And by the way, something from nothing is as much of a science stopper as God doing it.
I would accept scientific conclusions that are backed by evidence.
There are a number of research groups studying quantum physics and how it produces something from nothing. There are no research groups I know of who are studying how God creates something from nothing.
3 Likes
It’s only a matter of time… James Smith has a nice book he just wrote about this thing we call time. I started listening to it and it’s been a special experience so far.
I don’t think I have anything more to say about this.
Best Regards
It is important to note (you and @T_aquaticus may be aware of this, so I don’t mean to be condescending) that the article posted above is not actually demonstrating something from literally nothing. This “nothingness” still presupposes the existence of natural laws, energy, Schrödinger’s equation, etc. The argument in the original paper is that they can create matter from energy, which has been a long-standing hypothesis. It’s great that they were able to demonstrate this, and it’s brilliant that they thought of using Graphene.
Even the “empty space” that is required isn’t really “empty” in the physical sense. Quantum fields, electromagnetism, and gravity all still apply.
1 Like
Thanks for the explanation. I sort of gather all of what you are saying. The phenomenon is probably better termed as an uncaused event, and it wouldn’t be a total misuse of words to say it is something from nothing.
Conservation is, of course, preserved. Nothing was created from nothing.
Sabine Hossenfelder has a great video on this.
EDIT:
Content begins at 1:12
1:11 - Level 1 - Everday sense of no objects
1:45 - Level 2 - Ordinary vacuum
2:13 - Level 3 - No particles
2:44 - Level 4 - No radiation or fields
3:20 - Level 5 - No virtual particles
5:44 - Level 6 - No space and time or natural law
6:40 - Level 7 - No non-physical entities
7:46 - Level 8 - No concepts - logic, math
8:20 - Level 9 - No possiblities
Hossenfelder references philosopher Robert Lawrence Kuhn for the last three levels on nothing. This video is short, easy to listen to, and she has a dry sense of humor.
great point T_aquaticus and i tend to agree i suppose. However, wouldn’t we agree that the issue between Religion and Atheism is not science but its interpretation?
Now i know that one could say “given there is no documented religious influence…”
The trouble is for religious peoples who follow the bible they are going to quite openly claim that even if there was little or no written evidence, “God wrote his laws on our hearts and in our minds and that it is the Holy Spirit that speaks to us”. That being the case, we would still come to God with essentially the same theology of a creator, creation, the fall of man, sacrifice and redemption, and restoration. These things all require (in the majority of Christian circles) a integrated understanding that we would have even if there were no writings (it would simply be oral tradition but still here with us today nonetheless).
I think that atheists incorrectly believe (bad word i know) that removing or discrediting the evidence would destroy the myth. The Gospel is bigger than that and part of the reason why i think is because of epistemology.
and yet you seem to make it exactly that “young earth”. Theistic evolutionist spend all their spare time earbashing anyone who does not accept that the millions of years interpretation of science
We can confidently do this because we use documented history (you know that written stuff that is over 2000 years old), we use this history to check whether or not our scientific interpretation is sensible.
“Absolute nonsense” i hear the naysayers cry out. Well my answer to that is simple, “show me the documented history supporting the evidence”. Interestingly enough i read a famous quote from Albert Einstein earlier “God does not play dice”.
I know each can put their own spin on that, but i think it applies well to my belief in intelligent design even though the critics will cry foul. I think the point is, Albert considered the mechanisms of research to be deliberate.
I extrapolate intelligent design from this a little further and apply it a little more universally and why shouldn’t i? that is what i observe in life all around…deliberate actions, and intelligence.
Would you be interested to consider the essay Christy shared from Kathryn Applegate?
I just sat down intending to read it and offer a carefully considered response, and yet the first sentence was more question begging than I ever could have possibly imagined.
“Methodological naturalism, the scientific practice of limiting the explanation of natural phenomena to only natural mechanisms, is a wise and powerful means of investigating the created order.”
The rational for this statement depends entirely on whether the immediate effect of an uncaused cause is to be labeled natural or supernatural… and yet however the phenomenon is termed… including an event without cause… there can be no natural explanation (or mechanism) for it.
So what are they? You know 1 to 9?
Russell and Wallace belonged to the same culture, as did Newton and Leibniz, so their coming to the same conclusions isn’t evidence for parallel evolution.
How can science be differently interpreted by people at the same level? Unless some of them have overriding religious beliefs?
And no, religious people do not have to come to God with the same dated theology, no matter how it was transmitted.
There is no evidence that atheists have to remove or discredit. Including for The Gospel, i.e. the declaration of transcendence. No recognized theory of knowledge can change that.
The issue between religion and atheism is purely religious. It has nothing to do with science. Believers and non-believers are scientists, and they all work together harmoniously.
The issue between ID/creationism and science is that ID/creationism does not follow the scientific method while trying to claim that they do.
Atheists such as myself don’t believe that evidence destroys myths because myths were never about describing how nature works. Myths are meant to convey philosophical and theological truths through storytelling, allegory, and metaphor. For example, if I prove animals don’t talk this does not destroy Aesop’s Fables or George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.
But as the saying goes, you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Many creationists are not creationists because of the scientific evidence, so there is very little chance that they will be convinced to drop creationism because of evidence. In fact, this is exactly what Answers in Genesis says.
That’s not science. You don’t throw out evidence just because it conflicts with your preferred conclusion.
2 Likes
The map is not the territory.
There was an early American explorer who drew this map of what is now California:
According to your method, no matter what evidence I see now I would have to interpret it in light of California being an island. Any evidence demonstrating that California is not an island would have to be thrown out because I have a historical document that says California is an island.
Or maybe . . . just maybe . . . historical documents can be wrong or misinterpreted. Just maybe. When your interpretation of a historical document conflicts with actual reality, which do you think is wrong? Apparently, you think reality is wrong. It is the map that is to be believed at all times, no matter what our eyes are telling us in reality. To me, that makes zero sense.
3 Likes
And yet for those convinced their tribe’s interpretation of the Bible is correct in every word exactly as those words may be understood by any modern sixth grader, there is quite a risk in the other direction for their bright and curious kids who come to appreciate the power of science. True that you cannot be reasoned out of beliefs which reason played no role in acquiring. But if you are raised to believe that faith requires accepting as fact that which is demonstrably false, something will have to give and many times it will be faith. Didn’t have to be that way. A young earth is no where in the Bible it is only the cockamamie ideas of men about how they can place faith on more certain grounds that make faith untenable for those who trust their senses and insist on coherent reasoning.
1 Like
I’m sorry but i have no idea what your point is here?
The map of California is not inspired by scripture and has no bearing on biblical theology…that is the point of all of this. I have a cultural history that supports my current interpretation of the world around me. I know the pyramids exist exactly as written in history says because i can see them today and I know that the person who wrote about them also saw them thousands of years ago…that person/s was there in the flesh.
I am not relying on someone who was not there trying to form a mythological construct of what they may have looked like and when they may have been built. I am sure the only reason evolution doesn’t have an issue with the age of the pyramids is because there it far too much documented history to go against it.
I have another map dated 1507 that also doesn’t seem to be very accurate
It seems to me that is increasingly the case as we move forward in the historical timeline of the earth. When there is no documented history, we can make crap up based on theory after theory after theory, with each successive theory become proof based on the theory before it.
At what point do we have a foundation for all of this…oh of course, the big bang (where science still has no idea the energy and matter came from that started it and how it started).
so the very foundation of all evolutionary and secular cosmology is based on (pardon the pun) a vacuum!
I will stick with my definition of science because the interpretations i follow are supported by written history and i base my theology on a combination of the two but preference is given to the written for good reason…someone was actually there and wrote about it.
I have a question, how does gravity apply to an environment in which there is nothing exactly? Isnt gravity “mass attraction”? if something has no mass, because it doesn’t exist, how do you get gravity from that exactly? I sense a bit of a word game being played here!
She mentioned his essay in a footnote to this statement:
“At that time I was ignorant of the long history of scholarly conversation on this topic—much of which has taken place in this journal.”
But I didn’t get any sense that it was actually engaged with. What I saw were the issues Plantinga raised literally touched upon and left open.
Why would scientists have any problem with the age of the pyramids, or the age of the dead sea scrolls, or any ancient document or artifact? Evolutionary concepts such as population genetics, and adaptation such as lactose tolerance, are in harmony with what we know from history. We are all good with that. We are right in there with you that history is valid. Agree 100%. Two thumbs up!
Just physics. Gravity is curvature in space time (not mass attraction), and energy as well as matter curves space time.
2 Likes
- Is it possible that some or most folks are unaware of the Seventh Day Adventist position on canonical, written scripture and SDA commitment to Sola Scriptura?
- Source: Seventh Day Adventist Beliefs
- See also: What Adventists Believe About the Holy Scriptures
- SDA theology regarding the Bible, is different from, but significantly similar to or parallel to orthodox Sunni Islam’s view of the Qur’an.
- In other words, if you wouldn’t try to argue a Muslim out of believing that the Qur’an is “scientific evidence” for some belief, why would you try to argue an SDA out of believing that the Bible is “scientific evidence” for some belief?
3 Likes