Scientists - How was everything created from nothing? (Earth, before, existence)

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your post. Your bubble analogy leads to two questions.

1. What does the bubble contain (for example, air, another gas, a vacuum)?

2. What caused the bubble to form? To go from nonexistence to existence is a change. What is it's cause?

The problem using analogies to help picture a physical phenomena is that the creation of a bubble in a glass of beer or any carbonated beverage always begs the question which you ask what created the bubble and what is the nature of the beer . Which is natural because these are the very questions that are of most interst. In natural philosophy there is a type of question called a bad question, it is a question that outruns knowledge and experience. A example is the famous Zen question what is the sound of a tree falling in a forest that has no one to hear it fall. How would the Zen master answer this question? If he is an honest Master he won't answer the question and appologize for taking up your time. The issue of creation is one important question that physics can't answer today and may never be able to provide an answer. However, it won't stop people in the discipline from trying and conjuring up tales of multiverses, cosmic foam, and universes without end. When I was still working at a place which is near the pinacle of US science. I once sat in on a lecture about the problem of what the speaker called metaphysics and how it was polluting physics. Metaphysics is how classical philosophers like Aristotle or the Pythagorean Greeks did science. Matematicians largely follow this paradym. You create the idea first ie. axions or postulate use logic to draw conclusions then pick some data to validate the idea ( in Mathematics you call this a Proof). If the idea is beautiful in the eye of the beholder it must be right. A lot of high energy and cosmology is done this way especially when it gets into energies or other physical scales far beyond our grasp now or even a million years from now.

The other way physics is done is what we call the Baconian paradym you observe a phenomenon, you create a hypothesis, you use the hypothesis to suggests new tests or observations, you make a prediction, you do the experiment or observation , you compare the new data to the old and draw conclusions, you revise hypthosis and turn the wheel again. Eventually the hypothesis is so refined and so accurate we give it the higher status of a theory and over time consensus and acceptence make it a law. For example we don't consider Newton's Laws of Mechanics a theory or a hypothesis anymore.
The same is true with thermodynamics (Carnot's Law) or Electricity and Magnetism (Ohms Law or the Law of electro-magnetic Induction). But nothing is cast in stone find an exception and we go back to square one. This is not how a lot of things we humans do work, religion is not a science unless you make science metaphysics and insist that things are the way they are because I say they are and what I want them to be regardless of the reality, facts or ground truth.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

What's your problem anyway? What would make you say something like that? It means that matter is eternal, that's all. You don't have to agree, but there's no reason to be insulting about it.

How was I insulting? I simply did not understand what you meant by "He used the matter that was co-eternal with Him." It is a concept that I have never heard before...You do know that matter and energy are interchangeable don't you? I believe that before there was matter there was only energy...What caused it to change, I have no idea.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by CDJD

perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge today's scientists.

Me? I don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything that was anti-science or that was critical of today's scientists. I'm very pro-science. And I believe in God. And yes, it is entirely possible to be both.

[OzzyRules]

I guess that quantum physics is "nothing". Hmm, that makes sense. (not)

[Wild Colonial Girl]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

Eventually the hypothesis is so refined and so accurate we give it the higher status of a theory and over time consensus and acceptence make it a law. For example we don't consider Newton's Laws of Mechanics a theory or a hypothesis anymore.
The same is true with thermodynamics (Carnot's Law) or Electricity and Magnetism (Ohms Law or the Law of electro-magnetic Induction). But nothing is cast in stone find an exception and we go back to square one. This is not how a lot of things we humans do work, religion is not a science unless you make science metaphysics and insist that things are the way they are because I say they are and what I want them to be regardless of the reality, facts or ground truth.

A good post in general, but you've got the dfinition of law wrong. Laws and Theories are different, one is not a progression from the other. To quote about.com "Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'". Evolution will never become a law, the first law of thermodynamics was never a theory.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

A person would have to go out of his way to deny such profound evidence.

Originally Posted by nick gar

mass=energy/speed of light squared
pretty much shown in experiment with some adjustments for relativity.

just allows for theory, take from it what you will.

You spout a definition of a tangible & well-established (by direct observation..) entity, or an acknowledged fact like the relationship between mass, energy and the constant, "c".

Then you'd like to use that as the sole and entire basis for your unsubstantiatible but aitogether faith-based belief in an entity which, along with the other 5000 or so likewise unsubstantiated Godly entities, have likewise never deigned to show up. Ever. Quite convenient, but also totally vacuous.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

First off, it is not the scientific consensus that everything was created from nothing.

Quite so. The SM is a developed and evolved process for logically asking and usually getting better understandings of, the unknowns in this world. The hypothesis of some godly creature precluding our existence, and having pre-existed all of the universe, but then making it fully complete in one week out of, you guessed it, nothing, is far less believable than what we have proven now.

After all, we do have very well substantiated and reliable evidence, such as the fossil remains of ancient life on this planet, of our own biological Evolution and subsequent hominid development, and of the geological changes in this planet over huge timelines, as is clearly seen by the objectively minded.

Versus you hand-waving creationism fans in a known-to-be impossible time ≈6500 years ago. All because, to even briefly glance at the established and growing fact base will ultimately demolish your entire ancient mythological religion. And thus your reason for living, all waiting impatiently and smugly for The Glorious End Times, which, I'm v. sorry to have to tell you one more time, ain't gonna happen. No way, no how!

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The claim of modern science is that everything was created from nothing. How does this happen? The idea seems absolutely insane.

What happened to all of the great scientists who believed in God? Do any exist in modern "science"? It seems as if Christians are the only ones who are able to truly analyze the universe.

Analyse? Where? When? Show me this careful, step-wise analysis, written down in a peer-reviewed format, with the evidence and it's supporting data. No? You've just made it all up again? Thought so.

Fact is, science does not claim that it was all made up out of nothing. I'll also remind you yet again: "science" is not a proclaiming entity: it's merely an investigational PROCESS. Again, please show me any published document where "science", that evil personality, says we claim it all came from nothing. You've been listening, wide-eyed but uneducated, to the propaganda of your church minister again!

Whereas, published journal articles are, in fact, the way we scientists actually communicate. You can't face the facts and so you Chrisitan fundamentalists, who DO, in fact, claim it was all made from nothing by your mythical God, immediately and totally deny all the honest work done by millions of scientists, independently conducted the world over. All of it A VERY GRAND CONSPIRACY? Well heck, Murtha; yup!

So! Whassa matter? You can can't defend His Glorious capabilites while you simultaneously lie about our well-suported ideas, which btw, are ALWAYS open to refining, to re-structuring based on new or re-considered evidence?

The amazing and apparently preferred lack of understanding by all Christians of exactly how science works and is applied no longer amazes me: it's the standard denialist manure-fodder of the non-critically thinking cohort.

Originally Posted by mwruckman

...you observe a phenomenon, you create a hypothesis, you use the hypothesis to suggests new tests or observations, you make a prediction, you do the experiment or observation , you compare the new data to the old and draw conclusions, you revise hypthosis and turn the wheel again. Eventually the hypothesis is so refined and so accurate we give it the higher status of a theory and over time consensus and acceptence make it a law. For example we don't consider Newton's Laws of Mechanics a theory or a hypothesis anymore.

The same is true with thermodynamics (Carnot's Law) or Electricity and Magnetism (Ohms Law or the Law of electro-magnetic Induction). But nothing is cast in stone find an exception and we go back to square one.

...religion is not a science unless you make science metaphysics and insist that things are the way they are because I say they are and what I want them to be regardless of the reality, facts or ground truth.

Yeah; quite the dependable and believable concept, huh, mwr? It sure beats the heck out of trying to prove the impossible as well...

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

I guess that quantum physics is "nothing". Hmm, that makes sense. (not)

Your point being? Why don't you give us your well-reasoned & thoroughly educated "take" and basic explanation of quantum physics, Ozzy Who Doesn't Rule?

Or are you just spouting what "they" told you to spout?

How can you begin to criticize anything when you know, demonstrably, NOTHING about it except what you've been told by the hive managers to re-bloviate? Tell me how that works, or get off the podium please.

Well OK then, and thanks for playing. Our next contestant is......

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl

A good post in general, but you've got the dfinition of law wrong. Laws and Theories are different, one is not a progression from the other. To quote about.com "Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'". Evolution will never become a law, the first law of thermodynamics was never a theory.

I disagree with this post. What do you consider Maxwell's equations of electricity a theory or a law ? Especially when you learn that theose 4 equations can be condensed into a single thing called the vector potential you get the Maxwell's equations by applying the set of mathematical operations (curls, divergences etc) to this vector potential and not just any vector potential but one given the special name Coulomb Gauge. The choice of the Coulomb Guage is the mathematical equvalent of a postulate. Which I equate to the status of a law which you accept if you want a working theory of electricity and magnetism. The same is true in mechanics when I rewrite Newton in the modern Hamiltonian style and write the Action integral which is the way I apply the Action Principle. Principles are another kind of law.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The claim of modern science is that everything was created from nothing. How does this happen? The idea seems absolutely insane.

What happened to all of the great scientists who believed in God? Do any exist in modern "science"? It seems as if Christians are the only ones who are able to truly analyze the universe.

What do you think?

It is possible that there is no distinction between something and nothing.

Nothingness may be an abstraction that has no reality.

[TaoistDude]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The claim of modern science is that everything was created from nothing. How does this happen? The idea seems absolutely insane.

What happened to all of the great scientists who believed in God? Do any exist in modern "science"? It seems as if Christians are the only ones who are able to truly analyze the universe.

What do you think?

(I have been told in the Science forum that this type of controversial issue belongs in this forum.)

In that case, the idea of God is even more insane. How did God arise?

The universe is based on relatively simple laws and relationships, from which complexity evolves. Complex things always evelove from simpler things - and this is especially evident when looking at biology and organisms. For something as complex and capable as God is said to be, God would have to have evolved from something simpler. What is that something? It's a better explanation to use the principles of physics and cosmology to eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation. Everything can be explained naturally by an eternal multiverse. Simply because you cannot accept that something came from nothing, does not mean it isn't so - yet God had to have come from nothing too, but isn't as good an explanation by any means.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The claim of modern science is that everything was created from nothing.

You are incorrect from your very first sentence. This isn't the stance or claim of "science" or all scientists at all.