Thursday, March 5, 2015

Paper: Spontaneous Creation of the Universe From Nothing

A Two Thousand Year Old Project

Two thousand years ago the Epicureans believed that the world arose spontaneously. Their idea was that randomly veering atoms attained a great variety of configurations by chance, and would eventually find themselves forming stable, functional structures. And while this may seem unlikely, the immense universe provided a great many opportunities for those configurations to come about. In Cicero’s dialog, the Epicurean explains this to his stoic opponent:

You [stoics] would surely have no need of the activity of such a figure [a skilled craftsman] if you would only observe how unlimited, unbounded tracts of space extend in all directions. When the mind strains and stretches itself to observe these distances, it journeys abroad so far that it can observe no ultimate limit at which to halt. It is in this boundless extent of breadth, length, and height, then, that innumerable atoms of infinite quantity flit around. … There is space between them, yet they latch on to each other. In gripping each other they form a chain, as a result of which are fashioned the shapes and forms of things which you Stoics believe cannot be created without bellows and anvils. So you have implanted in our heads the notion of an external lord whom we are to fear day and night; for who would not stand in awe of a god who is a prying busybody, who foresees and reflects upon and observes all things, believing that everything is his business?

Cicero’s dialog reveals how little has changed in two thousand years and just how enduring certain metaphysical themes are. The Epicurean complains to the stoic that he does not appreciate the great size of the universe, that chance events are capable of producing functional structures, and that therefore there is no need to believe a sovereign Creator or “external lord,” who we must fear, is needed.

Though the terminology has changed, the ideas have not. This dialog from Cicero could have been written today. What goes around comes around.

Like the Epicureans, evolutionists believe that the world arose spontaneously. Darwin fulfilled this mandate for the origin of species. But the origin of everything else has been described by modern day Epicureans in the centuries before and after Darwin.

Evolutionary thought is by no means restricted to the species. Consciousness, life, the planets, the galaxy, and even the universe and its natural laws all are hypothesized to have arisen spontaneously.

This is a rather heroic mandate. It seems we do not live in a universe where functioning structures just happen to assemble. Not without other very clever structures to make it happen.

Yet evolutionists do not give this a second thought. They believe all this happened, even though the science does not support them. Last year this movement continued with a new paper entitled “Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing.” According to evolutionists, this paper provided the mathematical proof of what they already had assumed to be true.

So there you have it. Evolutionists believe not only that giraffes, sharks, violets and moles spontaneously arose; they not only believe consciousness, love and emotion spontaneously arose; they not only believe life itself spontaneously arose; they not only believe the Sun, stars and cosmos spontaneously arose; they believe the entire universe itself spontaneously arose.

Religion drives science, and it matters.


  1. From the paper:

    "At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum."

    Is a "metastable false vacuum" the same as "nothing"? Or is it something?

  2. I was under the impression that the false vacuum came after the Big Bang, as did all time and space that we are familiar with. And it was always my understanding that teh Uncertainty Principle says that things like virtual particles have to disappear before they can be detected. But we are constantly detecting the Universe. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics says that what ever can happen, does happen. That means that we should be seeing Universes popping put of nowhere spontaneously all the time. I should be seeing a Universe forming in my bathroom, but I don't.

  3. "Evolutionists believe not only that giraffes, sharks, violets and moles spontaneously arose"

    Ummmmm .. no. That would be creationists.

    1. No, creationists say God created the species--you are the one who believes they arose spontaneously, you just can't admit to it.

    2. Wow. After actually consulting a dictionary, I'm going to agree with you. "Happening or arising without apparent external cause" and "Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from forethought or prompting". So yes, I believe the species arose without an apparent external cause, and arose from a natural inclination without forethought or prompting.

      I guess I conflated the word with Pasteur's Spontaneous Generation. I stand corrected.

    3. Very good, I take it back, you can admit it. So you are just anti science.

    4. Ummmm .. no. It feels like we're back to arguing about whether common descent is scientific or theological. And I don't recall you explaining why the evidence I presented for common descent was somehow theological. Happy for you to try again.

    5. Well what I meant is that the idea of the species arising spontaneously is so inane that anyone holding to such a view is anti science.

  4. Well if that's your view then I have to ask what your definition of "spontaneous" is. I think the definition of spontaneous I posted earlier fits pretty well with the scientific theory of common descent. Does your definition of spontaneous means "out of nothing" or something similar?

    1. You have the right definition of spontaneous. The idea that the species arose spontaneously simply is not supported by the science, and that is putting it mildly. Yet evolutionists say it is a fact.

    2. Okay, before we go any further, can you state plainly whether you accept common descent, reject common descent, or hold some other position.

    3. Hello Glenn, this is Glenn J.

      Since you are relatively new to this blog, I would just like to suggest that the reason you don't get an answer to the question you pose is because the question has been answered dozens of times.
      This blog isn't about common descent, non-common descent or some other position.
      This blog is about the metaphysics of persons who claim to have no metaphysics.
      If you will re-read the post, you will see the emphasis is on the metaphysical position of the Epicurians. The Epicureans claim that only the Stoics have a metaphysical position. But in fact, the Epicurians also make metaphysical assertions (i.e. faith statements). The Epicurians state that somewhere out there, beyond the limits of our observation, things just arise by some sort of random molecular action. And upon this belief, they assert there is no need of a God. Their claim that there is no God is every bit as metaphysical as the claim that there is a God.
      Evolutionists also make faith claims about things that happened in the distant past where observation is not possible. Like the epicurians, evolutionists also deny their metaphysics.
      Common descent may or may not be true. That's not the point of this blog.
      Hope this helps...

  5. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is used in really incredible ways. The notion is that complementary canonical variables, when multiplied, can't be less than Planck's constant divided by 4 pi.

    One such set of variables is Energy and Time: E *t. So, if t, time, is infinitely small, then E can be infinitely large. Once you begin dealing with anything that is "infinite," especially Energy, then you can begin imagining, and concluding anything.

    This is all, IMO, nothing but mischievous day-dreaming.

    The Uncertainty Principle was intended to say that our notion of "determinism" is limited. To use it in other ways can, and does, easily lead to nonsensical conclusions. The UP is a 'limit,' not a boundless source for whatever you want to imagine.

  6. I'm yet to see any scientist show that "prior" to the Big Bang, there was a state of literal, philosophical, metaphysical NOTHING.

    When physicists say "nothing", they seem to be referring to this meta-stable false vacuum, which, as William Lane Craig is quick to point out, is not nothing.

    Where does the notion cone from that "evolutionists" believe the universe arose out of nothing?

  7. Prior to the Big Bang space and time as we know it did not exist. We really don;t know what there was. But we can;t say that there was a meta-vacuum. The uncertainty principle is a function of time and space as we know it. We can't say that it existed before the Big Bang.

    And i was under the impression that the virtual particles had to disappear before they could be detected. But we are detecting the universe all the time. And if universes can pop into existence out of the false vacuum, then Quantum mechanics says that they will pop out all the time. So why don;t i see a universe forming in my bathtub right now.

  8. Doesn't prove anything. As Hawking said in a Brief History of Time, having a mathematical model to describe the universe doesn't explain why the universe exists. Also, a vacuum isn't "nothing." It's something! "Ex nihilo ex fit" still holds!

    These models have been around since the 1970s (Tryon's 1973 paper). Most cosmologists (with the exception of Krauss, who knows less than nothing about philosophy) would say that the vacuum isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. Also, last time I checked, we needed something called falsifiability for something to be a scientific hypothesis. This isn't a falsifiable proposition, just like the multiverse is unfalsifiable.

    Naturalistic metaphysics are a hoot, however.

  9. The people making the most noise on both sides of this debate fail to understand their opponent's ideas and often have a poor understanding of their own ideas.

    It does not in any way break science to posit that God is real. For at least some values of 'real', God is demonstrably so.

    Understanding how Evolution helps organize and understand the living world does not require you to give up religion. Evolution does not take a position on God.

    How can you disagree (or agree for that matter) with something you don't understand? What would you be disagreeing with?

    I am thinking of 128 propositions. They have a yes or no answer. You could have clear positions on them if you knew how to derive them. Without that, you *could* be correct, but you almost certainly would not be. You are in no position to argue. P: For numbers 1 to 128, md5 hash of the string representing the number is odd. The first 16 answers: 1010101100001011.

    The less you understand things, the less you can reasonably render an opinion. Even with as clear an understanding as possible, absolute 'truth' is not entirely possible. I made the above and my knowledge is still imperfect. People make mistakes.

    We have a moral duty to claim our right to our relationship with God. This is consistent with a right to oppose the state when it violates our conscience/relationship with god. There is no upside to repudiating God, but plenty of downside.

    Having looked over a number of things on this site it is clear that the proprietor entirely misunderstands the Theory of Evolution and its place in intellectual discourse. This is not a question of belief; it is merely a question of understanding. The Theory of Evolution and its status as a scientific construct is simply not at odds with religion. Belief otherwise is an acid-test that demonstrates you simply do not understand either one or the other and quite possibly both.

    Except for naive 'believers' in science, science is not about belief. It is about evidence, organization, explanatory power and utility. Everything is provisional. We keep the best as long as it is the best and once falsified, we redouble our efforts to replace it with something that better fits the facts.

    Religion and a relationship with something akin to God are a necessary political construct and a human right. By its nature it is incommensurate with science per se and as a practical political matter it must be orthogonal in order to prevent the tyranny of an otherwise all-powerful secular state. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

    Religion and science must both respect their boundaries and live within them.

    Both extreme sides of the bogus Creation/Evolution debate are characterized by hysteria, dishonesty, intellectual naiveté, ignorance and plain bad manners.

    If you are sincere about understanding aspects of this debate or you are a sincere adherent of one side, you should be seeking to understand both sides of this debate properly. There are reasonable, honest and intelligent people either side. Properly understanding the Theory of Evolution is difficult as evidenced by the fact that highly educated people both sides demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the thing they are either defending or opposing. Properly understanding the social, political, personal and intellectual fact of, and necessity for, God is similarly difficult as evidenced by the misguided attempts of naive atheists to squash all discussion before they even know what they are discussing.

    Strident adherents both sides that insist that their poorly understood notions are the only truth are tedious and counterproductive.

    The extremists, both sides, will not likely be swayed by anything. They will continue to lock horns. Their common ground as extremists will mercifully keep them occupied with one another. For the rest of us, a little humility would go a long way toward bringing all of us closer to God, reality and one another.

    1. DeepNorth:

      Having looked over a number of things on this site it is clear that the proprietor entirely misunderstands the Theory of Evolution and its place in intellectual discourse.


      Except that …

      The Theory of Evolution and its status as a scientific construct is simply not at odds with religion.

      No one here ever said that—quite the opposite. Perhaps you should read the site before commenting on it.

  10. Excellent find.

    I was reading a philosophy book the other day that was a collection of 'classics.' The author explained that it was important to write about the classics because people continually refer to them. And here you go and give possibly the best example of the importance of understanding classical thought. You certainly confirmed the author and illuminated the concept to me, something I was originally quite skeptical of.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. "The Theory of Evolution and its status as a scientific construct is simply not at odds with religion."

    That's not necessarily correct. I often hear folks parrot such words, but in reality if one's religion teaches that there was a first human pair (e.g. Adam and Eve) who sinned and thereby brought sin and death to mankind, then the theory of evolution is very much at odds with that religion. Indeed, one of "that" religion's central beliefs is that mankind needs a savior. However, that belief becomes hard to sustain convincingly if we posit that a god created the universe and then let things make themselves via purely physical processes, because then sin and death aren't the fault of man, but merely natural byproducts of the god-makes-things-make-themselves process. Sin and death, on that scheme, are no longer man's fault, but God's choice, for he must have known that these things would emerge via the stated process.

    "Religion and science must both respect their boundaries and live within them."

    Quite so, and the problem I have with so many defenders of the dogma of Darwinism is that its converts don't respect their boundaries. It's one thing to (a) embrace an approach (methodological naturalism) designed to help us learn as much as we can about the physical world without reference to God or the supernatural, but it's quite another to (b) assume and assert that all questions about the physical world can and will be answered without reference to God or the supernatural. Those who favor a Darwinism-of-the-gaps argument demonstrate that they've stepped past (a) and now embrace and promote (b).


  13. The Jocaxian Nothingness can explains why the universe came from nothing:

    1. Hi Jocax. Are you aware that places like wordpress and blogspot are free? I don't see the point of paying to publish when there is clearly no peer review.

  14. The Jocaxian Nothingness can explains why the universe came from nothing:

    1. That was an interesting article for me. I actually conceived the same idea many years ago, but rather than "it may or may NOT happen" I wrote "it may or may not be". We have empirical evidence that something is in existence, but as your article explains, we don't even need that to support the starting point.

      One thing to add to the article:

      Gell-Mann's Totalitarian Principle principle from quantum mechanics: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

      Allowed pathways exist virtually whether instantly manifest or not.

      I think that Quantum Mechanics holds the key to unraveling the theory of everything. Unfortunately, I just do not have the math skills to work it out. In fact, calculating a big enough region of space might actually be intractable without some type of new 'quantum calculus' beyond the Schrodinger Equation.

      I expect we will see a fantastic breakthrough 'soonish' and it will come from a young man under 40. Given the shambles that Science is currently in, I expect he will meet with a lot of resistence...

    2. INGLÊS

      The interesting JN is that it can explain the emergence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

  15. religion only drives: bribed, or innocents or ignorant. IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IS LIE...religion out from the schools!, out from the Humankind´s Future!

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. If everything has spontaneously arisen from nothing, then not only the total matter and energy, but the total space-time as well of this universe has arisen from nothing. So not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time as well should always remain zero. Scientists have already shown as to how the total matter and energy of the present universe always remain zero. But have they shown how its total space-time also can always remain zero?
    One can see the following links for further discussion of this point:

  18. Oh Realy Nice Information I Love Planets World I Collect Some Informations About BEGINNING OF UNIVERSE.
    You Can Watch Here