From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/19/2026 10:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/19/26 2:28 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That's a lot of words that communicate nothing to me.   
      
   If I thought you were actually interested in it, I would offer more.   
   You're not.   
   But this is what you seem to usually do.  I responded to this post to   
   acknowledge the work on quantum vacuum, and note that ultimately you're   
   left with the same unanswered questions.  You go on to completely ignore   
   that and turn the issue into having me defending something else.  You   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)