The death of God

Jack said:
You mean cosmologists?
I haven't heard what a lot have to say about philosophy, but I have heard some pretty poor attempts at philosophy by some. Lawerence Krauss for example has had an issue with a lot of philosophers lately because he's been trying to say nothing is not nothing.
Click to expand...
I don't believe in Big Bang theory. I believe the universe has always been, will always be. Any form of ex nihilo is a faulty view in my opinion.
 
Jack said:
You mean cosmologists?
I haven't heard what a lot have to say about philosophy, but I have heard some pretty poor attempts at philosophy by some. Lawerence Krauss for example has had an issue with a lot of philosophers lately because he's been trying to say nothing is not nothing.
Click to expand...
I don't think just Lawrence Krauss entertains the possibility of a Universe from nothing. The plus element in the Krauss case is courage to say it publicly, whithout fear of the reaction to such a absurd idea.
There are many who think so. Even Alexander Vilenkin said that this could be possible, because he thinks the impossibility of such a scenario is based on a wrong understanding of the second law of termodinamycs. But he got it wrong too. When philosophers say that nothing comes out of nothing, they don't say it on the basis of SLOTD, that would be so absurd.
Philosophers know the 'nature' of nothingness, which is that there isn't any nature. Scientists and cosmologists often don't know this.
 
Rift Zone said:
I don't believe in Big Bang theory. I believe the universe has always been, will always be. Any form of ex nihilo is a faulty view in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're aware that most "space scientists" believe in the big bang though right?

Big Bang aside though, I hope you can see that when a philosopher asks the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", a cosmologist stating "Nothing is really a quantum vacuum." doesn't really answer the question.
 
It seems to me that no combination of words will ever be proof of the existence of something that does not show itself or make itself known other than in peoples imagination.

Faith in something that resides no where else other than in thoughts is something that will always be out of my reach.
 
Last edited:
Jack said:
You're aware that most "space scientists" believe in the big bang though right?

Big Bang aside though, I hope you can see that when a philosopher asks the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", a cosmologist stating "Nothing is really a quantum vacuum." doesn't really answer the question.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware BBT is the prevailing theory on the cosmos. I also know it won't last long.

I agree, the cosmologist would have a slightly different approach and perspective when dealing with the concept of nothingness. Just the same, I don't think they are limited to their own working definitions and either could easily speak of the concept the int other's perspective.

I agree with [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]. Existing only in the minds of believers makes something as real as Bugs Bunny and Kermit the Frog. I believe in those guys! I know them better than any theist knows their god! Still not real.
 
Rift Zone said:
I don't believe in Big Bang theory. I believe the universe has always been, will always be. Any form of ex nihilo is a faulty view in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I heard a piece on the radio about this, it was a satirical news show, and the panel commented on two things, one was an excited scientist tweeting "its a bad day to be a multiverse skeptic", to which they said if you characterised yourself as a "multiverse skeptic" very often then they thought most days would be bad days, I thought that was amusing, and that when they'd read some of the theorising surrounding the most recent stories about evidence for ripple effects and the big bang theory that they wound up believing that the genesis story did not appear as incredible after all.
 
Lark said:
I heard a piece on the radio about this, it was a satirical news show, and the panel commented on two things, one was an excited scientist tweeting "its a bad day to be a multiverse skeptic", to which they said if you characterised yourself as a "multiverse skeptic" very often then they thought most days would be bad days, I thought that was amusing, and that when they'd read some of the theorising surrounding the most recent stories about evidence for ripple effects and the big bang theory that they wound up believing that the genesis story did not appear as incredible after all.
Click to expand...
It seems the most recent fervor is over gravitational wave rippling. It's all theoretical and doesn't really do much to demonstrate the accuracy of any theory.
 
The gravitation waves provide evidence for inflation, not a multiverse per se. Some theories of inflation have a multiverse, some don't.

Rift, if you don't mind my asking, (I'm not trying to start any kind of argument rather just curious) if you believe the universe is more or less eternal, what do you do with the second law of thermodynamics?
I agree, the cosmologist would have a slightly different approach and perspective when dealing with the concept of nothingness. Just the same, I don't think they are limited to their own working definitions and either could easily speak of the concept the int other's perspective.
Click to expand...
Ok, the reason I asked was because there is a particularly outspoken cosmologist who has been popularizing a confusion of those two concepts of nothing.
 
Aye, the universe is eternal. It exists independent of time. Both multiverses and inflation are a result of Big Bang theory mathematics. Taking a different approach excludes both. This universe is plasma. This is an observable and known fact. 99.9% of the Universe is plasma (the fourth state of matter: solid; liquid; gas; then ionized, electrically conductive gas. Solar wind is plasma. When that wind reaches the extent of the solar system, it contributes to the energy conduits that make up our galaxy! Our Sun ultimately helps feed the energetic core of our galaxy! All spiral galaxies work that way. The universe is for more interesting and dynamic than gravitational based theories of the cosmos would lead you to believe. Anyway, plasma self-organizes into amazing complexity. That's just how the stuff behaves. Matter's own properties dictate organization into higher ordered states. It's been proven in nature and by laboratories time and time again. Thermodynamics 2 then, is a balance, not a directive. Thermodynamics 2 is a valid description of activities within the universe but it's only part of the picture.

I opened up a discussion in the science section about Plasma Cosmology vs Big Bang Theory... Maybe better if we took this tangent over there?
 
Rift Zone said:
It seems the most recent fervor is over gravitational wave rippling. It's all theoretical and doesn't really do much to demonstrate the accuracy of any theory.
Click to expand...

With those particular theories its going to be very difficult to evidence them in the manner a lot of people consider to be sufficient, I mean its about as easy to evidence as theories about God, the afterlife etc. because I tend to think of the multiverse and other more esoteric theories like that to be in the same order, even if not treated the same by either academics or the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top