Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing

[Rose]

Here is a link to a recent interview with Lawrence Krauss, where he gives a good introduction to what he means by the statement "A Universe from nothing". If the total positive and negative energy of the universe is equal to zero (nothing) then in a sense the universe (something) is made from nothing...and he doesn't even have to posit god.

Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing (http://ww3.tvo.org/video/192980/lawrence-krauss-universe-nothing)

[Gambini]

Here is a link to a recent interview with Lawrence Krauss, where he gives a good introduction to what he means by the statement "A Universe from nothing". If the total positive and negative energy of the universe is equal to zero (nothing) then in a sense the universe (something) is made from nothing...and he doesn't even have to posit god.

Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing (http://ww3.tvo.org/video/192980/lawrence-krauss-universe-nothing)

Rose, this is a bogus argument. The fact that the universal sum of the total positive/negative energy equals zero only means that the universe is energetically balanced with flawless precision. That's it. Krauss is simply playing with words.

Btw, do you realize that virtually every top physicist today actually GRANTS that God exists? The catch is that the nontheistic physicists call him "the laws of nature". Check out Hawkings argument ... He claims that ALL (even the imaginary multiverse) time, space, matter and energy was LITERALLY created from nothing. Now get this ... He claims there is an IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING REALITY that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of all physical reality. He calls it the "laws of nature", which is completely ridiculous because the "laws of nature" are nothing more than a DESCRIPTION of the functionality of the universe! So this IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING reality that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of the universe CAN'T be the "laws of nature". The laws of nature coexists with nature BY DEFINITION (that's why they are called laws OF nature).

Jesus is God.

Btw, tell Richard I have a few responses to him I need to get to when I get a chance. Happy 4th.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, this is a bogus argument. The fact that the universal sum of the total positive/negative energy equals zero only means that the universe is energetically balanced with flawless precision. That's it. Krauss is simply playing with words.

Not true. The fact that the total energy is zero means that it requires no energy outside the system to create the universe. Therefore, there is no need for a God to create the energy.



Btw, do you realize that virtually every top physicist today actually GRANTS that God exists? The catch is that the nontheistic physicists call him "the laws of nature". Check out Hawkings argument ... He claims that ALL (even the imaginary multiverse) time, space, matter and energy was LITERALLY created from nothing. Now get this ... He claims there is an IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING REALITY that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of all physical reality. He calls it the "laws of nature", which is completely ridiculous because the "laws of nature" are nothing more than a DESCRIPTION of the functionality of the universe! So this IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING reality that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of the universe CAN'T be the "laws of nature". The laws of nature coexists with nature BY DEFINITION (that's why they are called laws OF nature).

Jesus is God.

Btw, tell Richard I have a few responses to him I need to get to when I get a chance. Happy 4th.
Eternally existing laws of nature are nothing like theism which posits God as a personal agent who goes about "doing things." A timeless being cannot be an agent. If God is unchanging then he could not change from a state of "not having created a universe" to a state of "having created a universe." Therefore, your theology is logically incoherent. A timeless being may be like the laws of nature, but nothing like any person who could do anything at all.

I look forward to those responses. The ball has been in your court for quite a while now.

[David M]

This argument seems to be based on whether there is negative and positive, the sum of which balance to zero.

Is the total sum of positive and negative charge equal to zero? Is every positive charge equal and opposite to every negative charge?

Is there positive mass and is there negative mass (is this the same as anti-matter?)? Some particles are described as having charge, but no mass (not negative mass).

Who says something came out of nothing?

Here is some speculation:

If we assume Einstein was correct and mass converts to energy, then in the beginning, we have a source of raw energy which was converted into mass. We can say that energy comes from God. God's energy is in everything in the Universe and there is energy in reserve, which we know nothing about. Yet God adds his energy every time he performs miracles like healing someone or parting the Red Sea. What does raw energy look like and consist of and how does God channel his energy? This is likely to be the mystery man will not solve. Maybe this Universe is a bubble within raw energy and the Universe is surrounded by raw energy. Maybe the Universe is the seeding of raw energy like a vapour trail is seeded when water, which is in the form of vapour condenses as water droplets when a particle passes through the water vapour. Maybe the seeding process can be thought of as the "Word" which when spoken tapped into the raw energy and matter was created.

God's energy is in everything. The only place God does not reside and is excluded is inside the mind of man. For those people without God in their minds, there should be a sign on their foreheads saying; "Vacancy". Instead, they probably carry another mark; the sign of the beast.

Only when the believers who are saved and in the Kingdom of God and their minds are not vacant, but have God in them, shall God be "all and in all"


David

[Gambini]

"The fact that the total energy is zero means that it requires no energy outside the system to create the universe"

That's like saying the fact that there is a perfect balance between positive and negative energy in the universe means the universe doesn't exist! If SOMETHING exists (the universe), and it has an origin, then it logically requires an outside source for its coming into being (regardless of whether it is perfectly balanced between positive/negative energy).


"Eternally existing laws of nature are nothing like theism"

But that's the point ... I'm saying Hawking is being dishonest when he calls this IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING REALITY the "laws of nature". So he's GRANTING an immaterial, omnipresent, eternally existing reality that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of all physical reality but wants to call this ultimate reality the "laws of nature", when the laws of nature COEXIST with nature, not without it.

Anyways, I'll leave at that for now. I need to get back to that bible wheel discussion we were having a while back. I actually feel I've already made my case in that discussion but there's one thing I forgot to bring up. I'll see you there good sir (as soon as i find it).

GAMBINI is not God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"The fact that the total energy is zero means that it requires no energy outside the system to create the universe"

That's like saying the fact that there is a perfect balance between positive and negative energy in the universe means the universe doesn't exist! If SOMETHING exists (the universe), and it has an origin, then it logically requires an outside source for its coming into being (regardless of whether it is perfectly balanced between positive/negative energy).

Your comment is mixing up different issues. At first you were talking about energy. Now you are talking about the "origin of the universe." The universe as a whole did not necessarily have a beginning. The Big Bang theory only applies to this little part of the universe that we can observe. And there is a great irony in a Christian appealing to the Big Bang as ABSOLUTE PROOF that the universe had a beginning since they typically reject the science of evolution which has at least as much evidence supporting it. This shows that you pick and choose which is a logical fallacy that proves you are biased.

Your arguments are filled with ludicrous absurdities which few if any serious philosopher would assert. For example, we don't have a unified theory of quantum gravity, so we can't say anything about what happened when the universe was near the singularity. It seems like that space is quantized and so a true singularity would be impossible and symmetry implies that the universe should collapse, redistribute the energy uniformly to maximize entropy, and reexpand producing a second universe.

The simple fact is that you are deceiving yourself making up ludicrous pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-scientific arguments to support your pre-conceived belief in a book written by ignorant war tribes following their tribal war god who demanded the murder of ever man, woman, and child except for 32,000 sexy virgins who were then distributed to the people the murdered every person they ever loved.



"Eternally existing laws of nature are nothing like theism"

But that's the point ... I'm saying Hawking is being dishonest when he calls this IMMATERIAL, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNALLY EXISTING REALITY the "laws of nature". So he's GRANTING an immaterial, omnipresent, eternally existing reality that is responsible for the creation ex nihilo of all physical reality but wants to call this ultimate reality the "laws of nature", when the laws of nature COEXIST with nature, not without it.

There is nothing "dishonest" in saying that "nature" includes the "laws of nature".

And you ignored all the points that show you concept of God as "eternal" and "unchanging" are logically incoherent. Such a "God" could not "do" anything, let alone create a universe.



Anyways, I'll leave at that for now. I need to get back to that bible wheel discussion we were having a while back. I actually feel I've already made my case in that discussion but there's one thing I forgot to bring up. I'll see you there good sir (as soon as i find it).

I look forward to that. But please, don't jump to conclusions. I have a vivid memory of succinctly and conclusively demonstrating your errors. That's why I enjoy your posts.



GAMBINI is not God.
Hey! We agree about something! :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This argument seems to be based on whether there is negative and positive, the sum of which balance to zero.

Is the total sum of positive and negative charge equal to zero? Is every positive charge equal and opposite to every negative charge?

Is there positive mass and is there negative mass (is this the same as anti-matter?)? Some particles are described as having charge, but no mass (not negative mass).

As Kraus explained in the video, energy can be positive or negative. Gravitational energy is negative, while most other energy is positive. The fact that the total energy may be zero means that the universe could evolve naturally from "nothing" - a state where there is zero energy and zero matter - into the universe as we know it.

There also are particles and anti-particles. Particle/antiparticle pairs are created by high energy collisions of other particles or they can spontaneously appear for brief moments out of the quantum vacuum. This is called a quantum fluctuation. The lifetime of the particle/antiparticle pairs is governed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applied to the complimentary observables energy and time: dE x dT < h where dE is the total energy of the particle/antiparticle pair. This limits how long the particles can live according to how much energy they have. The more energy, the shorter their lifetime. This idea is then applied to the universe as a whole, which can be seen as a "quantum fluctuation" not unlike the creation of particle/antiparticle pairs, only in this case we need not worry about dT because the total energy (dE) is actually zero.



Who says something came out of nothing?

Here is some speculation:

If we assume Einstein was correct and mass converts to energy, then in the beginning, we have a source of raw energy which was converted into mass. We can say that energy comes from God. God's energy is in everything in the Universe and there is energy in reserve, which we know nothing about. Yet God adds his energy every time he performs miracles like healing someone or parting the Red Sea. What does raw energy look like and consist of and how does God channel his energy? This is likely to be the mystery man will not solve. Maybe this Universe is a bubble within raw energy and the Universe is surrounded by raw energy. Maybe the Universe is the seeding of raw energy like a vapour trail is seeded when water, which is in the form of vapour condenses as water droplets when a particle passes through the water vapour. Maybe the seeding process can be thought of as the "Word" which when spoken tapped into the raw energy and matter was created.

God's energy is in everything. The only place God does not reside and is excluded is inside the mind of man. For those people without God in their minds, there should be a sign on their foreheads saying; "Vacancy". Instead, they probably carry another mark; the sign of the beast.

Only when the believers who are saved and in the Kingdom of God and their minds are not vacant, but have God in them, shall God be "all and in all"


David

That's a fine speculation. But if the total energy of the universe is zero there is no need for God.

I have often thought that the analogy of God as light is a good one. Light is timeless in the sense that if you could travel at the speed of light you would not experience any time traveling from one point in space-time to another. And light never stops - its a kind of "perpetual motion." There are lots of good analogies between God and light. But in general, the concept of God as a personal agent who goes about doing things doesn't make any sense to me since only finite beings could act in response to finite things (as parts of a whole).

And more to the point - all the God talk sounds great so long as you are freely speculating about the way things actually seem to make sense to you. But as soon as folks start talking about the Bible God it goes sour fast. Folks have to start saying things that make no sense at all, like "You have to believe that a Jewish carpenter died for your sins" when the concept of of "sin" is found to be that God is hung up about silly things like sex and food and stupid rituals like picking up sticks on Saturday! It's all very childish from my perspective.

But it's a great topic. I'd like to pursue what people REALLY think God would REALLY be like. I can't see anything in the supposed "Gospel" that sounds like what the real God would be like.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Gambini]

"The universe as a whole did not necessarily have a beginning"

Sure it did. There isn't a SINGLE eternal big bang model that either doesn't escape the BVG theorem OR that isn't plagued with other problems. That's why nontheistic physicists like Hawking are left with the ridiculous notion that we can have laws OF nature WITHOUT nature.

"And there is a great irony in a Christian appealing to the Big Bang as ABSOLUTE PROOF that the universe had a beginning since they typically reject the science of evolution"

This is a bold faced LIE. The HUGE majority of Christians believe that God used the process of evolution to bring about man. And the big bang ITSELF was first theorized by a Catholic priest (not to mention the fact that virtually every single scientific field of study was originated by Christian theists). And nobody said anything about "absolute proof". We're talking about EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE for a finite universe is GREATER than the EVIDENCE for an eternal universe. Hence, it is more RATIONAL to believe the universe began to exist than it is to believe it is eternal.

"Who demanded the murder of every man, woman, and child except for 32,000 sexy virgins"

One thing I can always count on with you is you changing the subject. Always trying to pepper your posts with side issues. This is the very reason why our posts eventually end up snowballing to huge texts. The Christian God FOREKNOWS who will ultimately reject him. So as the rightful judge of man, he has the divine right to bring any of us to task for our ultimate rejection of God at any point REGARDLESS of our biological age. Anyone whom God has ever killed (or ordered the killing of) was FOREKNOWN by God to be wicked and anyone who was spared by God's command was FOREKNOWN by God to be of the righteous. The biblical record of God moving to punish the wicked serves as a foreshadow of the eventual doom of all of the wicked.

"There is nothing "dishonest" in saying that "nature" includes the "laws of nature"."

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING! Hawking is claiming that the laws OF nature can exist WITHOUT nature. THAT is what is dishonest.

"And you ignored all the points that show your concept of God as "eternal" and "unchanging" are logically incoherent"

I kind of just chuckled when I read that because I could have sworn I already explained that to you once before. The creation of something OUTSIDE of God is a change OUTSIDE of God, not a change in his character. God's character and divine attributes are unchanging. I don't deny that once God brings a temporal realm into being, he himself (though not his character or divine attributes) "changes" from an atemporal state to a temporal state, so as to relate to the temporal state that he brings into being. How can an eternally static state change into a temporal state? Why don't you ask Hawking that since HE BELIEVES THE EXACT SAME THING! The only difference is that I have the temporal state being produced by a sentient state whereas he has the temporal state being produced from a nonsentient state.

The evidence for the beginning of the universe ITSELF is evidence that our temporal state originated from an atemporal state. So you're in the same boat as me and Hawking. And the idea of atemporal causality isn't exactly a foreign concept. There are examples of cause/effect relationships all over the place where the cause and the effect are present simultaneously. Lastly, the argument that a temporal realm cannot be produced from an atemporal realm (or that an atemporal being cannot "do anything") is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Quantum mechanics tells us that every atom in the universe somehow "knows" where every other atom in the universe is located! We live in a mind boggling universe. So what makes you think the SOURCE of the universe isn't even MORE mind boggling???

You might say "well, isn't the idea of SELF creation ex nihilo being logically impossible ITSELF an argument from personal incredulity?". The answer is no. Quantum mechanics shows us that THINGS THAT EXIST can have seemingly bizarre attributes. It says nothing about things that don't exist. "Nothingness" BY DEFINITION cannot do anything because it doesn't exist! Furthermore, nothingness has no properties by which it can be constrained by anything. So why don't we see pink zebras or three headed elephants just pop out of nowhere? You can't constraint "nothingness"! So the idea that nothing can produce or do anything is logically absurd.

Richard is NOT God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"The universe as a whole did not necessarily have a beginning"

Sure it did. There isn't a SINGLE eternal big bang model that either doesn't escape the BVG theorem OR that isn't plagued with other problems. That's why nontheistic physicists like Hawking are left with the ridiculous notion that we can have laws OF nature WITHOUT nature.

Dude, don't pretend that you understand the BVG theorem. Your comments are absurd. If you want to discuss it with me, you need to get yourself informed by reading up on the topic. A good place to start would be this refutation of Craig's misrepresentation (http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/10/how-william-lane-craig-misrepresents.html) of that theorem. Your comments indicate that you are merely parroting misrepresentations (and lies) you have heard from Christian apologists (most likely the preposterous pseudo-philosopher William Lane Craig).

And if you want to push your idea that "natural laws without nature" is some sort of absurdity being argued by leading physicists, you will have to provide a full quote. Your confused assertions make no sense so I doubt that they accurately represent anything a published physicist has written.

And why are you trying to prove that some abstract "creator" exists anyway? I don't deny that as a possibility. The thing you don't understand is that even if you could prove that there is a Creator, you could never prove it was the God of the Bible because that is a logical, theological, and scientific impossibility. It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God - we know it was not the God of the Bible. You are making the same kind of error as when apologists like William Lane Craig try to prove the existence of God by saying there would be no morality if there were no God. Even if his argument were true (which is most certainly is not) it would only prove that his god is not the true God because of the many moral abominations to Yahweh in the Bible. This is why Christian apologetics is truly a theater of the absurd. If you want to see how pathetic it can get, watch the debate between atheist Hector Avalos and evangelist Keith Darrel which I posted in a thread called Hector Avalos debates Keith Darrel: Is the Bible a Moral Code for Today? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today). It's as hilarious as it is revealing of the gross hypocrisy of many Christian apologists. Only the ATHEIST in the debate can declare that genocide is a moral abomination. The Christian cannot because God commanded it in the Bible. I invite you to participate in that thread if you dare.



"And there is a great irony in a Christian appealing to the Big Bang as ABSOLUTE PROOF that the universe had a beginning since they typically reject the science of evolution"

This is a bold faced LIE. The HUGE majority of Christians believe that God used the process of evolution to bring about man. And the big bang ITSELF was first theorized by a Catholic priest (not to mention the fact that virtually every single scientific field of study was originated by Christian theists). And nobody said anything about "absolute proof". We're talking about EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE for a finite universe is GREATER than the EVIDENCE for an eternal universe. Hence, it is more RATIONAL to believe the universe began to exist than it is to believe it is eternal.

It was no lie. At worst, I simply was not sufficiently specific about the identity of the apologists of whom I spoke. Everyone knows that there are old earth creationists who accept theistic evolution, like the raving lunatic Hugh Ross (see my devastating refutation of his absurd assertions in my post 2000 Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/29/2000-reasons-to-believe-hugh-ross-might-be-wrong/)). And most people know that the Catholics have accepted the evidence for evolution, and mainstream (liberal) churches are more receptive to it. It should have been obvious I was not talking about those apologists, since they are not trying to prove the Bible true! DUH! I was obviously talking about the rank fools who try to defend the Bible as "God's inerrant and infallible Word." At best you could argue that I overstated my case and was not sufficiently specific. The fact that you are so willing to accuse me of lying without even checking to see if I accidentally misspoke or was speaking of some specific subgroup (such as fundamentalists, which I was) reveals much concerning your character.

Your assertion that the "HUGE majority of Christians believe that God used the process of evolution to bring about man" is false. It begins to approach reality only if you include Catholics and mainstream Protestants. It directly contradicts the facts if you are talking about evangelicals and fundamentalists, of whom this Pew poll says (http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/) that "A majority (57%) of white evangelical Protestants hold the view that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." Of course, the Catholics also believe a lot of crap that I presume you reject (such as Trent's declaration that those who don't accept the apocrypha are anathema) and neither they nor their liberal mainstream Protestants hold to Biblical infallibility much if at all. So you need to clarify your position. But it doesn't matter anyway since my statement stands. The "Christians" I was talking about most definitely have a habit of rejecting science in favor of unfounded religious dogmas.

And no, we are not talking about "evidence". We both know that you are not actually pursuing truth at all. You are simply trying to find "evidence" that fits your preconceptions. Nothing could be more obvious. I've seen the same thing in nearly every Christian apologist I have ever encountered. Read my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/) if you want to see how bad it really is. You are totally biased towards your religious beliefs which are not founded in any way at all on the evidence. If you had any concern for truth and evidence you would at least be able to discuss the reality of the problems in the Bible. You would not be so arrogant about your certainty that you have proof for your faith. You would know that good, sane, and rational people see that the Bible is filled with gross irrationalities, contradictions, errors, and moral abominations attributed to God.



"Who demanded the murder of every man, woman, and child except for 32,000 sexy virgins"

One thing I can always count on with you is you changing the subject. Always trying to pepper your posts with side issues. This is the very reason why our posts eventually end up snowballing to huge texts. The Christian God FOREKNOWS who will ultimately reject him. So as the rightful judge of man, he has the divine right to bring any of us to task for our ultimate rejection of God at any point REGARDLESS of our biological age. Anyone whom God has ever killed (or ordered the killing of) was FOREKNOWN by God to be wicked and anyone who was spared by God's command was FOREKNOWN by God to be of the righteous. The biblical record of God moving to punish the wicked serves as a foreshadow of the eventual doom of all of the wicked.

It's not a "change" of topic at all. It is a primary reason why no rational person could believe that Yahweh is the true God even if you proved that a God exists. Neither you nor any Christian can fix this problem with the Bible. I've read all the major attempts and they are worse than abysmal. They prove that Christian apologetics, of the kind practiced by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan (who are trumpeted as two of the greatest apologists), is an abyss of absurdity not worthy of any rational man, let alone the true God. Take a look at my refutation called Why Most Animals are Not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/18/why-animals-are-not-moral-agents-fatal-flaws-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/) if you wonder why I have come to such a conclusion.

Your attempt to justify God's genocide is based on Arminian theology and it seems to directly contradict many Biblical passages. The Bible teaches that everyone is a sinner and "there is none that seeketh after God." Therefore, it is logically impossible for anyone to "choose God" - you can't choose something you are rejecting. The Bible teaches that you were an ENEMY of God when God saved you from your own wicked self. But you deny all that and say that God looked and saw what a wonderful little sinner you were, so much better than all those other sinners who reject him. Your doctrine is pure pride that contradicts everything in the Bible. That's why the Reformers rejected it. Don't you know anything of Reformed theology? The Bible teaches that all are dead in trespasses and sins and there is nothing that anyone can do to get themselves saved. The only reason anyone gets saved is because God ELECTED them "before the foundation of the world." And you say "Sure! He elected them because he looked into the future and saw that they were SUCH WONDERFUL LOVELY GOOD little sinners THAT THEY WOULD STOP REJECTING GOD AND REPENT FROM THE GOODNESS OF THEIR OWN PURE HEARTS." That's not what the Bible teaches. Nobody elects themselves to salvation. God does not elect anyone according to what one does or what one would do if they lived long enough! The Bible plainly states that God chooses for his own purposes, and NOT according to what anyone did or would do.
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

And your teaching is inconsistent with many other aspects of the Bible.



"There is nothing "dishonest" in saying that "nature" includes the "laws of nature"."

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING! Hawking is claiming that the laws OF nature can exist WITHOUT nature. THAT is what is dishonest.

Please provide the exact quote. Your words do not sound like something Hawking would say.



"And you ignored all the points that show your concept of God as "eternal" and "unchanging" are logically incoherent"

I kind of just chuckled when I read that because I could have sworn I already explained that to you once before. The creation of something OUTSIDE of God is a change OUTSIDE of God, not a change in his character. God's character and divine attributes are unchanging. I don't deny that once God brings a temporal realm into being, he himself (though not his character or divine attributes) "changes" from an atemporal state to a temporal state, so as to relate to the temporal state that he brings into being. How can an eternally static state change into a temporal state? Why don't you ask Hawking that since HE BELIEVES THE EXACT SAME THING! The only difference is that I have the temporal state being produced by a sentient state whereas he has the temporal state being produced from a nonsentient state.

Perhaps your "chuckling" has rattled your brains. Before creation of the universe, there was "nothing outside of God" so you argument is illogical.

But now I see that you are not holding to orthodox theology. You believe God changes. If that's the case, then my argument does not apply to you and your rejection of it is foolish since it does not contradict anything you believe.

So in what ways can God change? Can God learn? If so, then he is not omniscient. Can God make a choice? If so, then he is not omniscient, because omniscience implies there never was a time he didn't know what he would do so he never had a chance to make any choices and so is not anything like a person who can choose to do one thing rather than another. What then determines what God will do? Nothing - God is like a brute fact - like the "laws of nature" - that is totally determined by his own being and so has no freedom of any kind. He could not choose to not create any more than he could choose to create. He is COMPELLED by his own nature, like a deterministic robot. He could not choose not to Flood the earth. He could not choose ANYTHING! He is like a brute fact with no freedom of any kind. Such are the consequences of your theology. I trust your brains are really rattling now with all your compulsive chuckling.



The evidence for the beginning of the universe ITSELF is evidence that our temporal state originated from an atemporal state.

It is absurd to trust speculative cosmological science, which is less than a hundred years old, as giving anything like conclusive answers that would support a claim like that. There is much we have to learn, and the concept of time having a beginning is fraught with intellectual and philosophical difficulties. And again, it proves nothing since a "Creator" could not create if there were not time because all acts can only occur within time. Therefore, you whole argument is self-contradictory and necessarily false.



So you're in the same boat as me and Hawking. And the idea of atemporal causality isn't exactly a foreign concept. There are examples of cause/effect relationships all over the place where the cause and the effect are present simultaneously.

Great! By that argument, the unverse could be an example "where the cause and the effect are present simultaneously." And besides that, your assertion that the "law of causality" applies to the universe as a whole is not well founded at all. The Kalam argument is pure foolishness that says "Anything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." That assertion cannot be applied when there is no time, because nothing can "begin to exist" if there is not already time. This is because there canont be a "first moment" any more than there can be a "smallest number greater than zero."



Lastly, the argument that a temporal realm cannot be produced from an atemporal realm (or that an atemporal being cannot "do anything") is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

False. It is an argument form pure logic. By definition, actions entail change and change can only occur in time. If there is no time there can be no change.

I am constantly amazed at how many Christians are mimicking empty headed pseudo-fallicies like "argument from incredulity." It is particularly hilarious because that is Craig's only support for his Moral Argument for God! All he ever says is "It's hard to see how there could be real moral values without God." He never gives any reason. He just asserts it. Pure argument from incredulity.



Quantum mechanics tells us that every atom in the universe somehow "knows" where every other atom in the universe is located! We live in a mind boggling universe. So what makes you think the SOURCE of the universe isn't even MORE mind boggling???

I have no reason to doubt that the source of the universe is as mind-boggling as the universe itself. And what would be one of the most mind boggling thing about the universe? If it were its own source! Why do you reject that? Because it's not what you want to believe.



You might say "well, isn't the idea of SELF creation ex nihilo being logically impossible ITSELF an argument from personal incredulity?". The answer is no. Quantum mechanics shows us that THINGS THAT EXIST can have seemingly bizarre attributes. It says nothing about things that don't exist. "Nothingness" BY DEFINITION cannot do anything because it doesn't exist! Furthermore, nothingness has no properties by which it can be constrained by anything. So why don't we see pink zebras or three headed elephants just pop out of nowhere? You can't constraint "nothingness"! So the idea that nothing can produce or do anything is logically absurd.

Philosophers have confused themselves for centuries over the meaning of the word "nothingness." It may be that the concept is logically incoherent.

In any case, weaving words about the meaning of nothingness is not likely to convince anyone but those who already believe.



Richard is NOT God.
Mere assertion. You can't prove that I'm not.