God: a failed hypothesis or something more?


#201

I am still waiting for that explanation. I am starting to think you don’t have one.


#202

It would seem that Krauss thinks quantum fields can exist without time and space.[quote=“Relates, post:189, topic:37310”]
We should I or anyone else take his words about something that he says is scientific which is not.
[/quote]

You are the one who cited Krauss as an expert, not me.[quote=“Relates, post:189, topic:37310”]
The evidence of E = mc squared which has been verified scientifically demonstrates that the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing.
[/quote]

You are going to need a reference for this claim.[quote=“Relates, post:189, topic:37310”]
You cannot logically, scientifically start a process in the middle of a process. You cannot discuss hoe to fly an airplane if you leave off the takeoff. You cannot discuss the Big Bang without the singularity which created the Big Bang and set off this process based on Einstein’s Theory.
[/quote]

Do I have to determine the ultimate origin of the universe in order to understand how lightning forms? If so, why? If not, your argument falls apart.[quote=“Relates, post:189, topic:37310”]
Again please stop playing games. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough. This is what the facts indicate, creation of the universe out of nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, and no space. If you dispute this, you need new facts, not a refusal to accept the old ones.
[/quote]

You are the one making claims that aren’t backed by facts, such as there being nothing before the Big Bang.


(Marvin Adams) #203

I am still waiting for you to read it.Here it is again

and in the light of my reply to your comment

you should have realised what element the teapot and the dragon are missing that make them so intellectually embarrassing as a counterargument to the existence of God


(John Dalton) #204

Thanks. I’ve read your posts, but I’m unclear about the facts that lead you to that conclusion. Perhaps I’ll go ever everything again.

Yet there seems to be disagreement.


(GJDS) #205

Whatever anyone thinks, science requires something to exist, The notion of non-existence (nothingness) is, as far as I know, cannot be dealt by science. Perhaps you may demonstrate otherwise for our benefit.


(John Dalton) #206

But if quantum fields exist, something exists right?


(GJDS) #207

All right, you refuse to discuss “the science” of nothingness; I’ll play along - have you (or Krauss) demonstrated the existence solely of a “quantum field?” I trust you understand the distinction of solely.


(John Dalton) #208

Do I? I agree with you in this: “The notion of non-existence (nothingness) is, as far as I know, cannot be dealt by science.” I’m not sure how it can be dealt with by anything. I can’t even imagine what “nothingness” is. But it seems clear to me if we’re talking about a reality where “something” exists, be it a quantum field or anything else, then we’re not talking about “nothing”. I don’t have the foggiest notion what a quantum field is or why its sole existence would be particularly important, but I feel comfortable in making that assertion.


(GJDS) #209

This discussion imo demonstrates the reason why theology should be discussed by theologians and science by scientists. The big bang has given rise to some comment that to me make no sense - atheists protest that theists may use this hypothesis to argue for a beginning, while some theists insist it has theological significance.

I think the subject “In the beginning God created …” is one that rests on the belief in God. It cannot be extended into matters of "science shows this or that … for theology.


(John Dalton) #210

I hear you. Theologically speaking, I guess God could have created matter and energy etc. out of a state of reality where they did not previously exist. That could be a kind of nothing, but yet not fully nothing–God was there. Or there could have been a quasi-nothing state where quantum fields or other intermediate nothing/something conditions existed, with God having created them, or preexisting them in some way, or maybe they always existed along with God, etc.

It seems like Krauss and others are pushing the boundaries of thought in such areas. This kind of stuff makes my head hurt a bit and I don’t investigate it as much as some other areas of science that seem more concrete and that I’m more interested in. I am under the impression that the Big Bang is simply the farthest point we can push back to for which convincing evidence exists. That could have been how God did things as far as I know–though I’ll note we’d still have to figure out how God came to be–or not, or there could have been a million Big Bangs before it, done by God, or not, or anything.


(GJDS) #211

This again shows to me the importance (for a Christian) to understand biblical teaching - there are good reasons for the centuries of Christian theological discussions and debates. An “eternal” existence of matter (or stuff) was postulated by various groups in antiquity. The glory of orthodox Christian theology has been to deal with the difficult subject head on. It means that we cannot contemplate an existence that is not this existence, and since God is eternal and transcends time, we cannot contemplate a time when God was there - nor can we think the creation was made from “god stuff” (something most pagans believed).

It boils down to, “God created the heavens and earth from nothing”. :slight_smile:


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #212

@GJDS and
@John_Dalton

Thank you for your comments. This is a very important issue in terms of science and theology. It shows we need to have philosophy involved also.

GJDS is correct to say that theology came to the conclusion that the universe was created out of nothing based on the fact that the universe was created in the Beginning by YHWH. Philosophy also should have said that we are limited beings living in a limited universe so the universe should have a Beginning and an Ending, which would put it in agreement with theology.

Science following philosophy did not believe that the universe had a beginning and an ending, because there was no clear evidence that this was the case. The first evidence that there might be th4e case was when we discovered that the earth and the universe had a deep history far longer than the ancients understood.

However the decisive evidence that the universe has a Beginning is the Red Shift where Edwin Hubble noticed that galaxies were all moving rapidly away from our galaxy and each other. From this it was perceived that the universe was expanding. Not too long ago scientists discovered background radiation in the atmosphere which scientists perceive as the echo of a primordial explosion of the universe from nothing to something.

There still is an important piece that needs to be added. We think of a thing as physical. We could have a physical universe with a beginning, but time and space which are eternal and uncreated. This is a Newtonian universe where time and space are absolute or eternal. However we live in an Einsteinian universe where time and space are not absolute, but relational. This means that matter, energy, time, and space are inter-related. We can’t have one without the others.

This is why Krause is not right. No mass means no energy. No mass means no space, because mass creates and shapes space. No space means no time. Krause can think that this a Newtonian universe if he wants to, but that does not make it so, just as YEC’s have there own vision of the world.

Reality is One, but it is also Diverse. Reality is physical, rational, and spiritual. We need to understand it through the lens of philosophy, theology, and science. These disciplines are complementary, not competitive as many would have it, just as people are meant to be complementary, rather than competitive.

God can do whatever God chooses to do, but God is not arbitrary. God chooses to work within the context and framework that God in God’s power, wisdom, and love created uniting the diversity of the Many in the unity of the One. God does this because God is Relational.


#213

The people in the essay believed in invisible dragons that lived in their garages. That’s why it was addressed in the essay. It doesn’t matter why they believe in invisible dragons living in their garages for the purposes of the essay, only that they do.

"Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages – but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all."
reference


#214

That gets into a whole slew of definitions and whatnot. If I remove all energy and matter from inside of a box, is there nothing in the box? I guess it depends on how you define it. From my reading, this is the type of “nothing” that Krauss is describing, a region lacking energy and mass but still influenced by quantum fields (and spacetime-like dimensions?). He even describes the Casimir effect where virtual particles will pop in and out of existence even in a region devoid of matter and energy (a quantum vacuum). Even in our own universe we can get something from nothing if you define nothing as a vacuum within a quantum field.

But more to the point, do we even know what the state of something or nothing was like before the Big Bang? No, not at all. Even Krauss will probably gladly admit that no one really knows, although they are trying to put some ideas together.


(John Dalton) #215

Thanks Roger, that makes your position quite clear to me. Can you explain what you mean when you say that God is relational?


#216

As mentioned in the post above, the best example I can think of is the Casimir effect which involves the spontaneous production of energy within a vacuum (i.e. nothing). I think Hawking radiation is another example where virtual particle pairs appear “from nothing” near the event horizon of a black hole, and if one particle is sucked into the black hole while the other escapes then the black hole can lose mass (i.e. evaporate). From what little I understand from my reading, the idea of quantum fluctuations producing something from nothing has been around for a while. @glipsnort will probably be able to give a more accurate picture and correct any errors I have made since his physics-fu is much stronger than mine.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #217

God IS WHO GOD IS, but God is not just the Being Who Is, God is the Being Who Acts and God is the Being Who Relates.

God is Trinity, Unity and Diversity

God Cares. God is Love.


(GJDS) #218

Yes I agree - there are fascinating things that science may bring up. I was fascinated by experiments that brought temperature down to almost absolute zero and the behaviour observed at such a region. Lots of good stuff for our imagination from science.

ADDED - this discussion has also touched on fantastical ideas and various myths/beliefs. I find this area fascinating. Just why is the human population given to so many belief systems for its entire history? I think it glib for modern man to dismiss so much information as the product of ignorance, and added to this, the hubris of “science uber alles” (by this I mean science more than anything else).

The intellect of humanity has been more or less constant for recorded history, and one may argue people of immense intellect considers these matters over many centuries. While I (and everyone else) may be confident of my outlook, the question still remains.


(Marvin Adams) #219

to an intellectually honest person it does matter why you have a belief, as we feel that a belief ought to be reasonable and you ought to be able to reason your belief. To claim the existence of something that has no explanatory power for any observed effect is childish, thus appropriate for children, but then for anyone claiming to be a scientist this is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.


(Marvin Adams) #220

as the system told me to reply to someone other that T-a. I better do and ask you a reasoning question:

How can you credit those primitive goat herders with intellect if they did not even know what an I-phone is, and how can you postulate the existence of an all knowing deity if there are clearly “scientists” who know that they know better :slight_smile: