₦airaland Forum

beneli:
The 'Z' in Deep Sights diagram would then be something outside of the 4-th dimension but certainly within a particular cluster-continuum of a universe.

Thank you for that excellent note, beneli. You've done far better than I could have managed to capture the whole zing so concisely.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=363758.msg5093540#msg5093540 date=1260547624]simply put, what happened in the big bang is the reverse of what happens in black holes[/quote]That's not true or coherent. The Big Bang theory does not suggest such reversible trend, or you would have been able to calculate time and space in theoretical physics before the BB with some predictions that we can deduce in the present. Please do that and let's see your hypothesis.

OLAADEGBU:
Why should I be poking at you, am I your bedfellow? What I am against is not you as a person but the evil imaginations that Paul wrote about in 2 Cor.10:4-5 where he said "Casting down imaginations , " tha prevents modern, secularised people from recognising the authority of God's Bible and heeding His saving gospel. It is not what we see that leads us to believe that the world is billions of years old but its our assumptions.

You of all people can see that salvation is not dependent upon the age of the cosmos. What is important, far more important than that, is know that Jesus Christ is the Saviour whose very own Life was given that Humanity might live through Him.

With all the boasting and bluffing that you have been displaying so far it is interesting for you now to be claiming ignorance here.

You've been mistaking me for someone else. Ask those who know viaro and they will tell you I'm not one for priding myself about knowing too much. So, where's the bluffing and boasting that you mistook in my posts?

For your information Biblical creationists love science! In fact, most fields of science were developed by men who believed the Bible, such as Isaac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetics, field theory), Robert Boyle (chemistry), Johannes Kepler (astronomy), and Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization). Francis Bacon, a Bible-believing Christian who developed the scientific method.

I'm not ignorant of those names, or even the fact that most of their postulations have been superceded by recent scientific theories and laws. If you want a list, I'd be glad to oblige.

The reason such fields of science developed was the belief that God created the universe and that He instituted laws that we could investigate. Even today, many great scientists believe the Bible and use good observational science on a daily basis.

And your point is. . .?

Even logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. Since we are created in the image of a logical God, we would expect to have logical faculties. However, logic is not a material entity, so it becomes a problem for the materialist atheist who denies the immaterial realm. From a materialistic perspective, a logical thought is the same as an illogical thought—merely a chemical reaction in the brain. From a materialistic point of view, then, the perception of logic is due to random processes and has nothing to do with absolute truth, which is also immaterial.

This is mere carping, I'm sorry. It's quite unfair that you're grossly misrepresenting the atheist's view point or atheism as a worldview. As far as I know, many atheists are far more sound than theists who try to discuss logic - and these atheists are not confused about the fact that logic is abstract and not material. Therefore, it presents no problem to them to soundly discuss logic without being bogged down with the misrepresentations in your quote. I do not know how many atheists believe that 'a logical thought is an illogical thought' - why are you spewing these crass nonsense?

So in a biblical worldview, logic exists and so does truth, both of which are immaterial. But in a purely materialistic worldview, there is no basis for logic or truth to exist, since they are immaterial. And if our brains are the result of random mutations and natural selection, how do we know that our brains have evolved in a way that allows us to think and reason according to truth?

Red herring. It's a dangerous thing to just regurgitate whatever you've sponged up from people making these sort of puerile statements. In a materialistic worldview, logic and truth exist without any problem at all. That is why in the natural sciences, logic plays a very important role in Mathematics as well as in Philosophy. Have you tried to check these things out before making these statements?

To state that logic can yield a truthful result means that absolute truth must exist, hence God.

No - that is simply destroying any argument you might make for the existence of God. Logic can yield truthful statements independent of metaphysics and supernaturalism, hence no God! You may never have heard of syllogism, have you? Have you also heard of the "iff" ('if and only if') statements of logic?

Now, in saying that logic can yield truth independent of metaphysics and supernaturalism, please understand that I'm not an atheist, but rather showing you the fallacy of your own logic.

This does not mean that atheists and evolutionists cannot use logic or do science. But when they do, they must borrow from the above Christian principles, an action which is not consistent with their professed worldview.

That's a false premise to argue. Naturalism, the cinderella of the atheistic worldview (as is supposed) does not need to borrow anything from any religion in other to maintain a sound consistency. This is not to attack Christianity, but we should not be so impassioned as to forget ourselves to the point we begin to misrepresent the worldviews of other people.

Okay, I'd like to be first to travel. How much is the ticket to see the Middle East about 6,005 years ago? Seriously, I need to get there and sort a few things out. . and see what colour all the races of our humanity had back then _{not that I don't like my own, though.}

Hehehe. . just kidding.

OLAADEGBU:
If God said that the age of the earth is 6,000 years old when He verbally inspired His prophets would'nt it be outdated by now?

Yes; but even so, did He say to us anywhere that He deliberately named the age of the earth for which YECs now assertively peg it at 6,000 years old?

He knew that spiritual rebels like you would be quick to cry "error!" and that is why He has revealed His Word to us systematically and understandably.

Lol, viaro is not a spiritual rebel; and I understand that the Biblical revelation of God to the prophets is both dispensational and progressive, besides systematic and understandable.

You don't even believe the Words of Jesus when He said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6) so it doesn't surprise me that you believe that Noah's Flood was local.

I believe the words of Jesus Christ, and in the relevant thread I have shared what I understood Mark 10:6 to be saying. Following my discussion in that thread, I also asked questions about when the angels were created; yet not one YEC/YUC has been able to take those questions seriously enough to attempt any sane answers. I also have my reasons why I believe that the flood was local rather than global, and one of these days I shall share on that from the 3 points of reference that YEC/YUC are most scared of:

          ~ Scripture
          ~ Geosciences
          ~ quotes of YEC/YUCs

Many apprentices of the YEC/YUC doctrines do not think for themselves, that is why they act like their predecessors who damn every believer that dares to discuss an older than 6,000 year old creation in the Bible. I won't follow that trend, for a discussion is at its finest point when issues are discussed and not when discussants begin to throw stones at one another.

[list]
[li]If the flood was local why was the ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of vertebrate land animals? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could have been much smaller.[/li]
[/list]

It's simple, really: you have no clue about the number of animals in the taxonomy of Noah's time that is why you make statements like that.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.[/li]
[/list]

That is not even a serious consideration - for again you would have to think of the number of bird species in the avian taxonomy before you jump to the conclusion that they all were fitted into that Ark. Besides, there are species of birds that can swim and survive under water, regardless the current - an example is the American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), and several others. More than that, just think alone of the sheer number of species of birds, not to talk of other vetebrate land animals. How many do you know, please?

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 8 metres above the mountains (Gen.7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.[/li][/list]

That's easy - you have missed an essential part of geoscience here: the altitudes of mountain ranges all over the world are not the same but vary according to sea level. Now, let me ask you, what in your opinion is the highest peak of any mountain you know?

In the original autographs, every word and letter in the Bible is there because God put it there. Let us listen to God speaking to us through His Word and not arrogantly think we can tell God what He really means!

Yes, I listen; but He also enjoins me to understand what is written by seeking an interpretation that is not blind to reality.

Thank you, OLAADEGBU. For the wisdom part of your reply there, I would have much liked to leave off this exercise. What's the point in our poking at each other? Yet, could I take a few moments to show you something in yours:

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro, and his bedfellows,

Let me help you out, since you are not intelligent enough to understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about.

I don't, and repeat: I do not know or understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about. If you do, please show me and my indebtedness would know no bounds.

It was Thomas A. Edison that said "We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything". Albert Einstein also said something similar by saying: "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us". What has nature revealed to us? You can find this in Rom.1:18-20 and for an atheist to make a bold statement that there is no God shows that he is either a fool or has some dubious, devious intentions.

Again, viaro is not an atheist. I've said so quite a number of times.

Second, what has nature revealed to us in Romans 1:18-20? The first thing I saw in verse 18 is not nature, but the wrath of God. It starts out by saying: 'the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness'. Let me engage your thinking here.

Has it ever occured to you that such a verse applies to you as well? No? It says that such a revelation of God's wrath covers all unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. In my limited understanding, I understand that unrighteousness includes the attitude of putting words in God's mouth. This is what 6,000 y.o. "[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reation" people (YUC) do when they stretch truth out of shape and try to maintain that God told them so - that is simply an unrighteous thing to do, especially as He says: 'Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar' (Prov. 30:6).

To be found putting words in God's mouth when He never told us that the cosmos is 6,000 years old is not only to do unrighteously, but to stretch truth out of elasticity. Do you not see that you cannot be quoting Romans 1:18-20 on other people without taking care of your own glass house? Does not the same Romans in ch. 2:1 say that you who judge others in such a fashion are actually guilty of the same own crime ('doest the same things') and are inexcusable? Where did God tell us that the whole of creation is 6,000 years old? If He did not say so, why do we try to force that idea into His mouth?

And if any of you think you know anything start with the fear of the Lord as it is the beginning of knowledge, and when you get that knowledge you will need the beginning of wisdom to apply it. Start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread, then humble yourself to learn from the links suggested.

That's not a problem at all, because I already covered my ground to admit that I'm not that intelligent - I do not have 100% of the knowledge of the world. But that which you have tried to assert so confidently is not even sturdy enough to stand if I were to go through them with a comb. Why? For the fact that you neither understand science nor even what you assert, one wonders what substance there is in attending to your assertions. This was why I tried to show you the little about science and teleology that you are mixing up, and up until now you have not coughed at all on what I have argued there.

Wisdom is not misquoting verses against people just because your arguments are wobbling - that is not wisdom. I don't even want to claim that I know what it is; however, I can recognize what it is not. Wisdom comes with the humility to say that we can shut our mouths in matters where people make a lot of noise, even at the risk of appearing foolish; than the attitude of being proud and haughty in trying to force ourselves to say something that sounds 'scientific' but turns out to be crass.

@Deep Sight,

Bro, forgive me for taking off like that yersterday. I was online viewing the vid posted by mazaje in another thread, and had to run off to work to cover for someone who called in ill.

Now to your concerns in posts #23 and #24, and thank you for the diagrams. Let me first run through them, and then see if I could later provide some more gist to clear the air.

Deep Sight:
Now take a look at the rough image i have created below.

Where -

T = Spacetime

Y, X, A, B = Galaxies

Z = Outside spacetime.

Can you kindly take sometime and tinker with (edit) this image to show how it might appear when T is "folded" to create a shortcut between X and Y, through a wormhole, perhaps.

When you do, this, please be so kind as to indicate if A and B may have moved within spacetime, and their new locations.

---

www.nairaland.com/attachments/206052_Example_2_jpg0cc02c0c308dc8d16faaa37c4546a3bb

Deep Sight:
Bear in mind also that you said -

The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole.

And assuming x and y to be at opposite far reaches of the universe, please consider if it can be rightly said that the "folding" of spacetime required to acheive a shortcut between the two will be a "small movement" only, and will not remodel the universe. Can it be said that a "small part" only of the universe will be experiencing the said phenomena?

A few adjustments indeed are necessary there, especially in your diagram. First, we should not conflate spacetime and wormholes as to suppose them to be the same thing (I know you're not doing so, but the distinction is a helpful one to bear in mind). In the examples we considered earlier, remember that wormholes are within the Universe. Let me concisely note that 'Z' is still within the Universe; and 'T'  as space-time is also within the Universe. However, X, Y, A, B (which you referred to as galaxies) may be either within or outside the region of the 'fold' in the spacetime. Rather, the wormholes are formed inside the galaxies, because it is commonly believed that wormholes in many instances are at the cinter of galaxies. Thus, when the wormhole phenomena occurs, it does not affect the entire Universe as to 'remodel' it; nor does the wormhole affect various galaxies in such a manner.

Perhaps in my next posts I shall try and outline them and also see if I could do a touch up on the diagram you provided. Thank you for your patience.

OLAADEGBU:
Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have 100% you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes, that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China etc.

I understand where you're going, but even so you have not defined what truly constittutes '100%' of all knowledge. Making an arbitrary list of this and that is not even close to all the knowledge of this world; and when you're done, you will still find I haven't shifted from my initial answer: I'm not that intelligent, really. Like the Psalmist, my attitude is 'Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it' (Psalm 139.6).

What % of this knowledge do you think you have?

I don't know, because to tell you what it is, I would first have to know what constitutes 100% of all the knowledge in this world. Do you know what that is? Just when you think you do, I may point you to some that you may never have considered. Want to test it out and see?

Your problem here is that you assume a Christian who does not necessarily see things the way you interpret them must have 'bedfellows' in secret cults. Having run oout of steam, you just pose these funny lines to fill pages and curve spacetime. Perhaps it might be more helpful to see that there is a limit to our understanding of the natural world, and we should not be headstrong to force-fit or impose our own interpretation into any text as if we are God's personal secretaries.

^^^ Amen, bro. . . amen. That is why it is difficult for viaro to grind his nose on the mill of such as argue a 6,000 years old creation when neither God the Father, nor Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit mentioned such a figure for the age of the entire creation of all things.

Krayola:
I took one course on the study of religion in the summer and it basically, amongst other things, schooled us on how to spot bull.s.h.it, or at least bias, from a mile away. Bias, in presentation, does not necessarily discredit the info, but one just has to be more skeptical of such stuff. As impressed as I was with that video it seemed the guy was pandering to his audience. There were just too many cheap shots at religion, and I felt he could have made his point without them. But the stuff he discusses is pretty cool tho.

These people get paid for these talks, and, just like we have "dishonest" pastors that tell their congregation what they want to hear, we have "dishonest" scientists that are just out to make a buck, and give all these talks that are more pandering than information. Not that what he was saying was wrong, cause, heck, i don't know enough about physics to know, but his blatant anti theist stance just made me not trust it as I would have had that not been a part of it.

^^^You got it all in a nutshell, my thoughts precisely. Even so, I think there's much to appreciate in Krauss' talk in that vid though.

@Justcool and tpia,

My indebtedness to you both for those nice contributions. I trust they shed light on certain issues we hitherto might not have considered.

OLAADEGBU:
If you were patient enough to read till the end you will discover that Martin Luther countered the errors of those early church fathers in his quote. I know that you are so intelligent that you don't have to refer to what any church father says, as for me I can learn a lot from their experience and avoid falling into pitfalls that many are in. Here is another church father that I can learn from.

My point was not that there is absolutely nothing to learn from the church fathers, or any fathers at all. It is clear that they were not written off completely in my previous post, and that is why I said that anyone was "welcome to quote any authority"; yet, whoever is being quoted should not be made the final authority on this matter, especially in the face of the challenges such interpretations have been unable to address. You inference that Luther countered the 'errors' of those church fathers should help you come round to my point.

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro,

You should clap for yourself for being so intelligent. By the way can you draw a circle and then write 100% in that circle. That 100% represents all the knowledge that is in this world. Now tell me what % of that knowledge do you think you have?

I'm not that intelligent, really. The one thing I ask people who make such conjectures is that they first tell me how they intend to measure '100%' as representing all the knowledge in the world. Do we know what that is? As soon as you can answer that question with a good degree of accuracy, I shall promptly tell you where I stand in that circle.

krayola3:
@ viaro Does Kraus set out to show that the Universe came out of nothing, or that it is possible the universe came out of nothing?

Good question, Krayo.

The way it appears, Krauss has several points he had hoped to confer in his talk, among which were how the universe will end, and how it could have come from nothing.

OLAADEGBU:
You and your bedfellows should remember not to discourage the other person's plans unless you have better ones.

Hehehe. . My goodness! What plans have you been trying to hatch all this time? 'Bedfellows'?? Haaha!

Talk about 'discouraging' other person's plans, I apologise - it was not my intention to do so. It just quite amazes me that this thread seemed to propound so many assertions that are flying through the pink sky. This was why I wanted to hear you out in the previous pages; and since you proposed to show "an example of how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory", I waited to see - but at the end of the day, it was all reactionary from you with very little substance to what you tried to settle.

As to the idea that when we critique your assertions, we should be able to come up with better ones, I welcomed that challenge happily - and yes, I did not stop giving a critique of your ideas, but also went on to set out the a "postscript" to discuss Systemics as an emerging branch of philosophy that studies systems based on holistic view points.

Systemics was my way of answering your challenge to have 'better ones' when reviewing your own assertions in this thread. So far, I have waited to see you response to that alternative I proposed - and the wait is quite long. Is there something missing soemwhere?

mazaje:


The debate will be arranged soon. . .Ken Ham has a busy a very schedule, I know very well that delay is dangerous. . . .

Oh lawd! this guy, you're quite a crack! Nice one.

@OLAADEGBU,

How are you sir? Yes, I'm here again, but not to cause you any harm. Believe me, I would have just remained in the sidelines and wonder at the amazing goings-on in this thread, but I felt it necessary to point out a few things yet again. If it helps you, good; if not, still good.

OLAADEGBU:
Those are scientific laws which all confirm the Bible.

That's okay. But since you said earlier that God had created the laws of physics and chemistry 'in the right way', I was hoping by now you would have shown where you find it so in the Bible. When you make statements like that, it makes many people wonder what you're talking about when they already are aware that there is just no coherence in some of your declarations.

Do I doubt that the Universe obeys certain laws of nature? Not for a moment. Do I also believe that these laws of nature were set by a supernatural cause that cannot be explained away naturally? You bet I do.

But the problem is that we should not on such basis be making far too presumptions tales about these matters. When people say that 'God created the laws of physics', I just wonder if such a person understands the difference between the laws of nature and the laws of physics. Let me break it down for you in layman's language:

      (a) laws of nature
         - they describe the way that nature functions and cannot be changed

      (b) laws of physics
         - they try to explain how nature works theoretically and can indeed be modified

In (a) above, it does not matter what theories any brilliant mind can postulate, nature canot be changed or affected in any way by such a theory, whether the theory itself is correct or wrong, or even whether or not people understand it.

But in (b) above, people postulate theories in order to try and explain how nature works - and because some of these theories have problems as they are tested out, they are subsequently modified or altogether abandoned where they are found to be untenable.

Let me give you two examples:

   Whether or not anyone understand the nature of the Universe, it would not be affected
   by any theory or laws of physics devised by the human mind; it is for this reason that the
   two examples below have been (i) modified, and  (ii) abandoned:

   (i) the equation for Eistein's theory of relativity was first written as
                     Gμν  =  8πTμν
   but when it faced certain problems of explicability, it was modified as
                     Gμν - gΛμν   =  8πTμν

   (ii) there are some theories that have been proposed and now abandoned
    and an example is the luminous ether which was once believed to exist.

Regardless of these, nature still works independent of what teories man devises - and that is why you need to be grounded in these matters when you present you case and just parroting what AiG or ICR are arguing with very confusing notes.

Why don't you tell me why there are no working formulas for evolution theory and why they have not been considered to be scientific law for the past 150 years?

Well, you may not be aware that there are so many theories which do not have 'formulae' of the type you asking for. In Psychology, for example, one would find numerous 'biological theories' which are not based on mathematical formulae, but psychologists are respected for these theories nonetheless because of their applicability to solve psychological problems. Examples include:

      * 'The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime' by Nicole Rafter.

      * 'Sociological Theories of Deviance', such as William Sheldon's work, is based on:
             ~ tissue layers
             ~ embryology
             ~ and physiology

There are other examples of biological theories that are not 'laws', and one has but look around and you will find a plethora of them. I give just one more example: the biological theories of dyslexia, where genetic linkage theory posits that there is a genetic vulnerability to dyslexia in some individuals; as well that research has confirmed the view that dyslexia can run in families. Please check it up yourself and see what it's all about; but understand the point here - there are several biological theories that have been confirmed through researches even though they are not 'scientific laws'. So please retire this argument confusion that 'evolution' is not valid because it is 'merely' a theory but not a law - that is just plain dense and unintelligent. More so, because that is not how scientific theories or laws work.

Indeed, some of these biological theories attempt some mathematical formulae, but that is not usually what they are based upon in order to be considered 'scientific theories' or laws.

But in the question of biological evolution, you should also remember that it is not a mathematical, but a biological, science. Yet, you may not be aware that there are some formulae that have been produced for certain evolution topics in biology. An example is one that my babe has been drumming into my ears in recent times:

R. Lenk published an article: 'Time-evolution of the entropy of fluctuations in some biological systems as investigated by NMR'. The Abstract reads:

[list]A simple expression for the entropy of fluctuations has been developed, using the tunnelling-effect model. This gives the possibility to estimate the changes and evolution to entropy in non-crystalline and biological samples by NMR investigations. On the other hand, the oscillatory character of the time-evolution of some properties, experimentally found in the investigated samples of plants, is interpreted in terms of the generalized master equation with an exponential memory function.[/list]

But if that does not say much to you, what about Dalius Balciunas' article about 'biological evolution phenomenon', in which he argues biological organization is solely the product of self-replication? Not only does he set forth his case, but does so with coherent mathematical models and formulae: review it here

In these examples, I have taken care to reference easily digestible articles, not one of mathematical formulae that may prove beyond your grasp.


Pst: in setting forth these things, it does not make me an evolutionist - so the idea that viaro has atheistic and evolutionary bedfellows is quite a laugh.

@mazaje. . hey pal, take a chill pill! Why are you firing away at my 'bedfellows' any-which-way?

Lol, the argument is not so much between science and religion. That is the first thing I would have hoped you guys come to understand, so that these banters would not be necessary. On either side of theism and athiesm, viz-a-viz science and religion, the problem of interpretation has assailed us all to no end!

_{Pst: by the way, when is viaro facing Ken Ham? I told you before: delay is dangerous, and so it appears at the moment.}

mavenbox:
@viaro: (digression) When I grow up I want to be like you o, moving stuff like this. LOL

^^^ Hehe, now don't tease me, mavebox.   You already know I'm useless as it is, and the only thing that seems to catch me offguard are numbers and maths, which I am least good at. I didn't find anything 'amazing' in Krauss' talk, so it was easy to smile and sift through all he was yapping about, lol.

OLAADEGBU:
Some of the early church fathers believed that God created everything in only one day or in an instant.

Early church fathers are not the final authority, and history has shown us that they got us confused on so many, many issues. If I were you, they would not even be my appeal to settling the question of this thread.

But, of course, anyone is welcome to quote any authority - early or late fathers, that's no problem to me. The question is not so much what the Biblical texts say, but our own interpretations of those texts.

1b.  Mathematical simulations in 'empty spaces'

Further, in making the observations above, let me show an example of how the mathematical model in that vid from 20:51mins is not unique in any way as to be convincing for Krauss' conclusions.

Somewhere in another thread I once quipped that anyone could work 'magic' with abstractions in mathematics. Indeed, if you know how to toss mathematical variables and equations around, any kind of image/imagery is possible. . .  I mean, just any kind of image. A few examples would suffice to illustrate this.

At Wired.com is an article about how 'Geeky Math Equation Creates Beautiful 3-D World', linked from the Mandelbulb website, samples of which appear below:

         https://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/new/ff/q85/The_Honeycomb_by_MakinMagic.jpg

         https://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/new/q85/shell-life-small.jpg

But, of course, those are just still-life snap shots of the imageries; but the animated forms are exemplified below as well with just about the same effect of showing that images could 'pop in and out of existence' with infinite self-repeating complexity:

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Mandelbrot_color_zoom.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif

Those are not the only examples. For anyone who wants to see just about the same way that simulation model in Krauss' talk could be demonstrated, please click on the link below this image to see it in action:

       https://blog.oaxoa.com/wp-content/blobber.jpg

       click to see it in action
       tip: move the botton 3/4 to the right to see the blobs
       appear and disappear.


The point in all this is that the example used by Krauss in his talk is not that amazing or convincing. The 'mathematical simulations' can be also be modelled to produced the examples of the 'Mandelbulb' images above, where 2-D mandelbrot set are used to generate infinite and self-repeating complexity. Fractals are very creative mathematical tools which are used to produce these 'simulations'; and as the example just above shows, other simulations could be produced where it appears blobs are 'popping in and out of existence'.

Although we could say that his talk was interesting (and he seems to have repeated that same dry monologue in so many places, in just the same pattern); but frankly, it is old tales in new tunes - nothing he said is novel there that scientists and philosophers have not dwelt upon in the past. Yet, throughout the talk in that vid, it does not appear at all that Krauss had demonstrated any convincing indicators to that enigmatic question. Nada. Zilch. That model fails to score with the question of 'how something could come out of nothing' on its own without any intelligence behind it. It cannot be denied that in all these imageries, there are very involved intelligences behind them - without exception!

Now, some reasons as to why it seems to me that Dr. Krauss' talk is riddled with holes. Aside the atheistic slant, his talk was interesting. However, as only an observer, I wonder if we're not missing something very essential in the way he tried to handle the subject altogether. My major problem is not a question of whether it is possible for something - anything - to have come out of nothing, for that is a done deal in his talk. Rather, my concern is that there are far too many gaps and leaps in his presentation. His conclusions often leave far more questions than answers. For example, what empirical studies confirm his statement in 16:53min that 'every atom in your body, came from a star that exploded'? He says that is the most amazing thing - and it could be, or not; but to so confidently assert such a thing is just quite an example of the sort of dogmaticism that not many people notice among atheists.

My objections may be immature (and I would admit that), given the fact that I've not read all of Krauss' works on cosmology. Yet, it seems that his presupposition were deliberate to completely leave out any possibility of other considerations out of the equation.

So here are my observations. Please remember that these comments are made only as the concerns of an observer (not a scientist) who himself is very interested in cosmology.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]


1. An 'empty space' in a proton?

I'm no mathematician, but I can hardly resist anything mathematics and numbers. So, when Krauss proceeds in 20:51mins to show "how" something came out of nothing by using a mathematical model of the 'empty space' in the proton, my eyes lit up. The first problem for me, however, was that the proton did not pop into existence on its own, and we could say that the so-called 'empty sapce' in that proton is not empty - otherwise that would not be a proton anymore! That is not to say that such a phenomenon as an 'empty space' in a proton is not discussed among theoretical physicists: yes, they have - and it is not strange to read or hear some of them talk about a swarming sea of quarks 'flickering in and out of existence', as in the excerpt below:

'It has been known since the late 1960s that protons and neutrons are not fundamental
particles but are made from smaller entities: 'the quarks'. At thesimplest level a proton
or a neutron is made up of three quarks but experiments reveal a much more complicated
picture. The strong nuclear force which gluesthe three quarks together also gives rise to
a swarming sea of other quarksflickering in and out of existence. This is what HERA's
electrons study.'¹

Yet, the fact is that its empty space does not demonstrate 'nothingness' but rather takes for granted that at least two elements of our universe are already there: matter and space. Without matter, nothing in those displays would be possible - for that which is 'popping' visibly and invisibly are only showing what the physicist thinks, but not how the origin of the universe proceeds cosmologically from 'nothingness' into 'existence'.

Secondly, the simulation does not avoid the veracity of space-time, for the display itself shows that 3 other properties are taken for granted: space, time, location. Without these 3, it would be impossible to even think of the movement of the simulations, how they proceed from one location where they 'appear' to another location where they disappear - and the time it takes for one simulation to appear and disappear within that space. All these factors are taken for granted in Krauss' talk in that vid and do not tell the observer anything about the two pivotal questions of cosmology:

(a) 'why something rather than nothing?'; and -
(b) 'how does something come from nothing?'

The model only attempts to demonstrate the ideas of the astrophysicist about what is already there; but it does not even come close to showing HOW those things came into existence prior to their nonexistence. These are critical issues that thinkers have to grapple with and not be so easily gulled by atheistic enthusiasts.


______

Notes:

1. Inside the proton - HERA.

Folks, thanks very much for your contributions. I'd hoped to be online much earlier and make some adjustments in the OP, which perhaps are now unnecessary. Yes, mavenbox in post #5 had anticipated me in moving the motion for a thread to discuss epistemology - good thinking, which would be considered in due course. That said, a few interesting points were made which caught my interest in all posts in this thread, and which might be necessary to sponge up in my subsequent replies and comments.

For now, let me make a few observations from the Youtube vid posted by mazaje.

mazaje:
@ OP yes according to the laws of physics. . . .Here is a lecture from a physicist who talks about the possiblity for the universe to have come out of nothing. . . .

That's brilliant, thank you. This is one of the examples of how scientists are more and more inclining to the belief that the Universe was created, as well that it could have come out of 'nothing'. Perhaps this was what bawolomo might've been referring to sometime when he hinted that KAG seemed to have discussed this possibility on the forum.

As Dr. Krauss noted, scientists had previously believed that the Universe was 'static and eternal': that is, the universe had been around forever and would be around forever (from 5.14min). However, today that notion has changed drastically, as all ideas and interpretations in any human endeavour undergo changes as well.

And a brilliant observation from m_nwankwo who captures my thinking after my watching the vid. 'Great harm is done to science and "truth" when scientists interpret their data to suit their preconcieved theistic or atheistic beliefs', well said and I couldn't have put it better. Krauss notes that anyone could take from the Big Bang theory and use it either way to validate what one believes - theistic or atheistic. That's true, and that's why sometimes it's frustrating to see how people try to drag science into worldviews, whatever that worldview might be.

Krauss makes some interesting opening remarks, such as that the key point in science is 'mystery'; but if he assumes that he could just write off all religions in such a brash manner as he did, he actually knows nothing. Many religious worldviews already know and have held the idea of a 'mystery' about the origin and existence of the Universe, so it's quite ill-mannered for any atheist to make such quips about what they do not know.

And the wonder of it all that both m_nwankwo and I came to just about the same conclusions:

       'In my view, there is nothing in that lecture that says that the universe
       came from nothing and that should easily be apparent to most people.'

Yes sir, it is apparent to me that Dr. Krauss had failed to be convincing. Sad it is that not many people may have observed this, and I wonder why that may be so. Perhaps, it could be that not many of us are equipped to think deep enough to sift through the sensationalism that some of these folks just throw in our faces. Be that as it may, my respects to Krauss for that attempt.

Hello Deep Sight, my day's been surprisingly busy but great. I've logged in for quite a while now, left my desk to attend to something I'd thought was a breeze - but no, it's gonna take quite some time for me to sit and play around on Nairaland.

So, I'll take off for now and come back later to give a few answers to the interesting observations you proposed. Enjoy.

Krayola:
Mr mod. U are abusing your mod priviliges. Why are u invading Viaro's privacy. If he wants his gender to be unknown it is not your job to disclose it. Let Chrisbenogor come back. U will be sentenced to death.

Death? Is that how it works in this court?
Now viaro is very, very scared indeed!

Where did our Universe come from?


This is a question that many people ponder about increasingly in our time. Of course, it does not have to be worrisome to some others (especially where questions of this nature do not put food on anyone's table. . . or does it.) Religious folk, philosophers, scientists, deists and even atheists have all tried to give it a thought or two between times; and as expected, the answers are as varied as the faces we all carry.

How does such an enquiry affect you as a person?

No matter who you are, and perhaps might have given it a thought or two at some point, can you fathom something coming out of nothing? Is such an idea theoretically possible to be conceptualized? Some deny its possibility; others hold that it is the core of their worldview(s) - I shall not fail to acknowledge also those who have no hard opinions on the question.

If it is possible to fathom the possibility that something could come out of nothing, how would that bear upon your idea of the universe -

       that it began to exist and has not always existed on its own;
       or, that it has always existed on its own and did not begin to exist?

This is one of those questions I had thought about and proposed for discussion as mentioned sometime recently. Others of such kind would follow; but for now - 'something', 'anything', 'out of nothing'. .  or??

Welcome.

Deep Sight:
So why should anybody use the genealogy of man to arrive at the age of the earth?

Is man the earth? How clever is that now? ? ?

Please ask them. This is the same point I tried to make in another thread in the statement: 'Nor did He try to use Adam or Even to determine the age of the earth or the cosmos!'

Deep Sight,

I don't see the contradiction anywhere in what I have shared with you. There's no need for me to go into long or detailed response to make any point, in as much as you are still on the same page and saying nothing new. Should there have been anything to show where I "accepted" that number is self-existent, my excitement in clicking on this thread to read your response would have been worth it. That I'm disappointed is an understatement. Do I make a renewed request of the same thing:

I did not accept anywhere that numbers are self-existent. Where I did, please show me and viaro would have to shut the f.ck up - that simple.

If you can't show it, what's the fuss all about?

mavenbox:
@Viaro: there are many other things involved. I may say more if Ogaga, who is quite familiar with spirits, shows up here (ever since I gave him some hard-knock gist, he has been thinking about his present life. Very soon he will come back to LIFE)

You know, when I read that post and saw how pregnant it was with substance, I lost a few inches of my height, psychologically speaking. That was rich, maven: and i've long become really scared at your insight. _{how you deciphered the coded msg between Krayola and viaro in the other thread is still a mystery though. .  and I shall find out soon.}

Chrisbenogor:
Ha come and see my law court, I will send the bailiff after all of you who want to frustrate this process  

Your honour, my apologies. I went to take a quick look at the mirror just to check and see if my eh. . eh .  . *(testicles)* are still intact, so that I'll be sure if my gender is still in place.

Again viaro you are not helping me at all with your replies the more I see them the more I am thinking you either read up all of pilgrims 6000 or something posts and said hey let me adopt her style short of that I no go gree!!!!!

I was warned not to adopt her style, but take heart, dear lordship: although viaro hasn't read up to 3,000 posts of hers yet, perhaps I'm not far behind.

How many people can you point out with the same typing style?

None, sir.

Just give us three,

Oh lawd! Now, I'm sunk! I can't even count one, and your honour is asking for three? Have mercy and be thou lenient, your honour.

look at your replies from post #80 hehehehehehe

I wasn't even counting. Boy. .  no, sorry. .  your honour, the thread grows dramatically. And was that laughter in Asturian or Bhojpuri? Your honour, that should not constitute contempt of court. .  at least a defendant should ask, no?

nairalanders like to quote in bulk, you use divide and conquer  

Yes sir, and I am also No2Atheism as well. I only argued against myself to divert attention!!

Deep Sight:
Did you not note that i still could not resist sneaking in the definition for you? Here -

What are numbers, if not abstract ideas of quantities

Please. Let me ask my question again:

       'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?'

Even though I'm no Mathematician, I understand what numbers are. You can define a number on its own from any context you choose - but at the end of the day, what do you mean by 'number' when talking about the 'existence of the universe and planetary bodies'? If you check how so many times i repeated that question, you see that I was not standing the question alone in the cold.

And then showing you exactly where the contradiction lies -

You have accepted that such exist whether or not humans are there. (The Jupiter Example). Thus giving a lie toi your earlier statement that "numbers are a construct of the human mind." Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

Please again. Where did I accept that numbers are SELF-EXISTENT? Please, without putting words in my mouth, share with me and let me shut up for once. Show me where viaro 'accepted' that numbers are 'self-existent', or please just shut up.

Even more recently I had to make things as easy for you by stating my position:

      Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.

     But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. [size=14pt]NO[/size]!

Even though there are indeed abstract things, are these abstractions 'self-existent' by default? Is 'abstract' synonymous with 'self-existence'? If one says they acknowledge a million and one abstract things (I could list so many of them), that does not mean they are saying or 'accepting' that those abstract things are ipso facto "self=existent". I did not accept that 'number' is self-existent, and that is why I have again and again asked that you simply show me how they could be self-existent and uncreated - just show me how they have existed for all eternity unlike the universe that was created at some point. That's all, not the hasty manhunt to see 'lies' in viaro's queries.

In case you miss it, as i know you deliberately will, let me break it down further: I have called numbers abstract ideas of quantities. You have stated that such exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus you have stated that numbers exist irrespective of the human mind. Thus self-existent.

I did not accept anywhere that numbers are self-existent. Where I did, please show me and viaro would have to shut the f.ck up - that simple.

Do i have to baby-sit you any further into seeing the glaring contradiction in turning around to deny the self-existence of numbers? ? ?

I wasn't being nannied at all, hehehe. I just want you to show me where I actually made that blunder of arrogating slef-existence to 'number' such that in relation to the created Universe, those abstractions have been in existence for all eternity. Please show me.

^^^beneli, you didn't barge in. Welcome anytime, and thanks for that fresh twist to the whole affair.