Curiosity, Did God Create the Universe

[quote="JRKH, post:20, topic:251300"]
Sorry I don't have an answer for you but I recall a radio interview that was touching on quantum physics/mechanics/whatever and the person being interviewed said there is joke among the quantum physicists that goes, "If you talk about quantum physics and don't get a headache, you aren't doing it right" :D:whacky::hypno:

Peace
James

[/quote]

Yeah, I think I already have that headache. It just makes your head round and round Fasincating stuff though.

Also, If the universe can be created spontaneously from this negative quatumn vacuum energy can this happen at anytime? Can this spontaenously happen tomorrow and thus create a universe within our universe?

I did not see the show in question, but I was privileged to sit in on a lecture given by Father Robert Spitzer who talked about Stephen Hawking's metaphysics.

It was rather enlightening about the mistakes Hawking makes and his presumptions. And also the latest finds in physics that point towards the NECESSITY of a Creator.

One of Fr. Spitzer's websites is www.magisreasonfaith.org

I also checked out youtube and found the following: youtube.com/watch?v=O1cy3iCrxic

I have been doing some more reading and have another question to anyone who might be able to answer it.

If the quantum vacuum energy is negative, which is what persumably is causing the universe's continued acclerated expanse, then how can you say that the overal Energy in the universe is Zero. Wouldn't that have to keep the positive energy of the universe cancel out the negative energy from the vaccum and thus keep the expansion at least at a constant rate?

Also, if you are adding space to the universe from its expansion (ie more vacuum) aren't you actually adding more osscillating waves which would increase the overall negative energy thus actually tilting the net energy in the universe away from zero and into the negative?

It might seem silly to some, but I am kind of afraid to watch programs like that. I know I probably should so that I know what other messages are out there, but I chose not to. I have an atheist friend who emailed me his reaction to it and he even felt it was over the top. What is the best way to slowly and gently address a topic like this with our friends who do not believe?

[quote="enbell, post:24, topic:251300"]
It might seem silly to some, but I am kind of afraid to watch programs like that. I know I probably should so that I know what other messages are out there, but I chose not to. I have an atheist friend who emailed me his reaction to it and he even felt it was over the top. What is the best way to slowly and gently address a topic like this with our friends who do not believe?

[/quote]

It does not seem silly at all. The physics involved the theories etc are all quite involved and if one is not well versed in them it can all be very perplexing...I know it is for me...:shrug:

Science studies and expresses what can be known. For science to work properly it must be able to quantify, test, and repeat results - Or, as in the case of a lot of physics, it must be shown mathematically.
Science cannot express, or explain something that is not quantifiable or is part of a realm that is completely outside of any realm they have yet been able to imagine.

Quantum Physics itself has only been around since 1925 and some of the laws and actions it has uncovered defy anything in normal physics. No one 250 years ago would have believes such things could exist. Yet NOW science excepts them.

As for gently getting into these things with non-believers...I don't really. My common response is an adage that I have always lived by in relating science to faith.

No matter how much we know, we will always reach that point where we ask "Why" and have no answer...God is in that why?

Peace
James

[quote="DJK100, post:21, topic:251300"]
Yeah, I think I already have that headache. It just makes your head round and round Fasincating stuff though.

Also, If the universe can be created spontaneously from this negative quatumn vacuum energy can this happen at anytime? Can this spontaenously happen tomorrow and thus create a universe within our universe?

[/quote]

parallel universe? When I read your post thats what came to my mind

Just going off of the OP of this thread. The show seems to say that there is no God, because before the big bang time did not exist. So i am assuming that they are claiming that Nothing, not even God can exist without time. But if time did not exist before the big bang and nothing can exist or happen without the existence of time. Then how did all the process’s that was needed to occur to cause the big bang happen, if there was no time?

[quote="DJK100, post:19, topic:251300"]
Hi,

I understand the rest of GoodGuyGreg's notes on what Hawking's said, but can someone with a little more physics than I have explain this to me. How, even at the Quantum level, can something spontaneoulsy come in and out of existence. Also, aren't these particles a for of energy or matter and as such require something to be made from?

Thanks for answering.

[/quote]

I hope I can explain virtual particles to the best of my ability, but if not, you can try reading the Wikipedia article if you wish, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle.

Virtual particles can be though of as particles that exist for a limited time and obey Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which means the energy and momentum of the particle are inversely related). In layman's terms, the more you know about the energy of the virtual particle, the less you know about its momentum and vice versa. The consequence of this is that virtual particles are hard to "pin down" or know their characteristic in depth.

Virtual particles can have either no mass or little, but are mainly energy. It may help to think of them as photons (or quanta) which have a short lifespan. Virtual particles usually manifest in fields of magnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear nature.

To understand how virtual particles come in and out of existence without breaking the conservation laws, it helps to know that they are created in pairs. For every virtual particle that appears, a "twin" antiparticle also appears. Usually they both collide and annihilate each other shortly after fruition since they appear so close together. Think of the virtual particle as "1" and the virtual antiparticle as "-1". Since they add to zero they do not violate the laws of conservation and they do not create any "new" energy or mass.

[quote="DJK100, post:23, topic:251300"]
I have been doing some more reading and have another question to anyone who might be able to answer it.

If the quantum vacuum energy is negative, which is what persumably is causing the universe's continued acclerated expanse, then how can you say that the overal Energy in the universe is Zero. Wouldn't that have to keep the positive energy of the universe cancel out the negative energy from the vaccum and thus keep the expansion at least at a constant rate?

Also, if you are adding space to the universe from its expansion (ie more vacuum) aren't you actually adding more osscillating waves which would increase the overall negative energy thus actually tilting the net energy in the universe away from zero and into the negative?

[/quote]

For your first question, it may help to understand that the expansion rate is not directly proportional to the amount of energy in the universe. Quantum vacuum energy, or dark energy, is the repulsive force which is causing the expansion of spacetime. Little is known about it so it would be futile for me to try and explain why it acts the way it does. However, I can give you the perspective from the "attractive" side. Gravitational attraction, written as MmG/r^2 is inversely proportional to distance squared. The consequence of this is that the force of gravity decreases exponentially as the distance between two massive bodies increases. So if two galaxies are "x" distance apart at one time, if they are "2x" apart at some other time the gravitational force between them is one fourth it was. Now suppose that dark energy's inverse relationship to distance is less than a factor of x^2 and then you can see that dark energy overcomes the force of gravity as distance increases. Of course, we don't know much about dark energy and can only assume how it actually acts.

This segues nicely into why the expansion of the universe does not cause the amount of negative energy in the universe to increase (your second question). A component of the negative energy is gravitational flux. As massive bodies in the universe move further from each other, the gravitational flux (which may be though of as density of force) between them decreases (see above for why). This decrease in gravitational flux balances out the increase in expansive energy from dark energy.

[quote="GoodGuyGreg, post:28, topic:251300"]
I hope I can explain virtual particles to the best of my ability, but if not, you can try reading the Wikipedia article if you wish, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle.

Virtual particles can be though of as particles that exist for a limited time and obey Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which means the energy and momentum of the particle are inversely related). To understand how virtual particles come in and out of existence without breaking the conservation laws, it helps to know that they are created in pairs. For every virtual particle that appears, a "twin" antiparticle also appears. Usually they both collide and annihilate each other shortly after fruition since they appear so close together. Think of the virtual particle as "1" and the virtual antiparticle as "-1". Since they add to zero they do not violate the laws of conservation and they do not create any "new" energy or mass.

[/quote]

Hi GoodGuyGreg,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts, what you make said makes sense in this post and in response to my other posst ie the attractive force of gravity being diminished while the repellant force being diminished less causing the expansion off the universe etc.

I kind of view the Heisenberg uncertainty principle this way. Please see if this makes sense. I think of it as like shooting a bullet out of a gun. The bullet represents the wave particle, the only way to definately accurately measure the position of a bullet at any time is to stop the bullet completely ie freeze it from moving. This gives you a the poistion of the bullet but tells you nothing of its movement ie it's velocity or direction. Conversely if you try to measure it while moving the very fact that it is moving means that at anytime you cannot get an accurate position because in order to get to get that measurement you need time to measure it and that small amount of time to measure means that by the time you get your result the particle in essense has moved on. If you didn't care about the bullets position you can measure it moving to get an overall picture of its flight path ie momentum. Is this essentially correct?

So my next question is does Heisenberg uncertainty principle apply to a singularity? I know time is not part of the equation in the Hesienberg equation, however if you froze time or had infinate amount of time to measure could you not see both position and momentum of the particle? Basciallly, if you have no time in the system then your measurments are also taking place with no time. And if you can measure both, postion and momentum does that not void the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in a singularity? And if that principle is void does this affect Dr. Hawking's theory at all?

Thanks again helping me undestanding this. This sh*t's confusing.

I don't think that Heisenberg's principle could apply to the singularity of the Big Bang Theory since the total energy remains zero and there is no frame or reference for us to measure momentum. Although, you might have better luck poking holes in Hawking's equivocation of the singularity and virtual particles by pointing out that virtual particles are observed in existing spacetime, while we cannot be certain if the singularity did. This fact will remain unknowable unless we discover a way to observe what is outside our universe (if there is an "outside"). And that is a big IF.

HI GGG,

I am not trying to poke holes in his theory I am just trying to get a better understanding of its nuiances. My college physics was basically the 101 version so I am trying to make this all make sense. Thanks for your continued help though.

I feel the best way to understanding is from the standpoint of rigorous criticism.

[quote="GoodGuyGreg, post:31, topic:251300"]
I don't think that Heisenberg's principle could apply to the singularity of the Big Bang Theory since the total energy remains zero and there is no frame or reference for us to measure momentum. ** Although, you might have better luck poking holes in Hawking's equivocation of the singularity and virtual particles by pointing out that virtual particles are observed in existing spacetime, while we cannot be certain if the singularity did. ** This fact will remain unknowable unless we discover a way to observe what is outside our universe (if there is an "outside"). And that is a big IF.

[/quote]

The bolded was actually going to be my next question. However, If a singularity did exist would it be fair to say that it is in essense ALL things, meaning that it must contain all things at all non-time. Meaning that it must have all states within it. It is and at the same time it isn't. Meaning that both virtual particles and real particles must exist within it at the same nontime. Which would then beg the question what would push it over to the explosive/expansive stage?

Also, is it reasonable to deduce that there must be an outside to the universe otherwise there would have been nothing for the universe to expand into? Even if this outside is true nothingness ie void of any energy and not just vacuum? Especially, since the vacuum is considered part of the universe ie contains energy?

Let me know when you want me to stop asking you questions.

Hawking is wrong to say that the universe spontaneously created itself, without need of explanation, because time itself began with the universe.

Just in the same way that when various religious believers make claims like: God is external to time, and created the universe itself, so has no need of a cause.

You're all very concerned with this man's argument that god did not create the universe. While those of you have said his argument is flawed are correct, for there is always a way to modify an idea to make it unable to be disproven, to define it specifically to have no bounds that we know of, but once you've cleared away all of the arguments against your claim, of some creator-god, or your modified version of it, you are not left with the claim itself. You are left merely with an uncertainty. You still must prove your claim itself.

[quote="pjnlsn, post:35, topic:251300"]
Hawking is wrong to say that the universe spontaneously created itself, without need of explanation, because time itself began with the universe.

Just in the same way that when various religious believers make claims like: God is external to time, and created the universe itself, so has no need of a cause.

You're all very concerned with this man's argument that god did not create the universe. While those of you have said his argument is flawed are correct, for there is always a way to modify an idea to make it unable to be disproven, to define it specifically to have no bounds that we know of.

You're all very right in that you cannot prove that some god-thing did not create the universe, or that such a being does not exist at all, but once you've cleared away all of the arguments against your claim, you are not left with the claim itself. You are left merely with an uncertainty. You still must prove your claim itself.

[/quote]

How did the universe spontaneously create itself? If it was not created, then did it always exist? If the universe does not need to be created to exist, then why argue that God needs to have a cause to exist? God exists without cause. The universe exists because God created it.

So what is creation anyways? What does it mean to create something? Well, first you have nothing, and then you have something. How does that happen? Well, something must come into existence. How does something that does not exist come into existence? Something that exists must create it. If something exists, then either that something has always existed, or it was created. If anything exists, then something has always had to exist. If anything in the universe creates something else, than some things must be creative. Does anything in the universe create anything else? Man exists. At one point he did not exist. He must have been created somehow. Life did not always exist. It must have been created somehow. If something is created, something must have created it. If everything is created, there must be something that has always created. So if that thing exists, let's call it the Creator, or God. Something cannot exist unless it exists also in the thing that created it. Man can think. So whatever created man must also be able to think. Man has reason, so whatever created man must also have reason. If the universe created man, then the universe must have reason and be able to think, since the universe created creatures capable of thinking and reason. So the question is, did something create the universe, or did the universe create itself. How can you create yourself. To create means to make something exist that did not exist before. How can something that does not exist create something that exists.

It makes no sense at all whatsoever.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
How did the universe spontaneously create itself? If it was not created, then did it always exist? If the universe does not need to be created to exist, then why argue that God needs to have a cause to exist? God exists without cause. The universe exists because God created it.

[/quote]

The idea that a thing can, itself, be an explanation for it's own existence is illogical. And so is Hawking wrong to say that the universe was spontaneously created without need of an explanation. But also is the religious believer wrong to say that a proposed creator-god exists external to the universe, and thus spacetime, and has no need of any explanation.

Certainly since cause and effect are emergent properties which arise from space-time, which began with the universe, there will not be a "cause" for this god-thing, or whatever other explanation is offered. It will follow a pattern of state change different than the ordinary cause -> effect. Perhaps much different.

But there will still be an explanation.

Furthermore, even if we ignore, for the moment, the need to explain any creator-god, what is the proof of the thing itself? Why must there be some god-thing?

The most common definitions of a god-thing are vague, and inspecific, involving merely bits of human-like personality and barely defined abilities. The concept does not yield what evidence would confirm it, or disprove it.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
So what is creation anyways? What does it mean to create something? Well, first you have nothing, and then you have something. How does that happen? Well, something must come into existence. How does something that does not exist come into existence?

[/quote]

The idea of something from nothing is illogical. Just as it is both wrong for Hawking to talk of spontaneous creation without want of explanation, and for the religious believe to talk about an always existing creator god without want of explanation, it is also wrong to talk of something coming from absolutely nothing, that is to say a "nothing" which has no definition whatsoever, and thus allows the something to exist without any explanation.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
Something that exists must create it. If something exists, then either that something has always existed, or it was created. If anything exists, then something has always had to exist.

[/quote]

An explanation is required, sure.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
If anything in the universe creates something else, than some things must be creative. Does anything in the universe create anything else? Man exists. At one point he did not exist. He must have been created somehow. Life did not always exist. It must have been created somehow. If something is created, something must have created it.

[/quote]

Well.....all things require explanation, yes, and life itself, man as a form of life, they all require explanation, which cannot be the things themselves. Life itself cannot explain why life exists, and man itself cannot explain why man exists.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
If everything is created, there must be something that has always created.

[/quote]

Hmm?

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
So if that thing exists, let's call it the Creator, or God. Something cannot exist unless it exists also in the thing that created it.

[/quote]

Well, matter and energy is neither created or destroyed, save on the smallest scales, where the behaviour fluctuates, it is just converted into different states. So this is true, in a certain sense.

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
Man can think. So whatever created man must also be able to think. Man has reason, so whatever created man must also have reason. If the universe created man, then the universe must have reason and be able to think, since the universe created creatures capable of thinking and reason.

[/quote]

I'm afraid that I don't know of how intelligence can be, itself, matter and energy, and thus necessarily not be destroyed, but rather converted into another form. It is, perhaps, along with reason, a particular pattern arising from, for example, the configuration of a brain, without merely being the materials themselves.

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. --Aristotle, Metaphysica

Intelligence, reason, these concepts do not describe matter or energy itself, but rather what is by all appearances a pattern arising from the operation of a system. What guarantee do these qualities or patterns have to be conserved, as the materials of a body and brain are distributed? Compared to the actual matter and energy, which is conserved?

[quote="joshrp, post:36, topic:251300"]
So the question is, did something create the universe, or did the universe create itself. How can you create yourself. To create means to make something exist that did not exist before. How can something that does not exist create something that exists.

It makes no sense at all whatsoever.

[/quote]

It is illogical, yes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.