>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^eric3579:

Blah, blah, blah... start watching at 11:30.
>> ^Deano:
I was wondering when you'd show up.
As for something from nothing look up quantum electrodynamics.
You obviously haven't watched this splendid video or have even a basic grasp of physics.
I covered these in my response to Gallowflak.

Y'know, your concept of absolute nothingness doesn't actually exist, insofar as we can show it to exist, right? I mean, how would we? Material existence is what there is.


Yours is an abstraction, a theological/philosophical concept of the human mind, a thought experiment, in no way amenable to actual experiment or observation.

I also don't see how positing a complex being as the cause of a supposedly simple beginning simplifies matters. At fucking all. You're simply slyly inserting god just beyond reach of humanity's current epistemological horizon. This begs the question, well, where did your god come from? It's a superfluous and unnecessary (not to mention completely evidenced) addition to the regress and reeks of special pleading/wishful thinking. It's crass and obvious and, quite frankly, fucking stupid.

I won't even address the arguments from DNA and fine-tuning, as the mental gymnastics required to leap even to the most generic of gods from either just blows my mind.

Your video, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss: Something from Nothing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

>> ^eric3579:


Blah, blah, blah... start watching at 11:30.

>> ^Deano:
I was wondering when you'd show up.

As for something from nothing look up quantum electrodynamics.

You obviously haven't watched this splendid video or have even a basic grasp of physics.

I covered these in my response to Gallowflak.

>> ^Deano:
What's the logic for God existing given the complete lack of evidence?

Well, first you must ask yourself why you think there is no evidence for God. Logically, if God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. The question is, how would you tell the difference? How do you know what a God created Universe would or wouldn't look like? If you can't tell the difference, why would you rule it out? Why is it absurd to believe that the Universe was intelligently caused?

People get confused thinking that because science has described the mechanisms of how the Universe works, that this description somehow rules out an Agent. That would be like saying that describing the brush strokes of a painting rules out a painter. The real question is how did the Universe get here?

As I showed in my reply to Gallowflak, Dr Krauss got something from nothing by simply redefining what nothing means. He got something from nothing by redefining nothing as something..specifically empty space (which isnt actually empty) or a quantum vacuum (which has states and properties). That isn't nothing, and more importantly, none of this answers the question of how something came from nothing.

You see, when it comes to origins you have only two alternatives. Either there is a first cause of the Universe which began from *absolutely nothing*, or the first cause is eternal. Logically, from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore the first cause of the Universe must be eternal. We can also deduce many other things from this conclusion, such as that this cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and transcendent. Timeless and spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter had a beginning, enormously powerful for obvious reasons, and transcendent because whatever causes the Universe is necessarily greater than the Universe. You can also draw an inference to a personal cause from here.

There are many logical arguments for the existence of God. There is also evidence, such as the evidence from fine-tuning or information in DNA. Take your pick.

>> ^Gallowflak:
This problem is covered in the discussion. If the answers to the questions we have about physics were amenable to common sense, physicists would not be necessary. The nature of modern physics, whether at the very small or very large scales, is so deeply alien to the minds we have, because of the environment in which they developed, that to intuitively grasp these concepts is impossible. At these extremes, things cease to be comprehensible to us.

Natural philosophy is done. Mere logic no longer has any use in answering these questions. It is a waste of everyone's time and undeserving of conversation.

You can inject God into whatever crevices of human ignorance yet remain, but it's very difficult to take that seriously.

I never thought I would see an atheist use the words "mere logic", but there it is. You do realize that logic is all you have to justify your own rationality, don't you? If logic isn't good enough to understand reality, then rationality is not actually rational. Therefore, you have no basis for anything you believe, true or false. If you're intellectually honest, don't sit there and grandstand on this idea, but take it to its logical conclusion.

In any case, no the problem is not covered in the discussion. What Dr. Krauss is referring to when he is talking about "nothing", is not actually nothing as it is defined in the dictionary. Nothing is the word that he is using to refer to an entity, that entity being empty space or a quantum vacuum. Neither of those things are actually "nothing"; they are something. Empty space is not really empty, and a quantum vacuum has states and properties. Nothing is a universal negation; it has no states, no properties, no existence. What Dr Krauss is referring to is something, not nothing.

So his entire argument is invalid. He has not explained how something comes from nothing, he has simply redefined the word "nothing" and then claimed the Universe came from *that*. The essential question remains unanswered. The fact is, if you're not dealing with an eternal first cause, then you have to say that something came from a *literal* nothing, not a quantum vacuum or empty space, but nothing at all. I'm sorry to inform you but logic still applies in this situation, and logic tells us that this outcome is worse than magic. Philosophy is still alive and well.

I'll also note that in your reply you are just quoting what the Dr said in the video verbatim, saying that your own reasoning facilities are useless for understanding this problem. That you must rely on this authority to tell you what reality is, and even worse, that discussing it any further is a waste of time! Friend, put down the kool aid for a moment and realize the complete absurdity inherent in trying to prove something came from nothing. The real issue is, astrophysicists absolutely hate that all of their evidence points to the Universe having a beginning. They were much, much happier when they could still believe the Universe is eternal. That was very assuring to their atheistic predispositions, but this newer evidence of a beginning to the Universe is disturbing them. Since they can never admit the first cause of the Universe is eternal, because that opens the door for God, they are left with trying to prove something came from nothing. They are stubbornly and absurdly trying to prove the impossible because they cannot admit to where the evidence is leading them. In other words, they're as blindly dogmatic as you accuse me of being.

Read here for actual science:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

>> ^shinyblurry:

Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. You cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, the ultimate first cause of the Universe must be eternal. If it is eternal, why is it unlikely to be God?


This problem is covered in the discussion. If the answers to the questions we have about physics were amenable to common sense, physicists would not be necessary. The nature of modern physics, whether at the very small or very large scales, is so deeply alien to the minds we have, because of the environment in which they developed, that to intuitively grasp these concepts is impossible. At these extremes, things cease to be comprehensible to us.

Natural philosophy is done. Mere logic no longer has any use in answering these questions. It is a waste of everyone's time and undeserving of conversation.

You can inject God into whatever crevices of human ignorance yet remain, but it's very difficult to take that seriously.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. You cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, the ultimate first cause of the Universe must be eternal. If it is eternal, why is it unlikely to be God?


What's the logic for God existing given the complete lack of evidence?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. You cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, the ultimate first cause of the Universe must be eternal. If it is eternal, why is it unlikely to be God?


I was wondering when you'd show up.

As for something from nothing look up quantum electrodynamics.

You obviously haven't watched this splendid video or have even a basic grasp of physics.

Blah, blah, blah... start watching at 11:30.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. You cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, the ultimate first cause of the Universe must be eternal. If it is eternal, why is it unlikely to be God?

I'm reading "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. Awesome book, although I'll have to read it a second time. He really does march down the timeline from the initial hypothesis of the big bang through the steps we have taken to be able to verify this hypothesis with science. It really is an awesome book for the lover of science or history. His approach is very historical, but he doesn't shy away from the science at all.

But don't take my word for it...duh duh DUH

There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

take occupy wall st. Scientifically, it makes no sense to go out in the street and get a skull fracture. Morally, it makes all the sense in the world.

If you define 'science' as having common sense, then of course 'science' becomes very valuable. Doesn't make having 'science' into something better than having common sense.

If Lawrence Krauss is promoting something deeper than that, please explain it.

Would you Press a Button for a Million Dollars but it kills one person?
I suppose you can build a morality built entirely on scientific fact, but Science is never going to provide a reason for moral questions like the above.

"I would find it far more difficult to assume that all of this was a mere accident."

So you choose to "assume" that a magic sky god waved his hands (BTW, why does god need hands?) and created everything? Why? Why is that ridiculousness easier for you to believe? Because someone told you so?

"The laws of probability state that the universe has reached a level of complexity that is statistically impossible.

I can't imagine what "laws of probability" you are referring to, or how you are applying them, or if you are just regurgitating nutter dogma. Anyhoo, watch the last couple minutes of this video (Richard Feynman story). Actually, watch the whole thing. It's a great talk. Or don't.

"Sagan's folly is to assume that the universe is too complicated for God (or "a god") to have created. But, the sheer complexity of the universe is the primary reason man believes in God in the first place. The universe is simply so complex that a Designer MUST exist."

Sagan claims nothing of the sort. Your folly is to state your assumptions about Sagan here, as if the rest of us are as uninformed as you. And claiming the complexity of the universe as the primary reason for man's belief in god is patently ridiculous. Man created God LONG before he understood the complexity of the universe (not that we truly comprehend it even now), or that a universe even existed. Your god has become a "god of the gaps". As we learn, through science, more and more about the nature of our universe and reality, he will die just like the thousands of other gods man has created and abandoned over the millenia. Well... we can all hope. There will always be nutters in need of Teddy Bears.

"Occam's Razor says that belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient deity is much more logical than assuming the universe happened all by itself."

In your world, maybe. Using the ramblings writings of a 14th century theologian to support your silly beliefs is like quoting Sarah Palin to bolster your position on energy policy. Occam's Razor is a principle, not a scientific law, not that you would understand the difference. However, if you believe that an infinitely complex being creating everything as is (with all it's complexity) with a wave of his noodly appendage is the simplest explanation, rather than 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution that began (possibly) with a simple quantum fluctuation, you either don't understand the concept of Occam's Razor (fewest assumptions for competing theories that predict the same results), or you choose to remain comfortably ignorant.

"But the only thing worse than a religious man's zeal to get people to believe, is the atheist's zeal to make people NOT believe."

Spoken like a true zealot.

Your video, Lawrence Krauss: The Weight of the Universe (3:23), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.