“The Multiverse Created Itself” and “Who made God after all?” – The Kalam Cosmological Argument

mult

The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. -Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, 135.

Is this so reasonable? Is it true that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most compelling arguments for theism. The broad opposition to the Kalam (or, more specifically, to its implications) from atheists has lead to some sophisticated arguments (like those of Graham Oppy or J.L Mackie), but it has also lead to some pretty poor arguments. Below, several objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument have been outlined, along with rebuttals of varying lengths.

The Multiverse?

Some have objected to the Kalam by raising the possibility of a multiverse. They say that this counters the Kalam because it’s possible that our universe is one of nearly infinite past universes, generated as another “bubble” among untold trillions of other bubble universes. There should be one glaring difficulty with this objection that most can see immediately: “Whence the multiverse?” If the multiverse is proposed as eternal, then every objection about actual infinites applies to the multiverse. Not only that, but the multiverse itself would have to account for entropy. How is it that all the energy in this (nearly) infinite multiverse has not been used if it has existed for all eternity?

Ways around these difficulties have been proposed. For example, regarding entropy, some have argued that perhaps different laws of nature apply to the multiverse as a whole. Clearly, this is an extremely ad hoc theory that is really only invented to try to get around the argument. Once we’re allowed to modify reality to our every whim, we could indeed create anything we like–including (nearly) infinite universes.

Another problem with the multiverse objection is that we have startlingly little evidence for such a hypothesis. While there are many hypothetical scientists proposing bubble universes and the like, it’s shocking to read just how little evidence there really is for such a hypothesis.

Finally, even were there an infinite multiverse–as some have proposed due to string theory–this would not avoid an absolute beginning for the entirety of the multiverse. Bruce Gordon points out that the standard inflationary models still use inflation with a finite duration, which would entail that regardless of the number of universes which exist, there would still have to be an absolute beginning to the multiverse (Gordon, cited below, 86-87).

Perhaps, however, this multiverse (or the universe) is finite, but it created itself. There are a number of proposals suggesting just that.

The Universe Created Itself

I don’t think I can do much better than Edgar Andrews did over at his blog when he asks “Could a universe create itself?” He points out that the difficulty with each scenario proposed in which the universe creates itself is that it presupposes the existence of either matter, energy, or the laws of nature–the very things which this objection is supposed to answer. Andrews writes,

 Stephen Hawking [who recently proposed the universe created itself] falls into this dilemma by claiming that the universe was created as a result of quantum mechanical fluctuations (in a vacuum) which became stabilized by gravitational forces [Hawking pp. 131-135; Hawking review]. He thus requires the laws of quantum mechanics and of gravity to have pre-existed the universe… But what is the law of gravity but a description of the way materialbodies interact — either with one another or with the space-time continuum? To claim that such a law existed in the absence of matter, energy, space or time stretches credulity and is incapable of demonstration. Only ‘mind of God’ and ‘non-material blueprint’ arguments remain and these are theological not scientific.

Similarly, suppose we took the claim of Smith (above) seriously–that the universe created itself from nothing. Does this even make sense? William Lane Craig writes, “…if prior to the existence of the universe, there was absolutely nothing–no God, no space, no time–how could the universe possibly have come to exist?” This is an extremely important question for the atheist to answer. Most often, however, atheists have instead changed the meaning of “nothing” to mean quantum vacuum or some other physical reality. This is hardly “nothing” that would have existed before the universe. Before the universe, there was no space, no time, no anything.

Edgar Andrews points out the confusion that some atheist philosophers and physicists perpetuate with this conflation of “nothing”:

[Victor Stenger] begins by utterly confusing the pre-creation ‘nothing’ that lies outside of space-time with the ‘nothing’ of a vacuum within space-time. Next, without making it clear which ‘nothing’ he is talking about, he claims that ‘the transition from nothing to something is a natural one, not requiring any agent.’ (Andrews, 97, cited below).

The problem isn’t solved when one lends it the idea of a multiverse, either. Oscillating universe models still imply a finite beginning (Gordon, 86ff). The idea that an infinite number of universes caused each other in a causal loop does no better–it leads only to a vicious regress. Ultimately, such proposals must be rejected for what they are–fiction.

Who Caused God?

Another trite response to the Kalam is the classic “Well fine, you say the universe is caused, well who caused God?” line. Here the atheist commits a number of classic blunders, to steal the phrase from “The Princess Bride.”

First, as in all scientific (and otherwise) inquiry, once one has reached the best possible explanation for an event, one has reached the end of the inquiry. An inference to the best explanation does not require an explanation of that explanation. There’s a reason that scientific inquiry can appeal to laws: they best explain how the world works.

Second, the first part of the Kalam is that “Everything which begins to exist has a cause” not  ”Everything is caused.” The atheist has merely misread or misinterpreted this principle. Should the atheist want to press the second point–that everything is caused, they have already conceded the weaker principle (that everything which begins has a cause), and they must further argue for a much stronger metaphysical claim. I leave it to the atheist to establish this claim.

“But,” the atheist may object, “you’re just denying the antecedent!” Not quite. I’m not saying that God didn’t begin, therefore God was uncaused–rather, I’m arguing that because God did not begin, this argument does not apply to God. There could be other arguments made to establish that God is caused, but to do so would require, as I pointed out, arguing for the metaphysical principle that “everything is caused.” Again, I leave the atheist to make this argument.

Conclusion

While many objections to the Kalam might be made in good faith, it is clear upon examination that they all fall far short of defeating the argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument succeeds in its goal: to show that the universe is caused. What is this cause? That’s a question we must all consider with fear and trembling.

Links

Those interested in a broad outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument can read my post on the topic.

For a discussion of one both Richard Dawkins’ and Graham Oppy’s objections to the Kalam, read Dawkins and Oppy vs. Theism: Defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Sources:

Edgar Andrews, ”Could a universe create itself?”

Edgar Andrews, Who Made God (Darlington, England: EP books, 2009). Reviewed here.

Bruce Gordon, “Inflationary Cosmology and the String Multiverse” in New Proofs for the Existence of God by Robert Spitzer (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010).

William Lane Craig and Paul Copan, Creation Out of Nothing (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004).

SDG.

About Guest Contributor

JwJ.W. Wartick is a graduate student with an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He writes on theology, philosophy of religion, and apologetics at his blog Always Have a Reason. You may follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Some of J.W.’s  articles I will highly recommend are The New Defenders of Molinism: Reconciling God’s Foreknowledge and Our Free Will, The Ontological Argument: Therefore God Exists, and Answering Common Young Earth Creationist Arguments.

Advertisements

114 thoughts on ““The Multiverse Created Itself” and “Who made God after all?” – The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. Argument :

    Premise One – For something to come into existence is for something to begin to exist.
    Premise Two: To begin to exist is to change from not existing at one time, to existing at another time.
    Premise Three. For something not to exist at some time is for time to exist before that something comes into existence.
    Premise Four: But time did not exist ‘prior to’ the existence of the universe.
    Therefore: The universe did not come into existence.
    Premise Five. If something does not come into existence, no explanation can be true for it coming into existence.
    Therefore: God, as an explanation for the universe coming into existence, is not true.

    • P4 is false. Because the universe could begin simultaneous with time. So the universe(space) came into existence simultaneous with time.

      Thus the argument is unsound. 🙂

  2. So Prayson, what do you really think about all this apologetics stuff? It doesn’t seem to refine anyone’s understanding of god, in fact, it seems a bit blasphemous in the same way that muslims would claim that iconography is blasphemous, i.e. it claims to characterize something which is beyond our power to characterize, and so is arrogant and misleading. People can argue about before the beginning, the edge of the universe, infinities, nothing – on and on about all the things which are place-holding approximations awaiting better approximations or which mark the point at which our theories break down. It is all dividing by zero, and people will endlessly claim that they have found a way in which it makes sense. What is the functional explanation for this activity (I will be more specific than asking about cause, seeing what happens whenever that naughty word is uttered)?:)

    • Apologetics has its place. Actually, it has the same point as that discipline we call science. So that we can worship God as best we can, we strive to understand what He has done, what He is, what He as told us, and what He wants from us as best we can.

      • But if god is Omni-this, Omni-that and perfect in between, aren’t the apologists and theologians just like the blind men and the elephant? They’ll be forever fighting over whether they’ve got hold of a tree or a snake, missing the point entirely the whole time and without a way to check themselves. Belief in god is something one must jump into with both feet or not at all, I think. Cosmological arguments and all the rest seem inherently off the mark.

        • What does the parable of ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN illustrate? Isn’t the point of the story to demonstrate the futility of pride? Separately, the blind men could not arrive at the truth. Together they had a fairly good picture of an elephant, but each man’s pride would not allow him to admit any viewpoint but his own. So none of them could perceive the elephant.

          When we argue or fight over the “truth,” one or more of us refuses to admit any viewpoint but our own. When we honestly debate, we set aside our pride, and we examine the merits of each others observations. Only then can we can undergird our faith with a sturdy foundation of reason.

          Here is a link for those who have forgotten the tale of The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887).
          http://www.constitution.org/col/blind_men.htm

          • Together they had a more complete list of elephant qualities. Their descriptions put together are recognizable as an elephant to those with an external perspective. But I agree with you in that our over-arching theories of truth are too ambitious (prideful, in your words). A deflationary attitude is in order. Which brings me back to the original point: Don’t all these apologetic arguments contain within them a Big Theory of Truth, an a priori picture of the elephant, in the current analogy?

  3. I love the irony of Christians arguing for an Islamic based philosophy and then inserting their god, Yeshua, into the mix.

    Of course Jesus made the Universe. It is so obvious.
    But you would have thought he would have passed on this information to Gabriel and made damn sure he told Mohammed. Imagine how much less confusion there would have been if he’d simply made a bit more effort?

    Maybe JC had other things on his mind? Nails, Cross, transubstantiation, impregnating his future mother.
    Busy life being a god. Busy death for that matter!

    • Ark,

      Why is it that atheists blame man’s confusion and ignorance on God?

      Are we not responsible for ourselves and what we choose to believe?

      On the one hand, you the atheist, berates God for not manhandling mankind into submission.

      But on the other hand you call him a murderous psychotic when you see what that looks like.

      One can only conclude that the atheists has no idea about the nature of God, man and universe.

      • And this has what exactly to do with the comment?

        If Jesus is the creator of the universe it is ironic that you lot have to derive your argument for its creation from an Islamic philosopher.

        Maybe that biblical carrot is so far up your bum, SOM, you have been permanently bereft of a sense of humour. Or maybe you just wouldn’t understand irony if it lost the ”Y” and dropped on your stupid fat head?

        • Ark,

          Since the atheists has trouble remembering his own words, allow me to play them back for you.

          Here is you blaming God for man’s ignorance:

          “Imagine how much less confusion there would have been if he’d simply made a bit more effort?”

          • Ark,

            Instead of trying to use verbal jujitsu and deflect away from the meaning of my comment, why not take a moment and think through the meaning of your own words.

            By your own words, you blame God for man’s own ignorance and confusion.

            You actually pass judgment on God because he doesn’t act the way you think he should.

            Stop and think about that.

            If you do, you will see that atheism is couched in utter absurdity.

          • Wrong. I am not ”blaming” as this would then presumes a premise for the god you genuflect to, and you know I don’t swing that way.

            I was merely highlighting the irony and stupidity of the whole religious standpoint.

            So, irrespective who is to blame would you like to demonstrate how your god, Yeshua, is the creator of the universe?

          • Ark,

            What you done is demonstrate the intellectual shortcomings of atheism.

            You admitted flat out that you haven’t thought about the very basic proofs of the existence of God and then you move along to pass judgment upon both him and religion.

            How can someone who freely admits to not thinking deeply about fundamental issues not see that he suffers from the very thing he is criticizing?

            The answer is bias.

            Your comments are proof that atheism is a trip back to the barbaric, pre-modern past when personal bias ruled over reason.

            Reasoned thinking was developed precisely because bias destroys any chance of understanding the way reality is constructed.

          • There are no proofs for your god, or any other for that matter. Stop being a naughty boy.

            I admit I am not in a position to crit this post as I have not studied the Kalam argument.
            Which is why I am relying on your expertise to demonstrate how the Christian god, Yeshua is the Creator of the Universe.

            You obviously have a handle on this argument, as with the other version of Cosmological one, so , all I am asking is for you to explain in laymen terms, as I do not have a scientific background ( I just managed to understand the Leclanche Cell), How Jesus was the Creator of the Universe.
            It is a simple request. I don’t need anything fancy, just a straightforward explanation. Okay?

            Of course, if you don’t understand how Jesus was the Creator of the Universe , or are unable to explain it, maybe I should ask a more qualified person?

  4. Dear friend, Thank you very much, I’ve visited your blog, read an article that is quite interesting, makes me really happy to have been following your blog and you are an awesome blogger, full Inspiring and hope you can inspire more readers. Thank you and best regards from Gede Prama affection 🙂

  5. The ongoing fascination with this argument amazes me. Even if you grant its assumptions about time, events and causality, it amounts to walking into a room whose floor is covered with dominoes and saying, “Oh look, someone must have knocked them over.” Much too ambitious.

  6. Even if we would, for the sake of the argument, assume that this argument was sound (it isn’t), this wouldn’t be an argument for god. It does neither imply consciousness, purpose or even some form of “being” – just something that has no beginning. This could be everything, including an infinite metaverse or some randomly generated garbage code running on an alien computer.

    Buf of course, the argument isn’t sound. It’s an argument trying to conclude the properties OF the universe FROM experience INSIDE the universe and inside time (“everything that has a beginning…”). But the universe itself is not in time and the universe itself is not in the universe, so you are comparing apples with bananas here. If you have the set of all numbers that you can divide by 3. Is the set itself dividable by 3? No, it’s not even a NUMBER. Just because something applies to everything IN the bag does not mean that it applies to the bag ITSELF.

    • Mutant,

      The Cosmological Argument doesn’t have to concern itself with consciousness.

      It is only an argument for a First Cause of the universe.

      Since the First Cause is Creator of the universe it is God.

      Consequently, that God has being is obvious.

      That is all the reason that is necessary to prove the existence of God.

      Your arguments against the existence of God based on his other attributes such as God being a person, being loving, etc., are straw men.

      • If you want to call your idea of a first cause “god”, I couldn’t care less. You can pray to something that perhaps not even realizes that you exist. I really don’t have anything against theism, it’s totally ok. It’s the whole bullshit around that idea (aka religion) that’s the problem.

          • You are right – I don’t care about about what you think is “proof”, because quite honestly, I wouldn’t expect you to recognize evidence or proof even if you had a good manual on how to do so.

          • Mutant,

            This isn’t about what I think is proof.

            The Cosmological Argument dates back to ancient Greeks.

            And in his “Summa Theologica,” Saint Thomas includes it with a collection of other proofs of the existence of God.

          • Mutant,

            The significance of my comments is that they dismantle each one of your arguments and breaks them into smaller than subatomic particles.

            It’s kind of like when matter is relieved of its God particles (Higgs boson) and ceases to exist as matter.

            You even end the discussion with usual abuse so characteristic of atheists who have just had their hats handed to them.

          • I have long lost any hopes of finding a good thought among your ramblings, otherwise I would be quite surprised about the last posting, but you are really good at finding new lows every time.

  7. “If the multiverse is proposed as eternal, then every objection about actual infinites applies to the multiverse. ”

    Can these same objections be thus used against an infinite God?

    Does that mean that you believe in a finite God?

    “How is it that all the energy in this (nearly) infinite multiverse has not been used if it has existed for all eternity?”

    Quantum Mechanics never allows you to have zero energy. Even in an empty vacuum you get fluctuations because of the uncertainty principle. These are fluctuations in both energy and entropy.

    “Bruce Gordon points out that the standard inflationary models still use inflation with a finite duration, which would entail that regardless of the number of universes which exist, there would still have to be an absolute beginning to the multiverse”

    I’m a physicist and this makes no sense. The duration of inflation has nothing to do with how long the multiverse has existed for.
    So I looked up the creditionals of this “Bruce Gordon”.
    He’s a creationist PHILOSOPHER! He’s not even a physicist. Why on earth should I take what he says with any weight at all?

    “While there are many hypothetical scientists”
    This made me chuckle. I suspect the scientists themselves were not hypothetical 😛

    “if prior to the existence of the universe”

    How can you talk about prior to time itself? What does that even mean?

    “I’m arguing that because God did not begin, this argument does not apply to God”

    So why not just argue that the universe didn’t begin?

    After all, the universe has literally existed for all time. If the universe has existed for a finite time, and if there is a God, then God has existed for a finite time too. God existed for exactly the same amount of time as the universe did.

    So aren’t you forced to say that God existed for a finite time too? And yet argue that he had no beginning?

  8. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most compelling arguments for theism.”

    This is an absurd statement on two fronts. First, it’s incomplete and doesn’t answer anything, simply pushing the question back one further rung. Further to this, it demands cause and effect to be fixed, yet the theist simply excuses their god from that fundamental requirement without explanation.

    Second, and far more damaging, demonstrated retrocausality renders the Kalam dead. Causal relationships are not fixed. Effects can indeed precede the cause. This has been demonstrated in experimentation.

    So, my advice to you is stop using the Kalam if you want to be relevant in the future.

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html#jCp

    http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n6/abs/nphys2294.html

    • Thank you John for the links. For us to benefit, it would be grateful if you could summarize the argument of the links so as to allow a discussion here on the comments. 😉

      • But that would defeat the entire purpose of you learning for yourself! Clearly the apologist who clings so desperately to the already fatally flawed KCA will have an extreme aversion to accepting that the argument is dead in the water. As such, you’ll have to educate yourselves. I can only point you in the right direction. YOU have to walk those last few yards yourself.

        • John, it is because I may offer links to another showing the other side of the argument responding to objection. For any good discussion here is to present a summary, if you have understood their case that is, and J.w. Wartick would love addressing those critics.

          In steadying of tossing in links, books, &c., without any comment on the arguments presented and how they are defended, then we simply are not doing serious thinking ourselves.

          • Not really John. Since you are unwilling I will read them and provide the core argument for you. It is easy to simply toss books, links &c., around than actually presenting a case.

          • That’s the spirit! And you’ve just proved my earlier point regarding an apologists recalcitrance in learning this stuff. I told you about this months ago, yet its now clear that you never did look into it and study it for yourself… when perhaps you should have. I even did an article on it!

        • I have finished reading the “Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping”(http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf) to which your two links directed. Xiao-song Ma and the others “demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles”(Ma et at 2012:6)

          I am puzzled, how does this have to do with what J.w. Wartick presented?

          • Yes, the first premise states the unbreakable necessity for cause and effect for the argument to work. Why, then, did you even ask such an odd question?

            Oh god no, not Vilenkin… the theists go-to quote-mined cosmologist. Don’t you guys ever get tired rolling through the same old material? Now, we’ve been through this before, remember? I recall telling you: the BGV Theorem does not say “the universe had a beginning”, but rather that inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past, and require physics other than inflationary models to describe the boundary condition. All Vilenkin has ever said is by his estimates Inflation had a beginning, which is not to say the universe had a beginning. Vilenkin himself has already moved on and is working with Jaume Garriga, stating: “[We are] exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply.”

            In consulting the origin of this universe the only truthful response to anything pre-inflation (if that theory runs true, which it might or might not) is “we simply don’t know.” Inserting “god did it,” is god of the gaps at its most outrageous. Retrocausality, though, might just provide a natural explanation. Applied then to the many worlds theory and we have a very neat, zero energy explanation for the universe.

          • I do not see that affects the first premise John. Do explain.

            I do not follow your accusations of quote-mining, since I did not offer any quotation but a paper given on January 2012 stating that it is very probable that the universe began to exist. You stated that Vilenkin stated that he has moved over that?

            From reading the some of his recent papers, I am confused. Would you be kind and direct me where and when Vilenkin stated that?

          • The paper you linked to was interesting, and it concludes “At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.” Fine, that’s his reasoned guess, although it seems to contradict his earlier position. Now consider Alan Guth (co-author of the BGV) who said: “Conceivably everything can be created from nothing… in the context of inflationary cosmology it is fair to say the universe is the ultimate free lunch.” What about Anthony Aguirre who Vilenkin is now working with: “Given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past.” Who’s right? That’s very hard to answer as inflation wipes out any information that existed about the Universe before inflation. Except for the last 10-20-to-10-36 seconds of inflation (depending on the exact model parameters you choose), we have zero information in our Universe today about what happened prior to that. Therefore, as I pointed, the only truthful answer right now is “We simply don’t know.”

            Now, back to the actual topic at hand: the KCA. It states, Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence. Ignoring the entire host of problems with the argument, Retrocausality demolishes this first premise. Do you, yes or no, accept now that retrocausality has been experimentally demonstrated?

          • How does it challenge premise 1?

            Where did Vilenkin claimed to have moved on from his position presented on January 2012 that all the evidence point to a starting point, as you claimed? I would like to know where and when? I find it odd because I have recent works with me, but before I place them on the table, present your evidence. Where did Vilenkin state that he has moved on?

          • How does it challenge the first premise? Are you serious asking this? You do understand the nature of cause and effect, don’t you?

            Sorry, can’t find where that quote comes from. I picked it up somewhere, might even have been from a video interview.

          • I am surprised you cannot find it, because you continually present it as a decisive proof that Vilenkin had moved on from the idea on starting point of the universe.

            I am doubtful that you corrected understood him or picked up a false info. because I have recent journal works which he answers objections levelled against his 2012 paper that all successive model must have a starting point. This includes multiverses, inflationary modes &c,. So until you present where and when, I remain skeptical, given our background together.

            Back to premise 1. I am serious. You have to explain how it challenges it. I do not see how, so please do explain, since I am not as clever as you are John. The standard opposition of Causation which echoed today was presented by Hume, and clearly stated that “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”(David Hume, in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187.)

            I have a feeling that you are mixing two cosmological arguments premises, namely

            1. Everything has an explanation of its existence
            2. Everything that begins to exists has a cause.

            Show how the discovery I help you summarized show that 2 is false. Do not imagine we all simply see that.

          • Prayson, I’m starting to suspect you didn’t quite understand the delayed choice experimentation. That’s fine, it is rather complicated for QM novices like ourselves. You not answering me with a simple Yes or No whether you accept it or not, seems to confirm my suspicions. It would be helpful, therefore, if you could perhaps provide a summary for me here so I can see if you understood it, or not.

            (Also, you have your KCA confused. I’ve never seen the premise #1 you just presented, and in fact that isn’t what you even presented earlier, rather #2, which is the real beginning: Everything that begins to exists has a cause, ie. Cause and Effect are unbreakable and the Kalam rests on this being true.)

          • Vilenkin

            John, I have pondered the experiment above and tried to see what you claim it shows. I do not understand how it even begin to challenge the notion that “every being that begin to exist has cause”. You claimed it does. So explain how?

            I found where your quotation came from. It was from mail exchange between Krauss and Vilenkin. Where Krauss asked Vilenkin whether BGV theorem definitively rules out starting point. Here is part of mail Vilenkin’s 2013 exchanged between William Lane Craig and Vilenkin:

            My[Vilenkin’s] letter was in response to Lawrence’s email asking whether or not I thought the BGV theorem *definitively* rules out a universe with no beginning. The gist of my answer was that there is no such thing as “definitive ruling out” in science. I would say the theorem makes a plausible case that there was a beginning. But there are always caveats. (Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem#ixzz2sLCrNrxi)

            You, without knowing I assume, misunderstood the part Krauss presented since he did not fully quote what Vilenkin wrote, thus caused confusion to those not familiar with Vilenkin’s papers.

            This is a full paragraph from Vilenkin’s mail to Krauss:

            “On the other hand, Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by contraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied. I suspect that the theorem can be extended to this case, maybe with some additional assumptions.”(see above, Craig made all emails public)

            Vilenkin stated that model that avoids a big crunch singularity is generally believe to be incorrect and suspected that the theorem can be extended to this case.

            So I was puzzled with your comment that Vilenkin had moved on since he recently defended his paper of why it is mostly likely the whole thing had a starting point.

            Back to KCA, do show how the experiment challenge the idea that “everything that begin to exist has a cause”?

          • There you go! Now, you can take back your little snide comment (which I ignored like a true gentleman), and accept your apology in advance 😉

            I have that email exchange, as I remember Craig getting a hard on over it, and kept it for prosperity. Funny, I saw it yesterday but thought, “Nah, it wouldn’t be in that file!” Actually, I must thank you for posting that section, as it fully validates my position that he’s not entirely confident about the BGV and suspects it’ll crumble (hence his work now with Garriga) … which is PRECISELY what Quantum Loop Gravity says. Also, you must understand, the BGV proceeds by standard General Relativity and does not consider quantum gravity in its equations…. Yet it is only in quantum gravity where we’ll eventually spy the process of universe creation.

            Now, you keep avoiding the rather simple question: Yes or No, do you accept Retrocausality has been proven in experimentation. It’s OK if you didn’t understand the paper. It is quite confusing stuff, but here I really think a summary from you will help me know if you have, in fact, understood it. You don’t need to go into quantum interference patterns or anything like that (although that would be helpful in seeing if you grasp quantum probability), but just a basic summary of the experiment and its findings will do nicely.

          • John, I cannot say Yes or No to something I do not understand. So before I say Yes or No, explain how Xiao-song Ma and the others demonstrating that “a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles”(Ma et at 2012:6) questions that “everything that begin to exist has a cause”? Help me understand John!

          • John, do not turn the table around. I said I did not understand how the experiment challenge premise 1 of KCA. So do explain how it does John?

            I am beginning to wonder if you read the paper yourself since you presented two links directing to one paper which I summarized the conclusion for you.

            So do show how it challenge premise 1? You can not just claim it does without showing how, John?

          • Can you, or can’t you give me a summary? Your continued failure to do so is leading me to conclude either 1. you read the paper yet have no idea what it meant, or 2. you did understand and are just playing dumb.

            Here’s a clue: backwards causation. Perhaps you can explain to us all how backwards causation would interfere with the entire cause and effect (in one traditional direction) relationship which the KCA relies on to be true.

          • John, I am beginning to think you really do not know what you are talking about 🙂 Xiao-song Ma and the others demonstrated that “a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles”(Ma et at 2012:6). This was what they showed. My question is how does that even begin addressing “everything that begin to exist has a cause” in first place and how does is show that it is false. Help me understand John!

            Stop trying to turn the table around to save your neck. You are in deep waters already. It is you who has to do the explaining here. You made a claim. You ought to defend your claim, not asking me to do your explaining. You claimed this experiment question the truth of notion that “everything that begin to exist has a cause”. You have to explain how?

            Do you know, or not how? If you do, then explain? If not, then do not try hide behind turning tables to let others explain it for you.

            So again, how does it challenge premise 1? Stop avoiding the burden of proof. You made a claim, you ought starting giving explanation. Turning tables around on me or offer clues for me to do your explanation is placing the burden on me. I did not make the claim so I do not have to explain a thing.

            You did. Do the explaining John. Xiao-song Ma and the others demonstrated that “a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles”(Ma et at 2012:6) How does their demonstration shows “everything that begin to exist” false?

            I do not know how it does show P1 false. You do. Explain John? 😉

          • OK, so you haven’t understood what it’s about. That’s OK, 11th century word games are more your thing, although I seriously doubt you can write a convincing paper on cosmology now if you haven’t grasped this. It’s a minor private (and professional) hobby of mine trying to keep abreast of this stuff and I only really understand probably 10% of modern cosmology, maybe less, so I can sympathise with you not getting it. Believe me, it took me a while and quite a few conversations with actual QM physicists to begin to understand this retrocausality business.

            Two words: Backward causation, or Retrocausality. For the KCA to be valid it relies entirely on a classical causal relationship: a cause followed by an effect. Now, ignoring the host of logical problems with the KCA (problems simply ignored by theists), backward causation, as weird as it is but which has been demonstrated experimentally, shows that the effect can in fact precede the cause. The traditional relation is reversed, therefore, “what begins to exist has a cause” is rendered redundant.

            Now, it’s important to note that this was demonstrated on tiny scales, and only with one element of the particle, namely its spin. It was only a year or so ago that researchers at MIT (I think it was MIT?) managed to first entangle complete particles, one beryllium and one magnesium ion, if I remember correctly. So, retrocausality has not been demonstrated at the super atomic level, but that is beyond the point. Without breaking any laws of nature cause and effect has been turned on its head and premise #1 of the KCA becomes entirely obsolete.

            Now, cause and effect isn’t even terribly important to the universe…. certainly not to the extent Christian apologists try to claim it is. As Sean Carroll put it: “causes and effects aren’t really fundamental. It’s the laws of nature that are fundamental, according to the best understanding we currently have, and those laws don’t take the form of causes leading to effects; they take the form of differential equations, or more generally to patterns relating parts of the universe. So the question really is, ‘Can we imagine laws/patterns which describe a universe without God?’ And the answer is “sure,” and we get on with our lives.”

          • You really are in deep waters John 😉 and I am glad you began doing your job, offering explanations to your claim. Now let me assume that everything you said is true, for argument sake, how does it show that premise one is false?

            You stated that “demonstrated experimentally, shows that the effect can in fact precede the cause”, say this is true, how in the world does it show that “everything that begin to exist has a cause” is false? I may accept, for argument sake, that effect can precede the cause. Do you mean that given that, everything that begin to exist has a cause is false? How so?

            You stated that “The traditional relation is reversed, therefore, “what begins to exist has a cause” is rendered redundant”. Redundant. Granted for argument sake. But I am not asking for that, I am asking if it rendered it false. How on good earth is X being redundant shows that X is false? Explain.

          • You don’t have to accept anything for arguments sake: you can contact the researchers personally if you so choose and talk to them. You can even see their equipment and review their data. That’s the big difference between theology and actual repeatable scientific experimentation. One is real and you can gather data on it, not just play word games which you’re clearly more used to, and perhaps more intellectually comfortable with.

            OK, one last time, because I’m getting rather bored with your continued inability to understand reverse causation. It renders the first premise of the KCA invalid because there are proven exceptions to the rule of causality. Regardless at what level (subatomic or superatomic) this was demonstrated, it was still demonstrated. The rule has been broken. That’s it at its simplest.

          • John, a de jevú! When caught in deep waters, suddenly everything begin to be boring 😉

            Now defend your claims. You stated that it makes KCA premise one redundant. Granted. How does it show it false? Do you equated redundancy with falsity?

            You stated that effect can precede the cause! Awesome! How on earth does that show that “everything that begin to exist has a cause” false?

          • Redundant, obsolete, false, antiquated, incorrect, invalid, untrue, void, wrong, spurious, baseless, erroneous, inaccurate, fallacious, inexact, unfounded… which word do you prefer? Playing with words and definitions is your profession, is it not? 😉 Now, if you cannot see how retrocausality, proven as it has been, renders the premise “all effects have causes” redundant, obsolete, false, antiquated, incorrect, invalid, untrue, void, wrong, spurious, baseless, erroneous, inaccurate, fallacious, inexact, unfounded then there’s really not much I can do to help you.

          • John, turning the table to me as not understanding retrocausality would not rescue you from deep waters you are in.

            Now, who is playing word-game than you,John. So I would late you do the explaining. Do you mean, if proposition X(e.g. of redundancy: Jake(25 male) is not married and Jake is a a bachelor”) is redundant, then proposition X is false?

            Well, I asked how is the idea that effect can precede cause show that everything that begin to exist has a cause, John.

            Dancing around, accusing me not of understanding retrocausality would not help you or save your neck John. You made a claim. The onus is on you, not me. So address the questions, John 😉

          • Yes or No, Prayson: was retrocausality experimentally proven at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the University of Vienna in 2012?

            It’s really simple. Yes, or No….

          • John, it appears you have failed to answer my two questions and you totally have no idea what you are stating.

            I told you before, turning tables to begin you questioning of yes or no, is placing a burden of proof on me. The onus is on you my dear friend. I did not make a claim, you did. Defend it!

            Changing your duty of providing reasons for your us defended claims into interrogation won’t do mate 😉

            By asking yes/no, it shows you failed to do your job, John.

          • Yes or No, Prayson: was retrocausality experimentally proven at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the University of Vienna in 2012?

            It’s really simple. Yes or No….

          • John,

            Science doesn’t deal in “yes and no.”

            Nor is science a consensus.

            Science deals in “yes or no.”

            And consensus is politics, not science.

            “Yes and no,” and consensus are but two ways atheists apply their leftist propaganda to whatever it is they are trying to destroy.

          • Yes or No, Prayson: was retrocausality experimentally proven at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the University of Vienna in 2012?

            It’s really simple. Yes or No….

          • John,

            From you favorite source, Wiki:

            “Retrocausality is primarily a thought experiment in philosophy of science based on elements of physics, addressing the question: Can the future affect the present, and can the present affect the past?”

            Thought experiments are useful but they aren’t science.

            Science consists of physical experimentation.

            As an atheist you can claim that the unreal was proven in a science laboratory, but that’s because as an atheist you have 100% faith that everything happened all by itself.

            Therefore, anything can happen any place at any time according to your whim.

            It’s only your great wish that retrocausality was actually proven by science.

            But what has actually been proven by science is that the universe had a beginning.

            The cosmic background radiation signaling the existence of the Big Bang was discovered over 50 years ago.

          • Yes or No, Prayson: was retrocausality experimentally proven at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the University of Vienna in 2012?

            It’s really simple. Yes or No….

          • John,

            No.

            Since you have no idea what you are talking about allow me to furnish you with a link to information concerning quantum information:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information

            Quantum information is subject to science and engineering just like anything else in the universe that God created.

            That quantum physics is different from classical physics does not prove that God does not exist or that the universe had no beginning or that the science fiction of the multiverse is anything else than fiction.

          • Here’s a good article on it. What’s interesting in this paper is the part where he talks about how the experimenters choose to interpret the meaning of the quantum wavefunction. This is something I hadn’t seen before. The experiment was real, the results contradicted the intuitively obvious (classically accepted) relationship of cause preceding effect, but you can be a little retroactively cheeky in the interpretation. Still, the statement “every effect has a cause” is not necessarily true, and that’s what is interesting.

            http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/05/04/entangled-in-the-past-experime/

          • Putting me into an interrogation of Yes/No is not answering the questions John.

            Remember, the onus of proof is on you, not me! It is you who stands on the firing squad John. You made a claim. You ought to defend it, not turning the table to Yes/No me. I did not make any claim 🙂

            It appears that you are trying to save your neck by taking the route you are good at of Yes/No tactic! It wont work this time dear John.

            So back to the questions John? Explain the two statement you made?

          • Giving a link does not save John, from not answering the questions.

            I could not help but quote from the link your presented:

            Is this useful for anything? Beyond making my head hurt, that is? Not that I know of. The point is basically just to keep poking at the areas where quantum mechanics predicts weird stuff will happen, and see if it does.

            Remember John, I am only questioning the beginning of your explanation of the claim you made. I sensed that you were in deep waters and did not know what you where talking about and were offering argumentum ad novitan which is persuasive for those not familiar with critical thinking.

            So back to the questions John:

            1. Do you mean, if proposition X(e.g. of redundancy: Jake(25 male) is not married and Jake is a a bachelor”) is redundant, then proposition X is false?

            2.How does the idea that effect can precede cause show that everything that begin to exist has a cause is false

          • John, I doubted that you correctly presented Vilenkin that he has moved on. He has not. I believe you misunderstood or where mislead to believe that way from Krauss’ outline which left(consciously or not) context that does not validates your position. After stating the piece you quoted, Vilenkin continued state that a modal that avoids a big crunch singularity is generally believe to be incorrect and, using his words: “I suspect that the [BGV] theorem can be extended to this case, maybe with some additional assumptions.”

            The current position of Vilenkin is “the theorem makes a plausible case that there was a beginning.” On May 2012, Vilenkin explained in a popular level they rule out “the eternal universe” model:

            For the eternal inflation model, what we can show mathematically is that there is no end to this process. Some people thought maybe you could avoid a beginning, too. But our 2003 theorem shows that [avoiding a beginning] is impossible for this scenario. Although inflation may be eternal into the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past.(See more at: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning#sthash.g7my7kNo.dpuf)

            So no. It appears that his position is similar that the is most likely than not that the there is a starting point.

          • The words “maybe with some additional assumptions” are pivotal here. Again, study up on Quantum Loop Cosmology and you’ll see how the BGV collapses. If you’re going to approach this subject you have to be intellectually honest, Prayson. I think you’d agree with that, correct? You’ll have to detail that the BGV uses only General Relativity, and what that means as far as limitations go. That said, you’ll also have to detail every other theory (remember, inflation is just one) like the Many Worlds Theory and M-Theory (to name just two).

            That said, I wish you luck. It’s no small task what you’ve set yourself, and there will be many people far smarter than me who’ll rip your article to shreds if you omit anything. That’s a word of warning from a friend.

            If I were you i’d stick with trying to fit the Christian god into modern cosmology, and demonstrating which parts of scripture back your claims up.

          • Here’s some quotes for you to digest for your paper… important if you’re going to actually present the truth. Notice how even Vilenkin says “No” to the question of beginnings. Why? Because his model uses only General Relativity. You’ll have to explain why this is important.

            Dr. Victor Stenger: “The more recent theological claim that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have proved that the universe had to have a beginning is also in error. Again, this theorem was derived from general relativity and so is inapplicable to the issue of origins. Furthermore, it is disputed by other authors.44 I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem required a beginning. His e-mail reply: “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.” This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our universe do.”

            Vilenkin: [I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

            anthony aguirre: “A couple of brief comments, hopefully more later. First, Borde, Guth & Vilenkin did *not* prove that eternal inflation has singularities to the past. As you know, most singularity theorems prove geodesic incompleteness, and this is the case here. What all of their theorems do are (a) write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then (b) show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete. This would indeed be consistent with eternal inflation “emerging from a primordial singularity”, but it is also consistent with eternal inflation just being grafted onto some spacetime region that is not eternally inflating by their definition. This is exactly what Steven & I did in various ways in our paper; and in most cases we argued that the ‘extra’ region was indeed eternally inflating, just not in accord with their criteria for eternal inflation.”

          • I should add here, the paper you pointed to only works from the inflationary model. Right or wrong, the conclusions, therefore, are limited to that single theory. It doesn’t, for example, address the Many Worlds Theory. This is important to note, as is the looseness of the conclusions.

            Vilenkin wrote in “Inflationary Spacetimes are not Past-Complete”:

            “Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

            Here’s that again: “inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe”

            In other words, Borde, Guth and Vilenkin clearly suggest that a “beginning” is merely one possibility that might correspond to the boundary condition, yet its impossible to say. To this Sean Carroll makes a valid point by stating: “The definition of “singularity in the past” is not really the same as “had a beginning” — it means that some geodesics must eventually come to an end. (Others might not.) Most importantly, I don’t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. The moment of the Big Bang is, if anything is, a place where quantum gravity is supremely important. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin results are simply not about quantum gravity.”

            Hope that clears some things up.

            Now, back to retrocausality… 🙂

          • Sounds good. Don’t just limit yourself to inflationary models, though. If you’re going to be honest you must present every theory, including Loop Quantum Gravity. There is an excellent video on this. Its 43 minutes long so i won’t post it here. Search YouTube for “Before the Big Bang – Loop Quantum Cosmology Explained”

            Now, you keep avoiding answering me. Why? You haven’t told me whether you accept Retrocausality to have been proven experimentally.

          • Well, good luck with that. I would, however, urge you to watch the documentary. The world’s leading Quantum Loop cosmologists explain (among others things) how the BGV is interesting but not satisfactory. It also dismantles the latest Plank data, which you MUST UNDERSTAND if you’re even going to scratch at the surface of this topic, as it points to multiverses. Hard to see how you can possibly fit such a huge subject (which also includes spacetime torsion theories, string theory, its uglier cousin, m-theory, singularities, quantum tunneling etc.) into one post, but I can only encourage you. Grasping the complexities of current cosmological theories is a fine exercise. You’ll also have to deal with Retrocausality (proven experimentally, as it has been) and what that means.

            What would be terribly interesting is if you also tried to explain how these current cosmological theories actually fit with the Christian god of scripture. I mean, that is the crux of the matter for you, right? You think your god fits into this somehow, right? You have to somehow link this information to that god, and I’d be frightfully interested to see how you do this.

            If you’d like me to review the paper before publication I’d be happy to do so. I’m no expert, but I know enough and keep up-to-date as best as I can.

          • Weeeeesh! Well, you better enroll at MIT and start taking theoretical physics classes now… and I’ll see you in about 30 years down the road and we can discuss your assumptions while i admire your Noble Prize in Physics.

            Still, i would truly like to see you fit the Christian god into modern cosmology… and point to scripture (your only source for this god) to validate your position in a rational and believable way.

            That would be very, very, very interesting.

          • BTW, why aren’t you answering any of the other excellent replies? They deserve a response as their points are highly relevant and should be addressed.

          • I have to limit myself because I am writing an a paper to be submit on 10th Feb. So I only answer my favorites and awesome followers 😉 now and will answer the rest after 10th.

    • John,

      Retro causality is the ridiculous used to explain the ridiculous (multiverse).

      Retro causality is simply the atheist’s conjured up interpretation of reality which means it is necessarily false.

      If retro causality is true than parlor room magic is miracle.

      Which proves that if you’re an atheist you believe that everything happened all by itself which means you’ll believe anything.

    • John,

      The Cosmological Argument proves the existence of God.

      We know from science that the universe had a beginning.

      It is logical to credit God with the creation of the universe, otherwise it happened all by itself.

      Science has proven that the universe cannot be eternal.

      That means it was caused.

      God is the cause because anything else would itself need to be caused.

      • Which god would that be, please, and can you demonstrate or show how a particular god is responsible and how you know this is the correct god?

        • Ark,

          The healthy, mentally agile human being with a properly trained intellect, can reason out the exist of God.

          It isn’t clear whether atheism ruins the intellect or whether atheism requires an intellect that is first ruined.

          But proofs like the Cosmological Argument are easily understood by the person with average intellectual capacity.

          • I am not, in fact, disputing the argument, I have not the scientific background to be so presumptuous.

            I merely asked for you to demonstrate which god you refer to, as there are so many?

            So, which god are you talking about, please?

          • Ark,

            Understanding science isn’t necessary for understanding the Cosmological Argument.

            All you need is the ability to reason.

            I doubt whether most atheists have ever actually sat down, read the Argument and then spent the days, months or years thinking it through.

            Studying authentic science and cosmology really drives the Argument home.

            But again, such study takes time and effort and the willingness to venture into the unknown where profound learning and insight take place.

          • Yes, I agree, It does take time and this is why I have not disputed the argument as I do not have the background.

            But, once again, what has this got to do with the comment re: you lot, Christians, having to rely on Islam for your argument?

            I thought you worshiped different gods, or at least you lot think Allah is not a proper god and only Yeshua counts.

            Couldn’t you find a good enough argument in your bible?

            The Muslims must hose themselves laughing every time they come across one of you Christians using the Kalam argument.

            I’ll bet it gets right up your nose, hey, SOM?

          • Ark,

            I make very few arguments based on religious faith.

            Platonist and Aristotelian reasoning were incorporated into Christianity by saints Augustine and Aquinas.

            Platonist thinking and terminology are plain from the first words of the Gospel of John.

            Nevertheless, the heart of Christianity and Islam is faith.

            So it doesn’t make much sense to use faith as a reasoning tool especially when the discussion involves atheists who by definition do not believe in religion.

  9. The atheist dogma that everything happened all by itself is hardly reasonable.

    In fact, such a notion is completely ridiculous given the development of modern science.

    Further, there is no evidence for a “multiverse.”

    The multiverse then, is science fiction and fantasy.

    Since when did fiction and fantasy serve as authoritative sources against arguments based on reality and reason?

    • In all reality, SOM, the many worlds theory is far more mathematically sound than a single universe. Read Matthew Raves book, “Why is there anything?” for an excellent explanation of this.

      • John,

        Our single universe is mathematically sound, otherwise it would not exist as is.

        There is no evidence of a multiverse.

        So applying the same atheist standard that you apply to the existence of God, the multiverse belongs with the Pink Gay Spaghetti Monster in the atheist pantheon of the ridiculous.

        Why do I need to read a book by some leftist hack telling everyone that the unreal is real?

        If I believed the unreal was real, I’d be an atheist and wouldn’t need to be convinced.

        • Matts actually a physics professor, QM specialist, and he also has a wonderful way at communicating the rather difficult. Well worth a read.

          Yes, we do have a universal constant 1/137 (i think?), but until a theist can present another universe against which we can compare ours to nothing can be said about the arrangement presented here. That’s just a fact, but theists typically ignore it as its rather uncomfortable. That said, you’re drifting into ID territory, which is another matter altogether. Many worlds theory simply says the total information package of the universe (all universes) is zero. There is a universe where 1/137 is the constant, one where 1/138 is the constant, and so on.

          • John,

            Science isn’t a substitute for common sense.

            Albert Einstein, for all his greatness, panned quantum mechanics and made up constants out of thin air just so some of his hair brained theories about the universe would come out right.

            He even committed the unforgivable faux pas of dividing by zero in one of his equations.

            That particular Einstein phenomenon is called unattenuated, 100% pure, single malt bias.

            And that type of bias is brought on by hubris.

            Science can’t explain how it is possible for everything to happen all by itself.

            In fact, science demonstrates exactly the opposite: that everything must have a cause, even the universe or even the multiverse.

            Rave’s quantum mechanics flimflam is nothing but fancy sounding ignorance brought on by hubris-fueled atheist bias.

          • “Science can’t explain how it is possible for everything to happen all by itself.”

            -Until last year you were absolutely right. The whole something from nothing was flawed. Or, at least, as incomplete as the Kalam. Yes, particles can (and do) randomly pop in and out of vacuums and leave a positive energy residue (something from absolutely nothing), but the cosmologists pointing to this committed a little fib because its not actually something from nothing. For the particle to perform this trick the laws of QM have to be in pace. Sooo, it was never really nothing.

            HOWEVER, last year retrocausality was proven in experimentation. So, what is now possible/probable is a particle popped back from the universe where the laws of QM were already in place into a vacuum where those laws did not already exist, essentially creating that universe (with laws) from nothing.

            Retrocausality, my friend, retrocausality!

          • John,

            Quantum tunneling, as it is called, is not the spontaneous creation (ex nihilo) of matter.

            It is simply matter moving.

            As our understanding of quantum physics grows all sorts of wondrous technologies will surely be developed.

            But the laws of thermodynamics speak to the impossibility of spontaneous creation as does Einstein’s relativity.

            E = mc^2 is an equation that equates energy to matter.

            The spontaneous creation of matter would mean that all of mathematics is no longer a valid language with which to express physical reality because nothing would add up.

            And that would mean that our view of the universe would have to return to one the ancients had of a capricious, fickle, unintelligible chaos.

          • “The spontaneous creation of matter would mean that all of mathematics is no longer a valid language with which to express physical reality because nothing would add up.”

            …and yet this is EXACTLY what the theist is suggesting in the KCA! If the exemption can be made for any particular god, then why not also simply grant that exact same exemption the universe itself…Especially that we now actually have a possible process by which that could indeed happen, naturally.

    • As opposed to the religious dogma that an even more complex and intelligent thinking God just happened all by itself?

      The big bang just existing is a fantastically simple explanation compared to the explanation of a conscious thinking God just existing.

      “Further, there is no evidence for a “multiverse.””

      If evidence is found for or against, it will be found by scientists. Not by any amount of religious people praying and demanding “faith”.

      • JTap,

        Real scientists and real atheist are bound by evidence.

        There is more evidence for the existence of God then there is for the existence of the multiverse.

Comments are closed.