A Universe from Nothing…

[FWI]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

That statement, and the post in general, suggests that the universe was created specifically for life on Earth as we know it to exist.

I congratulate you on your perspicacity!

not that the universe, or more specifically the conditions at the surface of planet Earth, were tailored beforehand with a "plan" to support life on our tiny world. At least there is no reason to believe such a thing.

a plan, forethought, purpose, anticipation.. that would be one possible explanation for something that is proving very difficult to explain by chance- as well as a lot of other unsolved problems

The fact that we don't yet know exactly HOW the first populations of living things came to be on Earth does not imply anything at all about whether physical laws were "tuned" or not to support it. It just means we don't yet know the mechanism. Life developed on Earth because the conditions happened to be right for it, not the other way around (which seems to be what you are suggesting).

The problem of life, we now know, is an information problem- like everything else

how do you create a sophisticated, hierarchical, digital information system, complete with hardware/software, self replication and error checking in order to get the whole system of a diverse biosphere up and running in the first place..

We DO know of a mechanism that is absolutely proven to be able to create such systems- we just don't know of any materialistic/naturalistic process that could do it

Intelligence is a real phenomena, supernatural or not, it works- it can achieve things that materialistic processes never can, it can swim against the current of entropy,it leaves scientifically verifiable, objective telltale fingerprints. I think that's probably what we are looking at here.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 12 by Filthy Tugboat]

Are you saying these things pre-existed? God didn't create minerals and space? I am very confused at your standpoint. If God exists but didn't create minerals and space, where did they come from?

I'm sorry that you may be confused, related to my standpoint. I accept responsibility on my end, but I have no control over how my comments may be perceived, which may be outside my intent.

God is omnipresent, which means that He exists everywhere at once. Thus, God is infinite or Infinity…So, within Infinity there exists at least one realm or a closed system of space, which the Intelligence and Power of the Infinity created. This space is known as the universe, which celestial and physical life exists in. God also created the laws of this universe, required forces, life, all necessary elements, minerals and rocks, included in this universe. There is nothing that exists, which came to be, which is outside the power of God.

There are many reasons why people die, it has very little to do with virtue.

I disagree…Death, in most cases is a result of human interactions. Where, virtue plays the main role. If, the whole human race were to exhibit moral excellence and righteousness (virtue), then death would be eradicated…The bible records that some peoples lived hundreds of years. But, because of a lack of virtue, God decided to put a limit on physical life, which is about a hundred and twenty years. However, very few even come close to that age. Yet, the belief in immortality or life after death is closely tied to virtue. Since, God limited the span of life, because of a lack of virtue, He surely could decide to extend that span, if humans (as a whole) were to gasp onto moral excellence and righteousness.

Society at large of course, who else?

I would also need to question this…How, would moral excellence and righteousness equate with "societies at large," where wars, human trafficking, drugs/alcohol, murder, thievery, lying and many other vices exist? There has always been problems created, when humans begin to decide what is right and what is wrong.[/quote]

[Filthy Tugboat]

Are you saying these things pre-existed? God didn't create minerals and space? I am very confused at your standpoint. If God exists but didn't create minerals and space, where did they come from?

I'm sorry that you may be confused, related to my standpoint. I accept responsibility on my end, but I have no control over how my comments may be perceived, which may be outside my intent.

God is omnipresent, which means that He exists everywhere at once. Thus, God is infinite or Infinity…So, within Infinity there exists at least one realm or a closed system of space, which the Intelligence and Power of the Infinity created. This space is known as the universe, which celestial and physical life exists in. God also created the laws of this universe, required forces, life, all necessary elements, minerals and rocks, included in this universe. There is nothing that exists, which came to be, which is outside the power of God.

This is far more in line with typical theistic beliefs, I was shocked with what you wrote earlier that God needed other things to be pre-existent to make the universe.

Even, if it would be true that God used a type of "big bang" to bring about our universe, there would need to be "space" to begin with and then the required minerals to bring about the physical spheres that would come about.

I disagree…Death, in most cases is a result of human interactions. Where, virtue plays the main role. If, the whole human race were to exhibit moral excellence and righteousness (virtue), then death would be eradicated…The bible records that some peoples lived hundreds of years. But, because of a lack of virtue, God decided to put a limit on physical life, which is about a hundred and twenty years. However, very few even come close to that age. Yet, the belief in immortality or life after death is closely tied to virtue. Since, God limited the span of life, because of a lack of virtue, He surely could decide to extend that span, if humans (as a whole) were to gasp onto moral excellence and righteousness.

Is this anything other than speculation and conjecture?

I would also need to question this…How, would moral excellence and righteousness equate with "societies at large," where wars, human trafficking, drugs/alcohol, murder, thievery, lying and many other vices exist? There has always been problems created, when humans begin to decide what is right and what is wrong.

What is the alternative? All of these things exist whether God determines morality or societies do, so if you think this is a failing of humans striving towards righteousness and excellence does that mean you are also accusing God of failing at striving towards excellence and righteousness?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by Guy Threepwood]

We DO know of a mechanism that is absolutely proven to be able to create such systems- we just don't know of any materialistic/naturalistic process that could do it

Yes ... we know that on the small scales of human creations (eg. one of your favorite analogies the Rosetta Stone) that intelligent beings are behind them. So I'd agree that one possibility for "creation" of the universe, or life on Earth, could be some unknown, intelligent being of some sort. It is a possibility.

But what is the probability of that given that no such entities have ever been identified to exist? You can postulate their existence all day long, but given that we have seen natural processes produce amazing things (like a fully-formed human from a fertilized egg), and many other examples from chemistry, physics, biological systems etc., doesn't it seem far more likely that some set of physical processes is responsible? At least we can see these kinds of things happening all around us, while the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist at all.

Open scientific questions are always ripe for speculation (origin of the universe, origin of life on Earth, etc.). Unfortunately, this leaves the window open for supernatural hypotheses as well as sensible ones, but only one of these two has a chance to be confirmed by experiment and observation. So far, supernatural explanations for anything have never panned out, so there is good reason to expect that to continue.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 34 by DrNoGods]

Yes ... we know that on the small scales of human creations (eg. one of your favorite analogies the Rosetta Stone) that intelligent beings are behind them. So I'd agree that one possibility for "creation" of the universe, or life on Earth, could be some unknown, intelligent being of some sort. It is a possibility.

I think that is very reasonable of you, some rule it out entirely under the laws of methodological naturalism....

But if you don't rule it out entirely, that's where the "HELP' on the beach with rocks comes in, where given even the slightest chance of existing, however improbable, creative intelligence becomes the less improbable answer . That's not a 'slam-dunk' for God in itself of course- just an analogy

But what is the probability of that given that no such entities have ever been identified to exist?

same can be said for multiverses, M theory, string theory, so that's a wash is it not?

where the beach analogy generously grants the materialistic lotto mechanism 100%, and still falls short of 'most probable'

amazing things (like a fully-formed human from a fertilized egg),

which is where the watchmaker argument comes in- sophisticated automated function does not necessarily denote automated origin ..., I believe the opposite argument can be better made when we trace such processes to their origins. "Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist at all.
Unfortunately, this leaves the window open for supernatural hypotheses
So far, supernatural explanations for anything have never panned out

Is that why you label ID supernatural? wouldn't that be a circular argument?


But correct me if I am wrong so far:

you do not consider the phenomena of intelligence itself to be supernatural (some do)
you acknowledge that creative intelligence & natural processes BOTH exist as real entities within this universe, & with different objectively discernible capabilities & fingerprints (e.g. Mount Rushmore v Old Man of Hoy)

And you don't consider non-human intelligence to be inherently supernatural- e.g. source of a SETI signal as we talked about

And you also allow, as I do and we all must, the possibility of phenomena of some kind being able to transcend physical reality as we can experience it, observe it, test it, in order to be able to account for that same reality.. e.g. multiverses & 'imaginary time' as Hawking coined it, to allow events of some kind to happen


...So an intelligent creator of our universe, does not violate any principle that you already accept as perfectly 'natural', it's only when a certain combination is presented- that the conclusion becomes 'supernatural' and assumes a special burden of proof..

So my question to you is: What is the objective reason for singling out just this particular combination of accepted 'natural' principles as 'supernatural' and so by your definition of it, less plausible?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 34 by DrNoGods]

and for our Twain v. Twain debate:

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.
Mark Twain

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 35 by Guy Threepwood]

So my question to you is: What is the objective reason for singling out just this particular combination of accepted 'natural' principles as 'supernatural' and so by your definition of it, less plausible?

The simple fact that naturalistic explanations, to date, have successfully explained nature while supernatural explanations (gods, for example) have never once been shown to be the correct explanation. The gaps needing "god did it" explanations have continued to shrink over time and I think that will continue.

In my opinion, intelligence in any animal, including humans, is the product of normal brain activity and not something supernatural or magic. The fact the human brain is about 3.5x larger than a chimp brain and is 80% neocortex vs. 50% in a chimp, gives us 5.5x more neocortex volume and can partially explain why our intelligence level is so much higher. The ability to build on prior intellectual achievements is another factor. A Homo sapien today would be considered far more intelligent than a Homo sapien from 200,000 year ago not because of brain structure or volume, or ability to learn, but because today's humans have the cumulative knowledge of the past to start from. Chimps do too, but their base of knowledge and capacity to learn are both orders of magnitude smaller.

So I'll grant that "intelligent design" exists in the world and that humans can design things intelligently at the level of present human capabilities, but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to claim that there is some sort of supernatural higher intelligence that is responsible for creating the universe, or life on earth. This is allowed to be proposed because we don't yet have proven naturalistic answers, but like prior "god of the gaps" situations I think it is still far more probable that we'll find those answers in science and naturalistic processes than in some god-like intelligent being. No such entity has shown itself to exist yet, and humans have invented literally thousands of them. Naturalistic explanations continue to advance and are real. Some of the things you mentioned (eg. multiverses) are just open hypotheses and not yet demonstrated to be correct, so I wouldn't put any weight on those kinds of things either.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by Guy Threepwood]

If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.

He was also a jokester. Obviously, some things in the newspaper are true and some are not. But if you don't continually read and learn new things you are always worse off than someone who does.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 37 by DrNoGods]

The gaps needing "god did it" explanations have continued to shrink over time and I think that will continue.

Au contraire! I think that was a far more compelling argument for naturalism 150 years ago- or even when I grew up.

In Darwin's day physics was reduced to a handful of simple 'immutable' laws

Cells were indistinct blobs of protoplasm that presumably copied themselves similarly, through simple processes (not sophisticated digital information systems and tiny nanomachines)

And the Cambrian explosion was a mere artifact of an incomplete record to be filled in later..

not so long ago- the universe was simple/static- the Big Bang was 'religious pseudoscience' which couldn't even 'be described in scientific terms..'

These gaps have all grown far larger ever since.

Of course we have found more and more sophisticated mechanisms in nature to explain certain phenomena, but again automated function in no way even hints at automated origin:

By that rationale, opening a watch and discovering intricate workings instead of a little man turning the hands, means that arguing ID to create those workings, is an 'argument from the gaps' !?

I suppose it is, and likewise a much bigger gap than before opening it

So I'll grant that "intelligent design" exists in the world and that humans can design things intelligently at the level of present human capabilities, but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to claim that there is some sort of supernatural higher intelligence that is responsible for creating the universe, or life on earth. This is allowed to be proposed because we don't yet have proven naturalistic answers, but like prior "god of the gaps" situations I think it is still far more probable that we'll find those answers in science and naturalistic processes than in some god-like intelligent being. No such entity has shown itself to exist yet, and humans have invented literally thousands of them. Naturalistic explanations continue to advance and are real. Some of the things you mentioned (eg. multiverses) are just open hypotheses and not yet demonstrated to be correct, so I wouldn't put any weight on those kinds of things either

well that was my question; what makes ID 'supernatural' ,in your mind, compared to any other explanation?

which is more supernatural?

a rabbit spontaneously appearing in a hat

or simply being put there by someone beforehand?

how about mount Rushmore spontaneously forming - or being planned and sculpted?


it depends on context of course, right?

so what context, what precedent are you using, what do you know about how universes are 'usually created' that allows you to impose this 'default expectation' rule?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 39 by Guy Threepwood]

I think that was a far more compelling argument for naturalism 150 years ago- or even when I grew up.

You're not going back near far enough in time or considering nearly enough phenomena. Gods were invented by humans long before any of the recent events you are describing. Many of these gods were invented to explain things that science could not such as thunder and lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, famines, the movement of celestial bodies, etc. Virtually all of these things are now explained by science, thus eliminating the need to invoke a god being as the explanation. And the most popular god today was conceived over 2000 years ago when science could still not explain any of these things. Gaps that need a god explanation are shrinking, not expanding, and your handful of bad examples (or rather, badly described) doesn't change that fact.

well that was my question; what makes ID 'supernatural' ,in your mind, compared to any other explanation?

Simply that there is no entity or natural "thing" that can be assigned as the source of this postulated ID, therefore it must be supernatural ... it doesn't exist in the natural world that we know of. It is purely a hypothesis that so far has no experimental evidence for its existence, or any other method whereby it can be identified to actually exist. The rabbit in the hat and Mt. Rushmore examples are just more comments along the lines of "if it appears to be designed then it must therefore be designed."

so what context, what precedent are you using, what do you know about how universes are 'usually created' that allows you to impose this 'default expectation' rule?

I never think much about universe creation because we don't know enough about how that actually did happen to do anything but use our best theories to extrapolate and infer (eg. the Big Bang). And that is fine ... it provides a framework within which to continue to try and find the answer. I start 4.6 billion years ago at the formation of our solar system, because we do know a lot about how that actually happened and we don't need so much speculation. And on this planet we don't need to invoke gods or supernatural beings to explain things anymore. I prefer the naturalistic approach for the simple reason that it works, and has been proven to be the correct explanation over and over and over again as in the examples I mentioned above. In contrast, gods or other supernatural explanations have never been shown to be a correct explanation. Never. Not once. That, alone, is sufficient justification for the belief that naturalistic explanations will eventually prevail over supernatural ones for problems that have yet to be solved. It has an infinitely better track record.