@EvolvedAtheist My apologies, didn't mean to come across as nit picky, just making a point; point being that there is something everywhere and "literally no thing" hasn't been found anywhere :) There are just...,well... 'things.'
Brevity is the soul of confusion. This video attracts a lot of pseudo-intellectual creationist nonsense, so I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
Lawrence is rather tongue-in-cheek about "nothing" and "empty." The full lecture is very good -- I linked to it in the description box.
True nothing means absolutely nothing. No physics, no time, not even empty space for something to possiblly exist in. Just pure nothing. When you think about this hard, it bends your mind like trying to think of the concept of infinity.
If there is absolutely nothing, then what triggers something to happen? The Universe has to be infinite to make sense, but how it all formed into what we see today is a mystery we can never truly solve.
C4RLS4G4N You take away time you take away space you take away energy. Dark Matter is supposed to be cold and nothing ish but it is interacting with out current matter what we call something most likely has a opposite which to us would be nothing but if there was some one in our nothing they would call our something nothing. The reason would be because relative to them we are actually nothing. But I have to wonder why does dark matter interact with our matter so we might have a link...
Can a "quantum something foam" logically exist, before the Universe existed? Also, if these protons and neutrons are dependent on empty space then how could they have existed before space, time and matter had existed?
1. Yes, depending on whether you mean the universe in its post-singularity state. If you mean before "before", then that is meaningless.
2. How on earth are you coming up with "protons and neutrons ... dependent on empty space"?! The protons and neutrons "condensed" out of higher energy states post-singularity. No, time can't exist independent of energy -- and matter IS energy.
On second thought, you are probably misunderstanding what Krauss meant by "nothing isn't nothing anymore" and 'empty space isn't empty'. You have to understand that he's indicating an earlier conceptualization of "nothing" and "empty". He's being ironic.
You assume that my disagreement indicates that I don't understand. How convenient for you!
The *positing* of "God" is the problem. It is *not* legitimate to define a convenient creator *into* existence. It is definitely not legitimate to dodge my question by resorting to the stupid position that "God" need not be caused, yet energy must be caused by the uncaused.
2 Actually your inability to answer proves my point.
I am an atheist because there is NO evidence for your "God". Definitions and philosophical arguments such as those borrowed and modified by WLC do NOT constitute evidence of a "God", but they do constitute evidence of the fatal poverty of the theist position.
Your "reasoning" typifies the obstinate, self-deluded irrationality of theists that drove me to antitheism. Stupidity irritates me, but self-interested delusion infuriates me. Bye.
Hahahaha! I get! Take the volume of all the matter and energy in the universe and it amounts to the weight/power the quantum fluctuation of nothing! That's amazing!
I mean, I don't understand at all, but I GET IT! Awesome vid, I'd rate it but clearly you've had some harrasment by appologetics so, a metaphorical 5/5.
As a Christian Cosmologist, I find W L Craig to be out of touch, not with current theory, but rather he's out of touch with what the bible says. The idea of creation-out-of-nothing is not found in the bible.
Biblical cosmology starts with infinite energy, eternal time, infinite space and infinite dimensionality which is then transformed down dimensionally in order to provide a finite environment for finite beings. And there's no need for the magical inflation force of the standard model.
The nothing that scientists is not in fact nothing (so tets call it Sci-nothing.) and craig has spoken at length about this. The problem is that if here was a sci-nothing that caused the universe that if it was not eternal then you get an infinite regress of causes (what caused the cause, and what caused the cause of the cause etc) and if it is eternal the fact that it cannot think it cannot avoid having an eternal effect. which means and infinite series of events which is impossible.
I know Craig's argument. At length, indeed! And no, you do *not* get an infinite regress, you get a quantum field.
8:42 The gigantic problem is that Craig has been forced to postulate an *impossible*, necessary, personal agent to insert anterior to the singularity -- all so that he can believe that such a "Holy Spirit" impossibility exists.
The Kalam opens with a huge bald assertion fallacy and is circular. The universe is necessary, not contingent.
I said if you have a NON_ETERNAL cause you get an infinite regress, where did the quantum field come from, and where did the thing that caused the quantum field come etc. If you say the quantum field had no beginning you need to tell me how an eternal mechanistic cause can give rise to a temporal effect without causing an actually infinite number of things.
Indeterminacy exists on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics but the Bohm interpretation is entirely deterministic. Neither of these has been either falsified nor proven. Second, Indeterminacy acts on the effect not the cause. A cause with many possible effects with one picked randomly is both caused and undetermined. to think indeterminacy erases causation commits a category mistake. You need a cause, if causes aren't needed then anything can happen uncaused, if not, then why not?
Great! You can explain the Bohm and Copenhagen interpretations when you answer the question about "how a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, unchanging, personal something-or-other could bring a material universe into existence".
// Indeterminacy acts on the effect not the cause //
Precisely my point, but an emergent phenomenon can scarcely be called an "effect" in the absence of a cause.
How could indeterminacy be experimentally falsified?
By using the Bohm interpretation to make predictions at the quantum level. Once we can predict it, it is no longer indeterminate. Second, I do not need to know how something can happen to know that it does. I do not know who my brain makes my mind move, but I know it does. There was a time when no one knew how the brain moves the arm, but it still did. your question is a red herring.
No, making predictions does not render something determinate. Predictions are merely hypotheses until verified or falsified. Only having a prediction of an agency causing an effect experimentally or observationally verified would signal that the phenomenon is determinate. "Interpretations" remain theoretical until experimentally tested.
Testing is equivalent to imposing a "cause". Equally, failure to find a cause is not demonstration of indeterminacy.
2 That was not a red herring. I was being facetious, but only a little facetious. All definitions of "God" are exigency-driven -- they are excuses designed to explain the total absence of evidence or logical inconsistencies (supernatural, ineffable) or they are evasions to avoid falsification (like WLC's ludicrous definition here). Sure signs of an untenable position.
You continue to avoid answering the original question. I must assume that you can't answer it.
3 // I do not need to know how something can happen to know that it does //
Unfortunately for the theistic case, you resorted to examples that are demonstrably true -- available to experience.
However, epistemic knowledge is best defined as "justified true belief". It is utterly unsupportable to make an *unjustified* claim for knowledge of an existence or mechanism in the *total absence of evidence*.
This is the principle that separates atheists from theists.
@EvolvedAtheist Emergent phenomena need something to emerge from.
The idea of "immaterial" in your query needs to be corrected in order to understand the biblical creation model. We know that material comes from energy and God is said to be infinite in energy.
If you don't understand the Lamda-CDM model as it's described here, you can follow the links in the sidebar or google it. It is not the last word, but it is the theory that best fits observations.
There are *no* observations that fit a "god".
// You need someone other than WLC to spar with //
No, Christian apologetics needs something other than WLC --- evidence would be a start. WLC is a well-oiled parrot.
" If you say the quantum field had no beginning you need to tell me how an eternal mechanistic cause can give rise to a temporal effect without causing an actually infinite number of things."
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why *would* that cause an actually infinite number of things?
I'm not going to lie. I understood about 1% of what they were talking about in this video. I guess that's why some make it in that field and some know not even to bother trying...lol
The Krauss and quantum mechanics video are edited down to the bare essentials. The original Krauss videos might help, but if astrophysics is not your cup of tea, you might not be interested in an hour-long explanation, humorous or not. I uploaded this because I find WLC's cosmological argument problematic.
@CartesianTheist "'Who made the unmade?' Pretty stupid question really!"
Nice! :)
KTK401 7 months ago
I wish I was alive later in the future - When, or if; dark matter and dark energy are understood.
maxpainfu1 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
You just make this crap up as you go along, don't you.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
5:48 WIN
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
3:10 - 3:22
"Our new picture of cosmology is that we live in a universe dominated by nothing... 70 percent of the energy in the universe resides in empty space."
Ahem... since energy resides there, it's not technically 'empty space.'
ScottishProfessor 1 year ago 4
@ScottishProfessor
Which is why he say's "nothing isn't nothing anymore." You are nitpicking.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago 2
@EvolvedAtheist My apologies, didn't mean to come across as nit picky, just making a point; point being that there is something everywhere and "literally no thing" hasn't been found anywhere :) There are just...,well... 'things.'
ScottishProfessor 1 year ago
@ScottishProfessor
Brevity is the soul of confusion. This video attracts a lot of pseudo-intellectual creationist nonsense, so I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
Lawrence is rather tongue-in-cheek about "nothing" and "empty." The full lecture is very good -- I linked to it in the description box.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
True nothing means absolutely nothing. No physics, no time, not even empty space for something to possiblly exist in. Just pure nothing. When you think about this hard, it bends your mind like trying to think of the concept of infinity.
If there is absolutely nothing, then what triggers something to happen? The Universe has to be infinite to make sense, but how it all formed into what we see today is a mystery we can never truly solve.
C4RLS4G4N 1 year ago 5
C4RLS4G4N You take away time you take away space you take away energy. Dark Matter is supposed to be cold and nothing ish but it is interacting with out current matter what we call something most likely has a opposite which to us would be nothing but if there was some one in our nothing they would call our something nothing. The reason would be because relative to them we are actually nothing. But I have to wonder why does dark matter interact with our matter so we might have a link...
SuperSharko 1 year ago
Can a "quantum something foam" logically exist, before the Universe existed? Also, if these protons and neutrons are dependent on empty space then how could they have existed before space, time and matter had existed?
dimic 2 years ago
1. Yes, depending on whether you mean the universe in its post-singularity state. If you mean before "before", then that is meaningless.
2. How on earth are you coming up with "protons and neutrons ... dependent on empty space"?! The protons and neutrons "condensed" out of higher energy states post-singularity. No, time can't exist independent of energy -- and matter IS energy.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
On second thought, you are probably misunderstanding what Krauss meant by "nothing isn't nothing anymore" and 'empty space isn't empty'. You have to understand that he's indicating an earlier conceptualization of "nothing" and "empty". He's being ironic.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
@EvolvedAtheist Great Video and great debate with these people on this board.
SuperSharko 2 years ago
// you misunderstand the God being posited //
You assume that my disagreement indicates that I don't understand. How convenient for you!
The *positing* of "God" is the problem. It is *not* legitimate to define a convenient creator *into* existence. It is definitely not legitimate to dodge my question by resorting to the stupid position that "God" need not be caused, yet energy must be caused by the uncaused.
...
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
2 Actually your inability to answer proves my point.
I am an atheist because there is NO evidence for your "God". Definitions and philosophical arguments such as those borrowed and modified by WLC do NOT constitute evidence of a "God", but they do constitute evidence of the fatal poverty of the theist position.
Your "reasoning" typifies the obstinate, self-deluded irrationality of theists that drove me to antitheism. Stupidity irritates me, but self-interested delusion infuriates me. Bye.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
// Where did the virtual particles come from then? //
Where did "God" come from then?
// judgements about what is relevant and what is irrelevant //
Et tu, Bruté.
Want to "prove" the existence of "God"? Produce *evidence* rather than unsubstantiated premises and irrelevant arguments!
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Hahahaha! I get! Take the volume of all the matter and energy in the universe and it amounts to the weight/power the quantum fluctuation of nothing! That's amazing!
I mean, I don't understand at all, but I GET IT! Awesome vid, I'd rate it but clearly you've had some harrasment by appologetics so, a metaphorical 5/5.
Unwardil 2 years ago
As a Christian Cosmologist, I find W L Craig to be out of touch, not with current theory, but rather he's out of touch with what the bible says. The idea of creation-out-of-nothing is not found in the bible.
Biblical cosmology starts with infinite energy, eternal time, infinite space and infinite dimensionality which is then transformed down dimensionally in order to provide a finite environment for finite beings. And there's no need for the magical inflation force of the standard model.
seanmPWH 2 years ago
This is put together like a bad propaganda video.
XXXFirebird76XXX 2 years ago
Bad propaganda? Try Christian apologetics!
Only the already deluded would actually believe that you can define or argue something into existence.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
The nothing that scientists is not in fact nothing (so tets call it Sci-nothing.) and craig has spoken at length about this. The problem is that if here was a sci-nothing that caused the universe that if it was not eternal then you get an infinite regress of causes (what caused the cause, and what caused the cause of the cause etc) and if it is eternal the fact that it cannot think it cannot avoid having an eternal effect. which means and infinite series of events which is impossible.
timetothinkclearly 2 years ago
I know Craig's argument. At length, indeed! And no, you do *not* get an infinite regress, you get a quantum field.
8:42 The gigantic problem is that Craig has been forced to postulate an *impossible*, necessary, personal agent to insert anterior to the singularity -- all so that he can believe that such a "Holy Spirit" impossibility exists.
The Kalam opens with a huge bald assertion fallacy and is circular. The universe is necessary, not contingent.
timetothinkclearly indeed.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I said if you have a NON_ETERNAL cause you get an infinite regress, where did the quantum field come from, and where did the thing that caused the quantum field come etc. If you say the quantum field had no beginning you need to tell me how an eternal mechanistic cause can give rise to a temporal effect without causing an actually infinite number of things.
timetothinkclearly 2 years ago
Emergent phenomena are not deterministic, so no cause is necessary, or even implied.
Now you tell me how a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, unchanging, personal something-or-other could bring a material universe into existence.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Indeterminacy exists on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics but the Bohm interpretation is entirely deterministic. Neither of these has been either falsified nor proven. Second, Indeterminacy acts on the effect not the cause. A cause with many possible effects with one picked randomly is both caused and undetermined. to think indeterminacy erases causation commits a category mistake. You need a cause, if causes aren't needed then anything can happen uncaused, if not, then why not?
timetothinkclearly 2 years ago
Great! You can explain the Bohm and Copenhagen interpretations when you answer the question about "how a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, unchanging, personal something-or-other could bring a material universe into existence".
// Indeterminacy acts on the effect not the cause //
Precisely my point, but an emergent phenomenon can scarcely be called an "effect" in the absence of a cause.
How could indeterminacy be experimentally falsified?
// one picked randomly //
You mean like a "God"?
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
By using the Bohm interpretation to make predictions at the quantum level. Once we can predict it, it is no longer indeterminate. Second, I do not need to know how something can happen to know that it does. I do not know who my brain makes my mind move, but I know it does. There was a time when no one knew how the brain moves the arm, but it still did. your question is a red herring.
timetothinkclearly 2 years ago
@timetothinkclearly
No, making predictions does not render something determinate. Predictions are merely hypotheses until verified or falsified. Only having a prediction of an agency causing an effect experimentally or observationally verified would signal that the phenomenon is determinate. "Interpretations" remain theoretical until experimentally tested.
Testing is equivalent to imposing a "cause". Equally, failure to find a cause is not demonstration of indeterminacy.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
2 That was not a red herring. I was being facetious, but only a little facetious. All definitions of "God" are exigency-driven -- they are excuses designed to explain the total absence of evidence or logical inconsistencies (supernatural, ineffable) or they are evasions to avoid falsification (like WLC's ludicrous definition here). Sure signs of an untenable position.
You continue to avoid answering the original question. I must assume that you can't answer it.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
3 // I do not need to know how something can happen to know that it does //
Unfortunately for the theistic case, you resorted to examples that are demonstrably true -- available to experience.
However, epistemic knowledge is best defined as "justified true belief". It is utterly unsupportable to make an *unjustified* claim for knowledge of an existence or mechanism in the *total absence of evidence*.
This is the principle that separates atheists from theists.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
@EvolvedAtheist Emergent phenomena need something to emerge from.
The idea of "immaterial" in your query needs to be corrected in order to understand the biblical creation model. We know that material comes from energy and God is said to be infinite in energy.
You need someone other than WLC to spar with.
seanmPWH 2 years ago
"nothing isn't nothing any more"
There's your substrate for emergent phenomena.
If you don't understand the Lamda-CDM model as it's described here, you can follow the links in the sidebar or google it. It is not the last word, but it is the theory that best fits observations.
There are *no* observations that fit a "god".
// You need someone other than WLC to spar with //
No, Christian apologetics needs something other than WLC --- evidence would be a start. WLC is a well-oiled parrot.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
timetothinkclearly --
" If you say the quantum field had no beginning you need to tell me how an eternal mechanistic cause can give rise to a temporal effect without causing an actually infinite number of things."
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Why *would* that cause an actually infinite number of things?
Jugglable 2 years ago
I'm not going to lie. I understood about 1% of what they were talking about in this video. I guess that's why some make it in that field and some know not even to bother trying...lol
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago
The Krauss and quantum mechanics video are edited down to the bare essentials. The original Krauss videos might help, but if astrophysics is not your cup of tea, you might not be interested in an hour-long explanation, humorous or not. I uploaded this because I find WLC's cosmological argument problematic.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago