The "Atheist Creation" Thread Spontaneously Reappears

[magellan01]

There was an interesting discussion going on concerning theists’ “demanding” that atheists provide an explanation as to the creation of the universe. Evidently it had been started by a sock (which I’m not sure I understand) and, as is board policy, the thread was zapped out of existence. I asked what happened in The Pit and the Moderator Giraffe was nice enough to post the better part of the thread in The Pit (his forum) with the recommendation to link back to it from here.

So, here it is.

I took the liberty of copying over the last post. It was by **Voyager **in response to JThunder:

@Voyager

I think you’re missing their point. By the Uncertainty Principle, true nothingness is impossible. The virtual particles spring into existence not out of nothingness but as a consequence of the fact that nothingness is impossible. They are virtual because the are immeasurable and directly undetectible, and only become real particles with an infusion of energy from the outside. They are indirectly detectable, though.

“Nothingness” is not particularly well defined here. A vacuum is seething with these particles, so it can’t be said to be composed of nothingness. However a particle pair don’t come from something already existing, so in a sense they can be said to arise from nothingness - but the nothingness between virtual pairs, in a sense. I suspect you can only express this mathematically.

Borrowing, btw, doesn’t mean there is a store of energy that gets borrowed against. Rather, there is uncertainty in the amount of energy in a vacuum, which means that they can exist without violating conservation laws. They steal the energy and put it back in under the minimum response time of the quantum energy cop.

[DanBlather]

The Universe exists. Is there any evidence that it did not always exist?

[magellan01]

@DanBlather

The Universe exists. Is there any evidence that it did not always exist?

Assuming it so, how could there be any evidence that it did not always exist? Or that it did always exist for that matter? Evidence is not what can help us here either way.

[JThunder]

@Voyager

I think you’re missing their point. By the Uncertainty Principle, true nothingness is impossible. The virtual particles spring into existence not out of nothingness but as a consequence of the fact that nothingness is impossible. They are virtual because the are immeasurable and directly undetectible, and only become real particles with an infusion of energy from the outside. They are indirectly detectable, though.

First of all, I’d disagree with the claim that true nothingness is impossible, but that’s ultimately beside the point. If anything, Voyager’s statement supports my claim–namely, that virtual particles are NOT truly generated out of nothingness, as skeptics often claim.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler agreed with that assessment, which is why they object to the claim by some atheists that virtual particles come from nothing and are uncaused. Mind you, Barrow and Tipler are by no means defenders of theism; in fact, their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, attempted to explain away the appearance of design in the universe. (I believe that their attempt fails, for various reasons, but that’s beside the point. Whether it fails or not, the point remains that they are not sympathetic to theism, yet they themselves object strenuously to the notion that virtual particles are uncaused and created from nothing.

[JThunder]

@DanBlather

The Universe exists. Is there any evidence that it did not always exist?

There is evidence for an origin of the universe – the Big Bang. I think most people would regard this as evidence (not proof, but evidence), that the universe had a beginning.

“But wait!” one might say. “Maybe there has been an infinite succession of Big Bangs and Big Crunches! So there!” That’s pure speculation, though. Besides, we’re talking about evidence, not proof. One can admit the possibility of alternative explanations without denying that there is evidence for a cosmic origin.

[FriarTed]

Of course, we know that the thread did not spontaneously reappear. Someone had to make it happen.

Same with the Universe.

[AHunter3]

As with “God”, the term “Universe” could use some definition here.

Does a universe have to have energy and/or matter in it, or will empty space suffice? If the former, does a universe therefore consist of energy and/or matter, and, if plural or interactive, whatever relationships exist between the disparate parts thereof? What if energy and/or matter is somehow NOT plural?

If the universe can just be empty space, can a hypothetical universe (one that only exists in my imagination, let’s say) be distinguished from a truly existing empty universe that contains nothing? If so, how?

If the universe can consist of something, but a unitary something, not plural, in what fashion can its existence be assessed?

I would like to posit that for something to be said to exist, there must be a relationship, an interaction. A universe containing 0 or 1 “objects” (matter, energy, pink unicorns, whatever) is not meaningfully distinguishable from the lack of a universe. An interplay must exist, in which one force or presence can have an effect on the other(s).

[JThunder]

@AHunter3

I would like to posit that for something to be said to exist, there must be a relationship, an interaction.

Why should that necessaril be so? I can imagine that interaction would be necessary for something’s existence to be perceived, but I don’t see why the existence itself would be determined by the presence of other entities.

[Lightnin]

@FriarTed

Same with the Universe.

Then who created whatever created the Universe?

[AHunter3]

@JThunder

Why should that necessaril be so? I can imagine that interaction would be necessary for something’s existence to be perceived, but I don’t see why the existence itself would be determined by the presence of other entities.

So you’re prepared to distinguish between something existing but not having any effect on anything else, on the one hand, and simply not existing, on the other?

Would you be so kind as to compare and contrast those two situations wtih a third situation, which would be something existing only in my imagination?

[Voyager]

@JThunder

First of all, I’d disagree with the claim that true nothingness is impossible, but that’s ultimately beside the point. If anything, Voyager’s statement supports my claim–namely, that virtual particles are NOT truly generated out of nothingness, as skeptics often claim.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler agreed with that assessment, which is why they object to the claim by some atheists that virtual particles come from nothing and are uncaused. Mind you, Barrow and Tipler are by no means defenders of theism; in fact, their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, attempted to explain away the appearance of design in the universe. (I believe that their attempt fails, for various reasons, but that’s beside the point. Whether it fails or not, the point remains that they are not sympathetic to theism, yet they themselves object strenuously to the notion that virtual particles are uncaused and created from nothing.

Perhaps you can give me your definition of nothingness. Do you think that there is a precursor bit of matter or energy to the virtual particles - in other words, something that is transformed into the particles?

You’ll have to define what you mean by cause also. If we can say that Heisenberg “caused” the creation of virtual particles, we can say in the same way that the principle caused the creation of the universe. If by cause you mean proximate cause - which wouldn’t be possible before t = 0, then you’ll have to give me such a cause for virtual particles. My link the now now vanished thread said that some people think the universe is a special instance of a virtual particle, where there was an unbalance. We know that there was an unbalance of matter and antimatter, and I’ve read somewhere that there is an explanation for this, but I’ve never come close to understanding it.

[Larry_Borgia]

@DanBlather

The Universe exists. Is there any evidence that it did not always exist?

It’s my understanding that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

[Voyager]

@JThunder

Why should that necessaril be so? I can imagine that interaction would be necessary for something’s existence to be perceived, but I don’t see why the existence itself would be determined by the presence of other entities.

This comes from an interesting book on quantum gravity (anti-string theory) - think about the definition of space in a universe with only one entity.

That’s my moment of Zen for today.

ETA: And thanks to magellan01 for reincarnating the thread.

[E-Sabbath]

Is the Dirac Sea still good physics? I seem to recall it being a way to explain the apparent generation of particles.

[JThunder]

@AHunter3

So you’re prepared to distinguish between something existing but not having any effect on anything else, on the one hand, and simply not existing, on the other?

I will if you’re willing to explain why the two situations are identical. I see no reason why my existence is necessarily contingent on something else perceiving or interacting with me.

Heck, according to various models of Big Bang cosmology, the universe was originally nothing more than a singularity. Did this singularity fail to exist, simply because there was nothing else for it to interact with?

Would you be so kind as to compare and contrast those two situations wtih a third situation, which would be something existing only in my imagination?

Certainly. In the first situation, something exists, as given by your own phrasing. In the second situation, it does not – again, by your own phrasing. And in the third situation, it does not exist either.

You seem to have this odd notion that something can only exist if it interacts with something else. I can see how the perception of something would be contingent on something else (i.e. the perceptor). So far though, I don’t think you’ve given any reason why its existence is necessarily contigent on that other object.

[JThunder]

@Lightnin'

Then who created whatever created the Universe?

That would be a subject for further philosophical inquiry. If we accept that this creator is God, then this would have to be an uncaused cause.

This is not mere theology speaking, mind you. Earlier, I cited the kalam cosmological argument, which contends that there cannot be an infinite number of countable objects – and thus, no infinite sequence of causes. This would necessitate an ultimate, uncaused cause. One might object by saying “There can be no uncaused cause!”, but such a claim would have to be justified.

[DanBlather]

@JThunder

There is evidence for an origin of the universe – the Big Bang. I think most people would regard this as evidence (not proof, but evidence), that the universe had a beginning.

“But wait!” one might say. “Maybe there has been an infinite succession of Big Bangs and Big Crunches! So there!” That’s pure speculation, though. Besides, we’re talking about evidence, not proof. One can admit the possibility of alternative explanations without denying that there is evidence for a cosmic origin.

Depending on definitions, the big bang did not create the Universe, it was just the time at which the singularity expanded. Ther is no reason to think that the matter/energy was created at the time of the big bang.

[gonzomax]

Time is the key. The big bang created time. Before the explosion of a singularity there was no time. It is relative . Time requires a reference point and observers to have meaning. At speeds close to light time slows down. It is not an arrow shooting from the beginning to the end.

[AHunter3]

@JThunder

I will if you’re willing to explain why the two situations are identical. I see no reason why my existence is necessarily contingent on something else perceiving or interacting with me.

Heck, according to various models of Big Bang cosmology, the universe was originally nothing more than a singularity. Did this singularity fail to exist, simply because there was nothing else for it to interact with?

In case you missed the memo, physics is unable to describe the singularity. The physicists can extrapolate from (later) circumstances and state that it all appears to converge into a singularity if you go back in time, but the laws of physics break down under those circumstances, and they will tell you so.

Certainly. In the first situation, something exists, as given by your own phrasing. In the second situation, it does not – again, by your own phrasing. And in the third situation, it does not exist either.

Pointing at my phrasing, i.e, “AHunter3 says this universe is real, but AHunter3 says that one is not”, makes for a pretty shaky epistemology. You’re kind of begging the question, you know… I figured it was understood that for each “universe” that I posited the understood part was that I, AHunter3, do not necessarily consider the distinctions between them to be useful or valid, so, having posited them, I asked you to differentiate.

You seem to have this odd notion that something can only exist if it interacts with something else.

The word “odd” in the above sentence does not perform any meaningful function.

I can see how the perception of something would be contingent on something else (i.e. the perceptor). So far though, I don’t think you’ve given any reason why its existence is necessarily contigent on that other object.

Nor have you given any reason why its existence is a meaningful construct if it doesn’t interact with anything else at all. I hereby posit the existence of an Invislble Purple Hippopotamus, eternal, grumpy, divine in aspect, which cannot see the universe (or any “other universe” for that matter) and cannot be perceived by anything in the universe. How would its genuine existence be differentiated from its merely hypothetical/imaginary existence? Does the formulation “That Invisible Purple Hippo does indeed exist” even convey any useful information?

Everything is interaction. Some culture allegedly held that the world was balanced on the backs of a turtle, standing on the shell of another turtle, and that it “was turtles all the way down”. In truth, physical reality (energy and matter) is interactions all the way down. The particles aren’t fundamental, the interactions are. Weird and not in accordance with our building-block way of understanding the world, perhaps, but true. As you peer closer and closer, the particles are less and less akin to particles (“things”) and more and more things better understood as processes. We were led to expect nouns at the bottom and we got verbs instead. Deal with it.

[lightwait]

ExNihilo
“Let there be light: and there was light.”-GOD

From ancient times, thoughts concerning the origin of the world have been associated with a deity who made the light and subsequently the heavens, the earth, and man. The God who separated light from darkness has been considered a life giving force, the first cause, and because of this act of love, the foundation and the very existence of man.

The new theories of the origin of the world, as seen by modern cosmogony seem perplexing to the human mind. Through the centuries, as mankind gradually accumulated knowledge about the various observed phenomena taking place in the world system, a scientific method began to take shape, concluding that the way to the discovery of a first cause would be through historical data — hence, the theory of the big bang and a new era.

There have been many from the Church and the physical disciplines that have characterized the scientific era by searching out an understanding of the origin of the world’s emergence totally from natural causes, e.g., a reasonably complete and consistent theory of planetary formation. This comes through knowledge of the workings of our solar system and the progress of observational astronomy. However, though the universal picture has been broadened, difficulties remain — explaining the origin and evolution of the great galactic families of stars is one. Understanding the nature, size, and shape of one galaxy and then comparing it to another may suggest to us which one is older, but alas, everything is relative. How old is the oldest?

There is no scientific absolute that can explain a cause. The big bang is a belief based on hypothetical circumstances. It is thought to have resulted from a continuous evolutionary process that started in a highly compressed homogeneous material a few billion years ago. I ask myself, where were you when that happened? Then I say to myself, it must be hypothetical.

Some scientists believe the same circumstances require a hypothesis that says the existing universe has been somewhat the same throughout eternity. The "steady-state” universe theory claims the continuous creation of matter in intergalactic space.

Cosmogony is generally left in the hands of the theologians. It concerns the creation, origination, or manner of coming into being of the world or universe. More specifically, a biblical cosmogony that is generally accepted in the monotheistic Protestant tradition is: the doctrine of the origin of the universal cosmic order by the creative power of God. Ex nihilo is a cosmogony that means the universe was created out of nothing, or, — not from previously existing material. In order though, to introduce my thoughts on biblical cosmogony, I find it necessary to insert a short piece I wrote some time ago.

Creation out of nothing — ex nihilo — infers there is no God. Can there be something from nothing? It is “nothing” that does not exist, for God is all in all. All in all connotes existence — God exists!

If we separate the physical from the spiritual, without regard to a continuum, then that which is physical would come from nothing — ex nihilo — and the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ would be without reason. If however, we consider there is one spiritual entity, the “all in all,” and we come from and reside within that spirit which exists in its eternal state, the Light, then the reason is that we have come from something. God created us means we come from something. God is spirit. God is something. “Nothing” then, would not exist. And, it would be reasonable for the physical body of Jesus to make the change and ascend into Glory.

Let’s reason together. If we put “nothing” in a box over here, and put “something” in a box over there, a duality exists. If God is “all, and in all” there is no duality — there is God and that which is created — the singularity of one within the other.

Because we choose a linear historical frame of reference for our academic pursuits, in the deep recesses of our mental and spiritual understandings we can only see darkness. The great authoritative kabbalist Nahmanides in his commentary to the Torah of creatio ex nihilo suggested that in its literal sense it is the free creation of the primeval matter from which everything was made. However, he implied by his kabbalistic allusion in his commentary to Genesis 1, that the true mystical meaning of the text is the emergence of all things from the absolute nothingness of God. Essentially, the kabbalists thought that this nothingness is the barrier confronting the human intellectual faculty when it reaches the limits of its capacity. There is a realm they think, that no created being can intellectually comprehend, which can only be described as “nothingness.” Most Christian denominations agree to creatio ex nihilo, believing that the only source of the doctrine of creation out of nothing is found in the Bible. However, this theological cosmogony creatio ex nihilo is in line with most scientific thought. The prevailing cosmological and astronomical proofs of this line of reason, i.e. their singularity theorems, suggest that at some definite time in the past the universe was compressed to a state of zero size and infinite density, called a singularity. As the doctrine creatio ex nihilo leads us to a state of nothingness, so does the written mathematical laws of physics break down into a place of nothingness at a singularity — darkness is to much for the human mind or mathematics to comprehend. It seems that history can only lead us to … .

According to the Bible, I find it difficult to understand the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) or from chaos (pre — existing matter). Moreover, I do not believe in a solid — state theory (that the universe has always been in existence).

What I know according to the Bible is: Jesus is the beginning.

Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

God formed the light and created the darkness.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The created darkness was there prior to God forming the light.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Jesus is the light of the world (the Greek word for world is kosmos).

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jesus is the only begotten of the Father

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is seen by man as a visable light

Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

All of creation was and is within Jesus

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In the end, God and the lamb are the temple and that temple is light

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

All of the previous verses tell me Gen 1:1, “In the beginning …”, means everything was created within the begotton light of the world. The same verses tell me all who believe are now and will be within Christ Jesus the light of the world forever. For me to understand this, means that in Him there is no darkness. There is no recourse but to tell everyone on the planet.

According to the Bible, I do not believe the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing — God is substantive) or from chaos (pre — existing matter). Moreover, I do not believe in a solid-state theory (that the universe has always been in existance).

I believe that out of and within God and Christ was the heavens and the earth created.

I cannot understand why we argue from extra — Biblical asumption that comes to us via the doctrine of man. There is no proof in our arguments. Can we stop and argue Biblical proofs? What does the Bible say?

Please regard first word in verse 22 below? — the word is “In” (Greek “en” = inside, within). The whole of the creation of God is “in” Christ who is the first and the last the only begotten of God. We must believe for the following to be true.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Bible scholars have chosen an historical critical paradigm to decipher Biblical texts. In my opinion this paradigm was given its lofty place in Biblical exegesis because of our need to etymologize and Bishop Usshers competitive efforts with astronomical calculations of his time so he could prove the day and the hour of creation. At that time, astromomy was leaving astrology behind because of our methods of tracking the stars and figuring out from where they came. It is the historical paradigm that will seemingly refute my understanding in every way shape and form. I believe it is the history of Biblical words that enables us to decipher the true contextual meaning of the Bible. I have read many extra-biblical histories though, and I find most are based in part on assumption. Show me an extra-biblical history and I will show you one by another author that is different.

The coming Kingdom is not an assumption — it is based on faith. When I see the acts of faith in and by the Christian community, I see the evidence of things not seen. I see the kingdom coming. Our faith comes not from looking back as did Lot’s wife, but from looking toward what is hoped for by the believing community.

I believe eternity is the true Biblical paradigm. I believe that eternal concepts are omni in nature as opposed to a lineal historical frame. I believe God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are omni-present in relation to the creation. I believe there is no duality. I believe all things created are within God and the Son. When I look at time, I see the earth rotating every 24 hours and I see the earth going round the sun every 364 1/4 days and then I say to myself (I got this from Einstein) if I were to travel out into space until I couldn’t see the earth — what time would it be? Then I come back to my senses and realize that God made the lights in the firmament for seasons and days and years. All in all, I cannot see all of this in a linear time frame.

The word “be reshyith” is translated as: In the Beginning. The Septuagint renders the first words “en arche” as does the quote you gave in John 1:1. Rav Berg, says the Creator chose the letter B (Bet, Bayt) since it is the first letter of the word blessing. Bayt is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet and is the archtype of all ‘containers’, the physical means by which Aleph can cause animation of life. Aleph is all that is and all that is not, that which cannot be conceived. Aleph must have a ‘receptacle’ in order for the abstract to come into existence.

I didn’t know about Rav Berg until recently. I have always believed the first words in Genesis and John meant “In” within the beginning Christ Jesus because he is all and in all save for the father.

The historical paradigm renders the first words (in reality) “at” the beginning. When I read 1 John 4:2 history requires the word “in” to be “has” come in the flesh. The truth is that Jesus is in the flesh of the believer. Jesus is the resurrection and we are the body of Christ. So, “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”. In context John is not speaking from an historical frame.

Looking into history will render assumption — looking at eternity will render God.

I would like to give to you, in part, how I understand that the heavens declare the glory of God.

When we look into the darkness of the night sky we see many stars. Each star that we see shines on us. Because we can see a star is proof that the star shines on us. Each star shines on every other star unless there is another star or obstruction in the way. Moreover, every star shinning on every other star creates the structure of the heavens.

It is said that when we create a telescope large enough, and we look out into the heavens, we will see only luminescent light — in every spot we look with this great telescope there will be a shinning star. This is called the optical horizon.

Because we are on the earth and are outside of the sun, we are obstructed from seeing the stars on the other side of the sun that would shine on us, however, through our sun we can partake of the life of the other stars that are shining on it. Still, being on the earth, during the day, we are obstructed from the night sky and the stars that are there and in the night we are obstructed from the sun and those stars on the other side of the sun. Were we inside of the sun, and we looked out with our great telescope, all we would be able to see would be light — there would be no darkness.

Be as it may, we the body of Christ, like the stars in the heavens, are luminaries through the darkness of the ways of world. Each of those who are not a believer is an obstruction in our heavenly construct on the earth. The only way to a perfect completion of our heavenly construct, the temple of God here in earth, is to give to those who are without life. And, that life is our Lord the “sun of righteousness” — Jesus the Son of God. Through Jesus, we who believe can partake of the life and light of the Father who is the creator of the heavens and the earth — in him there is no obstruction.

Thank you Jesus.