Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[Tassman]

I did not say that all such uses are valid, Tass, or that all such arguments are well structured.

Good! Because the way science was being misused to support the dogma of creatio ex nihilo in this discussion, is not valid.

I simply said there is nothing inherently wrong about using information about the world around us to inform a theological discussion. There is no reason to exempt science. If it is valid to point to historical documents to show that Jesus existed and make the claim that he is who he said he is, then there is no reason why one cannot point to the conclusions of science to make other theological claims. Of course, those claims will only be as strong as the strength of the scientific claims themselves. If you rest your theology on the Big Bang and the cyclic universe is shown to be the accurate model, then the theology will crumble.

This is why resting theological truths, which by definition are revealed and immutable; on science which is grounded in the concept of being falsifiable is a mistake.

[carpedm9587]

Good! Because the way science was being misused to support the dogma of creatio ex nihilo in this discussion, is not valid.

This is why resting theological truths, which by definition are revealed and immutable; on science which is grounded in the concept of being falsifiable is a mistake.

Well, it may be a mistake, but it is commonly done. And I have found that theologians and apologists are pretty adept at adjusting their stories as science marches on...

[Tassman]

Well, it may be a mistake, but it is commonly done. And I have found that theologians and apologists are pretty adept at adjusting their stories as science marches on...

Well that's certainly true.

[shunyadragon]

Well, it may be a mistake, but it is commonly done. And I have found that theologians and apologists are pretty adept at adjusting their stories as science marches on...

Bait and switch, and ENRON bookkeeping.

[seer]

Good! Because the way science was being misused to support the dogma of creatio ex nihilo in this discussion, is not valid.

Why not Tass? When you have scientists like Vilenkin or Krauss suggesting a creation event in the absence of pre-existing time and space?

[JimL]

IMO, you are making the same mistake Sparko makes so often. The difficulty with explain the origins of the universe scientifically does create an opening for an argument for god. Given that we cannot frame a scientifically sound hypothesis for the origins because we cannot find a hypothesis that is falsifiable, that puts the claim "god did it" on an equal footing with multiverses, some universe-spawning "soup," or ex nihilo origination. It may not be evidence you accept (I certainly don't). It may not be good evidence - but it is evidence. And there are many arguments for the existence of god that are perfectly reasonable, assuming you accept their premises. I do not accept their premises, so I do not accept their conclusions. But the arguments are well structured and meet all of the criteria for "reasonable."

Christianity is a historical seedbed for many of the greatest thinkers in human history. These were not stupid people. They were profound thinkers who sought to explain how the cosmos works from a theological perspective. That I think some of their conclusions were wrong does not undermine the value of their contributions to humanity, IMO. Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther, and many of the greatest philosophers we have known arose from a Christian tradition.

Multiverse is is not simply a guess, it is science, it is derived of science, god is simply a guess based on ignorance, and that's the difference.

[JimL]

Why not Tass? When you have scientists like Vilenkin or Krauss suggesting a creation event in the absence of pre-existing time and space?

Their nothing, as you have continuously been told, is not your nothing. Time, like the other 3 dimensions, isn't a thing in itself, so creation in the absence of pre-existing time doesn't mean anything. I also explained to you that Vilenkin's theory requires a process of tunneling through a barrier which makes no sense unless there is an existing something doing the tunneling and an existing something for it to tunnel through.

[seer]

Their nothing, as you have continuously been told, is not your nothing. Time, like the other 3 dimensions, isn't a thing in itself, so creation in the absence of pre-existing time doesn't mean anything. I also explained to you that Vilenkin's theory requires a process of tunneling through a barrier which makes no sense unless there is an existing something doing the tunneling and an existing something for it to tunnel through.

No Jim, you are wrong, Vilenkin's theory only requires the laws of physics. And if you have no space, where does tunneling or anything actually take place.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

[element771]

Good! Because the way science was being misused to support the dogma of creatio ex nihilo in this discussion, is not valid.

It is not being misused. I believe that Carp agrees with me on this.

It may not be correct or not a solid argument but you can't say that it is misused...that is incorrect.

[element771]

This is where I am with Tassman and JimL, and disagree completely with you. Even though I believe in God I consider the above bordering on advocating an egregious misuse of science. There are absolutely no 'findings' of science nor 'evidence' that may be used legitimately in theological arguments as above. The bold above is a severe problem. The structure of arguments does not justify their value, and citing outdated theologians as remotely meaningful in arguments is meaningless. At best these arguments are intensely circular and arguing from ignorance.

My previous hopes we agree on certain points no longer stands since you have made your view with more clarity.

So Carp and I are on the same page....

[element771]

So, theological "truths" (if there is such a thing) are not arrived at in a vacuum. Every theological work I have ever read is grounded in our experience as humans on this planet. They make reference to the wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity, the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, and so forth. They draw on archaeology, history, biology, and so forth. I think there is a difference between using what we know about the universe and ourselves to arrive at "theological truths," and attempting to use the scientific method to prove god exists. The former is perfectly reasonable. The latter is unreasonable. By definition, god belongs to the realm of the "supernatural" and "spiritual." I know of no way to apply scientific procedures to explore that realm. That is why creationism cannot be a science - and must be a theology. The same with so-called "intelligent design" (creationism in a new suit).

When I look at the statements above, I do not see a claim that we can use scientific methodology to arrive at an understanding of god. I only see a claim that scientific conclusions can be used to inform theological arguments. I don't see a problem with that.

I could not have said it better myself.

[JimL]

No Jim, you are wrong, Vilenkin's theory only requires the laws of physics. And if you have no space, where does tunneling or anything actually take place.

Space is a thing seer, it warps and bends due to the objects flying around within it, but the absence of space and matter is not necessarily the same thing as the absence of place and or energy. The space and the matter in our spacetime universe was caused by the energy of the BB. What it is expanding into is what Physicists might call nothing, but it is from that nothing that gave birth to our universe. In reality there is no such thing as absolutely nothing.

[Tassman]

Why not Tass? When you have scientists like Vilenkin or Krauss suggesting a creation event in the absence of pre-existing time and space?

Here we go again.

These scientists are not saying this at all. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper to which you are referring says that inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. But they have not argued that nothing lies beyond the boundary. Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the universe in a quantum nucleation event...something Vilenkin has addressed elsewhere. He also supports multiverse theory: "Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark...explain why the multiverse would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

[seer]

Space is a thing seer, it warps and bends due to the objects flying around within it, but the absence of space and matter is not necessarily the same thing as the absence of place and or energy. The space and the matter in our spacetime universe was caused by the energy of the BB. What it is expanding into is what Physicists might call nothing, but it is from that nothing that gave birth to our universe. In reality there is no such thing as absolutely nothing.

Really Jim? Where does "place or energy" exist apart from space? Is this the magical land of fairies? And you were wrong, Vilenkin's nothing really is nothing, except for the laws of physics.

[seer]

Here we go again.

These scientists are not saying this at all. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper to which you are referring says that inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. But they have not argued that nothing lies beyond the boundary. Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the universe in a quantum nucleation event...something Vilenkin has addressed elsewhere. He also supports multiverse theory: "Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark...explain why the multiverse would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

That has nothing to do with my quote from Vilenkin. Try reading him in his own words, the reason why he is suggesting creation from nothing is because no credible theory gets us to an eternal past for matter and energy:

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning