Something from Nothing

[First Baseman]

"Whatever exists is singular, totally so, and any composition would result in a singular being composed of many singulars. Neither could there be any relations between such singulars seen as really distinct from the singular objects involved. Such relations would themselves be singulars, and there could be no end to such a process. It was another way for Ockham to dispense with any necessity in a created order and to insure that creation was totally dependent on both the absolute and ordinary power of God." (emphasis added)
Klocker, H. (1996). William of Ockham and the Divine Freedom (2nd Ed.). Marquette University Press.

What should he have known better about?

That his cause and effect assumption does not apply to Almighty God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That his cause and effect assumption does not apply to Almighty God.

I think your source (or the post you quoted from) is not accurately stating what Ockham did, but that's hardly your fault (obviously).

 

[metis]

I didn't say anything about something being injected. But the law of conservation of mass and energy didn't hold right after the big bang.

We obviously have more questions than answers at this point, with unanswered questions dealing with even the composition of the minute mass and what caused it to expand, not once but twice.

 

[First Baseman]

We obviously have more questions than answers at this point, with unanswered questions dealing with even the composition of the minute mass and what caused it to expand, not once but twice.

Not being a smart alec but the creationist knows exactly what happened. Big bang theory has so many problems that I fail to understand why it is still considered a viable theory. It sounds like a terrible assumption to me.

 

[raw_thought]

An infinite past explains nothing. Imagine that an elephant sits on another elephant and that elephant on another elephant...ad infinitum. That does not explain why they are elephants and not lets say rocks .

 

[raw_thought]

Perhaps there is no explanation why there is something rather then nothing. If we say that "X" is the ultimate explanation, then X has no explanation ,which means the penultimate cause has no explanation ,...ad infinitum. Which means that there is no explanation !! It is not that we are to stupid to know why! Its that there is no explanation to understand !!!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Big bang theory has so many problems that I fail to understand why it is still considered a viable theory.

Because alternative explanations that can account for observations are more problematic, whether the alternative is "god created it" or pre-big bang inflationary (string-theoretic) models.

It sounds like a terrible assumption to me.

I imagine that's because you aren't familiar with the evidence, and therefore don't know what is assumed and why.

 

[raw_thought]

O=1-1
Perhaps the nothing separated !

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

O=1-1
Perhaps the nothing separated !

But 1-1 isn't a "separation. 1= 1/2 +1/2 fits the metaphor better, but we loose the "something from nothing" part.

 

[raw_thought]

The nothing seperates into matter and anti-matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The nothing seperates into matter and anti-matter.

That's not how it works, alas.

 

[metis]

Not being a smart alec but the creationist knows exactly what happened. Big bang theory has so many problems that I fail to understand why it is still considered a viable theory. It sounds like a terrible assumption to me.

There's sufficient evidence to suggest that the BB indeed did happen, but both the cause and the details are mostly missing. It is in no way an assumption.

"Creationism" is not science, does not use the scientific method, and that approach simply cannot be verified at all. However, this is not to say that creationist beliefs are not possible.

 

[metis]

An infinite past explains nothing. Imagine that an elephant sits on another elephant and that elephant on another elephant...ad infinitum. That does not explain why they are elephants and not lets say rocks .

But an infinite past, which is slightly older than I am, is consistent with what we actually do experience in life whereas all things and all events appear to have causes behind them. An uncaused cause is that which is out of our realm of experience.

 

[First Baseman]

Because alternative explanations that can account for observations are more problematic, whether the alternative is "god created it" or pre-big bang inflationary (string-theoretic) models.

I imagine that's because you aren't familiar with the evidence, and therefore don't know what is assumed and why.

You are, sir, basically full of it because you assume too much. Who are you to say that "alternative explanations that can account for observations are more problematic" when you certainly can in no wise prove that statement, it is yet just another assumption on your part.

I am quite familiar with your "evidence." Like the people at ICR I view your "evidence" in a totally different way than you do. How you choose to view the "evidence" depends entirely on your world view.

 

[First Baseman]

There's sufficient evidence to suggest that the BB indeed did happen, but both the cause and the details are mostly missing. It is in no way an assumption.

"Creationism" is not science, does not use the scientific method, and that approach simply cannot be verified at all. However, this is not to say that creationist beliefs are not possible.

Your theories concerning the BB cannot be verified at all, either. There is not sufficient evidence that the BB did indeed happen. There is sufficient evidence that leads scientists to assume that it happened only. Therefore they must not be using the scientific method, either, in your own words.

 

[metis]

Your theories concerning the BB cannot be verified at all, either. There is not sufficient evidence that the BB did indeed happen. There is sufficient evidence that leads scientists to assume that it happened only. Therefore they must not be using the scientific method, either, in your own words.

The basic concept of the BB is through something called "red-shift", and that is objective evidence along with the math. There simply is no objective evidence for a theistic causation, therefore it is not even a scientific hypothesis. This is not to say that it could not have happened, however.

 

[First Baseman]

The basic concept of the BB is through something called "red-shift", and that is objective evidence along with the math. There simply is no objective evidence for a theistic causation, therefore it is not even a scientific hypothesis. This is not to say that it could not have happened, however.

Scientists are not ready to theorize about spiritual things. And if you read the ICR website you will see the "objective evidence" viewed in a totally different way than you choose to view it.

Redshift doesn't prove anything. As a matter of fact Big Bang theory had to be changed because of redshift. Big Bang theory gets changed every time something new is discovered. So much for that theory. It might change again tomorrow.

The evidence is quite subjective because it can be viewed differently according to the viewer.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Scientists are not ready to theorize about spiritual things. And if you read the ICR website you will see the "objective evidence" viewed in a totally different way than you choose to view it.

Redshift doesn't prove anything. As a matter of fact Big Bang theory had to be changed because of redshift. Big Bang theory gets changed every time something new is discovered. So much for that theory. It might change again tomorrow.

The evidence is quite subjective because it can be viewed differently according to the viewer.

The issue of creation from nothing is about creation in general, and not necessarily the first creation. The decisions I now make, the result does not come from the universe, it is new information added to the universe.

 

[dust1n]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are, sir, basically full of it because you assume too much.

You are confusing assumptions for views based on experimental results and evidence of various other sorts (such as observation). If you don't know what the theory explains (which is the reason it exists at all), you can neither understand what is assumed or what must be explained if the big bang theory is not accurate.

Who are you to say that "alternative explanations that can account for observations are more problematic"

Here I am more of a mouthpiece than anybody else. I don't work in this field, I just keep up with the research literature. As for why this is the dominant theory and why it is so because it accounts for evidence better than alternatives, again you would need to know what it accounts for to even begin to assess alternative explanations.

I am quite familiar with your "evidence."

Interesting. What is it?