Something From Nothing?

Damage is done in a number of ways.At a minimum it distracts educators, administrators, students, tax payers and scientists from productive work.It affects the content and quality of textbooks.It loads students with confusion generated by errors, poor reasoning and, sometimes, outright lies.It loads courts with cases involving separation of church and state.But more than anything it sets examples of poor reasoning. It allows for any number of poor quality decisions to be made by individuals and polictical bodies. We have enough complex issues to grapple with that we don't need to start people off with damage to their abilities to handle them.

---

Common sense isn't

all that is being done now..yeah ???...so what would you suggest as being the solution ???

The solution is a long,slow process of education.I'm pleased that the internet is available now. It supplies a resource for both places like talkorigins and direct access to original papers.The net proves invaluable to catch some of the lies. Quote mining becomes especially dangerous for the likes of Hovind if I can google his part and find the real context.If I win the lottery this weekend I will try to fund more gathering of answers to more of the nonsense.Actually, the educational process must go on at all levels. It tips into a downward spiral if it goes to far off track. Once you have enough students through the system with a damaged education it is harder to correct it.Fortunatly the US is the main center of this problem. It allows other countries (like mine) to supply the scientists in disproportionate numbers if the US education system gets really damaged in a fundamental (pun intended) way. The long term effects of that will possible result in some self correcting feedback.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]

---

Common sense isn't

To return to the topic of this thread...I scanned the messages leading to this point, but I could not find a direct challenge to the assumptions behind the statement "something from nothing". So, I will challenge the statement.Assumption#1: That there was nothing to begin with.
There is no more justification for making that claim than to claim the opposite: that something came from something, or maybe something from everything.Assumption#2: There is an absolute timeline of infinity before and after our universe, and at some point in time there was a creation of this universe.
I suspect that notion of "time", while it makes sense in our experience, is analogous to flat-earth thinking.Assumption#3: Cause and effect (the "came from" clause).
Maybe there was no cause. I have read the term "inevitable" when it comes to explaining our existence, but that seems to fall into the "chance" line of thinking, and assumption 2. Maybe all possibilities exist, but to chain them together for our experience only allows to see and experience a cause and effect stream. Here is a thought to ponder: How could other possibilities be prevented from existing?Of course, if all possibilities exist, then maybe one possibility is that God exists and created our situation. Or, maybe our situation is that God does not exist. I leave that to other discussion, although if you buy into the belief that many or infinite universes exist "in parallel" (really meaning non-intersecting), then the specialness of this universe is diminished.The point here is that it is sometimes difficult for some people to see the assumptions in their belief systems. Belief systems come from something, not nothing.

Hey, Mr. Thingschange! Good points! You say that, in conclusion, I agree. Thoughts: Have they always existed? Was a Model T Ford already created before Henry put 2 and 2 together and painted it black? People always say...well, its the same thing to assert that the universe always was as it is to say that God always was! I disagree. It takes an idea to make a reality. We have had to find and quantify our ideas in order to prove the reality around us. Which came first: Reality or the idea of reality?

I assert the opposite: it takes reality to make an idea. Ideas are symbolic thought, like language; symbols evolved as references to real objects.If you trace the history of written language, you see that it always starts with pictoral representations of real objects - pictograms - then the use of those real objects to refer to abstract ideas - ideograms.Since thought and consciousness itself appear to emerge from the brain's facility with language it stands to reason, therefore, that consciousness develops from rudimentary abilities to construct mental models of reality. Not the other way around.

quote:

---

so what would make the god theory into a testable hypothesis, ie...what sort proof would you need ???

---

In order for something to be testable, it must make a prediction about our experience. IOW, we can observe phenomena through experience only. If you have a testable hypothesis, it will make predictions (previously unknown) about that experience.For example, how do we test the standard model of particle physics? We test it by making observations about our experience. What will we find when our atom smashers collide particles at enormous speeds? The standard model predicts we will find very specific results.The God hypothesis doesn't make any predictions, because it doesn't even say anything about our experience. If a God created the universe, we will never be able to do experiments to show it. That's because experience in a universe created by God appears identical to experience in an uncreated universe.

Beercules! (Are you related to Hercules?) Anyway...you state that Good point! For the Biblical proponents, at least the thesis and idea of the good book has to be sound or believed to be sound in order to connect the God hypothesis to any sort of a scenario. People can shoot the inerrency full of holes, yet all they have really done is to sink the only boat capable of getting them off of their own island. Belief in an unprovable hypothesis is known as a Leap of Faith. Skeptics take note: Miracles DO happen, and while the most ardent logician will attempt to point out other possibilities which should not be dismissed, the possibility of a personal and loving God as a Spirit which communes with us and flows around us..(in us, if we allow) is a viable possibility. We will never have the blueprints or the verifiable proof. We will see the evidence expressed in numerous intangible ways. In my Belief, God is more than a figment of my imagination. He is not something or someone who I made up to represent an object of worship. How I can explain Him to others is perhaps the topic of another thread.

That's really the big difference between science and religion. Explanations offered by science must offer testable predictions, which leaves the hypothesis vulernable to being falsified. Religious explanations on the other hand, make no predictions and so cannot be falsified.

Hyp: God will communicate with me if I will listen.
Parallel: Electricity will flow in the wire if I move the magnet.
Prep: I cultivate a desire to listen with the instrument in me created by God which hear him.
Parallel: I create and refine an instrument to meassure electricity.
Test: I, in my own words, tell God I want to hear from him.
Parallel: I move the magnet and watch the electricity detector.
Result: God communicates with me.
Parallel: The instrument tells me there is electricity flowing in the wire.
Retest: As often as I need/want to, I speak to God; varying the words depending on my needs.
Parallel: I run the experment with different magnets and wire.Report: Tell the world that God will talk with us if we listen.
Parallel: Tell the world that electricity can be created.This experment is done every day and is scientifically sound in every way.Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

I followed your methodology and was unable to replicate your results - God did not communicate with me. I'm going to have to conclude that your hypothesis is falsified.

quote:

---

If a God created the universe, we will never be able to do experiments to show it.

---

at least not with that attitude you won't, you'd be better off creating a super computer called "deep thought", just be careful what you ask it though cos you might not even understand the answer...

quote:

---

That's because experience in a universe created by God appears identical to experience in an uncreated universe.

---

...clever fellow this God chap, knows how to cover his tracks. Do you reckon we'll ever get to be as clever ???I mean creating something from nothing is a pretty nifty trick and to follow it up with everything from something...even cleverer is to uncreate something right before your very eyes...

You stated:
"I translate "stuff" to be: 1) the origin of the universe and 2) the origin of life. "It is not a given that there was an origin. That is a belief."Something from nothing" may be no more true than saying the number "1" came from the number "0".

---

- datsit4now

To some degree I agree with you. In fact, recent p-brane speculations suggest that there is no origin. The big bang is just an event in an eternal universe.The only thing that makes the idea of there being an origin at the big bang a bit less than a pure belief is that working with that hypothosis fits with many observations and has allowed predictions about the nature of the observable universe.But back to your statement. I think (as if I'm allowed an opinion when I'm not a cosmologist and don't really know all the facts) that the current state of cosmology doesn't allow for saying for sure (or nearly sure enough to make no difference) that the big bang is the 'real' origin. Therefore you could say that it is only the best hypothosis right now or that someone has to believe it rather than accept it based on very firm evidence.Does that cover what you are getting at?

No. That's not what I was getting at.I was not addressing a scientific view, which of course, has limits of our observations, and may not be capable of answering the origin question, unless you artificially define "origin" as the start of something like a big bang. But, that still leaves the question of cause from a previous state of energy... or nothingness.Instead, I was addressing a philopsophical point that most Creationists never think about. In fact, most Creationists don't have the curiosity to dig deeper on such questions, because "the Bible says it and that settles it." Their faith provides more drive to study the Bible more to get closer to God (you can never study it enough) rather than spend their time studying science or philosophy. They are ignorant of science like secularists are ignorant of the Bible (as clearly demonstrated in some "Inerrancy" threads).I was trying to reinforce the notion that hidden assumptions are made about our universe. From a pure logic point of view, there could be an origin or not an origin. Conceivable scenarios can be speculated for either.Creationists base their beliefs stongly on the notion of uniqueness and specialness of the universe and our existence. Fundamental to the belief system is the notion of a creation and a corresponding explanation that gives purpose and meaning to our lives. In a search for an explanation, the only thing that makes sense to many people is the Bible ("God must have given us instruction").All the arguments with logic from scientific observations ultimately lead to a dead end at the door of faith. At the end of a discussion, a Creationist will always have the answer: "Well, I don't have an explanation for that, but God knows, and it must not be that important or God would have chosen to include that in the Bible." And, Creationists will turn the table on Evolution-believers that lead to a similar response: "Well, we don't have evidence yet on that issue (like the neverending missing links), but I believe that it will eventually be found."However, if people can stop and think about the assumptions at the foundation of their belief systems, we might get somewhere in our discussions. This thread is about "something from nothing" (a presumption). The discussion that ensues starts off on the wrong foot, in my opinion. It's like the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

---

- datsit4now