User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
Refuting The Cosmological Argument

Hello, this is my first post here. I am an atheist and a regular poster on the WWGHA forums. I regularly watch TAE and admire your excellent work. I would like to point out a purely logical way to refute the Cosmological Argument and the Kalam.

This argument has two premises and a conclusion.

Premise 1: Everything that exists had a cause Premise 2: The Universe exists Conclusion: Therefore the Universe had a cause

If I can disprove either premise, then the entire argument fails. I am going to attack Premise 1. It is a fairly simple attack. The Universe began to exist with the Big Bang, which not only created all the matter in the Universe, but it created space and *time* as well. This is a well understood consequence of General Relativity, and isn't open to attack or argument.

Time began at the Big Bang. TIME. Since cause MUST precede effect, and this is an implicit assumption of the Cosmological Argument, then the contradiction becomes immediately apparent: Time CANNOT have had a cause, because "before time" is a direct contradiction.

It is logically *necessary* that time, and the Universe itself, is CAUSELESS, because "before time" is a contradiction. The premise that "Everything that began to exist must have a cause" CANNOT apply to time (and by extension the universe since both began at the Big Bang)

While the premise is true WITHIN the Universe, it CANNOT be true of the Universe itself. Since the premise is invalid in regards to the Universe itself, the Cosmological Argument fails. This is a purely logical attack and does not require knowledge of physics or cosmology beyond the facts that time itself began at the Big Bang, which more theists will acknowledge.

As a followup, this logical demonstration of the *necessity* of a causeless universe flows directly into the "Zero-Energy Universe" hypothesis which can be used to refute the "Something from Nothing" argument.

I hope this helps, and perhaps you'll get to use it on a caller. Cyberia

Except that general relativity does not demonstrate that time began at, nor was created by, the big bang.

Far from being "well understood" or "not open to attack" ...every recent cosmologist I have read in the past ten years seem more and more to think the big bang may have just been a violent event in the history of a more generic universe; most of which we could never travel into if we tried.

Jim, I'd have to disagree. General Relativity definitely predicts that the Universe began from an initial singularity (or something very like a singularity) wherein all space, time and matter were compressed into a single zero-dimensional point, or at least something on the order of the Plank scale. At that instant GR then breaks down (this is also the instant of unification with the other fundamental forces with gravity, so the breakdown makes sense in that light) This prediction of GR is what I referred to as well understood and not open to attack. There is a famous quote by Hawking stating that asking what came before the BB is like asking what's north of the north pole. According to GR there was no time before the BB, so the question has no meaning.

Now, yes, there are various theories of Quantum Gravity (such as String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Brane Cosmology) that attempt to describe what occurred during the initial instant of the BB and some of them may or may not (depending on the theory) predict "something" before the BB, but AFAIK these are all highly theoretical and none have any firm evidence in their favor, whereas GR is obviously empirically testable. Science is obviously always learning more and changing as new information come to light, but from what we know currently, spacetime began at the BB.

You seem to be restating general relativity in a way it was not meant to be construed. General relativity is a description about the geometry of spacetime, how light propagates, etc. It is not equivalent to the big bang theory. It does not explain away singularities. It does not explain the cause or mechanism of the expansion of the observable universe. It is precisely because general relativity 'does not' explain singularities that it is said to break down when dealing with them...and consequently why other theories are necessary to deal with them. Logic does not follow, when saying that a theory which no longer accurately describes a situation is the cause of the situation. You may not say that energy or spacetime was created by consequence of general relativity.

Dear Linda, I don't think that your description of nothing is satisfying. You spoke at length in terms of 'outside' and 'before' and limiting all of existence to only the 'atoms' that you measurably predict. In reverse order, what you say about atoms is actually not true. Atoms that can be measured now were not necessarily created during the big bang; in the sense that energy converts into particles and back again all the time in many places. These particles enter into and depart from associations with other particles that form atoms all the time as well. That some particles persist longer than others is just statistical nature. With regard to outside and before, one common misconception I see is that people think the universe we measure is all of existence. Unfortunately, we cannot say that with any good reason. Rather, what we measure is the observable universe. At a distance great enough, space is expanding in our observable universe more quickly than light can travel to make up the difference. There is no solid boundary, but any information or energy that was once contiguous with a point between which space has emerged with us is lost to us. It will never reach us, we will never reach it. That does not mean it is nothing. Nothing has never been demonstrated. The universe is very much larger than our observable universe; and it possibly could be infinite. As Guth once said, "..the problem with the universe is that it's so big there may not be a problem.."

I didn't read the post you were talking about (I'm sure you're right) baa whaa - but it wasn't mine since I never mentioned THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, which was Einstein's new theory of gravitation proposed in place of Newtonian gravitation.

Jim said, "Dear Linda, I don't think that your description of nothing is satisfying. You spoke at length in terms of 'outside' and 'before' and limiting all of existence to only the 'atoms' that you measurably predict."

Do you really think your garbled mistranslation of what I said makes sense to anyone but you? Why didn't you copy and paste what I actually said like everyone else does when addressing a particular comment? I don't care if what I said wasn't "satisfying" or pleasing - before the Big Bang there was nothing. What does "I spoke at length (which I didn't) in terms of 'outside' and 'before' mean? And limiting all of existence to only the 'atoms' that you measurable predict"? It sure isn't what I said?

I said - Before the Big Bang nothing existed, nothing meaning the complete absence of everything (NOTHING) an infinite void. The universe has no boundaries because a boundary would place a limit on the size of nothingness, and indicate that there was something existing on the "other side" of the boundary, separate from the boundary itself. This would contradict the definition of infinite and nothing. This also excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

Nothing before - nothing existing in any other dimension - NO CREATOR!

I said, "Everything that is or ever will be came into existence at (during) the Big Bang" a well-known fact.

Jim said, "what you say about atoms is actually not true. Atoms that can be measured now were not necessarily created during the big bang; in the sense that energy converts into particles and back again all the time in many places."

The Star In You - By Peter Tyson - Posted 12.02.10 - NOVA scienceNOW

"Every single atom in your body--the calcium in your bones, the carbon in your genes, the iron in your blood, the gold in your filling--was created in a star billions of years ago. All except atoms of hydrogen and one or two of the next lightest elements. They were formed even earlier, shortly after the Big Bang began 13.7 billion years ago.

It's true, according to astrophysicists. You and everything around you, every single natural and man-made thing you can see, every rock, tree, butterfly, and building, comprises atoms that originally arose during the Big Bang or, for all but the lightest two or three elements, from millions of burning and exploding stars far back in the history of the universe. You live because stars died; it's that simple. How is this so? How can you possibly be a walking galaxy of fossil stardust? Well, the story is not a new one, but it bears retelling, if only because its working out was one of the finest achievements of 20th-century astrophysics--and because it's so astonishing."

"We are star stuff, which has taken its destiny into its own hands." Carl Sagan

My reply was to the post that this messageboard naturally aligns and indents the text to; and that is why I started the separate paragraph with a redirection of "Dear Linda," to indicate such separation. In answer as to why I do not copy paste, I suppose it is because that text already appears on the thread and quotes of quotes become nauseating for readers.

In your reply to me, Linda, several times you defensively reacted with the impression that you thought I was proposing religious concepts. I have to say I did no such thing, for I find all theistic and supernatural and magical theories about the universe to be nonsense. But by the same token, I cannot simply pretend to accept any statements or claims that are peppered with genuine scientific concepts as accurate because they lack magical men in the sky. Claiming you know there was a nothing before the big bang is claiming more than you know and possibly more than you can know. That usage of the word 'before' was repeatedly done at length...as was nothing. Nothing has never been demonstrated, cannot be inferred, is not a requirement of any justified theory.

You said originally, and repeated in your reply, that you think everything that is or ever will be came into existence at or during the big bang. This is not a fact, and moreover has been refuted by theory and observation. Particles emerge from energy all the time, and vice versa. Neutrons that now exist below the earth's surface will decay and become protons long after I'm dead; protons that did not exist when I typed this statement. Virtual particles that emerge from energy and disappear again; moreover particles that escape black holes by this same process and becoming real by reducing the energy content of said black hole. Your commentary is misleading when you mention macroscopic atoms like carbon and iron. Such heavy elements were not created at the big bang, nor anywhere reasonably near it. The stars in which that fusion took place was hundreds of millions of years later, and for heavier elements, several billion years later in several generations of stars. That process is still going on at this very instant in stars all over the observable universe. Atoms of iron that did not ever exist will come into being after I click save, all over our galactic neighborhood.

These details matter, and the reason we need to speak up when the arguments are misconstrued leads directly back to the original poster of this thread. The refutation to the cosmological argument offered is "not" a refutation that makes rational sense. Pointing out as much does not mean that a magical man in the sky is the better argument. Both arguments are bad; probably for the same reason....both propose preconditions for which there is no evidence.

Jim said, "You seem to be restating general relativity in a way it was not meant to be construed. General relativity is a description about the geometry of spacetime, how light propagates, etc." He doesn't explain who you was and I know it wasn't me but nevertheless....

Einstein's theory of General relativity is a theory of gravity in which gravity is described by saying that space and time are dynamic quantities that can curve in response to the effects of matter and can in turn alter the behavior of matter. In a curved space-time the laws of Euclidean geometry no longer hold: the angles of a triangle do not in general add up to 180°, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is in general not pi, and so on. This curvature in turn affects the behavior of matter. In Newtonian physics a particle with nothing pushing or pulling it (no forces acting on it) will move in a straight line. In a curved space-time what used to be straight lines are now twisted and bent, and particles with no forces acting on them are seen to move along curved paths.

General relativity is the foundation of modern astrophysics and cosmology. But there is another physical theory at least as fundamental: quantum theory is combining quantum theory and Einstein's special relativity: the result is modern particle physics, the study of the most elementary constituents of matter. Einstein found that space and times are part of the physical universe, and they are linked. In fact, space as one thing and time as another, is not a suitably valid concept. Einstein's theory of space and time unified them in a space-time continuum. Einstein's theory is that space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.

The big bang (expansion of singularity) space, time, and matter did not always exist. Time emerged out of space in a continuous process. Continuous meaning time-like quality of a dimension, as opposed to space-like quality, it is not all space or all time; there are shades in between. This can be made as a precise mathematical statement.

Einstein's special relativity is the most famous formula of all: E=mc², stating that two physical quantities which physicists had defined separately, namely energy and mass, are in fact equivalent.

Quantum theory (combining general relativity and quantum mechanics) to find a single theory that embraces all of nature's laws (the theory of everything) Einstein's general relativity successfully describes big things like stars and galaxies, while another, quantum mechanics, is equally successful at explaining small things like atoms and subatomic particles. Einstein wanted to unite these theories (general relativity and quantum mechanics) but was not successful (nobody was) until String theory the single theory that would unite all of nature's laws in one theory. M-theory is an extension of string theory that unifies all the known forces and particles together into a single Theory of Everything. That is where we are today.

Jim said, "Dear Linda, I don't think that your description of nothing is satisfying. You spoke at length in terms of 'outside' and 'before' and limiting all of existence to only the 'atoms' that you measurably predict. In reverse order, what you say about atoms is actually not true."

Newton's theory of gravity described gravity as a force. Newton's law of gravity explained gravity on Earth and the orbit of the moon about the Earth, the motions of the planets about the sun and etc. General Relativity also explains all of those things, but in a very different way. In General Relativity, a massive body like the sun causes the space-time around it to curve, and this curvature in turn affects the motion of the planets, causing them to orbit around the sun. There are small differences that can and have been measured in the solar system, and to date all the data have matched the predictions of General Relativity.

The big bang theory of how the universe evolved includes the atoms that make up the molecules that make up life; they did not exist before the big bang. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang. When the initial extremely hot universe began cooling the heat was converted into volume. As a result of the cooling of the universe subatomic particles were able to condense into the matter that we recognize in the universe today, things such as electrons, neutrons, and protons. About a million years later (when the universe was cooler) there was a condensation of subatomic particles into hydrogen atoms (much fewer helium atoms and even fewer lithium atoms). These hydrogen atoms continue to make up a large part of the matter in the universe. Beside these forms of matter there was a formation of the physical forces in the universe. The singularity, big bang, inflation and then the cooling created the energy and matter in the expanding universe, except for that life would not exist in the universe. The gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneous (clumps) was the source of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planet formation. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and composition of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.

The Hubble Space Telescope documents how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. These studies allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

Hello Cyberia, I am an atheist as well, but I am largely ignorant of most physical science. So, could you please help me understand something that I am having trouble answering? Prior to the Big Bang there was no matter or energy, time, etc... right? So, I guess there was only space? I am assuming that without matter and energy there is nothing right? So, what exactly was the impetus-- if that is the right word-- for the Big Bang and its expansion? If there were no physical laws or constants, then again what caused or what was the impetus for the Big Bang. As you can tell, I am lost here, so if you could please help me understand, then that would be great? I guess what vexes me the most is what is with all the space? Also, if there are other universes, then how to they expand without destroying each other? I do not think the bubble analogy works, because the universe is hardly a bubble. Thank you.

If all physical substance or nature came into existence at the Big Bang, then why is supernaturalism false? I am not speaking of some magical or fairy nonsense but that which the universe came into being inside, coincide, whatever? I mean, this is the reason why theists say that God is timeless, immaterial, etc.. blah blah. And although I am an atheist, I have to admit that answers atheists give do not seem to make any sense. People who say that talk of before the Big Bang is nonsense need to give a reason why curiosity up to that point is okay but before it pointless? Before does not necessarily indicate time, but position. Page four comes before or prior to page five. Also, you say the universe did not have a cause. I am curious, then from where and why is the universe here? There is no cause, therefore there is no reason for it to be. This reasoning is almost like listening to Deepak Chopra--- completely ridiculous. Whether the cause was direct or indirect, intentional or not intentional there had to be a reason or what ever word you want to use for the universe to be, exist, whatever.

Since nobody is a theist I think I'll just pretend to be a Christian commenting - I'm a Christian but I can't imagine how believers think that torturing a man to death is beautiful. A god that was walking the earth but did nothing to end poverty, war or slavery. They've got a lot of explaining to do. But about that Big Bang - I think I can help you out. But you have to read it and then understand it. Good Luck.

Everything that is or ever will be came into existence at the Big Bang (which was not an explosion it was an expansion) the expansion of the universe by definition there is only one universe that may be a multiverse of all sizes of things overlapping each other in many ways. The idea that there are many other universes out there isn't new, scientists have thought that we might live in a multiverse (consisting of an infinite number of universes) for a very long time. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

Before the Big Bang nothing existed, nothing meaning the complete absence of everything (nothing) an infinite void. The universe has no boundaries because a boundary would place a limit on the size of nothingness, and indicate that there was something existing on the "other side" of the boundary, separate from the boundary itself. This would contradict the definition of infinite and nothing. This also excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

Time did not exist before the universe. Time came into existence at the Big Bang. At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. Time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time is a computable element that cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound. Mathematicians have worked on the "Theory of Relativity" and its implications regarding the notion of time. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything and enormous energy was the initiator. Some quantum events have no cause, and the question of "before" doesn't really make sense. Gravity makes it possible for the universe to spontaneously come into existence, as a necessary outcome of the way physics operates. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered.

The universe and life in the universe evolved, which does not require anything unnatural or supernatural in the universe. The atoms that make up the molecules that make up life did not exist in the beginning. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe evolved. The Big Bang theory pertains to the explosive expansion of the entire universe that continues to this day. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the Big Bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the Big Bang.

The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Singularity by definition is zero size. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero. According to the Big Bang Theory the simplest form of matter (quarks) first appeared after cosmic inflation. The vacuum energy transformed itself into particles and anti-particles of matter in equal number. There is no evidence that at the beginning of time mass was present. With the ultra-dense mass model the matter would turn to pure energy before the reformation of mass particles. The universe started with a burst of energy and that was the source of the expansion of space. The starting point does not have to contain matter. In such a scenario, we do not have a positive gravity force for the singularity. If mass is removed from the singularity. Zero is representing the singularity. The real value of matter has to disappear at the singularity; Singularity does not contain matter (with common definition of matter.) If there are no dimension in singularity space is not a property of singularity. Space and time are bendable and play a very active rule in the universe Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. It means there is no spatial dimension in singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe then its energy equivalent is the initiator.

The general consensus among the leading astrophysicists is time doesn't extend infinitely into the past; the universe came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang Theory, space started at time 0 and has been expanding ever since. It is meaningless to ask what came 'before' the Big Bang because there is no 'before'. The Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. This is the theory accepted by the leading physicists today. There is definitely no accepted scientific theory that would require anything supernatural or created for the universe to exist."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

There is no logical theory about the existence of the Supernatural, if there was they would present it like Darwin did with the theory of evolution, and then let the experts examine the evidence. There is no evidence of "design" or that anything was "created", but there is plenty of evidence of evolution and the Big Bang. Scientists first evaluate the plausibility of an explanation for some phenomena before they apply it to a theory. Scientists don't just say something is possible without evidence or demonstrations that prove something is possible.

I guess the problem for me in accepting naturalism to be true is that the evidence so far-- please correct me if I am misinterpreting what is actually said-- that the universe came from nothing. What is at issue with me is-- I should point out that I do not believe in gods, so this is hard for me-- is what did or is the expanding universe expanding into? Let me give an analogy. I have a wall in my house and it is bare excel for a painting. I see the painting as the known universe and the rest of the wall as the nothingness. You stated that there was nothing prior to the universe, so where did all the matter and energy come from. We do not accept that sort of explanation in any other facet of physical reality, that is for example life only comes from life. That is the scientific law of biogenesis. I am not trying to be difficult, but this poses a problem for me. I am sort of sympathetic to a supernatural or if the word is bothersome transnatural reality. Of course science would have problems identifying or experimenting on realities that are not physical. I do not think it is nonsense to ponder such things even though they cannot be demonstrated or experimented on. But, you spoke of logic and it seems to me suggesting that something came from nothing is illogical. And in no other area of existence on this planet do accept such an explanation, unless I am mistaken. I should make it clear that I am not positing a God of any sorts, but as Lawrence Krauss stated in a debate with W. L. Craig deism seems reasonable. I am open to scientific explanations but it seems to me at this time science cannot explain this considering it is outside of science. If the physical universe came form nothing, then how do we explain nothing? To wave a hand and say it does not matter or it is meaningless seems to me to make the whole of inquiry meaningless. Thanks.

Dave said, "I guess the problem for me in accepting naturalism to be true is that the evidence so far-- please correct me if I am misinterpreting what is actually said-- that the universe came from nothing."

The universe came from nothing. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Quantum fluctuations (momentary bursts of energy from nowhere that are permitted by the rules of quantum mechanics) cause pairs of the particles to spontaneously arise out of the vacuum, then annihilate each other an instant later. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." This has been proven in laboratory experiments, quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle answers how this energy came from nothing. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero. According to the Big Bang Theory the simplest form of matter (quarks) first appeared after cosmic inflation. The vacuum energy transformed itself into particles and anti-particles of matter in equal number. There is no evidence that at the beginning of time mass was present.

With the ultra-dense mass model the matter would turn to pure energy before the reformation of mass particles. The universe started with a burst of energy and that was the source of the expansion of space. The starting point does not have to contain matter. In such a scenario, we do not have a positive gravity force for the singularity. If mass is removed from the singularity. Zero is representing the singularity. The real value of matter has to disappear at the singularity; Singularity does not contain matter (with common definition of matter.) If there are no dimension in singularity space is not a property of singularity. Space and time are bendable and play a very active rule in the universe Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. It means there is no spatial dimension in singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe then its energy equivalent is the initiator.

Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the Big Bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the Big Bang. Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. So, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Dave said, "What is at issue with me is-- I should point out that I do not believe in gods, so this is hard for me-- is what did or is the expanding universe expanding into?

The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Singularity by definition is zero size. What's the problem if you don't think god created the universe? God did not create the universe - the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Not believing in gods shouldn't make anything about science harder to understand.

Dave said, "Let me give an analogy. I have a wall in my house and it is bare excel for a painting. I see the painting as the known universe and the rest of the wall as the nothingness. You stated that there was nothing prior to the universe, so where did all the matter and energy come from. We do not accept that sort of explanation in any other facet of physical reality,

For an analogy to illustrate something it should represent the actual subject. A wall in a room is not (a vacuum a void or nothing) and the fact that there is a painting on the wall does not represent the question "where did the painting come from?" Not understanding something that has been explained is not similar to "the supernatural might exist", which has not been explained? You need to establish that there is something supernatural first then work on it's origin.

The universe started with a burst of energy and that was the source of the expansion of space.

Dave said, "that is for example life only comes from life. That is the scientific law of biogenesis. I am not trying to be difficult, but this poses a problem for me. I am sort of sympathetic to a supernatural or if the word is bothersome transnatural reality.

Those scientists who do not believe that history began on "creation week" have developed theories. One is 'The Cell Theory' and it is not the only theory, because this lead to other theories (that's how science works). There are very different theories on the definition of Life. The Theory of Negentropy (Life must comply with the laws of physics as it exists in the physical world.) This theory is based on the observation that living organisms possess the ability to remain in a state of order, or low entropy, against the natural tendency for all things to decay into disorder, or high entropy. Living things feed on matter "negative entropy" and use them to avoid decay. The phenomenon of resisting decay towards greater entropy can be seen in generally accepted to be non-living materials too. Crystals have the ability to create "order from disorder" and "reproduce" other crystals similar to themselves if a piece of the crystal is placed in a suitable environment. In fact the existence of a crystal in Life, which helps propagate the "genetics" of the Life form. This suggestion is said to have inspired the discovery of DNA.

The Theory of Negentropy did propose a crucial point that is often overlooked, and that is that however "mysterious" Life may seem, we are still physically composed of nothing more than the same molecules also found in non-living matter. Just as with everything else, these molecules must comply with the laws of the Universe.

Dave said, "Of course science would have problems identifying or experimenting on realities that are not physical. I do not think it is nonsense to ponder such things even though they cannot be demonstrated or experimented on."

Yes, and who the hell could tell anybody anything about something that defies description (such as) the supernatural/god/gods/ wizards etc. "A Supreme Being did not create the universe, and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, theoretical physicist" that is the opinion of the leading theoretical physicists nowadays.

Dave said, "But, you spoke of logic and it seems to me suggesting that something came from nothing is illogical. And in no other area of existence on this planet do accept such an explanation, unless I am mistaken.

What did a supernatural or supreme being come from? People (who don't understand the explanation according to scientific research and experiments) think that everyone should believe what they are saying without a shred of evidence. Just overlook the fact that it's far more far fetched than anything coming from science.

Dave said, "I should make it clear that I am not positing a God of any sorts, but as Lawrence Krauss stated in a debate with W. L. Craig deism seems reasonable. I am open to scientific explanations but it seems to me at this time science cannot explain this considering it is outside of science. If the physical universe came form nothing, then how do we explain nothing?"

Yup, you can stop reading right here !

Dave said, "To wave a hand and say it does not matter or it is meaningless seems to me to make the whole of inquiry meaningless. Thanks."

Another example of something that is "meaningless" is anything William Lane Craig the Christian apologist says. You don't understand why the question that fundies keep asking is meaningless. What came before the Big Bang. Nothing!

The Discovery Channel aired a television series called Curiosity featuring Stephen Hawking, in Curiosity he argued that God could not have created the universe because there was no time in which God could have done so:

"It is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang because there is no before. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang. The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can't get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise."

@Nancy and Sally - General Relativity unites both space and time into a unified unit called spacetime. Neither can exist without the other. The matter and energy (and gravity) within the universe reside ON spacetime and affect it's shape. This seems to be empirically verified by observable phenomenon like Time Dilation (the faster you go, time slows down), Lorentz Contraction (the faster you go space contracts) and a few other predictable effects of General Relativity.

One apparent and common objection theists have is to ask where did all the energy within the universe come from? Which admittedly is not a fully answered question and numerous theories attempt to explain this with a fully naturalistic framework. One very intriguing idea is that the universe literally came from nothing...and as as a whole *still* contains Zero-Energy. This is the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis. This idea rests on the notion that gravity is *negative* energy (which is trivial to demonstrate)

So all the matter and energy of the universe are balanced out by gravitational negative energy producing a zero net energy, and thus no violation of the Conservation of Energy, and no need for a deity. Both Hawking and Lawrence Kraus have discussed this idea recently.

The idea can be demonstrated like this: If you start with zero how can you get something non-zero? Because 0 = 0, right?

Well, 0 equals a lot of things actually. 0 = 3 - 3, or more generally 0 = x -x.

We live on the x. Gravity represents the -x. Interestingly enough, this notion explains the symmetry between matter and gravity. Matter emits gravity, gravity works on matter. They are symmetrical and coupled *by necessity*. Furthermore this arrangement can ONLY occur in a universe with a flat spacetime, and the observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation verify that we DO live in a flat universe.

What's left to explain is HOW the decoupling between positive and negative (aka the unification of gravity to the other fundamental forces) occurred. Hawking and Kraus believe this can occur spontaneously - akin to how radioactive decay occurs at the quantum scale since at the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the universe itself WAS at the quantum scale.

Everything that exists has a cause-this is the collection of emty words -the positivists would say. For instance: the emptiness has a cause? Imagine the infinite world made of the stone.And the emptiness appeared by the god`s will ? these meta physical questions are the word`s game.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.