The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[oxmixmudd]

To add Jim. here is an an example, of which there are many, where seer uses a selective citation of Vilenkin to justify a theist agenda, which in reality does not agree with Vilenkin nor any cosmologists cited if you take their work as a whole. In fact they deny there is any possible correlation between the Quantum nothing and the philosophical absolute nothing described as 'ex nhilo.'

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Ethics/page10 post#99

Shuny,

I think you are a bit over the top in all this. First, I'm not going to go looking for the times I've heard you mention that as a Baha'i, you believe the universe to be eternal in the context of some debate over the age of the universe. I know I've seen it, but it's not something you say often. And I would not be at all surprised if you have never tried to use science directly to support that belief. Secondarily, however, seer's reference here is not much more than the kind of ancillary reference I've seen you make. He's just saying the fellow's direction in his research is consistent with his belief - at best. And I find your unwillingness to acknowledge that nothing is nothing, whether you call it the religious term 'ex nihilo' or you just say 'out of nothing' as Vilenkin did suspect. It would appear you reject to the use of the terminology SOLELY on it's religious basis. Nothing is nothing shuny. I doubt very much there is any significant difference between the nothing of "creation ex nihilo" and the nothing of Vilenkin's "universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space" in terms of the initial conditions. Nothing is nothing so to speak. The issue is not the initial state, but the cause of the transition from that state.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, we all find comfort when science is consitent with what we believe to be true, and it is always difficult when's one's deeply help beliefs are challenged espeically by something as highly regarded on our society as scientific research. It does not trouble me when people: sparko, you, seer, myself, legitimately say this bit of research or that bit of research supports what I believe from a metaphysical standpoint.

Where I get upset is when people distort the implications of the science or out and out lie about it to create some sort of artificial case for their beliefs. What I'm seeing from you here is a bit over the top in the inverse of that. If there are differing avenues of research, some which lend support for the idea the universe, even the multiverse, must have had a beginning. Then so be it. And if I am excited by that because I believe the universe had a beginning based on my religious faith, that doesn't mean that just because I beleive that I can't mention the science that supports it. And it doesn't mean I should arbitrarily reject it just because it happens to be consistent with my faith. And it doesn't mean I should never even mention it in the context of explaining why I believe what I believe. As long as I'm not distorting the science itself, it is what it is.

I do need to be careful not to be less skeptical of new ideas just because they happen to agree with my religious beliefs, especially if the science is suspect.

And I especially shouldn't be willfully ignorant of what good science is IF I am going to point to science in certain instances as being consistent with my faith.


Peace.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

I think you are a bit over the top in all this. First, I'm not going to go looking for the times I've heard you mention that as a Baha'i, you believe the universe to be eternal in the context of some debate over the age of the universe. I know I've seen it, but it's not something you say often. And I would not be at all surprised if you have never tried to use science directly to support that belief.

This blatantly false. Yes I have described the Baha'i Cosmology a number of times, but I have never asserted that science supported the belief that our physical existence is eternal. I have always stated that the contemporary knowledge science supported the 'possibility' of the existence of multiverses and that our physical existence as 'possibly eternal.' I have always stated that these are open questions currently unanswerable by science and most likely never will be.

Secondarily, however, seer's reference here is not much more than the kind of ancillary reference I've seen you make.

I have NEVER made such claims. I have frequently described the belief in the Harmony of Science and Religion and that the advancing knowledge of science is accepted as the interpreter of our physical existence, and the Scripture must be understood and interpreted in the light of science concerning our physical existence.

He's just saying the fellow's direction in his research is consistent with his belief - at best. And I find your unwillingness to acknowledge that nothing is nothing, whether you call it the religious term 'ex nihilo' or you just say 'out of nothing' as Vilenkin did suspect. It would appear you reject to the use of the terminology SOLELY on it's religious basis. Nothing is nothing shuny. I doubt very much there is any significant difference between the nothing of "creation ex nihilo" and the nothing of Vilenkin's "universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space" in terms of the initial conditions. Nothing is nothing so to speak. The issue is not the initial state, but the cause of the transition from that state.

No,I base it on the clear and specific statements by Vilenkin and other cosmologists that deny any possible association with the Quantum nothing with the philosophical absolute nothng proposed as 'ex nhilo.'

You basically either have to make specific citations or back off with these slanderous groundless accusations.

There are no previous threads nor posts where I argued that the present theories and hypothesis of the science of cosmology and physics supports my belief in Baha'i cosmology.

[oxmixmudd]

This blatantly false. Yes I have described the Baha'i Cosmology a number of times, but I have never asserted that science supported the belief that our physical existence is eternal.

Shuny, you are not reading what I said. I said:

First, I'm not going to go looking for the times I've heard you mention that as a Baha'i, you believe the universe to be eternal in the context of some debate over the age of the universe. I know I've seen it, but it's not something you say often. And I would not be at all surprised if you have never tried to use science directly to support that belief.

There is very little difference between what I just said and what you just said - except you are saying what I said is 'blatently false'. However, from what I see I am not the only one whose posts you are not reading carefully and with understanding.

I have always stated that the contemporary knowledge science supported the 'possibility' of the existence of multiverses and that our physical existence as 'possibly eternal.' I have always stated that these are open questions currently unanswerable by science and most likely never will be.

And what I have said does not imply you've ever said anything different than what you just claimed.

.
.
.


Next item:

No,I base it on the clear and specific statements by Vilenkin and other cosmologists that deny any possible association with the Quantum nothing with the philosophical absolute nothng proposed as 'ex nhilo.'

That is ridiculous. There is no rigorous scientific definition of what is meant in Christian theology of 'ex nihilo' - unless one equates it directly to the Greek philosophical 'nothing'. There is therefore no way to assert the Quantum nothing is NOT the nothing of "ex nihilo". That sort of claim is just anti religious sentiment masquerading as science. IOW, even those Christians* who believe in it and are fully verse in both the science and the theology are not going to be able to assert with authority one way or the other whether some scientific definition of 'nothing' necessarily is or is not the nothing from which God created. That whole aspect of the conversation is itself a 'nothing'. Not far from a debate over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The rest is a reaction to what I didn't say. So I see no further need to address it.



Jim

*the Christian conception of 'ex nihilo' is a later theological assertion that likely grew out of certain Greek concepts. The Hebrew text is not explicit about it, and there are Christian theologians that debate whether or not it is in fact necessarily a judeo Christian concept. Regardless of all that, there is nothing that requires the 'ex nihilo' of that particular Christian doctrine be equivalent to the extreme Greek philosophical conceptualization of 'nothing'. In fact, God created from nothing is itself a bit of an oxymoron, because God is himself NOT nothing, and the creation proceeds from Him and His Word.

[oxmixmudd]

That is ridiculous. There is no rigorous scientific definition of what is meant in Christian theology of 'ex nihilo' - unless one equates it directly to the Greek philosophical 'nothing'. There is therefore no way to assert the Quantum nothing is NOT the nothing of "ex nihilo". That sort of claim is just anti religious sentiment masquerading as science. IOW, even those Christians* who believe in it and are fully verse in both the science and the theology are not going to be able to assert with authority one way or the other whether some scientific definition of 'nothing' necessarily is or is not the nothing from which God created. That whole aspect of the conversation is itself a 'nothing'. Not far from a debate over how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As I thought about this statement I do realize that IF one asserts that the "ex nihilo" referered to in a Christian context is equal to the Greek philosophical notion of 'absolute nothing', one could legitimately assert the Quantum nothing is not what is meant by creation 'ex nihilo' because the Quantum 'nothing' does have properties and existance. I personally am not convinced the scriptures require necessarily such a thing. God certainly existed 'before' the universe we live in. And God is not 'nothing'.




Jim

[shunyadragon]

As I thought about this statement I do realize that IF one asserts that the "ex nihilo" referered to in a Christian context is equal to the Greek philosophical notion of 'absolute nothing', one could legitimately assert the Quantum nothing is not what is meant by creation 'ex nihilo' because the Quantum 'nothing' does have properties and existance. I personally am not convinced the scriptures require necessarily such a thing. God certainly existed 'before' the universe we live in. And God is not 'nothing'.




Jim

This is a little better statement concerning this issue than than your previous statements. I will give it some thought because it is worth responding to.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). Creatio continua is the ongoing divine creation.

The phrase ex nihilo also appears in the classical philosophical formulation ex nihilo nihil fit, which means "Out of nothing comes nothing".

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

This is a little better statement concerning this issue than than your previous statements. I will give it some thought because it is worth responding to.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). Creatio continua is the ongoing divine creation.

The phrase ex nihilo also appears in the classical philosophical formulation ex nihilo nihil fit, which means "Out of nothing comes nothing".

© Copyright Original Source

The problem you are not addressing shuny is that the conceptualization of what material and what nothing are in terms of the creation itself has changed drastically. When these concepts were developed, the question of whether there could be a quantum nothing and could that be some sort of intermediate step of creation simply didn't exist.

I am not that rigid in my view of what these concepts might map to in the real world. I don't see that it makes sense to apply a modern definition to terms conceived 2000 years ago or more. Likewise I don't see that it makes sense to exclude the possibility that shades of gray unknown to the ancients should necessarily be excluded, as they had no way to incorporate their implications into their conclusions or formulations.





Jim