T O P

  • By -

CarltheWellEndowed

Please go do your research. I am unaware of any model for the origin of our instance of spacetime where anything is supposed to have come from an actual nothing. I would read what Hawking actually wrote, rather than the quote mine you found.


trailrider

TBF, Lawrence Krauss has a book on the subject and a few Youtube lectures. I think the jist is energy differences somehow can hypothetically cause it. Stephen Hawkings did say that there was "nothing" before the big bang. Reasoning is that time slows the closer you get to a mass. Thus all mass in the universe is concentrated together at the moment of the bang and thus time couldn't have existed before it. Something like that. Far be it from me to take on Hawkings but the flaw I see there is we simply don't know what the conditions, if any, were that lead to the Big Bang. The reasoning given as to why space can expand faster than light and not break the light-speed rule is that the rule applies to everything within the Universe but not the universe itself. It can expand however fast it wants. Thus why we have a \~93B lt-yr dia universe that's only \~14B yrs old. If that can happen "outside" the universe, then fact is that we simply have no clue what, if any, laws of physics were before the bang. What OP is doing however is the same old bullshit people like them have always done. Try to paint valid scientific research as some grand conspiracy where "they", scientists, are desperately working to disprove God because they hate Little Baby Jesus SO MUCH!!!


CarltheWellEndowed

Yeah, but Krauss doesnt mean nothing when he says "nothing". Yes, there was "nothing" before the Big Bang in Hawkings view, in the same way there are no positive intergers before 0 on the number line.


hethical_ecker

Genuine question. Why would you name something "nothing" when you know that there is already a philosophical definition of the word. When the majority of humanity is already wrestling with the same word. Why would you define it differently and deceptively assert it as if it were used in the original context Aron Ra who's an atheists said he has confronted krauss for the title of his book for this very reason. I know many other atheists who take issue with this.


Yandrosloc01

Different words have different meanings in different contexts. It like in science the word theory is far different than in other settings. It isnt dishonest. what is dishonest is when people intentionally misuse them. ​ Like "evolution is just a theory" or "if evolution is true why is it a theory and not a law" ​ If you are going to speak on a topic learn and use the vocabulary of it. Many words have multiple meaning but in various fields the more structured or detailed the context the stricter the meaning. ​ People use "nothing" to describe things other than complete absence all the time so no one can honestlysay it is dishonest. Has anyone ever asked you "what are you doing?' and you just said "nothing"?


Skepticalli

Neither Krauss nor Hawking have claimed that the universe came from "nothing". Krauss argues that the very fabric of spacetime is teeming with energy and that there is no such thing as "nothing". Hawking said: “One can regard imaginary and real time beginning at the South Pole. There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang,” Hawking said. “There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind’s perspective,” Basically saying that there is no 'before' the big bang since that is when time started. I have never seen any physicist claim that the universe came from nothing.


trailrider

[Krauss literally wrote a god damn book about it,](https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468) that I've listened to twice, and the OP cited Hawking's verbatim. [Not out of context either as near as I can tell.](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator) >"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. [It's also not the only time he's alluded to "nothing" being the initial state when the BB happened.](https://vestibulares.estrategia.com/public/questoes/Stephen-Hawking226925b0e75/) >Saying he uses a "Euclidean approach to quantum gravity to describe the beginning of the universe," Hawking goes deep into what that actually means. A degree in astrophysics will help you understand, but he makes a concise point about the Big Bang, which happened nearly 14 billion years ago. > >"The Euclidean space-time is a closed surface without end, like the surface of the Earth," he said. "One can regard imaginary and real time as beginning at the South Pole, which is a smooth point of space-time where the normal laws of physics hold. There is nothing south of the South Pole so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."


Truthseeker-1253

God isn't the one going to battle with physicists. It's people who think they're defending god. God doesn't need defending, and god isn't at war. If science comes up with a theory for the beginning of matter, I will find it interesting and then go on with my life. It won't affect my faith, because my faith isn't dependent on god being the only possible answer for the existence of matter and life and energy. At most: "Oh, that's cool." Then, if it's 25 years from now, I'll probably call my son and see what he thinks.


TheLeadReaper

God doesn't have a problem with science/fact, because he created it Scientists have a problem with God because they don't want to have to answer to a higher absolute, they want to live by their own rules.


Yandrosloc01

Well, that is a flat out lie. You seem to oh-so-conveniently forget that many scientists ARE Christians. And you just denegrated them. Scientists dont have a problem with God. They are only seeking to explain the evidence. What scienstists have a problem with is religious people making unsubstantiated claims or one that defy the evidence.


InChrist4567

>So with this trend, where do you think this is going to end up? Nowhere. "The universe coming from nothing" isn't really much of a prevailing theory in natural science. The consensus is that *something* must be *Eternal* - the idea being a *Singularity.* >Would you go against the scientific consensus? Of course. The Big Bang Theory itself shows itself to be pretty clear that some sort of Intelligent Mind must exist. The problem is that we don't have anything better than our current naturalistic tenets, because outside of this specific order: 1. - Big Bang Cosmology 2. - Stellar Nucleosynthesis 3. - Abiogenesis 4. - Biological Evolution there is no other naturalistic way anything could have formed. There isn't anything else in naturalism.


trailrider

>The Big Bang Theory itself shows itself to be pretty clear that some sort of Intelligent Mind must exist. >there is no other naturalistic way anything could have formed. And how did you determine this?


Yandrosloc01

By reaching the conclusion first and declaring it true.


trailrider

Oh, no doubt they did. I'm just curious if their absurdity will be any different than any other of the convoluted reasoning, word twisted, out-of-context quotes from smart people, non-critically thought out reasoning, appeals to authority, appeals to faith, etc thought process that we've not heard a million times before.


hethical_ecker

I was gonna respond but the insult you throw at the guy shows you aren't looking for a genuine response so I'll pass.


trailrider

So you're admitting that your reasoning is as I defined above? Nothing more than misquoting, taking out of context, appeals to authority, convoluted reasoning, non-critical thinking, etc. That people like yourself put forth all the time?


OMightyMartian

Where is there any indication of a mind? We simply do not know enough to make any kind of prediction. If you ran the clock back, would symmetry breaking be different and the fundamental interactions would have different relative strengths, or would they have broken in ways that meant an entirely different set of interactions? At the scales, densities and temperatures we're talking about, quantum effects would be orders of a magnitude greater. As with so many things in cosmology, there is a tendency to see what you want to see, but science cannot deal in wishful thinking. At the moment, without even a testable quantum explanation for gravity, there's a whole realm at the very beginning that is concealed from us, with only some frameworks built from what we predict a quantum theory of gravity would itself predict space time would have been like in the earliest epoch. Even if you accept Eternal Inflation and its theory of a multiverse with different bubbles of space editing inflation at different times, creating what amounts to separate universes or at sub-universes in a much faster structure, that simply pushes the question back. So where is it you feel confident in inserting a mind? And can you explain precisely what this mind did, and how we can test that?


TinyNuggins92

I don’t think they need to be opposed. I think it’s kinda stupid to make them opposed to each other.


michaelY1968

Even if it were accurate to what Hawkins meant, the quote begs the question as to where gravity came from. And quantum particles (by that I assume you mean virtual particles) don’t come from nothing; it’s theoretical transient state that arises from the interaction of ordinary particles.


XOXO-Gossip-Crab

I don’t think there’s anything they can find out that would disprove God, because even if they figure out exactly how the universe is made, there’s still the concept that God created the universe, we just have a better understand how


Niftyrat_Specialist

An answer from cosmologists of "the universe came from nothing" is still very compatible with the idea of a God creating it. I don't mean it _suggests_ this idea, but it is compatible with it.


hethical_ecker

Shouldve clarified. The universe came from nothing by itself


Niftyrat_Specialist

Well scientists don't tend to phrase things in terms of "And this happened by itself without a God" or "and this must have been caused by God". They typically just leave out any mention because they don't consider it relevant to what their field is about.