The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[The Sum of Awe]

Chaos allows for something to come from nothing. If there is nothing, there is no order, and hence the lack of nature, nothing, is chaotic.

The same chaos that brought forth the universe, The Order, is the same chaos at the end. The end sparks the beginning. An infinite circle of rebirth of existence.

 

[shawn001]

Chaos allows for something to come from nothing. If there is nothing, there is no order, and hence the lack of nature, nothing, is chaotic.

The same chaos that brought forth the universe, The Order, is the same chaos at the end. The end sparks the beginning. An infinite circle of rebirth of existence.

While this is possible we actually don't know yet really.


How Will the Universe End?

How Will the Universe End?


Right now its looking more like the "Big Freeze"

"Despite the poetic beauty of fire, however, current observations favor an icy end to our universe – a Big Freeze. Scientists believe that we live in a spatially flat universe whose expansion is accelerating due to the presence of dark energy; however, the total energy density of the cosmos is most likely less than or equal to the so-called “critical density,” so there will be no Big Rip. Instead, the contents of the universe will eventually drift prohibitively far away from each other and heat and energy exchange will cease. The cosmos will have reached a state of maximum entropy, and no life will be able to survive. Depressing and a bit anti-climactic? Perhaps. But it probably won’t be perceptible until the universe is at least twice its current age.

Cosmology 101: The End

Cosmology 101: The End


This goes through the timeline for what the future might hold in store for the universe.

The End of Everything

The End of Everything

But it could be possible for "virtual particles" to start the process again, from empty space. But this is in no way been confirmed.

Its also possible to have another bang inside this universe right now.

Its also possible our universe started from black hole from another universe.

The order and entropy of the universe in a "Big Freeze" would be much different then the order and entropy of the universe that started the bang.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Indeed, and it'd be absurd for me to believe that I'm an incredibly small ratio of getting that right on. However, just stating what I think is very possible

 

[Thief]

Chaos allows for something to come from nothing. If there is nothing, there is no order, and hence the lack of nature, nothing, is chaotic.

The same chaos that brought forth the universe, The Order, is the same chaos at the end. The end sparks the beginning. An infinite circle of rebirth of existence.

Chaos is also that item we stand into as we surrender our dust....
if there is no One in Charge.

 

[McBell]

Chaos is also that item we stand into as we surrender our dust....
if there is no One in Charge.

So now the question is...

Why are you afraid of chaos?

 

[Thief]

So now the question is...

Why are you afraid of chaos?

No fear....just don't see that as a possibility.
I believe in God.
I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.

If there is chaos in the life after breath, then it would be that life with no one in charge.
Perhaps a gathering of souls that made denial.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Chaos is also that item we stand into as we surrender our dust....
if there is no One in Charge.

The usage of Chaos as Mayhem is pretty much missing the original intention of the word, in my opinion. Two different interpretations of complete disorder.

 

[shawn001]

Indeed, and it'd be absurd for me to believe that I'm an incredibly small ratio of getting that right on. However, just stating what I think is very possible

It is perhaps.

"Inflationary cosmology suggests that in the early universe, before cosmic inflation, energy was uniformly distributed,[6] and the universe was thus in a state superficially similar to heat death. However, these two states are actually very different: in the early universe, gravity was a very important force, and in a gravitational system, if energy is uniformly distributed, entropy is quite low, compared to a state in which most matter has collapsed into black holes. Thus, such a state is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as it is thermodynamically unstable.[7][8] However, in some proposed heat death scenarios, the energy density is so low that the system can be thought of as non-gravitational,[citation needed] such that a state in which energy is uniformly distributed is a thermal equilibrium state, i.e., the state of maximal entropy."

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Freeze

Big Freeze

 

[shawn001]

"World's most powerful laser to tear apart the vacuum of space
A laser powerful enough to tear apart the fabric of space could be built in Britain as part major new scientific project that aims to answer some of the most fundamental questions about our universe."

World's most powerful laser to tear apart the vacuum of space - Telegraph


Will see perhaps?

 

[Thief]

The usage of Chaos as Mayhem is pretty much missing the original intention of the word, in my opinion. Two different interpretations of complete disorder.

Mayhem might be organized, or directed.
Intentional and targeted.....so I thought.

The Chaos I see is made of confusion and disillusion.
7billion souls and no One in Charge?.....no one to ease the screaming?

And yes there will be screaming.
Dreams and nightmares.....and no way to awaken.

No peace of mind...or heart....

Are you assuming as much ahead of yourself?

 

[McBell]

Mayhem might be organized, or directed.
Intentional and targeted.....so I thought.

The Chaos I see is made of confusion and disillusion.
7billion souls and no One in Charge?.....no one to ease the screaming?

And yes there will be screaming.
Dreams and nightmares.....and no way to awaken.

No peace of mind...or heart....

Are you assuming as much ahead of yourself?

The blatant fear mongering aside...

 

[Thief]

The blatant fear mongering aside...

Who said fear had anything to do with it?

If you have a bad dream and can't wake up....

 

[McBell]

Who said fear had anything to do with it?

If you have a bad dream and can't wake up....

Do you have any idea how many dreams the average person has a night?

Why is it you remember some or perhaps only one and not the rest?
Why does the one you remember stick out?
Or is it that you remember bits and pieces of a bunch of them and put the bits and pieces together thinking it one dream?

Or...

Is this another sad attempt at being all "mystical"?

 

[Thief]

Do you have any idea how many dreams the average person has a night?

Why is it you remember some or perhaps only one and not the rest?
Why does the one you remember stick out?
Or is it that you remember bits and pieces of a bunch of them and put the bits and pieces together thinking it one dream?

Or...

Is this another sad attempt at being all "mystical"?

The brain is even more active when you are sleeping.
As many as 8times a night you go into Rapid Eye Movment.
You NEED to do this.
Your health depends on it.

The waking moment lingers on your awareness better.
No mystery there.

Mystical?....could be.
I see things not of this life...and I hope as much is pending.
I would be disappointed to not see what I anticipate.

But even so, happy or not....we go.

 

[1robin]

Chaos allows for something to come from nothing. If there is nothing, there is no order, and hence the lack of nature, nothing, is chaotic.

The same chaos that brought forth the universe, The Order, is the same chaos at the end. The end sparks the beginning. An infinite circle of rebirth of existence.

Your making the same fundamental mistake Hawking made. Nothing has no chaotic property. Only things can be chaotic. Also the eternal recurrence idea you and Nietzsche have adopted was disproven by the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. Chaos is the arbitrary arrangement of things not the absence of being.

 

[1robin]

You might want to know about the 2+2=5

The Straight Dope: Does 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2?

It was such a ridiculous claim I looked it up. I have a math degree and my boss is a PhD in information theory which relies heavily on math like Boolean differential calculus and we both determined the same thing. There is not such thing as a high value of two. Two is an absolute value not a variable which has a range.

BTW my server would not let me access your link but I have looked the concept up before.

 

[1robin]

A Ramanujan summation. Can be found by the cesaro sum in a Grandi's series. Used in theoretical physics today if I understand my son correctly.

For instance:

Let S=1-1+1...
Then 2S = (1-1+1...)+(1-1+1...) = 1+1-1-1+1+1... = 1
So S = 1/2

And somehow this can be used to find the sum of the 1+2+3... My son explained it to me, but I got lost...

Grandi's series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +

This is not the summation he was speaking of. He was countering the almost necessary fact that there are no infinites. He did so by claiming the summation on all integers one to infinity equals 1/12. That is not true. What you gave a link to was not that either. It was a summation concerning (-1) ^n. These types of things look like parlor tricks to me. The ones who specialize in them do not understand them that well. So of course people who just pick them up for convenience will misapply them as Krauss did. However we are getting way off track here. The original point is nothing is creation impotent.

 

[McBell]

It was such a ridiculous claim I looked it up. I have a math degree and my boss is a PhD in information theory which relies heavily on math like Boolean differential calculus and we both determined the same thing. There is not such thing as a high value of two. Two is an absolute value not a variable which has a range.

BTW my server would not let me access your link but I have looked the concept up before.

I bet you also believe that one plus one is absolutely two, right?

 

[1robin]

Considerations:
1) Vilenkin doesn't believe there is any "the universe" that could have a beginning

You lost me here. Vilenkin believes there is one universe and that it has a beginning. he seems to consider impossible all rival theories but imagine he leaves the door open to possible future discoveries. However he does not posit anything beyond a single finite universe as knowable at this time.

2) You link to an atheist blog (commendable) for balance regarding Craig's use of Vilenkin. However, we don't need any source but Craig to castigate and criticize Vilenkin:

That link is the first one that pops up when looking for the theorem. I used it out of laziness not fair play. The point being the theorem stands whether attacked by an atheist or not so I had no reluctance to using an atheistic site.

3) When you can tell me which universe Vilenkin believes "had a beginning" in accordance with his research (e.g., Garriga, J., & Vilenkin, A. (2008). Prediction and explanation in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 77(4)), perhaps this might be more meaningful.

What? There are no other known universes. This universe is said by Vilenkin to have a beginning and only this universe exists in science to require an explanation. Not to mention having more universes is of no help to the beginning problem and actually makes God more necessary but fantasy is hardly worth discussing.

1) It isn't a proof. It involves proofs.
2) Can you provide the proofs that you refer? Obviously I wouldn't ask for anything prior to
Borde, A., Guth, A. H., & Vilenkin, A. (2003). Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions. Physical review letters, 90(15)

No, because that was not my statement. It was Vilenkin's. Between a cosmologist with his credentials and an informal debater I am going to have to give him credit for his statements unless I am given reasons not to. He said the proof exists. I didn't.

but it would be nice if you could demonstrate how boundaries work not in terms of "time' (which Vilenkin doesn't) but both spacetime and the origins of spacetime.

Vilenkin's claim is consistent with claims that go back 4000 years. That space, time, and matter began to exist. Space and time began to exist. It is also not necessary to define the limits of two dependent quantities. Space time ends when either space or time does. If time ends, space time by necessity would have to.

They can, however, determine that such a possibility isn't just impossible but is meaningless in multiple ways.

That appears to agree with me, of course that can't be so I am lost.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

Neither my nor that statement by Vilenkin contains accusations about contradictions in terminology (at least what you posted of them didn't).

Craig has a longer review of Vilenkin he writes for the non-specialist audience he can't lie to as easily in which he extensively criticizes Vilenkin and does so not for Vilenkin's actual research but for a popular science book simplified for the layperson. Craig uses Vilenkin when manipulating a poorly informed audience and abuses him when he attempts to address his peers.

If your attempting to avoid Craig's claims by insinuating he is intentionally lying to his audience this will severely damage your credibility with me. Whether right or wrong he seems to have an extremely sincere devotion to being honest. I think you trying to say:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Actually means the universe did not have a beginning and Vilenkin twisted his own words or Craig stripped them of context (which by the way I have verified). This is simply not true. BTW notice he uses "the universe" above.

Alternatively, you could try actually reading physics literature rather than rely on quote-mined simplifications from interviews and similar methods in which scientists are asked questions and the simplest and most sensationalist of these are picked for inclusion in some popular science article. You may find a rather significant difference.

I studied calculus based physics in the same college Van Braun used to get us to the moon. However I use people who are at the cutting edge of cosmology because they have access to things which I do not and the capacity to properly evaluate them. I am sorry what they say is inconvenient but they are always the best source when correct or reliable answers must be obtained. If your talking to me what they say is not going away.

You do realize that neither Borde, Guth nor Vilenkin support the standard model, correct?

That is probably why I did not use them to do so. I only need them to arrive at a universe that has no known natural explanation. I am not making an argument about cosmology. I using cosmology to make a theological point.

"Inflationary models of cosmology yield a rather different picture of the full present Universe (as opposed to the part of it that we can directly observe) than that given by the standard big bang cosmology."
Borde, A., & Vilenkin, A. (1994). Eternal inflation and the initial singularity. Physical Review Letters, 72(21)

I do not care what they think occurred between the coming into existence and the present. I only care that they agree the universe began to exist.

How about using what Vilenkin wrote instead of quote-mined statements by Craig and similar dishonest sources (I have great respect for many an apologist, C. S. Lewis for reasons of fondness and an Einstein-like ability to render the simple into the meaningful, Kreeft for replacing him in some sense, Plantinga for his technical nuances, etc., but Craig is the Ehrman of apologists- saying one things to a mainstream audience while contradicting himself when writing to those he can't mislead).

You are really being counter productive in claiming Craig is dishonest. he can be wrong, I find him to have greater integrity than most. This is typical smear the source propaganda. You mentioned Ehrman as being dishonest as well. I am constantly challenged with what Ehrman claims by non-theists. If you look back I never have written him off as dishonest. I have mentioned he is biased in his debates and have (unlike you have here) shown exactly why I say that. However I accept his scholarship (I actually use his numbers), I accept and use Islamic scholars with Muslims, and use atheist scientists with atheists. I may show a claim wrong but never take the bogus claims of intentionally lying as a way to dismiss inconvenient claims. I think it is the case many times but I do not resort to it for the simple reason I have no access to their motivations. Neither do you.

This fact means the claims of lying are actually not knowable and lies themselves. You do not have access to Craig's motivations, and you know you don't. Yet you claim to be true only what can be known if you have the access which you do not. That makes the claim it's self a lie and hypocritical. I am saying none of this to protect Craig. I am saying it so large portions of valid debate material is not dismissed because it is inconvenient.

In summary:

1. Vilenkin's official claims are consistent with the bible.
2. Craig cannot be dismissed based on claims of dishonesty you have no capacity to know are true.
3. Craig however can be wrong and you may certainly show that to be the case. Which is what you should have done rather than make accusations.
4. In my experience the more unjustifiable a position, the faster claims to what the poster of it can't know, will be made. It is evidence of a failed argument, along with semantics, off ramps, using false claims of fallacy like a crutch, and eventually becoming offensive personally.

 

[Ouroboros]

It was such a ridiculous claim I looked it up. I have a math degree and my boss is a PhD in information theory which relies heavily on math like Boolean differential calculus and we both determined the same thing. There is not such thing as a high value of two. Two is an absolute value not a variable which has a range.

BTW my server would not let me access your link but I have looked the concept up before.

It's a joke. There's no "high value of 2", but what they refer to are rounding errors when the value is not an integer.

round(2.49)+round(2.49)=4
round(2.49+2.49)=4.89, and if you round 4.89 you get 5.

So the "high value of two" refers to number like 2.49