A Universe From Nothing

19-dark_matterI remember talking to innerminds during the first FF Davao Meet-up, and he was explaining his stance of being a Deist. He said something along the lines of: if the Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe, all the matter still had to come from somewhere, and he refers to the source as the Creator. He said a lot more than that, of course, which I will no longer elaborate so I won’t misrepresent him further. But in reply, I recommended that he watch one of the videos from Atheists Alliance International 2009 Conference, where a physicist talked about Cosmology and particularly interesting was his discussion about the net Energy of the Universe. Here’s Dr. Lawrence Krauss and his talk entitled “A Universe From Nothing”.

Btw, the rest of the AAI 2009 Conference talks are available in this youtube playlist.

17 comments

  1. @Isang Kaibigan: A lot of the people in the Starbucks meet-ups are very opinionated, and some will argue with people who don't share their principles, and a few would even raise their voices during discussions and be shocked at other people's opinions in a sort-of "What ?!! Are you serious!!?" kind of way and possibly call other opinions stupid. But I don't really see anyone being a threat to anyone's security. I think you'd be surprised at the contrast of how people behave in online discussions and during meet-ups. Also, people only drink coffee, chocolate drinks and fruit shakes during these Starbucks meet-ups, and we actually stay in the non-smoking area. I think there's nothing for you to worry about. You can even just observe at first instead of speaking your mind (some people stay quiet most of the time and just listen). Anyway, it's up to you if you want to attend.

  2. This is what I like about these guys (mikong and innerminds). They are very civil and objective.

    I would have joined the Starbucks Meetup if only I don’t feel threatened from some of the guys who go there (and if only I don’t attend Sunday church gatherings). They never made threats, but they are hostile in their responses from my comments. I sense that I would be an odd guy (for my views and since I don’t drink alcoholic beverages too). Some of them still can’t accept a theist being a freethinker at the same time. (I will not name them. Pls don’t ask me to name them.)

    I looked at the flickr of FFF from Kristine Chan. When I saw the guy who was very hostile to me, frequently attending that Starbucks Meetup, I decided to show up anymore. My wife said “Absolutely No! You have a family. Think of our security.”

    Oh, yes, I can’t stay long around where there is smoking. I’ve been free from asthma for 3 years now. I don’t wanna go through it anymore. (By the way, I don’t condemn anyone who drinks and smokes. I’m not a moral judge of anybody.)

      • Hi Gundam! I’m neither Crusader not John Paraiso. I don’t know those guys. Please let me remain anonymous here. I don’t intend to be anonymous so that I can run after punching. I don’t intend to punch or hurt anyone. I intend to interact since this is about freethought. The reason I made up this pseudonym is if just in case someone dislikes my opinion, I still might be able to run away. Believe me, I’ve never been into a physical fight in my whole life. I’m not even a confrontational person. I best express myself through monologue or writing.

        I don’t think I can remain anonymous for long. It only takes a hacker to know my real identity. I request that people will respect that. Pls don’t try to hack me/my PC.

    • I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that people are more polite that you might think. A number of us neither drink alcohol (or coffee) nor smoke, and you can be certain none of us seriously threaten physical harm (right, Karl? ^^)

      I think your wife might be among those who think atheists and freethinkers are baby-eating monsters, and it would be nice if you could bring her along if you ever decide to brave a meet-up. The only thing in any danger of being hurt in our meet-ups is pride, actually, but we're usually quite polite and civil in real life.

      And I sure hope "the guy who was very hostile" to you wasn't me. ^^ I'm actually quite a nice guy if I might say so myself. :p

      • Thanks Frank! I can’t blame my wife for thinking negatively. And no, I don’t think it is you , Frank. Since I joined the forum last June, I can’t even recall who were those hostile to me earlier. I can only recall those who recently threw negative words. Just today, I received a harsh word from someone. That made me really think not to appear in the Meetups.

        By the way, I’m a coffee lover. Ironically, I’ve only tried Starbucks twice in my whole life (both of which were free treats for me by my friends), because I work on a tight budget. Even this PC I’m using is a borrowed one.

        Happy New Year!

  3. "existed eternally in some form or another"

    Thanks for clarifying that, I thought you were implying that it is not eternal because of the Big Bang.

    I also need to read more about quantum mechanics. Though I may have graduated BS Physics, it's sad to admit that I've forgotten most of what I've learned, and I'm not so well read on the theories not taught in school. A lot of the freethinkers here probably know more about q. m., astrophysics and cosmology than I do.

  4. When innerminds and I talked, he mentioned that either the universe was created by a Creator, or (the only other possibility is that) it is eternal. The second case becomes impossible if he believes in the Big Bang. I think the video showed the possibility that it doesn't have to be the universe that is eternal, but the quantum principles behind it. Who created the principles and when did it start, or is eternal? Well that's the big question, but at least the question is open again (i.e. the second case has been rephrased and is no longer impossible even with the Big Bang). It's fine that the video didn't change innermind's mind but as long as he got new input to consider in his philosophy, I'm happy for him. I'm not the type to want to convince other people to my belief.

    I wouldn't call it "taken by faith" in the same sense as religion would take things by faith (and I'm not saying you're taking it in the same sense, just making sure it's clear). He mentions that you don't need to actually see it to believe it, like the atoms, or perhaps you can even include that the earth is spherical, or evolution. If great evidence supports it, and it completes the picture, it would stand until future evidence would question its viability. But you are correct, it is also faith in a certain sense.

    I agree that theists can be freethinkers, and some atheists are not. And you're right, Krauss is subject to questioning just as everyone else is. Thanks for the comment 🙂

    • Even though I believe in the Big Bang, I still do not discount the possibility that the universe could have existed eternally in some form or another (an example for this scenario would be the Big Bounce – cyclic model or oscillatory universe, among others). I had always thought that it's either the universe was caused by an eternal creator or has itself existed eternally in some form or another, but now you've presented a third feasible option – that the universe happened as an accident in nature. Actually I've already considered this option before, but I figured that for an accident to happen in nature, SOME nature must have existed eternally to produce such accident, because an accident cannot just happen in nothingness, and so we're back to the universe having existed eternally in some form or another.

      And that's what makes this video very interesting, because it shows how the universe could have literally come out of nothing by pure accident. Of course, this is still just a hypothesis and not yet a scientific theory in the strict sense, but it's very compelling. Perhaps I could appreciate this even more if I was well versed in quantum mechanics. 🙂

  5. I only watched the video once, but I hope I won’t misrepresent Krauss with my comments here. If I do, I will apologize and humbly take my words back.

    There is much to say about certain philosophical and metaphysical comments Krauss made that I will not want to deal here yet, especially about design theory, fine tuning, and the anthropic principle. He also kinda keep on saying special and then not special. Confusing! The dilemma was catching upon his philosophy. His remarkable track record on science speaks for itself, though I think his philosophy is questionable to me. He had non sequitur and straw man arguments against certain religious beliefs and metaphysical positions. Moreover, his answer for Leibniz’ question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is problematic.

    But when he talked about science, his lecture was basic. It was probably intended that way due to the kind of audience they had in in AAI 2009.

    He obviously had little time to explain why he believed that the origin of the universe is the bubble theory. He provided no empirical data (w/c could be, again, due to lack of time), but later admitted that his argument was metaphysical rather than empirical.

    During the Q& A, I smiled when he said that science can sort of take this by faith. (I didn’t actually said the word “faith.”) When he said (I’m paraphrasing) that even though we cannot observe other universe, if quantum mechanics allows it, science can accept it. For me, those were words of “faith”.

    I’m not sure if Krauss’ presentation would satisfy Innerminds. I’ve been interacting with him in the Kalam Cosmological Argument it the debate forum (https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=573&sid=88e0f0107ff3ed13044825c11c2a80c9), and pointing out that science definitely tells us that the universe had an absolute beginning and therefore it was “creatio ex nihilo” (created out of nothing). Innerminds insists that science only argues for initial conditions of the Big Bang, but he was short of denying the absolute beginning of the initial singularity. He believed that this is scientifically unproven. For him, the non-eternal past of the universe is merely a logical extrapolation rather than a scientific affirmation.

    Hey! Innerminds is a smart guy. I respect him. We actually have more things in common than I have with other freethinkers here. (Some freethinkers seemed to be unconvinced that theists can be also be freethinkers.)

    Back to Krauss…

    Krauss said the universe popped into existence out of nothing. (I agree with him, but we differ in the cause.) Accdg to Krauss, our universe just popped into existence due to the principles of quantum mechanics.
    1) But that pushes the question further: why is it so arbitrary for the principles to be such rather than anything else?
    2) It is also argumentative whether these quantum mechanics are determinate or indeterminate.
    3) It is not satisfactory to say the the universe just is, because it is and it naturally follow certain rules. It is begging the question. Who put those quantum mechanics principles? If there is no “who,” so why do these principles exist? Even if these principles just exist (since principles are abstract objects and they could be eternal), how then do you prove that abstract objects can stand in causal relations? The truth is, they can’t. Only a personal being can cause something to exist from nothing.

    Did the universe came into existence from nothing uncaused? By nothing? For nothing? These are metaphysical questions already, and this is where Krauss and I differ philosophically.

    Krauss speaks well. He sounds very convincing. But as a freethinker, we should question everything, whether it came from Rick Warren or Richard Dawkins, from L. Krauss or from W.L. Craig.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here