The Religion Discussion

[Habit7]

It might be possible to get something from nothing. When matter meets antimatter they cancel each other out leaving "nothing". It is being proposed that mathematically the equation can be applied in reverse ,so as to get something from nothing.

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8167

Sure, if you redefine something as "nothing" then of course you can say something can come from "nothing." But your "nothing" is really a bunch of something in which you add some more something to get....something. In other words:

On the Origin of Everything
‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss
By DAVID ALBERTMARCH 23, 2012

Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.”

Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete.

Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every­thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.” And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?

Never mind. Forget where the laws came from. Have a look instead at what they say. It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.

The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

Krauss, mind you, has heard this kind of talk before, and it makes him crazy. A century ago, it seems to him, nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” And now that he and his colleagues think they have a way of showing how everything there is could imaginably have emerged from a stretch of space like that, the nut cases are moving the goal posts. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.

And I guess it ought to be mentioned, quite apart from the question of whether anything Krauss says turns out to be true or false, that the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong — or it does, at any rate, to me. When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for every­thing essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb.


David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Colombia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... .html?_r=0

[nareshseep]

Thanks Habit7 for showing to be true the ever changing gospel of science, which shows us that the science gospel changes with new information unlike the other story books that form the foundation for theologians. But then again all are theories (both religion and science) ...just that one is more believable than the other - and this depends on the individual. As evident by some scientists who believe in creationism and other scientists who believe in evolution.

The masses are not ready to be weaned of the imaginary concept of god, even though the evidence is there they will choose to sidestep it like if is dogshit rather than stepping in the glory of science. Hardy ground cannot be used to plant the seeds of science. Take for example the movement against vaccination...

[Habit7]

The funny thing about truth is that it doesn't change. Likewise the laws of thermodynamics don't change because we live in an ordered, designed world consistent with it being created by a omnipotent and omniscient God.

Saying something can come from nothing can never be science. It is illogical and silly, especially for someone who thinks that the majority of the world is crazy because they believe in special creation. Empirical science, like the unchanging word of God, is immutable (unchanging). If something needed to be changed then that means it was wrong. Things that are wrong are not called science.

[nareshseep]

The only constant in this world is change that's for sure.. You wouldn't trust medical advice from thousands of years ago or would you? But you will believe crap written years ago on religion. Seems logical... erm okay. Again thats Habit7 theory which he think is true.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

do we have any "nothing" to test that with?

[Habit7]

The only constant in this world is change that's for sure.

Well you can live your life by platitudes, memes and sayings on the wrappers of dinner mints but what you said above doesn't apply to science. In science constants are consistent and constants that change were wrong.

do we have any "nothing" to test that with?

Your are quite right, to have a material vacuum would mean no matter or antimatter, unlike the case in which crock101 mentioned. In fact for it to be like the causal nature of what some atheists would like us to believe resulted in our universe, it should not be a vacuum in time and should have no laws of nature being applied to it. That would be a "nothing" we can observe.

However a something is all around us and we can't get away from it. It envelopes us in all its beauty, splendor, complexity, organization, etc. yet atheists want us to think that a nothing, doing absolutely nothing 14 b years ago, however did something and became a something...which resulted in the immaterial laws of nature acting upon it, at a time and at a place, thus creating the universe.

[crock101]

Silly...Silly is a great word to describe an adult who thinks that at one point in history on earth, there was a talking donkey and a talking snake.
Silly is a great word to describe a homo sapien who thinks that a magic man in the sky was in full support of incest at least twice in human history.
Silly is a excellent word to describe a person who makes attempts ,however unimpressive, to rationalize pedophilia.
Habit you don't accept evidence nor do you use logic(on this topic anyway).
You conveniently quote science when it suits you and ignore it when it goes against your favorite storybook.

[Habit7]

[crock101]

Wait doesn't your storybook claim that your God made everything out of nothing.
It never bothers to explain where God comes from, to use a bit of your flawed logic,wouldn't a complex being such as a God need to have a creator, an intelligent designer , god's dad if you will.
But then we would have to ask who created god's dad, this will go on forever.
The book just offers another cop out and claims God is eternal, basically telling you to stop asking about the beginning.

Science is ever changing because new evidence is always being introduced,religion almost never changes no matter how much evidence is introduced.

[Habit7]

What you failing to understand is your lack of consistency. God supernaturally creating ex nihilo, a talking snake/donkey, Red Sea parting, axehead floating, virgin birth, healing the sick, resurrection from the death, instant foreign language ability, immunity to snake venom, etc. are all consistent with the supernatural biblical worldview. However you say that is silly and only mad ppl believe that.

But you are advocating that naturally nothing can become something and claiming that this is science. What it is, is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics, but you are saying that science is changing. But the laws of science don't change, scientific theories do. You are being inconsistent with the very science you are appealing to but you want to diagnose others as insane, illogical and silly.




In sense I don't blame you, you like others in this thread ridicule others for believing in the supernatural but when the spotlight is shone on your beliefs, you have faith in the incredible. And you get angry when this is pointed out to you.

[nareshseep]

What Habit7 fails to realize is all what he believes is a theory. Laws of science are based on theories, and these laws change with research.
Was Habit7 there to see his imaginary god create the universe. Was he there when his imaginary god wrote the bible. Children believe in Santa, Habit7 believe in imaginary god, some folks believe in evolution.

And I reiterate, You could believe whatever you want to be true makes it true to you alone. It does not make it true for everyone.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

there is a difference between a theory and scientific theory

theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

1. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

2. contemplation or speculation

3. guess or conjecture

------------------------------------------------------

scientific theory

1. a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

2. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts

3. a theory that explains scientific observations

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a scientific theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

[Habit7]

What Habit7 fails to realize is all what he believes is a theory. Laws of science are based on theories, and these laws change with research.

...and then ppl get upset when you say our education system has failed us.

[meccalli]

lol, these deserve to be highlighted as well. Explains atheistic thought train in this religious thread.

It does not make it true for everyone.

Theory of relativism.

the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

and the theory of scientific theories not actually being real theories at all by definition.

[crock101]

The word theory is not being used correctly, theory is not guess nor is it a pretty good guess. It is the result of a lot of testing,only after a hypothesis has been rigorously tested and still cannot be disproved then it qualifies as a theory.
Gravity ,the germ theory of disease,evolution and the big bang are all theories , this is not a bad thing.
You don't see anyone jumping of buildings because they think that gravity is just a theory. In science the word theory is equal to the word fact and needs to be treated as such.
Random claims of the supernatural made by iron age desert dwellers do not qualify as theories, the are just claims made by the uneducated and uninformed.

[Habit7]

Inconsistent again

In science the word theory is equal to the word fact and needs to be treated as such.

One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact

[megadoc1]

this was last December, crock sill having difficulty ? or is he going around in circles
http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=9013255&hilit=+theory#p9011801

It's not my understanding of the word theory , it is the accepted understanding of the word theory by the whole scientific community

that is NOT the accepted understanding of the word theory by the whole scientific community,the scientific community says that your understanding is one of a misconception ...see below

The word theory is not that same as guess, theory is something that has gone through rigorous testing and still has not been proven wrong.

your understanding of the word theory is a bit off yo!

No it is quite correct.

No you are wrong let me show you your error

A theory is like an upgraded hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory when is has gone through significant attempts to be proven wrongly and has not been proven wrong. It must also have a lot of information supporting it as well. Scientists call something a theory when they are pretty sure that it is true but are unable to directly observe or test it.

Misconception: If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law.

Correction: Hypotheses cannot become theories and theories cannot become laws. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all scientific explanations but they differ in breadth, not in level of support. Theories apply to a broader range of phenomena than do hypotheses. The term law is sometimes used to refer to an idea about how observable phenomena are related
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b12

what I was supposed to do is point out to crock101 (well you too since you seemed to be misinformed on the matter also ) that a theory should be able to be proven wrong or modified as tested or as time passes

THEORY: In science, a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses. Theories accepted by the scientific community are generally strongly supported by many different lines of evidence-but even theories may be modified or overturned if warranted by new evidence and perspectives
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=theory

[nareshseep]

Thanks Duane for the explaining the difference between theory and scientific theory. Scientific theory can be tested and proven with repeatable results, however for the sad lot that believe in Religious theory, those theories will never be proven. They demonstrate a strong will to reject reality of anything that threatens the sanctity of their pathetic belief systems (cognitive dissonance). As shown by the posts above they have the extraordinary skill of cherry picking - only looking for what they want to see. Scientific knowledge being continually revised, always improves. Religious knowledge though is archaic and will never be revised since imaginary god cannot be wrong. Some take pride in this though... I wonder if they will take pride in having archaic medical procedures done to themselves.

The reason why ridiculous religuous claims prevail

[Habit7]

I can understand when the atheists in this thread are wrong about the Bible, they have never read it save for the snippets they copy and paste from some atheist blog.

But it is audacious for them to try to lecture ppl on science when they constantly trip over themselves when referencing it.

Scientism gone amok.

[megadoc1]

there is a difference between a theory and scientific theory

theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

1. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

2. contemplation or speculation

3. guess or conjecture

------------------------------------------------------

scientific theory

1. a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

2. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts

3. a theory that explains scientific observations

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a scientific theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Duane this is a misconception! see my post above

[meccalli]

I fail to see the correlation between actual science you're assuming religious folk are opposed to and the nancy stories of evolution and the big bang (cannot be observed, tested nor repeated) which supposedly refute the existence of a God.

[bluesclues]

there is a difference between a theory and scientific theory

theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

1. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

2. contemplation or speculation

3. guess or conjecture

------------------------------------------------------

scientific theory

1. a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

2. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts

3. a theory that explains scientific observations

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a scientific theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

then when it reaches this stage it is classed as a 'scientific fact'. which is still reasoned theory that isnt proven and accepted as fact until all factors in it's operation are fully observed.

in the case where the ability to successfully identify all the factors are thwarted by strange necessities such as 'time travel' or a lack of proper tools of detection, it remains a scientific fact, but a real world theory that will either be supported by new discoveries or thrown into question through the discovery of contradictions.

[crock101]

Religious people have the right to express their religious views , at the same time people like me have the right to mock those views relentlessly.
The real problem appears when people start saying that it is a crime to make fun of a religion, people start getting killed ,children get exposed to pseudoscience .

Just look at all to people who died because of some Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, this was a direct result of the 2nd commandment,
: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

The Muslims weren't just acting all crazy as usual, they didn't just pull it out of the air, they were following scripture.

In fact quite a few of the ten commandments actually call for death for anyone who breaks them.if you work on the weekends, or whenever is the Sabbath , the God of the bible wants you dead.if we can acknowledge that this is wrong ,then it is fair to say that the god of the bible is wrong ,on this topic at least.

I find it a bit disturbing that there are people here who are going to make a failed attempt at defending the indefensible.

[Habit7]

The only pseudoscience I am seeing is what you and others expressed in the previous page.

Just look at all to people who died because of some Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, this was a direct result of the 2nd commandment,
: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.

This is not a direct result of Exodus 20, it is a direct result of Islamic Hadith literature which prohibits depictions of living creatures.

No surprise you are again inconsistent with religion, but is a carry over of your inconsistency with science.

[crock101]

You do realize that the quran is just a plagiarized bible and the bible is just a plagiarized torah.
Habit.. tell me , do you agree with the punishment for the 2nd commandment, which is death.
I definitely do not agree with the god of the bible on this topic ,how about you?

[megadoc1]

You do realize that the quran is just a plagiarized bible and the bible is just a plagiarized torah.
Habit.. tell me , do you agree with the punishment for the 2nd commandment, which is death.
I definitely do not agree with the god of the bible on this topic ,how about you?

but the Torah is included in the bible ,your statement shows that you intend to continue in ignorance!
the first five books in the bible is the Torah

[crock101]

Are you going to answer the question or not ,I'll Ask again.
Habit.. tell me , do you agree with the punishment for the 2nd commandment, which is death.
I definitely do not agree with the god of the bible on this topic ,how about you?

[Habit7]

The Hadiths are not the Quran. The Quran has no quotes from the Bible. If you read my discussions with the Muslims here, it is the fact that the Quran falsely claims that the Torah and Gospel corroborates it, is one of the biggest evidences against Islam.

The 2nd commandment (Exodus 20) was not punishable by death.




You are bad with science but you are worst with theology.

[MD Marketers]

I fail to see the correlation between actual science you're assuming religious folk are opposed to and the nancy stories of evolution and the big bang (cannot be observed, tested nor repeated) which supposedly refute the existence of a God.

Valid argument, & I'm an agnostic btw.
If you believe that there is no God then it is a belief in something. It's one form of Atheism.
Not knowing if God exists is another form of Atheism called Agnositicism.
Atheists aren't against having a belief system, they just prefer to follow the more scientifically logical choice.
Athiest follow scientific based logic wheras theists follow faith based logic.
I had this debate on the Thinking Atheist Forums and it eventually boiled down to personal experiences that determine your belief system.
Most of the things you think are facts are based on your own belief system resulting from what others have told you and not because you have personally experienced and tested it yourself.
Eg.
How do you know the Earth is round?
How do you know the North Pole is Frozen?
How do you know the temperature of the sun?
How do you know anything to be a fact if you have never tested or experienced it yourself? You believe in the overwhelming evidence others have provided you considering your own lack of evidence on the matter.
If your personal experience proves opposite to what others tell you then chances are you will believe your own personal experience over what others have stated regardless of it's popularity.

I respect theists/atheists who hold strong belief based on personal experience, but if I lack that personal experience myself then you cannot expect me to share the same belief.

[nareshseep]