First.
Which God are you referencing? You would have to give me a bit more information about this God thing you are mentioning, and then you would have to demonstrate it was among the possible causes for the creation of the universe. Until you do that, saying ‘yes’ or '‘no’ would be as ignorant an assertion as asking, and then demanding an answer to the question. Your question is every bit as logical as “Did Kevin the Rainbow Farting Unicorn create the universe?” Yes or No? What is your argument?
SECOND
You do not get to claim the universe is a creation without demonstrating that such things can be created. Do you know of anyone who has ever created a universe? How did a ‘Created Universe’ become a possibility? How would you contrast a created universe with one that is naturally occurring? (How did you rule out a naturally occurring universe?)
Your question is one big “Begging the Question” fallacy. Demonstrate the universe is a creation. Demonstrate your definition of a God is directly tied in some way to that creation.
I’ve said this several times, but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.
The Big Bang is the beginning of the current presentation of the Universe . . . which is vastly different from claiming that the Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe.
I will shout–from the 50 yard line of the Superbowl–that science doesn’t know everything.
If, however, we decide to invoke God every time we don’t understand something, then we would still have women dying from childbed fever after giving birth.
Using scientific (as opposed to religious) ideas to understand the origin of the Universe may lead to clean energy from fusion (or antimatter?) or, possibly, a deeper understanding of gravity and/or Unified Field Theory . . . which may allow us to cheat general relativity and create a star drive.
I have answered this several times, and I invite anyone to read the threads and see that I have. I am done wasting time looking back through threads only for you to either hand wave them away, or ignore them completely when I have done so.
I will note however that you have not offered any explanation despite being asked repeatedly to do so, what your OBJECTIVE criteria is for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one. Again I invite anyone reading, to read the entire discourse if they are minded to see whether this assertion is true.
Sufficient objective evidence, as you were told on your first post 7 months ago. Or failing that I asked you present what you thought was your most compelling reason or “evidence” a deity exists outside of the human imagination.
Given we have only one example we can objectively scrutinised, I see exactly what you’re saying. I also don’t accept that complexity infers design, sufficient objective evidence is what demonstrates design, and the unerring fact that designed things don’t occur naturally. It’s also a dishonest argument, as theists who use it believe everything is designed, so complexity is a false criteria they use because they assume complex things are harder to understand, and if you don’t understand something then humans have always had a propensity to invoked superstition.
Oh wait, I posted explicitly about the late Stephen Hawking’s work on this, which is being continued by his Ph.D student Thomas Hertog, in this detailed post.
You can’t even exert the diligence required to use the forum search function.
No sir, pointing me at a post you made, that embodies your own interpretation of something is not what I asked for. I asked for a reference, a website, a PDF thesis etc untainted by your own biases, something written by Hawking.
I really do not think my request is unreasonable, do you?
To be honest at this stage I’d be disinclined to believe you even if you said the sun was coming up tomorrow, given how relentlessly dishonest you’ve been.
These threads are littered with you invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to insert your deity into gaps in our knowledge, so that is an hilarious and mendacious about turn.
This is nothing more than your interpretation of some of the things I’ve said. I could easily make comparable disparaging sweeping dismissive statements about your posts. But that is juvenility and I have no time for such a pointless activity.
If you had bothered to READ that post, you would have learned that I not only supplied a link to the science journalism article informing of the work in question, but that I quoted extensively therefrom Hertog’s own exposition of the work he collaborated upon with Hawking. Indeed, the entire article was WRITTEN BY THOMAS HERTOG HIMSELF. Who was Hawking’s chief collaborator on the scientific research in question.
Do you even bother checking the most elementary details before posting your excremental drivel?
I took a look at the articles and found (as I fully expected to) this:
Note the emphasis I added. The hypothesis presupposes the existence of “quantum particles” their reasoning based on the presumption of something with material properties already existing.
So why do you regard that as being a naturalistic models for the origin of the laws of nature?
It presumes laws already, laws that govern the interactions between particles which it also presumes to have existed.
This not an explanation for the origin of material quantities, laws and so on, it is a theory that describes our currently perceived laws in terms of a pre existing material world.
You think highlighting the irrationality of your arguments by pointing out your relentless use of known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies is juvenile? I can only strongly disagree. Your claim that your arguments are rational has been demonstrated as false, all anyone need do is read them. If it’s an example you want here is one:
This is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and it is your very first post. You’re welcome, if you want more I am happy to oblige.
Pointless as a) I made no claims relating to that, and b) you did, and c) I highlighted your claim was a personal incredulity fallacy, and thus demonstrated your claim was irrational, which is the point as you claimed pointing out your irrational claims and arguments was juvenile. You also claimed you arguments for a deity were rational, and they demonstrably are not. Though the hilarity of you thinking to can roll past posts exposing this, and then use hand waving to dismiss the claim later, is palpably hilarious.
Almost as hilarious as you trying to handwave evidence away that your argument was irrational, by using yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by demanding I offer an alternative to your fallacious claim, here:
“Speculate what might the universe be evidence of?”
Guess what, Looby Loo? Quantum particles aren’t “presupposed” to exist, they DO EXIST. Heard of electrons have you? Which are quantum particles. Likewise, so are protons and neutrons, along with the vast panoply of particles that have been generated in particle accelerators.
Did you have even basic science classes to attend as a child?
Keep digging that hole, it’s amusing to watch.
Once again, total and utter poppycock.
We know that revelant interactions exist between particles such as electrons, because, wait for it, the interactions have been subject to precise measurements.
In the case of electrons, we’re able to manipulate them in devices such as electron microscopes. And able to manupulate them therein with exquisite precision.
Likewise, the people at CERN are able to synthesise particles ranging from charmed quarks to the Higgs Boson. It won’t take the diligent long to find relevant information pertaining to these results.
Except that oops, Hertog himself stated that this work is an attempt to explain the current state of physical laws, as a result of their evolution from past states and their superpositions, which is encapsulated succinctly in one of his papers as “sum over histories”. Indeed, a relevant paper is this one, namely:
Populating The Landscape: A Top Down Approach by S. W. Hawking and Thomas Hertog, Physical Review Letters D, 73: 123527 (2006)
From that paper, we have:
While I’m the first to admit that this work is pretty abstract, the correctness thereof has numerous serious implications for the history of the universe, implications that utterly destroy mythological assertions. But I digress. The paper continues with:
See integral (2) immediately beneath the above paragraph in the paper.
Immediately this continues as follows:
at which point we have another integral expression. The paper continues with:
Then we have this:
There is of course, much more to explore in that paper, but I’ll settle for the above for now.
Oh, and by the way, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence in the vacuum all the time. Indeed, several features of the Standard Model of Particle Physics relies upon this to perform precise calculations of various particle masses. Furthermore, the Casimir Experiment provides a reasonably direct experimental test of the phenomenon.
I’ll await the usual apologetic fabrications erected to try and peddle the notion that you know more than actual tenured cosmological physicists.
