The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[seer]

. . . but the scientific 'nothing' is not 'no energy,' which you assert and fail to cite any physicist nor cosmologist that reaches your implied conclusion.

Still waiting . . .

I just did Shuny, nothing needs to pre-exist for spontaneous creation besides the "laws" of physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

[Carrikature]

What is the other portion of the hypothesis that he is leaving out?

The rest of existence.

Part of my belief in God stems from my work as a scientist. Is that shoehorning science into a theological claim?

Only if you use it as a proof.

Because if it is, then atheism cannot use science either. The idea that evolution argues against a deity is then no longer a viable argument.

I don't make such a claim. A lot of what we've learned from science casts significant doubt on the existence of a deity, but they aren't proofs. Things are what they are, no matter the belief in how they got that way.

The "sword of science" that many atheists use to justify their worldview cuts both ways...even if you don't like that it does.

What I 'like' never enters the discussion for me.

[element771]

The rest of existence.

Only if you use it as a proof.

WLC is not composing a proof. He is making an argument.

And he isn't ignoring the rest of existence, he is using a scientific finding that backs up his argument. That is how you develop an argument. If these issues were settled, then you would not need to have an argument...it would be self evident.

I don't make such a claim. A lot of what we've learned from science casts significant doubt on the existence of a deity, but they aren't proofs. Things are what they are, no matter the belief in how they got that way.

Again, it isn't supposed to be a proof...it is supposed to be an argument.

If I were to assemble as argument for why I believe, I would point to many scientific findings. That doesn't mean that I am using these as proofs.

[Kbertsche]

. . . but the scientific 'nothing' is not 'no energy,' which you assert and fail to cite any physicist nor cosmologist that reaches your implied conclusion.

Still waiting . . .

I have given you links and quotes. Seer has given you more links. I have tried to explain the physics to you. Sea of Red has tried to explain the physics to you. You continue to ignore our information and to deny reality.

You have been provided with everything you need to understand this. Either you are incapable of understanding it, or you refuse to understand it because you know it would prove you wrong. It really is quite simple, so I suspect the latter.

[Carrikature]

WLC is not composing a proof. He is making an argument.

And he isn't ignoring the rest of existence, he is using a scientific finding that backs up his argument. That is how you develop an argument. If these issues were settled, then you would not need to have an argument...it would be self evident.

He's using part of a finding and ignoring the bigger picture of the theorem.

Settled does not imply self-evident by any stretch of the imagination. That's a silly claim. A lot of things are 'settled' that are anything but self-evident.

Again, it isn't supposed to be a proof...it is supposed to be an argument.

If I were to assemble as argument for why I believe, I would point to many scientific findings. That doesn't mean that I am using these as proofs.

It certainly sounds like you are, yes. If you're basing any part of your belief on scientific findings, you're doing just that. Were you simply saying "this is why I believe what I believe", that would be one thing. To assemble an argument, especially philosophically, is to attempt to establish how things are based on various premises. Using any sort of scientific findings as those premises does constitute part of a proof. Have you forgotten geometry?

[shunyadragon]

I have given you links and quotes. Seer has given you more links. I have tried to explain the physics to you. Sea of Red has tried to explain the physics to you. You continue to ignore our information and to deny reality.

You have been provided with everything you need to understand this. Either you are incapable of understanding it, or you refuse to understand it because you know it would prove you wrong. It really is quite simple, so I suspect the latter.

I read the links, no statement that the sum of energy = zero is equivalent to 'no energy.' Seer is a mindless parrot when it comes to science, and he equates the 'absolute philosophical nothing' is equivalent to the scientific nothing. You have agreed that they are not equivalent. This actually is not the subject of the thread you have failed to address. Understanding is not the issue. Your sources do not make this statement. As you previously said it is 'implied,' and it is your wording not theirs. Cite it if, no energy,' is not your wording only.

Are you actually going to address the subject of the thread.

Still waiting . . .

[JimL]

But Jim, that is exactly what Vilenkin and the others are suggesting. http://www.astrosociety.org/publicat...-from-nothing/

I suggest you go back and re-read the link seer. It doesn't say that at all. For one thing its all conjecture, but here is what it says. First off, the energy itself out of which our universe was born, pre-existed the birth of the universe, so the universe itself came from that pre-existing energy, not from nothing. The question then becomes, where did that pre-existing energy come from? Then it becomes conjecture; "As crazy as it might seem, it may have come out of nothing. The meaning of nothing is ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.
So, like I said, its conjecture, it isn't known where the pre-existing energy came from, which means it isn't known whether the energy is past eternal or not, but as an answer to the specific case of our universe, it did not come from nothing, it came from the pre-existing energy. As far as the zero energy nature of our universe is concerned, it is only zero energy due to the counterbalancing effect that negative energy gravity has on positive energy.

[shunyadragon]

I suggest you go back and re-read the link seer. It doesn't say that at all. For one thing its all conjecture, but here is what it says. First off, the energy itself out of which our universe was born, pre-existed the birth of the universe, so the universe itself came from that pre-existing energy, not from nothing. The question then becomes, where did that pre-existing energy come from? Then it becomes conjecture; "As crazy as it might seem, it may have come out of nothing. The meaning of nothing is ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.
So, like I said, its conjecture, it isn't known where the pre-existing energy came from, which means it isn't known whether the energy is past eternal or not, but as an answer to the specific case of our universe, it did not come from nothing, it came from the pre-existing energy. As far as the zero energy nature of our universe is concerned, it is only zero energy due to the counterbalancing effect that negative energy gravity has on positive energy.

Very excellent point and well worded!!!!!

[Kbertsche]

I suggest you go back and re-read the link seer. It doesn't say that at all. For one thing its all conjecture, but here is what it says. First off, the energy itself out of which our universe was born, pre-existed the birth of the universe, so the universe itself came from that pre-existing energy, not from nothing. The question then becomes, where did that pre-existing energy come from? Then it becomes conjecture; "As crazy as it might seem, it may have come out of nothing. The meaning of nothing is ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.
So, like I said, its conjecture, it isn't known where the pre-existing energy came from, which means it isn't known whether the energy is past eternal or not, but as an answer to the specific case of our universe, it did not come from nothing, it came from the pre-existing energy. As far as the zero energy nature of our universe is concerned, it is only zero energy due to the counterbalancing effect that negative energy gravity has on positive energy.

No, you are badly misreading the article.

Filippenko says

Source: Filippenko

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition.

© Copyright Original Source

This is NOT talking about the Big Bang, but the moment of inflation, AFTER the Big Bang. The energy that he is talking about does not pre-exist our universe; it only pre-exists the moment of inflation.

Filippenko then asks,

Source: Filippenko

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing!

© Copyright Original Source

Note that again he is talking about energy before inflation, not before the Big Bang.

He further says,

Source: Filippenko

The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

© Copyright Original Source

Filippenko is hedging his bets here, and trying to cover a number of possibilities. But one possibility that he mentions is "nothing at all", which he says does not include a pre-existing vacuum or space-time. If there is no pre-existing vacuum, then there can be no pre-existing vacuum energy. Filippenko's "nothing at all" means no space, no time, no mass, no energy.

I don't understand why you and Shuny are so invested in the notion that energy must pre-exist the Big Bang. You (rightly) recognize that pre-existing energy is not "nothing at all". Do you think Filippenko doesn't recognize this? His description of "nothing at all" seems pretty comprehensive. It includes nothing physically describable, detectable, or measurable; this includes energy.

Perhaps Filippenko, Hawking, Guth, Krauss, et al aren't expressing this in exactly the formulaic words and phrases that you and Shuny want to hear. But they are doing something much better; they are explaining the concepts. If you can't understand these concepts, perhaps you should try to contact them to ask for clarification?

[shunyadragon]

No, you are badly misreading the article.

Filippenko says

Source: Filippenko

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition.

© Copyright Original Source

This is NOT talking about the Big Bang, but the moment of inflation, AFTER the Big Bang. The energy that he is talking about does not pre-exist our universe; it only pre-exists the moment of inflation.

Filippenko then asks,

Source: Filippenko

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing!

© Copyright Original Source

Note that again he is talking about energy before inflation, not before the Big Bang.

He further says,

Source: Filippenko

The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

© Copyright Original Source

Filippenko is hedging his bets here, and trying to cover a number of possibilities. But one possibility that he mentions is "nothing at all", which he says does not include a pre-existing vacuum or space-time. If there is no pre-existing vacuum, then there can be no pre-existing vacuum energy. Filippenko's "nothing at all" means no space, no time, no mass, no energy.

I don't understand why you and Shuny are so invested in the notion that energy must pre-exist the Big Bang. You (rightly) recognize that pre-existing energy is not "nothing at all". Do you think Filippenko doesn't recognize this? His description of "nothing at all" seems pretty comprehensive. It includes nothing physically describable, detectable, or measurable; this includes energy.

Perhaps Filippenko, Hawking, Guth, Krauss, et al aren't expressing this in exactly the formulaic words and phrases that you and Shuny want to hear. But they are doing something much better; they are explaining the concepts. If you can't understand these concepts, perhaps you should try to contact them to ask for clarification?

I believe the quotes from Filippenko's are incomplete, and the 'nothing at all,' should be takien into context of his entire view on the possibility of multiverses and the origins of universes.

Source: https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

© Copyright Original Source

The scientific 'nothing at all' in the above does not translate into 'no energy.' Filippenko's describes this science in terms of possibilities. and the possibility of 'nothing at all' in his view of the greater cosmos is a very dynamic cosmos where universes possibly form, and it does not equate with the philosophical 'nothing at all,' nor 'no energy.' If Quantum fluctuations occur, there is some kind of energy involved.

I never said energy must exist prior to the big bang, but I definitely do not agree that Krauss, Hawking, and Guth propose that 'no energy', existed prior to the big bang.

[Kbertsche]

. . . but the scientific 'nothing' is not 'no energy,' which you assert and fail to cite any physicist nor cosmologist that reaches your implied conclusion.

Still waiting . . .

Would you believe Victor Stenger's definition of "nothing"?

Source: Victor Stenger

This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing.

© Copyright Original Source

Or Michael Kaku?

Source: Michael Kaku

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Would you believe Victor Stenger's definition of "nothing"?

Source: Victor Stenger

This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing.

© Copyright Original Source

Or Michael Kaku?

Source: Michael Kaku

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.

© Copyright Original Source

I do not necessarily except your selective one sentence sound bite citations of scientists to justify your agenda. When a selective citing of Filippenko was offered. I provided a more complete citiation and another picture emerged. That has been a problem throughout this thread. Nonetheless, pretty much all the scientists cited propose that our universe began by natural processes from this 'nothing' as well as many if not an infinite numbers of other universes in multiverse scenario, whether their theories are ultimately falsifiable or not. This pretty much puts the claim of scientific evidence supporting WLC's arguments in the dumpster, because none of them propose that our universe, nor all possible universes were Created from 'absolute (Philosophical) nothingness.

All this discussion is interesting concerning different scientists understanding of the scientific nature of nothing in terms of the nature of our greater cosmos, but it does not address the subject of the thread, which you choose to ignore. The subject of the thread is whether the 'scientific evidence' supports WLC's Kalam cosmological arguments that the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, these "laws" again, are not physical things. They are not matter and energy. So yes matter and energy certainly would have an absolute beginning under the Vilenkin model.

As Filippenko and Pasachoff speculate (from your own link): “Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated.”

https://www.astrosociety.org/publica...-from-nothing/

In this understanding of “nothing” there was in fact "something", namely a vacuum teeming with quantum fluctuations.

And so we return to the fact that for as long as the possibly of these laws exists, WLC is not in a position to claim an absolute beginning to the universe ex nihilo. What he assumes to be settled science is not. Hence his Kalam Cosmological argument cannot be shown to be true.

[JimL]

No, you are badly misreading the article.

Filippenko says

Source: Filippenko

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition.

© Copyright Original Source

This is NOT talking about the Big Bang, but the moment of inflation, AFTER the Big Bang. The energy that he is talking about does not pre-exist our universe; it only pre-exists the moment of inflation.

Filippenko then asks,

Source: Filippenko

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing!

© Copyright Original Source

Note that again he is talking about energy before inflation, not before the Big Bang.

He further says,

Source: Filippenko

The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

© Copyright Original Source

Filippenko is hedging his bets here, and trying to cover a number of possibilities. But one possibility that he mentions is "nothing at all", which he says does not include a pre-existing vacuum or space-time. If there is no pre-existing vacuum, then there can be no pre-existing vacuum energy. Filippenko's "nothing at all" means no space, no time, no mass, no energy.

I don't understand why you and Shuny are so invested in the notion that energy must pre-exist the Big Bang. You (rightly) recognize that pre-existing energy is not "nothing at all". Do you think Filippenko doesn't recognize this? His description of "nothing at all" seems pretty comprehensive. It includes nothing physically describable, detectable, or measurable; this includes energy.

Yes, one possibility, according to Filippenko, is that the energy came from nothing at all, highly unlikely in my view, and another is that it came from a pre-existing vacuum. The fact that it is conjecture, that it isn't known where the energy came from, or whether or not it is past eternal, refutes WLC's Kalam cosmological argument.

Perhaps Filippenko, Hawking, Guth, Krauss, et al aren't expressing this in exactly the formulaic words and phrases that you and Shuny want to hear. But they are doing something much better; they are explaining the concepts. If you can't understand these concepts, perhaps you should try to contact them to ask for clarification?

Its seems to me Kbertsche that you are the one who hears only what you want to hear, ignoring that which you don't want to hear. Now, you can believe that energy, along with the universe, just popped into existence from out of nothing if you want, at this point its an argument that can not be positively refuted, its not observable one way or the other, but I prefer to base my reasoning on what we do know by experience, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing.

[seer]

I suggest you go back and re-read the link seer. It doesn't say that at all. For one thing its all conjecture, but here is what it says. First off, the energy itself out of which our universe was born, pre-existed the birth of the universe, so the universe itself came from that pre-existing energy, not from nothing. The question then becomes, where did that pre-existing energy come from? Then it becomes conjecture; "As crazy as it might seem, it may have come out of nothing. The meaning of nothing is ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.
So, like I said, its conjecture, it isn't known where the pre-existing energy came from, which means it isn't known whether the energy is past eternal or not, but as an answer to the specific case of our universe, it did not come from nothing, it came from the pre-existing energy. As far as the zero energy nature of our universe is concerned, it is only zero energy due to the counterbalancing effect that negative energy gravity has on positive energy.

Sorry Jim, I gave the wrong Vilenkin link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

But even in this link it says: it might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.

Nothing at all, as Vilenkin says in the You Tube link: no matter, no space, no time. And if there is no space or time where does this pre-existing energy live?