Posted on 07/18/2013 10:36:09 AM PDT by kimtom
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing (see Miller, 2013). All of the scientific evidence points to that conclusion. So, the Universe could not have popped into existence before the alleged “big bang” (an event which we do not endorse). Therefore, God must have created the Universe.
One of the popular rebuttals by the atheistic community is that quantum mechanics could have created the Universe. In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed the idea of mass-energy equivalence, resulting in the famous equation, E = mc2 (1905). We now know that matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. However, energy and mass are conserved, in keeping with the First Law. In the words of the famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, “[T]he principle of the conservation of matter and energy…states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever” (1977, p. 32). The idea of matter-energy conversion led one physicist to postulate, in essence, that the cosmic egg that exploded billions of years ago in the alleged “big bang”—commencing the “creation” of the Universe—could have come into existence as an energy-to-matter conversion.
In 1973, physicist Edward Tryon of the Hunter College of the City University of New York published a paper in the British science journal Nature titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” He proposed the idea that the Universe could be a large scale ........
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
And a real hoopy Frood who really knows where his towel is at.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-casimir-effect
It’s like current federal monetary policy: the Federal Reserve writes a big $0 in their ledger to acknowledge they have nothing, then write -$1,000,000,000,000 in the Liabilities column and $1,000,000,000,000 in the Assets column, then loan the newfound assets out, lots of economic activity ensues, eventually they get their $1,000,000,000,000 back (takes a long time), add the two columns together again, write $0 in both, and a whole lot happened between nothing and nothing.
To celebrate the creation of the Universe.
Understood...
And by the same token, I would not cite an article about science from a theologian.
...”
Truth is truth no matter who quotes it, so I have to most respectfully, disagree.
If Hawkins makes a statement (public) he can be quoted to prove or disprove a argument.
Also a scientist can be a Christian, some of the first scientist were.
Science is the study of God’s creation, whether you believe in Him or not.
However, your comments are very good!!
:)
As surely as the FED can produce a HEALTHY ECONOMY by printing money and buying bonds and t-bills. /s
None of those would reveal the reason behind the specific choice of form: he could reveal himself as awesome in many ways, could have created lines in the sky instead of stars, and so on. I suspect that the metaphysics behind specific forms and laws of the universe were chosen because that particular expression of material was the one which would maximize God’s love.
He doesn’t say she isn’t a genius. He’s suggesting that she isn’t a ‘genius.’
Answers like hers tell me she's not a genius, she's just more open minded and intelligent than a genius.
Government subsistence funding.
Your reply omits my reason for not quoting a scientist, which is the same reason for not quoting a theologian, and does not fundamentally disagree with yours; to wit, most scientists don't know anything about theology, and vice versa. Truth is truth no matter who quotes it, but the likelihood that a theologian will make a scientifically precise statement is -- unfortunately -- low, just as is the likelihood that a scientist would make a truthful observation about religion.
Hmmm, you may be onto something there! I am reminded of the state of the toilet bowl at the moment the contents disappear down and out the siphon bend in the sewer pipe.
>ummm? F*** if I know.
God used quantum mechanics to create the universe after he created the universe.
When Science disproves your religion, you invent a Science that needs no proving, only speculation and faith. That Science is called oddly enough Quantum Mechanics.
I say oddly as Quantum is a measurable vector, and Mechanics is the interaction of a defined set of existing physical objects. Neither of which apply to Quantum Mechanics. The very definition of Quantum Mechanics is an Oxy-Moron.
Fitting for a religion FOR morons.
Thanks for playing.
Why do you say that? The author quotes several respected physicists who concur that quantum theory leaves no room for “nothingness.”
Amazing ... and where do waves originate, in your so professional opinion? Do they arise from a source or sources outside of the Universe? Tie your shoelaces, ballerina. The ‘vacuum state’ exists inside the Universe God Created, thus ALL the waves are a product of an already created environment in which they arise. Just keep spinning, ballerina, you may get this turned completely around in readers’ minds and you won’t look so feckless. Enjoy your dance.
“..Truth is truth no matter who quotes it, but the likelihood that a theologian will make a scientifically precise statement is ...”
What if it is a Christ believing scientist? can he a precise statement?
Can not a theologian quote a scientific statement correctly?Could a scientist be a Creationist???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.