Yes question is clear.Can the quantum fluctuations consist this universe from nothing?(Ohh pls don't tell story about''it changes what do you mean by nothing'').Instead of the concept of the Philosophy,we are more depend on the concept of Physic.So i think the notion of Physic about ''nothing'' should be prefer.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The idea goes back at least to the 1940's with Gamow and Jordan; who noticed that the negative energy tied up in a star's gravitational field might be equal to the positive energy of the mass of the star. The point being; this would remove any fundamental barriers that might otherwise prevent a star from appearing out of nothing.
so you dont or do believe in chaos theory?
Chaos theory is just mathematics. It isn't something that you "believe in" or "not believe in". It is just a fact that some systems have large Lyapunov exponents while others do not. Makes about as much sense as asking if I believe in long division.
Theory of infinity:
Anything is possible given an infinite amount of time to occur.
Not saying that is correct, but you cannot dismiss it either.
euleres e ipie+1-0 that's infinite
Are you trying to express Euler's identity?
"anything is possible given enough time". Seriously? Okay, prove it.
I said it was a theory, and I said it might be incorrect. When we start talking infinity it only exists in math and theory and concepts.
Best way to try and understand infinity is to use really big numbers. A man is the sole winner of the powerball jackpot 10 times in a row. (representing the super unlikely) Seem so unlikely it is impossible? It is guaranteed if that man spends trillions of dollars ensuring he buys every possible lottery ticket. 10 times in a row (the trillions of dollars represents infinite time)
But can I prove it? Ofcourse not. You said that knowing full well no one could. Just like just about any other talk of "something from nothing."
I would just say that any event that has a finite probably of happening once, will have a 100% chance of happening as many times as you like; given infinite trials.
I agree fully.
I just try to explain it a little better for those not as familiar or well read on the concept of infinity.
but I am no teacher/expert I may have failed miserably :)
@LogicForTW "Anything is possible"
President Donald Trump
What a good but also terrible for the world example.
Also that a Simpsons episode featured a joke about trump being president back in a year 2000 episode entitled “Bart to the Future,”
Doesn't seem likely but it did actually happen.
Stephen Hawkings successfully proved that something can come from nothing and that there is nothing supernatural about it.
INfinity is not taken seriously by any of leadears in there respected field is a sin attempt to discount simply a time less cause less transcendent personal morale agent in a instance created time and space where now we can study the universe and see the being behind the undisputed complexity that is shattering naturalism and leading to a designer with the advancement of science. Therefore giving objective morality and now the atheists is on there heels with socio biological patterns of society that say right or wrong or make a valued judgment as mutated mistakes we are just like the animals and at best have altruism
1st of all your moniker says everything about you, arrogance and ignorance.
2. Your reply is just a bunch of word salad with NO meaning or even a salient thought.
3. This statement "the being behind the undisputed complexity that is shattering naturalism and leading to a designer with the advancement of science." is not only completely false but even contradicts itself.
a) there is NO proof whatsoever of a "being behind" ANYTHING.
b) And "intelligent design" isn't science let alone the advancement of science.
4) There is no objective morality in any sense of the term. Morality comes from society and only society.
5) You made a lot of claims ALL unsubstantiated and all completely false.
6) All scientist with any REAL credibility takes infinity very seriously indeed.
So don't hand me your sanctimonious bullshit.
First I want to note, in my short posting I spent 1 of my 3 sentences stating it could be incorrect. Did not see you write anywhere in your post that you may be incorrect. I recognize I am only human and do not know everything. Seems like you think you are "great" and know everything. Except, apparently how to write a decent cohesive thought that can be more easily understood with others that read and write english.
A bit of proofreading, a few commas and periods to separate out individual thoughts would go a long way for the rest of us that want to read and respond to your response.
I think I still managed to suss out what you are trying to say.
The theory of infinity that I put up, you are saying is not taken seriously by any leaders in their respective fields. I assume you mean all relevant fields. Even still that is quite the definitive statement, a bold claim like that should be backed with at least a little evidence, even poor evidence like a poll of leaders would help people take your bold statement seriously.
Then you say it is sin to discount your god, that is timeless causeless and transcendent. I heard that before. For this to be more than just your opinion, you would need real, undeniable proof of your god, of which there has been millions of opportunities for your god to prove himself, your god, (or any god,) has yet to do so.
You are saying the undisputed complexity of the universe is proof of your god. Also heard that at least a dozen times before. The universe does not seem all that particular complex to me. Quantum energy and gravity + almost 14 billion years seems like plenty of time to have the complexity we have. Beyond arguing how complex things are, how does complexity prove your god? Any god idea can take credit, Islam, Christian, flying spaghetti monster, etc. Why does this "god" idea that you claim is the source of all this complexity have to be a "god" to a very tiny select group of humans, and he demands worship and we follow his rules even though he remains completely hidden from any way to verify his existence?
Your next argument about morality builds on us accepting your first argument. Did not accept your first argument, do not have to go into the "god created" morality debate for the upteenth time, thank you.
Your last part is mostly correct, we as societies came up with right and wrong concepts to help us make "judgements." Just like the animals we evolved from; survival in a limited resources environment dictated our evolution to move towards working together, which necessitated a shared understanding of right and wrong, so we could work together to better survive. Toss in a highly complex brain into that mix and we have grown from just surviving, to completely dominating all life on this planet.
I actually do not believe in true altruism by the strictest definition of the word. We can not suddenly stop being "self." Their is always a self motivation for doing an act.
Can you prove your god is real? Can you give testable evidence your god is real? My morals come from treating people how I want to be treated, not any god. We are just animals, mammals to be exact, great apes to be specific.
Physicists are explaining the opening events of the Universe to the first billionth of a second. So far , no nothing, no gods either.
what caused whatever gods you believe in to appear from nothing?
I'm telling it like it is: once science becomes irrefutably the only means for the explanation of all that lies extant, theists will call it god's work. Who needs intellect when people have belief systems?
You are probably right.
Not sure if science will ever get there though. How can us something's really study and understand nothing? Us finite things and world relate to the infinite? Our tools of study, testing, logic and reasoning fail here.
Which is not a problem to us science people, there is no need to study and understand nothing properly, or infinity. The side effect of course, is that a bunch theist will jump all over the one thing science can not really account for and go: "lookie lookie its god!"
But as you say, even if science did not manage that, the thought process that is immune to logic, reasoning and evidence can simply just claim credit. Because theist get to make up what ever rules they like in a thought process that sets its own rules.
It is like trying to win a board game a child made up on a piece of paper, and made up all the rules to this board game, and one of the rules is: the child can make up new rules whenever the child likes for "any reason" and the child is determined to not let you win. Under that construct it is impossible to win the game, but it is also a game that no one in their right mind should play.
@ Cultivar and other atheists
Please define what "nothing" means in the relevant sense. If it does not mean the total and complete absence of existing things/ being, then it is not very surprising that something would come from it since it has some being.
I think most atheist would agree nothing is the absence of all things. Or your words: " the total and complete absence of existing things/ being" is as good of a definition of nothing as another that most of us accept.
Sounds like most theist believe there was never nothing, that their "god" was eternal that never had a beginning. Just that their god created everything else, other than itself.
Always struck me odd that an eternal/infinite thing would create a finite thing. It gets super odd that once you apply various holy books that are supposed to be the true "word" of this "god." And a claimed accurate description of god and his works. If the various holy books is supposed to honestly describe god, without error, his works and his rules why is god a "he" and so human like in almost every way, except he is also supposedly, all good, all powerful and all knowing and eternal?
Perhaps because holy books and the concept of god was written and made up by humans 1000's of years ago? Seems a lot more likely that something infinite in time power and knowledge taking on a bunch of human traits. We humans certainly are none of these traits, if we did have all these traits, we would act nothing like what finite humans act like.
If nothing is being used in my way and in an absolute sense, then nothing can come from it. If something did, then that would condradict the principle of non contradiction which impossible.
Sounds like you are trying to make an argument for a timeless, powerful greater being, (usually god,) concept by stating: "only nothing can come from nothing."
1. We athiest do not necessarily believe that at one time their was nothing. Perhaps there always was something. Both nothing, and always a something is hard to comprehend.
2. Even if their was some sort of greater entity that is powerful that was timeless why does it have to be a god? Why does it have to be your god? Their is no evidence or even a reasonable sound thought process that leads some sort of greater being falling into the concept people say is god?
3. Principle of noncontradiction? Which form of that are you using here? The classical definition/use? The definition that states: that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. What are your two (or more) contradictory statements here? If I had to guess, it is that "something can come from nothing" and "nothing can come from nothing." Okay, fine, I pick the first one. There, contradiction problem solved!
My guess is you heard some big words somewhere, that supports your argument, did not fully understand it, and regurgitated it here.
So far you are not doing a very good job using the cosmological argument to prove your god. Gotta say a lot of theist have tried, and convinced none of the regular atheists here in their god. Not even a little bit.
I am talking about the classical form; namely, a thing cannot be and not be in the same and exact way and manner. By picking the first one you don't actually solve the problem if nothing means absolutely nothing. Because now you have something (being) coming from nothing (absence of being). You have existence coming from non existence. By definition, in order for being to come into existence, it must come from existence. Something which does not exist cannot cause anything and cannot be the actual source for any being, since in order to be a cause or a source from which something comes, the thing must exist.
If nothing can produce something or have something come from it then science and reasoning is pointless. Why? Because you cannot even know with certainty that you exist. Maybe nothing is thinking. Maybe your thoughts are actually the thoughts of nothing.
At some level you are right. We know classical logic does NOT reflect reality; so your appeal to it is pointless.
I actually think it is quite possible there was always "something." To be as least as reasonable of a thought process then at one point there was truly nothing. The point is we do not really know, and I am not sure we will as a human race be able to find out with any real confidence.
I was simply responding to you using the classic form of the non contradiction principle. I picked one of the two, so its no longer a contradiction.
Where are you basing something cannot come from nothing? When we are talking about before the big bang we don't know what is going on. The rules that apply after the big bang likely did not apply before the big bang. Really its folly to talk with any authority about what occurred before.
The closest we humans can come to imagining "nothing" is an empty space where nothing happens for a very long time. We are incapable of imagining no space and no time. The idea that we're trying to talk about here isn't even nothing, since nothing also implies a state.
Theists tell us that god somehow existed behind this nullity and turned it into the universe we see. That's puzzling. Why would an infinite, timeless, unchanging entity create anything? That implies change, doesn't it? Something changed in god that triggered an urge to create. Something wasn't perfect in god, so god had to create something to fix it. That's an interesting paradox until you look at through a bullshit filter.
It's obvious to me that god felt lonely and unfulfilled. He had all this power and nothing to use it on. He needed company, toys to play with. In other words, god was a human being, probably a petty chieftain, with human traits and human needs. After he died, his legend grew, and his descendants made up ever more fanciful stories to glorify his memory. The result was Jehovah, Zeus, Jove, Allah, Marlon Brando.
Since I was a Christian at one time, I can say that the explanation that I heard pastors and priest say for the existence of man is that God wanted fellowship with humanity, He wanted to share his love with people. Also I was taught that God was perfect and he made man in that state of being. Just that man violated his place with God by indulging in his appetites.I would like to also say here, I tlooks that there is something that designed all of this. Take the male and female gender how they work together I don`t feel and I`m leaning on the fact that evolution can`t explain certain things here.There just are to many compatible things in life to say this was just an accident.