Quantum Fluctuation and ex deo

A Feynman diagram showing the radiation of a g...

Image via Wikipedia

The second challenge is the suggestion that quantum physics can account for the universe without appealing to some external cause. The whole universe is just a vacuum fluctuation – ‘the ultimate free lunch,’ as Alan Guth puts it.

At first sight, this appears to be a serious challenge, but it is not: the quantum vacuum is not ‘nothing.’ It is already something. It is a set of physical laws, and a seething mess of virtual particles. This itself needs some kind of causal explanation.

via Who made God?.

I found that statement particularly interesting, given a few things. First, and ultimately, second, I am working on a paper for Theology class arguing for creatio ex deo, and the praxis which goes along with it (Theology without Praxis is dead). So, that above linked to page is one which I need to book mark.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (9,928 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, working on the use of Deuteronomy in the Fourth Gospel. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

2 thoughts on Quantum Fluctuation and ex deo

  1. “The second challenge is the suggestion that quantum physics can account for the universe without appealing to some external cause”… I don’t get hung up on “out of nothing”, since that means a person is hung up on the literal translation, word for word, instead of taking it in the context of the entire bible, and in relation to the existing scientific knowlege 2000 or more years ago. I find it more appealing to use the strong anthropic principle, to actually use the laws of physics and probabilities to “suggest” (notice I didn’t use the word “prove”) that there could be an external force (God) responsible for our life/universe. Just one assumption necessary…you have to find the “almost infinite” number of universes not very likely either, which I have no problem doing. 1000, maybe, but not 10exp500, all with different laws, which would mean everything and anything is possible. But the bottom line, no one knows for sure.

  2. I was just on a blog,
    http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/creatio-ex-deo-and-pantheism.html

    In the B) statement by William Vallicella

    B. What of the opposite reduction of U to G? This is also a type of pantheism not worth discussing: it implies that God exists but the physical universe does not. For it is self-evident that the physical universe cannot exist unless it is in some sense distinct from G. After all, G is immutable whereas U is mutable; hence, by what McTaggart calls the Discernibility of the Diverse (the logical contrapositive of the Indiscernibility of Identicals), U cannot be identical to G if both exist.

    Here is the question: What if “God” is mutable and evolving?

    I would suggest that it is irrelevant as to how many other universes may possibly be part of the equation, and or if they are governed by the same or different Cosmology. What is our role? What if we are part of that evolution? I suspect very shortly that the Information Aspect of Quantom Physics is going to hand the Cosmological world a sharp left turn, and the definition of Quantum Vaccuum will change radically.

    It is extremely interesting to me this Context of Creation ex Deo and the praxis thereof

    Fred Pittenger

Leave a Reply, Please!