Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Krauss - a universe from nothing

Krauss - a universe from nothing

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Krauss - a universe from nothing Empty Krauss - a universe from nothing Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:34 pm



Krauss - a universe from nothing

Krauss: Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions of " how " is merely intellectually lazy.

Answer: Not at all. In the quest of origins, ALL possible mechanisms need to be scrutinized and put on the table and compared one to the other. In regard of origins, its an easy play. We have basically just TWO possible mechanisms to explain our origins: Either there was a conscious intelligent mind beyond the universe, or there was not.

John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

Any proposal falls in either one, or the other category. We cannot give us the luxury to brandmark the God hypothesis a priori " intellectually lazy ". Why ?!! Just because you don't like the idea, and try to poke holes in this possible option? The best methodology to make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of knowledge of operational and historical sciences, philosophy, and theism. Disposition to analyze the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is.  An unbiased starting point for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.

Krauss: When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, religion and theology have been at best irrelevant.

Answer: Religion, Philosophy, and theology ARE relevant when it comes to figure out quests of origins. And that includes the metaphysical question about the origin of the Universe. Science can at best explain us how things work, and up to a limited degree, how things MIGHT have come to be, but it cannot deal with questions beyond the observable universe.

Krauss: They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence.

The definition does not require much brainpower to be elaborated or defined: Nothing is simply the absence of any thing.  Wiki : Nothing is a concept denoting the absence of something, and is associated with nothingness. the state of nonexistence .

Krauss: Indeed, the immediate motivation for writing this book now is aprofound discovery about the universe that has driven my own scientific research for most of the past three decades and that has resulted in the startling conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, now inexplicable form permeating all of empty space. It is not an understatement to say that this discovery has changed the playing field of modern cosmology. For one thing, this discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing.

Answer: If we define nothing as the absence of anything, then the assertion that the universe arose from precisely nothing is hogwash and pure irrational nonsense. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no properties, not potentiality, it can't change the state of nothingness. That's OBVIOUS to any average intelligent mind.

Krauss: Guth realized that, as the universe itself cooled with the Big Bang expansion, the configuration of matter and radiation in the expanding universe might have gotten "stuck" in some metastable state for a while until ultimately, as the universe cooled further, this configuration then suddenly underwent a phase transition to the energetically preferred ground state of matter and radiation. The energy stored in the " false vacuum" configuration of the universe before the phase transition completed-the " latent heat" of the universe, if you will-could dramatically affect the expansion of the universe during the period before the transition. The false vacuum energy would behave just like that represented by a cosmological constant because it would act like an energy permeating empty space. This would cause the expansion of the universe at the time to speed up ever faster and faster. Eventually, what would become our observable universe would start to grow faster than the speed of light. This is allowed in general relativity, even though it seems to violate Einstein ' s special relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But one has to be like a lawyer and parse this a little more carefully. Special relativity says nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. But space itself can do whatever the heck it wants , at least in general relativity. And as space expands, it can carry distant obj ects, which are at rest in the space where they are sitting, apart from one another at superluminal speeds.

Answer: sounds smart, educated and sciency. But to be honest, i don't understand anything about this blaaaab.

Krauss: As I have described already, the laws of quantum mechanics imply that, on very small scales, for very short times, empty space can appear to be a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles and fields wildly
fluctuating in magnitude. These " quantum fluctuations" may be important for determining the character of protons and atoms, but generally they are invisible on larger scales, which is one of the reasons why they appear so unnatural to us . However, during inflation, these quantum fluctuations can determine when what would otherwise be different small regions of space end their period of exponential expansion. As different regions stop inflating at slightly (microscopically) different times, the density of matter and radiation that results when the false vacuum energy gets released as heat energy in these different regions is slightly different in each one. The pattern of density fluctuations that result after inflation arising, I should stress , from the quantum fluctuations in otherwise empty space-turns out to be precisely in agreement with the observed pattern of cold spots and hot spots on large
scales in the cosmic microwave background radiation. While consistency is not proof, of course, there is an increasing view among cosmologists that, once again, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

And if inflation indeed is responsible for all the small fluctuations in the density of matter and radiation that would later result in the gravitational collapse of matter into galaxies and stars and planets
and people, then it can be truly said that we all are here today because of quantum fluctuations in what is essentially nothing.

Answer: This is probably the essence or core assertion of the book, and essentialy makes as much sense as a quacking duck :=P .

Krauss: If we are all stardust, as I have written, it is also true , if inflation happened, that we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness. After all, in such a universe, space expands exponentially, so that if the density of energy remains the same, the total energy within any region will grow as the volume of the region grows . What happened to the conservation of energy? This is an example of something that Guth coined as the ultimate "free lunch. " Including the effects of gravity in thinking about the universe allows objects to have-amazingly -"negative " as well as " positive" energy. This facet of gravity allows for the possibility that positive energy stuff, like matter and radiation, can be complemented by negative energy configurations that just balance the energy of the created positive energy stuff. In so doing, gravity can start out with an empty universe-and end up with a filled one.

The net energy of the universe is zero

I have heard scientists say that if the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe need not have a cause of its beginning to exist because nothing really exists, so that we do not have the absurdity of something’s coming from nothing. This attempt to draw metaphysical implications from the zero net energy hypothesis is a bad joke. It’s like saying that if your debts and your assets exactly cancel each other out, so that your net worth is zero, then there is no cause of your current financial condition. The suggestion that nothing exists is absurd. Not only do I undeniably exist, but according to the hypothesis the positive and negative energy exist. So as Christopher Isham, Britain’s premier quantum cosmologist, points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” to create the positive and negative energy in the first place. "Net energy is zero" is what is called a construct. It's like "the average family with 2.4 children". It's not an actual object you can point to, but something you get when you run the calculations for positive and negative elements. Do you know what you have when you have positive and negative elements? Elements. That's not nothing, that's something. Something that 1) doesn't have to exist and 2) logically cannot exist eternally. So we're back to the same question. If non-physical causation is a non-starter for you, either offer an explanation that's physical that doesn't suffer from those problems of offer an explanation as to why non-physical explanations are so repulsive. for someone who does not have an a priori commitment to the Big Bang (and inflation theory), it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other. However, during the Big Bang, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced. It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form.

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem 
Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.

Krauss: The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing? " would be that "nothing" is unstable .


Krauss - a universe from nothing Nothin10

2Krauss - a universe from nothing Empty Re: Krauss - a universe from nothing Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:18 pm



Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe.

How the Universe came from "Nothing", Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss

And Dawkins, as his great friend,  swallows it as Sacro-Santo. Without making any objections. It would be funny, if not sad.

I mean, hey, that's irrational and absurd by all means.

Being can do something. Non-being cannot do something.
Something can do something. Nothing cannot do something.

Should be clear to anyone. But apparently, it isn't. Atheists ask me frequently to demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing.

Some foolish atheologists claim that we can know that inside the universe something cannot come from nothing, but outside the universe, we do not know the conditions.

Hey, it doesn't matter were, Nothing, and making it even more clear by defining it as ABSOLUTELY nothing, is the absence of being. ANYWHERE.

But even after many years, even today, atheists use Krauss arguments to defend the claim that the universe does not need a creator.

This video ridicules Krauss claims since it is deserved to be exposed, and since so many people actually parrot this nonsense, it has to be duly addressed.

Atheists claim to be on the rational high-ground, but this demonstrates that the contrary is the case.

Claim: The only thing worthy of ridicule is the strawman as the nothing Krauss talks about is not the same thing as nothing in a literal sense.
Reply: Krauss talks about an ABSOLUTE nothing, no space, no particles, no physical laws. The only meaning that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has is Nothing whatsoever. It is the opposite of Something, the opposite of being, the opposite of existence.  Nothing, Non-being, Non-existence. Krauss claims special pleading, by the attempt of giving an interpretation of nothing which actually becomes something. A quantum vacuum giving rise to quantum fluctuations is not nothing.   The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from? We are simply pushing  the issue of creation further back. Now it has to be explained how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into existence.

Why We Had to Change the Meaning of Nothing

Krauss: Nothing was never well defined anyway
Reply: There has never been doubt about the ontological meaning of nothing. It is the absence and contrary of something, being, existence

Krauss: The definition of the Bible is what we call empty space now. An eternal empty void.  
Reply: Nowhere does the Bible define nothing as empty space, or eternal empty void.

Krauss: I talk about the universe from nothing, I’m talking about a universe in which not only no particles, no radiation existed, but no space and no time existed in what is now our universe; all of that came into existence. 
Reply: What was the cause ?

Krauss: Now you can say well, did anything else exist? And I say well, that’s largely a semantic and maybe [a] useless question because it could be that there’s, it’s like, turtles all the way down
Reply: Thats actually the most relevant question. It could not be an infinite regress, otherwise, we would never reach this present moment in time. Why did Krauss not consider an eternal creator ?

Krauss: that there was other, that our universe arose out of a multiverse;
Reply:The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Krauss: or it could be that there was absolutely nothing—there was no space, no time, and space and time popped into existence.
Reply: That is the epitome of irrational nonsense. Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and can't do something. When the truth is dismissed, it is replaced with every kind of foolish claims.

What is so simple that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the human mind to contemplate or reflect on *absolutely nothing*. IMPOSSIBLE. You can only say what it IS NOT. So as soon as you say ANYTHING about it, (it is has properties...) you are stepping out of reality that the human mind is LOCKED into. To say anything positive about it is self refuting. This all equates that Krauss and all his fans are by default *absolutely detached* from reality. Only a real strong believer in evolution could be so insane.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum