Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    ???

    As I've said throughout this thread, I believe that WLC is referring to this present universe in his Kalam argument.
    Yes WLC is referring to this present universe in his Kalam argument.

    That's exactly what Vilenkin refers to; the "universe" is the "entire connected spacetime region", and excludes any hypothetical universes which are disconnected from ours.
    Vilenkin suggests more than this. Whereas WLC comes to an ex nihilo “therefore God” conclusion, Vilenkin’s understanding of “nothing” is different. He argues that “the state of ‘nothing’ cannot be identified with absolute nothingness.

    His quantum tunnelling argument is described by the laws of quantum mechanics and, for him, "nothing" would be subject to these laws, i.e. the universe appears from an empty geometry (i.e. “nothing”).

    https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi...om_nothing.pdf
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi...om_nothing.pdf

      In short, as explained by colleague Alan Guth: “Putting [general relativity and quantum mechanics] together, one can imagine that the universe started in the total empty geometry – absolute nothingness – and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a nonempty state.” - 'The Inflationary Universe'.
      From your link:

      In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.
      Absolute nothingness, literally nothing. How Tass is that not moving closer to the doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        From your link:



        Absolute nothingness, literally nothing. How Tass is that not moving closer to the doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo?
        Back to you selective quote mining I see.

        Read the WHOLE link. Vilenkin is not talking about a literal “nothing” as per WLC. He’s talking about the vacuum (lack of space-time) from which the Universe (space-time) came into existence. Because even that kind of “nothing” still has the laws of QM (which can explain the origin of the Universe(s).
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Back to you selective quote mining I see.

          Read the WHOLE link. Vilenkin is not talking about a literal “nothing” as per WLC. He’s talking about the vacuum (lack of space-time) from which the Universe (space-time) came into existence. Because even that kind of “nothing” still has the laws of QM (which can explain the origin of the Universe(s).
          Actually I did read the link, and I have posted it in the past. Laws are not anything physical UNTIL they have matter and energy to act on. So that is nothing when it comes to matter and energy. Creation Ex Nihilo...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            ???

            As I've said throughout this thread, I believe that WLC is referring to this present universe in his Kalam argument. That's exactly what Vilenkin refers to; the "universe" is the "entire connected spacetime region", and excludes any hypothetical universes which are disconnected from ours.

            I think WLC and Vilenkin have essentially the same definition of "universe". I don't understand why you think there is a problem?!?
            And what does he mean by "the universes beginning can be described by quantum cosmology?" What is quantum cosmology prior to "the beginning of the universe?" In other words, how can that which has only to do with this spacetime describe the "beginning of this spacetime?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              And what does he mean by "the universes beginning can be described by quantum cosmology?" What is quantum cosmology prior to "the beginning of the universe?" In other words, how can that which has only to do with this spacetime describe the "beginning of this spacetime?
              I think he means that the laws of quantum mechanics (specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) describe how a small-mass particle can pop into existence for a short time. In principle, this would also describe a zero total mass-energy universe which pops into existence for a long time.

              (Quantum cosmology is not the same as quantum vacuum. I think some of your confusion comes from conflating the two.)
              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                I think he means that the laws of quantum mechanics (specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) describe how a small-mass particle can pop into existence for a short time. In principle, this would also describe a zero total mass-energy universe which pops into existence for a long time.
                But don't you agree that the laws of quantum mechanics, like Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle," can only be descriptive of that which already exist, not descriptive of how that which already exists began to exist. Or are you suggesting that the laws of quantum mechanics, according to Vilenkin, describes how a small-mass particle, or a universe, can pop into existence from out of absolutely nothing?
                (Quantum cosmology is not the same as quantum vacuum. I think some of your confusion comes from conflating the two.)
                Yes, I understand, and I may have misunderstood, it just seemed to me as though the 2 were being conflated in this discussion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Actually I did read the link, and I have posted it in the past. Laws are not anything physical UNTIL they have matter and energy to act on. So that is nothing when it comes to matter and energy. Creation Ex Nihilo...
                  But, they exist mathematically according to Vilenkin “The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunnelling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws also. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.” –Many Worlds in One.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    But, they exist mathematically according to Vilenkin “The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunnelling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws also. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.” –Many Worlds in One.
                    But that is exactly what your quote said: absolute nothingness (post #583). But the point remains, laws are not physical things, and they can not do anything until they act on matter and energy. So when it comes to the creation of matter and energy it certainly looks like Creation Ex nihilo.
                    Last edited by seer; 10-23-2016, 07:13 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      But that is exactly what your quote said: absolute nothingness (post #583). But the point remains, laws are not physical things, and they can not do anything until they act on matter and energy. So when it comes to the creation of matter and energy it certainly looks like Creation Ex nihilo.
                      Laws are descriptive, so if they existed prior to our universe, so too did the substance which the laws are descriptive of. Neither Vilenkin nor anyone else knows what, if anything, existed prior to, or is external to, the universe of space and time. So either scenario could be the case as far as can be known, creation exnihilo, or evolution out of the pre-existing substance, its just that the latter makes more sense than the former.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Laws are descriptive, so if they existed prior to our universe, so too did the substance which the laws are descriptive of. Neither Vilenkin nor anyone else knows what, if anything, existed prior to, or is external to, the universe of space and time. So either scenario could be the case as far as can be known, creation exnihilo, or evolution out of the pre-existing substance, its just that the latter makes more sense than the former.
                        In order for there to be anything pre-existing there has to be an existence.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          But don't you agree that the laws of quantum mechanics, like Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle," can only be descriptive of that which already exist, not descriptive of how that which already exists began to exist.
                          No, these laws can also describe things which do not yet actually exist, but which could potentially exist (e.g. virtual particles).

                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Or are you suggesting that the laws of quantum mechanics, according to Vilenkin, describes how a small-mass particle, or a universe, can pop into existence from out of absolutely nothing?
                          Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking and others are saying something very close to this. They are saying that the universe could have emerged from "absolutely nothing" in the physics sense, i.e. from nothing physical (no mass-energy, no space-time, nothing that could possibly be physically detectable or measurable). But they presuppose the pre-existence of physical principles and laws. Thus their "absolute nothing" is somewhat different from a philosopher's "absolute nothing".
                          Last edited by Kbertsche; 10-23-2016, 11:59 AM.
                          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Laws are descriptive, so if they existed prior to our universe, so too did the substance which the laws are descriptive of.
                            No; see my previous post.

                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Neither Vilenkin nor anyone else knows what, if anything, existed prior to, or is external to, the universe of space and time. So either scenario could be the case as far as can be known, creation exnihilo, or evolution out of the pre-existing substance, its just that the latter makes more sense than the former.
                            But the latter is not the "universe from nothing" that Krauss, Hawking, Vilenkin, Filippenko, et al propose.
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              They are saying that the universe could have emerged from "absolutely nothing" in the physics sense, i.e. from nothing physical (no mass-energy, no space-time, nothing that could possibly be physically detectable or measurable). But they presuppose the pre-existence of physical principles and laws. Thus their "absolute nothing" is somewhat different from a philosopher's "absolute nothing".
                              How does this not line up with Creation Ex nihilo?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                                No, these laws can also describe things which do not yet actually exist, but which could potentially exist (e.g. virtual particles).
                                Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The laws or that which the laws describe? I think the latter, for 2 reasons. One, laws alone, even if they exist, can not, and do not do anything, and 2, the existence of laws, without anything existing to follow them would be useless. Laws are usually thought to be imposed upon a subject, but if the so called laws are innate with respect to the object that obeys them, then are they really laws at all, things that exist in themselves? I don't think so, and I'm not seeing a good argument for why anyone should come to that conclusion.

                                Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking and others are saying something very close to this. They are saying that the universe could have emerged from "absolutely nothing" in the physics sense, i.e. from nothing physical (no mass-energy, no space-time, nothing that could possibly be physically detectable or measurable). But they presuppose the pre-existence of physical principles and laws. Thus their "absolute nothing" is somewhat different from a philosopher's "absolute nothing".
                                Well, if thats what they are saying, I'd like to know what they are basing that conclusion on.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                168 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,509 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X