Since when are cosmologists experts on quantum mechanics?
Sweet, thanks for the link, awaiting my copy as we speak!
So, what’s my geek factor for actually being excited about a new book on physics? 11?
Hey, did anything ever come of Hawking’s Imaginary Time concept for avoiding that whole “beginning at the big bang” ugliness?
Not really. It’s still just one of many many pet theories, and it 's not really in big favor with anyone at the moment. The math is not exactly the most satisfying in the world either.
It’s also a little misleading to present Tipler as if he were simply a uncontroversial scientist in all venues. Many of his ideas, ESPECIALLY when dealing with philosophical concepts, are fairly far removed from the sort of work you publish in cosmology journals. This is not to say that they aren’t worthy or right: but things like his giant supercomputer God at the end of time are not exactly well-agreed upon principles in science themselves and shouldn’t be treated as such.
A relevant article on The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from Skeptic Magazine.
What? If atheistism is not a belief-based system, pray tell what is it?
A thought? A memory? I am all confused, you say you are an atheist, but that is not a belief. Or maybe you have proved God doesn’t exist, interesting.
The Big Bang did not begin.
It was not caused.
It did not come from anywhere.
The Big Bang exists.
The universe *exists for all time.
Please tell me this was a typo. It would simply be too funny otherwise.
Thanks, Sentient, my friend! 
Never have I seen a more compelling argument for striking down materialism in one fell swoop. I’ll finish it out.
If there is nothing outside the universe, then there is no potential for it to exist. (Excluded Middle — a potential would have to precede it, and that is not possible.)
Since it does exist, there is potential. (Modus Tollens — you’ve shown nicely above that it does indeed exist.)
Since there is potential, the supernatural exists. (Modus Tollens — QED)
You are still living in temporality - this is a notion you must divest yourself of if we are to proceed.
Perhaps another thread might be appropriate?
That kind of argument is precisely why licenses should be required for armchair philosophizing.
First point – error. The lack of a thing does not imply the lack of the potential for that thing.
Second point – error. SentientMeat has demonstrated no such thing. The universe exists relative to us, and we exist relative to the universe; that’s the only point that is true by definition. I have no idea where you got the idea that his statements prove the potential for the supernatural.
Third point – error. Potential does not imply actuality.
There are certainly some people who call themselves “atheists” who affirmatively believe that God does not exist, and some of these people actively try to convert other people to share their belief.
Most so-called “atheists,” however, simply claim that they don’t have any particular belief in any particular concept of God. They don’t believe that God doesn’t exist – it’s just that they haven’t been convinced that he does exist either.
To say that God exists is to make a claim for something that is seemingly impossible, and it is therefore up to the person making the claim to show evidence that it is true. Most atheists don’t say that the whole notion of God is actually impossible, just that so-far nobody has proven his existence to their satisfaction. An Atheist may not have any evidence that GOd doesn’t exist, but simply claims that there is no evidence that he does exist.
An analogy could be made to the way skeptics tend to regard those who claim to speak with the dead. This is a fantastic claim that seemingly runs counter to everything else we know about the world, and therefore skeptics refuse to believe in it unless it can be proven true. Most skeptics will acknowledge that it’s possible for somebody to speak with the dead, in spite of the fact that the few people who make such claims can easily be proven to be lying. But just because john Edwards is a complete fraud doesn’t mean that somebody, somewhere, isn’t telling the truth, and if that person ever shows up and can verify his claims, well, if nothing else he’ll get a Million dollars from the Randi Foundation.
The point is, though, that it’s perfectly valid to say that one doesn’t happen to believe in something without having to believe it isn’t true. I realize that is too subtle a distinction for some people to make, but it’s true nonetheless.
Barry
I do not presume to be the final authority on anything – I’m simply offering my views and inviting alternative viewpoints.
As for what I mean by “valid,” I guess I would define it as “logically defensible.” The five possible reasons I offered are the ones I’ve heard offered in the past, and I attempted to point out whether I personally thought they were logically defensible and, if so, to what degree.
If you are a “#4 kind of person,” as you claim, I’d love to hear why you feel that this is a logically defensible reason for believing in God as opposed to ascribing the cause of whatever you experienced to some other, more mundane, source.
Regards,
Barry
You’re kidding, right? Cosmology is positively rife with quantum mechanics – especially as it pertains to the formation of particles after the Big Bang. Just read some of Hawkings popular works and you’ll get a taste of what I mean.
And Apos, nobody’s saying that Tipler is an uncontroversial scientist. When it comes to matters of cosmology, controversy exists everywhere. His controversial theories are irrelevant to this discussion though, since his name (and that of Dr. Barrow) only came up in clarifying what the quantum vacuum really means.
Moreover, it’s not even necessary to cite Barrow and Tipler to prove that the quantum vacuum is more than “nothing.” Atheists who espouse the virtual particle origin talk about these particles emerging from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Now, think for a moment: How can the quantum vacuum fluctuate if it is mere nothingness? Nothingness can do nothing!
It seems to me that people are going to bizarre lengths to defend the virtual particle theory of the universe’s origin. In this thread alone, we’ve seen Dr. Craig statements about the quantum vacuum being pooh-poohed on the grounds that he is a philosopher – even though he directly cited Barrow and Tipler. We’ve seen Barrow and Tipler being dismissed for being cosmologists, even though cosmologists must know their quantum mechanics. And we’ve seen Tipler being criticized for his controversial theories, even though they have no bearing on what the quantum vacuum really is. Tsk, tsk.
Luddite, you get Chex?!?
I’m switching to your church!
“Energy cannot be created from nothing, except by God.”
I could just as easily (and just as validly) say:
“Energy cannot be created from nothing, except by the Big Bang.”
We’re both proposing an exception to the rule, but Occam’s Razor indicates that my exception is more reasonable.
Then why are you and Craig relying on a cite from a book of one of his whimsical explorations, rather than from a scientific paper? Doesn’t that seem a little odd to you: that when such an extensive journal literature of peer-reviewed and consensus work on this subject is available, Craig cites a book whose primary focus is speculation into the philosophical and theoretical? I’m going to have to track this book down again to check what Tipler and Barrow cite. It’s also 15 years old, we should note, while the is particle/creation theory is more recent. I’m not schooled enough to know the content of the field, but enough to know that the field has changed rapidly, and glib cites to non-consensus material are not particularly helpful.
The basic issue remains: are virtual particles caused or not, regardless of what environments we are capable of testing for their existence in (we don’t exactly have “nothing” to go about testing)? And if not, why couldn’t one simply appear, uncaused, tunneling and expanding into a universe? There are the same problems with concieving the temporality of the event: but these are problems which aren’t solved by the “person” aspect either. The major overlooked problem with the story is that it isn’t anything more than one possible description of the event: it doesn’t rule out the existence of things external to the universe. Nor is there any way to prove that virtual particles are uncaused. Causality is one of those basic unprovable things we just assume because it would be pretty impossible to concieve of anything otherwise: but so would uncausality.
Personally, it seems a little odd to start with thinking that something must have come from nothing, when we have no evidence of there ever being “nothing” in the first place. As Hawking pointed out… “Why NOT something?”
Unless you can explain what you mean by “by the Big Bang” then it’s hardly any more intelligible, making it a little hard to judge it using Occam’s Razor. The Big Bang IS the energy. The Razor is supposed to be used for explainations, which “by the Big Bang” is not.
Didn’t see this before.
I don’t understand why you make a point of what you “already explained”, since it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I made no comment as to the validity of the theory, I merely said that it was my understanding that the theory does not temporally bind these virtual particle events with our universe. IOW, if such a spawning event did occur, it did so outside of our time continuum. Do you not agree? What in the world does that have to do with whether the quantum vacuum is “nothing” or not? I made absolutely no comment on that.
I agree. The point is that a cause is not required, so it’s not a valid argument for the necessity of God. Of course, it doesn’t disprove God, either.
I’m not really following you on your assertion that atheists are using the virtual particle theory as a stand-alone argument against God. It was brought up in this thread as an example of a possible way for the universe to have been spawned, with the very strong caveat that it was “for entertainment purposes”. I took that to mean that the person wasn’t necessarily putting a lot of stock in the theory. I’m not aware of any atheists who are relying on that theory to explain the origin of the universe, and I certainly haven’t heard anyone suggest it proves the universe came from “nothing”. As I already explained, the universe does not require an origin, and this is far and above the most common argument I have heard advanced by atheists. It seems like you are vehemently attacking an argument that nobody is necessarily defending.
Apos
I recall how you feel about compliments, so forgive me when I say that your posts in this thread are a pure joy to read. Good stuff, sir.
Vorlon
And what follows in your posting is precisely why muzzles should be required for ankle-nipping Chihuahuas.
And that has what to do with what? If P is not an element of U, where U is the universal set, then there is no P.
Well, you wouldn’t, would you. After all, you’ve mixed up Einstein and Hume.
Ah, you found the trough. Unfortunately, it’s another non sequitur. If P is an element of U, then P.