Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?

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 ........

“ I would not quote a scientist to make a theological argument, because in pretty high generality scientists aren't qualified to comment on theology, and those who do, such as Stephen Hawking, make asses of themselves.”

Oh, I quite agree. May I quote you on the above? But first, a few questions:

Rather than Theology, what about philosophy generally? What of the many sociological questions not having to do with science except, perhaps, in a most general or peripheral way? What of political polls, or other statistical studies, political or not, whose authors claim to be scientifically designed? Would you permit Science alone to judge or evaluate the impact of technology on society? What of brilliant individuals such as Carl Popper or Alister McGrath? To what pigeonhole would you assign them?

Science, and the Scientific Method, are primarily the happy inspirations of a Western Civilization and a Judeo-Christian Tradition. How do you propose to unravel that tapestry?

“In his latest book, Hawking actually makes a theological argument that was demolished about 17 centuries ago, and he and all the cognoscenti not only think it's brilliant, but are so ignorant of theology that they aren't even aware that it's nonsense.”

Have you expressed (forcefully) that sentiment to scientists of your acquaintance? If so, what was their reaction?

“And by the same token, I would not cite an article about science from a theologian.”

????? Unreservedly?

The ultimate bigot is a scientist who rejects any thought but that which he considers scientific.

No scientist does that, so you are arguing against a straw man.

His definition of science is what he chooses it to be.

No, it isn't. Science is a specific methodological discipline. It isn't anything more or less than that.

All thouight is scientific.

No, it's not. If I observe that walking under a ladder often produces bad results, and avoid doing it, this is a systematic way of approaching (a limited part of) the universe, but it isn't science. It's superstition. Superstition -- the observation that two things often occur to together coupled with the false conclusion that therefore one is the cause of the other -- is actually a systematic way of deciphering the world. It isn't as good a way as science, but it's certainly superior to magical thinking ("stuff just 'happens.'") Both magical thinking and superstition are both ways of thinking, and they aren't science.

What remains is to have a conversation

Communication can facilitate scientific discovery, but it isn't actually necessary to it, and conversation is not part of science.

Excluding some thought because it does not meet your subjective standards is unscientific.

What science is isn't subjective. It's a REAL THING; it's not anything subjective, and it isn't whatever you want to think, pretend, or feel it is, any more than a stone can be whatever you want it to be. A stone is a stone. In order to be a stone it has properties which define it. Science is the same way. It is what it is.

Your very claim to the exclusivity of the scientific method is incompatible with the scientific method.

What you're saying is complete nonsense. The scientific method is a specific way of investigating material reality; it is exclusive, it isn't anything else. It isn't an ice cream bar or a sandy beach, or sitting around doing bong hits and talking about "God."

Writing an article with quotes from prominent scientists that call for religious conclusions or makes scientific claims as a result of plausibility arguments from theological principles might be very thought provoking and interesting, but it isn't science; it's extrapolation.

You can pretend these conjectures are science, but that doesn't make them so. They don't produce testable theories or quantifiable results, and they don't invalidate anything already believed to be known. They might be intellectual exercises. They might be valid philosophical points of what you're calling "conversation." But that doesn't make them scientific inquiries.

I’m looking forward to a future towel upgrade that would help successfully ward off Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts, more commonly know in these parts as..Democrats :)

Well...if the Dems in your area are comparable to the raveneous Bugblatter Beast of Traal...(and whose aren't?)...just throw your trusty towel over their heads and they'll leave you alone.

For it is a well known fact that the raveneous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is such a mind-bogglingly stupid animal that it assumes if you can't see it, it cannot see you.

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.