The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[Tassman]

But that is exactly what your quote said: absolute nothingness (post #583). But the point remains, laws are not physical things, and they can not do anything until they act on matter and energy. So when it comes to the creation of matter and energy it certainly looks like Creation Ex nihilo.

energy. So when it comes to the creation of matter and energy it certainly looks like Creation Ex nihilo.

[seer]

Nonsense Tass, these "laws" again, are not physical things. They are not matter and energy. So yes matter and energy certainly would have an absolute beginning under the Vilenkin model.

[JimL]

Nonsense Tass, these "laws" again, are not physical things. They are not matter and energy. So yes matter and energy certainly would have an absolute beginning under the Vilenkin model.

The laws may pre-exist our universe of space and time, but that doesn't mean that they pre-exist the substance out of which our universe was born. To claim that the universe was created by laws alone, that laws, which are nothing in themselves, created the universe out of nothing, is as bad as the claim that a substanceless God created the universe out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit!

[seer]

The laws may pre-exist our universe of space and time, but that doesn't mean that they pre-exist the substance out of which our universe was born. To claim that the universe was created by laws alone, that laws, which are nothing in themselves, created the universe out of nothing, is as bad as the claim that a substanceless God created the universe out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit!

But Jim, that is exactly what Vilenkin and the others are suggesting. http://www.astrosociety.org/publicat...-from-nothing/

[shunyadragon]

Yes, this is what I believe. But recognize that this is a metaphysical position. Science itself cannot determine whether the equations are merely descriptive or are causative.

This is poorly worded, or maybe misleading. Science itself does not consider the Laws of Physics, nor the theories, as causative.' It is generally if not universally accepted in science that Science, the Laws of Physics, and theories are descriptive of the 'causes and effects of our physical existence.

That's because the argument keeps changing. The most recent sub-argument was a challenge by Shuny in message #500 of this thread:

The argument has never changed, though you have avoided addressing the specific subject of the thread with long discourses and numerous posts concerning the theories and models of multiverses, which never was the subject of the thread.

It remains that the subject of this thread is whether 'scientific evidence' supports his theological assumption that our universe began from 'absolute (philosophical) nothing. This basically what you have failed to address. My question, which you cite, addresses what WLC claims, and not the scientific description of the fundamental 'nothing' of our physical existence, which is not 'no energy.'

I answered with references. This is exactly what the "zero energy universe" proposal says, as suggested by Krauss, Hawking, Filippenko, Guth, etc.

No, you did not respond with adequate references from these sources. You extrapolated, without specific citations, that the theory (not the only one nor conclusively falsified) the 'sum of matter and energy = zero,' is equivalent to the existence of 'no energy.' Tassman brought up the problem in his citation from these sources. The theoretical proposal that the 'sum of energy and matter = zero' does not translate to 'no energy' exists, which is absurd considering what these physicists, and others, describe form of energy (not necessarily mass) existing with the Laws of Physics.

You have failed to cite Krauss, nor any one else, describing the theoretical proposal that 'the sum of energy and/or matter' is equivalent to 'no energy,' nor that the Laws of Physics function without the presence of matter and energy.

STILL WAITING . . .

No, not necessarily. The equations and laws are "rules" that describe how mass and energy behave. The rules can be in effect even in the absence of any mass or energy.

I disagree, pretty much all physicists and cosmologists describe the Laws as being in effect in the presence of some form of matter and energy. In the state Quantum zero point enerrgy mass does not exist, but energy exists in that state.

Shuny and I have somewhat different understandings of what WLC claims. As I've said (and supported) multiple times, I believe WLC is only referring to this present universe in his Kalam argument. Yes, WLC also argues against the multiverse, but separately (not as part of his Kalam argument).

Our disagreements are not that WLC based his arguments on this present universe in his Kalam argument. That I very much agree. The problems arose when you spent lengthy and numerous posts off topic addressing your biased view of multiverses, which were not in in reality the subject of the thread. You basically failed to address the fact that WLC claims scientific evidence supporting his theological assertion that our universe began from 'absolute (philosophical) nothing.' Yes, both WLC and you argue in some way or another against multiverses.

Apparently my citation needs to be clarified since you choose an alternate scientific interpretation of 'nothing' outside the specific intent of the thread.

I have asked this question repeatedly without a response. Can you provide a reference to Physicists or Cosmologists that propose a hypothesis for a 'beginning of our universe' without proposing preexisting matter and energy as a part of that hypothesis?

Your assertion that the proposed theory that the 'sum of the energy and matter = zero' equates to 'no energy' existed prior to the 'beginning of our universe' is not what the physicists and cosmologists propose concerning the possible 'beginnings of our universe.'

Pretty much all the physicists and cosmologists you cited propose that our universe began from preexisting energy.

To be more specific my question refers to the 'absolute beginning; from 'absolute (philosophical) nothing' proposed by WLC, and his claim that 'scientific evidence supports his conclusion.

[shunyadragon]

But Jim, that is exactly what Vilenkin and the others are suggesting. http://www.astrosociety.org/publicat...-from-nothing/

You have been repeatedly corrected that the scientific 'nothing' referred to here is not the same as the philosophical 'nothing' of the theological Kalam arguments proposed by WLC and others.

[seer]

You have been repeatedly corrected that the scientific 'nothing' referred to here is not the same as the philosophical 'nothing' of the theological Kalam arguments proposed by WLC and others.

No Shuny, when it comes to matter and energy that is exactly what Vilenkin and the others are claiming - "absolutely nothing" as Tass' link makes clear is the absence of matter and energy. What they say would pre-exist are physical principles and laws, not matter and energy. As Vilenkin words it; "literally nothing." https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi..._nothing.pdfAs


So when it comes to the creation of the universe (matter and energy) WLC could be perfectly correct.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, when it comes to matter and energy that is exactly what Vilenkin and the others are claiming - "absolutely nothing" as Tass' link makes clear is the absence of matter and energy. What they say would pre-exist are physical principles and laws, not matter and energy. As Vilenkin words it; "literally nothing." https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi..._nothing.pdfAs


So when it comes to the creation of the universe (matter and energy) WLC could be perfectly correct.

The scientific 'literally nothing' still does not equate to 'philosophical 'absolute nothing.' You are selectively misquoting Vilenkin, because he believes that universes formed from this 'nothing' in a multi universe cosmos.

[seer]

The scientific 'literally nothing' still does not equate to 'philosophical 'absolute nothing.' You are selectively misquoting Vilenkin, because he believes that universes formed from this 'nothing' in a multi universe cosmos.

Stop lying Shuny, I am not not misquoting Vilenkin, you can read it in context in the link. And in the link Vilenkin is not speaking of a multi-verse, this is a different theory that does not require pre-existing matter just pre-existing "laws." But I will let Vilenkin explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

[Kbertsche]

Pretty much all the physicists and cosmologists you cited propose that our universe began from preexisting energy.

Absolutely not. You still don't understand the "zero energy universe" which these guys postulate. To a physicist, energy is "something", not "nothing". When Krauss says talks about "a universe from nothing", he means no mass and no energy. When Hawking says that the laws of physics can create our universe from "nothing", he means the same; no mass and no energy.

[seer]

Absolutely not. You still don't understand the "zero energy universe" which these guys postulate. To a physicist, energy is "something", not "nothing". When Krauss says talks about "a universe from nothing", he means no mass and no energy. When Hawking says that the laws of physics can create our universe from "nothing", he means the same; no mass and no energy.

Yes, Vilenkin makes that clear in the You Tube video I linked.

[Kbertsche]

The laws may pre-exist our universe of space and time, but that doesn't mean that they pre-exist the substance out of which our universe was born. To claim that the universe was created by laws alone, that laws, which are nothing in themselves, created the universe out of nothing, is as bad as the claim that a substanceless God created the universe out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit!

But Hawking is pretty clear that this is exactly his position: 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely not. You still don't understand the "zero energy universe" which these guys postulate. To a physicist, energy is "something", not "nothing". When Krauss says talks about "a universe from nothing", he means no mass and no energy. When Hawking says that the laws of physics can create our universe from "nothing", he means the same; no mass and no energy.

Absolutely not. You have flagrantly failed to cite your sources that specifically conclude that 'no energy' existed prior to the beginning of our universe. The issue remains concerning the subject of the thread that you have failed to address. NO Physicists nor cosmologists consider 'absolutely philosophical nothing' existed prior to the beginning of the universe. To postulate does not conclude nor falsify that this is indeed the case regardless.

The conclusion that the scientific 'no energy' existed prior to the beginning of our universe remains your own conclusion, and in reality is not the subject of the thread, which is WLC's argument, and you have failed to address.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Absolutely not. You have flagrantly failed to cite your sources that specifically conclude that 'no energy' existed prior to the beginning of our universe. The issue remains concerning the subject of the thread that you have failed to address. NO Physicists nor cosmologists consider 'absolutely philosophical nothing' existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

The conclusion that 'no energy' existed prior to the beginning of our universe remains your own conclusion, and in reality not the subject of the thread, which you have failed to address.

Still waiting . . .

I already proved you wrong Shuny in the Vilenkin link. The only thing that needs to exist, or pre-exist, are the laws of physics. And he means that in the sense of Plato Forms (his words not mine), no form of matter has to pre-exist. No space and no time, and no infinite regression. That the only thing that is needed for the spontaneous creation of this universe are these pre-existing "laws." Watch it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

[shunyadragon]

But Hawking is pretty clear that this is exactly his position: 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

. . . but the scientific 'nothing' is not 'no energy,' which you assert and fail to cite any physicist nor cosmologist that reaches your implied conclusion.

Still waiting . . .