Reddit reviews A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
We found 11 Reddit comments about A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The fine tuning universe is explained by the many worlds scenario.
Basically it says that there are billions of billions of universes, and for the argument of something from nothing I recommend:
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
His argument is that the universe does not seem to require a creator, at least that's his view from the perspective of theoretical cosmology. The universe is not the same thing as a wheelchair or ventilator. It might be hard to wrap your head around it, but the universe could have arisen naturally without the need for some intelligent, thinking, planning being. So far, every aspect about the history of the universe indicates that nothing supernatural is at work and galaxies, stars, planets, and people all can come about via natural processes and do not require an intelligence to "design" anything.
I suggest you check out his "Curiousity" episode where he goes into some detail about whether or not a god is needed.
If you want a second opinion on theoretical cosmology, check out the work of Lawrence Krauss, either his book or his talk.
A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss
and just about anything from Michio Kaku
Go do yourself some learning.
>> If you do not have mass what do you have that you are measuring?
>
>Energy.
>
>
>>Are you saying energy came from nothing?
>
>
>According to Quantum Physics, that is precisely what occurs (Virtual particles, the Casimir Effect). Of course, you also have to define what you mean by the term "nothing". Lawrence Krauss has written books on the subject and has several videos lectures available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE)
>
>
>FYI, If the net amount of positive and negative forms of energy in the universe sum out to zero, then the sudden appearance of energy does not violate the Conservation of Energy Principle.
>
I don't disagree with this, I know this. I'm confused why someone who firmly believes something came from nothing is having a hard time picturing a conscious universe.
It's also worth pointing out that these are different fields of science that don't match up perfectly, for instance relativity breaks down at the quatum level. Quantum science is it's own science. Making it work cohesively with other science even math wise is tricky. That's what the whole unified theory of everything is that we haven't found, something that ties all these fields together.
>
>>Or that energy first exists without mass but then a picosecond later does have mass?
>
>
>Pretty much...
That's good and well. Provide one miracle and science will explain the rest. You are still saying something came from nothing and that science has shown that's not uncommon. the 'something from nothing' argument is always cast against theists when it turns out that is the fabric of our reality as we know it.
>
>>Even a photon has mass.
>
>
>What is the rest mass of a photon? Any guesses?
>
>>I said time depends on mass
>
>
>No. The passage of time is affected by mass, but time itself does not depend on mass.
Are you referring to relative time? I mean sure relative time never seems to change until you measure against the relative time of another observer at a different distance from the mass. That's time dilation, satellites are constantly re-syncing their clocks to ours due to special relativity.
>Space-time can exist entirely independent of mass.
>
Ah so you think space time was not created from the big bang? I think that's wrong. I may be wrong but my understanding was that the big bang created both. There was nothing, then all of a sudden something, which is what we've concluded is our scientific observation. That something came from nothing and that it's common.
> If you do not have mass what do you have that you are measuring?
Energy.
>Are you saying energy came from nothing?
According to Quantum Physics, that is precisely what occurs (Virtual particles, the Casimir Effect). Of course, you also have to define what you mean by the term "nothing". Lawrence Krauss has written books on the subject and has several videos lectures available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE)
FYI, If the net amount of positive and negative forms of energy in the universe sum out to zero, then the sudden appearance of energy does not violate the Conservation of Energy Principle.
>Or that energy first exists without mass but then a picosecond later does have mass?
Pretty much...
>Even a photon has mass.
What is the rest mass of a photon? Any guesses?
>I said time depends on mass
No. The passage of time is affected by mass, but time itself does not depend on mass. Space-time can exist entirely independent of mass.
May I suggest reading Krauss' A
Universe From Nothing
> Sorry there you are wrong
No, I'm not.
> Christianity says God created the universe.
Christianity says a lot of stuff but actually knows very little. Knowledge is based on evidence. The creation account in genesis is not evidence but a claim, which requires evidence itself.
So you don't know why the universe exists. You just believe that it was a god. And you believe it without evidence, just because an old book says so.
> The atheists problem
No, it's not really a problem, is it? Atheists are under no obligation to offer an explanation for the existence of the universe in order to dismiss the God-explanation.
That's because the God-explanation isn't even an explanation as it explains absolutely nothing. It's just a claim that is not even backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
> finding an explanation for absolute nothing causing something to happen.
There are indeed [some explanations] (https://www.amazon.de/dp/B004T4KQJS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1). But these are just hypotheses, as we don't have the possibility to verify them through empirical experiments.
> This is made worse as he big bang theory points to the univese having a begining.
The universe as we know it began with the big bang. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was absolutely nothing before. It is entirely possible that the universe always existed, but was in a different state before the big bang.
> 1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
That's a fallacious way of reasoning like William Laine Craig would present it. It's based on the unsubstantiated premise that "There is an objective moral law".
No, there isn't.
What we call morality can be entirely explained through our ability to feel empathy. And empathy can be entirely explained by evolution. Groups in which empathy caused individuals to helped each other rather than killing each other had an obvious advantage in surviving and reproducing. And we are descendants of these populations from which we inherited the instinctive feelings of empathy. You can easily observe moral behavior among various groups of other mammals.
> "we know why science works. because we know how science works." That is nonsence on a parr with Dawkins,' evolution has been seen to happen, it just that we weren't there when it happened'.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean, that it's nonsense.
Science works because it's open to change and improve. It's a self-correcting method in which better working explanations replace older ones.
> I ask how do you start it and you answer by discribing how the internal combustion engine works. That doesn't answer how the engine is turned on.
These are both "how" questions. One is on a technical level and the other on a practical one.
> The universe was created by a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space.
That's something you believe, but nothing you can possibly know with any certainty. It's also a completely unfalsifiable claim and needs to be dismissed for that reason alone.
> It accounts for there being a begining. It accounts for why science, maths, logic and morality exist and work as this super natural being is reasonable, consistent and moral and these characteristics are reflected in creation.
It accounts for everything you want it to account for but again, it explains absolutely nothing. "God did it" is just as good as an explanation as "Zeus did it" or "because Unicorns fart rainbows".
Also the God-explanation has been shown to be false on multiple occasions in the past. Ancient people believed that lightnings were thrown by Gods or volcanic eruptions were divine punishments. Today we know exactly why these things happen and God plays no role anymore in their explanations. To invoke God as an explanation for anything that is not yet explained by science is what is called the [god of the gaps] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ).
>Inadvertently describing an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, one, immutable, being.
An immaterial computer, or the laws of physics, are not alive, so it is not a "being". The argument doesn't even mention it being a "being" either, you just made that up all on your own.
>Describing it to embody physical laws (or finality, if you want). If it embodies those formally, it is material.
No it doesn't. If the human mind embodies physical laws, does that make it material? Obviously not. I could also say light is not material as it has no mass, or sound waves, or radio waves etc.
>watching you flail your arms impotently trying to worm your way out of the inevitable.
There's nothing to "worm my way out of", you never had an argument for god in the first place. It was over before it even began.
>I don't believe that you actually have a potent objection to the argument, so there's not much point.
Of course I do. My objection is that nowhere in the argument does it mention intelligence, sentience, morals, love etc. or that it has to be a "being".
>a suggestion: If you want, Feser's Aquinas outlines Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics
I have a couple of suggestions for you too.
1, 2
I'm waiting for this to come out in print. But you could give it a shot:
http://www.amazon.com/A-Universe-from-Nothing-ebook/dp/B004T4KQJS
Not true really. You're missing the difference between First Cause and a thing that was the initial condition. Scientists don't know what precipitated the big bang nor the physics behind it. But they're considering ideas abut it all the time. One provocative idea is Smolin's The Life of the Cosmos. Some ideas about Causes of a universe out of nothing are found in Lauwrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.
TL;DR: Scientists don't know what existed before the big bang, but they don't say there was nothing at all. Minimally, there was physical law.
Edit: speling