Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
Could be a deist god, I find it unlikely, given the laws of physics.
Please explain...? How do the laws of physics make (a) God's existence unlikely? The laws of physics are an observation, a feature, of our universe and sans (in the absence of) the universe, they do not govern anything and do not exist.
Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory. In fact the Big Bang theory explains how our universe came to be using physics, natural processes. A natural process is more likely than an unnatural one, especially one that is intelligent.
I might be able to answer this better when I read a Universe From Nothing. I may pick up Steven hawkings new book to.
I'm afraid you have a very misguided understanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory simply states that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing. So it is simply gravely untrue to state both that the Big Bang model "proves matter can arise from empty space" or that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".
Again, your claim that "matter can arise form empty space" is simply misconceived; many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum. The vacuum, however, is often deliberately proclaimed as "nothing" by skeptical theorizes such as Krauss. Properly understood, "nothing" does not mean empty space or a quantum vacuum; nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, including space itself. As such, nothingness has no has literally no properties at all, since there isn't anything to have any properties. This is why it is so silly for scientific and atheistic popularizers to utter things like "nothingness is unstable" or "the universe tunneled into being out of nothing." Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow make a similarly absurd statement in their recent book,
The Grand Design, by proclaiming that "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation. Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
Frankly, I'd recommend you to save your money and pass on buying any of Krauss' or Hawking's recent literary endeavors.
Topic: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism (Read 35058 times)
