Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi Terry

I asked a Astrophysicist friend of mine  who is one of the most
knowledgeable people in my Astronomy Association PRIVATELY to respond to
your post. Here it is for the errancy list:


>>TERRY

>>Yes, it is hard to see how the universe could have occurred from

nothing,

>>as far as I am concerned, it is impossible.  You said it was much more

>>logical to assume that matter has always existed then to assume that a

>>complex God exist.  I simply do not agree with your logic.  To me, to

>>assume that the Universe created itself out of nothing is Beyond

>Infinity.

>>It is simply not possible, things simply cannot create themselves from

>>nothing,


RON
Sorry, you're wrong. Quantum theory provides the means whereby particles
are created from nothing. In fact, it happens all the time, at every point
in space. Quantum theory's Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) does not
allow for the simultaneous values of zero energy in infinitesimally short
periods of time. So what happens is that particles come out of existence
from nothing, exist very briefly, and then vanish again. They are called
virtual particles because of their brief, ghostlike existence. But they
are
real - they have been experimentally verified.


TERRY
So, I am suppose to believe that an entire universe created itself from
nothing.  I doubt that, however my argument is not really that it created
itself from nothing, its that the very complex univerese that we have
today could not have come into existence without something having caused
it, regardless of whether the enegry or matter already existed. Where
there is an effect there must be a cause.  You of all people should know
this because we having been discussing this for years.  I have stated
before, that I believe it is possible that the energy used to create the
universe may have already existed.



>TERRY

>Evidently you did not understand what I was saying.  God is who I am

>applying the statement to in the first place.  Anything eternal cannot be

>verified by something that is finite, regardless of whether it is God or

>the Universe.


RON
Why not? There was a theory, now discredited, called the steady state
theory of the universe. It said that the universe was eternal, and that
new
matter formed out of nothing at a rate so as to allow the constant
formation of new stars and galaxies. (This idea had nothing to do with
virtual particles. The idea here is that once matter forms from nothing,
it
stays around forever.) The strongest prediction of the steady state theory
is that the universe will look the same everywhere and at all times. So if
we look far back into the past, we'll see the same sort of stuff - stars,
galaxies, gas clouds, etc., that we have in our own neighborhood. The main
reason we don't accept the steady state theory today is that this
prediction has been falsified. When we look far away and far back in time,
the universe looks noticeably different.

But suppose the prediction was born out. As far back in space and time as
we can see, the universe looks just like it does around here. This would
be
strong evidence for an eternal universe, one without beginning or end. We
finite humans would have verified an eternal universe.

TERRY
Now this takes the cake, did I hear you right, "this prediction has been
discredited" and yet you are still trying to use it.  Yes I know this
prediction is no longer accepted as accurate.  Therefore, there is no need
of supposing than, since this prediction has been discredited.


>TERRY

>Lets restated this in another way.  Which one of these statements to do

>feel is the most accurate???

>

>1) The Universe (the finitely complex) created itself from nothing

without

>anything having caused  it to happen.

>2) God (the infinitely complex) created himself from nothing.

>

>Is it safe to assume you choose the first one?

>


RON
1) We don't know that our universe IS finite.

TERRY
Now this is interesting?


RON
2) This is not a valid basis to differentiate having to explain the
universe but not God. There is no such differentiation. If you claim God
created the universe, you are obligated to explain what created God.


TERRY
I have went over this before.  If something is eternal nothing created it,
its as simple as that as far as I am concern.  If he can prove that the
universe is eternal then perhaps there would be a little more validity to
what he is saying.  However , I do not believe anything can be verified as
eternal, only verified as not being eternal.

Changing directions: I  wanted to mention there was an interesting show
tonight on TLC about asteroids and the possibilities of one striking the
earth.  David Levy was featured on the show and it showed him setting by
one of his telescopes, ( looked like the 20 "incher").   It discuss what
could possibly be done should an asteroid come close to the earth, very
good show.

• Previous message: TILL (off topic) (for Kris)
• Next message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (off topic to Micheal)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]