What is it with the creationists who as "do you believe nothing came from 
something?"

Why do they think there's evidence the universe ever didn't exist?

Often creationists will say "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, 
hence God must have created it."

If you don't accept that, but if you instead think there are natural 
situations under which matter can be created, then there's no need for God 
to answer the question "can everything come from nothing".

If you *do* accept that, then there's no reason to believe there was ever 
"nothing" to start with.

Think about the Big Bang, and how we know about it. Stars are spreading 
apart, and the farther away they are, the faster they're moving away. 
Logically following back in time, that means all the stars were squished 
together some billions of years in the past.

Now, if you believe the universe is closed (i.e., has enough matter that 
there's a bounded amount of space), then this means that all matter was 
squished into the minimum amount of space possible. If there were areas 
where it couldn't be squished further, gravity would quickly iron them out. 
  (Indeed, this is the cause for the interest in the details of the 
variations of the background radiation - why is it irregular, if everything 
started out uniformly?) It does *not* mean there was nothing. Instead, it 
means there was *everything*.  The entire universe was uniformly packed as 
absolutely chock full of matter as possible.

If you believe the universe is open (i.e., that space is flat and infinite), 
then following back in time just means that everything comes together into 
an infinitely large infinitely dense universe of matter and energy. Actually 
quite 100% opposite of "nothing". This may seem nonsensical unless you're 
used to dealing with infinitites, but if you imagine stars coming closer 
together and there's always more stars to replace the ones coming in from 
far away, it makes perfect sense, just like there's the same number of even 
integers as there are integers.

In neither case does the Big Bang imply "nothing," any more than a 
demolition of a building implies the rubble came out of "nothing." There's 
no "common sense" reason to believe there was ever a time when there was 
"nothing," and the very idea that there was "time" without "something" is 
nonsensical. After all, if you're going to argue religion based on the Big 
Bang, you ought to be accepting the rest of General Relativity too. As far 
as I know, there's no scientific reason to believe there was ever a time 
when there was "nothing" either.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

You start with questions. Are you looking for answers or do you only want
to preach. If the latter, have at it to your heart's content. If the 
former, though
this may be "off-topic", I and probably others may be able to suggest 
answers--
or maybe more questions. :)

David


Darren New wrote:
> What is it with the creationists who as "do you believe nothing came 
> from something?"
> 
> Why do they think there's evidence the universe ever didn't exist?
> 
> Often creationists will say "matter can neither be created nor 
> destroyed, hence God must have created it."
> 
> If you don't accept that, but if you instead think there are natural 
> situations under which matter can be created, then there's no need for 
> God to answer the question "can everything come from nothing".
> 
> If you *do* accept that, then there's no reason to believe there was 
> ever "nothing" to start with.
> 
> Think about the Big Bang, and how we know about it. Stars are spreading 
> apart, and the farther away they are, the faster they're moving away. 
> Logically following back in time, that means all the stars were squished 
> together some billions of years in the past.
> 
> Now, if you believe the universe is closed (i.e., has enough matter that 
> there's a bounded amount of space), then this means that all matter was 
> squished into the minimum amount of space possible. If there were areas 
> where it couldn't be squished further, gravity would quickly iron them 
> out.  (Indeed, this is the cause for the interest in the details of the 
> variations of the background radiation - why is it irregular, if 
> everything started out uniformly?) It does *not* mean there was nothing. 
> Instead, it means there was *everything*.  The entire universe was 
> uniformly packed as absolutely chock full of matter as possible.
> 
> If you believe the universe is open (i.e., that space is flat and 
> infinite), then following back in time just means that everything comes 
> together into an infinitely large infinitely dense universe of matter 
> and energy. Actually quite 100% opposite of "nothing". This may seem 
> nonsensical unless you're used to dealing with infinitites, but if you 
> imagine stars coming closer together and there's always more stars to 
> replace the ones coming in from far away, it makes perfect sense, just 
> like there's the same number of even integers as there are integers.
> 
> In neither case does the Big Bang imply "nothing," any more than a 
> demolition of a building implies the rubble came out of "nothing." 
> There's no "common sense" reason to believe there was ever a time when 
> there was "nothing," and the very idea that there was "time" without 
> "something" is nonsensical. After all, if you're going to argue religion 
> based on the Big Bang, you ought to be accepting the rest of General 
> Relativity too. As far as I know, there's no scientific reason to 
> believe there was ever a time when there was "nothing" either.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a6b8e2e$1@news.povray.org...

> What is it with the creationists who as "do you believe nothing came from
> something?"
>
> Why do they think there's evidence the universe ever didn't exist?
>
> Often creationists will say "matter can neither be created nor destroyed,
> hence God must have created it."

I think even creationists (most anyway) accept that matter and energy are
transmutable, or sides of the same coin, so I'm not sure if that's the
precise form of the statement, or if you are thinking more along the lines
of the first cause argument (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause_argument , also maybe
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html ).

[...]

> nonsensical. After all, if you're going to argue religion based on the Big
> Bang, you ought to be accepting the rest of General Relativity too. As far
> as I know, there's no scientific reason to believe there was ever a time
> when there was "nothing" either.

It used to be that time was considered strictly a product of Big Bang, so it
would be meaningless to even ask about such a time or cause. However, it
became more complex sometime recently.

Cause is also a nebulous concept: When you shoot two billiard balls towards
each other, what "causes" the collision? You? Inertia? Motion? At a
fundamental level, collapse of wavefunction is what comes closest to talking
about discrete causes, but even then, such can be seen as incomplete
understanding/modeling on our part. If we consider the combined wavefunction
of you and the billiard balls, there remains no deeper cause of any events
except the existence of the wavefunction itself - attributing discrete
causes to discrete events becomes an artifact of the model/interpretation,
and the non-unitariness of the operation one that of the observer/observed
dichotomy.

In any case, defining as god whatever remains when our understanding stops
back in time, although useless, is not in itself false or inconsistent. It's
when someone claims that that "god" is the same as Allah, God... etc which
assumes personality, wishes, demand, pettiness, vengefulness, caring... etc
that absurdness arises.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I think even creationists (most anyway) accept that matter and energy are
> transmutable, or sides of the same coin, so I'm not sure if that's the
> precise form of the statement,

What I usually hear is "how can something come from nothing?"

However, regardless of the precision of phrasing, it's still not true. And 
it's actually pretty easy to measure: small volumes of vacuum have less 
stuff in them than large volumes of vacuum.

> or if you are thinking more along the lines
> of the first cause argument (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause_argument , also maybe
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html ).

No, more like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_from_nothing

First cause is something different, that comes after you admit something 
can't come from nothing.  I'm also not talking about the question of "*Why* 
is there something instead of nothing?"

> It used to be that time was considered strictly a product of Big Bang, so it
> would be meaningless to even ask about such a time or cause.

That's one way of arguing about it.  Another way (which I put up here 
recently that nobody even commented on) was that perhaps time slowed due to 
the changes in physics (as in, infinite mass making infinite gravity making 
infinite redshift making ...) and the universe has always been around, even 
tho it only started four billion of *our* years ago.

> However, it became more complex sometime recently.

Sounds interesting! Have you a cite?

> In any case, defining as god whatever remains when our understanding stops
> back in time, although useless, is not in itself false or inconsistent.

I would say it's "false" because that's not what God means. I could define 
"apple" as what remains when our understanding stops back in time, but that 
wouldn't make me right. :-) Nobody calls it God if it stopped existing when 
the universe came into being, except maybe the Mayans.

> It's
> when someone claims that that "god" is the same as Allah, God... etc which
> assumes personality, wishes, demand, pettiness, vengefulness, caring... etc
> that absurdness arises.

Right. That comes after, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a6c86f1$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > However, it became more complex sometime recently.

> Sounds interesting! Have you a cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

And esp. Section 7 in:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/

Now my brain hurts. Thanks loads. ;-)

Seriously, cool stuff. I wish I understood it all.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> What is it with the creationists who as "do you believe nothing came from
> something?"
> ...
> Now, if you believe the universe is closed (i.e., has enough matter that
> there's a bounded amount of space), then this means that all matter was
> squished into the minimum amount of space possible.


Whoa.  I've listened to a whole year of Astronomy Cast, and I thought that the
Big Bang *was* about the creation of matter. It is precisely not, as once
described by Cal Thomas, a scenario you seem to agree with, "the explosion of
an eternally existent cosmic egg."

Big Bang = Gen 1:1 = in the beginning, the cosmos [sic] was created.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Whoa.  I've listened to a whole year of Astronomy Cast, and I thought that the
> Big Bang *was* about the creation of matter. 

The big bang is postulated because everything is moving apart. If you 
reverse time, everything is moving back together again. Much like people 
knew what temperature was "absolute zero" long before they could get 
anywhere close to making it in the lab.

 > It is precisely not, as once
> described by Cal Thomas, a scenario you seem to agree with, "the explosion of
> an eternally existent cosmic egg."

You can have an explosion of an eternally existent cosmic egg without 
creating matter. Indeed, if it's eternally existent, that's precisely the 
point I'm making.

> Big Bang = Gen 1:1 

Well, no. That's exactly my point. In the beginning was *everything*.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
> > Whoa.  I've listened to a whole year of Astronomy Cast, and I thought that the
> > Big Bang *was* about the creation of matter. 

> The big bang is postulated because everything is moving apart. If you 
> reverse time, everything is moving back together again. Much like people 
> knew what temperature was "absolute zero" long before they could get 
> anywhere close to making it in the lab.

  Of course it's not just that simple, as many of the features of the
observed universe don't conform to a simplistic Big Bang. This has prompted
refinements of the theory, including the cosmic inflation, which theorizes
that there was a time shortly after the Big Bang when the universe inflated
at an exponential rate. (And no, this doesn't go against general relativity.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Of course it's not just that simple, as many of the features of the
> observed universe don't conform to a simplistic Big Bang.

Certainly. And it turns out that there's a fair amount of heat-like energy 
left in a substance at absolute zero, simply due to quantum exclusion and 
such. My point was that "everything was all together" was the original 
motivation of the "big bang", and not "something from nothing."

If we knew what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds, maybe we'd know where 
everything came from, but there's no reason I know of, outside genesis, to 
think there was nothing before there was something.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message