MeCagoEnCristo wrote:
So many religious people keep saying that “something cannot come out of nothing” as a matter of fact. So I want to know if his comment is a good example of creation ex nihilo and a valid counterargument to shut them up for good?

MeCagoEnCristo wrote:
..........
What about uncaused causes? I’ve read that particle decay (radiation) is totally random and uncaused. Is this really so? Do you have other examples?

R: That's always assuming that not only every particular thing in the world, but the world as a whole must have a cause. For that assumption I see no ground whatever. If you'll give me a ground I'll listen to it.

C: Well, the series of events is either caused or it's not caused. If it is caused, there must obviously be a cause outside the series. If it's not caused then it's sufficient to itself, and if it's sufficient to itself it is what I call necessary. But it can't be necessary since each member is contingent, and we've agreed that the total has no reality apart from its members, therefore, it can't be necessary. Therefore, it can't be -- uncaused -- therefore it must have a cause. And I should like to observe in passing that the statement "the world is simply there and is inexplicable" can't be got out of logical analysis.

R: I don't want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can't conceive. As for things not having a cause, the physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.

C: Well, I wonder now whether that isn't simply a temporary inference.

R: It may be, but it does show that physicists' minds can conceive it.

C: Yes, I agree, some scientists -- physicists -- are willing to allow for indetermination within a restricted field. But very many scientists are not so willing. I think that Professor Dingle, of London University, maintains that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us something about the success (or the lack of it) of the present atomic theory in correlating observations, but not about nature in itself, and many physicists would accept this view. In any case, I don't see how physicists can fail to accept the theory in practice, even if they don't do so in theory. I cannot see how science could be conducted on any other assumption than that of order and intelligibility in nature. The physicist presupposes, at least tacitly, that there is some sense in investigating nature and looking for the causes of events, just as the detective presupposes that there is some sense in looking for the cause of a murder. The metaphysician assumes that there is sense in looking for the reason or cause of phenomena, and, not being a Kantian, I consider that the metaphysician is as justified in his assumption as the physicist. When Sartre, for example, says that the world is gratuitous, I think that he has not sufficiently considered what is implied by "gratuitous."

R: I think -- there seems to me a certain unwarrantable extension here; a physicist looks for causes; that does not necessarily imply that there are causes everywhere. A man may look for gold without assuming that there is gold everywhere; if he finds gold, well and good, if he doesn't he's had bad luck. The same is true when the physicists look for causes. As for Sartre, I don't profess to know what he means, and I shouldn't like to be thought to interpret him, but for my part, I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake. I don't see why one should expect it to have, and I think you say about what the scientist assumes is an over-statement.

C: Well, it seems to me that the scientist does make some such assumption. When he experiments to find out some particular truth, behind that experiment lies the assumption that the universe is not simply discontinuous. There is the possibility of finding out a truth by experiment. The experiment may be a bad one, it may lead to no result, or not to the result that he wants, but that at any rate there is the possibility, through experiment, of finding out the truth that he assumes. And that seems to me to assume an ordered and intelligible universe.

R: I think you're generalizing more than is necessary. Undoubtedly the scientist assumes that this sort of thing is likely to be found and will often be found. He does not assume that it will be found, and that's a very important matter in modem physics.

C: Well, I think he does assume or is bound to assume it tacitly in practice. It may be that, to quote Professor Haldane, "when I Iight the gas under the kettle, some of the water molecules will fly off as vapor, and there is no way of finding out which will do so," but it doesn't follow necessarily that the idea of chance must be introduced except in relation to our knowledge.

R: No it doesn't -- at least if I may believe what he says. He's finding out quite a lot of things -- the scientist is finding out quite a lot of things that are happening in the world, which are, at first, beginnings of causal chains -- first causes which haven't in themselves got causes. He does not assume that everything has a cause.

Rumraket wrote:

sturmgewehr wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Stuhrm, I will be back later to address some fundamental epistemological issues you have with the status of the classic BBT. Very quick hint: it is not superior, in terms of what evidence there is to support it, to any other contemporary cosmological model. There is no empirical justification for believing the classic BBT, especially not OVER any other contemporary model.

OK, I will be waiting for your reply, it would be good if u could suggest me some literature which is gonna point me to the right direction in understanding all this mess about the beginning of the universe, and, thanks a lot for being patient with me, thanks to u and the rest of the guys who have been trying to evince the issue to me.

To understand what we actually have evidence for, you have to understand a little bit of the history behind big bang cosmology. It is a deep misunderstanding to think that the classic big bang theory has some kind of special evidential support over other contemporary theories. It doesn't, it simply came first and primarily for that reason, has been the most cited and most generally accepted theory for the early universe and it's origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
This gives a decent overview of the history of big bang cosmology, why it was invented in the first place and what it says. This is important, because understanding the history behind the different ideas tells you what evidence lead to their proposals.

Basically what happened was that two independent lines of evidence implied that the universe was smaller (not that it had an ultimate beginning) in the past, than it is now.

1) One was that Einstein's general relativity implied that space had to be either expanding or contracting, it would not remain static. Is this actually evidence that time began? Nope.

2) The other was the observation that galaxies are moving way from each other at a speed proportional to their mutual distance. Having observed this, Edwin Hubble all the way back in 1929, put the observed redshifts of distant galaxies in a logarithmic coordinate system and drew a straight line through them. The obvious implication of this line was that everything had to have been closer together in the past. How close together is of course the big question and it wasn't lost on anyone.

Basically what happened then, was that physicists went with Hubble's graph in one form or another (Hubble got the rate of expansion off by about 10%, which wasn't too bad), and simply extended the line so far back in time they could until they arrived at a point. Literally, everything would have had to have been collected into a single point infinitely small. Now obviously, the drawing of this line all the way back to a time when the universe would have been contracted into a single point, is fundamentally an extrapolation and nothing more. Extending your data points beyond what you observe is to extrapolate, by definition.

Anyway, having done this, physicists then went on to ask themselves: "supposing space was really fucking small, hot, and dense in the past, but subsequently expanded to the size we see today, what would we expect to see?".

They then went calculating, using their understanding of the physics of atoms and the very small (quantum mechanics and atomic physics) and arrived at two major predictions:
They would expect to see a specific distribution in the elements available in the early universe. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

They would expect to see a more or less uniform band of radiation, emanating from all directions, of a certain temperature in the microwave range. The cosmic microwave background radiation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

These were at the time the two major predictions of ... what, exactly? A hot and dense state - hot and dense enough that at one point, all matter in the universe was in the form of high-energy radiation.

While initially the idea had been to extend Hubble's law all the way to a singularity (the infinitely small point of infinite temperature and density), there is no requirement that there ever was a singularity (this is still just an extrapolation), in order for us to be able to explain that the universe was hot and dense enough for all matter to have existed in the form of radiation.

We have no actual evidence that the universe was a singularity, that it was that small. We have no actual evidence of an ultimate beginning. The evidence we have is the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of light elements in the early universe.

Now, since that time, other lines of evidence has been added, still supporting that the universe was hot and dense enough to create the CMBR and the distribution of light elements, such as early galaxy formation and the large-scale structure of the universe (how galaxies are arranged into clusters, which are spread out more or less in a "network" pattern). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

None of this evidence implies that the extrapolation all the way to a singularity is justified. Not to mention that to go a step further and suggest that at some point, there wasn't even any singularity at all, but a philosophical void of non-being, is to make shit up wholecloth.

What is even worse, we know that general relativity, the very theory of spacetime that predicts that the universe should not remain static, actually breaks down under sufficiently hot and dense states. This means general relativity is incomplete, something is missing. So we can't use general relativity to argue that there was a singularity, or that time has an ultimate beginning.

So when we're talking about the classic big bang theory, and the evidence for it, it's important to be specific and say what we mean. We can say there definitely was a big bang. What does this mean? It means that the universe was certainly extremely small at one point, and that all observed matter and energy was packed into this very hot and dense state - and subsequently expanded very rapidly while cooling off. Where it came from, whether it was even smaller still, we simply do not know. That last extension of the line in Hubble's coordinaty system, back to a supposed t=0, is an extrapolation. It isn't actually required for the theory to work, and there are many other suggestions that propose entirely different scenarios for the early universe. Early meaning the time before the formation of the CMBR and big bang nucleosynthesis.

Here comes the important point: The competing models to the classic bing bang theory (with it's singularity extrapolation) PREDICT THE SAME THINGS, POST-PLANCK-TIME, AS THE CLASSIC BIG BANG THEORY DOES:
1. The CMBR.
2. Distribution of light elements.
3. Large scale structures in the distribution of matter (galaxies, clusters, superclusters etc. etc.)
4. Galaxy formation etc.

So in this respect, they all have equal amounts of evidence for them. Because they all explain what we observe, at least to the degree of accuracy we have done the observations. There are differences between them, but they require even better and more accurate observations of the patterns in the CMBR and stuff like that, than current instruments have been able to detail.

So, since we have multiple different hypotheses that all explain the same set of observations, should we then really believe any particular one? No, we shouldn't. The classic bing bang model with an extrapolated singularity, was simply the first model on the scene. It made sense to do at the time, to draw the line through the data points and simply extend it all the way into a singularity and then ask that "what if?" question. But that is all it is, a line on a piece of paper. It is not itself evidence of a singularity. To have evidence of a singularity you'd have to derive predictions unique to a singularity and observationally confirm them. We have no such evidence.

So the state of modern cosmology is this: Shut up and calculate. Come up with theories, see if you can derive testable predictions. If you can, test them. We don't know what happened before the planck time, it's that simple.

But cosmologists are human beings, and some of them are religious and like everyone else, have their biases and their pet theories. And then there's religious apologists, who in their disengenous ways, like to quote cosmologists who support the classic big bang theory for whatever reason (either because it's the one that came first and therefore the one they first came to know about and all that, or... ), and through that try to present a false picture of some sort of consensus among cosmologists.

It's in effect an appeal to authority fallacy. But it's even worse, because their authority is synthetic, there is plenty of competition with the classic big bang extrapolation. Craig and company like to quote that shitty Barow and Tipler book endlessly, as if it constitutes an extant consensus on modern cosmology, and even worse, as if some kind of consensus on an extrapolation is evidence that that extrapolation is justified. Quick hint: it isn't. Either there is empirical evidence for it or there isn't, and there isn't.

So what should you believe? At this point in time, only that the universe was very small, hot and dense, about 13.8 billion years ago, and subsequently expanded very rapidly, cooled off, matter started forming etc. etc.
That's it. We don't know what happened before this, there are many competing models. Heck, we already know our current models all have major holes in them. Who predicted dark matter and dark energy? Noone did, which means our understanding of nature at cosmological scales is seriously lacking. So this isn't the time to start taking bets and believe hype by religous apologists. We have to wait for the evidence to decide.

That evidence won't be coming from philosophers. And it most certainly won't be coming from religious apologists. It is pretty obvious why people like Craig are so enamored with the classic big bang model, they think they can bend it to support their theistic views. Of course, even THAT I would take issue with, because even if the universe was a singularity, it doesn't follow it came from nothing. But that's a discussion for another time. I hope this clarifies the subject a little for you.

Rumraket wrote:

You're saying nothing with any more explanatory power than "the universe created itself"

Actually to really understand the argument you need to understand the uncertainty principle. It's a bit more complicated that just "the universe created itself". In fact, it's more correct to say that "the uncertainty principle prevents the non-existence of the universe", than it is to say that "the uncertainty principle creates the universe".

In this respect, the universe has always existed. We don't need to invoke a first cause of any kind, we need only note that it is physically impossible for the universe not to exist. This is despite the supposed finitude of time in the past, because it is meaningless to speak of what could have "happened" to bring about the universe when there is no time or space for something to "happen" in, and there is no thing at all to be causally affected to begin existing.

The main issue arises out of allowing for absolute simultaneity. There are few things more deeply counterintuitive, and one can play all manner of nutty tricks with it.

You're essentially making the mistake of thinking that I'm literally trying to argue for a mechanism of ex nihilo creation. I'm actually not. Incidentally, I think ex nihilo creation is physically and logically impossible. It cannot happen in any way. Not through the will of god, or a physical mechanism or whatever else. For something to undergo any kind of causal influence, it has to already exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be caused to do so because there's nothing there to be causally influenced.

So, I'm not saying that there was absolute non-being and then suddenly the uncertaintyprincple just magically exists and makes the universe create itself out of this nothingness, or whatever you imagine to that effect. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there was never such a thing as absolute non-being in the first place, because there can't be a time/moment of existence of non-being, before time itself. That would be absurd.
So that combined with the proposition that, for all of time, the uncertainty principle has been "in effect" so to speak, we don't NEED a creative force to precede the universe and then create it.

The way to look at it is to imagine we start from now, and then try and reverse the flow of time and approach t=0(the "beginning" of the universe). The uncertainty principle is in effect now, it "exists". The effect of the uncertainty principle is that there can't be a state of absolutely nothing. Ok? So, counting down to 0, we see that at any time t´ before now, it was still the case that the uncertainty principle was "in effect". When we reach 0, we just stop because there can't be a before the beginning of time. We cant go to time t=-1 if time itself stops at t=0. So, the universe with it's uncertainty principle has always existed, so it has always been the case that absolute non-being is and was physically impossible.

Now if you just can't wrap your head around this, and you demand a first cause, lucky for you, Craig has wibbled what you need: Absolute simultaneity.

We still don't need to invoke god. We just say OK Craig, absolute simultaneity is possible huh? Well I'm going to be economical and just stick with the fewest amount of assumptions. Instead of absolute simultaneity and god, I'm just sticking to absolute simultaneity. The uncertainty principle is observed, god is not, so I'm only going to agree to take on absolute simultaneity.

So, what happens at t=0? Well, as above there was/is still not ever a time/moment of absolute non-being. There is not a transition from nothing to universe. There is no "moment of change", because there is no time t<0 with "no universe" and a later time t>0 with "suddenly universe". Instead, the universe "begins" instantaneously to exist at t=0, simultaneously with the uncertainty principle preventing absolute non-being from manifesting.

I fully concede that there are at least two incomprehensible propositions here. The first is the very idea of a beginning of time itself. The second is the idea of absolute simultaneity. The issue isn't so much self-creation, at least to me, as it's the whole idea of a state of absolute non-being as being manifest, before time itself. How can non-being be? We can't make sense of it.

Reeve wrote:and that makes as much sense as a pair of hands drawing themselves. i.e. violating causality.

In non-apologist causality, causes precede their effects. If you allow absolute simultaneity, which was the whole point of my exercise here, then hands can indeed draw themselves. It still makes fewer assumptions(and more sense) than postulating a magical timeless and immortal, but loving personal hand that exists timelessly and can draw the universe into existence without a pencil to draw with and paper to draw on.

Rumraket wrote:

revivin wrote:Since the uncreated is proven to exist this is whom we call God.

Your proof was flawed and I explained why, in detail, here. You have still not offered any response.

Here it is again, so you can't miss it:

revivin wrote:I am glad you can't show it.

Let's go over it again then, so you can't miss it.

revivin wrote:I put this in my own words to paraphrase...

We observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature which is more than enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt there is always a cause and effect in nature and no hard evidence of something from non-existence.

Yes, causality works in nature. Please demonstrate that it is required for nature itself to be caused.

Furthermore, all the causal events we know of are material causal events. Physical interactions between material intities. As a corollary, by your line of reasoning, we should expect the first cause to be another physical interaction between material entities.

If time began about 14 billion years ago, as an integral and inseperable property of the universe, then it would be correct to say that:

1. There was never a moment or point in time at which the universe didn't exist.

2. There was never a moment or point in time at which there was nothing at all.

3. There cannot be a "before time".

4. Therefore, the universe has always existed(for all of time), even if the temporal dimension is past-finite.

5. Therefore the universe didn't begin to exist from nothing at all.

revivin wrote:That which does not exist couldn't cause anything because it doesn't exist.

But given 1. above, the universe has always existed. So the universe has always existed so that it could be present to cause itself. So the universe could have caused itself, and given 2. it didn't do so "out of nothing" because there was nothing at all.

revivin wrote:Nor can nature always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now , so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity to never reach this point.

Wrong.

Given a finite 14 billion year past, an eternity does not need to be traversed if time is an integral property of the universe.

revivin wrote:Since nature can't start up from nothing

But there is no requirement that it did as I have just demonstrated.

revivin wrote:, nor always have existed

But it did always exist. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist, which means the universe always existed.

revivin wrote:, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated which proves unequivocally that there exists the uncreated Creator whom we call God.

But that's wrong. You have NOT established this, it is nothing but counter-factual blind assertions.

revivin wrote:4 Step Proof for God source: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthrea ... 9#post8159

There is no evidence that a mind can exist in the absense of a physical brain. There is no evidence that minds, whether they exist with or without physical brains, can wish material entitites into existence out of anything at all. We only have evidence of material physical interactions between material entities. There is no evidence of anything else. So your "proof" has failed. It is and remains a blind assertion. A claim without warrant or basis, in absense of logic or rational support.

Rumraket wrote:First of all, there isn't any evidence that the universe actually began....

twistor59 wrote:

You mean the comment about the photon?

No, it's not an example of ex-nihilo creation.

twistor59 wrote: Energy and momentum were conserved in the "creation" process. There was stuff there before the photon existed and there is the same amount of stuff after it. All that has changed is the form of the stuff.

twistor59 wrote:
None of the current "universe from nothing" arguments are strong enough. I think we'll have to wait until there is a better understanding of quantum gravity and the measurement problem unfortunately.

MeCagoEnCristo wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

You mean the comment about the photon?

No, it's not an example of ex-nihilo creation.

Yes. Thank you for your answer.
But now I'm confused... What did Dr. Krauss mean by the paragraph I quoted then?
He said it in the context of defending his A Universe from Nothing book and nothingness concepts.
Did he simplify it too far, or is it plain wrong? I'm surprised his opponents didn't challenge him immediately with this.

twistor59 wrote: Energy and momentum were conserved in the "creation" process. There was stuff there before the photon existed and there is the same amount of stuff after it. All that has changed is the form of the stuff.

What would that stuff be? Is it the energy that excited the electron in the first place?

If so, is this energy then transformed into a photon when the electron goes back one "orbit level"? Is that what you meant by the energy and momentum being conserved?

MeCagoEnCristo wrote:

twistor59 wrote:
None of the current "universe from nothing" arguments are strong enough. I think we'll have to wait until there is a better understanding of quantum gravity and the measurement problem unfortunately.

I've only watched some of his lectures, and I had the impression there was very good mathematical and theoretical support for a universe from nothing (the Casimir experiment, virtual particles, etc.).

One explanation I heard was that, when matter and antimatter meet, they cancel each other out releasing energy. And if that process were reversed, then we would have the something from nothing (this energy being contained in the vacuum/nothingness). Am I getting it wrong?

twistor59 wrote:

MeCagoEnCristo wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

You mean the comment about the photon?

No, it's not an example of ex-nihilo creation.

Yes. Thank you for your answer.
But now I'm confused... What did Dr. Krauss mean by the paragraph I quoted then?
He said it in the context of defending his A Universe from Nothing book and nothingness concepts.
Did he simplify it too far, or is it plain wrong? I'm surprised his opponents didn't challenge him immediately with this.

twistor59 wrote: Energy and momentum were conserved in the "creation" process. There was stuff there before the photon existed and there is the same amount of stuff after it. All that has changed is the form of the stuff.

What would that stuff be? Is it the energy that excited the electron in the first place?

If so, is this energy then transformed into a photon when the electron goes back one "orbit level"? Is that what you meant by the energy and momentum being conserved?

Yes, here by "stuff" I mean energy/mass, which are the same thing - E=mc^2 and all that. So in this case you have the energy/mass of the atom/electrons and the energy/mass of the photon. The totals are the same before and after the creation of the photon. As he said in that paragraph - the photon didn't exist before the event. But it's not true to say it was created from nothing. The mass/energy of the system before and after was the same, no new "stuff" has appeared.

MeCagoEnCristo wrote:

twistor59 wrote:
None of the current "universe from nothing" arguments are strong enough. I think we'll have to wait until there is a better understanding of quantum gravity and the measurement problem unfortunately.

I've only watched some of his lectures, and I had the impression there was very good mathematical and theoretical support for a universe from nothing (the Casimir experiment, virtual particles, etc.).

One explanation I heard was that, when matter and antimatter meet, they cancel each other out releasing energy. And if that process were reversed, then we would have the something from nothing (this energy being contained in the vacuum/nothingness). Am I getting it wrong?

My point of view is that if you reversed the picture of an electron/positron annihilation, you would be creating the electron/positron pair out of the energy. This is not "from nothing". Energy is far from nothing!{/quote]

The idea that Krauss is alluding to ultimately (I think), is that the universe arises via a mechanism like the one proposed by Vilenkin many years back http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1983/vilenkin.pdf. "Nothing" in this context means not only no mass/energy, but also no space. The problem is that the mathematics in these approaches can't be made to work at the moment, also there is still a need to explain where the time evolution comes from.

I'm not sure how Krauss phrases his claims, but I think anything stronger than "it appears there are some research directions that may one day shed some light on this issue" are unwarranted at this time.

Wortfish wrote:Krauss is in a lot of trouble right now over sexual misconduct and harassment. I'm not saying his physics is linked to his naughty habits, but it does make you wonder if we a narcissistic and egomanical personality could be overshadowing his judgment.

Wortfish wrote:I'm not saying (...) but it does make you wonder if we a narcissistic and egomanical personality could be overshadowing his judgment.

Wortfish wrote:Krauss is in a lot of trouble right now over sexual misconduct and harassment. I'm not saying his physics is linked to his naughty habits, but it does make you wonder if we a narcissistic and egomanical personality could be overshadowing his judgment.

Wortfish wrote:Krauss is in a lot of trouble right now over sexual misconduct and harassment. I'm not saying his physics is linked to his naughty habits, but it does make you wonder if we a narcissistic and egomanical personality could be overshadowing his judgment.

scott1328 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:Krauss is in a lot of trouble right now over sexual misconduct and harassment. I'm not saying his physics is linked to his naughty habits, but it does make you wonder if we a narcissistic and egomanical personality could be overshadowing his judgment.

Well poisoning, ad hominem. Typical.

You know Jesus hung out with whores. Rumor has it he knocked one of the whores up and his followers tried to cover it up. I wonder if his narcissistic and egomaniacal personality could have overshadowed his judgement.