From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:   
   >> On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?   
   >>>   
   >>> There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material   
   >>> agency   
   >>>   
   >>> "How" options include:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum   
   >>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure   
   >>>   
   >>> 1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe   
   >>   
   >> The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the   
   >> favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.  It   
   >> shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a   
   >> naturalist origin.  They are looking for their bottom turtle in the   
   >> equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever   
   >> know for sure one way or the other.   
   >>   
   >> With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles   
   >> jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing   
   >> numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one   
   >> thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all impossible to   
   >> prove.  Which if you were to use the logic some here use for a   
   >> supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from consideration.   
   >>   
   >> I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good resource   
   >> in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and work in   
   >> understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something coming from   
   >> it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K. C. Cole "The   
   >> Hole In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of   
   >> Emptiness and Found Everything".  The author does an excellent job of   
   >> making understanding this stuff fun, and though he is not a theist,   
   >> does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he really just ignores   
   >> it), and does acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.   
   >>   
   >> Here's one good quote from his book:   
   >> “the quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from   
   >> nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (and—most   
   >> important—“ nothing” itself is impossible) the question of why the   
   >> universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum mechanics   
   >> itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of universe has to   
   >> be here. The only thing we don’t know is Why quantum mechanics? Why   
   >> laws of nature at all?”   
   >>   
   >> IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them   
   >> out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does   
   >> nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial   
   >> conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them further back   
   >> in time.  The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in   
   >> the book, and so far impossible to reproduce.  Yet, it is obvious that   
   >> ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum world,   
   >> still requires origin explanations.  The best they can do for now is   
   >> the low energy state, but have not explained where and how that energy   
   >> is supposed to come from.  Yes, they are saying that even though   
   >> "space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the   
   >> quantum vacuum is eternal.  I understand the materialist's need to   
   >> believe that, I just can't.   
   >>   
   >> Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable   
   >> to any of this research.  It all sounds like something an intelligent   
   >> being just might use to begin the creation of the universe.  It just   
   >> couldn't have happened on it's own.  A last quote: “The particles can   
   >> be created out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was   
   >> the source of the energy?”   
   >   
   > And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a source.   
      
   No, I don't.   
      
   > Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?   
      
   I didn't say you can't.  I believe claiming it as eternal would qualify   
   as not needing a naturalistic source.  It's a brute fact.  However, as   
   you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in the quote.  He was   
   talking about the source of the energy that theoretically allow things   
   to happen.  That still needs a source it appears.  Are you saying it   
   doesn't?   
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)