Could someone help me with what this atheist is claiming? You see I showed him the Fr. Spitzer Article/Blog post on Strange Notions called “How Contemporary Physics Points to a God” and he responded with this.
“Finally got around to the strange notions, and it’s claim for physics pointing to a god. First of all, even if all this added up as they say, it only points to a god, not the catholic specific god. That’s a big if, considering it doesn’t add up at all. They’re attempting to use physics, in a topic of astrophysics. Now, if anyone here is well-versed in astrophysics, you can already see the problem. Physical laws do not work the same on a cosmological scale. Which is one of the reasons why Astrophysics is a billion times more complex, and that much more difficult to comprehend than “physics.”
So their use of thermodynamics falls short. As does their/his/her (whomever wrote it) illogical use of time. I’m glad they actually understand that there was no “before.” But their follow-up shows their failure to grasp just what that means. The idea that there was “nothing,” which they go into detail with, sounds logical to someone who doesn’t have the experience in this field. To have an amount, including the amount of zero, there has to be a moment in order for that amount to exist.
If I say “there was nothing durring May 500th of last year.” That moment has to exist for there to be nothing in it. The moment did not exist though, and therefore you cannot give it an amount of substance, not even zero.
Their ladder of thought is already broken down. But I’m going to move on and refute their next steps anyways, even though it’s already busted:… This is the old age example of “if there was nothing how can there now be something.” Which is a highly refuted train of thought.
Theoretical physics can explain quite well that something can come from nothing. We just don’t have current substantial evidence of it having happened, we do have such evidence that it COULD. But that’s considering that there was a point of “nothing” which is also not substantiated. There was no “before” the singularity, therefore the singularity most likely was always a thing, or a recession of an alternate future. (“Alternate Future” is a term I can go into more specifically later if need be.)
So this strange notions argument is basically a reworded, and much longer version of an older and heavily refuted argument. They tried to disguise it with a few big words and “sound good” explanations, that don’t really fit into precisely what they’re talking about”
Please oh pleaseeeeee help me out!