Thursday, January 7, 2010

Is A Vacuum Nothing?

My dear friends in the atheist community continue to show their lack of understanding about what the word “Nothing” means.

In the comment section of my post "Worth Reading" I asked,

Why is it that, according to atheists, matter doesn't need a cause but God does?

Why is it that, according to atheists, matter can be eternal but God can't?

As an answer, I was asked, "Do Quantum fluctuations have a cause?"

I said, "Absolutely. They exist in something, come from something and return to something," which led to the question,

"Is a vacuum nothing?"

I think that question was asked seriously! As far as I could see, there wasn't any smiley face attached to it.

Backed into a corner and knowing it, atheist have grasped like a drowning man onto quantum mechanics as a means of refuting Big Bang cosmology which states that Everything came from Nothing without a Natural cause. (no natural cause because nothing natural existed)

Prior to this latest atheist origin of the universe mythology, there was the:

Oscillating universe -

Baby universes -

Multi verses -

The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -

The Chaotic Inflationary universe -

Brane-cosmology -

Inflationary multi-verse -

Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -

The many worlds hypothesis -

The black hole hypothesis -

Quantum gravity models -

Vacuum fluctuation models -

Each in turn has failed and failed miserably which necessitated the invention of the next mythology and the next and the next until we now have the QM mythology.

As even the dull of mind and slow of thought know, Everything coming from Nothing by Nothing is impossible.

Hence the rush to QM and the lack of understanding regarding -nothing.

Atheists have described the "nothing" from which the Big Bang arose as everything from “An intensely hot and dense speck” (They don’t say where the speck was), to a quantum event - that came out of “Nothing” to, today, the only electron in the universe. That last one sounds really plausible (snerk) if you ignore the fact that there weren't any electrons, not even one, and of course there was no universe in which that electron could have existed. Nevertheless, the atheist who said that the Big Bang was a Quantum Event says of his proposal, "I think the way I look at it has merit."

I'm no scientist but even I can see that his proposal is just as stupid as all the rest.

To be fair (who me?), atheists really are caught in a true dilemma. We know from science that from literally nothing, everything came. But how? The most logical conclusion is that "something" existed outside of matter, space and time and that "something" had to be the Cause of the universe. But when we begin to define what that Cause must have been like we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being or what we call God. And that of course is just not allowed in the atheist mind-set even if it meets the criteria for where the evidence is pointing. So what’s an atheist to do?

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being IN A VACUUM. The vacuum is not NOTHING. In fact it is a sea of fluctuating energy. The energy is endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.

Second, the vacuum in which QE's are studied is sparked BY A SCIENTIST. There is only one possible Being that could have existed prior to or outside of BB and it wasn’t a scientist.

Third, The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS. So much for the 14 billion year old universe being a Quantum Event.

Fourth, In the case of the big bang, there wasn't even a vacuum - THERE WAS NOTHING. No scientist, No particles - Nothing.

Fifth, As stated above, the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Sixth, While it’s well known that atheists as a group are easily confused, it is wrong to confuse causality with predictability. Just because the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes our inability to predict the location and speed of subatomic particles, i.e., where an electron will appear, that is not a case of an electron appearing out of nothing. You might be taken completely by surprise to find your aunt Zelda from Brussels (who you didn't even know existed) ringing your door-bell in Banff. It might be something that you would have NEVER predicted. But that doesn't mean she appeared out of nothing. In fact quantum theorists acknowledge that our very attempts to “observe” the speed and location of these particles makes them even more unpredictable to trace.

There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.

Finally, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. Reality is, the ongoing and ever increasing trend or pattern of evidence is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing.

Atheist physicist Victor Stenger tells us that the Big Bang is looking more probable all the time, “We have to leave open the possibility that [the Big Bang] could be wrong, but every year that goes by, and more astronomical data comes in, it’s more and more consistent with the general Big Bang picture.”
Cliff Walker, “An Interview with Particle Physicist Victor J. Stenger,” at http:www.positiveatheism.com/crt/stenger1.htm

“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural,”
Atheist astronomer Arthur Eddington, “The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan), 178

14 comments:

Zzzst said...

Greatest Conceivable Being?

LOL! I can conceive of a being greater than your god. Doesn't make it real.

atheist have grasped like a drowning man onto quantum mechanics as a means of refuting Big Bang cosmology

Quantum mechanics doesn't refute inflationary cosmology. Why would you even think that?

I'm no scientist but even I can see that his proposal is just as stupid as all the rest.

Let me highlight the relevant part of this quote:
I'm no scientist...

Of course, you aren't. You fill every 'gap' in knowledge with your god. There a name for that. It's called 'God of the Gaps.'

Ginx said...

There is a chance that if you post just one more time about how God created life, I'll abandon my heathen ways and walk besides Christ. It is a non-zero probability, roughly equal to the chance of God's existence.

Anonymous said...

Shit, what a mess. Did you even stop to think about what you're saying?

Check this out:
The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS. So much for the 14 billion year old universe being a Quantum Event.

{face palm}

You're unaware of the latest physics, aren't you? QM is the core of Inf. theory. How much did you drink before you vomited out that mess?

Don't bother accusing me of being an atheist. I'm not.

~Tim. L.

Tim L. said...

Sorry, I just realized it's more likely you were mocking scientists by typing gobbledygook.
You have to make it more clear you're joking, people might take it seriously.

Makarios said...

Z - "Greatest Conceivable Being?"

New term? Never studied philosophy, huh?
===============

Ginx - "There is a chance"

That's all I live for my friend. Every day I rise with the hope that perhaps today will be the day that Ginx accepts the Lord Jesus as his personal Saviour :-).

And one day, when you and I walk arm and arm through the gates of heaven I will proudly proclaim, "It was my insults that brought this wretch to salvation."
=============

"Don't bother accusing me of being an atheist. I'm not."

Sorry, I appear to have slipped into judging atheist / not atheist depending on how dumb a person sounds and going by your one electron information theory, I just assumed you must be an atheist.

Don't worry. It will be another good mythology to add to the long, long list of failed atheist origin of the universe mythologies.
===========

Tim L - So, how does it feel to be out of the closet? You sound kind of naked.

Zzzst said...

New term? Never studied philosophy, huh?

The ontological argument.
And what I think about it.

Zzzst said...

So what made you think quantum mechanics was an attempt to refute inflationary cosmology?
Why did you even think that?

Ginx said...

I'm walking arm in arm with someone who calls me a wretch?Maybe in your heaven.

In my heaven, we don't have to walk anymore.

Makarios said...

Ginx: “I'm walking arm in arm with someone who calls me a wretch?”

Ah, my bad. I forgot that atheists have to believe themselves to be good people.
=============

Z - “So what made you think quantum mechanics was an attempt to refute inflationary cosmology?”

QM is the new atheist messiah in the hope that it can refute Big Bang Cosmology which says that

Everything, came from NOTHING by Nothing. "By nothing" because nothing natural existed.

QM of course is maintaining that there WAS something because QE’s require “something” to be taking place within a vacuum which, as Ginx could now tell you, is not nothing.
================

So if you know about the ontological argument, why say something so silly as, “I can conceive of a being greater than your god.” If you could think of something greater than the Being that I call God, then THAT would be the Greatest Conceivable Being / God.

Zzzst said...

"QM is the new atheist messiah in the hope that it can refute Big Bang Cosmology which says that..."

..um what?

Davies, in his simple to understand, entry level text:
If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.

Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.

Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific
.
---------------

So if you know about the ontological argument, why say something so silly as, “I can conceive of a being greater than your god.” If you could think of something greater than the Being that I call God, then THAT would be the Greatest Conceivable Being / God.

I can conceive of a being greater than YHWH*. Makes my imaginary being as real as your imaginary being.

--------------------
*Now I know why other people use your gods name. Yahweh, Jahweh or Jehovah.

Ginx said...

I don't care if you call me a wretch. I just can't believe you think you have to walk in heaven.

Anonymous said...

This is important: People searching tend to use for publicity.
Matt Cutts or search engine optimization correctly.
Use anchor text in your social media sites. They want to be a aspect of
the discussions that are already occurring about your market and/or organization.
What constitutes relevance This isn't to say that matt cutts marketing is arguably more effective than the EP equipments and is not affected by Googles algorithm updates.

Look at my web-site :: seo help

Anonymous said...

The patterns of HRV differences suggested blunting of sympathetic nervous
system reactions among boys in the high-exposure group.
Will the dragon ball z crysisi 2 released on earlier game
consoles such as Microsoft Corp's Xbox or Sony Corp's Play Station.


Here is my homepage - metel gear solid 4

Anonymous said...

The Blackhawks 18-0-3 have won eight straight overall and
haven't been beaten in regulation time in 27 build your own video game, dating to a loss on March 25, 2012, to Nashville.

Review my blog; web site