Why something rather than nothing?

Jimble · 10-11-2010, 03:30 PM

I dimly remember an article explaining that emptiness is very unstable, and that if you did have an empty universe it wouldn't be so for long. Any physics majors out there to help me out? Choob?

I'd let it lie only i've heard so many theists use the first cause or "something rather than nothing" argument as the basis for their belief. Since we can explain complex biology with evolution, disprove the time-scale of the scriptures and show the universe to be much larger than any superstitious bronze age people guessed, i'm thinking this could be another large pillar of faith-justification I'd like to learn how to knock down.

ILOVEJESUS · 10-12-2010, 02:35 AM

Theistic arguments don't explain how this God came from nothing. It is expected he was always around. Following that trail of thought you could expect the universe(s) to have been around for all time too. The big bang may just be a continual cycle of bangs. I watched an interesting documentery regarding nothing. What exactlt is nothing? Turns out you should really describe nothing in different ways.Absalute nothing is very difficult to prove as there are bound to be the odd photon involved in seeing it. Anyone see a cat in a box somewhere??

Ex Atheist · 10-12-2010, 10:37 AM

Its pure speculation that multiple bangs occured , just like String Theory , Multi-Universes, et al, ad nauseum. Looking at what WE DO HAVE with over 150 plus extremely narrow scientifically defined Physics Constants to our Cosmos which are ALL needed working collaboratively with each other so Earth can be here to support life... is proof enough for the rational person that great PERSONAL willingness and mighty power was behind the fashioning of our Universe ... something that could not and did not come from an accidental huge explosion lest an explosion in a printing shop can produce a fully functioning typewriter that cranked out the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 . I dont have that much faith in 'naturalism' and 'materialism' , and I suspect no one else does either.

Irreligious · 10-12-2010, 10:38 AM

And what do you have to offer that is not speculative?

nkb · 10-12-2010, 10:46 AM

Ho hum. I bet he thinks the fine-tuning argument is compelling. Yawn.

ILOVEJESUS · 10-12-2010, 11:16 AM

I stated clearly "MAY" my good man. If I could prove exactly that Roger Penrose is correct I would be in line for the Nobel prize no doubt. Any science pointing away from the traditional standard view of the cosmos , certainly, is not proving the existance of a divine power. It is actually ellaborating ways that nature can itself be self replicating. Also a very interesting view of universes following almost Darwinian laws of evolution came from another doc I watched.
Ex Atheist you must understand that you can put God into any equation. Trouble is it proves nothing as it is unprovable. You cannot build a detector to find the God particle for example.....er wrong analogy.

lostsheep · 10-12-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Ho hum. I bet he thinks the fine-tuning argument is compelling. Yawn.

He also referred to the hackneyed "monkeys typing Shakespeare" analogy for evolution, which clearly indicates he doesn't have a clue about modern scientific theories. I am waiting for Pascal's wager....

Ex Atheist · 10-13-2010, 07:30 AM

Quote:

lostsheep wrote

He also referred to the hackneyed "monkeys typing Shakespeare" analogy for evolution, which clearly indicates he doesn't have a clue about modern scientific theories. I am waiting for Pascal's wager....

Thank you for identifying them as T H E O R I E S (unproven fact) . Tell us how a huge accidental explosion of materials gave us a personal 206 bone/600 muscle Human anatomy where there are some 60 different internal systems all working in unison with each other so we can live and enjoy life . The fairy tale is the one that alleged 'atheists' have to force themselves to play due to pride, arrogance, and a likeness for rebellion. Its a personal conjob like no other.

. Give God the glory and have real hope for a wonderful next residence.

Jimble · 10-13-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Theistic arguments don't explain how this God came from nothing. It is expected he was always around. Following that trail of thought you could expect the universe(s) to have been around for all time too. The big bang may just be a continual cycle of bangs. I watched an interesting documentery regarding nothing. What exactlt is nothing? Turns out you should really describe nothing in different ways.Absalute nothing is very difficult to prove as there are bound to be the odd photon involved in seeing it. Anyone see a cat in a box somewhere??

Oh i dont agree with people who say "look all this wonderful unlikeliness, it must have been an even more unlikely being that created it."
Since "The universe began! therefore someone started it", misses the point that when did God begin? And if he is everlasting, it's simpler and more truthful to just imagine the universe always was.

I was just hoping someone remembered/knew more about the "unstable nothingness" article.

Quote:

Ex Atheist wrote

Its pure speculation that multiple bangs occured , just like String Theory , Multi-Universes, et al, ad nauseum. Looking at what WE DO HAVE with over 150 plus extremely narrow scientifically defined Physics Constants to our Cosmos which are ALL needed working collaboratively with each other so Earth can be here to support life... is proof enough for the rational person that great PERSONAL willingness and mighty power was behind the fashioning of our Universe ... something that could not and did not come from an accidental huge explosion lest an explosion in a printing shop can produce a fully functioning typewriter that cranked out the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 . I dont have that much faith in 'naturalism' and 'materialism' , and I suspect no one else does either.

Have you heard of the anthropic principle? It seems much more satisfying and true to me to say that because we are made from complex chemistry, of course we're here in a universe just right for stars and planets to be generated by laws of physics that create complex chemistry.
It seems like a puddle being amazed it's sat in a hole in the ground the right shape for it. It may be an uncommon set of variables that allows for intelligent life but since we're intelligent life it obviously does happen. It may be an unlikely event, but many physicists think it isn't a ridiculous idea to think that there could be many universes, and if this is true then we're just in one that could allow complex life to evolve.
Theories like string theory may be lacking in physical evidence but they fit with an awful lot of observed phenomena.
mighty power was behind the fashioning of our Universe. I agree. But i don't see why that power needs to be intelligent. Or have a personality, let alone an interest in us.

Jimble · 10-13-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Ex Atheist wrote

Thank you for identifying them as T H E O R I E S (unproven fact) . Tell us how a huge accidental explosion of materials gave us a personal 206 bone/600 muscle Human anatomy where there are some 60 different internal systems all working in unison with each other so we can live and enjoy life . The fairy tale is the one that alleged 'atheists' have to force themselves to play due to pride, arrogance, and a likeness for rebellion. Its a personal conjob like no other.

. Give God the glory and have real hope for a wonderful next residence.

What he referred to was scientific theories, in science a term used to describe a large body of evidence that was checked and double checked under strict conditions by many different people trying their best to prove it wrong, that also fits with all other things understood to be true by the same process.
NOT the colloqiual definition of theory, like some idea i just had.
A huge accidental explosion, given that it has some inital irregularity, will form into large masses due to gravity. these will then start a process of creating more complex molecules all on their own, if you put enough matter in one place. They explode or collapse when finished with their fuel, and this is how complex chemistry is churning through the cosmos.
The start of life may be a rare occurance, but given that there are something like 100,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy, and 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe, many of which have lifespans that dwarf the current age of the universe, you can see how long odds can happen all over the place, if the place is big enough.
Darwin's theory of natural selection, improved and understood to a much greater degree now than he ever knew, takes over from there to show how very simple self-replicating randomly mutated things will be selected for by non-random events in the universe, and in their interactions. This will eventually lead to much more complex organisms with interesting character patterns and stuctures that allow them to replicate themselves effectively.
If you don't believe this I implore you to read richard dawkin's (not his religious books) books on evolution, especially the selfish gene. Learn about DNA and game theory if you dont already to see how plasible evolution is, it's a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory.

I think it sounds like you grew up with religion and take it for granted as true. I myself grew up with no theistic ideas, and so you see people like me aren't rebelling against some sky-daddy, we never had one. We don't believe he's there at all, never did.
And we've never been persuaded one is there. Seeing as you have, Ex Atheist, please could you describe the experience/argument that persuaded you? Seeing as I just explained the formation of my opinion to you

I'd be interested in hearing about it.

nkb · 10-13-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Ex Atheist wrote

Thank you for identifying them as T H E O R I E S (unproven fact) . Tell us how a huge accidental explosion of materials gave us a personal 206 bone/600 muscle Human anatomy where there are some 60 different internal systems all working in unison with each other so we can live and enjoy life . The fairy tale is the one that alleged 'atheists' have to force themselves to play due to pride, arrogance, and a likeness for rebellion. Its a personal conjob like no other.

. Give God the glory and have real hope for a wonderful next residence.

Are you a troll or an ignorant moron? I don't think there is anything in between.

Spend even five minutes researching what "scientific theory" means. Hint: it's not the same as the colloquial "I got a theory about Ex Atheist, he was an asshole baby, which would explain the shit-fer-brains."

Come on, I dare you to actually put in an effort to understand what you are arguing against, instead of mindlessly parroting apologist bullshit.

Edit: Jimble beat me to it.

ghoulslime · 10-13-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Are you a troll or an ignorant moron?

My guess is that he is a troll and an ignorant moron.

lostsheep · 10-13-2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Ex Atheist wrote

Thank you for identifying them as T H E O R I E S (unproven fact) . Tell us how a huge accidental explosion of materials gave us a personal 206 bone/600 muscle Human anatomy where there are some 60 different internal systems all working in unison with each other so we can live and enjoy life . The fairy tale is the one that alleged 'atheists' have to force themselves to play due to pride, arrogance, and a likeness for rebellion. Its a personal conjob like no other.

. Give God the glory and have real hope for a wonderful next residence.

What Jimble said.

And: "unproven fact"=scientific theory....Really? Please educate yourself about science rather than continue to make an idiot of yourself.

And: "real hope"....is that like almost certain? So are you sure you are going to get an awesome afterlife, or are you just hopeful? I am hoping to win the lottery, myself. I think my chances are better than your bet on an afterlife, sorry to say. Hope for an afterlife kept me in the belief stage of my life for longer than I might have otherwise have lasted.

Sternwallow · 10-14-2010, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Jimble wrote

I dimly remember an article explaining that emptiness is very unstable, and that if you did have an empty universe it wouldn't be so for long. Any physics majors out there to help me out? Choob?

I'd let it lie only i've heard so many theists use the first cause or "something rather than nothing" argument as the basis for their belief. Since we can explain complex biology with evolution, disprove the time-scale of the scriptures and show the universe to be much larger than any superstitious bronze age people guessed, i'm thinking this could be another large pillar of faith-justification I'd like to learn how to knock down.

Lawrence Krauss explains very well on Youtube that there is never nothing for something to come from and there is always something even in places where everything has been removed.

Most of your own personal physical mass is the mass of the empty space between the subatomic particles in your body. Again, see Krauss for fuller explanation.

Sternwallow · 10-14-2010, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Ex Atheist wrote

Its pure speculation that multiple bangs occured , just like String Theory , Multi-Universes, et al, ad nauseum. Looking at what WE DO HAVE with over 150 plus extremely narrow scientifically defined Physics Constants to our Cosmos which are ALL needed working collaboratively with each other so Earth can be here to support life... is proof enough for the rational person that great PERSONAL willingness and mighty power was behind the fashioning of our Universe ... something that could not and did not come from an accidental huge explosion lest an explosion in a printing shop can produce a fully functioning typewriter that cranked out the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 . I dont have that much faith in 'naturalism' and 'materialism' , and I suspect no one else does either.

What is not pure speculation is that the total energy in the universe is precisely zero, therefore, no power was required to bring it into existence.

You are making a mistake that naturalism or materialism involves faith. They both rely on knowlege so, if you do not accept them, it would be because you lack knowledge, not faith.

You are apparently unaware that there are many self-organizing systems. Crystal growth is one very simple example, increasingly complex chemical molecules are another. Given the amount of material available at the BB and some 13.7 Billion years, a tool-making and self-aware organism will form with 100% certainty. Remember that evolution is not random so the fact that things started with an explosion became irrelevant almost immediately in geologic terms.

The physical constants you refer to, a few of which describe aspects that permit galaxies and planets and stars and life, are not, in fact all constants so, at a point in time when these values are conducive to intelligent life it forms and asks questions about itself. The critical values are not tuned "for" anything. They are empirically determined characteristics of reality.

If the tenth digit of Pi was anything but 3, the universe would be curved (it is actually flat) and life as we know it would be impossible. It is illogical to deduce that 3 was deliberately chosen so that intelligent life could appear. It is even less logical to further deduce that a deliberate chooser would be required.

The critical "constants" were not fine tuned for anything.

So you might consider thinking scientifically about scientific questions. Faith is not a virtue; it is a vice.