Hello Fellow Genesis Haters! A person commented on my last article and left me with an AiG article to read, so I thought I'd go ahead and refute it. It's another one about the origins of the universe. Read here.(Most of what we will focus on is over half way down the page). Also, leave a comment and let me know if this makes sense.
"Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential— not ‘nothing’."
Note the double negative at the end. So, is the quantum fluctuation nothing or not? The quantum vaccum could count as something. Then the universe would be eternal. The Quantum vaccum might be eternal and unchanging, who knows?
Now for the next part of the article that caught me off guard:
"If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause."
Victor Stenger has written an article on whether quantum events are caused, and they may not be.
We all know how Radiometric Dating Works: Certain atoms, like Uranium, spontaneously change into lead. They do this based on statistical laws, so they may not be caused at all. Some decay sooner, and some decay later. No one knows why they do what they do. So it's reasonable to suppose they are not caused.
Now, even if they were caused events, this would not upset me at all. Subquantum forces may have started the universe. Then, we would only have to say that the laws of nature are eternal.
Another bone I have to pick with Safarti:
"Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared."
Why didn't a cat appear? Well, I suppose that it might be because it is highly improbable, or because vacuum fluctuations only produce energy particles.
Why did this universe appear at one particular time? This is a good one. My answer is that firstly the vacuum of space is eternal. With that in mind, quantum fluctuations would have happened all over the universe. Since these fluctuations act on statistical probability, we know that somewhere lots of this would have happened at once. (NOTE: I am leaving the realm of science and going into speculation with this next bit. I do not know for sure, and I am taking an educated guess.) Now, once all of these particles collected together via gravity, they formed the singularity of the big bang. Matter formed afterward.
What does this guy think he's getting away with, who is he fooling? He is refuted with common sense and a few google searches. This is pathetic.
[Keep in mind that I am not saying this view of the universe's origin is correct, only that his criticisms are incorrect. There are a lot of models for the universe, such as the brane hypothesis.]