From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 20/02/2026 2:47 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?”   
   >   
      
   Lawrence Krauss with his "A Universe from Nothing" has been taken to   
   task that his "nothing” is not nothing. Krauss redefines "nothing" to   
   include the laws of physics, space, and quantum fluctuations.   
      
   But credit for acknowledging the implication of the universe having a   
   beginning by attempting to develop a materialistic work-around.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)