Do you believe in God?

[DK]

The prophet Joseph Smith received a vision form the angel Moroni.

Isn't a moron a incredibly stupid person? No wonder that in "All About The Mormons" (South Park season 7), when the episode cut to the bits featuring their rendition of Joseph Smith Jr., the background music says, "dum-dum-dum-dum-dum!"

 

[Famine]

I have to agree that these gents are pretty "crazy", as you say. I would doubt that they are graduates of Harvard, Yale or any of the better schools offering degrees in divinity. A lot of these partisan cranks who pass themselves off as experts come from podunk bible colleges in the hick states, or even cut out their "degrees" from the back of comic books or mail order order catalogs.

John Whitcomb graduated from McCallie School in Chattanooga Tennessee in 1942 then went to Princeton University where he gained a BA with honors in ancient and European history in 1948.

Henry M. Morris ... graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939.

I don't know much about Rice, beyond having heard of it, but I'm pretty sure Princeton is Ivy League.

Anyway my point was that we only have one source for the abilities of any deity - the holy book of that religion. In the case of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, that's the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran and all give conflict between their gods' putative abilities - omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - and their actions.

 

[Dotini]

I don't know much about Rice, beyond having heard of it, but I'm pretty sure Princeton is Ivy League.

Anyway my point was that we only have one source for the abilities of any deity - the holy book of that religion. In the case of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, that's the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran and all give conflict between their gods' putative abilities - omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - and their actions.

Rice is a small college in Texas.

It seems if we limit our information, or data points about God and his abilities to one or two holy books, then we'll never get anywhere. I'm interested in the evidence of life after death, i.e., evidence that the consciousness survives the physical body. Surely this has some bearing on the matter. If it could be proved that man is more than his physical body, that his mind can extend to the far side of the Earth, the Moon or the universe, and instantly exchange information and bring it back, then that is interesting. If it could be shown that the conservation of mass and energy (1st law of thermodynamics) is routinely violated in our local supercluster of galaxies, then that also is evidence that we are not living in a closed system - so just what, or whom, is it open to?? Maybe none of this proves there is a God. Maybe it goes part way there. That is my inquiry, my investigation, and I'm leaving the Bible (Pseudepigrapha excepted) in the dust.

Ever yours,
Dotini

 

[zepheadGT3]

I hope you all realize what an outstanding thread this is to read! allthough I am a devout atheist, I study religion in my spare time to gain a better understanding of why sooo many people are able to believe in something they have never seen? The answer I always get to this question is "faith in god"...
But what is faith? It seems to me in this setting that faith has a different meaning: tradition. Children are fought by their parents to have faith in god, and those children will go on to tell their kids about god, etc. This is just a reoccuing pattern to me...
Religion itself was created to explain the unknown from primitive times long ago. Today, science is able to explain the unknown of ages past, making that religion obslete...

Zephead

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Regarding the NDE study you cited, Dotini, we're still left with a central problem.

It's foolish to deny that NDE's exist - there are clearly too many common characteristics among the described experiences to argue otherwise.

Likewise, it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that consciousness lives on after death based on experiences shared by people who weren't cerebrally dead. One's heart can stop beating, yet to experience anything, let alone an NDE, the brain still has to be functioning at some level. This is why it's called a Near-death experience, not an After-death experience. Since I think it's safe to say that most educated people consider consciousness a function of brain activity, there's still no reason to believe that the "stuff" of consciousness can survive beyond its physical medium.

We're left with some pretty interesting anecdotal data that may cast some interesting light on human perception, but we're still unable, truly, to pierce the veil of death.

 

[niky]

I was going to note that I've experienced symptoms similar to remote viewing, though I've never had a near-death experience (both of the times I've blacked out due to head trauma, I blacked out... period).

I've got sleep apnea, see... along with an interesting condition in which I become stuck in the transition between the waking state and the sleeping state... parasomnia...

I've had attacks wherein I could swear that I was wide awake, moving around and interacting with my environment. In other words, I can see things that I could not see if I was asleep... but these periods are marked by sudden jumps in perspective and position... and when I wake up, there's a different flavor to my sensoria... one that tells me I'm actually awake. During the attack, I have tunnel vision and a sound of thunder fills my ears. Scary stuff. I know I'm awake only when that sound goes away.

Upon viewing my surroundings and the things I thought I saw when I experienced these attacks, I can convince myself that what I saw was real... but in one of the last attacks I had (gladly... I'm in remission... they seem to be triggered by stress and cholesterol, both of which I've removed from my life...), the position of my wife beside me on the bed was radically different between the "vision" and reality. It was only then I learned to accept these attacks for what they were... very vivid, very realistic hallucinations... possibly caused by oxygen deprivation due to the sleep apnea.

The fact that an oxygen starved brain can lead to hallucinations... and very vivid ones, at that... in patients... and that said hallucinations are realistic... doesn't seem strange to me... I've experienced them. Just because your heart stops, doesn't mean the neurons in your eyes, ears and brain stop functioning...

 

[Northstar]

So an interesting thought came to my head and I have been thinking about it all day.

Killing someone is a sin and if you do it you go to hell. When the rapture happens god will kill millions of people, so wouldn't god go to hell? Or is there some sort of double standard going on that we don't know about.

 

[Daniel]

To All the People that don't believe in God. A Teacher at my school said this when he substituted our class (he rides a motorbike, so he's cool. And we're in a Catholic School... so, yeah). (NOt Word for word!!!)

"Is Anyone here an Atheist?"
*Guy puts his hand up*
"Ok, so this means that you don't believe in a Dude up there with lightning bolts in his hand?"
"Yeah"
"Listen to this. God created the universe. And have you seen the Hubble space images?Do you know the seven natural wonders? If God created all of those, he must be a creative force. Do you believe there's a, a creative force 'out there'? Surely all of this can't have happened by coincidence. The Victoria Falls, The Grand Canyon. Surely two little cells far away high-five'd each other and BOOM, suddenly a world was made. With little cute mice. And a bunch of other mammals. Do you believe in a creative force making that?"
*The guy said "Yes"*
____________________________

Another one...

"Why are we here?"

 

[Northstar]

Some guy we never see making everything out of nothing doesn't exactly make sense either does it?

Really, have you wondered why nobody has actually seen him(hallucinations and drunken hazes don't count).

You would think in the millions of years that Earth has existed there would be some solid evidence he was here. The Bible doesn't count as none of the events can be proven.

 

[Daniel]

Can you see electricity? No. You can see its effects. Can you see air? No, but you can see it's effects. Can you see God? No, but... you can see his effects.

I'll let you have your beliefs, I'll let me have mine.

 

[Northstar]

Can you see electricity? No.

lightning is just a large discharge of electricity.

You can see its effects. Can you see air? No, but you can see it's effects.

Actually you can using special equipment. Hence why we can tell the chemical composition of it.

Can you see God? No, but... you can see his effects.

???

I'll let you have your beliefs, I'll let me have mine.

No problem, however you kind of passed the point of no return by posting in this thread.

 

[Masi_23]

I believe there is a god. But i have my doubts like most people. I was born and raised a catholic, but im not very religious.

 

[Daniel]

lightning is just a large discharge of electricity.



Actually you can using special equipment. Hence why we can tell the chemical composition of it.



???



No problem, however you kind of passed the point of no return by posting in this thread.

I read some cheesy 'Book of Life' that was made in, like the 70s, and I quoted it. And I'm not even that religious anyway. Sure, I go to church. And even an awesome Christian Camp, but I don't read the Bible all the time, and hate Religious Studies at my school. I 'don't'swear (crap is probably the worst I say, 'others' rarely).

 

[CraftyLandShark]

...If God created all of those, he must be a creative force. Do you believe there's a, a creative force 'out there'? Surely all of this can't have happened by coincidence. The Victoria Falls, The Grand Canyon. Surely two little cells far away high-five'd each other and BOOM, suddenly a world was ...

The fallacy is bolded. Neither atheists or scientists believe that the universe happened "by coincidence". The "creative force" is simple causality. Existence unfolds in miniscule steps, and the leap from one step to another is always probable - indeed, inevitable - however "improbable" the "whole" may appear. Only religion looks at existence divorced from the context in which it became existence as we know it - it tends to take the position that everything sprang into being, exactly as it is today, from the mind of God, the forehead of Zeus, or the testicles of ... well, you get the point. That is the improbable position.

 

[niky]

Can you see electricity? No. You can see its effects.

Whether you believe in electricity or not, you stick a fork into a live power outlet, you will get a shock.

Can you see air? No, but you can see it's effects.

Whether you believe in air or not, you stick your head inside a bucket of water, and you will pass out.

Can you see God? No, but... you can see his effects.

Whether you believe in God or not, sprinkling that nasty old man down the street with holy water will not cause him to burst into flames, sorry.

Yes, I had a very interesting childhood.

 

[WVUscion]

The fallacy is bolded. Neither atheists or scientists believe that the universe happened "by coincidence". The "creative force" is simple causality. Existence unfolds in miniscule steps, and the leap from one step to another is always probable - indeed, inevitable - however "improbable" the "whole" may appear. Only religion looks at existence divorced from the context in which it became existence as we know it - it tends to take the position that everything sprang into being, exactly as it is today, from the mind of God, the forehead of Zeus, or the testicles of ... well, you get the point. That is the improbable position.

I'm almost positive that this is not true, but I like to think that the more level headed religious people of the modern world don't believe that things just popped out of some divine creator exactly as they are today. It would seem to me that one can support the concept of a higher power, while still agreeing with everything that science has given us so far. I'm not sure if any notable philosopher has published anything like this idea before. I have done much of this development on my own:

Unfortunately causality can only take us so far. It is very easy to cite causality when talking about this subject. However the only way that causality can refute a higher power is if it is implemented in an infinite regress. Infinity as a concept is very real, but in practice is suspect. A great example of this would be a common circle. Take a sheet of paper and draw a circle. Assuming you have drawn one that connects at both ends you can hold it up to me and proclaim "Look! This mathematical figure has no beginning nor end!". Unfortunately this is not the case. If you shift your focus to your creation of said circle you can easily point out exactly where you first placed your pencil. You can do the same with the symbol for infinity. It, in itself, cannot exist unless first created. While the structure of both the circle and the infinity are self sustaining, there inception could not have occurred without an initial cause. In this example, that initial cause would be you and your pencil.

Now that there is a little bit of background, I hope you can see how this connects to the topic of the thread. If one is to accept that the universe in itself is real, then one must also accept that the universe has a cause. This in no way shape or form has a connection to religion, just to the rules of causality. However the cause of the cause of the cause, somewhere along the line of causation must be begun with a first cause. Some philosophers refer to it as the "first uncaused cause", or the thing that caused itself.

Many people in religion would at this point pound their fists to the heavens and go "Huzzah, God has finally been proven". Well, no, he definitely hasn't been. Most likely, using this theory, there is no God as defined in the classical sense. Also, using this theory, all of the world religions most likely have it wrong. This theory only proves that something at the beginning, that has some sort of higher power then us created everything. It is entirely possible that such a creation could have been done by multiple powers and not just one. Further such a power could have exerted itself and then vanished immediately after to allow its creation to run self sufficiently.

I hope that this made sense. If there is any confusion about what I said, or any points that need further clarification please let me know. I am extremely tired at the moment.

 

[Famine]

However the only way that a higher power can refute causality is if it is implemented in an infinite regress.

See what I did there?

 

[WVUscion]

See what I did there?

You're right, but if causality is NOT used in an infinite regress then it has not disproved God. All one would need to do is to go to the point where you would place the beginning of the regress and say "now what". In essence the true beginning must be caused by itself.

 

[Famine]

You're right, but if causality is NOT used in an infinite regress then it has not disproved God. All one would need to do is to go to the point where you would place the beginning of the regress and say "now what". In essence the true beginning must be caused by itself.

Causality states that the natural result of nothing is something...

It all goes back to beginnings. Ask a religionist where the universe came from and they'll tell you their god created it. Ask them where their god came from and they'll either respond with turtles* (my god came from his father... add on improbable patricidal legend here) or "my god has always been".

Ask an astrophysicist where the universe came from and they'll tell you it erupted from a single point of space-time around 13.7 billion years ago. Ask them what came before that and they'll probably say "What, you're asking what came before TIME? Duh!", but they may also mention that the singularity came from a collision in 11-dimensional M-space between branes which propagated into 4-dimensional space-time to form our universe - or they may mention loop quantum cosmology (which is beyond my ability to explain). Ask where the branes or spinloops came from, they'll probably give an answer which involves a multiverse or an infinite number of universes. I'm really running out of capability to explain or understand here but, eventually so are the astrophysicists. You'll ask a question about where something before the thing they know came from and they'll say "I don't know".

And that's the point. The religionist knows where the universe came from because his book tells him, and he knows that his god did it and has always been because his book tells him. The scientist knows where the universe came from because science has worked at it for centuries, constantly refining theory through observation, experimentation and repetition. He even probably knows where what the universe came from came from. But eventually he'll reach a point where he doesn't know where the precursor came from. And this is a good thing - "I don't know" is the fundamental of science, the most important phrase. Over time, "I don't know" gets supplanted by "I know", but there's always more "I don't know" behind it. We work to get the right answer, eventually, rather than any answer, right now.


But when you get back as far as nothing, science has a demonstrable, repeatable answer - "something" is the inevitable result of "nothing". Religion does not permit the possibility of nothing - their god has always been.


*From a wonderful story about an old woman who claimed, in a lecture on astronomy, that the Earth was flat and carried on the back of four elephants who were themselves supported by a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle was standing on, the woman replied "It's turtles all the way down".

 

[WVUscion]

Causality states that the natural result of nothing is something...

It all goes back to beginnings. Ask a religionist where the universe came from and they'll tell you their god created it. Ask them where their god came from and they'll either respond with turtles* (my god came from his father... add on improbable patricidal legend here) or "my god has always been".

Ask an astrophysicist where the universe came from and they'll tell you it erupted from a single point of space-time around 13.7 billion years ago. Ask them what came before that and they'll probably say "What, you're asking what came before TIME? Duh!", but they may also mention that the singularity came from a collision in 11-dimensional M-space between branes which propagated into 4-dimensional space-time to form our universe - or they may mention loop quantum cosmology (which is beyond my ability to explain). Ask where the branes or spinloops came from, they'll probably give an answer which involves a multiverse or an infinite number of universes. I'm really running out of capability to explain or understand here but, eventually so are the astrophysicists. You'll ask a question about where something before the thing they know came from and they'll say "I don't know".

And that's the point. The religionist knows where the universe came from because his book tells him, and he knows that his god did it and has always been because his book tells him. The scientist knows where the universe came from because science has worked at it for centuries, constantly refining theory through observation, experimentation and repetition. He even probably knows where what the universe came from came from. But eventually he'll reach a point where he doesn't know where the precursor came from. And this is a good thing - "I don't know" is the fundamental of science, the most important phrase. Over time, "I don't know" gets supplanted by "I know", but there's always more "I don't know" behind it. We work to get the right answer, eventually, rather than any answer, right now.


But when you get back as far as nothing, science has a demonstrable, repeatable answer - "something" is the inevitable result of "nothing". Religion does not permit the possibility of nothing - their god has always been.


*From a wonderful story about an old woman who claimed, in a lecture on astronomy, that the Earth was flat and carried on the back of four elephants who were themselves supported by a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle was standing on, the woman replied "It's turtles all the way down".

I don't see how this is true? Can you provide an example of a causal relationship that involves nothing leading to something? I know that science wasn't exactly my strongest subject but I am fairly positive that science will tell us that somethings cause is always something else in some form or another. In the same sense could you provide an example of a causal relationship that uses a something to create a nothing?

From your own words, the scientist would eventually be forced to answer "I don't know" at the point where his causality fails. The whole idea that there is the "I don't know" in science means that science has done nothing to disprove God. All the "religionist" would have to do is say that the I don't know is God. He would be just as justified in his beliefs as the scientist would be in relation to the beginnings.

The ultimate point I was trying to make was that eventually science will fail at the question of the beginning because an infinite regress is impossible. The scientists can not account for the idea that something can be created from nothing. The laws of causality do not support this. Something must ALWAYS come from something else.

Obviously, this does not help those who choose to read their books and accept their stories blindly. It never will. All it proves is the true beginning of everything must be something that causes itself. A phenomenon that can not be accounted for by science and causality.

 

[Famine]

But from your own words, the scientist would eventually be forced to answer "I don't know" at the point where his causality fails.

It's not that causality fails - it's that knowledge ("science" comes from the Latin "scire" - "to know") isn't yet complete.

Causality tells us that the inevitable result of nothing is something. Every something that we know caused something else afterwards. We're not quite at the stage where we know what the first something evolved into:

Nothing - Something - (Gap in knowledge) - Something that we know - chain of somethings that we know - Now

The whole idea that there is the "I don't know" in science means that science has done nothing to disprove God. All the "religionist" would have to do is say that the I don't know is God. He would be just as justified in his beliefs as the scientist would be in relation to the beginnings.

Except he isn't. He's no more justified than the Turtleswoman. They both have an answer, right now - and belief is key to it. The scientist has no answer, yet - and belief isn't relevant.

Being correct is more important than being able to answer. Imagine a multiple choice exam where you answer every question immediately and hand it in believing you are correct in every answer. Would you get the best marks because you could answer every question, right or wrong, before anyone else? Or would the person who worked through every question, with no time limit, and only filled in the right answers, leaving a few out because he didn't have a right answer at the time?

Nicely, the multiple choice analogy helps us further. If you randomly answer on a 4-choice multiple choice exam, you'll score, on average, 25%. If you do so on a 5-choice exam, you'll get an average score of 20% (we call this the "monkeymark" - a monkey trained to fill in just one answer per line will achieve this score on average). Compared to someone who's always right, you'll hit the right answer by chance 1 in 4/1 in 5 times.

The origins of everything have a near-infinite number of answers - if you pick one right now, you'll get an average score of zero, same as a monkey. So the chances of you having the right answer, right now, are zero. Now compare to someone who works, with no time limit, to eliminate the incorrect answers...

The ultimate point I was trying to make was that eventually science will fail at the question of the beginning because an infinite regress is impossible.

And my point was that you're incorrect to make this point. Religion requires infinite regress - "my god has always been". Science does not, because causality states the inevitable result of nothing is something. We don't yet know what that first something was, but the key word is "yet".

The scientists can not account for the idea that something can be created from nothing. The laws of causality do not support this. Something must ALWAYS come from something else.

This isn't true. Something is the inevitable result of nothing. Something can - and will - arise from nothing, just as nothing can be a result of something. Quantum physics directly predicts and models both of these events.

Unitarity states that the sum of all probable outcomes is 1. The sum of all probable outcomes of "0" is, thus, "1" - that is the inevitable outcome of "nothing" is "something". To be fair, that's a little bit of a simplification, but I'm not expert enough to understand the more complex versions.

Obviously, this does not help those who choose to read their books and accept their stories blindly. It never will. All it proves is the true beginning of everything must be something that causes itself. A phenomenon that can not be accounted for by science and causality.

Science and causality are comfortable with the concept of nothing and something arising from it. Religion is not comfortable with the concept of nothing - their god has always been.

 

[WVUscion]

It's not that causality fails - it's that knowledge ("science" comes from the Latin "scire" - "to know") isn't yet complete.

Causality tells us that the inevitable result of nothing is something. Every something that we know caused something else afterwards. We're not quite at the stage where we know what the first something evolved into:

Nothing - Something - (Gap in knowledge) - Something that we know - chain of somethings that we know - Now



Except he isn't. He's no more justified than the Turtleswoman. They both have an answer, right now - and belief is key to it. The scientist has no answer, yet - and belief isn't relevant.

Being correct is more important than being able to answer. Imagine a multiple choice exam where you answer every question immediately and hand it in believing you are correct in every answer. Would you get the best marks because you could answer every question, right or wrong, before anyone else? Or would the person who worked through every question, with no time limit, and only filled in the right answers, leaving a few out because he didn't have a right answer at the time?

Nicely, the multiple choice analogy helps us further. If you randomly answer on a 4-choice multiple choice exam, you'll score, on average, 25%. If you do so on a 5-choice exam, you'll get an average score of 20% (we call this the "monkeymark" - a monkey trained to fill in just one answer per line will achieve this score on average). Compared to someone who's always right, you'll hit the right answer by chance 1 in 4/1 in 5 times.

The origins of everything have a near-infinite number of answers - if you pick one right now, you'll get an average score of zero, same as a monkey. So the chances of you having the right answer, right now, are zero. Now compare to someone who works, with no time limit, to eliminate the incorrect answers...



And my point was that you're incorrect to make this point. Religion requires infinite regress - "my god has always been". Science does not, because causality states the inevitable result of nothing is something. We don't yet know what that first something was, but the key word is "yet".



This isn't true. Something is the inevitable result of nothing. Something can - and will - arise from nothing, just as nothing can be a result of something. Quantum physics directly predicts and models both of these events.

Unitarity states that the sum of all probable outcomes is 1. The sum of all probable outcomes of "0" is, thus, "1" - that is the inevitable outcome of "nothing" is "something". To be fair, that's a little bit of a simplification, but I'm not expert enough to understand the more complex versions.



Science and causality are comfortable with the concept of nothing and something arising from it. Religion is not comfortable with the concept of nothing - their god has always been.

You never offered an example of something coming from nothing? If knowledge is what connects nothing to something then isn't it not something coming from nothing? It would only be knowledge adding in ANOTHER something to replace said nothing.

Further your unitary example does not apply, because you took something and ADDED it to nothing, you did not simply create something from nothing. If you can create an equation like this:

0 + 0 = 1

then your principle would hold.

I also think you are being jaded by personal beliefs in the case of "religion". Since my theory did not call upon religion I don't think it would be fair to use the ideal that current religious people believe God has always has been as a criticism. I stated in the initial theory that the higher power at the beginning could have immediately disappeared after he did his creation. All of that is supported by the initial theory.

Since I am almost positive you know more about quantum physics then I do , I need some clarification. Does quantum physics use nothing to create something? Or using your words to predict something? Is it TRULY using nothing? Or is it simply the idea of taking something and adding it to nothing? Can you provide an example of this if it is that would truly involve nothing coming from something?

If I'm not mistaken from the evolution thread, usually things coming from nothing is associated with people popping up on the planet a thousand years ago ha ha, and not any scientific inquiry. If what you say IS true then it would make science a much easier subject. One would just be able to call upon your examples for unanswered questions and say "oh it just came from nothing!"

 

[Touring Mars]

0 + 0 = 1

How about the equation 0 = (-1) + 1 ?

 

[niky]

In quantum physics, particles emanate spontaneously from vacuum. That's something from nothing.

As is the universe. Where time and space emanated from a state of no time and no space.... from that 11-dimensional thingamajiggy that Famine mentioned which can only be described in something called configuration space which I can't even begin to pretend to not understand as well as Famine doesn't understand it.

The whole point is... the process of science is the search for the zero point. The point at which it all began. Religion doesn't have one. For religion, there is always a starting point that comes prepackaged with an omniscient, omnipotent God. Who has always been. With no explanation or description of how he came to be.

 

[WVUscion]

How about the equation 0 = (-1) + 1 ?

I think that if we are truly using 0 as absolutely positively nothing, then it would be impossible for you to have 1 less then absolutely nothing. Using the same line of thought, natural science can not support X-X=0 because matter can not be created nor destroyed. Yes, you may no longer have hydrogen, or whatever your X may be, but it would be changed into something else.

Perhaps I am not making very clear. Hopefully you guys can help me out. The concept of the beginning would be the cause of itself. So therefore the infinite regress would cease because something that is by definition "higher" then ourselves has created itself. This concept has been discussed in the philosophical community as the "first uncaused cause". It breaks the main problem of causality.

This theory does not disprove science, and gives no credence to current religious beliefs. Think of it as similar to the missing link in evolution. It connects what we don't know to what we do know. How far back the scientific community wishes to reach is inconsequential. As Famine has said the "I Don't Know" will be replaced constantly with new bits of knowledge. These are fantastic developments! But only pushes back the causality slightly further. Causality in an infinite regress is like a horse chasing a carrot. It yearns for a true beginning that which it can never achieve. Causality WITHOUT an infinite regress leaves the question of "what was the beginning?" It still would require something to cause itself at the beginning, and would still not be supported by classical science.


Does this help explain at all?

***** EDIT FOR NIKYS POST*******

I admittedly had to do some research before I could formulate a response! I think that, according to current research, that results are inconclusive. The keywords in all the research that I have read regarding the spontaneous creation of particles is ENERGY. The results show that particles are created using less energy then should be used for their creation, thus spontaneous creation. However, scientists also are saying that anti energy is counter acting energy, as stated in this quote:

"There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)"

The key point is that once all energy and anti energy is accounted for the total energy is zero. This DOES NOT mean that there is no energy. It means that there is an EQUAL amount of energy and anti energy, thus creating particles for short periods of time. The substance of energy, and likewise anti energy MUST have a cause in itself.

 

[Famine]

You never offered an example of something coming from nothing?

You edited the request in between me hitting "quote" and posting. I didn't see it.

If knowledge is what connects nothing to something then isn't it not something coming from nothing? It would only be knowledge adding in ANOTHER something to replace said nothing.

Err... what?

Further your unitary example does not apply, because you took something and ADDED it to nothing, you did not simply create something from nothing. If you can create an equation like this:

0 + 0 = 1

then your principle would hold.

I didn't add anything to anything - and it's not my example. Unitarity (not "unitary" - that's something else completely) is a fundamental law - the sum of all probabilities is one. The probability of nothing is, thus, one. That gives nothingness a value and the value is something - something is the inevitable result of nothing. Nothing cannot persist.

I also think you are being jaded by personal beliefs

Since I have none, this is unlikely.

I stated in the initial theory that the higher power at the beginning could have immediately disappeared after he did his creation. All of that is supported by the initial theory.

Where did the higher power come from?

That requires infinite regress, whereas science does not. Science is comfortable with nothing and something arising from it - it is an inevitablity and modelled by quantum physics. Any model invoking a higher power is not comfortable with nothing and seeks to fill the gap with "a higher power", while missing the notion that the higher power itself had to come from somewhere.

Since I am almost positive you know more about quantum physics then I do , I need some clarification. Does quantum physics use nothing to create something? Or using your words to predict something? Is it TRULY using nothing? Or is it simply the idea of taking something and adding it to nothing? Can you provide an example of this if it is that would truly involve nothing coming from something?

As niky points out, fundamental particles appear from nowhere all the time. They don't require a precursor - their non-existence means that their existence is inevitable.

If I'm not mistaken from the evolution thread, usually things coming from nothing is associated with people popping up on the planet a thousand years ago ha ha, and not any scientific inquiry. If what you say IS true then it would make science a much easier subject. One would just be able to call upon your examples for unanswered questions and say "oh it just came from nothing!"

When the universe started expanding, there were no hadrons. When fundamental particles appear, there are no hadrons. There is something of a gulf between quantum physics modelling the inevitability of something arising from nothing and the notion of instantaneous creation of complex planetary systems and living organisms.

The key point is that once all energy and anti energy is accounted for the total energy is zero. This DOES NOT mean that there is no energy. It means that there is an EQUAL amount of energy and anti energy, thus creating particles for short periods of time. The substance of energy, and likewise anti energy MUST have a cause in itself.

Three things to bear in mind here.

1. What happens when you bring energy/antienergy or particle/antiparticle pairs together?
2. That's all absolutely true. For our universe, the net of all energy and matter is both infinite and zero (from this you can quite reasonably see that for some instances of zero, zero equals infinity).
3. The First Law of Thermodynamics is also absolutely true. For our universe. In order to see where classical physics and quantum physics cross over, ask yourself what the weight of a black hole is, how much it weighs if you throw a billion tons of mass into it and why. Also ask where it is... (it's a little unfair to ask you to ask yourself this - you won't get any answers. It's merely an example of how thermodynamics - you can't get something from nothing or nothing from something - isn't necessarily true when you get to the physics of extreme objects, even those which exist in our own universe).


I am, of course, no expert on quantum physics. Many experts in quantum physics themselves are not experts in all areas of it. As a quantum physicist once said, "If you know enough about the universe that you understand it, you don't know enough about the universe to understand it.". All I'm demonstrating is that science doesn't require an infinite regression to explain the origins of all things, whereas any model involving a creator does.

 

[WVUscion]

I tried my best to prove that the model regarding religion does not require an infinite regress, and solves the problem of infinite regress. Whether you agree with my logic or not is something that makes neither of us wrong, just the use of different approaches. To me it seems very obvious that the beginning higher power could create itself, thus breaking the regress. To you not so much, which is fine. Hopefully there are one or two of you out there who can follow my thought process, or maybe not. Forums are fickle things to judge intellectual responses. In this area our logic can bring us no further in questions that have no answers.

As far as the quantum physics turn to the conversation, I think that knowledge is the key. If you separate zero from nothing, then I think the scientific community would be rather divided. The zero that has been discussed in all the research that I have read is simply the canceling out of two types of energies. Thus leaving with a net of zero. It is necessary for us to look at the spontaneous creation and disintegration of particles as another "I don't know" question. The idea that they have been created from truly nothing is using the basis that everything we know about science today is the absolute truth. This would be a very naive opinion. Perhaps in 100 years we will have found the source of such particles, or there will be a confirmation that they do in fact come from absolute nothing. If the latter is true, it will certainly be a revolutionary day in science. But until then, the creation of particles in this manner is simply the newest "religion" of the day. Seemingly logical connections drawn by a group of people through empirical evidence. Was that not the ancient basis for all religion in the first place?

 

[Famine]

I tried my best to prove that the model regarding religion does not require an infinite regress, and solves the problem of infinite regress. Whether you agree with my logic or not is something that makes neither of us wrong, just the use of different approaches. To me it seems very obvious that the beginning higher power could create itself, thus breaking the regress. To you not so much, which is fine. Hopefully there are one or two of you out there who can follow my thought process, or maybe not.

The question is "how". If you agree that nothing is nothing and something cannot arise from nothing, how can a being of unimaginable power arise from nothing, create everything and then (and this part requires a giant "why") disappear into nothingness again?

In the cinematography world, this is what's known as "a McGuffin". Something that exists merely to advance the plot, yet not be relevant to the story itself nor even necessarily tangible.

It doesn't solve the infinite regress issue any more than any other "higher power" theory - it creates it:
Q - If "being" created everything from nothing, where did "being" come from?
A - "Being" has always been/exists outside of the universe/isn't required to follow the rules of the universe/other improbable answer here.

The "Being" explanation requires a before, yet resolutely rejects the concept - it's turtles all the way down. In the meantime, our scientific endeavour may not have generated an explanation, but it embraces the concept of nothing and is happy with it.

The right answer eventually is better than an answer right now.

As far as the quantum physics turn to the conversation, I think that knowledge is the key. If you separate zero from nothing, then I think the scientific community would be rather divided. The zero that has been discussed in all the research that I have read is simply the canceling out of two types of energies. Thus leaving with a net of zero.

There are different types of zero, yes. Right now I have zero coffees, but one will be along shortly.

It is necessary for us to look at the spontaneous creation and disintegration of particles as another "I don't know" question. The idea that they have been created from truly nothing is using the basis that everything we know about science today is the absolute truth.

Nnnnot really. The science predicts it, the observation validates the science.

This would be a very naive opinion. Perhaps in 100 years we will have found the source of such particles, or there will be a confirmation that they do in fact come from absolute nothing. If the latter is true, it will certainly be a revolutionary day in science. But until then, the creation of particles in this manner is simply the newest "religion" of the day.

Again, not really. The science predicts it, the observation validates the science.

Quantum physics is vastly complex - sometimes it almost seems like religion. There are aspects that have not yet been verified, observed or validated, and indeed there are aspects that can never be directly observed. Take something as "simple" and mainstream as gravitation. We're pretty happy to truck through high school knowing that gravity on the Earth's surface is, on average, 9.81m/s/s, a little higher at the poles, a little lower at the equator. We know there's loads of it near the Sun and not all that much in interstellar space, and it looks like a rubber sheet with ballbearings on it.

Yet we know absolutely sod all about gravity and we have absolutely no chance in this universe of directly observing it or what causes it. And we don't know why it's so weak - it's the weakest of the fundamental forces by orders of magnitude - when models of quantum mechanics say it ought to be much stronger (and disagree with General Relativity, which is our basic model for gravity in our universe).

But we're kinda happy with that. We have a basic model, a gap people are trying to work through and a very complex bit of "quantum". It's cool. We don't need "The Flying Spaghetti Monster pulls things together with His Noodly Appendages" as an explanation for the gap - we're good with what we have and striving to narrow the gap all the time. It's pretty much the same for the universe. We have a basic model, a gap people are trying to work through and a very complex bit of "quantum". It's cool. We don't need "a higher power created everything" as an explanation for the gap - we're good with what we have and striving to narrow the gap all the time.

Seemingly logical connections drawn by a group of people through empirical evidence. Was that not the ancient basis for all religion in the first place?

A lot of religious text is given over to observation of phenomena but when they hit the gaps they fill it in with "deity". The gaps are what science is founded on.

As for the basis of religion, typically it seems to be a control method. Do this or deity gets mad and sends you to a place where mumblemumbemumble bad things forever! Give us a third of your money to make temples and you go to a place where mumblemumbemumble good things forever! No, you're not... errr... "holy" enough to see these books and you wouldn't understand them anyway. Yes, the angel Moroni visited me with these golden tablets from God which have now mysteriously disappeared (and so on).

That said, the overall message of most religion - be good, don't be bad, don't do something to someone else if you don't think you'd like them to do it to you - shouldn't be underplayed. Even if it's wrapped up in the tinsel of fairy stories and involves an octogenarian man in a dress who's never had sex telling people who do have sex how to have sex, there's a lot to be said for "look, just be nice to everyone, okay?".

 

[WVUscion]

The question is "how". If you agree that nothing is nothing and something cannot arise from nothing, how can a being of unimaginable power arise from nothing, create everything and then (and this part requires a giant "why") disappear into nothingness again?

In the cinematography world, this is what's known as "a McGuffin". Something that exists merely to advance the plot, yet not be relevant to the story itself nor even necessarily tangible.

It doesn't solve the infinite regress issue any more than any other "higher power" theory - it creates it:
Q - If "being" created everything from nothing, where did "being" come from?
A - "Being" has always been/exists outside of the universe/isn't required to follow the rules of the universe/other improbable answer here.

The "Being" explanation requires a before, yet resolutely rejects the concept - it's turtles all the way down. In the meantime, our scientific endeavour may not have generated an explanation, but it embraces the concept of nothing and is happy with it.

The right answer eventually is better than an answer right now.

I'm getting so much better at this quote thing. Oh the wonders of posting...

Anyway I think you answered your own question without really realizing it. Lets look at the classical definition of God:

God is a being who is:
(a) all powerful
(b) all knowing
(c) perfectly good

Whenever you enter a philosophy class that talks about God, or religion, or higher power, you adhere to this definition. As I'm sure you can imagine philosophers throughout the ages have refuted one or more of those claims about God countless times, but as a basis that definition is always used as a standard when talking about such things.

How can God create himself?

The short answer is I don't know, because realistically its impossible to know. However as we've thrown around multiple times this morning (stayed up all night on the East Coast USA) it would be fallacious to call something false on an "I don't know" alone. Therefore I will provide a somewhat longer explanation.

Giving that God has unimaginable power, it is conceivable that he would be able to do unimaginable things. If you would prefer to shy away from the word "unimaginable" then "all" can be substituted as such. You have gone a ways to prove that something can scientifically come out of nothing, so I think it would no longer fall into the "unimaginable" category for that to occur. Think about those spontaneous particles for instance. Following the theory, they are created spontaneously, and as you put they spontaneity is validated through scientific observation. Therefore it would not be to far off the mark to say that they created themselves. If there is no outside cause, then it in itself MUST be the cause. There you have your first uncaused cause, and your beginning of the universe via quantum physics. This same principle would be applied to God in the exact same fashion. God would cause himself, do some creating and such, and then just as the particles do, uncause himself.

Therefore it would be false to say that religion requires a before. It simply does not using your own argument for why science does not. You proved something to be possible, something coming from nothing, and I just applied a possible occurrence to God. Easy as pie.

Also I think there needs to be a divide between what is God and what is Religion. I fully trust you in saying that you have no religious beliefs of your own, and aren't ruled by any sort of bias on the subject. However God and Religion are two different subjects. I myself am guilty of using the two words too freely, but their separation must be managed. Since you draw alot of your religious inferences from christianity I will stay in the same tradition. The "Word of God" that is accepted as law in modern times is so far diluted from what may or may not ACTUALLY be the word of God that it can't be used as a legitimate source. The Bible was not written by God, it was written by people hundreds of years after stories supposedly took place. Certain "Sins" were added in to help shape a world that MAN saw would be the best. Traditions are only that, traditions. That is religion. God itself is something far more primary. Obviously this would need volumes of explanation but calling upon current christian teachings, bible references, bolded text by jesus, the words of pastors, is very very far from the source material. All has been destroyed by thousands upon thousands of years of translation, mistranslation, biased, politicizing, and the overall instinctual nature of humanity.

 

[Famine]

I'm getting so much better at this quote thing. Oh the wonders of posting...

Anyway I think you answered your own question without really realizing it. Lets look at the classical definition of God:

God is a being who is:
(a) all powerful
(b) all knowing
(c) perfectly good

Whenever you enter a philosophy class that talks about God, or religion, or higher power, you adhere to this definition. As I'm sure you can imagine philosophers throughout the ages have refuted one or more of those claims about God countless times, but as a basis that definition is always used as a standard when talking about such things.

How can God create himself?

The short answer is I don't know, because realistically its impossible to know. However as we've thrown around multiple times this morning (stayed up all night on the East Coast USA) it would be fallacious to call something false on an "I don't know" alone. Therefore I will provide a somewhat longer explanation.

We're fine to this point, though I'll point out I'm referring to all deities rather than just the Christian one.

Giving that God has unimaginable power, it is conceivable that he would be able to do unimaginable things. If you would prefer to shy away from the word "unimaginable" then "all" can be substituted as such. You have gone a ways to prove that something can scientifically come out of nothing, so I think it would no longer fall into the "unimaginable" category for that to occur. Think about those spontaneous particles for instance. Following the theory, they are created spontaneously, and as you put they spontaneity is validated through scientific observation. Therefore it would not be to far off the mark to say that they created themselves. If there is no outside cause, then it in itself MUST be the cause. There you have your first uncaused cause, and your beginning of the universe via quantum physics. This same principle would be applied to God in the exact same fashion. God would cause himself, do some creating and such, and then just as the particles do, uncause himself.

Therefore it would be false to say that religion requires a before. It simply does not using your own argument for why science does not. You proved something to be possible, something coming from nothing, and I just applied a possible occurrence to God. Easy as pie.

But now we have an issue. I'll requote myself from before:

When the universe started expanding, there were no hadrons. When fundamental particles appear, there are no hadrons. There is something of a gulf between quantum physics modelling the inevitability of something arising from nothing and the notion of instantaneous creation of complex planetary systems and living organisms.

In order to demonstrate that "higher powered beings" can arise and/or be extinguished because fundamental particle pairs and energy can, you'd need observational evidence to validate the theory.

Now, we know that fundamental particle pairs and energy can appear and disappear (apparently in contravention of the First Law of Thermodynamics, but not really) - observational evidence validates the theory (that's not the same as "we've seen it", by the way). But the model that predicted it and has been validated doesn't permit anything complex to appear and disappear in the same way - you'd need an entirely new theory and then you'd need observational evidence of its occurrence.

Bluntly, spontaneous neutrino/antineutrino generation isn't an open door for a deity.

All has been destroyed by thousands upon thousands of years of translation, mistranslation, biased, politicizing, and the overall instinctual nature of humanity.

Preaching to the choir here (if you'll excuse the pun). I've posted similar before.

It's worth noting that the Qu'ran, as it exists and is used today, has never been translated from the original Arabic and claims to be a revision of what it says is inaccuracies in the Bible caused by the misunderstandings of the prophets who received it... Other religious texts - the Torah, the Book or Mormon, the Baghavad Gita and whatever the Scientologist churn out - are also still used in their original language.