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


 
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters,
all the rest © 2002-2037 by Christian Pipe Smokers



Page Generation: 0.43 Seconds