I actually agree (despite the tenor of my postings in this thread, I do have a personal faith to which I adhere). They should co-exist and march side by side. The problem I see is that they cannot. Religion seems bound by dogma to tell people the universe began via the hand of God. Science is bound by fact to tell people the universe began via other methods (or not at all: i.e. - infinite). I have no problem with religion marching side-by-side with science. It's when they start to bark marching orders to science (i.e. - mandating creationist education under the laughable disguise of "intelligent design") that I bristle a bit. I agree with this (except, perhaps, the "inspired by God" part). The problem is Christians tend to treat them as fact-based, first-person accounts of what actually occured. And they base their present-day actions, words, laws, social mores, etc. on these "facts". I think these anomalies abound in the New Testament as well, but other than that, I agree. Here's where I think you differ from many others. You think the end of life will bring answers, whereas others believe the end of life is just that: the end. Nonetheless, I largely agree with many of your points. Which is rather strange, since you and I hardly ever agree on anything. :grin:
I know very little (and understand even less), but basically, there are certain naturally occurring quantum events that occur without cause within a vacuum. This disproves the first assumption making the whole argument invalid.
Ok... I thought that this was what you might have been talking about. After doing some reading to refresh my memory, I think what you are describing are "virtual particles." Supposedly virtual particles come into being without cause in a vacuum. However, this isn't quite the case. The "vacuum" that these virtual particles randomly pop into are in reality seas of fluctuating energy. It's not just a complete nothingness. The vacuum has physical properties and laws. These virtual particles are just a fluctuation of that energy. In other words, they come from something, namely the energy. Apparently the vacuum here is not the vacuum that pops into people's heads whenever they hear the word. So it would appear that premise 1 is still valid, which means that the argument is still valid. Hopefully I got my facts right
It's a semantic mangle, if you ask me. Your description of an energetic vacuum is okay, to my eye, but the very idea of a "fluctuation" seems to rule out a cause, so #1 still seems very weak to me.
I think the energy fluctuating would be the cause. There is already energy, and there is a reason for the particle to come into existence... namely the energy fluctuating. It didn't just pop into existence randomly.
Yes, but who says there weren't seas of fluctuating energy prior to the Big Bang? Has this been ruled out by modern physics?
I don't know if it has been completely ruled out, but I believe the standard model of the Big Bang says that literally everything came into existence and the time of the Big Bang... that includes time, space, matter... everything. So I would say that the current position is that there was literally nothing to cause the Big Bang to happen. Not just empty space, but absolutely nothing.
I think there was some news articles about universes colliding and creating ours. Seems like the big bang would be analogous to a blinding light shining out of a keyhole. The analogy would work only if you assume there was something on the other side.
Actually, the vacuum fluctuations are random, if you're using the word random in a mathematically correct way.
You're right I misspoke. I guess I should have said that they didn't just pop into existence out of nothingness... There were waves of energy behind them. Thanks for the correction
I agree and very well said. I think as rational human beings we need faith, maybe not religion per se, because it is in our nature to question our existence. Science is limited to a material understanding of our existence but as thinking beings we inherently crave a meaning to our existence which is where faith steps in.
I am far from an expert on this but I think your explanation is basically correct. That said though it doesn't prove your first assumption that everything is created has a cause. From my understanding the Vacuum Energy itself at the moment is not known to have a cause and as far as we can tell is actually a property of nothingness. Virtual particles in that sense are created from nothing and for the most part go back to nothingness if they don't interact with anything. I have heard some theories that the existence of the Universe may actually be a function of the vacuum and from vacuum energy theoretically other universes could come about.
You think <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6OJahIpVzR0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6OJahIpVzR0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't agree with that. At least in the scientific community, Hawking's opinions are quite more relevant than the average person, especially if the opinion is considered plausible from a quantum physics standpoint.
When I say nothingness, I literally mean nothing: no space, or time, or energy, or laws of nature... nothing. From what I understand, before the singularity of the Big Bang, there was literally nothing, no vacuum energy, no time, no empty space, but just literal nothingness. It is almost impossible to even fathom, but that is what the theory says. Now there may be alternate theories such as an oscillating universe theory or multi-verses which try to explain away the singularity and in essence the beginning, but as far as I know these are not as plausible as the standard model of the Big Bang. So in essence, when people say that the universe caused itself, it seems to be a logical contradiction. Since the universe didn't exist at the time, how could it cause itself. So even though an energy vacuum may seem like nothing, it still appears to be something, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is a cause.
Well then how about he proves the validity of his statement with a scientific experiment? Oh...he can't? Ok, then it is just an opinion.
Thumbs, I appreciate many of your remarks, but you said that the Hebrew writer or writers of the creation "story" intended it to be a parable. However, it is interesting that in Genesis 5:5, it reads, "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." Do metaphorical figures have birthdays?
