/sci/ - Science & Math

>If theistic beliefs are true, where does the existence of god come from? And how about that creator?
GTFO, retarded christfag.

HEY GUYS, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS
THEREFORE, MY BELIEFS ARE VALID EVEN THOUGH THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

It sorta appeared from what was already there. What was already there was kinda just already there.

if some theistic "beliefs" are to be confidently asseverated as fact, how do they account for the separateness of The Void (sunyata) from their God in Gen 1:1?

>>4329685
you don't create a creator. however, matter can't create itself

>>4329719
and god can create himself?

>>4329719
you don't create a creator. however, matter can't create itself

>but Creators can?

matter doesn't even exist, it's an interpretation

>>4329722
god(s) whether yours or mine, exist. they have no beginning or end. since we live in a specific dimension it is hard (impossible) to understand the limits of god(s)

>>4329747
>god(s) whether yours or mine, exist.
no they dont, they are made up, like demons, ghosts, and pixies.
prove they exist, or fuck off
oh wait, you CANT prove they exist, any more than you can prove pixies exist either, BECAUSE THEY FUCKING DONT!

you think the god can magically exist, and come from nothing, and then magically make the universe from nothing, and you have no evidence at all, and then you try and shit-talk to atheists just because we dont know either!

stupid thick cunt!

>>4329675
> where does the existence of all matter come from?

It came from ORIGINATION, not "creation". Moron.

or no matter at all even. forget that statement if it is too complex for you atheistfags. Sure the big bang exists. but where does the energy come from?

> can't you just accept a divine being and move on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU&feature=related

electroweak breaking, higgs mechanism... and M-THEORY.

>>4329761
Oh, sorry. origination. where does that come from..

>>4329763
can't you just accept a divine being and move on?


> implying the divine being thing wasn't tested to failure during the Black Plague
>CAPTCHA: torylopsd Gospel.

I don't know where "the existence of all matter" came from, therefore it was obviously done by whatever supernatural being your parents first told you about.

mfw ek is stupid

>>4329729
True that. We can't think outside our own shell. It's thus pointless to think about it.

>>4329831
shut the fuck up!

>>4329821
Humans brought death to themselves through their denial to follow gods commandments

>>4329729
>>4329837

"I think, therefore I am"

-Descartes

>>4329865

Matter exists all right

If Christian beliefs are true, where did God come from? According to OP, matter can't just appear out of no where.

>>4329759
>oh wait, you CANT prove they exist, any more than you can prove pixies exist either, BECAUSE I'M TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE PROOF!

>>4329902
post the fucking proof then!, you lying little shithead!

>>4329865
>quitting philosophy at Descartes
Might as well quit science at Newton, that's how primitive you look.

>>4329903
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
Aquinas' other ways are effectively shit.

>>4329894

God did not create himself nor have a creator. He just exists, with no beginning or end. it is impossible to measure him through time/mathematics/etc.

>>4329918
>2012
>cosmological argument
>everything needs a cause, except god.
>why doesnt god also need a cause? because FUCK YOU, thats why.

uhuh, great 'proof', hun.

>>4329937
You can also have the consistency of the physical universe's laws and principles as proof that something maintains the nature of existence.
I mean, it is the premise that empirical science is based on, and the reason why scientists back then believed in a Deist-like God.
But, you know, if you're not into science...

>>4329960
>sup brah, im totally into science, i like believeing in things like gods, with no fucking evidence whatsoever. look how sciencey and intellectual i fucking am.
>oh look, arnt the laws of the universe so nice and consistent, except when god magically breaks these laws, by creating shit from nothing and occassionally performing miracles, but not in any noticable way that would prove he exists, oh my no.

>>4329925

"It's not stupid if it works."

-Anon

>>4329925

not to be confused with pixies, ghosts, etc

What created god? If god didn't have a creator then why does the universe? If there is a god, how do you know it's characteristics? How do you know god is a self-aware entity? What if nothingness is physically impossible?

>mfw this thread

>>4329970
The entire existence of the cosmos is, I think, truly a miracle.
Isn't it much more probable for the cosmological constants of the universe to vary widely with respect to time than for them to stay the same?
Because God acts eternally, everything He wishes to accomplish is already possible; His will is known to us as normality, as reasonable, when, in fact, the cosmos could be very different.

>>4330000
Read a book. any book.
For starters, jackass, read the most printed book in the world, called: The Bible.

It's a wonderful story of how he talks to people and how he is described, etc.

>>4330007
...fuck no!
it makes far more sense for the laws of the universe to remain constant. for example, if the strength of gravity started randomly changing for no fucking reason, that would be far more unlikely.

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>2011
>bumping troll threads
i seriously hope

>>4330014
>story
I totally agree.

>>4330026
story 1 |ˈstôrē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment : an adventure story | I'm going to tell you a story.
• a plot or story line : the novel has a good story.
• a report of an item of news in a newspaper, magazine, or news broadcast : stories in the local papers.

trollface.jpg

There is a point to OP's post, though probably not the point they intended to make.
Science does not posit an origin for the matter in the universe and the physical laws of the universe. Technically, therefore, science is agnostic about whether some outside force created that matter and those laws. Might have been, might not have been.
Scientists can't prove the absence of something that created the universe. Of course, religion can't scientifically prove its presence either, so the best we can say is that it is scientifically unknown.
Of course, OP probably jumps from that conclusion to saying that there WAS such a creator and that he/she wants us to follow the Ten Commandments, to not be gay, etc. That doesn't follow either.

lol

>>4330023
So it's true just because it makes "far more sense?"
What makes it far more likely? The history of it not changing?
But why hasn't it changed? What's keeping it constant?

>>4330050
I'm not defending christfag. start by believing in a supernatural power; Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. then move on to a more in-depth religion that will help your troubles.

>>4330067
>But why hasn't it changed? What's keeping it constant?
...are you fucking retarded?
THINGS STAY CONSTANT UNLESS EFFECTED BY SOMETHING ELSE
the reason they stay constant is that there is no reason for them to change!

>>4330050
Not all philosophical theists believe in pseudo-religious (mostly political) doctrines. Not all devotees to a religion take everything within the religion literally.

Anyway, this thread should probably be saged, since it deals with only the metaphysical roots of science and math, not the actual undertakings of the fields.

>>4330073
That's an assumption based on nothing but faith in the consistency of the universe.

Also: what caused them in the first place?

"whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.

>>4330104
and why would that first mover have to be god? why not a 35 trillion year old chamelion that started chucking marbles at shit for a few billion years.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

it isnt a proof for god at all, its just making unbased presumptions.

>>4330104

>whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another

Why do you assume that this is true?

>this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover

Why do you assume that there has to be a first mover?

I suppose your answer to this question would be a "higher power" or a God

But to be truly skeptical about this, we must ask the next question, "where did God come from?"

If the answer is "we can never know", then why not save a step and say "we can never know" the origins of the universe?
If the answer is "He is eternal", then why not save a step and say "The universe is eternal"

I refuse to even read this thread. However, I would like to say that widows peaks are teh sexy

>implying atheism is a set of beliefs and not the lack of belief in a god or gods

What specific criteria/evidence/proof would convince someone that God is real?

>>4329675

>>4330125
But you made the exact same assumption when you said:
>THINGS STAY CONSTANT UNLESS EFFECTED BY SOMETHING ELSE
You hold these assumptions but are unwilling to stand by the conclusions those assumptions lead to.

>>4330143

Define God.
Define Reality.

>>4330152
No, you. Then, answer.

>>4329846
Humans brought death to themselves through their denial to follow gods commandments

> Free Will?

>>4330158

God=4
Reality=2+2

Principia Mathematica

>>4330167

I'm serious...
To the atheists: how can I prove to you that a god or gods exist(s)?
To the theists: how can I prove to you that gods don't exist?

In other words, what specific demonstration, or presentation would be required to convince you oppose your beliefs?

>>4330208
Read this thread and see who's winning.

>>4329675

define:
If
Atheistic
beliefs
true
where does
existence
all
matter
come from (in loco? a priori? como?)

>>4330208
No one can ever answer these questions. No one knows what would convince them otherwise of the things they believe. So, why then, do they argue about it so incessantly if there's no possible way that EVEN THEY could argue against themselves with?

OP going grocery shopping.

>>4329675
Must be nice to have all the money you could ever want OP, so you can spend all your time on pointless questions like this. The rest of us need to work at jobs and things that matter to us, we don't have time to waste on stupid pointless questions like this. Must be nice.

>>4329675
If Atheistic beliefs are true, where does the existence of all matter come from?

> Its possibility.


And how about that matter?

>Submit to it you must.

>>4330208

Atheist here:
If you can prove to me that prayes have any effect besides placebo, you will make a beliver out of me.

>>4330262
How exactly do you want me to prove that praying sometimes works? How exactly? Please be as specific as possible?

>>4330278

I will flip a coin 1000 times. You flip a coin 1000 times, with as many people as you want around you praying for tails. If there is any effect, you win.

>>4330284

>inb4 religiousfag says "God doesn't answer frivolous prayers"
>mfw cognitive dissonance errywhere

>>4330278

For example:
I toss a coin and you pray for it to show head or tail. If it will show your wanted symbol more often and the result is statistically significant, I will belive in whatever god you prayed to.

>>4330284
So, you'd potentially change your beliefs based on the results of an event that could be produced alone by chance?

>>4330291

>>4330284 here. Great minds think alike

>>4330298

Lol, yes.

>>4330278
Not the guy you're talking to, but pray to your god to come say hi to me.

I've been asking religious folk to do this for decades, not so much as a whisper yet.

I've actually asked some extremely famous religious folks to do this in person when the charity i volunteer for has put me into contact with them. I wont derail the thread with names, but one of them actually did lead a prayer for this to happen in a stadium full of people after he took issue with me not praying with the crew after having spent over 12 hours working for him for free setting up chairs.

That was fairly uncomfortable.

>>4330296

Yes.

>>4330291
This is not convincing enough. Praying does work, and if I showed you that praying does work in this manner, you would laugh and say "you just got shitfuck lucky as hell".

I don't want luck involved because every time I pass your test, you would explain it as luck. Suggest an alternate demonstration please.

> If Atheistic beliefs are true, where does the existence of all matter come from? And how about that matter?

We don't know, and neither do you.

>>4330308

Please see:

>>4330284

Pick a number you believe is high enough to show a statistical bias to your position, that would remove the effect of "luck".

>>4330314

What the fuck did I just read? Please explain this statement because you completely lost me here.

>>4330315

I wouldn't put my personal beliefs in the hands of luck, but I would accept a strong and cogent inductive argument. I think that's pretty fair.

>>4330315
That's not possible. If I say 1000, there's still a <span class="math">2^{-1000}[/spoiler] chance I would convince you praying was effective if it really wasn't.

>>4330311

Provide evidence for your statement.

>>4330328

Ha ha ha! I can't, because "I don't know." I can't provide evidence for what I don't know. If I had evidence, I would have said, "I know how."

>>4330327

That's good enough for me.

>>4330326

"Luck" is a ludicrous idea. I am not putting my personal beliefs in something that doesn't exist, I am collecting data. The OP didn't ask for a strong and cogent inductive argument, he asked for an experiment to prove the power of prayer.

>>4330327

So increase the number of instances to where that chance becomes negligible.

>>4330328

You just went full retard.
>"There isn't an invisible, silent dragon that can't be detected in any way in my garage"
>"PROVE IT"

>>4330014
Not sure if serious...

>>4330334

>I can't,

Provide evidence that you "cant".

>because "I don't know."

Provide evidence that you "dont know".

>>4330326
A strong inductive argument produces a conclusion that is not absolutely certain. Did you mean to suggest a deductive argument?

I want you to be 100% sure that prayer works. Please suggest an alternative demonstration please.

>>4330350

Definately full retard today.

Here, you deserve this more than I do.

>>4330327

By the way, I would like to ask something.
Why don't you use your praying superpowers to win millions with gambling?
Why isn't praying forbidden in casinos?

>>4330352

I know what I said, and I said inductive on purpose. I don't have to be 100% certain to change my mind. I just need a pretty good certainty.

I just haven't seen anything that is even that close to changing my mind.

>>4330342
Why don't you want to be 100% sure, though? You're letting chance dictate you.

>>4330347

>You just went full retard.
>"There isn't an invisible, silent dragon that can't be detected in any way in my garage"
>"PROVE IT"

Beyond proving that you are a shitty roleplayer, your initial statement remains unsubstantiated which in turn proves that your logic is shitty as well.

>>4330350

What in the actual fuck.

Please provide evidence that you can't prove the existence of Russell's Teapot. Then prove that Russell's Teapot does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>4330353

Having provided no evidence for your statements it is safe to conclude that your statements hold no weight in Scientific context.
Reported for no-science related.

>>4330352

You can never be 100% sure and it is very rare that you can be 1-(2^-1000) sure of something.

>>4330356

I would like 100% certainty. But reality, and my limited lifespan, just won't allow for it. It's just a compromise when I say I'll accept a strong and cogent inductive argument.

>>4330358

Red Herring.

>>4330365
So if there's no way to be sure, why argue?

>>4330373

"If there's no way to know for sure what's outside, why ever leave the house?"

Maybe some of us are inquisitive.

What is with the theists today? Are they really devlolving this far?

I have to prove I don't know something now? You have got to be kidding. I know you're trolling, but it's just so blantant that I'm kinda shocked, and think you might ACTUALLY think this is a legitimate way to argue.

>>4330376
Question, sure. But don't direct.

Leave the house, sure. But don't insist only your house exists.

>>4330373

Certainty is only a condition for deduction. Inductive logical arguments still apply.

>>4330373

You don't have to be 100% sure to take a viewpoint. It's sufficent when it is the most likly probability.

>>4330377
I'm not theist, but, okay.

>>4330384

Why do you need 100% certainty, then? Why do you feel this is of overriding importance?

>>4329675
The existence of all matter comes from the big bang. What caused the big bang? Well, we know that the universe can create itself out of nothing. So all signs point to the big bang creating itself--making it the definition of what you call a creator.

It is not some kind of higher, sentient intelligence. The universe doesn't even know that we exist.

>>4330388
Because if you're not 100% sure, it's a matter of belief.

Say I pray and flip 1000 heads in a row. Do you really think that praying was the cause, or was it merely an unlikely occurrence that is physically explainable (I mean, it COULD happen)? You still have two reasons, but can only pick one.

Reported for trolling / not science/math.

>>4330402

No, I'm an atheist. I think prayer is useless.

However, I don't hold onto the notion belief only belongs in the realm of religion. I'm fairly clinical about the use, so maybe this is why we are having a disconnect. There's also so much in the world we simply can't know, and still have to make decisions on.

Also, on the flip side of the coin (yes, a pun), we can only consider it wasn't likely that prayer affected the coin. It could have, just not very much. Doesn't mean I'm choosing prayer as viable. It just is very, very, very unlikely.

So let me get this straight. I think if we are going to talk about a creator logically, then that creator can in no way be of the same vein as a personal God. An intervening deity is ridiculous and will never be able to be proven. Prayer is useless, and thinking that you need to worship said deity is another useless thing.

So even if we acknowledge that the universe had a creator, but that creator has nothing to do with us now--then why get hung up on it? We don't need to worship such a thing if it does exist.

Oh and the concepts of heaven and hell are fucking ridiculous too.

>>4330402

Whatever, just anwere this:
>>4330354

>>4330050
I think this is the final answer.

>>4330417
No, thanks. You're assuming the example of me supporting prayer. Prayer was a hypothetical scenario. Nothing more. I'm just curious if any demonstration exists that could convince someone 100% of something regardless of what that "something" is.

>>4330423

I agree.

>>4330424

You're trying to say correlation is not causation?

>>4330429
I'm not 100% sure that is the case.

>>4330434

Ah. Yes. Recursive humor. Good for a chuckle.

>>4329675
> If Atheistic beliefs are true, where does the existence of all matter come from? And how about that matter?

Unknown.

Counter: If the theist's beliefs are true, where did god come from?

Whatever answer you invoke can be reasonably applied to the universe just as well. In this case, god is an extraneous postulate that offers no additional predictive power.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X

/Thread

>>4330442
>Unknown.

See: >>4330444

>>4330448
I will disagree with Lawrence Krauss on this. He misses the point. While I buy the hypothesis that the universe arose from quantum fluctuations, it doesn't answer the basic question of why is physics here, etc.

I can give plenty of coherent consistent physics that can give rise to a universe "spontaneously", but only one happened, this one. I suppose you might try to resort to the anthropomorphic principle and say that all consistent coherent physics are real, but I think that's stretching it. Still, there would be left a demand for explanation why that is true.

In the end, the question of the theist is ultimately unknowable. It's also irrelevant and useless. And this god thing just removes the question by one step of indirection. It doesn't do anything to solve it.

>>4330453
>I will disagree with Lawrence Krauss on this

That's nice, many also disagree with Darwin concerning evolution.

>>4330457
Modern biology (including evolution) is well supported by evidence.

Lawrence Krauss is making a conjecture that is at this moment entirely untestable, but elegant.

OP back with ~$70 in stolen goods. Time to catch up.

>>4330470
Ok, mostly untestable.

>>4330470
>Modern biology (including evolution) is well supported by evidence.

As are the claims made in his book. It's not his theory. Victor Stenger has written a great deal on the subject as well.

>Lawrence Krauss is making a conjecture that is at this moment entirely untestable, but elegant.

This is plainly false. Both the book and the lecture it's based on cover the specific tests used to cofirm the geometry of the universe, the balance of matter and energy to negative gravity and so on.

You're describing it as untestable, falsely, because you haven't read the book but something within you deeply rejects its conclusion.

If you'd like to see the mathematics demonstrating the zero energy of the universe, which was part of the evidence in the lecture mentioned earlier, it's laid out here:

http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

Either explain what's wrong with it or concede that it's neither untestable nor untested.

>>4330488
For example, consider Nikodem Poplawski's conjecture that black holes give rise to child universes which "inherit" the properties of the parent universe, with some subtle modifications, and that this increases the chances of life. I admit, this is a testable conjecture. It hasn't really been tested yet though.

Here's another example of a plausible conjecture that explains what was before the big bang.

You are jumping to conclusions. Get off your high horse and listen a minute, damnit. I agree the evidence is very good that the net energy of the universe is about 0. I disagree this implies that the universe must have sprung into existence from a quantum fluke in "nothing" (whatever that means). There's also the quantum foam conjecture (which may be compatible?). There are lots of conjectures, and no real good evidence at this time.

>>4330284

And no, God does not care about you winning your little coin flipping game.

>>4330511
>Here's another example of a plausible conjecture that explains what was before the big bang.

However, that's not the theory in question. The fact that one theory has not been tested does not make every theory untested or untestable.

>You are jumping to conclusions.

No, I am accepting what science has to say until any of us know better.

>Get off your high horse and listen a minute, damnit.

What high horse am I on? You completely dismissed the supporting evidence for the theory being discussed. That isn't reasonable or honest.

>I agree the evidence is very good that the net energy of the universe is about 0. I disagree this implies that the universe must have sprung into existence from a quantum fluke in "nothing" (whatever that means). There's also the quantum foam conjecture (which may be compatible?). There are lots of conjectures, and no real good evidence at this time.

That isn't the whole of the evidence, just part of it. As I said, you have neither read the book nor listened to the lecture. Please make time to do so.

The next question remains:
>Where do atheistic moral values come from?

Why shouldn't I kill little Billy and rape his mother?

>>4330580

>Why shouldn't I kill little Billy and rape his mother?

You don't really want to. If you did, it would be because of neurochemical imbalances, not because people are naturally sociopathic without religion.

The greater and more satisfying answer is that society is a machine whose design has evolved in response to need. Terms like moral math exist to describe our own tendency to weigh situations internally and decide who was in the right or the wrong, and we express these determinations collectively through law. In this way right and wrong are determined by the community, and the community is the power greater than onesself that we must answer to when we transgress it's laws.

"But isn't that cultural relativism?" Well no, and it's correct to point out that a fixed reference point or "anchor" for morality is needed. I'm approaching the character limit so I'll talk about that in the next post.

The fixed point of reference upon which we can design a set of rules and a society which maximize human wellbeing is human physiology. It varies within limits but is never radically different; There are no humans who can survive in a vacuum, or when subjected to temperatures of 150 degrees, that sort of thing. And we can narrow it down further with the understanding of biometrics and neurology we have today that we didn't a few decades ago, such that a basic outline of human needs, both biological and to some limited extent emotional/psychological can be constructed, and from this we can design a habitat and ground rules for the human animal. In other words, society and laws.

>>4330596
Job well done, a fair argument that I can finally ponder on.

This was probably best visualized as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs; The list of priorities every human being shares, from the immediate necessities (A survivable temperature, air pressure, shelter from elements, food, water, etc.) to the kinds of fulfillment people spend their whole lives struggling towards. Think of it as a "to do" list if you were stranded on a tropical island and had to rebuild a comfortable fulfilling life for yourself from scratch.

The purpose of society, then, is to provide the support infrastructure necessary for people to move up this spectrum. It's a lot easier to pursue intellectual fulfillment, for instance, if you're not in a state of nature where you must constantly defend yourself against wild animals, neighboring tribes and disease carrying mosquitos. Likewise, having to hunt and gather to sustain yourself leaves little time or energy for anything else on that list. With the organization and convenience of civilization however it's possible for everyone or nearly everyone to progress beyond that first stage, at the very least.

>listened to the lecture
Please. It's on my life of good popsci videos that I commonly suggest.

It has not been conclusively demonstrated that "nothing" (whatever that means) gave rise to our big bang.

>>4330633
>It has not been conclusively demonstrated that "nothing" (whatever that means) gave rise to our big bang.

Only in the same sense that it can never be fully proven that evolution occurred. We know however that based on the evidence it's the most likely explanation, likewise with an autocatalytic big bang.

>>4330625
I see no flaw in this theory. How did intelligence enter our existence?

>>4330680

>How did intelligence enter our existence?

Hands and eyes, mostly. We evolved with stereoscopic vision due to descending from a species that hunted, and which needed to judge distances while swinging through trees. We evolved color vision because many plants and animals in jungles indicate poisonous contents by outer coloration.

Complex vision, coupled with grasping digits and opposable thumbs make it possible to manipulate objects very dextrously. This laid the groundwork for tool use. However possibly more important than either was communication. As social primates we were able to do something called cultural transmission, that is perpetuating good ideas from generation to generation. In this way when one member of the species discovered something (say, fire) it wasn't lost when that individual or his family died. Being able to share and preserve ideas gave us, in a sense, a form of data storage external to our mortal brains such that each new invention build build off of past ones.

>replying seriously

Pro tip, any actual Christianfags in this thread:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true for a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system because we receive outside energy from the sun, and outside materials from space. Hence, it doesn't apply here.

>>4330707

Nobody made that argument though.

>>4330714

I'm not going to read an entire thread of shit flinging.

Also

>Mods
>Doing their job

Oh, the irony.

>>4330717
Also, to anyone that made the argument that I don't suck cocks (I see this argument made a lot, but I'm not reading the whole thread) I assure you that is not true.

>>4330673
Evolution has lots of verified falsifiable predictions. Pray tell, what predictions does "nothing exploded ala quantum effects" make? Besides 0 net energy in the universe? Not much? And that prediction is consistent with a bunch of other conjectures put forth?