Paper: Spontaneous Creation of the Universe From Nothing

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 5, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Two thousand years ago the Epicureans believed that the world arose spontaneously. Their idea was that randomly veering atoms attained a great variety of configurations by chance, and would eventually find themselves forming stable, functional structures. And while this may seem unlikely, the immense universe provided a great many opportunities for those configurations to come about. In Cicero’s dialog, the Epicurean explains this to his stoic opponent: Read more

Comments

Me_Think you state: "The point is, the large scale AWARE study was specifically carried out to verify NDE with a specific methodology and it failed to prove NDE." Actually, the observational evidence we have for NDE's is far stronger than the observational we have for Darwinian evolution:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html we have far more observational evidence for the reality of souls than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate sophisticated functional information (in fact the transcendent nature of information directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul): https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/1-dawkins-wants-to-land-porn-on-muslim-world-2-dawkins-yawnfest-has-just-got-to-stop/#comment-545518
Moreover, the AWARE study was far more friendly to verifying the reality of NDE's than you, apparently, would prefer to believe: Parnia, who originally set a 'number test' up in a operating room to prove remote viewing, now concedes the evidence for remote viewing of the hospital room is 'very credible'?
Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - October 7, 2014 Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events. One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html
supplemental notes:
Consciousness After Death: Strange Tales From the Frontiers of Resuscitation Medicine By Brandon Keim - 04.24.13 Excerpt: Parnia:,, When I looked at the cardiac arrest literature, it became clear that it’s after the heart stops and blood flow into the brain ceases. There’s no blood flow into the brain, no activity, about 10 seconds after the heart stops. When doctors start to do CPR, they still can’t get enough blood into the brain. It remains flatlined. That’s the physiology of people who’ve died or are receiving CPR. Not just my study, but four others, all demonstrated the same thing: People have memories and recollections. Combined with anecdotal reports from all over the world, from people who see things accurately and remember them, it suggests this needs to be studied in more detail.,,, The point that goes against the experiences happening afterwards, or before the brain shut down, is that many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation. That is not compatible with (having no) brain activity. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/consciousness-after-death/all/ 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 25
you state that materialism presupposes that the laws should be the same everywhere in the universe. You were shown to be wrong
You are right. 'Materialism doesn't presuppose it, it derives from evidence of symmetry ! Do you really want me to derive law of conservation from noether theorem and gauge symmetry for you ?
Yet, there are very good empirical reasons to consider God as the rational explanation for fine-tuning. For instance
God can't be a scientific explanation because His mechanism can't be explained scientifically. God as an explanation is nothing but parceling a problem off into philosophical realm. When questioned who created God or what omniscience and omnipotent means in terms of field or energy or any new physics, ID has no explanation except saying God is Uncaused Cause. How can anyone take such an explanation seriously ?Me_Think_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, you state that materialism presupposes that the laws should be the same everywhere in the universe. You were shown to be wrong. The reason he, Susskind, does not personally believe in God as an explanation of fine-tuning is philosophical not empirical. Yet, there are very good empirical reasons to consider God as the rational explanation for fine-tuning. For instance:
Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/
(Commenting on the 1 in 10^120 fine tuning of the expansion of the universe),
"Hugh Ross states an analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of this cosmic balance [between too fast and too slow] would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - page 49
Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture http://gaowsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-29-at-5-09-50-pm-2.jpg ‘Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word “miraculous” without taking a stand as to the ontological status of that word.’ - George Ellis – He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world’s leading theorists in cosmology.
Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant):
Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?” page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,” Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
Here are the 9 lines of evidence that Dr. Ross mentioned which came out shortly after the preceding paper was listed as a preprint on the Los Alamos’s website. Evidences which made Dyson, Kleban and Susskind pull their paper from consideration,,,
Accumulating Evidence for Dark Energy and Supernatural Design - 2011 Excerpt: I (Hugh Ross) often refer to nine different lines of observational evidence that establish dark energy’s reality and dominance in my talks. These nine are: 1.radial velocities of type Ia supernovae; 2.WMAP of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR); 3.ground-based measures of the CMBR; 4.Sloan Digital Sky Survey of galaxies and galaxy clusters; 5.Two-Degree Field Survey of galaxies; 6.gravitational lens measurements of distant galaxies and quasars; 7.distributions of radio galaxies; 8.galaxy velocity distributions; and 9.x-ray emissions from galaxy clusters.
In the last several years, astronomers have added seven additional lines of observational evidence confirming the reality of the finely tuned cosmological constant, bringing the total to sixteen. These seven are:
10.Lyman-alpha forest measurements; 11.polarization measures of the cosmic microwave background radiation; 12.stellar ages; 13.cosmic inhomogeneities; 14.gamma-ray bursts; 15.evolution of galaxy clustering; and 16.galaxy cluster angular size measurements. http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-s-dark-energy-articles
Besides the evidence that Dr. Ross listed for the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the universe, this following paper clearly indicates that we do live in universe with a ‘true cosmological constant’. A cosmological constant that is not reducible to a materialistic basis. Thus, the atheistic astrophysicists are at a complete loss to explain why the universe expands in such a finely tuned way, whereas Theists are vindicated once again in their beliefs that the universal constants are truly transcendent of any possible materialistic explanation!
unchanging nature of cosmological constant rules out all materialistic theories for Dark Energy: Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, (a 'true cosmological constant'), and that is exactly where Einstein stands.” http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 22
AS to NDE’s the fact that Near Death Experience patients see stuff during their NDEs that they should not have been able to see has been verified over and over again..
The point is, the large scale AWARE study was specifically carried out to verify NDE with a specific methodology and it failed to prove NDE. There was no other study (AFAIK) that was specifically carried out to verify NDE using a scientific methodology (like Placards) . Note again : anecdotes are plenty - some by notorious brain surgeons- but the only scientific study carried out failed to show NDE.Me_Think_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 21
At the 7:19 minute mark of the following video, which you apparently did not even bother to watch, Susskind talks directly of the laws being different in ‘unobservable’ parts of THIS universe
He has been asked for possible reasons for finetuning and he is giving various theories. He even speculated that one of the reason is God- does it mean he believes that finetuning is because of God ? Of course not - he is a proponent of String theory. You can't hold his casual speculations against him !Me_Think_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

AS to NDE's the fact that Near Death Experience patients see stuff during their NDEs that they should not have been able to see has been verified over and over again: "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcHWz6UMZ8 The extremely ‘monitored’ NDE of Pam Reynolds – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k The following is on par with Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience. In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, tells stories of two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and what they told him about what they saw when they were 'dead'. Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08 Another piece of evidence that argues very strongly against any type of materialistic explanation for Near death Experiences is what is termed 'Shared Death Experience'. A 'Shared Death Experience' is an experience in which a loved one, though not terminally ill, is caught up into part of the Near Death Experience as a loved one passes on: Dr. Raymond Moody on Shared Death Experiences - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ihzzYjqeEbornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Me_Think you state: "to say ‘materialism’ doesn’t consider laws are same (in this universe) is wrong. "Susskind is talking of Megaverses (and he explains he doesn’t like the term ‘multiverse’ so he is using the term ‘Megaverse’ [to essentially mean the same thing])where laws may be different.)" At the 7:19 minute mark of the following video, which you apparently did not even bother to watch, Susskind talks directly of the laws being different in 'unobservable' parts of THIS universe: Leonard Susskind – Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2cT4zZIHR3s#t=439bornagain77_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 @ 18
Methinks , this is a question for religion and philosophy to handle, but more importantly the evidence is against materialism which makes it the odd man out
So why do you all keep bringing God into the mix , as if He is a scientific solution?
Oh and by the way what do you think of the aware study whete a patient was timed at having a veridical nde without a functioning brain . Opps sorry for bringing up such a sore subject for atheists like u
I answered this on the other thread: Did you notice that in the AWARE study, not a single patient - out of over 2000 -saw the placards which were placed in strategic locations to verify NDE? The lone patient who recalled nurses could easily have been recalling memory from the time he was not ‘clinically dead’. Note that Clinically dead is still controversial term, so the 3 minutes is not significant. There are cases when..
.. a woman was erroneously declared dead after having a heart attack and wound up freezing to death in a body bag in the morgue. Another woman gave birth to a baby three months after she technically died. Then, there was a case of a skier who became submerged under freezing water for hours, but was revived and suffered no brain damage Doctors can also declare people dead if their heart stops beating and won’t start up again on its own. But hearts can sometimes be restarted after they stop beating, so the call is tricky. “The question is, how long does the heart have to stop beating before you can call someone dead?” Bernat said.Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can revive people many minutes after their heart stops beating, often with no lasting brain damage, so doctors should perform CPR for at least 38 minutes, a 2013 study presented at the American Heart Association meeting found. Doctors can issue a death certificate before that point, and often do if a patient has a do-not-resuscitate order. But sometimes, CPR is not performed for long enough. That raises the possibility that some revivable patients die when they didn’t have to
Me_Think_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 17
materialism does not presuppose that the laws of the universe should be the same everywhere in the universe. That is a Theistic presupposition. In fact, naturalism tries to find escape from the fine-tuning of the universe by postulating a multiverse with vastly different laws or that the laws may be vastly different in ‘unobservable’ parts of this universe, such as Susskind did in the following video
All laws of conservation are derived from rotational, translational and gauge symmetry (noether theorem/check QFT for gauge symmetry), so to say 'materialism' doesn't consider laws are same is wrong. Sussking is talking of Megaverses (and he explains he doesn't like the term 'multiverse' so he is using the term 'Megaverse' [to essentially mean the same thing])where laws may be different. If theism believes in multiverse but presupposes that the laws are same in multiverse, then they are most probably wrong, unless God fine tuned laws to be same in multiverse too.Me_Think_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

"Which one of the 100s of God create the universe? or was it a collaborative effort ?" Methinks , this is a question for religion and philosophy to handle, but more importantly the evidence is against materialism which makes it the odd man out , which makes the leg that atheism stands on collapse . Your question is your way of dodging the ridiculousness of atheism . Nice try at the dodge dude but that question only fools the rookies;) Oh and by the way what do you think of the aware study whete a patient was timed at having a veridical nde without a functioning brain . Opps sorry for bringing up such a sore subject for atheists like u :( My appologies, u can go back to your exciting dodgeball game ;)wallstreeter43_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Me-Think, materialism does not presuppose that the laws of the universe should be the same everywhere in the universe. That is a Theistic presupposition. In fact, naturalism tries to find escape from the fine-tuning of the universe by postulating a multiverse with vastly different laws or that the laws may be vastly different in 'unobservable' parts of this universe, such as Susskind did in the following video: Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3sbornagain77_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

ppolish @ 15
Unitarian Universalist would go for collaboration.... Examine the evidence and decide.
What evidence is there of collaboration by Gods ?Me_Think_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

"Which one of the 100s of God create the universe?" Unitarian Universalist would go for collaboration, MeThink. But your sarcasm can't mask the deepness of your question. The deepest human question right there. Examine the evidence and decide. Important decision maybe? Pay attention to timing.ppolish_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 13
“Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
Question was not about Rotational and Translational symmetry :-) - it was about which God created universe.Me_Think_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

“Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrowbornagain77_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Which one of the 100s of God create the universe? or was it a collaborative effort ?Me_Think_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

ppolish @10, I agree. Using the double negative "nothing can’t cause itself into existence" is appropriate and correct in this context.Mapou_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Mapou, nothing can cause itself into existence? I'd say nothing can't cause itself into existence. Nothing can't do anything, let alone something. But I think we mean the same thing:)ppolish_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

There is no doubt in my mind that the physical universe was created out of nothing. This is the only ontology of substance that does not lead to an infinite regress in answer to the question, what is physical substance A made of? Matter is made of nothing in the sense that the sum total of all energies and properties in the universe, both positive and negative, adds up to zero. It's a Yin-yang universe. This explains the symmetry we see in nature and the non-local conservation laws. But nothing can cause itself into existence. For that, you need something else, something that can be neither created nor destroyed. It must be something non-physical or rather, anti-physical, in the sense of being the opposite of physical.Mapou_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Axel "Stephen, I read recently that a strawberry had ‘emerged’ from a piece of cheese – although it was never part of the ingredients." Axel, the fun begins when you ask the neo-Darwinist if it could really happen. If they say no, they have tacitly agreed with us that something cannot come from nothing and that their materialistic emergence is nonsensical. If they say yes, onlookers will know how irrational they really are. So, they say something crazy, such as "We have no empirical evidence that any such thing has ever occurred"--as if the matter could be settled by interpreting evidence or evaluating data. They are afraid to say that anything is, in principle, impossible. It's a riot.StephenB_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

The Stoics must have been familiar with the Biblical Prophet's vision of a singular creation and an expanding universe. Today the Science supports the Biblical Prophet's vision, but there are still guys/gals in the "Something from "Nothing"" camp:)ppolish_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

'By contrast, neo-Darwinists knowingly reject the principle of causality and place their faith in the power of “emergence.”' Stephen, I read recently that a strawberry had 'emerged' from a piece of cheese - although it was never part of the ingredients. You may scoff, but at least it's zummit material 'emerging' from zummit material... and not mind from matter.Axel_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

That's atheist logic for ya. Let the magic show commence ;)wallstreeter43_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

As usual, Cornelius Hunter is right. I would, however, amend his theme in two ways: First, this is not really a scientific issue, it is a philosophical issue. You don't consult the evidence to find out that something cannot come from nothing. It is the one fact that make science possible. Evidence does not inform reason's rules; reason's rules inform evidence. Second, Dr. Hunter is, in a way, understating the case. At least the ancients had an excuse. Plato and Aristotle had not yet arrived on the scene to explain the laws of thought and causation. By contrast, neo-Darwinists knowingly reject the principle of causality and place their faith in the power of "emergence."StephenB_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

And if the universe were brought into being and exists for no reason whatsoever, as these atheists hold, exactly how is it possible for them to use their reasoning to conclude that there is no reason for their existence? You cannot both affirm and deny the existence of reason, i.e. the law of non-contradiction!
“One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) C.S. Lewis, Reason, and Naturalism: An Interview with Dr. Jay Richards - audio http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/12/cs_lewis_reason_and_naturalism.html Physicalism and Reason - May 2013 Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions: 1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect. 2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships. To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures. Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us? http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/09/physicalism-and-reason/ "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." CS Lewis – Mere Christianity "Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." - C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, p. 32
And as the old joke goes about the group of scientists telling God they don't need him anymore,,,
God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning." "Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God. "Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man." "Well, that's interesting. Show me." So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil. "Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."
As that old joke goes, I'm pretty sure the punch line to these atheists who are using their mathematical reasoning to prove they don't need God anymore would be "Get your own mathematics."
The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/ Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854 "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine." - Kurt Gödel An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
bornagain77_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: Relabelling a proposed primordial something as nothing again:
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
The issue is, that nothing -- non-being -- can have no causal powers, material, efficient, purposeful, whatever. So, if ever there were an utter nothing, nothing would forever obtain. This means, as there is something now, that something always was, independent of other things . . . a necessary being. The real issue is to identify and warrant which is best candidate. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Just one problem, to be your own cause you would have to exist before you existed........ oops.......Andre_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply