Hey guys i’ve asked a friend who has helped me a lot about the causeless universe due to quantum mechanics and he said:
My understanding is that this is not likely. A particle can appear out of “nothing” in quantum physics if there is a quantum field. So for the universe to appear without a cause out of nothing would require an enormously strong quantum field, which is a long way from nothing. And what caused that field?
Does this hold up?
Yes, it does.
The Big Bang Theory says that the Big Bang was the Beginning of the universe. That mans that it emerged out of absolute nothing, no matter, no quantum, no energy, no space, and no time.
This is scientifically based on E = mc squared which says the time and space are dependent on matter/energy. In other words, no matter means no time and space.
Thus people who are arguing that there was no absolute beginning of the universe are arguing against settled science, not faith. Faith only provides an identity for the Source of the universe.
God is not the Cause of the universe as WLC is arguing, God is not a trigger that can set off the universe. God is the Source Who created the singularity and the laws of Nature.
Science cannot verify that God is the Source of the universe. Science cannot go beyond the Beginning of time, so science cannot speak on this issue.
So there are two possible questions. Was there a Beginning of the universe? This has been settled by science, even though some are disputing this. Is God the Source of the universe? This has been settled by theology and philosophy, which have jurisdiction in this area.
Thus by current knowledge and standards the existence of God has been proven. This does not mean that everyone has to believe in God, just as it meant people did not have to not believe in God before this has been proven.
However if one claims not believe in God because the existence of God has not been proven, the he or she has a problem because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just to pick nits, I would describe it as probabilistic instead of statistical, but I get your drift. For me, it gets interesting when you consider a single nuclei in isolation. It can be an unstable nuclei for millions or even billions of years, and then one day it just decays. Nothing is different about that day or the ones that preceded it. So why decay on that day out of the billions of days before that?
The other question is what preceded our universe? Was it an absolute nothing, or was it something like a quantum vacuum, or even a massive black hole in another universe? We could then chase infinite regressions back to the ultimate cause, but then we are dealing with strange twists of causality, time lines, and the like.
If there is one commonality that atheists and theists could possibly find is in being fascinated by the mystery of it.
The decay rates are only identical over large numbers of decays. If you only had 20 or so atoms decaying in separate experiments you might get very different rates.
Random processes over many trials can produce consistent results. Games of chance have very predictable outcomes over many trials which is why casinos are able to make money in the long run. The roll of the dice in craps is random, yet over 1 million trials you can be almost guaranteed that the most common outcome in will be 7. I think it may be a bit hasty to say that something is not random simply because it is predictable over many trials. Of course, I only know enough quantum mechanics to be dangerous, so I could be entirely wrong on this point.
But what causes the particle to find itself outside of the nucleus and not elsewhere? As far as my understanding goes, there is simply a probability that a particle will be within the nucleus one moment and outside the nucleus the next moment without ever being anywhere in between. So what causes that?
I’m a biology guy, but the classic book on the subject are “The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics” by Gary Zukav which gets a bit into Buddhism, but not annoyingly so. I also enjoyed “Hyperspace” by Michio Kaku.
It’s not likely that a quantum fluctuation cannot produce a universe? Even if it’s not likely, it can certainly happen. Here’s one such paper that mathematically demonstrates its feasibility:
Nobody is actually arguing (except for that one paper I referenced above, sorry @ManiacalVesalius) that the universe came from nothing. Very few cosmologists are writing papers and exploring a true ex nihilo type of model.
Despite Roger’s confidence, he has no idea how the universe began just the same as WLC. Sure, Roger and WLC believe by faith that the Christian God in particular is the one who created it. I believe the same thing! But… I am not so presumptuous to come in and say that because we have no natural explanation, God did it. That is literally all the Kalam argument ever was and ever will be. Sure, maybe we will push the argument back a bit further, or maybe the laws of physics are eternal and then we can’t use the Kalam argument for a while.
Roger you’re wrong again. I think I’ve explained this to you as have other physicists. The Big Bang Theory describes quite well what happened after the universe began but says nothing about what started it. Again, this is exactly the same thing as how abiogenesis is completely different than the theory of evolution. But I’ve explained this to you and you still keep repeating the same inaccurate phrases about Cosmology.
Are there any scientific papers that state this? From my reading, many scientists have proposed that there could have been quantum states and energy that preceded the emergence of our universe.
I see.
So the kalam argues that the big bang came from nothing. But we dont know if thats the case.
But i guess WLC chooses to stick with nothing before the big bang.
Not really. To be sure, that interpretation of the Big Bang squares nicely with the argument. However, the Kalam says that the universe must necessarily have come from nothing. If the Big Bang were still unknown or could be demonstrated conclusively not to be an emergence of matter from nothing, the argument would still be the same.
So even if the universe is causeless the argument stands?
im a little confused.
You seem to be equating the “Big Bang” with “the only possible event when the universe was caused”–when our physical reality emerged from a totally non-material state, from an absolute nothing.
The ultimate cause of the emergence of our reality from nothing (not to be more confusing, but I have to say, if that ever happened, or even means anything) could be entirely separate from the Big Bang.
I am really confused now, sorry!
So what you are saying is that the Big bang wasn’t the true start of the universe and that something else caused the big bang? Am i getting it right? 
Sorry, I’m trying to keep my English as easy to process as I can!
In short, yes. 
We don’t know that the Big Bang was an emergence from nothing. If it wasn’t, then there was something else. If the universe didn’t literally emerge from nothing at that point, nothing says that the ultimate emergence of our reality couldn’t have happened during some other event.
Ahh i see. But that doesn’t change the core principle of the kalam,It still works if the big bang wasn’t the universal cause? Cause then we can argue “Has the universe got a cause or not” And this is what the guys above are discussing. Have i got it all right in my mind now?
Sorry i’m still learning.
**"three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we. **
From the official Big Bang Website.
_@pevaquark
show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open.
The paper does seem to show that quantum fluctuations might be able to create a new universe of the math is right, however a quantum metastable false vacuum does not sound like absolute nothing, outside of time, and space as well as without matter and energy
Of course I do not know how God created the universe out of nothing, but I can say that all the evidence points to that conclusion. The fact is that it is not because we have no natural explanation that I can say God did it, but because we know that all natural things are finite, which means they have a beginning in time and space.
We know that even time and space are finite and have a beginning and an ending. We know that E = mc squared which means that matter, energy, time, and space are interdependent and not absolute, meaning eternal contrary to what many scientists and philosophers thought.
If natural means finite and it does, then for the universe to be natural it must have a beginning and that beginning or Source must not be natural. Therefore God is a “natural” explanation for the origin of the universe. God is consistent with its nature.
I never said that the Big Bang Theory said that God created the universe. On the other hand you cannot say that it says nothing about Who created the universe. As far as I can see it says that Who or Whatever created the universe must be beyond the physical, which includes time and space. That seems to narrow down the field considerably.
Right, that’s how I see it!
Cause then we can argue “Has the universe got a cause or not” And this is what the guys above are discussing. Have i got it all right in my mind now?
I believe so. I haven’t checked the deep science discussion there too closely–that is another language to me 
Yes same here too difficult for me.
But then i don’t see how the universe could come from nothing.
Do we even know if it was nothing?
Thanks for being patient with me though!
Edit; I think i understand what WLC thinks right now.
He seems to argue that God is a more reasonable explanation than nothing.
I don’t even know what “nothing” is frankly. Even the word “is” would not seem to apply to it.
Yes cause nothing literally is No Thing.
And given that God is clearly not nothing, this whole nothing thing does cause me some confusion. Well, time for bed around these parts! Nice chatting.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.