Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

He doesn't exactly say what he means by nothing, the quoatations around the word basically means he doesn't exactly know what he means by nothing other than that there is "no matter, no space, and no time." He then says that though there is this "nothing" the physical laws exist, and then asserts that those laws are not nothing. As far as I'm concerned, until and unless someone can show that plysical laws are existing things in and of themselves, then I'll take such assertions with a grain of salt. But I have to agree with you, that according to Vilinkens explanation, even though he himself doesn't come to that conclusion, one could conlude that the universe was created from nothing, but in truth thats far from what he is saying, he's saying that the laws themselves not only allow for the universe to pop into existence, but that the laws themselves also allow it to pop out of existence. No creator is needed in either case.

One has to wonder what can come into existence if there is no prior space to come out of?

[seer]

Tass, you are the one in this thread that has been dishonest, twice:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post483308

But like I said, it is good to see science finally catching to to theology!

[shunyadragon]

One has to wonder what can come into existence if there is no prior space to come out of?

According to Vilenkin,Guth, Krauss, and Hawking Natural Laws determines what comes into existence and when from the Quantum world. Natural Laws simply exists independent of space,time, matter, and energy. Space and time comes into existence with the formation of the singularity and the universe. This what the describe based on the best available objective evidence. Most other physicists and cosmologists share this view.

[shunyadragon]

Tass, you are the one in this thread that has been dishonest, twice:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post483308

But like I said, it is good to see science finally catching to to theology!

Does not reflect science. This reflects your agenda to misrepresent science.

[seer]

According to Vilenkin,Guth, Krauss, and Hawking Natural Laws determines what comes into existence and when from the Quantum world. Natural Laws simply exists independent of space,time, matter, and energy. Space and time comes into existence with the formation of the singularity and the universe. This what the describe based on the best available objective evidence. Most other physicists and cosmologists share this view.

No Shuny, Vilenkin does not say there is a pre existing Quantum world (vacuum) from which the universe springs. There is nothing, only the the laws of physics exist prior to the creation event.

[JimL]

One has to wonder what can come into existence if there is no prior space to come out of?

One could also wonder how anything, any stuff, that has existence, could just cease to have existence due simply to laws.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, Vilenkin does not say there is a pre existing Quantum world (vacuum) from which the universe springs. There is nothing, only the the laws of physics exist prior to the creation event.

Selective citing still fails, all cosmologists propose that the Quantum nothing is something.

[seer]

Selective citing still fails, all cosmologists propose that the Quantum nothing is something.

Shuny you again are missing the point. There are two different models here, one with empty space (where the Quantum nothing/vacuum resides) and the one with no space, where, to use Vilenkin's words, "literally nothing" exists. As far as I can tell most hold to the empty space model, but Vilenkin does not. Krauss in your link spoke of both the empty space and no space models but did not commit to either view. There is no pre-existing quantum vacuum in the no space theory as Vilenkin makes clear, there is a pre-existing quantum vacuum in the empty space model.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you again are missing the point. There are two different models here, one with empty space (where the Quantum nothing/vacuum resides) and the one with no space, where, to use Vilenkin's words, "literally nothing" exists. As far as I can tell most hold to the empty space model, but Vilenkin does not. Krauss in your link spoke of both the empty space and no space models but did not commit to either view. There is no pre-existing quantum vacuum in the no space theory as Vilenkin makes clear, there is a pre-existing quantum vacuum in the empty space model.

You are misrepresenting both Krauss and Vilenkin. Can you cite a reference where Krauss, Vilenkin, and Hawking disagree as to the basics of Quantum Mechanics and how universes form in the Quantum nothing?

Selective citing still fails, all cosmologists propose that the Quantum nothing is something. Krauss, Vilenkin and Hawking have commited specifically how universes spontaneously form

[seer]

You are misrepresenting both Krauss and Vilenkin. Can you cite a reference where Krauss, Vilenkin, and Hawking disagree as to the basics of Quantum Mechanics and how universes form in the Quantum nothing?

Selective citing still fails, all cosmologists propose that the Quantum nothing is something. Krauss, Vilenkin and Hawking have commited specifically how universes spontaneously form

People can follow my links to Vilenkin's works. Shuny you are being completely dishonest, please stop posting in this thread.

[Tassman]

People can follow my links to Vilenkin's works. Shuny you are being completely dishonest, please stop posting in this thread.

Accusing those that disagree with you of dishonesty or banning them from the thread is merely 'denial' seer...is that what it takes to retain your faith? Your little game of using science to defeat science and "prove" that the bible was right all along has unravelled. No one with even the slightest knowledge of modern cosmology accepts your highly selective misuse of Vilenkin to hint that "god-did-it'...least of all Vilenkin himself.

[seer]

Accusing those that disagree with you of dishonesty or banning them from the thread is merely 'denial' seer...is that what it takes to retain your faith? Your little game of using science to defeat science and "prove" that the bible was right all along has unravelled. No one with even the slightest knowledge of modern cosmology accepts your highly selective misuse of Vilenkin to hint that "god-did-it'...least of all Vilenkin himself.

Tass, Shuny is dishonest. I have clearly explained the difference between to empty space model and the no space model. The empty space model does have a preexisting quantum vacuum, the no space model of Vilenkin has no preexisting anything except the laws of physics. As far as God Vilenkin said: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

But Tass, that was never my point, which has been that science is getting closer to creation Ex nihilo, Vilenkin is pretty much there. Not that it proves that God did it. It is funny though that science is hinting at what theology has been saying for centuries. Don't you love when science and theology agree! And remember Tass Shuny has a religious agenda, his faith teaches that matter and energy are past eternal.

[Tassman]

Tass, Shuny is dishonest.

No, YOU are dishonest by cherry-picking scientific theorems that you think align with your religious presuppositions and disregarding those that don't.

But Tass, that was never my point, which has been that science is getting closer to creation Ex nihilo, Vilenkin is pretty much there. Not that it proves that God did it.

Nonsense! All that it means is that some physics other than the inflation model is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. This is all Vilenkin and Guth et al are saying. Not that such a model doesn't exist.

It is funny though that science is hinting at what theology has been saying for centuries.

Only in your own dishonest mind!

Don't you love when science and theology agree!

And remember Tass Shuny has a religious agenda.

It is YOU with the religious agenda, e.g. your crap about "science getting closer to creation Ex nihilo".

[seer]

Nonsense! All that it means is that some physics other than the inflation model is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. This is all Vilenkin and Guth et al are saying. Not that such a model doesn't exist.

No that is false and you know it. Vilenkin is saying more - matter and energy are not eternal into the past, there is no model that can get us there: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

It is YOU with the religious agenda, e.g. your crap about "science getting closer to creation Ex nihilo".

Vilenkin, himself use the term "out of nothing" which is the very definition of Ex nihilo. And his nothing really is nothing - only the laws of physics, no prior time, space or matter. I know this upsets your anti-religious agenda, but...

[Tassman]

No that is false and you know it. Vilenkin is saying more - matter and energy are not eternal into the past, there is no model that can get us there: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning


Vilenkin, himself use the term "out of nothing" which is the very definition of Ex nihilo. And his nothing really is nothing - only the laws of physics, no prior time, space or matter. I know this upsets your anti-religious agenda, but...

reallyhttp://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe