QED wrote:muhammad rasullah wrote:
You can't have something from nothing.
Really? Are there any exceptions to this? What about God for example? And if God is thought to be some kind of eternal, necessary being -- why are we supposing it takes a "being" to create things? Hills and rainfall create rivers -- so why not posit eternal, necessary equivalents to "hills and rainfall"? Isn't it rather childish to suppose that it takes some sort of "big man in the sky" to magic
even more stuff up from nothing?
Besides, here's a small selection of things that can be considered to be something from nothing:
1) Virtual particles (as evidenced by the
Casimir Effect).
2)
Spontaneous Symmetry breaking in QFT
3) When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (subtract the parts and contemplate the magnitude of the remainder).
And in case it is felt that for time to have a beginning, there must be an insitgator for the event, the
"no-boundary'' proposal of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking adjusts our perspective on time such that the apparent begininng of the universe stretches to eternity.
muhammad rasullah wrote:
Can you teach someone who is all-knowing?
Who's that person supposed to be? If it's a "God" then why bother creating a world if it is known in every minute detail in advance how it will unfold? However, if it is populated by free-agents then God is not all-knowing -- in time God could come to
learn that nobody believes in him any more
muhammad rasullah wrote:
It is kind of hard to believe that languages evolved from grunting and pointing when language is a learned behavior for humans. If nowone ever spoke any language around a baby I don't think he would learn how to speak he'll just be pointing and grunting.
People with certain genetic defects have specific difficulties with speech and grammar. From this we can see that our capacity for language is inherited (if we didn't already expect such a thing). Given that efficient communicators were more likely to pass on their genes, we can expect positive physiological developments towards efficient communication in our genome.
QED wrote:Really? Are there any exceptions to this? What about God for example? And if God is thought to be some kind of eternal, necessary being -- why are we supposing it takes a "being" to create things? Hills and rainfall create rivers -- so why not posit eternal, necessary equivalents to "hills and rainfall"? Isn't it rather childish to suppose that it takes some sort of "big man in the sky" to magic even more stuff up from nothing?
The only exception is God!
2:255 Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). - English
In order for something to exist it needs to be created first! The word create means to bring something new into existence.
QED wrote:Hills and rainfall create rivers -- so why not posit eternal, necessary equivalents to "hills and rainfall"?
Who created the hills and the clouds for rainfall?
7:57 It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden CLOUDS, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.
QED wrote:Besides, here's a small selection of things that can be considered to be something from nothing:
In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is
a physical force exerted between separate objects due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.
If you have two seperate objects how can this be considered nothing. Without these objects there would be no Casimir effect. So this is not something evolving from nothing.
Again SCience has no proof or substantial evidence of this occurance. These things suggested are merely theories.
The framework for formulating the physical laws that govern the world at microscopic length-scales - the physics of the micro-world, for instance of atoms, atomic nuclei or elementary particles, but also the physics of ultra-precise measurements such as those made by gravitational wave detectors.
The laws of quantum theory are fundamentally different from our everyday experience and from those of classical physics.
The first unusual feature is that, in many cases,
quantum theory merely allows statements about probabilities. For instance, in classical physics, one can assign to every particle, at every point in time, a location and a velocity. Whosoever can measure those quantities precisely can, in principle, predict where the particle in question can be found at every point in the future.
http://www.einsteinonline.info/en/navMe ... tum_theory
In no way is this evidence of the origin from where these particles come?
singularity theorems
Theorems, proved by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, that state under which circumstances singularities are inevitable in general relativity. As the theorems assume the laws of general relativity and certain general properties of matter, but nothing else, they are valid quite generally.
In particular, these theorems prove that, in the frame-work of general relativity, every black hole must contain a singularity, and every expanding universe like ours must have begun in a big bang singularity.
Question, where did the black hole come from? how did it get there?
Bismillahir rahmaanir Raheem \"In The Name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful\"
