Why is there SOMEthing and not NOthing? (A response to critics)

I always enjoy reading, considering, and responding to those who comment on my articles, whether or not they agree with me. However, at times they offer little to further the discussion. I will refer to the commentors in the order of their comments; C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5.

For reference on discussion itself, please see this article.

C1: He decided to take the “number 2″ route in my post on “The Art of Discussion“. He belittled me, my position, and everyone who holds my position. I tried to engage him in conversation, and he made some assertions but entirely failed to offer any points of evidence.

C2: Bald assertion, no evidence, no reply to request for additional discussion.

C4: (I didn’t skip C3, we’ll get to him momentarily.) Again, assertions without evidence.

C5: I would classify this commenter as taking a “soft number 2″ approach. Somewhat of a passive-aggressive approach with a back-door insult. An effective tactic for some, really. It probably works well for him frequently. To his credit, he gracefully withdrew from the conversation with good-will seemingly intact on both sides. (Boom shakalaka, indeed!)

C6: Our first responder that was willing to engage reasonably and have a discussion. C6 did make several assertions without providing much evidence and was somewhat vague in his reasoning but discussion was had and is being conducted still. Thank you Sir.

C3: And now we get to the reason this article became necessary. I would classify C3′s first couple of comments as “number 2′s” and drifting into the third category on occasion, yet still relying on asserting and analogizing. To his credit, however, he did progress to the point where he started offering evidence to back up the assertions he was making. For this I thank him. The rest of this article is pretty much a response to his last comment.

Note 1: I have not been offended by any of these comments no matter the spirit in which they were offered. I understand how emotional people get when their strongly held beliefs are challenged, even when the challenges presented are valid. I also appreciate each and every person who takes the time to read my blog and to comment on it.

Note 2: Where I quote C3 I have copied directly from his commentary and pasted here. For context please take time to read his original commentary. And heeeere we go…..

C3 said “I have said why this is not article about science 2 or 3 times now.” Actually, you have not. You have merely asserted that the scientific elements in the article are not correct, but up to this point have only provided analogies for why it is not correct, and not evidence. So I thank you for this comment because now we can have a meaningful discussion about the merits of our respective cases.

That said, you are exactly right. This IS NOT an article about science. It contains elements of science, but it is not about science. This is an article explaining something that science CAN NOT tell us. I will continue to develop this idea as we move forward.

1. C3, you said “I’ve never heard of the phrase “law of causality…” Regarding the “Law of Causality”: From Wiki on Scientific Law: “A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. … Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.” Now get this: Every scientific experiment ever conducted trades on the law of cause and effect. You stated: “I of course apply the principal of cause-effect every day.” (For fun, search Wiki for scientific principle.) So do I. So does everyone. Why? Because logic dictates that everything that happens or that we see has a cause.

Here’s a thought. When I see a rock, I don’t think “Did that rock create itself?” I see a rock and know it had an origination. Now, besides size and chemical make-up what is the essential difference between a rock and the natural universe? (Thank you Brother Larry!)

Question: Does anyone deny the law/principle of causality in both profession and by their actions?

As previously stated, you are right about the intent of my article. Causality is not science in the classical sense. It is a brute fact of the universe. By its very nature, the principle of cause and effect can be verified scientifically, but it  cannot be negated  (falsified). There are limits to science. Science can help explain the things we observe, but we all have innate knowledge that is factual and is not derived from science. The principle of cause and effect is just one instance. Here’s another: I know what I am thinking right now. There is no scientific experiment that can tell me what I am thinking right now, yet without science I still know it independently. So do you. So does everyone else capable of thought. To continue beating this dead horse, without the law of causality we have no science. By its very nature science studies cause and effect.

Finally, on this subject, you said “finding pre big bang physics is not necessary to justify big bang cosmology.” I’m not certain why you said this, since I have not denied big bang cosmology (yet).

2. C3 said “The “big banger” was stored energy.” Okay. Here I will, for the sake of moving the discussion along, admit ignorance. I’m ignorant of the process by which  the “stored energy” becomes un-stored. (We will reserve the discussion of where the energy came from and how it got stored for a later point.) There is energy “stored” in the wiring in my house, but until I plug something in to it it remains “stored”. Batteries contain “stored” energy but until they are made a part of a complete circuit the energy remains “stored” until the chemical processes inside the battery degrade and it goes “dead”. Energy is “stored” in a body at rest, but until something causes the body to move the energy is not realized. Energy is “stored” in the gas tank of my car, but a sequence of events has to happen to cause that energy to work to move my car. I could go on but you get the point. In all these cases the “stored energy” is no more the initiator of the energy being expended than the the gasoline is the initiator of my car starting. Necessary?Absolutely. Sufficient? Not even close. So I don’t understand how the “stored energy” you are referring to as the “Big Banger” (i.e. the cause of the Big Bang) is a sufficient explanation for the event actually happening.

Things explode all the time. The explosions are basically stored energy being released. Stars explode (supernovae), volcanoes explode, bombs explode. Internal combustion engines are machines that control the energy released by explosion and cause it to perform work. (VERY interesting in the context of this subject!) None of these things explode without a cause. Once again. the stored energy is a necessary element of the explosion (or bang, if you prefer) but it is not a sufficient cause.

C3 said “The discussion of 2nd law didn’t make any sense, I think you’re saying the big bang violates it.” Please forgive me for not being clear. Here’s what I said with a clarification: “According to the The Law of Causality coupled with First Law of Thermodynamics the “extremely hot dense state” of the early universe did not spontaneously generate itself, and according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics it (clarification: the extremely hot dense state) did not exist eternally in the past; otherwise a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, (heat death) would have occurred before the “Big Bang” ever banged.” The singularity (as some scientists phrase the hot dense state) didn’t create itself, didn’t pop out of nothing uncaused, and didn’t exist eternally in the past. These things we know both from observation in our current world and from the laws of science.

3. C3 said “Expansion models to explain post big bang physics show a finite point in time where the big bang starts. So you’re asking the BGV model to perform outside of its design”. Here’s what I said about the BGV Theorem: “… the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorum, proves that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history (a byproduct of the Big Bang) cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary (an absolute beginning).” Here I will not argue with you. I will let Alexander Vilenkin make his own argument with your assessment of his theorem. In his book titled Many Worlds in One on page 146, Mr. Vilenkin makes this statement:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

4. C3 said “Your conclusion that “all energy (including matter), space and time began at the Big Bang” is absolutely false (emphasis mine). The big bang is a just a red letter date for physics where the observable universe leads to….” You then recommended Cornell’s website again. Well, thank you for that, because I checked it out. Here’s what I found:

What was there before the Big Bang and what is there outside of our universe?

“We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it. (emphasis mine)

Another definition for the universe is the observable universe – which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can’t observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe. We actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever, even though we can only see a finite part of it. (JP: this would actually negate the “multiverse” idea.)

We can speculate in meta-physics or in religion about what was before the Big Bang, but again, we cannot use science to tell anything about it as physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.” (emphasis mine)

-Karen Masters studies the distribution and motions of galaxies in the local universe. She got her PhD from Cornell in August 2005 did a postdoc at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and is now the 2008 Gruber Foundation Fellow at the University of Portsmouth, Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation.

At this point I think this quote bears repeating.

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

I have presented evidence to prove that before the Big Bang there was nothing, physically speaking. From ancient times the phrase “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (out of nothing, nothing comes) has been affirmed by reasonable people the world over, and has been confirmed by both common sense and by science. Repeated experimental observations confirm it every single day. I might add science has NEVER disproven this, nor can it.  Are we to believe that everything we see arose from magic, in the truest sense of the word? (Heck, even a magician has a hat!) Or could we consider that all of creation was actually created by an all-powerful God, who exists outside the physical word (John 4:24 “God is a Spirit…”). And, more importantly that this God has the power to do what John 3:16 claims he did: give His children everlasting life.

Thank you for taking the time to read my article. For more information on how I keep my worldview informed please go to http://crossroadspbc.org/