How does this quote by C.S. Lewis' make sense?

[OrphanPip]

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) that "the universe caused itself."

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

Wow...I don't think that you can make that sound any more ridiculous. And a Supernatural Supreme Being is not the same thing as "magic". The Lord is a force something greater than we can understand.

I still wonder why whenever there is a thread started to discuss some religion text, the atheists feel the need to question the existence of God in it.

[stuntpickle]

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

[OrphanPip]

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

[stuntpickle]

{edit}

Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

Are you proposing a fluctuation in nothing, nowhere, never?

[Darcy88]

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) "the universe caused itself."

Not mere atheists, but scientists, physicists, cosmologists, learned experts who have devoted their lives to the study of such matters.

[OrphanPip]

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

[Serena03]

This is so ridiculous.



Fairly typical bunkum here. Is the above statement true? Does it have meaning? Is it true just for you? If so, why are you telling me? In your reletavistic world, I can simply choose to believe otherwise.



Why is it that reletavists try to confound objective truth by attempting to make objectively true statements about "our" interpretations? If you ever hope to sound rational, as opposed to irrational, which is all you accomplish here, you need to understand that you can never make statements that confound truth and meaning. You can still believe it, if you want. You can just never tell anyone without looking ridiculous.

You can't make sweeping statements about the illusion of truth and expect anyone to believe the truth of your statement. You can't make statements about the illusion of meaning and expect anyone to understand your meaning. All this hokum is just logically unteneable the second you try to share it with someone.

See, in our world of subjective truth and meaning, your post stated that you were buried in ice cream and waiting for aliens to whisk you away to Alpha Centauri, which I believe to be true and meaningful.

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

[stuntpickle]

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

{edit}

[OrphanPip]

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.

{edit}

[stuntpickle]

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."

how badly you missed the point..

This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?

No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.



Maybe, I'm no stranger to infractions, that is up to the infinite wisdom of the moderating staff.

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

[OrphanPip]

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

[stuntpickle]

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

The current orthodoxy regarding the BIg Bang is that it encompasses the beggining of time and space. Any discussion starting after these components exist, cannot be said to address the actual beginning of the universe. It is also the consensus that there are structural impediments to ever actually figuring out scientifically what occurs beyond the singularity. Science only works given the inductive assumption of the uniformity of natural laws, which can never hold beyond the singularity.

[Serena03]

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."



This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?
.

Now you're starting to catch my drift about the delusional; evidently you have THE objective description for objective truth? Good luck with finding universality in that. When you finally pull your head out of your objectively arrogant a$$ then we can begin to restore logic.

[stuntpickle]

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

Oh, and by the way, if your vacuum of energy contains a mix of matter/antimatter or particles/antiparticles it cannot be said to be a true vaccum and would be similar to what we find in space right now. A net total of zero is not precisely a vacuum. And I've also heard more than one scientist (Neil Degrasse Tyson, for instance) say that matter/antimatter isn't even really a theory but more a place holder to make all the math work in existing theories.