From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 21/02/2026 2:16 am, sticks wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)