The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Ouroboros]

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.

I know they're not true sums, but... they actually use these "parlor" tricks and these sums in physics. No kidding. (At least that's what I've been told. I'm no physicist. )

Here's a good article from Smithsonian about it: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/great-debate-over-whether-1234-112-180949559/

Essentially it's the "parlor" trick of "=" not meaning equal but rather a kind-a rounding of.

In physics, they deal with quantifiable numbers and not infinites. That's why these rounding tricks are used.

Here's a really in depth blog about it from physics central: http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/01/redux-does-1234-112-absolutely-not.html

 

[1robin]

I think he has the credentials you don't have in Cosmology and QM theory.

I am quite certain he does. My boss however has more credentials in higher math than he does and I have a degree in math myself. My boss agrees with me that the Mathematical absurdities I mentioned are absurdities. The concepts do exist in theoretical arenas but Krauss mangles even these beyond recognition. The point however was that I have no confidence in the man for many reasons beyond the two I gave.

Nor is he the only one thinking this through as is stated in the article.


Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is an internationally known theoretical physicist with wide research interests, including the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology, where his studies include the early universe, the nature of dark matter, general relativity and neutrino astrophysics. He has investigated questions ranging from the nature of exploding stars to issues of the origin of all mass in the universe. He was born in New York City and moved shortly thereafter to Toronto, Canada, where he grew up. He received undergraduate degrees in both Mathematics and Physics at Carleton University. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1982), then joined the Harvard Society of Fellows (1982-85). He joined the faculty of the departments of Physics and Astronomy at Yale University as assistant professor in 1985, and associate professor in 1988. In 1993 he was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. He served in the latter position for 12 years, until 2005. During this period he built up the department, which was ranked among the top 20 Physics Graduate Research Programs in the country in a 2005 national ranking. Among the major new initiatives he spearheaded are included the creation of one of the top particle astrophysics experimental and theoretical programs in the US, and the creation of a groundbreaking Masters Program in Physics Entrepreneurship. In 2002, he was named Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case."

"Prof. Krauss is the author of over 300 scientific publications, as well as numerous popular articles on physics and astronomy. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his research and writing, including the Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award (1984), and the Presidential Investigator Award (1986). In February 2000, in Washington D.C., Krauss was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 1999-2000 Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology . Previous awardees include Carl Sagan (1995) and E.O. Wilson (1994). In 2001 he was awarded the Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society . The citation reads "For outstanding contributions to the understanding of the early universe, and extraordinary achievement in communicating the essence of physical science to the general public". Previous awardees include Stephen W. Hawking (1999), and Kip S. Thorne (1996). In 2001 the American Institute of Physics awarded Krauss the Andrew Gemant Award , given annually to "a person who has made significant contributions to the cultural, artistic, or humanistic dimensions of physics". Previous awardees include Freeman Dyson, Steven Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking. He was also awarded the American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award in 2002 for his book "Atom". In August of 2003 it was announced that Krauss had been awarded the Oersted Medal , the highest award of the American Association of Physics Teachers, for his contributions to the teaching of physics. Previous awardees include Richard Feynman, I.I. Rabi, Edward Purcell, and Hans Bethe. With this award, he becomes the first physicist to have been awarded these three most prestigious awards from the APS, the AIP, and the AAPT. In 2005 he was also awarded the Joseph P. Burton Forum Award from the American Physical Society for his work on issues of science and society."

Read more

Biography | Lawrence Krauss

As I said I have always heard how competent he was. However first impressions are formidable and he made a terrible one on me. That has nothing to do with me commenting on his claims but it might make a difference in your desiring those comments. That is why I asked. If you still desire my response to his claims just let me know.

Did God create the universe?

Curiosity Videos: Did God create the universe? - Curiosity


Explore the question of what could cause the spontaneous appearance of a universe with Stephen Hawking in this Curiosity video.

Curiosity: Something of Nothing : Video : Discovery Channel


QM, provides a possible explanation how the universe came to be naturally. I don't think you understand how that could be yet.

Still on this

"There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it."

LOL, there is? Are they falsifiable tests and observations for this evidence?

You didn't answer the question.

My responses will not make much sense unless you understand the context. I was raised by a Apollo rocket scientist (my Dad), and a Christian mother who had little education. My entire family are engineers and the town I live in probably has as high per capita PhDs as anywhere. It is where the space program was born and NASA is king.
So you can understand when I say I was above anything else a respecter of science. I was mesmerized by scientists and when my mother died grew to hate God if he even existed. I went on to the military and then college for math and engineering. It was in the fellowship speaking engagements I first saw some problems. The experts were contradicting themselves and others. A few teachers turned out to be the most arrogant humans I had ever met. I got slightly involved in peer review and saw the favoritism first hand. Anyway you are probably going to be bored by this. My point is that I eventually came to have a distrust for science. I could list a thousand reasons why but suffice it to say I am in a unique position to judge and have found science relatively unreliable compared to the Bible.

Now that I have bored you to death. I do not think anyone has the slightest idea how the universe could have come from nothing. They (and this just adds reinforcement to my distrust) have gone so far these days as to equate something with nothing, and to claim truth does not exist at all. Hawking's famous "because such a thing as gravity.........." statements are what I mean. They are not even coherent. He arrogantly declares philosophy (and the for many of his colleges academically dead) and then spends 60% of his book on philosophy. I work in applicable science and see the rampant unreliability in it. However we must produce things that work unlike theoretical scientists who rant about what they can probably never prove and no one has any way to know if they are right or wrong. There is nothing more conducive to crap being dressed in the language of knowledge than theoretical science. However if you provide the actually claim about the creation of everything from nothing I will address it specifically.

 

[1robin]

I think the last sentence is the key to understanding why the universe is necessary and therefore not contingent.

What in that last sentence makes the universe more likely anything? A necessary object that exists would have always existed and I have already gone over the unending reasons to think natural infinities are impossible and supplied reasons from cosmologists and mathematicians. What in that sentence over turned a single thing I posted?

 

[1robin]

If the universe didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to ask what created it, would you?

That has nothing what ever to do with modal beings or objects. A thing is not necessary based on whether another things comprehends it's existence. By this bizarre criteria everything I am aware of must be necessary. Not only is that untrue but I myself am not necessary. What is behind these claims of yours? Where is the philosophy that justifies it. The definition of necessary is not existence.

So what is your argument for a cause universe?

I do not get it. I said I made no claims about wholes derived from compositions and you ask what the argument is. I do not get it. The statement that everything must have an explanation of it's existence within its self or external to it's self relies on no compositions.

Nor are the required by a necessary universe.

I think we have a disconnect on what necessary is. Necessary means to have an existence that is not contingent on an external cause. Now if we have one of these type things in existence that necessarily means it must be infinite in duration because it was not caused. Saying the universe is necessary is to say it is eternal. Natural infinites are impossible therefor the universe is not eternal nor necessary. Not to even mention that all the evidence we have about the universe suggests a universe with known finite duration. A necessary object is not finitely old.

No, there are mountains of claims that the supernatural exists but none of them are backed by evidence.

No there are hundreds of millions of example of evidence for the supernatural. The applicable definition of evidence here is: Data that if included adds to the probable truth of a proposition by it's inclusion. There are hundreds of millions of claims to personal supernatural experience alone. They are of the exact same type as those used in trials as evidence. There exists no justifiable reason to exclude just these, much less 2000 prophecies and knowledge unknown by natural means.

That's starting to sound like a "God of the gaps" argument.

And you are illustrating a science of the gaps argument. The difference is my God can theoretically accomplish what I claim and the natural cannot (at least nothing known can). I think that "gaps" claim is an unjustifiable crutch but even if true your would be more guilty of it than I.

 

[adi2d]

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

There are 10 kinds of people in the world

Those that understand binary
And those that dont

 

[1robin]

I know they're not true sums, but... they actually use these "parlor" tricks and these sums in physics. No kidding. (At least that's what I've been told. I'm no physicist. )

Here's a good article from Smithsonian about it: The Great Debate Over Whether 1+2+3+4..+

Essentially it's the "parlor" trick of "=" not meaning equal but rather a kind-a rounding of.

In physics, they deal with quantifiable numbers and not infinites. That's why these rounding tricks are used.

Here's a really in depth blog about it from physics central: Physics Buzz: Correction: Does 1+2+3+4+ . . . =-1/12? Absolutely Not! (I think)

I did not mean to suggest they had no merit. Just that for informal debate they have no relevance. For example = has strict meanings. It means literally equivalent. There exists a whole separate simple for similar or close.

I place all of these deep end of the academic realm into the same box whether they posit things in my favor or against them. I label it interesting but not determinative. I place semantic arguments, theoretical claims about multiverses, time travel, and mind/material hierarchy, etc... in the box and pull it out for entertainment. If a point is meaningful and reliable it can usually be shown through much more trustworthy methods and should be in this environment. My point was Krauss was using these mathematic principles incorrectly as a basis for a claim. I am not suggesting they have no application at all. They are just unproductive for debate. My claims all rely on basic principles that everyone is familiar with. I have no desire to dust off my old textbooks and introduce ambiguous or theoretical claims but the few times I have I have always qualified them as such. Krauss's use of those misstated principles simply ruined his credibility concerning me because first impressions are so powerful. He may be very competent in spite of them but not because of them.

 

[idea]

...My point is that I eventually came to have a distrust for science. ....

LOL, spoken like a true engineer.

There is a wide divide between engineers and scientists . Why do you always hear the phrase "science vs. religion" but never hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion"? Because engineering is real, it is applied - it is the difference between "theory" and "reality". We all know that what is "good in theory..." does not always pan out when applied.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

LOL, spoken like a true engineer.

There is a wide divide between engineers and scientists . Why do you always hear the phrase "science vs. religion" but never hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion"? Because engineering is real, it is applied - it is the difference between "theory" and "reality". We all know that what is "good in theory..." does not always pan out when applied.

Then it's not a theory if it doesn't pan out in reality. I noticed that about engineers as well and I realized that it's because they can only deal with what is in front of them. Without the scientist, the engineer just repeats what they already know and without the engineer the scientists reality only stays in the realm of the experiment and does not benefit man.

 

[shawn001]

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.

You don't get it still. "Nothing" to them has a different meaning then for you When they say "nothing" it the vacuum of empty space. To you it means, no-thing.

The Vacuum of empty space is very chaotic with Quantum fluctuation

"Also the eternal recurrence idea you and Nietzsche have adopted was disproven by the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorem."

The big crunch has been ruled out.

Where did I say I adopted that anywhere? I was not the one who posted it, however I believe you are still incorrect that it was disproven completely based on some new QM theories.

If your saying they have ruled out multiverses though you would be wrong, very wrong.

"Chaos is the arbitrary arrangement of things"

So the universe is in Chaos now?

Current observations and understandings point to a "big freeze" of the universe. Going from a really hot and dense state to "a cold, quiet place"

How Will the Universe End?

 

[shawn001]

I am quite certain he does. My boss however has more credentials in higher math than he does and I have a degree in math myself. My boss agrees with me that the Mathematical absurdities I mentioned are absurdities. The concepts do exist in theoretical arenas but Krauss mangles even these beyond recognition. The point however was that I have no confidence in the man for many reasons beyond the two I gave.


As I said I have always heard how competent he was. However first impressions are formidable and he made a terrible one on me. That has nothing to do with me commenting on his claims but it might make a difference in your desiring those comments. That is why I asked. If you still desire my response to his claims just let me know.

My responses will not make much sense unless you understand the context. I was raised by a Apollo rocket scientist (my Dad), and a Christian mother who had little education. My entire family are engineers and the town I live in probably has as high per capita PhDs as anywhere. It is where the space program was born and NASA is king.
So you can understand when I say I was above anything else a respecter of science. I was mesmerized by scientists and when my mother died grew to hate God if he even existed. I went on to the military and then college for math and engineering. It was in the fellowship speaking engagements I first saw some problems. The experts were contradicting themselves and others. A few teachers turned out to be the most arrogant humans I had ever met. I got slightly involved in peer review and saw the favoritism first hand. Anyway you are probably going to be bored by this. My point is that I eventually came to have a distrust for science. I could list a thousand reasons why but suffice it to say I am in a unique position to judge and have found science relatively unreliable compared to the Bible.

Now that I have bored you to death. I do not think anyone has the slightest idea how the universe could have come from nothing. They (and this just adds reinforcement to my distrust) have gone so far these days as to equate something with nothing, and to claim truth does not exist at all. Hawking's famous "because such a thing as gravity.........." statements are what I mean. They are not even coherent. He arrogantly declares philosophy (and the for many of his colleges academically dead) and then spends 60% of his book on philosophy. I work in applicable science and see the rampant unreliability in it. However we must produce things that work unlike theoretical scientists who rant about what they can probably never prove and no one has any way to know if they are right or wrong. There is nothing more conducive to crap being dressed in the language of knowledge than theoretical science. However if you provide the actually claim about the creation of everything from nothing I will address it specifically.

Robin, I am working on an aerospace project with a bunch of NASA engineers and private space companies.

With all due respect I can't believe you said this

"I am in a unique position to judge and have found science relatively unreliable compared to the Bible."

What specific science or all science unreliable compare to the bible?

First the bible wasn't the first to come up with "light first."

Second, the bible does not give an accurate account of the formation of the universe and solar system.

Third are you saying all science or just the universe's "beginning."

Forth, your using specific scientists actually one really to try and prove your points.

"I do not think anyone has the slightest idea how the universe could have come from nothing."

That is what we are trying to show you a possible natural explanation from two major physicists for a start. But you have not comprehended it yet, I believe. Its possible. Its also looking like the universe has equal amounts of positive and negative energy which cancels each other out to zero.


Does anyone know how the universe changed? NO but science can help answer the questions.

Does anyone know if a god or gods exist. NO and there is no way yet at least for science to test the hypothesis even.

You used
Vilenkin's claim: "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."

Which is what Hawking's is saying and Kruse. There are still more complex issues here though in actually in cosmology and QM I won't go into here.

So they agree. If we put god in there though there is no space or time for god either, but I know the answer that will provided for that one already.

You posted this as well
Vilenkin's claim: "God more necessary but fantasy is hardly worth discussing."

The difference is you just go with "God did it."

Physicists, cosmologists and astronomers look deeper and into it more and have found some astounding facts and possibilities to explain the natural world. One new one being it is naturally possible to have something come from "nothing." Remember here to zero energy universe. Others have some very strong theories as well on it all.

The Fabric of the Cosmos
What Is Space

[youtube]sUtVw7NMYoY[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos 1 of 4) What Is Space - YouTube

The Fabric of the Cosmos The Illusion of Time

[youtube]dkpKogQAu7E[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos 2 of 4) The Illusion of Time - YouTube

If your really brave

Fabric of the Cosmos and Quantum Leap


Join Brian Greene on a wild ride into the weird realm of quantum physics, which governs the universe on the tiniest of scales. Greene brings quantum mechanics to life in a nightclub like no other, where objects pop in and out of existence, and things over here can affect others over there, instantaneously and without anything crossing the space between them. A century ago, during the initial shots in the quantum revolution, the best minds of a generation—including Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr—squared off in a battle for the soul of physics. How could the rules of the quantum world, which work so well to describe the behavior of individual atoms and their components, conflict so dramatically with the everyday rules that govern people, planets, and galaxies?

Quantum mechanics may be counterintuitive, but it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, making predictions that have been confirmed to better than one part in a billion, while also launching the technological advances at the heart of modern life, like computers and cell phones. But even today, even with such profound successes, the debate still rages over what quantum mechanics implies for the true nature of reality.

[youtube]EGhQmNZhlqw[/youtube]
3. Quantum Leap - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

I thought for sure someone would comment on this actually.

But Robin, you might read this.

"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

"Contrary to popular belief, a vacuum is not devoid of material but in fact fizzles with tiny mysterious particles that pop in and out of existence, but at speeds so fast that no one has been able to prove they exist.

The Extreme Light Infrastructure Ultra-High Field Facility would produce a laser so intense that scientists say it would allow them to reveal these particles for the first time by pulling this vacuum "fabric" apart.

They also believe it could even allow them to prove whether extra-dimensions exist.

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


Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?
Oct 9, 2006
Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested...

"Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics."

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American

 

[1robin]

LOL, spoken like a true engineer.

There is a wide divide between engineers and scientists . Why do you always hear the phrase "science vs. religion" but never hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion"? Because engineering is real, it is applied - it is the difference between "theory" and "reality". We all know that what is "good in theory..." does not always pan out when applied.

Very good points.

A theoretical scientists can be as wrong as Caesar is dead and there is in many cases no way to ever know. You have to wonder about the integrity of someone who wants to sit around guessing about things that have no way to verify. No arena beyond maybe celebrities is as conducive to arrogance than academia, and no group within that arena is more prone than theoretical science. Yet this most unreliable of all areas is exactly where every contention with the bible comes from.

Engineers and technicians do not have the luxury of making sweeping unjustified claims. We must create something that works (at least eventually). However even using verifiable scientific principles and using them on things that can be tested and we are still wrong far more than right. Makes me wonder if theoretical scientists are ever right or if they would ever know one way or the other. Can't feed to many people with theories about multiverses but you can certainly achieve celebrity intellectual status and a mountain of grant money.

 

[1robin]

You don't get it still. "Nothing" to them has a different meaning then for you When they say "nothing" it the vacuum of empty space. To you it means, no-thing.

This is what it has meant since the Greeks. Do you think defending nothing being used to indicate something is a defense of their claims? I have hated grammar forever and used to think it was useless and arbitrary. One day I was discussing this with a national merit scholarship winner and a NASA Engineer (family members) they told I was probably right except for one important thing. The definition of words are necessary so that contracts and legal concepts can be founded on common ground. Usually only those without honor need to redefine words. Clinton and his what does is mean, the lawyer who gets his known to be guilty client off based on a procedural objection, every formal debater who was defeated, etc.. It is always the side without a case that begins to redefine everything. I do not care if they say "nothing" means pink submarines, gravity, or quantum fluctuations it is something not nothing. That is the whole point. Cosmology posits the finite existence of everything natural. They are trying to smuggle in what did not exist to explain what exists by calling it nothing. They are wrong. I get exactly what your saying and what they are doing and I condemn both in this context.

The Vacuum of empty space is very chaotic with Quantum fluctuation

Agreed but that fluctuation began to exist when the universe did and so is not the creator of the universe, same with gravity, energy, and everything else that is natural.

"Also the eternal recurrence idea you and Nietzsche have adopted was disproven by the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorem."

The big crunch has been ruled out.

Where did I say I adopted that anywhere? I was not the one who posted it, however I believe you are still incorrect that it was disproven completely based on some new QM theories.

I am pretty sure you mention an oscillation model, however let's discuss it whether you did or not. Oscillations, cycles, recurrences, etc.... are never perfectly efficient. They always lose energy in the effort. That means if the universe had been contracting (which by the way can't be because it's rate of expansion is increasing and not near enough mass exists to reverse this) for eternity it would have ceased to do so an infinite time ago. The same way an infinitely old battery will always be dead.

If your saying they have ruled out multiverses though you would be wrong, very wrong.

Vilenkin did not rule out multiverse specifically. Mainly because multiverses all to conveniently are no accessible. They are a theory which can't be falsified which by the way means it is also not scientific. They are a fantasy and do not deserve inclusion in any debate. They also make God more likely with each successive universe. If you have a infinite number of them God becomes a certainty and the only kick the creator problem down the road. They truly are nothing. They are not concrete things any more than blue elephants on Rigal 7.

"Chaos is the arbitrary arrangement of things"

So the universe is in Chaos now?

I would not object to that in general but I also think the universe is supervised in a sense. It certainly has form and structure. My point was to distinguish between intent and non-intentional arrangements of things. Information for example has no known source outside of an intentional mind. The universe is rational, lawful, and full of information that has no comprehensive natural explanation. Science attempts to coax the rationality out of nature. Who put in in there?

Current observations and understandings point to a "big freeze" of the universe. Going from a really hot and dense state to "a cold, quiet place"

I agree if left to it's self it will die a heat death. However like the creation I think it will not be allowed to operate as it is now. The same way something made everything from nothing, he will make order and benevolence out of cold indifference in a sense. This also is a little over eager even scientifically. It is as if we took a photo of a freeway and attempted to predict the future of that freeway in a billion years. It is just too ambitious. I do agree with their reasoning, I just believe their reasoning will be superseded based of faith. Faith in past events and current events is evidenced based, faith in future events can be, but many times it is strictly faith based.

 

[camanintx]

What in that last sentence makes the universe more likely anything? A necessary object that exists would have always existed and I have already gone over the unending reasons to think natural infinities are impossible and supplied reasons from cosmologists and mathematicians. What in that sentence over turned a single thing I posted?

And I have explained how something can have existed for all of time and yet not be infinite. If no universe existed, then you wouldn't be able to ask the question why does it exist, would you?

 

[camanintx]

That has nothing what ever to do with modal beings or objects. A thing is not necessary based on whether another things comprehends it's existence. By this bizarre criteria everything I am aware of must be necessary.

That would be bizarre because unlike the universe, those other things are not necessary for your existence.

Not only is that untrue but I myself am not necessary. What is behind these claims of yours? Where is the philosophy that justifies it. The definition of necessary is not existence.

You are necessary if you're the one asking the question, aren't you?

 

[1robin]

Robin, I am working on an aerospace project with a bunch of NASA engineers and private space companies.

My father was an Apollo engineer. My brother a national merit scholarship winner. The town I live in is NASA and probably has more intellectuals per capita than almost anywhere. I work in military defense concerning the latest generations of fighters and army helicopters. I have a math degree from the same university Von Braun recruited from. I can be wrong, but I certainly have all necessary conditions to make the claim I made.

With all due respect I can't believe you said this

"I am in a unique position to judge and have found science relatively unreliable compared to the Bible."

There is a reason I put relative in that claim. I find the bible to be 100% right beyond the 5% of scribal error it is known to contain in all areas that can be verified. It has routinely made a mockery of those that challenge it's historicity. Science is a wonderful thing but it contains far more errors than correct conclusions. For example we have ordered 12 instruments that were required to be fit and function replacements for others and they are 90's technology. Not one has functioned correctly from the factory. It has taken two years and complete over halls to make some work. Science is not an exact science. It eventually works because we throw trillions at it and build enough equipment we can get a few things to work by borrowing from others. There is no objective criteria to know if we have met it or not. WE may either be way behind where we should be or way in front. About all you can see is when science works it is impressive, of course that would inherently be true even if we were behind the mark anyway.

What specific science or all science unreliable compare to the bible?

Theoretical science does not even seem to be based on evidence. It seems to just be speculation dressed in scientific language. However what I meant here is that I know of no claim in eh bible that is false outside 5% scribal error. Sciences history is full of way more error than success.

First the bible wasn't the first to come up with "light first."

That is irrelevant. Since all men have some access to God through a God given conscience I imagine many truths predate the bible.

Second, the bible does not give an accurate account of the formation of the universe and solar system.

That would depend on your interpretation. A bunch of Christian scientists say it does down to the nth degree using math I cannot grasp. We cannot predict the weather 48 hours in advance and still argue over the civil war with a thousand battle reports to read. We have little idea exactly hat occurred 14 billion years ago. Your comparing an educated guess that is probably wrong in most of it's details with an interpretation that is only right by accident but probably wrong. I do not think Genesis is a scientific treatise on the creation but an analogy that would make sense to bronze age men but would still provide enough evidence to corroborate future research. This will get very complicated if you want to hash it out. Fine by me, but its your choice.

Third are you saying all science or just the universe's "beginning."

I am saying science is not the field through which any future hope may be penned. Science is just what it is, nothing more. It does not even apply to the great questions in life. I look to science to fix temporal issues and theology to handle the big eternal ones. I do not see any conflict between then in all of the more reliable areas of science. I have no need to only choose one and I believe they both have one source. I am speaking only about moral, historical, and theological truths here. I think science far inferior as a source in those areas. Historically it can help and has but I have found almost all discrepancies work out in the Bible's failure. There are entire museums full of artifacts from cultures the archeologists said never existed and the bible said did. It seems every ANE find backs up the bible. You are right to ask for clarification here. I hope I supplied it. I am not saying all science but far more than cosmology. Let me give an example.

The bible 3500 years or so ago said to purify ourselves with water when in contact with the dead or sick. IOW this was germ theory in language people back then could understand. Up until the 1860's science was going from one patient to another without even wimping off the instruments. In the civil war more people died of disease than bullets and much of it was a failure of science. It was even known about at the time yet as always very slow to be incorporated. The guy who first discovered ocean wide currents started looking for them based on only the verse about paths in the sea. In fact Christians are responsible for more of what is called science than any other group. It was their faith driven desire to search for the rationality in the universe that the bible indicated should be there that led to many of the greatest break throughs in science.

Forth, your using specific scientists actually one really to try and prove your points.

I used and have used many but I start with one or two for a new poster (to me anyway) to gauge what kind of response I get. Some reject scholarship altogether and so I would be wasting my time providing lists of scholars. I can supply more than a sufficient number to back up my claims.

"I do not think anyone has the slightest idea how the universe could have come from nothing."

That is what we are trying to show you a possible natural explanation from two major physicists for a start. But you have not comprehended it yet, I believe. Its possible. Its also looking like the universe has equal amounts of positive and negative energy which cancels each other out to zero.

Potential equivalence will not get something from nothing and consist of two something's that require an explanation they do not contain. From the very moment it was found almost undeniable that we have a universe with no natural explanation that these fantasies and misstatements began to ensue. I think they are attempts to extricate science from the inconveniences that reality imposes and are necessarily desperate and flawed. A positive and negative polls are two something's they do not add up to a nothing. So again you have no provided any evidence of something from nothing and the opposing forces you describe are also part of what began to exist.

Does anyone know how the universe changed? NO but science can help answer the questions.

Now that science can and has done. It however is not the issue. I submit God is the best and currently only evidence based explanation for the universes existence and even it's fine tuning. Change of a system is not relevant to those two claims.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Does anyone know if a god or gods exist. NO and there is no way yet at least for science to test the hypothesis even.

There is an embarrassment of evidence for God's existence. Science is only a tiny fraction of the spectrum of evidence concerning reality. For example we all believe morals, love, ascetic value, and consciousness are true yet neither can be proven scientifically. In fact if you wanting to be technical nothing beyond "that we think" is a certainty and some challenge even that. Asking if science has proven God is the wrong question on many different levels and not one we ask of much of what we consider true.

You used
Vilenkin's claim: "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."

I do not remember quoting this. If I did it got included in the copy and pasting and was not central to my claims. I did type the last half myself but it was my statement not Vilenkin's. I am uncertain what happened here.

Which is what Hawking's is saying and Kruse. There are still more complex issues here though in actually in cosmology and QM I won't go into here.

Ok.

So they agree. If we put god in there though there is no space or time for god either, but I know the answer that will provided for that one already.

That is why a supernatural explanation fits so well and nothing else does. God requires no space time. He is independent of time and space and whatever created both must be such. Our language and my ignorance means I cannot tell you what that means but that it must be true. This is perfectly fitting. A finite mind is not equipped to grasp that type of issue.

You posted this as well
Vilenkin's claim: "God more necessary but fantasy is hardly worth discussing."

The difference is you just go with "God did it."

Again that is not Vilenkin's claim, it is mine. I have no idea what is going on here.

It is science and philosophy that indicate whatever created matter, space, time, and energy must be independent from them. That is not a theological conclusion. They also suggest it must be personal, more powerful, intelligent, and present in all places than we can comprehend. Now I take that and find that exact being mentioned with those attributes by men who existed thousands of years before those necessities were known and that it/he is the only known cause with them. As I said reliable science is consistent with the Bible. You however are using a science did it or science of the gaps philosophy. Multiverse are not preexisting concepts that have those exact attributes. They are fantasies. You are more guilty of what you accuse me of than I am.

Physicists, cosmologists and astronomers look deeper and into it more and have found some astounding facts and possibilities to explain the natural world. One new one being it is naturally possible to have something come from "nothing." Remember here to zero energy universe. Others have some very strong theories as well on it all.

Two possibilities exist here. They mean something by the word nothing which is meaningless and useless. Or they are just making stuff up that is not true. Nothing (non-being) necessarily has no creative potential. All change and especially coming into being requires a change of state concerning information. They have no information at all to have change or they have some yet call it nothing. Either way there is no solution to be found in that statement. It is semantic parlor tricks start to finish. You can do that when nothing you say can be verified.

The Fabric of the Cosmos
What Is Space

[youtube]sUtVw7NMYoY[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos 1 of 4) What Is Space - YouTube

The Fabric of the Cosmos The Illusion of Time

[youtube]dkpKogQAu7E[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos 2 of 4) The Illusion of Time - YouTube

If your really brave

Fabric of the Cosmos and Quantum Leap

I am on a DOD server and can't watch utube. I however have a long history of looking into these claims and usually find nothing at al to them that can be verified by anything. They are pure speculation dressed in academic language. They just make me tired and even less trustful of theoretical scientists. I wish they would keep that stuff to themselves until they proved it to be true, instead they trot out every new speculation like some kind kind of breakthrough, and 90% are gone a few years later. That is another reason I have so much faith in the bible. Apologetics almost always uses the known to determine the unknown. Theoretical science is based on layer after layer after layer of speculation and guesswork. Given so many layers even slight average uncertainty gets multiplied together until the result is meaningless.

Join Brian Greene on a wild ride into the weird realm of quantum physics, which governs the universe on the tiniest of scales. Greene brings quantum mechanics to life in a nightclub like no other, where objects pop in and out of existence, and things over here can affect others over there, instantaneously and without anything crossing the space between them. A century ago, during the initial shots in the quantum revolution, the best minds of a generation—including Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr—squared off in a battle for the soul of physics. How could the rules of the quantum world, which work so well to describe the behavior of individual atoms and their components, conflict so dramatically with the everyday rules that govern people, planets, and galaxies?

I am aware of this occurring but the Quantum does not defy reality. It defies Newtonian intuition. In no case has the quantum ever produced something from nothing. It gets atomic particles from changes in energy states. Since you will know that matter is said to just be energy in a certain density this is not all that remarkable. It certainly upsets the application of Newtonian physics to atomic particles but has no affect on my claims at all. According to the dominant cosmological models everything natural began to exist and no matter how weird the quantum may seem it is no less natural. All energy, time, space, and matter came into being at the BB. The quantum is no help here. However it is ambiguous enough and so little understood many people try to claim it is, relying on our ignorance to succeed.

Quantum mechanics may be counterintuitive, but it's one of the most successful theories in the history of science, making predictions that have been confirmed to better than one part in a billion, while also launching the technological advances at the heart of modern life, like computers and cell phones. But even today, even with such profound successes, the debate still rages over what quantum mechanics implies for the true nature of reality.

I have no resistance to considering the quantum but it is of no use in getting a universe from nothing. It is something and no something can be eternal. Time, matter, and even space it's self began to exist according to all the evidence and this would include the quantum.

[youtube]EGhQmNZhlqw[/youtube]
3. Quantum Leap - YouTube

Wish I could watch utube on this computer but can't, sorry.

 

[1robin]

And I have explained how something can have existed for all of time and yet not be infinite. If no universe existed, then you wouldn't be able to ask the question why does it exist, would you?

A universe can begin to exist and even be eternal from that point. What it can't do is have always existed. We are not debating the existence of the universe, I hope. We both agree it is here and we are in it. I claim the bible's explanation is by far the best fitting and most comprehensive and science does not include even a reliable theoretical explanation for it's existence.

I do not remember you posting what you claimed to have. I remember you talking about unbounded finites. However circles are not equivalent to seconds. While I can traverse the same segment of a circle over and over again I cannot traverse the same second over and over.

I have no idea why the existence of me asking the question is meaning for your case. Apologists use that argument because by natural means there should not be a me to ask questions so only by including the supernatural could there be. See my signature line.

 

[1robin]

That would be bizarre because unlike the universe, those other things are not necessary for your existence.

For convenience sake lets say I agreed with you here (even though this disagrees wit your earlier post). To what end was it mentioned. The universe is not a necessary being because it is necessary to my existence (which it isn't if by I you mean my soul or identity). The majority of contingent things facilitate the existence of other contingent things, and yet remain contingent things. Necessary means non-contingent. The universe is contingent.

You are necessary if you're the one asking the question, aren't you?

Necessary being are not contingent upon anything, including their relationship to other contingent beings. A me that asks a particular question is contingent upon other things even if I am necessary for that to occur. It may be necessary to have math and tires to have a car as we know it but that does not make either math, tires, nor the car necessary beings. I think you do not fully understand what a necessary being is. Necessary beings owe their existence to nothing beyond their own nature.

 

[1robin]

Then it's not a theory if it doesn't pan out in reality. I noticed that about engineers as well and I realized that it's because they can only deal with what is in front of them. Without the scientist, the engineer just repeats what they already know and without the engineer the scientists reality only stays in the realm of the experiment and does not benefit man.

If that were true we would have never advanced beyond the first invention. Engineers and scientists are very similar on most levels with the glaring exception that engineers by economic necessity must produce correct concepts. Theoretical scientists never do because no test exists to verify most of what they invent. I have to wonder about the motives of getting into a field where few verifiable answers will ever be available. Application scientists are much more reliable but then again this is not where most challenges to God are spawned.