,

Clap for yourself.

gombo_s:


In this topic, we will discuss the existence of God and the creation of the universe.

So lets begin step by step.

1. Nothing can create nothing, in other words, something can't be out of nothing. That is fair and simple. So something must have always existed before the universe began. Notice, the universe did NOT always exist.

Okay . . step by step.

Step 1)  Let's say nothing can create nothing, or come out of nothing, or whateva. How does it follow from this that the Universe did not always exist?

Krayola! LOL. Okay I agree, that appears to be a faulty line in the OP's reasoning, but he still has some valid points.

But think about it: we have reports that the universe is steadily expanding. If we backtrace, assuming the universe always existed, then there will be a 'time' when the universe was not immense enough to support the various forms of cosmic activities. There would technically be no space for the orbits of the planets, etc etc. What do you think?

By the way, I found this on the web.

Inesqor - I have made the argument a zillion times. I think its sound but others dont think so. I have no choice but to drop the issue.

1. Either everything came from nothing or –

2. Something always existed which gave birth to everything else that existed

I positively assert that the foregoing is absolutely incontrovertible.

Because –

How did things come into existence?

1. If NOTHING existed before things came into existence, then all that exists arose from nothing.

2. It is impossible that all that exists arose from nothing because 0 + 0 = 0: thus any agglomeration of nothings will always result in nothing – and never produce a “something.”

3. Thus given that things exist; then it is clear that things which exist could not have arisen from “nothing.”

4. Thus such things arose from something already existing.

You are right, Deep Sight. I do not believe that anything could have arisen from nothing, so to speak. There is an undeniable Source, God.

Meanwhile, the OP has skilfully moved the thread there in the Muslim section, after deleting his initial post. I think I know why.

@ Inesqor. The so called source is not undeniable. I deny it all the time and, IMO, with very good reason.

deepsight's quote

1.   Either everything came from nothing or –

2.   Something always existed which gave birth to everything else that existed

I positively assert that the foregoing is absolutely incontrovertible.

Because –

How did things come into existence?

1.   If NOTHING existed before things came into existence, then all that exists arose from nothing.

2.   It is impossible that all that exists arose from nothing because 0 + 0 = 0: thus any agglomeration of nothings will always result in nothing – and never produce a “something.”

3.   Thus given that things exist; then it is clear that things which exist could not have arisen from “nothing.”

4.   Thus such things arose from something already existing.

@ 1. That is IF. How can u claim something is undeniable when it's validity depends on an "IF" (An "if" that is itself the koko of enquiry)

and if something did always exist, it isn't necessarily A creator.

Krayola:

@ 1. That is IF. How can u claim something is undeniable when it's validity depends on an "IF"

. . . then you say:

(An "if" that is itself the koko of enquiry)

. . . so how come you also are the same dude employing the "IF" -

and if something did always exist, it isn't necessarily A creator.

Hahaha!! You're a very interesting human being ... that is "IF" you're a human being!

haha. Well, I think first I have to show what i feel is the problem with the argument.

Then try to show that even IF I ignore the problem, the argument still get as e be.


Deepsight uses IF in line one of his argument, then it just disappears into thin air. .  and we end up with an "undeniable" conclusion.    Dat one na 419 o

Krayola:

Deepsight uses IF in line one of his argument, then it just disappears into thin air. .  and we end up with an "undeniable" conclusion.    Dat one na 419 o

^^ You're absolutely correct, IMO. Not that anything is wrong with DeepSight's assumption, though - and that is why he would first need to "show" how 'nothing' transforms into 'something' or 'anything' from 'nowhere'.

In another respect though, I was being facetious with the 'IF' ... you know how these things work with that nebolous thing called 'philosophy'. Just imagine a statement like this :::

           A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if
           it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true
           and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.

'Valid', you say? Yep. On the 'iff' form that makes a premise impossible to be true and then its conclusion false. Where do we go from there? But that is one funny thing about questions around epistemic logic like '0 + 0 = 0' until 'something' from 'nowhere' transforms 'nothing' into 'everything'. Conclusion: false (according to the 'deductive argument above')!

Bro, I'm out!

InesQor:

You are right, Deep Sight. I do not believe that anything could have arisen from nothing, so to speak. There is an undeniable Source, God.

Meanwhile, the OP has skilfully moved the thread there in the Muslim section, after deleting his initial post. I think I know why.

Greetings brethren and sistren in the name of the almighty JAH - Rastaaafaaaariiii, king a kings, and lord a lords.

I and I a ponder 'pon da distinction between nothin and sumtin. What is it that makes nothing distinct from sumtin? Please meditate 'pon wa I a say before responding inna ya full overstanding.

InesQor:

Krayola! LOL. Okay I agree, that appears to be a faulty line in the OP's reasoning, but he still has some valid points.

But think about it: we have reports that the universe is steadily expanding. If we backtrace, assuming the universe always existed, then there will be a 'time' when the universe was not immense enough to support the various forms of cosmic activities. There would technically be no space for the orbits of the planets, etc etc. What do you think?

By the way, I found this on the web.

I no that I'm sounding like a broken record now, but I would like to raise the point, again, that processes are not always necessarily linear. In other words, processes are not necessarily cumulative in their effects or even their manifestation. That the world is expanding now does not mean that it has always expanded and that the process may be one of intermittent expansion and contraction. Please consider this.

3 leading cosmologists Guth,borde and vilenking in 2003 showed that any universe which has been expanding must have a past finite boundary.this rules any theories on cyclic universes.besides,the current expansion of the universe is irreversible due to the composition of the universe with mostly dark matter.if the expansion is irrervisible now,why should we suppose that it was reversible in an earlier expansion.Was our universe composed of other stuff?
The burden clearly lies on the person in support of cyclic theories.

Lastly,even if we dismiss the widely accepted finite universe, and we embrace the a beginless universe,how does this answer the question,'why something rather than nothing exists.'
The universe is contigent,so its existence is not neccesary.but it exists.Why?

easylogic:

3 leading cosmologists Guth,borde and vilenking in 2003 showed that any universe which has been expanding must have a past finite boundary.this rules any theories on cyclic universes.besides,the current expansion of the universe is irreversible due to the composition of the universe with mostly dark matter.if the expansion is irrervisible now,why should we suppose that it was reversible in an earlier expansion.Was our universe composed of other stuff?
The burden clearly lies on the person in support of cyclic theories.

The burden is on you to explain the above. I don't know what point you've made there. You haven't presented an argument, all you've done is tell me that some cosmologists have made an argument. You haven't told me what their arguments are, or how they showed whatever it is that they showed.

How is the current expansion of the universe irreversible? What are the properities of dark matter that makes the universes expansion irreversible. If it was a christian making such statements everybody would be screaming dog[/b]ma [b]and [b]cat[/b]echism by now.

easylogic:


Lastly,even if we dismiss the widely accepted finite universe, and we embrace the a beginless universe,how does this answer the question,'why something rather than nothing exists.'
The universe is contigent,so its existence is not neccesary.but it exists.Why?

The universe is contingent? Contingent on what, pray tell? I would say that we cannot, by rational argument, decide whether or not the world is contingent or necessary. I don't even like that distinction between contingency and necessity, but that's another story.

@Pastor AIO: Yes! That was you on the meta-ethics thread talking about linearity and then you disappeared?  Okay, I do not say very much on topics that I know next to nothing about, such as the origin of the universe or its linear/non-linear experience. What I have to say, however, is that the following experts think that the universe never always existed. I don't know if there are any that think it always did. 

NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

here

UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

here

University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."

[url=http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm]here[/url]

PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."

here

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."

here

@Pastor AIO: As for your other question, I think nothing is a something. Laugh no go kill me for hia

InesQor:

@Pastor AIO: Yes! That was you on the meta-ethics thread talking about linearity and then you disappeared?  Okay, I do not say very much on topics that I know next to nothing about, such as the origin of the universe or its linear/non-linear experience. What I have to say, however, is that the following experts think that the universe never always existed. I don't know if there are any that think it always did. 
here
here
[url=http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm]here[/url]
herehere

Sorry to disappear but life is a real battle at the moment and I'm in the thick of it. A couple of things that I wonder if you could tell me . . .

Do you know of many, or even any (with absolute certainty) processes in the whole universe that you can say are linear. in other words, processes that can be described in terms of 2 factors that are directly correlated. Sure linear processes occur in pure mathematics and other abstract mental systems. But are there any processes in Physics (science of the real world not the pure world of maths) that fit a linear description. I don't mean that approximate a linear description but actually fits.
A linear description could be an equation such as y=nx, where x and y are variable factors and n is a fixed number.

As for the rest, the university of michigan guys hit the nail right on the head:

What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

And I guess that by pure speculation they mean complete and utter speculation, not corrupted in anyway by evidence or rigor.

InesQor:

@Pastor AIO: As for your other question, I think nothing is a something. Laugh no go kill me for hia

No worry if laff kill you, resurrection dey.

What manner of something is nothing? Why distinguish it from all the other somethings? What are it's distinguishing characteristics?

@Pastor AIO: Wow. Not to worry, God is your sun and shield, you'll be good.

1. Linear correlation? F = ma (Newton's law) e.g. Weight is directly proportional to mass. The constant varies (what an oxymoron) depending on the location, but its always directly proportional. Can't think of (m)any others right now.

2. I think a nothing is a something that has managed to go unrecognized. It's like we're using a searchlight in a very dark hall. Whatever is currently in the scope of our view is a "something", whatever we cannot actively capture / recognize in our view is a "nothing". There's really no "nothing" at the end of the day, just in-so-far unrecognized somethings. Hope I'm making sense. . .

hello DUDES & DUDETTES,

I'm gonna tell something outta nothing from anything to everything brb with more 'thing' to think and link

The most fundamental and profound discovery of the 20th century was that not everything in nature has an explanation according to scientist. At a fundamental level it is quite random. Virtual particles flutter into and out of existence. No cause, They just do according to scientific observations. What "causes" a particular atom of U-235 to pop off and decay? Nothing. It just does. (granted the force is mediated by the W particle, but that is what doesn't have a cause.)

And indeed as later developed, the universe itself to me is most likely simply the result of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. No cause. It just happened. Just because everything within the universe has a cause which lies within the universe doesn't mean that you can deduce that the universe itself has a cause. Just as from "everything within the universe lies inside something else within the universe" does not allow people to deduce that the universe itself lies within anything.

Hello toneyb,

toneyb:

Virtual particles flutter into and out of existence.

This 'into' and 'out of' existence is a fallacy. Particles do not 'pop' in and out of "existence" on their own, nevermind the pretentious talk of some "scientists" who are trying to hoodwink the gullible public with such ideas.

We've discussed this just a bit in another thread (Can Anything Come Out of Nothing) - and there are far too many holes in the assumptions of such a statement as that 'virtual particles flutter into and out of existence'. Not that in itself the "theory" (as a theory) has no applause; rather, it just does not explain anything about 'existence' in itself.

Any mathematical model - I mean practically ANY mathematical model - could be used to explain away any excuses in such contrivances, but please don't be fooled by all this desperate talk of particles (virtual or real) popping, fluttering or coming into and out of existence.

As regards causations, when you infer that 'nothing' explains certain events (ie., 'what "causes" blah-blah ... Nothing. It just does'), the one question many people have asked about this assumption still remains, and more and more are not convinced that the assumption of "nothing" as an explanation satisfies the equation. Not one tiny bit. That answer of 'nothing' is rather a materialist ideology, and yet not even in quantum physics is 'nothing' an answer as an explanation for 'existence'.

I cannot presently lay my hands on a paper that seriously discusses this issue to a fine point, but let me rather post another article and a few reactions to it, that may show just what some people take for granted in this subject [next post].

viaro:

I cannot presently lay my hands on a paper that seriously discusses this issue to a fine point, but let me rather post another article and a few reactions to it, that may show just what some people take for granted in this subject [next post].

So here it is:

---

Article reposted from Scientific American:

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

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

[list]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.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

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.[/list]



[list]Excerpted reactions[/list]

[list]pgtruspace at 11:10 PM on 08/25/09

(a)  Don't be fooled by the statements in the article. Nearly all "particles" are artifacts of test equipment and the need of researchers to earn grants and awards for greater and greater complexities and discriptions in their theories. That is why "particles" are interchangable. Only Protons are real things, and atoms are made up of protons and their electron shells. Electrons and all other "particles" are interchangable as has been shown in many test experiments. An Electron shell is a charge field not an orbiting electron "particle".

A neutron is a hydrogen atom with an electron shell in a compressed condition, and is slightly larger then a proton and has slightly more mass then a hydrogen atom. This lead to the first totally invented none existent particle, the neutrino, to cover up the error in thought with more B.S. and earn the "inventor" greater standing with his peers. Much later test equipment gave hints of something that almost matched the theories discriptions so everyone had more bragging rights for finding the much sought particle and "proved" the theories.

Today the discription of a dependable test equipment artifact "particle"can earn lifetime fame and fortune. The discription of the "electron" as a real particle was the first error of quantum machanics and everything else has been built on that.

Dark matter / Dark energy is the primal building block of the hydrogen1 atom and everything else. All "quanta" are test equipment measurements of the same thing. That is why all quanta are interchangeable, one changing to another. Just different test results at different points on the test track. This has been known for at least 40 years that I know of, but there is not much academic profit in that.
. . . . .

(b) Dark matter / Dark energy, two word descriptions of the same thing, Aether. Aether is supramagnetic, ( easily influenced by magnetic fields) has charge, ( an excess charge is negitive, a lack of charge is positive) and is in chaos (travels or has movement in 3 dimensions, causes the effects of inertia / mass and the transport of EMF (photonic)energy. Sorry no electrons,photons,neutrinos, mesons, glueons, gravitons and ons and ons. No need for Nobel prizes for yearly B.S. of greater complexities.[/list]


[list]MagnetMan at 02:36 PM on 12/21/09

The article above presents both virtual particles and quarks as real entities. As an independent thinker, I'm not convinced. All "particles" as far as I can fathom, are actually fields, probably magnetic in character and spinning or oscillating at some frequency. The electron, in my view, has no edge and therefore doesn't need to send out virtual photons to communicate with other charged particles. It is already in contact with them. However, the attributes of its own infinite structure could be modeled as virtual entities.[/list]




Certainly, the article and comments reacting to it are not to be taken as standard formulations of theories in quantum physics. However, a lot of B.S. is being passed around to 'validate' this desperate talk about virtual particles popping or flushing into and out of "existence" - how many informed readers are getting more and more convinced by such contraptions?

No, toneyb - 'nothing' is not an explanation for "existence", and definitely NOT in the question of virtual (or even real) particles behaving in one way or another in quantum physics. Any smart chap can propound any number of mathematical models to goon the public and collect nobel prizes for this and that - but how many such have any thing of substance to say about "existence" itself?