Calling Out Donald H: Mainstream Science does believe the universe was created from nothing

[ding]

This is a 1v1 match between Donald H and myself. It's not a free for all. Unless you are Donald H please don't add your comments to this thread.

As I predicted in another thread, Donald H believes that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

I will be arguing that the belief of mainstream science is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago being created from nothing.

Atheists are uncomfortable with the idea of a cosmic beginning. The Big Bang theory came out of the work of the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian physicist (and Catholic priest) George Lemaître in the 1920s. And clear evidence that galaxies are flying apart as from some vast primordial explosion was announced in 1929.

Some people have a problem accepting the universe was created from nothing because they believe it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; energy cannot be created or destroyed. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics and the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

The Early Universe

What is the cosmic microwave background?

The cosmic microwave background can help scientists piece together the history of the universe.

www.space.com

So Donald H, make your case that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

Or you can run away - which is what I expect you will do.

 

[Donald H]

This is a 1v1 match between Donald H and myself. It's not a free for all. Unless you are Donald H please don't add your comments to this thread.

As I predicted in another thread, Donald H believes that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

I will be arguing that the belief of mainstream science is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago being created from nothing.

Atheists are uncomfortable with the idea of a cosmic beginning. The Big Bang theory came out of the work of the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian physicist (and Catholic priest) George Lemaître in the 1920s. And clear evidence that galaxies are flying apart as from some vast primordial explosion was announced in 1929.

Some people have a problem accepting the universe was created from nothing because they believe it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; energy cannot be created or destroyed. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics and the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

The Early Universe

What is the cosmic microwave background?

The cosmic microwave background can help scientists piece together the history of the universe.

www.space.com

So Donald H, make your case that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

Or you can run away - which is what I expect you will do.

My case: The mentioned theory is one theory of science for the beginning of the universe.
I don't 'completely' accept that theory, the multiverse theory, or any of the other theories.

And I don't accept at all any theories that the Christian's god created it!


The big bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point.

 

[ding]

My case: The mentioned theory is one theory of science for the beginning of the universe.
I don't 'completely' accept that theory, the multiverse theory, or any of the other theories.

And I don't accept at all any theories that the Christian's god created it!


The big bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point.

Let's just focus on the how the universe was created from nothing. I've supplied the basis for believing the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago.

I get that you don't accept this. What I am asking you is what science did you base that upon?

 

[ding]

The big bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point.

Yes, that's when all matter/energy was created from nothing. That's what comes into being means. That's the mainstream science. I get that you want to dismiss it as theory but it seems you ought to have a reason like you believe something else and can link to what you believe. It sounds like you are dismissing the science because it makes you uncomfortable. In fact, it sounds like you are dismissing the science without ever having investigated it at all. Is that what you did?

 

[Donald H]

Let's just focus on the how the universe was created from nothing. I've supplied the basis for believing the universe was created from nothing ~14 billion years ago.

Were you of the opinion that I wasn't aware of the Big Bang theory?
Were you aware that it's stated that the universe started from a single point which assumes something?
And are you aware that it's one theory among several proposed theories?

I get that you don't accept this. What I am asking you is what science did you base that upon?

I base my opinion on the fact that there are several other theories being entertained by science.

You can't just rush headlong into accepting the first theory that can be manipulated and twisted into being somehow consistent with the Christian's creation myth.

Where did the garden in Eden get to?

I can appreciate that you are a forward leaning Christian with the goal of making all your bible's nonsense work in correlation with modern science! That's commendable when 99% of the flock is still incapable of accepting modern science without including the creation myth.

Yes, it's a myth, as stated in your bibles.

 

[Donald H]

Yes, that's when all matter/energy was created from nothing. That's what comes into being means. That's the mainstream science. I get that you want to dismiss it as theory but it seems you ought to have a reason like you believe something else and can link to what you believe. It sounds like you are dismissing the science because it makes you uncomfortable. In fact, it sounds like you are dismissing the science without ever having investigated it at all. Is that what you did?

It's not 'nothing'.

You've rushed headlong and carelessly into believing that I wasn't aware of the BB theory.

PLEASE!
I must have told you several times by now that I don't accept the BB theory over any of the other theories.

Is it time to dethrone the Big Bang theory?

Is It Time To Dethrone The Big Bang Theory?

How to be a ‘cosmic revolutionary’ (and why you’ll be doing scientists a favor).

www.forbes.com

 

[Donald H]

Many people think that the theory says that our Universe began by exploding into empty space, whereas the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of all of space, and the beginning is at best a plausible implication of the theory.”

 

[ding]

Were you of the opinion that I wasn't aware of the Big Bang theory?
Were you aware that it's stated that the universe started from a single point which assumes something?
And are you aware that it's one theory among several proposed theories?

I am aware that you believe that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing. That's the point of this debate.

I'm still waiting for the your proof that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing. Because I have already proven that it does.

You seem to be wanting something different. The question is... do YOU believe that mainstream science does or doesn't suggest that the universe was created from nothing?

 

[ding]

I base my opinion on the fact that there are several other theories being entertained by science.

You can't just rush headlong into accepting the first theory that can be manipulated and twisted into being somehow consistent with the Christian's creation myth.

Where did the garden in Eden get to?

I can appreciate that you are a forward leaning Christian with the goal of making all your bible's nonsense work in correlation with modern science! That's commendable when 99% of the flock is still incapable of accepting modern science without including the creation myth.

Yes, it's a myth, as stated in your bibles.

Try to stay focused on the topic of debate which is that you believe mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe was created from nothing.

Those other theories are not the mainstream science. The main stream science is literally based on a quantum tunneling event that created all matter and energy from nothing. That's what the big bang is based upon. And the big bang is the mainstream science.

So how can the big bang - which is the mainstream science on the creation of the universe - not be based upon matter and energy being created from nothing?

 

[ding]

It's not 'nothing'.

You've rushed headlong and carelessly into believing that I wasn't aware of the BB theory.

PLEASE!
I must have told you several times by now that I don't accept the BB theory over any of the other theories.

Is it time to dethrone the Big Bang theory?

Is It Time To Dethrone The Big Bang Theory?

How to be a ‘cosmic revolutionary’ (and why you’ll be doing scientists a favor).

www.forbes.com

That doesn't even suggest a different theory. All that suggests is that the big bang model may be replaced someday. The Big Bang is the mainstream science for the creation of the universe. And apparently you don't believe the Big Bang suggests that matter and energy were created from nothing. But you haven't offered one shred of evidence that that's not what the Big Bang suggests.

 

[ding]

Donald H are you ready to agree with me that the Big Bang model is based upon the universe being created from nothing?

 

[ding]

This isn't a debate about which model is correct. This is a debate on what the mainstream model - aka the Big Bang - is based upon.

 

[Donald H]

I am aware that you believe that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing. That's the point of this debate.

I'm still waiting for the your proof that mainstream science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing. Because I have already proven that it does.

No, at best you've proven that some scientists advance that theory. And I've told you a dozen times that I don't accept that theory over some of the other theories.

You seem to be wanting something different. The question is... do YOU believe that mainstream science does or doesn't suggest that the universe was created from nothing?

Both are theories and I certainly don't have the credentials to say that one is more likely than the other.

Frankly, I think that science is beginning to move beyond the BB theory and I've included a link to support that.

What is your opinion on the multiverse theory?

fwiw, DeGrasse Tyson entertains a theory that we may be nothing but a part of a AI experiment. But he always rejects the 'Christian's god' theory.

I think that thinking on his level, the bible's nonsense is seen as an embarrassment that's not worthy of any consideration. He knows that the modern church is scrambling and clutching at any straws available in an effort to save itself from extinction.

What did you imagine that I understood about the BB theory?

 

[Donald H]

Donald H are you ready to agree with me that the Big Bang model is based upon the universe being created from nothing?

No!
I am of the opinion that one theory proposes 'nothing' and the same theory acknowledges 'something'.

I've already quoted the theory that the BB started from 'something'.

I think you jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't aware of the BB theory.

Isn't that a bit unwise of you, considering that nearly every adult in our modern world has heard the theory?

 

[ding]

No, at best you've proven that some scientists advance that theory. And I've told you a dozen times that I don't accept that theory over some of the other theories.

CERN would disagree with you. Do you know who CERN is?

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

 

[ding]

Both are theories and I certainly don't have the credentials to say that one is more likely than the other.

Frankly, I think that science is beginning to move beyond the BB theory and I've included a link to support that.

What is your opinion on the multiverse theory?

fwiw, DeGrasse Tyson entertains a theory that we may be nothing but a part of a AI experiment. But he always rejects the 'Christian's god' theory.

I think that thinking on his level, the bible's nonsense is seen as an embarrassment that's not worthy of any consideration. He knows that the modern church is scrambling and clutching at any straws available in an effort to save itself from extinction.

What did you imagine that I understood about the BB theory?

This isn't about which one is likely, this is about what the Big Bang - which IS mainstream science's accepted theory for the creation of the universe - is based upon. And for some odd reason you are refusing to acknowledge that the Big Bang is based upon the creation of matter and energy from nothing. My opening post provided a link which explains paired particle production which is how the universe came to be. My opening post also explained how it doesn't violate the FLoT. And my opening post provided a link that explains the cosmic background radiation or CMB. There is no other possible explanation for the massive amount of CMB other than the creation of the universe from paired particle production.

You are speaking out of you ass when you say the science is moving beyond the Big Bang as all work being done starts with the premise that the universe began. There are only two option; the universe began or the universe always existed. No one is working on an eternal into the past universe. That's dead. The CMB killed it. Multiverses are based exactly upon what I have described to you. Multiverses are just more universes being created the same way as ours which is that the universe began through a quantum tunneling event or paired particle production.

This isn't a religious discussion. This is a science discussion. Yes, it has religious implications, but the point I am trying to make to you is that the mainstream science tells us the universe was created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event. I can't have a religious discussion with you until you acknowledge that this is mainstream science's position on the creation of the universe. For you not to acknowledge this is kind of ridiculous because this is the mainstream science's explanation for the creation of the universe.

I assumed you didn't know that the mainstream scientific explanation for the creation of the universe involved the universe being created from nothing because that's what you said which is why I created this callout thread.

Science doesn't suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

 

[ding]

No!
I am of the opinion that one theory proposes 'nothing' and the same theory acknowledges 'something'.

I've already quoted the theory that the BB started from 'something'.

I think you jumped to the conclusion that I wasn't aware of the BB theory.

Isn't that a bit unwise of you, considering that nearly every adult in our modern world has heard the theory?

What did the Big Bang start from? Where did the matter come from?

 

[Donald H]

This isn't about which one is likely, this is about what the Big Bang - which IS mainstream science's accepted theory for the creation of the universe - is based upon. And for some odd reason you are refusing to acknowledge that the Big Bang is based upon the creation of matter and energy from nothing.

No, I accept that 'nothing' is sort of the theory, but 'nothing' is 'something' at the described point.

My opening post provided a link which explains paired particle production which is how the universe came to be. My opening post also explained how it doesn't violate the FLoT. And my opening post provided a link that explains the cosmic background radiation or CMB. There is no other possible explanation for the massive amount of CMB other than the creation of the universe from paired particle production.

You are speaking out of you ass when you say the science is moving beyond the Big Bang as all work being done starts with the premise that the universe began. There are only two option; the universe began or the universe always existed. No one is working on an eternal into the past universe. That's dead. The CMB killed it. Multiverses are based exactly upon what I have described to you. Multiverses are just more universes being created the same way as ours which is that the universe began through a quantum tunneling event or paired particle production.

This isn't a religious discussion. This is a science discussion. Yes, it has religious implications, but the point I am trying to make to you is that the mainstream science tells us the universe was created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event. I can't have a religious discussion with you until you acknowledge that this is mainstream science's position on the creation of the universe. For you not to acknowledge this is kind of ridiculous because this is the mainstream science's explanation for the creation of the universe.

I assumed you didn't know that the mainstream scientific explanation for the creation of the universe involved the universe being created from nothing because that's what you said which is why I created this callout thread.

Did you understand the following quote?

quote: Many people think that the theory says that our Universe began by exploding into empty space, whereas the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of all of space, and the beginning is at best a plausible implication of the theory.”

 

[ding]

No, I accept that 'nothing' is sort of the theory, but 'nothing' is 'something' at the described point.

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

 

[ding]

Did you understand the following quote?

quote: Many people think that the theory says that our Universe began by exploding into empty space, whereas the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of all of space, and the beginning is at best a plausible implication of the theory.”

Not seeing where that disagrees that matter and energy were created from nothing.