From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/19/2026 3:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.   
      
   Of course a God has to have attributes.  You can conclude God has always   
   been, and still try and understand how that is possible in the process   
   of making that conclusion.  I suppose some people don't, but I certainly   
   did.  It's not necessary, but having an answer can be helpful.   
      
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.   
      
   It's eternal...got it.  That makes this your religion.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)