Regarding quantum fluctuations, I have heard that before. But there is something I don’t understand, and maybe you can better explain it to me.
Quantum theory exists within nature, and nature itself is finite. It seems to me that one cannot invoke quantum fluctuations, seeing as how they occur naturally.
Obviously, I am not a theoretical physicist. Nonetheless, I genuinely wish my question answered.
The problem, for me, is twofold:
1. If quantum fluctuations caused nature, does this mean that quantum theory transcends nature? In other words, “supernatural”? If this be the case, how can one call himself a naturalist?
2. If quantum theory is all part of nature, then did it not also come into being 14 billion years ago? In this case, it’s finite. And the need for a transcendent prime-mover is still a logical necessity.
Forgive me if I am hung up on something or mistaken. I wish only to learn.
Thanks.
Update:
Regarding time, if it were nonexistent (along with space and matter) at a particular point in time, then it must have brought into being. I understand that when time is not involved, neither is cause and effect. But that still wouldn’t invalidate point number one, because at that point, nature itself assumes the role of Aristotle’s “prime-mover”. In such an instance, “god” becomes an argument in semantics.
Update 2:
time must have *been* brought into being
7
✅ Answers
? Favorite Answer
You asked this question in the Religious part of Yahoo
✅ Answers
. This leads me to believe that you think that since we might not know exactly how the universe came into existence or whatever; therefore god did it. Hopefully this isn’t actually the case. I think that you should realize that just because science doesn’t know all the answers doesn’t mean that there is a god.
I’m not a theoretical physicist either. I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I do know that before the big bang time didn’t exist. If time doesn’t exist then cause and effect cannot happen.
If we’re talking about a supreme being then I don’t think that god is necessarily an argument in semantics. I feel like we’re talking about particles (that we don’t know much about) that caused the big bang, and not many people consider particles a god.
You and I have both admitted that we don’t know everything about these particles. You might be assuming that these particles transcend nature too hastily. Since we don’t know how these particles work then we can’t really say that they are transcending nature by being the cause of the big bang. Are you assuming that there can’t be nature if there isn’t time?
Even if there is a god that was a prime mover, then what caused that god to exist? If that god exists outside of time, then why can’t nature also exist outside of time? Again, I feel like you must be assuming that only supernatural things can exist outside of time.
Here’s the deal….when you get that small what we see as time starts acting wonky so things like causality become impossible to establish. Most things don’t seem to have a cause, and we’ve seen things that are the cause happen after the event they cause.
It is part of nature, we just don’t totally understand all of it yet. But we can still have it produce measurable forces like the Casimir Effect, and we can still make other predictions with it. So we know that the ideas are at least on the right track.
If there became into no longer something earlier our universe began, then from the place or while did the actual regulation(s) originate that allowed it to ensue interior the 1st place? became into the creation of our universe in ordinary terms some style of accident? comparable question as earlier — how became into such an accident conceivable if there became into no element previous it. no matter the way you slice it, there is not any way of having around a prevalent reason — that which some people call God. with the intention to even start to bypass the pick for a prevalent reason the closest our reasoning can get is to conceptualize parallel universes, colliding branes, etc.,. Even then, although, you nevertheless won’t be able to completely get rid of that first reason.
In other words Aquinas vs. Lawrence Krauss?
I won’t pretend I know near enough of theology or theoretical physics to contribute to this discussion. I’ll merely say that’s an interesting question, toss you a star and hope that someone more enlightened has by now come along and held up my end.
(The friendly atheist. :^)
If you have no time before the big bang, then nature is the state that is and was since the beginning of time. If time is not real, as is a scientific theory, then there is no creator or created outside of the illusion we perceive as time.
Source(s): http://digitaljournal.com/article/345809
You don’t NEED a “transcendent prime-mover” for a Prime move !
The 5 sense reality is from god. Nature didn’t concoct the ingredients of realization