quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

What's the evidence?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."



That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

What's the evidence?

---

The evidence is....Hawking took a big bong hit and then said nothing can change to something. So there's that.

Nope, you are still assuming your opinion is proof, and it is just not so.

Again, nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it's still just an opinion.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

You can say the same about the FSM. The fact that we have plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the Universe without the need of a god is a pretty good inference there is no god. The fact that there is no objective empirical evidence indicating there is a god, is a pretty good inference there is no god.

---

"Theoretically possible" does not equal "plausible". It is theoretically possible that someone can win the mega jackpot lottery three times in a row. But when someone does, we know it's a put up job (i.e. intelligence).

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope, you are still assuming your opinion is proof, and it is just not so.

Again, nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it's still just an opinion.

---

Mine is supported by physics. Yours is supported by ancient writings of people who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking is deceased. He doesn't have the capacity to believe anything.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

You can say the same about the FSM. The fact that we have plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the Universe without the need of a god is a pretty good inference there is no god. The fact that there is no objective empirical evidence indicating there is a god, is a pretty good inference there is no god.

---

"Theoretically possible" does not equal "plausible". It is theoretically possible that someone can win the mega jackpot lottery three times in a row. But when someone does, we know it's a put up job (i.e. intelligence).

---

We know it's plausible someone will win the lottery at some point in time. Spontaneous generation of a universe is plausible in the same way.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.

---

Stephen Hawking is deceased. He doesn't have the capacity to believe anything.

---

The objective, empirical proof of God's existence you are asking for will eventually come to you, as it did Hawking, as it will for all of us.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

You can say the same about the FSM. The fact that we have plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the Universe without the need of a god is a pretty good inference there is no god. The fact that there is no objective empirical evidence indicating there is a god, is a pretty good inference there is no god.

---

"Theoretically possible" does not equal "plausible". It is theoretically possible that someone can win the mega jackpot lottery three times in a row. But when someone does, we know it's a put up job (i.e. intelligence).

---

We know it's plausible someone will win the lottery at some point in time. Spontaneous generation of a universe is plausible in the same way.

---

How so?

Because the net energy in our universe is zero. In such a universe at the quantum level, you will get spontaneous generation.

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

---

We know we live in a flat universe, and we know the total energy of a flat universe is zero. We know the total energy of all matter (positive) is cancelled out by the total energy of gravity (negative) yielding a total energy of the universe as zero. The laws of quantum physics and special relativity tell us that only such a universe can begin from nothing.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.

---

Any evidence for that opinion?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

Of course it's plausible, it's just not an answer to the question. Your "origin of the universe" takes place in an already existing universe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

Of course it's plausible, it's just not an answer to the question. Your "origin of the universe" takes place in an already existing universe.

---

No, the universe (space, time, and all the matter contained within space) spontaneously arises. It does not arise within an existing universe. I should have been more clear in my statement. I should have said: Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in the case of a universe such as ours ....

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.

---

Any evidence for that opinion?

---

The historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

---

We know we live in a flat universe, and we know the total energy of a flat universe is zero. We know the total energy of all matter (positive) is cancelled out by the total energy of gravity (negative) yielding a total energy of the universe as zero. The laws of quantum physics and special relativity tell us that only such a universe can begin from nothing.

---

So far you've done nothing to explain how quantum physics and special relativity tell us that, or how it is like someone eventually winning the lottery. You're just repeating yourself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

---

We know we live in a flat universe, and we know the total energy of a flat universe is zero. We know the total energy of all matter (positive) is cancelled out by the total energy of gravity (negative) yielding a total energy of the universe as zero. The laws of quantum physics and special relativity tell us that only such a universe can begin from nothing.

---

So far you've done nothing to explain how quantum physics and special relativity tell us that, or how it is like someone eventually winning the lottery. You're just repeating yourself.

---

I answered your previous question above, which also answers your immediate question about the lottery analogy. How deep do you want to dive into physics for an explanation? Do you want the detail for how we know we live in a flat universe as opposed to an open or closed universe? Do you want to know the mathematics/physics of how we know the various types of matter, and how much energy is in the Universe, or how we know that empty space, devoid of everything (all matter, radiation) actually weighs something? Do you want to know how we know virtual particles in a vacuum pop in and out of existence for a minuscule fraction of a second? Or how we know the Universe is expanding in all directions? All of this and much more are factors.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope, you are still assuming your opinion is proof, and it is just not so.

Again, nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it's still just an opinion.

---

Mine is supported by physics. Yours is supported by ancient writings of people who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun.

---

That's another opinion, and less worthy than your first.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

Of course it's plausible, it's just not an answer to the question. Your "origin of the universe" takes place in an already existing universe.

---

No, the universe (space, time, and all the matter contained within space) spontaneously arises. It does not arise within an existing universe. I should have been more clear in my statement. I should have said: Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in the case of a universe such as ours ....

---

Within an existing multiverse, or a non-multiverse with existing quantum fluctuations. All of which are not nothing.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

---

We know we live in a flat universe, and we know the total energy of a flat universe is zero. We know the total energy of all matter (positive) is cancelled out by the total energy of gravity (negative) yielding a total energy of the universe as zero. The laws of quantum physics and special relativity tell us that only such a universe can begin from nothing.

---

So far you've done nothing to explain how quantum physics and special relativity tell us that, or how it is like someone eventually winning the lottery. You're just repeating yourself.

---

I answered your previous question above, which also answers your immediate question about the lottery analogy. How deep do you want to dive into physics for an explanation? Do you want the detail for how we know we live in a flat universe as opposed to an open or closed universe? Do you want to know the mathematics/physics of how we know the various types of matter, and how much energy is in the Universe, or how we know that empty space, devoid of everything (all matter, radiation) actually weighs something? Do you want to know how we know virtual particles in a vacuum pop in and out of existence for a minuscule fraction of a second? Or how we know the Universe is expanding in all directions? All of this and much more are factors.

---

No, you didn't answer anything. You are only stating that "quantum physics tells us that" after I ask how quantum physics tells us that.

But let's start here - I think this is of utmost importance - I need to know your definition of "nothing" if you're gonna show me how quantum physics shows something can come from nothing. In my understanding, in quantum physics, the concept of "nothing" is still actually something. (Edit: as Sam stated above, it is fluctuating energy fields.)

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

You can say the same about the FSM. The fact that we have plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the Universe without the need of a god is a pretty good inference there is no god. The fact that there is no objective empirical evidence indicating there is a god, is a pretty good inference there is no god.

---

Pretty sure the FSM chuckles at your conceit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

This has been my main point for this entire thread. Even some "scientists" proclaiming spontaneous creation ex nihilo is reality are actually only stating opinions, regardless of how they attempt to justify themselves. It requires every bit as much faith to believe this as to believe in God. Believe what you will, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is, in fact, faith.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

I've thought and read a great deal about it and would invite you to consider how irrational it is that there is "something rather than nothing" in the words of Stephen Hawking (interview with Diane Sawyer). I don't know anything about Alan Guth or his work, but a simple exercise in logic should tell us that nothing comes from nothing. For an alternate view, I commend to you the works of Anglican priest and Cambridge math/physics don, John Polkinghorne.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

This has been my main point for this entire thread. Even some "scientists" proclaiming spontaneous creation ex nihilo is reality are actually only stating opinions, regardless of how they attempt to justify themselves. It requires every bit as much faith to believe this as to believe in God. Believe what you will, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is, in fact, faith.

---

Ironically, the ability to recognize that a theory, however much you like it, is only a theory, is one of the cornerstones to real Science. Just as the theologian needs to step back sometimes and weigh his beliefs against what he knows, so too the man of science needs to recognize the limits of comprehension.

Another thing believers in religion and science both share, is the habit of quoting leading thinkers in their area, even when they do not fully understand what the thinker is saying, or comprehend whether the logic is valid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.

---

Any evidence for that opinion?

---

The historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

As oldbear can tell you, that's your opinion.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

I've thought and read a great deal about it and would invite you to consider how irrational it is that there is "something rather than nothing" in the words of Stephen Hawking (interview with Diane Sawyer). I don't know anything about Alan Guth or his work, but a simple exercise in logic should tell us that nothing comes from nothing. For an alternate view, I commend to you the works of Anglican priest and Cambridge math/physics don, John Polkinghorne.

---

Except in physics nothing is different from philosophical nothing. The reality is that nothing is most likely to be no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature. Some indicate quantum field theory suggests nothing is the ground state of a gapped quantum system lacking degrees freedom or dimensions; others would describe it as a closed space-time with a zero radius.

The fact of the matter is, if you remove everything from space, including all matter and all radiation, empty space still weighs something. We know that weight comes from virtual quantum particles that pop into and out of existence for only an infinitesimal fraction of a second.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

This has been my main point for this entire thread. Even some "scientists" proclaiming spontaneous creation ex nihilo is reality are actually only stating opinions, regardless of how they attempt to justify themselves. It requires every bit as much faith to believe this as to believe in God. Believe what you will, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is, in fact, faith.

---

It's not the same as religious faith, because it is based upon scientific plausibility.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Because the net energy in our universe is zero.

---

1-1=0, but it doesn't mean the zero was the cause of the 1.
Maybe you can explain it further.

---

We know we live in a flat universe, and we know the total energy of a flat universe is zero. We know the total energy of all matter (positive) is cancelled out by the total energy of gravity (negative) yielding a total energy of the universe as zero. The laws of quantum physics and special relativity tell us that only such a universe can begin from nothing.

---

So far you've done nothing to explain how quantum physics and special relativity tell us that, or how it is like someone eventually winning the lottery. You're just repeating yourself.

---

I answered your previous question above, which also answers your immediate question about the lottery analogy. How deep do you want to dive into physics for an explanation? Do you want the detail for how we know we live in a flat universe as opposed to an open or closed universe? Do you want to know the mathematics/physics of how we know the various types of matter, and how much energy is in the Universe, or how we know that empty space, devoid of everything (all matter, radiation) actually weighs something? Do you want to know how we know virtual particles in a vacuum pop in and out of existence for a minuscule fraction of a second? Or how we know the Universe is expanding in all directions? All of this and much more are factors.

---

No, you didn't answer anything. You are only stating that "quantum physics tells us that" after I ask how quantum physics tells us that.

But let's start here - I think this is of utmost importance - I need to know your definition of "nothing" if you're gonna show me how quantum physics shows something can come from nothing. In my understanding, in quantum physics, the concept of "nothing" is still actually something. (Edit: as Sam stated above, it is fluctuating energy fields.)

---

Quantum field theory (as opposed to hypothesis) in its same total supports what I am saying. That includes all of the mathematics and empirical objective evidence that define quantum mechanics.

See my just recent posted answer above for my definition of nothing. If you want to call the definition something, I suppose you could.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist: "No one created anything."

Eh nihilo, nihilo est.

Most real scientists know this.

---

Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.

---

Prove it. And provide three examples.

---

Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.

---

That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.

Strike one.

Try again.

---

You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.

---

Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.

---

What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?

Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.

---

Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.

---

I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?

---

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of Time

Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.

---

So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?

To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.

---

There's no scientific explanation how or why something could come from nothing. Hawking did try to answer the question, but it's not a real answer. His nothing isn't nothing, and his something is only a small part of creation.

---

Hawking's answer is scientifically plausible. Actually, Alan Guth did a very good job of making a scientific explanation. Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in a universe such as ours where the total sum of energy is zero. A universe from 'nothing' is far more likely than a universe created by a god created in the minds of primitive men. Think about it.

---

Of course it's plausible, it's just not an answer to the question. Your "origin of the universe" takes place in an already existing universe.

---

No, the universe (space, time, and all the matter contained within space) spontaneously arises. It does not arise within an existing universe. I should have been more clear in my statement. I should have said: Spontaneous generation of a universe is not only plausible, but probable in the case of a universe such as ours ....

---

Within an existing multiverse, or a non-multiverse with existing quantum fluctuations. All of which are not nothing.

---

A universe doesn't appear to form within another universe per se, but it may be associated with a multiverse.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

This has been my main point for this entire thread. Even some "scientists" proclaiming spontaneous creation ex nihilo is reality are actually only stating opinions, regardless of how they attempt to justify themselves. It requires every bit as much faith to believe this as to believe in God. Believe what you will, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is, in fact, faith.

---

It's not the same as religious faith, because it is based upon scientific plausibility.

---

In this context, "scientific plausibility" simply means that's what you chose to believe. Faith in non-god, to be sure, yet faith for all of that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.

---

Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence

---

Still just an opinion.

You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.

It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.

---

This has been my main point for this entire thread. Even some "scientists" proclaiming spontaneous creation ex nihilo is reality are actually only stating opinions, regardless of how they attempt to justify themselves. It requires every bit as much faith to believe this as to believe in God. Believe what you will, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is, in fact, faith.

---

It's not the same as religious faith, because it is based upon scientific plausibility.

---

In this context, "scientific plausibility" simply means that's what you chose to believe. Faith in non-god, to be sure, yet faith for all of that.

---

Everyone chooses what they want to believe. Scientific plausibility is founded upon evidence based modern science. Religious belief is based upon ancient writings of primitive men. Which is more probable? I used to believe in Christianity, in large part because I was raised in an evangelical Christian culture. At one point I considered anyone who believed as I now believe, to be someone who was deceived and fallen from "grace." However, when I objectively considered what I was taught from a scientific perspective, and began to consider the origins and teachings of Christianity, and other religions, none of them mesh with reality. I was deceived by religion, and a culture that reinforces that deception.

TS: "Scientific plausibility is founded upon evidence based modern science."

Go back to definitions. "Plausible" simply means "believable", and you consider science - made by man - to be your choice of evidence.

I, speaking as a man of faith, accept science up to its limits, and faith on its own grounds where pertinent.

We each choose what we accept as evidence, and make our decision on the best available evidence as we see it. I use science to weigh practical decisions in a material world, and scripture/faith to help guide me in moral and spiritual matters. You appear to prefer science in both kinds.

We both use the same method, simply different data.