Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

I read somewhere that matter is simply un-cancelled out by antimatter which may have an antimatter universe of its own. If the two universes ever joined up then there would indeed be absolutely nothing.

If I have a credit of 45.57 and a debit of the exact same amount, that is not nothing. My business may have a net worth of 0, if we are basing value on a strictly numerical/monetary system. But you cannot look at my accounting books and say; "That means you have done nothing."

 

[noguru]

I'm not sure of the other universe, but most of the matter in the early seconds was indeed annihilated with the antimatter that was created in almost identical quantities. Antimatter has the same energy as matter, so the annihilation produced the same energy in photons. The photons still contribute to the gravity and energy density of the universe, so no change there.

I do think that the observed flatness of the universe is strong evidence for the zero energy universe idea. Why would god bother to make a universe with no net energy content when that feature is so restrictive in what could be produced?

While I agree with most of this post, I think you should be very careful about presuming to comprehensively understand God's ways. I do not think it does anyone any good to ask the question: "Why would God bother to make a universe with no net energy content when that feature is so restrictive in what could be produced?"

What exactly are your expectations of this "God"?

Do you think such expectations are justified?

 

[gcthomas]

While I agree with most of this post, I think you should be very careful about presuming to comprehensively understand God's ways. I do not think it does anyone any good to ask the question: "Why would God bother to make a universe with no net energy content when that feature is so restrictive in what could be produced?"

What exactly are your expectations of this "God"?

Do you think such expectations are justified?

Hi noguru!

As you know, I have no expectations of God at all, so perhaps I should have avoided the term completely.

I wanted to say that I think it would be a more convincing demonstration of a deity's role if there was some inexplicable feature that had no naturalistic explanation. I should have just commented that the origin of the universe does not necessarily imply any omnipotent being as the process doesn't seem to break any natural processes or laws.

While the flatness of the universe does look, naively, like fine tuning, in my opinion it is a necessary result of energy conservation laws and the related time invariance of the laws of Physics.

(I appreciate someone providing me with proper criticism, rather than the knee-jerk stuff that usually arrives!!) :up:

 

[DFT_Dave]

As you know, I have no expectations of God at all, so perhaps I should have avoided the term completely.

I wanted to say that I think it would be a more convincing demonstration of a deity's role if there was some inexplicable feature that had no naturalistic explanation. I should have just commented that the origin of the universe does not necessarily imply any omnipotent being as the process doesn't seem to break any natural processes or laws.

"We no longer derive man from 'the spirit' or 'the deity'; we have placed him back among the animals. Descartes was the first to dare to understand the animal as machine...our knowledge of man today goes just as far as we understand him mechanistically. Formerly man was given a "free will" as his dowry from a higher order: today we have taken his will away altogether...the word "will" now serves only to denote a resultant, a kind of individual reaction to...stimuli."--Nietzsche​

Do the laws of physics govern our thinking, our behavior?

--Dave

 

[6days]

The universe appears to have no energy and could therefore have been created (at the "quantum level") in a quantum fluctuation and persisted.

In other words, the universe appears to be fine tuned...as if it was designed?? Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.

The universe appears to have no energy and could therefore have been created (at the "quantum level") in a quantum fluctuation and persisted.

Hopeful and illogical explanations is what you must depend on when you want to believe everything came from nothing. A fluctuation can not happen out of nothing. You need a quantum vacuum or something to cause something.

The best explanation is found in God's Word. It explains why our universe exists, and why it "appears" designed...
"In the beginning, God created..."

 

[noguru]

In other words, the universe appears to be fine tuned...as if it was designed?? Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.


Hopeful and illogical explanations is what you must depend on when you want to believe everything came from nothing. A fluctuation can not happen out of nothing. You need a quantum vacuum or something to cause something.

The best explanation is found in God's Word. It explains why our universe exists, and why it "appears" designed...
"In the beginning, God created..."

You are a moron my friend. All you do is muddy up the water. Perhaps you should stick to activities more befitting of your abilities. Like playing in a sand box.

 

[noguru]

Hi noguru!

As you know, I have no expectations of God at all, so perhaps I should have avoided the term completely.

I wanted to say that I think it would be a more convincing demonstration of a deity's role if there was some inexplicable feature that had no naturalistic explanation. I should have just commented that the origin of the universe does not necessarily imply any omnipotent being as the process doesn't seem to break any natural processes or laws.

While the flatness of the universe does look, naively, like fine tuning, in my opinion it is a necessary result of energy conservation laws and the related time invariance of the laws of Physics.

(I appreciate someone providing me with proper criticism, rather than the knee-jerk stuff that usually arrives!!) :up:

I think the whole "fine tuning" of the universe is a logically absurd argument, designed by morons to impress other morons.

 

[gcthomas]

Do the laws of physics govern our thinking, our behavior?

yes

 

[gcthomas]

In other words, the universe appears to be fine tuned...as if it was designed?? Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.


Hopeful and illogical explanations is what you must depend on when you want to believe everything came from nothing. A fluctuation can not happen out of nothing. You need a quantum vacuum or something to cause something.

The best explanation is found in God's Word. It explains why our universe exists, and why it "appears" designed...
"In the beginning, God created..."

That'll be the one jerk I predicted!

Thank you!

You fool!

 

[DFT_Dave]

yes

Just how does that work?

Do you agree with Nietzsche?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Just how does that work?

--Dave

Are you saying that the laws of the physics/universe do not govern our thoughts and actions?

 

[gcthomas]

Just how does that work?

Do you agree with Nietzsche?

--Dave

Can I refer you to the large body of naturalistic science to answer that? It's easy to find.

 

[Hedshaker]

The universe appears to have no energy and could therefore have been created (at the "quantum level") in a quantum fluctuation and persisted.

I often wonder about this, as I do about secularist who seem convinced the universe (time space and energy) began from nothing with the Big Bang. The very suggestion that time had a beginning suggests time, which is a paradox. If, as the evidence suggests, the universe is expanding, it surly must be expanding into "space". Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change form. Why assume this has ever been any different? It's perfectly plausible that pre Big Bang energy resembled nothing recognised now.

What does an infinite regress mean for a pre Big Bang existence anyway?

Roger Penrose on "before" the Big Bang

Bearing in mind that Penrose would have thought "before" the Big Bang unthinkable a few years ago, not that he or anyone else really knows.

 

[6days]

Can I refer you to the large body of naturalistic science to answer that? It's easy to find.

How about if we just use science, and not the religious based "naturalistic" science?

 

[noguru]

How about if we just use science, and not the religious based "naturalistic" science?

So when you say "just use science" we can leave out your "literal interpretation" of Genesis as a foundational assumption of that "science"?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Natural selection is not random.

"Natural selection...could scarcely be less available for any hope that evolution might be cosmically rational. Natural selection is not about "improvement" or "progress" in any global sense. It is a remarkably inefficient, even cruel process. We never should have sought either solace or moral instruction in Nature, who was not made for us, or even had us in mind."--Stephen Jay Gould,​

"A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother."--Bertrand Russell​

Mindless nature, an unthinking Mother, cannot plan anything.

The organization of anything does not happen by chance.

Whatever is "not random" has been planned, whatever is random is "not planned".

I "think" we can call this "checkmate".

--Dave

 

[Hedshaker]

So when you say "just use science" we can leave out your "literal interpretation" of Genesis as a foundational assumption of that "science"?

Great point :up:

 

[noguru]

"Natural selection...could scarcely be less available for any hope that evolution might be cosmically rational. Natural selection is not about "improvement" or "progress" in any global sense. It is a remarkably inefficient, even cruel process. We never should have sought either solace or moral instruction in Nature, who was not made for us, or even had us in mind."--Stephen Jay Gould,​

"A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother."--Bertrand Russell​

Mindless nature, an unthinking Mother, cannot plan anything.

The organization of anything does not happen by chance.

Whatever is "not random" has been planned, whatever is random is "not planned".

I "think" we can call this "checkmate".

--Dave

If one is familiar with St Thomas Aquinas and is a theist, one can understand that natural law is the result/subset of divine law. It is ordered (to a degree).

If one is not a theist, there is no need to expect that the universe has only one basic element of chaos at work. It is quite obvious that the universe is a combination of crippling chaos and stifling order.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Can I refer you to the large body of naturalistic science to answer that? It's easy to find.

No, you can just give me your answer. It should be "easy" for you to do.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Are you saying that the laws of the physics/universe do not govern our thoughts and actions?

Yes

--Dave