Hondo

I just finished a fascinating article in the April Discover magazine titled "Where Did Everything Come From." Alan Guth has come up with an inflation theory that apparently indicates that our universe could indeed have come from nothing. The article also mentions "the eternally existing, self-reproducing inflationary universe." I love that one. Creationists are going to have one hell of a time putting their square pegged personal god into this round hole. I'am looking forward to seeing how they twist this one around.

This article was one hell of a read, I highly recommend it to all.

Francois Tremblay

Sigh. How many times are we gonna get people who think nothingness can have a potentiality ? Don't you know basic logic ?

Pomp

Apparently, the editors of Discover are also lacking basic knowledge of logic. Everyone who disagrees with you is not ignorant.

ImGod

I just finished the same article today. I have been mentally processing it. I'm trying to get through the concept that; "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."

The best quote was the first one, "Most people really want to know where we came from. We have evidence. We no longer have to rely on stories we were told when we were young".

echidna

At the end of it though, I’m still bugged by the question "why anything at all ?" It seems as though logically, nothing should exist, no rules, no laws, no principles, no universal constants, and yet there appear to be, and quite definite ones at that. Why time for instance ?

To date, the best answers I can get is something like "well it is and the question why, is meaningless", which I find quite unsatisfactory.

For a self-requisite universe to exist, some framework is necessary, rules to base it on, concepts to build it.

Look, the philosophers can have me for lunch, but cause doesn’t seem to be a problem, contingency or "necessary-ness" is where I have difficulty.

Similarly to reliance on materialism, materialism makes perfect sense once one accepts its principles. But why should I do that ? Because that’s what I see ? To be so complacently accepting to me seems quite akin to goddiidit.

Bookman

Well, Franc, I don't know about you, but to answer questions about the origins of the universe I'm much more likely to consult <a href="http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/alan_guth.htm" target="_blank">a physicist</a> than a philosopher...

Bookman

Francois Tremblay

I'm sorry, but everyone who disagrees with basic logic is ignorant. It's not my fault if I'm smart enough to understand basic facts such as "nothingness is incompatible with the existence of a potentiality".

Nothingness is the absence of all existence. No potentiality is compatible with the notion of nothingness, since it is a mechanism that exists. Simple enough ! No mechanism of "vacuum fluctuations" can exist if there is nothing ! How difficult is that to understand ? It seems it is, since the only response I got from you guys is a bunch of ad homs (the malady of scientism tends to do that to one...)

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

99Percent

That is precisely why we need philosphy, so we don't get swept away by "theoretical" absurdities.

I agree with Franc28. Everything cannot come from nothing, it defies logic.

Contrary to what David H says, creationists have a field day with such absurdities as it fits squarely with the idea of a creator.

ImGod

I'm sorry if you didn't agree with the subject matter. I suggest you read the article, then tell us how you disagree with this professor's theories. You may have discussed this earlier, so you can simply add a link to your arguments for those of us who weren't a part of the original discussion.

However, you're approach to discussing this thread needs considerable work. You set the stage for the abuse you recieved by opening your attempt at a discussion with "Don't you understand basic logic?", and continuing by addressing people in a condescending tone, and including your own "ad homs". Your grasp of basic logic should have told you that would happen.

tronvillain

Franc28:
So it wasn't "real" nothingness. Oh no.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>