Louie Gohmert Proves God's Existence With One Simple Equation

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/louie-gohmert-god-atheists_n_5575241.html

The Huffington Post | By Shadee Ashtari

Posted: 07/10/2014 4:58 pm EDT Updated: 07/10/2014 5:59 pm EDT

Mocking non-believers for failing to grasp the logic behind the existence of God, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) cited an exchange with the late Texas entertainer Bob Murphey to disprove atheism during a prayer rally in Washington, D.C. Wednesday.

“Bob Murphey used to say, ‘You know, I feel so bad for atheists, I do,'” Gohmert recalled at "Celebrate America,” a three-week-long revival event. “‘Think about it, no matter how smart they think they are, an atheist has to admit that he believes the equation: nobody plus nothing equals everything.’”

"How embarrassing for an intellectual to have to say 'Yeah, I believe that,'" Gohmert said, citing Murphey. "Nobody plus nothing equals everything."

Gohmert delivered his final point to a chorus of applause as he concluded, "You couldn't get everything unless there was something that was the creator of everything and that's the Lord we know.” Gohmert did not elaborate on how he leapt from something to nothing to everything to the "Lord we know" rather than to, say, a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gohmert also neglected to explain who would have created the Lord he knows, or whether the Lord created Himself before He existed.

more at link

[Kalidurga]

1. Well that was 54 seconds well spent.

Oops can't sarc a post title. Good to know that random atoms are people too though.

[cbayer]

2. I thought it was pretty funny, particularly watching him say it out loud.

[Kalidurga]

3. Yeah what he said was funny

but, teh stupid it burnz.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

11. He is an embarrassment

The atheists will point to him and say, "Those believers are stupid", and in his case, they'd be right to say it.

[cbayer]

13. That's why it needs to be made clear that there are big differences.

That is the goal of the Not All Like That (NALT) project.

[edhopper]

16. yeah he's a moron

but the voters of Texas 1st District are proud to keep electing him. What does that say about all of them.
Can we dismiss the 70% who voted for him and support his stupidity as a fringe group of fundies?

[SecularMotion]

4. The face of religion in America today.

And people wonder why the young are rejecting religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

5. He is definitely the face of one kind of religion and it is the religion

that is being rejected in high numbers. I don't think there is much wonder about why that is happening.

[edhopper]

18. But not by 70%

of the voters in his district.

[cbayer]

19. Have you ever been to Pittsburg, TX?

This should not surprise anyone.

[edhopper]

20. Exactly

your claim that they are a small minority of the religious isn't true is vast swatches of this country.

[cbayer]

21. I made no such claim, just that they were a distinct group and that they were

seeing people leave in fairly significant numbers. Not sure why you would want to make my post more extreme.

[edhopper]

22. Misread you then

Haven't seen those numbers though, was this something you read?

[cbayer]

23. Numbers about people leaving the fundamentalist churches?

It's been pretty consistently reported, but I wouldn't exactly call it a stampede.

The more striking numbers of "nones" though do appear to be coming mainly from very traditional churches, synagogues and mosques.

And it is beginning to look like a trend.

[edhopper]

24. hmmm

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Unless you look at the numbers that also say that Southern Baptists are the fastest growing

religious group....

Its Fundamentalism that is the problem....no matter what the flavor.

[cbayer]

29. Actually, last numbers I saw showed that Mormons were the fastest growing

religious group in the us. And they are closely followed by the nones.

Where did you get that data? It could be more recent than mine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Here is one article

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2013/09/13/fastestgrowing--largest-churches-tallied-n1699948

[cbayer]

33. Ah, that's about individual churches.

We are talking apples and oranges.

[eShirl]

6. I just want to ask him where he thinks god came from

using his same logic of where "everything" came from

[cbayer]

7. Logic is not the word I would choose to describe anything about his argument!

[Swede Atlanta]

8. His argument might have more credence if .........

he didn't immediately circle this back to his belief that the "what or who" that created the universe was his God.

I am a Christian but I have no problem believing the big bang theory. I do not believe the creation story in Genesis is true but that it was a way for early peoples to explain the origins of "everything" in a moral context. Even as Genesis is a man-made story I have found it interesting how closely it tracks what we know about the formation of the solar system and eventually life leading up to humans. The "evolution" of everything in Genesis isn't so far afield from scientific theories about evolution.

Objectively if one contemplates how did everything come out of nothing it makes my head spin a bit. There is that gnawing little "logic" voice that says "well there had to be something but when did that something "become" and how did that "something" become if before that "something" there was nothing.

In that context for Gohmert to say that he believes there had to be something or someone first that then created or caused to be created everything we see today and he believes that is God, that's fine. But he needs to acknowledge that that something or someone for others may be understood as laws of nature or simply things beyond our ability to understand.

But the attitude of some Christians that they must force their beliefs on everyone else is backfiring. Young people especially are not interested in hearing about a God that is worried about "life" but it appears the only life God is worried about is that life up to birth. Once the life is born it is on its own. They aren't interested in a God that doesn't believe that life deserves appropriate pre-natal care both for it and for its mother, a safe and healthy home, nutritious food, appropriate health care, a good education, freedom from gunfire and violence, etc. They aren't interested in a God that believes in denying LGBT persons the same dignity and rights as everyone else. They aren't interested in a God that chooses "USA" over others. They aren't interested in a God that chooses whites over blacks, latinos, Asians, native peoples, etc. They aren't interested in a God that believes it is the state's right to put someone to death even though the state frequently gets it wrong.

The list goes on and on.

[edhopper]

17. Genesis doesn't track the formation of the solar system at all

The earth before the sun??, water and sky before land??, sun and moon together after plants?? And so on, it looks more like someone looking at the earth and sky and just guessing a creation order.


It's a nit pick with an otherwise fine post.

[angstlessk]

9. I think Apollo created earth

and I want him to prove me wrong

[rogerashton]

10. It is, I think, unwise to sneer.

"Why is there something rather than nothing" is an old question in philosophy and should be taken seriously. Here are two links that do.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/43760-the-puzzle-of-existence-why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing

The latter one, by the way, is The Skeptical Inquirer -- and offers an answer based on quantum mechanics. (But is it the whole stoory?)

This is not to suggest that Louis Gohmert has a coherent answer -- but then, I don't believe he is a professional in theology or philosophy. Anyway, we do not serve the cause of reason and liberalism by simply dismissing ideas we disagree with as droll.

[cbayer]

14. I think you make a valid point, but his "reasoning" is not really comparable to

these thoughtful and much more complex ideas.

It is like he has heard a Beethoven symphony and thinks whistling it provides the same experience.

[rogerashton]

25. fair enough,

but you are talking to a guy with a professional quality tin ear. I'd be pretty pleased if I could whistle it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. wonder what the hell his degree IS and where he got it from....

and then we should point at that school and laugh...

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Cosmology is the field that is answering that question.

And the answer appears to be, the universe exists in the margins/error bars of nothing. If the sum total energy of the universe is 0, and certain quantum instabilities are in fact real, a universe must result, even though it's net sum is 'nothing'.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. If the universe could really come from nothing,

that would mean that the non-existent can have causal power. Ironically, it would further mean that even if God didn't exist, he could still have created the universe (non-existence not preventing things from being causal).

That doesn't even get into the question of the source for the math that results in quantum fluctuations being possible.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I didn't say 'from' nothing. It IS nothing.

Nothing, plus nothing, carry the nothing... etc.

Everything boils down to energy. Positive and negative energy cancel out. The sum appears to be, possibly nothing. Which means, it's not even a problem for thermodynamics. Elegant. Simple. Makes a great deal of sense.

I give physicists about a decade and they'll be able to show proof of that theory. Most of the evidence is stacking up in favor right now.

[Htom Sirveaux]

35. Then who is currently having the experience of something?

Cosmology, in your telling, is asking us to believe not just that the universe is an illusion, but also that the brain in the vat being deceived is an illusion. Which still leaves the question, just who is being fooled?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I said nothing about a brain in a vat.

Not a theory I subscribe to, and does not appear necessary to me, to explain consciousness. I believe reality is what it appears to be within the observable universe.

[Htom Sirveaux]

37. Except that it's not,

because in fact reality doesn't exist at all, according to what you just said. Appearing to be something, it is in fact nothing. Observation is not just sometimes misleading, it's totally fraudulent, because everything the senses perceive to exist does not exist. Even the senses themselves do not exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. "reality doesn't exist at all, according to what you just said"

Not what I said at all. Nor is that a logical outcome of what I said.

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. You said that the universe is nothing.

But that isn't the same thing as saying "the universe doesn't exist"? How is that possible? What do you mean by the word "nothing"?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Absolutely not.

If I have a brick, made of matter, and an equal amount of same-type antimatter sitting next to it, ready to annihilate each other into nothingness, does the brick cease to exist, before annihilation occurs?

Not to me.

Granted, the sum zero theory isn't fully proven yet. But it is not difficult for me to accept a space-time reality whose sum energy is zero.

[Htom Sirveaux]

41. So when you said "nothing",

you meant that the universe is a fully balanced equation whose sides would negate each other if they ever came into full contact. This is not "nothing" as I was using the term.

That still leaves the issue of how there could be a fully balanced equation of a universe rather than absolute non-existence, which the was the point I thought you were trying to address with this story of zero sum theory.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I meant it as I said it.

'Something from nothing' is a canard. It tries to paint the universe as something that it is not, hoping to show it is something that cannot exist without a creator. Nothing can come from nothing. And that doesn't require a creator that is somehow immune to the same concern about causality for that entity's own existence.

We can measure the precise nature of how quantum particles pop into and out of existence. We don't know WHY yet, but they do not violate long-standing rules, like conservation of energy, etc.

[Htom Sirveaux]

43. Is the quantum vacuum out of which virtual particles come

"something" or "nothing"? I would say that it is something, because it exists/has causal power. Absolute nothing is sterile (it must be, or non-existing things would have the same ability to cause effects as existing things, rendering the whole existence/non-existence distinction meaningless). Since the quantum vacuum can produce existing things, it is not itself non-existent.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Said vacuum is still nothingness as we know it.

The particles are something, the vacuum is not. To go one level deeper, a vacuum is not necessarily inherently stable as an energy state.

[Htom Sirveaux]

45. But "nothingness as we know it" is irrelevant

because it's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about absolute non-existence, which has never happened (since if it did, the universe would not exist today). So we can't know absolute non-existence, making it different from "nothingness as we know it".

[AtheistCrusader]

46. That's an interesting assertion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

47. Do you want to keep going with the discussion?

Because I feel like we've clarified that replacing "absolute non-existence" with "the quantum vacuum" would change the terms of the argument. To demonstrate that an argument is a canard, it must be dealt with on its own terms, not after changing the meanings of said terms, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. There would have to be multiple assumptions made.

Such as that there can BE a concept like absolute non-existence in the presence of space/time.

[Htom Sirveaux]

49. There couldn't, and here's why.

Space/time is relative, right? Meaning that it consists of relationships between at least two things. So the existence of space/time is one way to ensure that there is never absolute non-existence. Down that branch lies the assertion that the "something" that has always existed is a universe of unlimited space/time. So far, so good?

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. The confusion arises from a discrepancy in nomenclature

Physicists don't define "nothing" in the colloquial sense, or the way a philosopher would. Lawrence Kraus' "A Universe from Nothing" describes all matter arising from a quantum vacuum, which, while empty of physical particles, is nevertheless populated by electromagnetic waves and particles that "blink" in and out of existence.

It is not "nothing" in the strictest sense of the word, but neither is it "something" as we typically understand it.

Unfortunately, this is pretty lofty shit, and I am by no means well-versed in the specifics. Maybe someone here has read Kraus' book and can elaborate.

[Htom Sirveaux]

51. Indeed.

And the argument as I was speaking of it uses "nothing" to mean "absolute non-existence", not "a quantum vacuum". What did you think of Reply #48-49?

[Act_of_Reparation]

52. I think AtheistCrusader raises an important question

Is "How could the universe arise from absolute non-existence" a pertinent question if quantum physicists aren't really making that argument, per se? Is "absolute non-existence" an achievable state?

Lacking expertise, the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know".

[Htom Sirveaux]

53. My understanding is that the question came first, and Krauss

was atttempting to respond to it with "the universe from nothing". But as you pointed out, he changed the meaning of the terms of the question in order to respond to it, thus making his response non-pertinent.

If absolute non-existence is impossible, that means that something must always exist. If absolute non-existence is possible, up until now it hasn't happened (or there'd be no universe currently), so something still must have always existed at least up until now.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Actually, Krauss explains this. "Turns out, nothing isn't nothing anymore".

And he continues on to both drive a wedge between philosophical 'nothing' and quantum electrodynamics, and also to highlight what we don't know, such as, why does the quantum vacuum have instability, why do these particles pop in and out, etc. Questions humanity is constantly digging toward a solution on.

[Htom Sirveaux]

55. Do you want to continue where we left off in reply #49?

Since we've already discussed how the argument is about absolute non-existence and not the quantum vacuum?

[AtheistCrusader]

56. You introduced that term, not me.

And I do not accept it out of hand with no evidence. There are a range of other possibilities.

[Htom Sirveaux]

59. Huh?

You said:

There would have to be multiple assumptions made.

Such as that there can BE a concept like absolute non-existence in the presence of space/time.

And I replied:

There couldn't, and here's why.

Space/time is relative, right? Meaning that it consists of relationships between at least two things. So the existence of space/time is one way to ensure that there is never absolute non-existence. Down that branch lies the assertion that the "something" that has always existed is a universe of unlimited space/time. So far, so good?

So I was denying that the assumption you suggested was necessary, because I don't think there can be absolute non-existence in the presence of space/time. So if the one always existing thing is a universe of unlimited space/time, that would allow the universe to exist today.

Now you say:

And I do not accept it out of hand with no evidence. There are a range of other possibilities.

Which I found a strange thing to say, because:

(a) an unlimited universe of space/time is one traditional alternative to a creator, so I thought you would be ok with agreeing that this is possible and

(b) claiming a range of possibilities without naming them or giving us any reason to think that they are in any way likely is a very thin response.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Yes.

"So the existence of space/time is one way to ensure that there is never absolute non-existence."

More assumptions. (That space/time always exists.)

Because you can't get to 'never' unless you assume the precluding mechanism (space/time) always existed. Space-time may not have been eternally present.

Option a is a possibility. I agree. Another is that space-time is a byproduct of matter, so the mechanism is quite different. Multiverse theory introduces multiple isolated, independent pockets of space time. Many cosmologists either think or accept the possibility that any or all three of matter, energy, and time didn't exist before the big bang, etc.

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. I like where you're going with this.

If the universe isn't the thing that has prevented a state of absolute non-existence, then it had a beginning. But since nothing can bring itself from absolute non-existence to existence (or once again, non-existence would have causal power), the universe must have a pre-existent cause. At time t=0, that cause was the only thing in existence, because if there were two things, that would be the unlimited universe of space and time. The universe of space/time starts when that cause creates at least one other thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Without invoking an appeal to authority

since I allow other possibilities, the one that makes the most sense to me is the inherent instability of 'nothing'. Hawking is of the opinion that because of gravity, the universe can, will, and must create itself out of nothing. Which is possible without breaking any other laws for the 'margins'/net zero energy items we already discussed.

Which I guess to revert back to philosophy, that would make the 'creator' the universe, but it's really a product of instability.

[Htom Sirveaux]

64. Your version of "nothing" is still something compared

to absolute non-existence, so it appears that we agree that at least one thing has always existed. And it seems that we also agree that this something can precede space/time and matter and be the cause of the universe of space/time, based on your previous comments about what "many cosmologists" think (in post #60). Finally I think we agree that the cause could create the universe out of itself. I would also add that this something would thus be source of the mathematics rules that allow for quantum physics (there being nothing else in existence to be a candidate for the job).

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Is a law of physics 'something'?

How stripped bare of the rules must empty space be to be 'absolute nothing'?

Without any rules at all, anything can happen, right? Including outright violations of the laws we observe in practice today.
So we aren't using the same meaning of even 'absolute nothing' I think. True absolute nothing would be no space, time, matter, or, and most importantly; rules.

Without rules, why couldn't the universe pop out of nothing, literally, un-caused?

So, do we agree absolute nothing is no mass, time, space, or is it no mass, time, space, and rules?

If the latter, anything is possible, so a spontaneous universe is a expected result.
If the former, we can assume the laws of gravity apply at that time, and for the reasons Hawking has given (though not proven utterly) gravity can make nothing unstable, and produce things like quantum instability, and without breaking the rules of conservation of energy and the like, the stuff we see all around ourselves and the cosmos, can boil forth out of that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

66. We agree on no mass, time, space, or rules.

Last edited Thu Jul 17, 2014, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

"Without any rules at all, anything can happen" is itself a rule, and if no rules exist, that one doesn't either. Also, it negates itself (a rule that applies when there are no rules will prevent itself from ever applying).

That's not going to get a universe from nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Not really.

Rules are, for the most part, limits or constraints. 'Anything can happen' is the state when there are no governors, limits, controls, boundaries. Right now we have 'anything can happen except' and a whole bunch of exceptions.

Removal of rules means, no exceptions. Anything can happen. Not a rule, it's a state. A wildly incomprehensible, open and unbounded state, for instance; everything can happen simultaneously, occupying the same space-time.

'Can' means possible, not 'must'. So that unrestricted allowance isn't a law.

[Htom Sirveaux]

68. So for you, absolute non-existence seems to have the following properties:

*total potential to create anything
*complete freedom (including the option of not creating)
*preceding the universe
*unbounded by time, space, mass.

And I agree, those are attributes of what created the universe. Whether we call it "God" or "absolute non-existence" wouldn't seem to change the essential nature of what we both seem to be talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. God is an anthropomorphic creative intelligence.

Almost always, sometimes it's an animal or whatever, but for the vast bulk of humans that believe, it's a specific intelligence.

A completely lawless, nonexistent state has no such intelligence. (To me.)
A 'creator' in the sense of an entity that actually makes something, is not required to explain how the universe formed, in my opinion, based on available evidence.

So it makes a difference. Especially when most religious entities that are believed in as a supernatural intelligence that created the universe, make demands upon us on how we act, in some cases what we eat, who we can love, etc. There are a couple exceptions, but they are rare, and not popularly followed, with the exception perhaps of Buddhism, which most religious people reject as a non-theistic philosophy.

[Htom Sirveaux]

70. The intelligent agent aspects of God derive

from a couple of observations. First, that what created the universe did not have to create. It would have been fully consistent for the all the potential in the initial state to remain unrealized. There being nothing else in existence, the movement from non-creating to creating came from within the initial state itself. That suggests choice, which suggests agent. And what the initial state created was not arbitrary. It was ordered by mathematics/natural law. That suggests a mind as the source of that order. Of course it would be a mind of perceptions very unlike ours, since we are bound by space/time, history and evolution, etc. But certainly intelligent.

How can a lawless state be denied intelligence? Weren't you just saying that laws are what exclude, and this state has no laws? Therefore, it would follow that nothing excludes this state from being intelligent.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Except

that if the laws of physics pre-exist the big bang, meaning the rules of reality were true before the start of space-time, then the groundwork is laid for a universe to form via the instability issue that cosmology is ironing out into a prove-able theory.

Krauss used the word 'can', but IIRC, Hawking stated 'must' in the context of that instability producing a universe.

"It would have been fully consistent for the all the potential in the initial state to remain unrealized."

It's also fully consistent for every possible outcome to have happened simultaneously and exclusively. That we see the universe as we see it from within, in our particular universe that developed as we can observe, and outside of that, beyond what we can see, there are other universes representing each potentiality, including one (or many) in which no universe was produced.

And there is actually some evidence that suggests the multiverse theory is correct, that is being worked on, and observations are being added to, as we speak.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/the-multiverse-is-there-evidence-for-it/

"There being nothing else in existence, the movement from non-creating to creating came from within the initial state itself."

That is a possibility. Only one possibility, but a possibility. Another is the process we can observe now, in a quantum vacuum, with particles popping in and out for the reasons Hawking suggests.

"That suggests a mind as the source of that order."

Why? Natural processes produce the appearance of design in things we find aren't designed at all, under the hood.

[Htom Sirveaux]

72. Apologies for the long pause in the conversation.

Except that if the laws of physics pre-exist the big bang, meaning the rules of reality were true before the start of space-time, then the groundwork is laid for a universe to form via the instability issue that cosmology is ironing out into a prove-able theory.

If existence prior to the big bang is governed by the same rules as existence after the big bang, then in what sense is the state of affairs after the big bang a new universe? It just seems like the same universe in a different configuration. I'm not saying this was your intent, but it seems to me to be the equivalent of saying "If we assume the universe exists, we can explain how the universe came into being", which just begs the question.

Also, if you felt like speculating about how the laws of physics exist in the absence of anything for them to apply to, that would be interesting.

It's also fully consistent for every possible outcome to have happened simultaneously and exclusively. That we see the universe as we see it from within, in our particular universe that developed as we can observe, and outside of that, beyond what we can see, there are other universes representing each potentiality, including one (or many) in which no universe was produced.

"Simultaneously and exclusively" is a contradiction, as is "other universes...in which no universe was produced." So no, not fully consistent.

And there is actually some evidence that suggests the multiverse theory is correct, that is being worked on, and observations are being added to, as we speak.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/the-multiverse-is-there-evidence-for-it/

How does multiplying the number of entities that exist get us any closer to explaining why any of them exist? That seems to make things more complicated and harder to explain, not easier. The multiverse theory is generally used to explain "fine-tuning" not why anything exists at all.

That is a possibility. Only one possibility, but a possibility. Another is the process we can observe now, in a quantum vacuum, with particles popping in and out for the reasons Hawking suggests.

Even in that scenario, there wouldn't be anything outside the quantum vacuum, so movement from "no particle" to "particle" would still be internal.

Why? Natural processes produce the appearance of design in things we find aren't designed at all, under the hood.

Natural processes happen because of physical constraints. A certain population requires x amount of food, but the area they live in only has y, so those best adapted to exploit that area live, reproduce, and so on. What physical constraints apply when there is nothing physical?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Individually.

"If existence prior to the big bang is governed by the same rules as existence after the big bang, then in what sense is the state of affairs after the big bang a new universe?"

Because of the addition of space/time. Could be an existentialist argument, but I would probably, barring a really good argument otherwise, side with the 'universe' as a pocket of (expanding) space time, not as the laws of physics, if they existed prior to space-time.

"It just seems like the same universe in a different configuration"

Remove space-time, and I would probably stop calling the cosmos a 'universe' or a cosmos at all.

"Also, if you felt like speculating about how the laws of physics exist in the absence of anything for them to apply to, that would be interesting."

Again, the suspected solution is, those laws/forces can potentially act upon absolute nothingness and force a universe to boil forth.

""Simultaneously and exclusively" is a contradiction"

Not if each universe in the multiverse, or some of them, or most of them, occupy different pockets of non-overlapping space-time.

""other universes...in which no universe was produced.""

Substitute 'potential universes' for at least some of them. For instance, it is often raised in the 'fine tuning' argument, that some configurations would immediately collapse inward and fail. I would suspect some configurations also 'fail to launch'. Forgive my imprecise wording.

"How does multiplying the number of entities that exist get us any closer to explaining why any of them exist?"

If all potentialities happened at once, in a lawless state of non-existence, it could explain both how we happen to inhabit this one, and how there can be more than one, and the 'all potentialities at once' why there are any at all.

"Natural processes happen because of physical constraints."

Sure, but we have two (and there may be more) schools of thought here. That the rules may have existed prior to space-time, forcing space-time to arise, which is a natural process, and the other possibility is a lawless nothingness in which any and all possible scenarios can occur without violating anything, again, potentially producing space-time as we know it.

"What physical constraints apply when there is nothing physical? "

Depends entirely on whether or not the laws of physics exist prior to space-time.

[Htom Sirveaux]

74. Do the physical laws automatically cause the existence of the universe?

Because of the addition of space/time. Could be an existentialist argument, but I would probably, barring a really good argument otherwise, side with the 'universe' as a pocket of (expanding) space time, not as the laws of physics, if they existed prior to space-time.

(snip)

Again, the suspected solution is, those laws/forces can potentially act upon absolute nothingness and force a universe to boil forth.

If physical laws automatically cause the existence of the universe, then I see two possibilities: (a) the laws pop into existence, and then the universe immediately thereafter or (b) the laws have always existed, and because their presence entails the existence of the universe, the universe has also always existed. Otherwise you'd have a situation where creation is not automatic, and something in addition to the laws was required to enable them. If you pick (a), a further issue: if the laws can pop into existence like that for no reason, what is to prevent them from popping out of existence for no reason, or changing for no reason? What is that which sustains them?

Not if each universe in the multiverse, or some of them, or most of them, occupy different pockets of non-overlapping space-time.
(snip)
Substitute 'potential universes' for at least some of them. For instance, it is often raised in the 'fine tuning' argument, that some configurations would immediately collapse inward and fail. I would suspect some configurations also 'fail to launch'. Forgive my imprecise wording.
(snip)
If all potentialities happened at once, in a lawless state of non-existence, it could explain both how we happen to inhabit this one, and how there can be more than one, and the 'all potentialities at once' why there are any at all.

Don't worry about it. As you say, this scenario comes out of the lawless nothingness branch (where, according to you, all possibilities can and will be created), not the "one master set of natural laws pre-existing the universe" branch of discussion. My question then becomes: in a state of lawless nothingness, what is there to exclude an intelligent agent which determines which universes are in the set of "all possible universes"? Even if all possibilities get created, nothing has been said about what qualifies a universe as possible and why. If an intelligent agent isn't excluded (as it can't be in a state of no laws to exclude it), in this scenario it must be included or else there's an inconsistency in the effects of lawlessness.

Sure, but we have two (and there may be more) schools of thought here. That the rules may have existed prior to space-time, forcing space-time to arise, which is a natural process, and the other possibility is a lawless nothingness in which any and all possible scenarios can occur without violating anything, again, potentially producing space-time as we know it.

(snip)

Depends entirely on whether or not the laws of physics exist prior to space-time.

I feel like I've addressed both scenarios, so I'll just add here that I think your best option for a non intelligent agent process (which seems to be our meaning of "natural&quot is the laws automatically creating a universe of unlimited space and time. But I also think that conception runs up against Occam's razor, because (space and time being relative) such a universe would require at least two things to always exist so their relationship could sustain space/time. Absent some evidence that requires us to suppose unlimited space/time, a simpler explanation would require only one thing to always exist, giving space/time a beginning.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Hawking thinks so, yes.

Again, keeping in mind his use of the word 'must', rather than Krauss's 'can'.

&quot a) the laws pop into existence, and then the universe immediately thereafter or (b) the laws have always existed, and because their presence entails the existence of the universe, the universe has also always existed."

Makes a vast number of assumptions about a condition in which our human perception of time is meaningless. (Pre-space-time) Either of these is possible, but not the only two options.

"Otherwise you'd have a situation where creation is not automatic"

I would quibble with the use of 'creation' there, which implies a creator. But perhaps it was not automatic. Perhaps it took a very different sense of 'time' while probability worked itself out.

"If you pick (a), a further issue: if the laws can pop into existence like that for no reason, what is to prevent them from popping out of existence for no reason, or changing for no reason? What is that which sustains them?"

Unknown. I would point out a few physicists feel this could relate to the ultimate end of the universe. If some part of our end of the multiverse collapses to the lowest energy state, the whole thing 'pops' like a bubble. Only one of many possible end scenarios, of course. I don't know what 'no reason' means in this context. On the rest of that, perhaps nothing?

"My question then becomes: in a state of lawless nothingness, what is there to exclude an intelligent agent which determines which universes are in the set of "all possible universes"?"

Nothing at all. Which is why I do not actively rule out the possibility of such a being. If it exists, and does not wish to be perceived, and is in fact, omnipotent, it cannot, by definition, be perceived. At best, my interest is in knowing whether such a being is necessary to explain the universe. (I don't believe it is.)


"I feel like I've addressed both scenarios, so I'll just add here that I think your best option for a non intelligent agent process (which seems to be our meaning of "natural&quot is the laws automatically creating a universe of unlimited space and time."

Why do you feel comfortable kicking the can down the road to some sort of exceptional entity/creator? Every single problem you have raised about the actual cosmos as we know it, would also be true of any hypothetical intelligent creator, capable of manufacturing the cosmos. If you can carve out an exception for a 'god', why not the Universe itself? (Indeed, of course, there are some people who feel the universe itself IS god on some level)

I see nothing in all of this discussion that is actually solved by postulating a supreme, omnipotent, supernatural entity with creative itchings. Every problem still remains, unless you ascribe some exceptional special pleading to it, that would be equally valid if you ascribed it to the universe itself.

[Htom Sirveaux]

76. Answers:

Hawking thinks so, yes. Again, keeping in mind his use of the word 'must', rather than Krauss's 'can'.
(snip)
Makes a vast number of assumptions about a condition in which our human perception of time is meaningless. (Pre-space-time) Either of these is possible, but not the only two options.
(snip)
I would quibble with the use of 'creation' there, which implies a creator. But perhaps it was not automatic. Perhaps it took a very different sense of 'time' while probability worked itself out.

I’m not sure what a different sense of time might consist of or what existed to generate probability under those conditions, so I don't really have a response to that.

Unknown. I would point out a few physicists feel this could relate to the ultimate end of the universe. If some part of our end of the multiverse collapses to the lowest energy state, the whole thing 'pops' like a bubble. Only one of many possible end scenarios, of course. I don't know what 'no reason' means in this context. On the rest of that, perhaps nothing?

It just seems to me that if that natural law could act that way, it would and the universe would be a warped, chaotic, cartoon kind of universe. Completely unpredictable, which is obviously not the kind of universe we live in. Nor do we live in a universe of total order, which I imagine as one static image forever. Instead, we have a mixture of order and change, which seems to call for some kind of explanation. That is: how is order transmitted across moments in time and locations in space, and yet it is not absolute? Something seems to be sustaining the order by keeping certain parameters, and yet allowing for a measure of independence.

Nothing at all. Which is why I do not actively rule out the possibility of such a being. If it exists, and does not wish to be perceived, and is in fact, omnipotent, it cannot, by definition, be perceived. At best, my interest is in knowing whether such a being is necessary to explain the universe. (I don't believe it is.)

Or perhaps we are perceiving it, just not in the popularly conceived way. You sort of alluded to this below with the idea that the universe is in some sense God. I would actually agree with that, in that I think that God made the universe out of Godself, while continuing to be aware of it and sustaining it thereafter.

Why do you feel comfortable kicking the can down the road to some sort of exceptional entity/creator?

Not that exceptional. In one scenario (lawless non-existence), an intelligent agent creator is required (by virtue of not being excluded). In the pre-existent laws scenario, I found your discussion of the nature of the laws to be equally mysterious. How they could exist and have causal power despite being, well, simple statements. If I write the chemical reaction for fire on a piece of paper, the paper does not burst into flames. All I mean by that is that mere statement of a law does not seem likely to me to grant it causal power. It has a mysterious form of existence in your telling, something we don’t experience directly in this universe. Honestly, I suspect that natural laws, as ideas, exist “in the mind of God” so to speak.

So why do I feel comfortable doing what amounts to reasoned speculation? Because I'm not afraid to be wrong if that's how it turns out. If Hawking/Krauss/you are right about an alternate scenario, and it gets demonstrated scientifically with the same confidence as quantum physics, evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, etc. I will accept it, and re-orient my view of reality accordingly. But in the meantime, I consider myself to be addressing these questions with sufficient rationality and reflection to justify holding my answer as true. I don't consider you irrational for finding other scenarios more persuasive. We'll find out together.

Every single problem you have raised about the actual cosmos as we know it, would also be true of any hypothetical intelligent creator, capable of manufacturing the cosmos. If you can carve out an exception for a 'god', why not the Universe itself? (Indeed, of course, there are some people who feel the universe itself IS god on some level)

I see nothing in all of this discussion that is actually solved by postulating a supreme, omnipotent, supernatural entity with creative itchings. Every problem still remains, unless you ascribe some exceptional special pleading to it, that would be equally valid if you ascribed it to the universe itself.

As I said, I happen to be one of those people you mentioned. And the chief advantage of my creator scenario over the universe by itself is that it requires fewer entities, as I mentioned in a part of my response that you didn’t quote. That is: yes, a creator might seem odd, not having a beginning, something that couldn’t fail to exist. Now how about two such things that couldn’t fail to exist? That would be even weirder, right? As I see it, that’s what you would need to sustain a perpetual universe of space/time, because space/time is relative. That’s a real distinction. Occam’s razor is not special pleading.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. I don't think this will get us anywhere...

... but relativity can only extrapolate as far as the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang). Relativity cannot describe the universe in a state older than that. Perhaps AtheistCrusader can explain it greater detail, but our usual understanding of space/time relationships fails us when all the matter in the known universe is condensed into a singularity.

[Htom Sirveaux]

61. That could be because

in the beginning there was only one thing (the singularity), and so relativity would break down without a second thing to create the relationships that space/time consist of.

If anything, that helps what I'm going to say.

[intaglio]

78. You ignore chance, extent and time

Given chance, infinite extent and time anything can happen, sometimes the results are stable sometimes they are not. An infinite space with but one dimension will have, somewhere within it, an area which blossoms into a 2 dimensional structure, what is more there will be an infinite number of such structures and an infinite number of structures with higher dimensions; some will have time-like effects within them and some will be of infinite extent in spaces, "time" or both.

Look at one of these structures it need not even be directly generated from that source dimension it could be a child of multiple iterations of infinity, this space is amongst the simplest having only 11 spacial dimensions and one of time. It blossoms into many areas that might become what we observe as a universe one of these is the particular instance in which we live. In no case does there need to be anything more than time and extent to allow multiple types of "laws" or interactions

The obvious argument that can be deployed is that such a structure allows for a deity to be generated. True but there are many objections to our living in such a place and I'll give just two. Firstly there is entropy, specifically information entropy, where the a deity requires all information at the start of its creation of a universe, i.e. it requires that things moved from high entropy to low, and not just low but the lowest possible state; this is in complete contradiction of what we observe. Secondly there is the lack of mechanism by which a deity can act within, or conceal itself from, this universe: any such action by a deity requires energy being used but there are no energies or effects that allow such action.

[Htom Sirveaux]

79. Answer:

An infinite space with but one dimension will have, somewhere within it, an area which blossoms into a 2 dimensional structure

I agree with that. But consider the characteristics of that area. It is the source of all that comes after it, because it is the only original thing that exists. It is neither material nor temporal (because space and time, being relative, actually don't exist yet). It contains all knowledge, because it is all things (it makes out of itself). If it automatically created, the universe would have continually existed, and here we're talking about moving from non-universe to universe. Since nothing external to that area exists, it must be something internal, like a choice, that causes that movement from non-creation to creation. Not only does it contain all knowledge and have the capacity of choice, it also keeps what it has caused in in existence across time and space, and keeps it within certain parameters. So it creates order, not just randomness. All knowledge + order + initial choice to create + continuing will to sustain = probability of intelligent agent.

[intaglio]

80. But you again forget (or ignore) infinity

And where does your deity fit in a space without dimension and this duration without time?

What I have proposed is the simplest possible foundation universe, one dimension without time. The conditions within that founding space (dimension) seem constant but, similar to temperature within a furnace, there will be smaller or larger variations from that overall condition. At some point something complex develops, it could be a condition like time or another (second) dimension, it does not matter precisely what it is or even if it is self stable: similarly other such conditions can develop which are self stable- within an infinity anything is possible and, what is more, it will repeat infinitely many times.

Now look at your start condition: it requires the most complex thing imaginable which must also be self aware and fully informed about its condition with the ability to act upon itself. Yet it also has no duration in which to act and no space in which to exist. Then you require that such a creature cares about our actions in an insignificantly tiny portion of our total existence and worse that we need to acknowledge the existence of that creature - WHY?

[Htom Sirveaux]

81. Since the creator we are discussing isn't made of matter,

"taking up space" is not a requirement. And time, being relative, wouldn't exist if only one thing is in existence. There is no "duration" until another thing exists in relationship to the one original existing thing. The relationship creates both space and duration.

What I have proposed is the simplest possible foundation universe, one dimension without time. The conditions within that founding space (dimension) seem constant but, similar to temperature within a furnace, there will be smaller or larger variations from that overall condition. At some point something complex develops, it could be a condition like time or another (second) dimension, it does not matter precisely what it is or even if it is self stable: similarly other such conditions can develop which are self stable- within an infinity anything is possible and, what is more, it will repeat infinitely many times.

Your description presupposes the time you say doesn't exist yet. Particularly "at some point something complex develops" and "other such conditions can develop". Both those things mean movement from less complex to more complex, or from "Set of conditions A" to "Set of Conditions B". And that means moments of time.

Now look at your start condition: it requires the most complex thing imaginable which must also be self aware and fully informed about its condition with the ability to act upon itself. Yet it also has no duration in which to act and no space in which to exist. Then you require that such a creature cares about our actions in an insignificantly tiny portion of our total existence and worse that we need to acknowledge the existence of that creature - WHY?

"The most complex thing imaginable" is an assumption about the creator that I do not adopt. I agree with you that original existent thing/state/etc. is going to be absolute simplicity (not being made of matter, it has no parts, and cannot be complex).

As I said, the creator does not need space because it is not made of matter. It's choice to create begins time. All the stuff after "Then you require that such a creature cares" hasn't actually been said by me in this argument.

[intaglio]

82. Sorry, but even energy requires dimension and duration

Unless you are proposing some magical thing that is neither matter nor energy nor anything. If that is what you are proposing please provide evidence of such a state.

Regarding time - nope, no time required only extent, a chip in a table top needs only position to describe it. You are imposing the idea that I am talking about process - which does require time. In this conceit of mine time is a result of inequality in a founding dimension and applies only to the place in that dimension or resultant space where it occurs

You think that the creator is a simple thing? How does it have knowledge? How does it act? Knowing and acting are processes requiring time and position. Your fantasy of a creator requires extensions with which to act - matter or energy or both.

Consider my final point which I will explain more fully. We live physically for somewhere between 1 second and 125 years after our "soul" (whatever that is) attaches to or develops from our corpus. After the time of our death our soul lives on for the duration of the rest of time. Let's be depressive and assign a short time say 10 billion years to our time in the afterlife. That means the actions we undertake for about 1/10,000,000 th of our span affects our condition for the remaining time. In essence it is like someone asking you "are you the wanted man?" and unless you answer correctly within 2 seconds you will imprisoned or freed for the rest of your life.

Next you deny that you need a caring creator, well if it doesn't care about anything why bother worshiping? Why worry if it exists at all because in that it has no effect on us and could not give a twopenny damn about that happens.

[Htom Sirveaux]

83. That's not correct

Sorry, but even energy requires dimension and duration
Unless you are proposing some magical thing that is neither matter nor energy nor anything. If that is what you are proposing please provide evidence of such a state.

Potential energy doesn't require either dimension or duration.

Regarding time - nope, no time required only extent, a chip in a table top needs only position to describe it. You are imposing the idea that I am talking about process - which does require time. In this conceit of mine time is a result of inequality in a founding dimension and applies only to the place in that dimension or resultant space where it occurs

Space/time are one thing, and that's been understood since Einstein. So when you speak of "extent" you are implicitly bringing time into the picture as well. Besides which, this inequality you speak of could be thought of as a preference for a state of creating over a state of non-creating. That fits in with the picture I described of an intelligent agent.

You think that the creator is a simple thing? How does it have knowledge? How does it act? Knowing and acting are processes requiring time and position. Your fantasy of a creator requires extensions with which to act - matter or energy or both.

I already said how it has knowledge: it contains the potential (meaning the potential energy) for everything that can be, and it becomes all things. It knows both how things can be and how they actually are. As for how it acts, it creates out of itself, and by that very act brings space/time into being.

If time must pre-exist for act, then your description of a one dimensional universe is sterile: it has no time, therefore it cannot bring forth anything, including time, and there would be no time now.

Consider my final point which I will explain more fully. We live physically for somewhere between 1 second and 125 years after our "soul" (whatever that is) attaches to or develops from our corpus. After the time of our death our soul lives on for the duration of the rest of time. Let's be depressive and assign a short time say 10 billion years to our time in the afterlife. That means the actions we undertake for about 1/10,000,000 th of our span affects our condition for the remaining time. In essence it is like someone asking you "are you the wanted man?" and unless you answer correctly within 2 seconds you will imprisoned or freed for the rest of your life.

Next you deny that you need a caring creator, well if it doesn't care about anything why bother worshiping? Why worry if it exists at all because in that it has no effect on us and could not give a twopenny damn about that happens.

I didn't "deny I need[ed] a caring creator." I said I hadn't discussed the topic at all, meaning I hadn't made the statements you attributed to me. That doesn't mean I deny their substance, or affirm it either. It simply hasn't come up. It doesn't make sense to discuss those topics when we're still discussing whether an intelligent agent creator exists.

[intaglio]

86. Potential energy requires dimension and duration

It needs a place from which it can act and a comparative position lacking that potential, without that comparison it is nothing. It needs time because without time it lacks the time in which it can act. You are confusing units with actuality.

In our portion of the multiiverse space and time act as if they are one thing. It is not required in all parts of the multiverse, oh and the actions of teleporting quantum particles show space and time are not inextricably entwined on the smallest scales.

As noted above potential energy does require time and position. What you are implying with your concept of a god as potential energy is that there was something outside your god before the creation. Equally you ignore the fact that knowledge is information which in turn is a measure of entropy. Your god has all knowledge (information) therefore it is in the highest entropic state possible. Physics describes a time when entropy is at its highest as the heat death of the universe.

I described no actions only varying conditions along a single dimension. Imagine a flaw in a monofilament fishing line do you need time to describe the position of that flaw on that line? Remember this is only a metaphor, I am proposing only varying conditions along the one dimension of the ur-universe; some of those conditions might be a second dimension, others might be time-like effect. Return to that fishing line and its flaw, the flaw does not add to the dimension to the whole line but within the flaw there are stress effects which can be described giving an internal method of measuring that flaw - an added dimension or conglomerate of dimensions.

If the creator is as you describe then we need take no actions to appease it or acknowledge it, it does not care about such things at all, indeed (as far as we are concerned) it is exactly as if the creator does not exist. Most people do not care if the Big Bang occurred and no-one (except a small group of astronomers and physicists) need to act as if it did.

[Uben]

12. Equation: Politician+no brains=worthless POS

I contend that Gohmert proves the validity of this equation!

[libodem]

15. He seems like such a Ghomer

He is a poor ambassador for Christianity. His type are also critical of any brand of religion that is not the same as their own. You may as well be a Satan worshipers in his eyes or an atheist or a Muslim. Pure intolerance.

[Blue Owl]

28. The Gohmert Particle

Somebody minus something equals everybody plus anything!

[Half-Century Man]

57. Ghomert's existence proves a divine being.

He actually grew up in a world with electrical plugs, readily available silverware, and his parents had to sleep sometime.

[the_sly_pig]

77. True faith does not require explanation(s)...

Those that feel the need for justifications or explanations lack faith. They are Pharisees. Unfortunately it requires the ability to think critically in order to be a true person of faith.

[edhopper]

84. I thought faith means abandoning

The need for rational explanation. Even holding onto something when the logical explanation and evidence says something else?
How is that critical thinking?

[the_sly_pig]

85. Good question sir.

I believe since we are not born with faith, we must reason to have it. There is nothing anyone can say, there is nothing written that can alter my individual faith or beliefs. It is mine.

The carrot on the stick is the afterlife. I don’t need that to believe in the many teachings of good people over the course of human history. Be good and you will reap the reward. But there is no telling what is in the hearts of men and women. Only a God would know that, and therefore it is only for God to determine value if s/he exists.

I believe it takes critical thought to understand that my faith is neither better nor worse than anyone else’s faith. It also follows that whatever label you choose for your faith is immaterial.

I would disagree that faith is the abandonment of reason. I believe it’s essential. But that's just me, you might feel differently.

[edhopper]

87. I get what you mean in that context.

Thanks for explaining.
Yes, we disagree about rationality and faith.
But that is a much larger discussion and no need to go into it now.