God Co-equal With Nature.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

'Existence is infinite or eternal' - my unwashed arse it is. Ever heard of Krauss? Ever heard of 'A universe from nothing'?

Krauss’s “nothing” is actually something. In his book he calls nothing “unstable” and elsewhere he affirms that nothing is something physical. This is an interesting linguistic deviation, as the definition of nothing in the English language refers to a universal negation, but it seems that Krauss’s “nothing” is a label for something. Elsewhere in his book Krauss writes that everything came into being from a vacuum fluctuation, which explains a creation from “nothing”, but that implies a pre-existent quantum state in order for that to be a possibility.

On a side note, it is entirely possible that Krauss is correct - maybe "nothing is unstable" and that is the "eternal agency" by which drives nature - and gives therefore fuel to the argument

I don't think therefore that Krauss's book refutes posit (1) or (2) of the argument, in that existence of some sort and agency must simply be a necessary fact of nature (and therefore eternal).

[mondrian]

Just like Krauss says - the only form of nothing that christians accept is their form. The christian nothing is a form from which nothing can happen. The problem with this form of nothing is that, because nothing can happen, nothing does. So the universe never gets created nor do we - WITHOUT god (Oh, how convenient for you christians because now you have a god to worship).

Enter god (ta da).

god performs his magic and, hey presto, we got ourselves a universe folks.

Let's just take a swift look at this universe that this god created.

He created mother Earth. Then puts it in orbit around a sun that, eventually, will run out of energy and everything on Earth dies. Not the smartest of moves methinks.

Then, he created a neutron star and pointed it right at mother Earth. Then, for good measure, he gave the universe the ability to create supernovas, hypernovas and black holes, any of which, if they came close enough to mother Earth, would instantly mean the end of the Earth and Man. This just gets worse.

Now let's look a little more closely at mother Earth.

He gave it a weather system that creates tsunamis, tornadoes, floods , hurricanes, cyclones and the like that not only destroys everything that man builds, but Man himself.

Now let's look at the creatures that he created.

He created dinosaurs. He obviously wasn't too pleased with that effort so he took his cosmic board rubber and erased them.

He also created man (and woman).

Let's take a look at woman:

He gave her a pleasure beach and then ruined everything by building it right next to the sewage works.

Nah, sunshine. No god would ever do any of this unless he was a megalomaniac or a creator of arcade games. So you either pray to a megalomaniac or an arcade games builder. How smart is that?

No, sunshine, seems like all of this wasn't created by some cosmic wizard. Sounds like evolution to me and that Krauss et al aren't too far away from the truth.

Your god idea seems like a non-starter to me.

Now, go away, learn some physics, biology, evolutionary theory, cosmology etc., then, when you have done all that, come back and convince me that all of this was created by an intelligence. The odds are that you won't be coming back because you will realise that the universe couldn't possibly have been created by an intelligence because, if it had, things wouldn't be the way they are.

[mondrian]

Oh, and while you are at it, have a think about DNA and what an unmitigated logical disaster that is. So, the very stuff of life which mutates and enables a species to evolve also gives rise to cancer. So god obviously plays dice, no?

And give some thought to the bible which says that it's ok to rape, pillage, murder and enslave non-believers. So this is what god wants?

And also give some thought to the fact that, one morning, god must have woken form his slumbers, roughly 3.7 billion years ago, and said, 'Now what shall I do today? Oh, I know, I think I'll create the universe'. Why 3.7 billion years ago? Why not yesterday? Why not tomorrow?

Seriously, are you saying that an intelligence did all this?

Judas H Priest on horseback, even you could have designed a better universe.

[Smellyoldgit]

Just me being a pedant, but The Allsmitey awoke & made his universe about 14 billion years ago - and had another nap till he made this little blue dot-planet around 3.7 billions ago. He must've been most displeased with the rest of the looniverse if our wreck of a rock was the best he could do!

[mondrian]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Just me being a pedant, but The Allsmitey awoke & made his universe about 14 billion years ago - and had another nap till he made this little blue dot-planet around 3.7 billions ago. He must've been most displeased with the rest of the looniverse if our wreck of a rock was the best he could do!

My apologies, O vice one, when I typed 3.7, I meant to type 13.7.

[mondrian]

Andrew

The bleedin' 'Quote' function on RAV doesn't appear to be working for me on your posts so I can't refer to them.

I love your use of the term 'eternal'.

Before matter existed, there was no space and therefore no time either. To claim therefore that something is eternal, in the context of before the creation of the universe, is therefore illogical.

Also, I think that what Krauss was getting at was that before the Universe came into existence, literally nothing existed. This 'nothing' however was inherently unstable and therefore had the potential to become something. To some people, especially christians, because it had the potential to become something, then it must contain something, even if that something was just 'potential' (whatever that is). Well, maybe not. Maybe nothing is just that - nothing - and is unstable. Christians don't like this explanation because it threatens the existence of their beloved god because, then, he's no longer needed in the creation equation.

Is there any evidence to support the instability of 'nothing' theory? In fact there is. A recent experiment showed that if all matter is extracted from a vessel, then particles are spontaneously created within the vessel, literally out of nothing. The particles consist of matter/anti-matter particle pairs which then spontaneously destroy each other - leaving nothing.

Maybe this inherent instability of nothing caused matter to be spontaneously created and then destroyed a few trillion times. Maybe, this one time (at band camp) two sets of particles were created simultaneously such that it allowed two matter particles to combine in preference to the recombination of two particle/anti-particle pairs. Maybe big bang resulted.

Maybe this is far fetched. Maybe not. What is for sure though is that at some random point, a set of initial conditions arose which prevented the particle/anti-particle pairs from recombining and giving rise to the creation of the universe.

However, one thing is for sure. There's some experimental evidence for at least some of this theory - which is more than I can say for the existence of god - for which there is none whatsoever.

[ghoulslime]

Seriously, Andrew66, why not direct some of that cognition towards discovering truth, instead of performing mental acrobats so that reality will seem to fit into your fantasy world view?

[Davin]

Krauss' "nothing" is different from the Christian "nothing" because Krauss honestly describes his nothing, while Christians say that nothing is absolutely nothing... except their god. Unless they are to say that their god is nothing and therefore does not exist (and thereby still haven't answered the question they pretend to answer), or that their nothing isn't really absolutely nothing either.

The problem, like with all theistic arguments, is that they are special pleading when it comes to their god. They say "nothing can come from nothing" while adding later, "except for god, of course." They can't help but to contradict themselves.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

Just like Krauss says - the only form of nothing that christians accept is their form. The christian nothing is a form from which nothing can happen. The problem with this form of nothing is that, because nothing can happen, nothing does. So the universe never gets created nor do we - WITHOUT god (Oh, how convenient for you christians because now you have a god to worship).

Hi Mondrian

I think you are incorrectly reading a formalized religious intent in my argument, and from that you are misinterpreting it.

What I mean to say is that Christians, Muslim or Jews would likely, at first glance, object to the argument. The reason..., the argument contends that a Higher Power (which I say may be called God) may have an origin itself, through a type of ancient cosmic evolution. All monotheistic religions attest that a fully complex and functioning God simply exists without explanation. This belief (of a ready formed Deity) has always been the weakest spot IMO in religious apologetics, as well pointed out by Professor Dawkins in his book the God Delusion (see 747 gambit).

With regards to Krauss, if his "nothing is unstable" - then it is simply not truly "nothing" - as true "nothing" (meaning absolute non-existence) has no properties whatsoever. It does not take a religious individual to understand or appreciate that. Can you explain how a true "nothing" (non-existence) can have a property of any kind or a potential to cause things to happen?

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Krauss' "nothing" is different from the Christian "nothing" because Krauss honestly describes his nothing, while Christians say that nothing is absolutely nothing... except their god.

Krauss does honestly describe his "nothing" However, it is clear that Krauss's nothing, as he describes it, has properties and agency which is still "something" and therefore not true "nothing" (as in, non being, or true non-existence).

Even if we extrapolate the meaning of Krauss's nothing to encompass absolute non-being, where Krauss could say non-being is simply unstable.. this does not harm the argument as I have proposed. This "law" (non-existence is unstable) could offer explanation to the "eternal agency" which is required to give fuel to the argument in premises 1 and 2.

In other words, if complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then it follows that there was always existence (hence premise 1).

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Krauss does honestly describe his "nothing" However, it is clear that Krauss's nothing, as he describes it, has properties and agency which is still "something" and therefore not true "nothing" (as in, non being, or true non-existence).

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "agency" in this context? Because that is extremely queer usage.

Andrew66 wrote

Even if we extrapolate the meaning of Krauss's nothing to encompass absolute non-being, where Krauss could say non-being is simply unstable.. this does not harm the argument as I have proposed. This "law" (non-existence is unstable) could offer explanation to the "eternal agency" which is required to give fuel to the argument in premises 1 and 2.

In other words, if complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then it follows that there was always existence (hence premise 1).

This has little to do with premise 1:

1) Existence is infinite or eternal. True non existence has no potential to produce anything Since we can attest that things obviously do exist, existence must therefore be eternal.

The logic does not follow that existence must be eternal just because things exist. And Krauss' argument has nothing to say about the length of time things that exist must exist for. One does not lead to the other, there is a huge chasm and I don't trust what you call a bridge.

[mondrian]

Andrew

Don't you get it?

It is illogical to apply the term 'eternal' to a pre-universe existence because time doesn't exist - not even for your god!

You said: 'In other words, if complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then it follows that there was always existence (hence premise 1).

This is typical of christian dogma.

If complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then all that follows is that complete and utter non-existence is unstable - NOT that an eternal agency exists.

Non-existence didn't suddenly become unstable and the universe come into being. Non-existence is, of itself, unstable. An agency is therefore unnecessary.

The illogical arguments that you, and others, put forward are aimed at destroying scientific theory. Then, even though you fail, you announce that you have and then, via a giant illogical step, announce that, as a result, god must therefore exist.

[mondrian]

Obviously a christian

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "agency" in this context? Because that is extremely queer usage.

What is meant is that Krauss's nothing inherently has agency - in that Krauss's "nothing" does things, or makes things happen (e.g., invokes quantum fluctuations etc.)

That is why most critics of Krauss's work, regardless of their religious convictions, agree that Krauss's nothing is not really "nothing" (in the sense of complete non-being, or utter non-existence).

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

If complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then all that follows is that complete and utter non-existence is unstable - NOT that an eternal agency exists.

Non-existence didn't suddenly become unstable and the universe come into being. Non-existence is, of itself, unstable. An agency is therefore unnecessary.

My point is that - yes, even if I grant that non-existence may be, in and of itself unstable, if so, IT IS THIS INSTABILITY which becomes the agency. If non-existence was "stable", than there would be no capacity for change or agency (i.e. from utter non-existence), and we wouldn't be here writing on this post!

But still, I don't think it reasonable that in the history or pre-history of the Multiverse,there could have ever been a state of affairs which was comprised of utter and total non-existence - as it is absurd to bequeath a property (such as instability) to a non-existent state. - IT doesn't exist!!