How could a universe evolve from nothing? This talk by Lawrence Krauss doesn’t answer the question fully, there is still so much that we don’t know about how the universe works and how it came about, but he makes the idea a bit easier to accept – and teaches us a lot of interesting things about the universe along the way. If you want to learn more about our current picture of the universe, see this video!
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
HowIsEarth.com 
CIRCULAR REASONING
I
In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
“Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.””
From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing spontaneously literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here we want to examine whether scientists’ claim that the so-called void is a true void can be sustained by reason or not.
There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
(1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
(1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
(1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.
II
Scientists want to prove that God does not exist. Since they want to prove it, therefore they cannot claim that it is already an established fact. So the statement “God does not exist” can be given the status of a theory only and nothing more than that. Therefore its fate will be determined like any other theory of the scientific world. Like any other scientific theory it will have to prove its validity afresh at each and every new instance. So, not by assuming that the void is a real void, and thus not by assuming that there is no God, but by any other means, scientists will have to show that there is no hand of God behind the origin/birth/creation of this universe, and therefore their no-God theory is again validated here. So the scientific community all over the world should realize that the story of the origin of our universe from a vacuum fluctuation is a myth only, not a scientific truth.
CIRCULAR REASONING REEXAMINED
This is about scientists’ claim that our universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation. Here I want to show again that this claim cannot be sustained by reason.
Abbreviation: origin of the universe from nothing due to vacuum fluctuation (OUNVF)
We all know that the theorems in Euclidean geometry generally start with some basic assumptions that are accepted as true without any proof. These basic assumptions are called axioms. Similarly scientific theories also start with some basic assumptions. These are called postulates. So far these postulates of scientific theories were all God-independent. I am going to explain what I want to mean by the term “God-independent”. Let us suppose that P is a postulate. Now it may be the case that there is a God. Or it may be the case that there is no God. Now let us suppose it is the case that there is a God, and we find that P is not affected. Again let us further suppose that it is the case there is no God, and again we find that in this case also P is not affected. Then we can say P is God-independent. But in the case under consideration the basic assumption with which scientists start is not at all God-independent. Rather we can say that it is very much God-dependent. Their basic assumption here is this: the void is a real void, and it is nothing but a void. Now if it is the case that there is a God, then this assumption is very much affected, because the void is no longer a real void. If, and only if, it is the case that there is no God, then only it is a real void. Therefore when scientists are saying that the void is a real void, then they are also saying it indirectly that it is the case there is no God, or, that it is a fact there is no God. But my question here is this: are these scientists now in a position to say so? Have their knowledge of the empirical world and its laws and its workings up till now made them competent enough to declare at this stage that there is no God? Because here two points will have to be considered:
1) They have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.
2) Similarly they have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the fact that our universe has become habitable for life, whereas it could have been barren and lifeless as well.
Now it may so happen that scientists completely fail to give any natural explanation for both 1) and 2). In that case will it not be too early for them to suppose that the void is a real void? Because if they are unsuccessful, then they do not know whether there is a God or not, and therefore neither do they know whether the void is a real void or not. But if they are successful, then they definitely know that there is no God. Then only they can say that the void is a real void. So we can say that 1) and 2) are two hurdles that the scientists must have to cross before they can arrive at a place from where they can boldly declare that God does not exist. This is the place that may be called scientists’ heaven. Because once they can reach there, then they will have no hesitation to deny the existence of God. Because now they have explained the alpha and omega of this universe, starting from its origin up to the coming of man on earth and further beyond, and nowhere they have found any hand of God influencing the course of events in any way. But, to arrive at that place can they take any undue advantage? Or, can they try to reach there by any unfair means? Can they already assume that there is no God, and based on that assumption, can they try to cross any one, or both, of these two hurdles? But in case of 1) they have just done that. That is why I want to say that OUNVF is a pure case of circular reasoning.
H.S.Pal
I hope you grasp this, since you probably copy-pasted it from an article of yours, and I spent 10-15 minutes writing an answer. Actually I’m a bit busy, so if you answer me I wont respond for a while. I probably will respond eventually though, because I’m kind of like this: http://blogs.technet.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-PostAttachments/00-02-99-89-79/wrong.jpg
You try to answer these kinds of questions with clear logic. That I like!
I agree that testing if we live in a 1a, a 1b that is very close to 1a, or a type 2 universe is hard. Distinguishing between a type 2 and a type 1a universe might not be possible, and it might be. A theory of why the universe came into being might rely on claims that can be tested experimentally.
Of course science cannot gain absolute certainty about God, in the same way that they are unable to gain absolute certainty about all claims – especially “X doesn’t exist or take place”-claims. This doesn’t bother me. I can live without absolute certainty. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle opens for us having been a second ago with all memories implanted in our brains. There is such a thing as being so improbable that taking the idea seriously is perverse (I’m just making a point, I’m not saying that believing deistic God necessarily is with current knowledge).
What you talk about is a “God of the gaps”. We can’t explain something, and this makes the existence of a God more probable. But believing in a God does not make any of the problems you mentioned more easy to explain or accept.
A universe with a God is more fine-tuned then a universe that has gotten complex as a result of simple rules. No, God doesn’t have to be made of matter. Yes, intelligence is just one word, and the concept of intelligence is uncomplicated. Yet an intelligent God has to be very complicated. Therefore this question is not solved by saying “God did it”.
The same goes for the creation of the universe. If everyting must have a cause, then so must God, and so must the what or who that created God, etc. Carl Sagan says it very elegantly:
Although scientists in general aren’t religious (probably due to their knowledge and high intelligence) a significant share of them are. Scientists often make a lot effort in trying to disprove their own theories, so that that either get rid of false theories, or become more sure of theories that probably are correct. You claim scientists are biased, but I think you seem biased.
I don’t have enough knowledge of the subject to have strong opinions, but I’m not so sure if the universe is fine-tuned for life, and neither is this guy:
But if it is then this problem is very elegantly explained by the theory of multiple universes (look it up). Even if we disregard that it seems that a fine-tuned universe is possible if we think that very improbable things can be the case, which should be possible for people who don’t think we sure of things that cannot be proven to be absolutely certain.
Quantum fluctuations don’t seem to solve the problem for me either, but I don’t enough about the theory to know why the proponents of this theory think it is correct after dedicating much of their professional lives to looking into the problem. If you do, and think they are incorrect, then why not write a peer-reviewed scientific paper to disprove them?
I don’t know how much you know about the theories you criticize, or how much they claim to explain with them, but this video should be viewed and absorbed by many:
[…] Re: what are u doing? I'm watching a scientific lecture about how the universe works. A universe from nothing HowIsEarth.com […]
In regards to A universe from nothing HowIsEarth.com, I’d have to say what a great post! Thanks very much