Some scientists stifle sensible supposition
Have you ever had an epiphany about say, a better way to do something that you never thought of before but if you had just put in a little mental effort you would have seen it a long time ago? I’ve often thought I should make myself a cross-stitch saying, “Sometimes you just don’t think of it.”
A variation on that cross-stitch should hang in every science lab: Sometimes you just don’t want to think of it.
Science is all about discovery…what’s in the universe, what it’s all made of, how nature works and how things came to be…and new discoveries are being made by scientists all the time. But no matter how extensive our knowledge of the universe becomes, science cannot answer the the most basic question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing?
But don’t tell them that. In this CNN opinion piece, physicist Don Lincoln says that a recent scientific development “has made it more likely that we will finally be able to answer this cosmic conundrum.” Now, I don’t even pretend to know and understand physics and quantum mechanics, neutrinos and antimatter, but I don’t have to know to be certain that scientists will never have a purely naturalistic answer to how and why the universe came into being. It’s simply self-evident that something cannot come from nothing, and if the universe…all that is natural…came into being, the cause must be outside of nature. Unnatural, you might say, but supernatural says it better.
But many atheist scientists don’t want to even think about that because then, God forbid, they might have to admit that a supernatural cause of the universe is necessary. So they busy themselves following and experimenting with scientific theories hoping that someday…somehow…they will discover a new particle or physical law that will demonstrate that the impossible is possible. That something really can just pop into existence without a cause.
As William Lane Craig likes to say, that’s worse than magic…at least with magic you have a magician.
No amount of money or time spent exploring the vastness of space or the most minuscule mites of matter will result in a scientific answer to the “cosmic conundrum” of why the universe exists. The answer to that question self-evidently must be outside of the universe. But the scientists who are committed to atheism for non-scientific reasons very unscientifically refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. They don’t want to go there…they don’t want to think about it.
Conversely, here are some scientists who are both humble enough and smart enough to recognize that it’s foolish to expect a natural explanation for a supernatural event. The smart money…the smart science…is on the sensible supposition that a supernatural Someone exists.
While you are to be commended for your interest in this matter, there is a gaping flaw in your logic. You say “It’s simply self-evident that something cannot come from nothing,” Yet you assume that your supernatural origin came from nothing or always existed, neither of which are logically tenable. If the universe requires a creator, then presumably the creator is more complex and thus requires an uber-creator. You are then stuck in a situation of infinite regress, with nothing to stop it. This is always the fatal flaw in any intelligence design argument.
You admit to not knowing much science. It is therefore foolish to assume that you understand the arguments that underlie a natural origin of the universe. There are ample observed mechanisms whereby things to indeed arise from nothing. While it is unproven that these mechanisms are the origins of our universe, they are a proof in principle.
Further, there is extensive ignorance in this matter – a fact readily admitted by scientists. Your own ignorance in this question is larger than the ignorance of scientists who have studied this question at a technical and quantifiable level. It is the definition of hubris to think that your opinion is somehow better informed than theirs.
It is highly unlikely that you will be persuaded by these comments and that is fine. However, you should be aware of the problem of infinite regress. It is unimaginable that you will quickly turn to a natural solution, but you need to ponder the weakness of your position. It may be that you find that the scientists are more thoughtful, critical, and better informed than you currently imagine.
LikeLike
God is a necessary being and always existed. In what way is that logically untenable?
And what are some of the “ample observed mechanisms” that arise from nothing?
LikeLike
I don’t think you even understand what science talks about! All the energy-matter in the universe didn’t come from nothing! It always existed in a form or another. It wasn’t created from nothing. Even the vacuum itself when there are no atoms, electron, photons, neutrinos, or any elementary particle, empty space itself has non-zero vacuum energy that permits all space.
LikeLike
Hey, is this the same Mike I used to spar with years ago?
LikeLike
Ha ha ha ha. Yes, it is me back again. How are you?
LikeLike
I’m well, thank you. How’ve you been? I see Carl Sagan is still your god. 😉
But to your comment…you realize, of course, that your claim that the universe always existed runs counter to the widely-accepted view that it had a beginning, right?
LikeLike
Hello Caroline
No, Carl Sagan isn’t my god, he is a person I highly respect.
Well, what you don’t seem to comprehend from my comment is that it doesn’t matter whether the universe had a beginning or not, this isn’t the issue. The Energy of the universe is eternal, it always existed, never created, never will vanish, but can take several forms. The energy of the universe is eternal, it didn’t have any beginning nor will have an end
Also, even if you take everything, everything you can take, atoms, particles, photons, you name it, and leave empty space, you would still have energy in it, because of the Higgs field that premiates space and this field is a scaler field that is a non-zero energy field.
I’m not joking here, it is pure physics!
LikeLike
But Mike, energy itself is something and came into existence along with space, matter, and time in the Big Bang. That’s according to the standard model anyway.
LikeLike
No Caroline, energy didn’t come from the big bang, the big bang is a transform of energy that always existed. The standard model doesn’t say what you understand.
LikeLike
Mike, even if that were true, the presence of energy still begs for an explanation. And still leaves us with the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?
LikeLike
Because something is eternal, i.e. energy.
Why is it that you have a serious issue with energy being eternal, but have no issue at all accepting the existence of a being that has no verifiable proof who existed since eternity? I kind of call this double standards. If you seriously think that energy is a thing that needs explanation then also, and by your own words, god also needs explanation, unless god = nothing, to you, then the debate is over!
LikeLike
If anything exists, something exists necessarily. That seems self-evident, because otherwise you’d have the problem of infinite regress. God is a much more plausible candidate for necessary existence than energy. There doesn’t seem to be anything about energy that makes it necessary, whereas God as an all-powerful, supernatural, transcendent personal agent does seem necessary in order for there to be anything natural existing, including energy.
LikeLike
That is your opinion! Facts, experience, science, reality, and experiment have no evidence of any such being. You try to explain the universe with something that doesn’t have any evidence. God is a human invention of our own ignorance and fear of death
LikeLike
Now I know why I stopped engaging with you years ago, Mike. You’re not interested in considering the evidence for God’s existence, but only in asserting that there is none, and in stifling sensible supposition.
LikeLike
Evidence means non-deniable non-rifutable repeatable proof. Do you have such evidence for the existence of what you claim? No, then please don’t call it evidence or proof. It barely is a claim!
Nice picture you have 🙂
LikeLike
Mike, evidence is not proof. I didn’t say proof and you don’t even know what evidence is. Come back again in a few years when you do.
Thanks for the compliment.
LikeLike
Love this! You two keep it up!! 🙂
LikeLike