Sometimes it
happens that, just as I begin to think that I am smarter than I really am, I
get reminded otherwise. Here is an
exchange between two people, both of whom are smarter than me. They were discussing the question of whether
the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing. The deeper question, of course, involves what
nothingness is, and what “somethingness” is.
Here is what Nicholas and Simon had to say about the matter:
[Begin Quote
by Nicholas Burk, Executive Board Member © 2019 Free Thought Initiative]
When I run
into religious arguments against mainstream science, I often hear a line that
goes something like this: “And what about the Big Bang? Now scientists would
have us believe that something came from nothing. How absurd! Something is something
and nothing is nothing and to think otherwise is nonsense! Besides, we never
ever see something come out of nothing do we?”
Do we? Here
is this common misconception in a nutshell: “The universe couldn’t have
possibly popped into existence out of nothing.”
[Skip to
next segment]
[Resume
quotes by Nicholas—bolding by me]
Through
mathematics and indirect observation of quantum fluctuations, scientists can
now make the case that our universe did indeed come into existence out of
what people call, “nothing.”
Now most
people’s problem with this astonishing discovery comes from the use of this
word, “nothing.” In everyday language, when we say nothing, we mean the
opposite of something. We mean absolute emptiness, an unambiguous void. This
pure, theoretical, and definition-based abstract doesn’t really exist. This
idea isn’t exactly what cosmologists and quantum physicists mean.
[End quote, Let's turn to Simon]
[Response
segment by “Simon”]
Hi Nick
Having once
been an atheist, I find it interesting that when I now talk to atheists, I
realise how powerful “confirmation bias” is on both sides in these discussions.
Previously the idea of positing god as an explanation for the big bang was a
bit like the atheist Stephen Hawkins famous description of never ending turtles
on top of turtles - if god caused the big bang then who caused god etc. Quantum
fluctuations underpinning spacetime, seething with ‘zero point’ energy seemed a
far better hint at what could become a clearer, tangible answer.
Now my view
of god is very different, and whilst I fully appreciate that science by
definition must avoid untestable theories such as “god did it” from the
process, I find that atheists are working with turtles. Ignoring for now the
questions about the nature of quantum fluctuations, and how these manifest in a
‘universe’ that has neither space nor time, the god I believe in is absolute,
not created and underpins everything. All energy ultimately comes from him and
all time, space and quantum phenomena sit within him.
[End
response segment]
Nicholas has
made a flawed argument, and Simon recognizes that. The universe could have come from “nothing,” but
only if you carefully re-define “nothing” as “something.” Net zero is not “nothing.” Plus one minus one equals zero, but in this
case, that “zero” contains plus one and minus one, which clearly are not zero,
and not “nothing.” Even the vaunted
Stephen Hawking stumbled on that matter.
Many
atheists, having concluded that there is no God, cut their feet to fit their
shoes. Likewise, some of my fellow Christians
make the most bone-headed arguments FOR God.
IMO, when we
argue for or against (you name it, Idealism, God, atheism, physicalism) we
should recognize that when it comes to ultimates and absolutes, human reason is
inadequate to define them, much less to prove/disprove them.
We can at
best only say WHY we believe as we do.
Thereafter,
any further discussion should center as much on learning as it does on
persuading.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment