The Blog : Did our Universe arise from Nothing? : Sam Harris

When does anything ever come from or arise out of nothing? Everything brings forth after its own kind. Circa 14 billion years ago the universe had a beginning. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

So who created god?

It is a statement of faith. It is a statement of fact.

Faith, yes. Fact, no!

If there is no Creator Who created the universe and everything in it with a purpose, then atheistically we can deduce that the universe, and we ourselves, came from nothing, for no reason, and to no purpose.

Who created the creator?

But he cannot scientifically assert or prove that there was or is no Creator.

Scientifically, you cannot disprove a creator or prove a negative. If you make the claim there is a creator, you bear the responsibility of proving it.

Perhaps more atheist scientists are motivated by their desire to live in a godless universe

No. We're motivated by logic and reasoning. Not the intellectually dishonest and lazy explanation of "god did it."

However, how do they derive 'enrichment and meaning' from a universe which, if they are correct, is itself ultimately meaning-less, having no scientifically arrived at purpose?

we make our own purpose. Why is purpose necessary or required?

It is far more plausible that the universe was created by this Agent, the Creator, with a purpose for it and us

That is neither plausible nor logical, and based on assumption only with no merit. Unless you can prove there is a creator.

Because to deny that the whole universe has either cause or meaning for its existence, is to assert that our human lives which take place in the same godless, meaningless, purposeless universe are also devoid of meaning.

You assume there is a meaning or that one is even required.

The human capacity to find enrichment and meaning in a universe which was created with an intent, by an Intentional Creator, Who has a purpose for our lives and everything else in the universe is the only reasonable, rational position to take.

That only demonstrates human ignorance, arrogance, and guillability.

A GOD Who is greater than our finite minds can fathom than the vast expanding universe He created, but Who reveals Himself to the heart of man.

Prove there is a god!

A GOD Who made each of us for Himself, and Who alone can reveal our purpose and give true meaning to our existence.

God sounds egotistical. Besides, who needs god to find or make purpose or meaning in their life?

A GOD Who saw our sin, but loved us to such an extent He sent His Son to be our Savior, the Savior of the world.

And who is an accomplice to that sin? Oh yeah, god is! Otherwise, that story makes no sense and is only an attempt to make us feel better about ourselves and stroke our own egos!

Thank you Gordy for your questions, though they seem somewhat flippant and cliche.

I hope you find the right answers to them.

Let me know when you do.

Thank you Gordy for your questions

You're welcome.

though they seem somewhat flippant and cliche.

Not at all. They are logical and valid, based on the claims made.

I hope you find the right answers to them. Let me know when you do.

I see you don't have the answers to them, much less any supporting evidence for your claims. Which is why your claims can be dismissed outright.

If there is no Creator Who created the universe and everything in it with a purpose, then atheistically we can deduce that the universe, and we ourselves, came from nothing, for no reason, and to no purpose. Does that strike anyone as reasonable?

Absolutely it does. Have you ever seen a snowflake up close? It is incredibly beautiful, symetrical, dimensional, and completely meaningless, in that trillions of them fall at once and pile up on the ground only to become a nuisance, and the slightest amount of warmth will cause a single snowflake to lose 100% of its beauty and turn into a blob with no defining characteristics whatsoever. Don't assume that just because something is complex, that is has to have a deeper meaning. The universe is complex by nature, not by design.

But he cannot scientifically assert or prove that there was or is no Creator.

The concept of a Creator is flawed from the beginning - since the Creator had to have been created in order to create. Something from nothing may not sound valid, and may not seem understandable without a knowledge of the quantum sciences, but at least it gets around this problem. If something were to come from nothing, it makes far more sense to think of that something as an immense expenditure of energy and chaos rather than a self-aware, eternal entity that busies itself with creating trillions of galaxies, only to zero in on one miniscule location in the universe where it can groom millions of genetically unique types of fauna and flora to assist humans in thriving and figuring out why it created them in the first place.

The human capacity to find enrichment and meaning in a universe which was created with an intent, by an Intentional Creator, Who has a purpose for our lives and everything else in the universe is the only reasonable, rational position to take.

How do you not see the narcisism in this statement? It is healthy to feel like you have a purpose in life, but to make this connection between yourself and existence in general is hopelessly narcisistic. Your purpose is what you make it to be, not what was programmed into you by an outside source. Did Hitler have a purpose? Does anyone with ill intention have a purpose?

A GOD Who is as considerate of our physical needs as the Earth He made for us is habitable and comfortable.

Take off your blinders - you may be comfortable, but a good portion of the world is living in extreme poverty, extreme drought, extreme famine, or under the constant threat of extreme nautral disasters.

A GOD Who saw our sin, but loved us to such an extent He sent His Son to be our Savior, the Savior of the world.

This is such an obtuse conclusion. If you are able to embrace this, it is not surprising that you are able to embrace anything else that religion has to feed you.

Rank, the Kalam fails because it is an exercise in special-pleading. It tries to ASSERT that everything that began to exist has a beginning (intuitively obvious, but then again, it stated that way to be obvious and to special-plead a begged-question out of the equation -- all the while being an unproved assertion).

Secondly, it can be asserted that :

<1A> Anything that has not begun to exist, does not exist.

That renders any external agent non-existent by the same intuitive logic.

You can't then say that premise 1 is true but claim that 1A is false.

Kalam is rather strongly appreciated as a joke -- not as much a joke as Pascal's Wager.

The vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable. The vast majority is either rather empty, and that which isn't empty is merely too cold, has too much radiation, too much heat... Heck, even of the parts of the universe which are normal matter -- .001 percent is non-stellar or non-nebula.

Of JUST the Earth, only a TINY percent is comfortable for us. Comfort, for humans, is 50-80 degrees (F). It's about 15 PSI atmospheric pressure -- of "air". That leaves about a small "skin" of surface area, on the land. Oh, did I mention that the land is a minority of the surface area of the planet?

If you want to argue "design" and omnipotence, then it would be easy to design a universe that supports us regardless of physical constraints.

What we DO see is that our universe looks JUST like it would if every factor was merely the outcome of a rather random big-bang event.

Your premise : "It is far more reasonable to assume, that since we know empirically nothing can come into being of itself, that is, without a cause" is false.

We know EMPIRICALLY that matter and energy CAN come from nothing, by itself. Even your assertion would require god to have a cause, UNLESS you implement special-pleading by saying "well, except god" to which scientists could say "oh, so there's one exception, let's make the universe a special case too".

Rank, but your first question -- was -- "When does anything ever come from or arise out of nothing? "

Please study vacuum energy, quantum fluctuations and so on. The vast majority of the mass of the proton itself is from the creation and destruction, at every instant, of huge numbers of virtual particles.

So, basically, when ? All the time.

The reason is because there is stuff (energy) in NOTHING. Your definition of NOTHING is likely wrong.

KD,

All scientific questions will eventually be answered. That's when we become "gods".

Mankind is still in it's infancy and just learning to walk (scientifically speaking).

Not too bad Rank. I was hopeful for a minute, I thought you were straying from the flock!

Thanks King Dave. Coming from you, that's a compliment. No, I'm still following the Shepherd gleefully.

In science, when in doubt, asserting "God did it," is a non sequitur.

Depends on who you talk to. Asserting 'GOD didn't do it' when you have no other reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe is not science.

Future History,

Don't assume that just because something is complex, that is has to have a deeper meaning. The universe is complex by nature, not by design.

Only an atheist would think that. Everything has meaning. You, as an atheist, may be insensible to its meaning or incognizant of its purpose. But what makes you certain that the complexities found in the universe are not by design? Simply because you prefer to assume that, as Professor Krauss does because it suits him? Is that the basis for a well reasoned, intelligent assumption?

The concept of a Creator is flawed from the beginning - since the Creator had to have been created in order to create.

Why must a Creator have had been created? That makes no sense. No, I think your logic is flawed here.

Something from nothing may not sound valid, and may not seem understandable without a knowledge of the quantum sciences, but at least it gets around this problem.

And you have faith that that statement is true because . . .? A something from nothing hypothesis is unsupported by empirical evidence, thereby unrealistic. As I mentioned above, it may be your psychological make-up that makes the notion of no Creator appealing.

If something were to come from nothing, it makes far more sense to think of that something as an immense expenditure of energy and chaos rather than a self-aware, eternal entity that busies itself with creating trillions of galaxies,

Big IF. We have no evidence for that. How can it make sense "to think of that something as an immense expenditure of energy and chaos" resulted in trillions of galaxies? When has chaos ver created order? Make a mess and watch the chaos rearrange itself into order without an "outside force How much chaos is required to bring about an ordered universe? It seems highly improbable. Further how can an expenditure of energy be the causal agent when all matter and energy to begin with which the universe is composed was created during the Big Bang? Perhaps you don't understand the science. The Causal Agenttherefore must have been something other than matter or energy. The second part of your statement is merely your opinion, right? Because a deist might assert that an omnipotent GOD might want to create a universe.

only to zero in on one miniscule location in the universe where it can groom millions of genetically unique types of fauna and flora to assist humans in thriving and figuring out why it created them in the first place.

The evidence suggests He did.

How do you not see the narcisism in this statement? It is healthy to feel like you have a purpose in life, but to make this connection between yourself and existence in general is hopelessly narcisistic.

I don't see how narcissism plays any part at all? Can you explain how it does?

Did Hitler have a purpose? Does anyone with ill intention have a purpose?

Yes, he did. But he neither knew it nor fulfilled it. A person with ill intent is not fulfilling His GOD given purpose, but that does not mean they in themselves don't have a wrong purpose or wrong motive based upon wrong information for their actions or their lifestyle.

Take off your blinders - you may be comfortable, but a good portion of the world is living in extreme poverty, extreme drought, extreme famine, or under the constant threat of extreme natural disasters.

How is that the fault of Deity? The earth is the only habitable planet scientists have found. Humankind could not exist on any planet yet discovered by astronomers. Even you must admit that you are comfortable on this planet. Can you name another planet on which you would, as you are, be more comfortable? Or that you think is more habitable than the Earth? Whereas, as you are, you would die on even Earth's nearest neighbor without special equipment to sustain you.

Extreme poverty, extreme drought, extreme famine, and for that matter, devastating wars are within the purview of humanity. It is within our ability to solve these problems. That we do not demonstrates deficiency on our part, and not at all the fault of this abundant planet we live on. As for natural disasters, there is even a solution for that.

If you are able to embrace this, it is not surprising that you are able to embrace anything else that religion has to feed you.

Oh yes, I most gratefully, heartily, and warmly embrace the Truth. But it is not religion I am feeding on, but revelation!

Now I have a question for you, FH. Because of the tone you take in your preceeding post, I would like to ask you why does the worldview I maintain, contained in post #3, so incense people like you? That does not seem to be an objective, rational response.

Chirmly,

Rank, the Kalam fails because it is an exercise in special-pleading. It tries to ASSERT that everything that began to exist has a beginning (intuitively obvious, but then again, it stated that way to be obvious and to special-plead a begged-question out of the equation -- all the while being an unproved assertion).

If that is your argument, it fails to prove Kalam fails. The universe has obviously and undeniably begun. What caused it?

To your second argument:

Secondly, it can be asserted that : Anything that has not begun to exist, does not exist.

Yes, but can it be asserted scientifically that the First Cause which resulted in the Effect we call the universe does not exist? I don't think you can do that. Since for every effect there is a cause.

Rank, but your first question -- was -- "When does anything ever come from or arise out of nothing? ". . . So, basically, when ? All the time.

Please prove that.

Please study vacuum energy, quantum fluctuations and so on

No, I won't do your research for you. If those are your arguments, use them to prove how anything can arise out of literally nothing.

The vast majority of the mass of the proton itself is from the creation and destruction, at every instant, of huge numbers of virtual particles.

So the vast majority of the mass of the proton itself is the result of virtual particles. Would you define virtual particles as nothing?

The reason is because there is stuff (energy) in NOTHING. Your definition of NOTHING is likely wrong.

My definition of nothing is NOTHING. Not anything. Not any thing which is a thing. Not a particle, not a trace, nothing at all, the absence of anything, zero quantity.

If my definition is "likely wrong", Chirmly, what is the right definition?

Rank, you don't have to do the research. Just look up quantum fluctuations or vacuum energy.

Or, show me, more importantly, where there is actually "nothing".

The problem with your argument is that you are making up a scenario that doesn't and never did, nor ever can exist.

You are attempting to use an intuitive definition for "nothing" as empty of matter and energy. That doesn't exist -- anywhere, nor can it exist.

Here is a lay explanation : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy OR www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html

You could read a simple explanation as to where proton mass comes from (basically the virtual particles popping into and out of existence in the vacuum (what you'd call absolutely empty space)) here : (copy of Discover magazine from Science magazine's original coverage).

First, the math tests : "Confirmed: Scientists Understand Where Mass Comes Fromby Eliza StricklandDiscover Magazine / November 21, 2008The Sandard Model of physics got it right when it predicted where the mass of ordinary matter comes from, according to a massive new computational effort. Particle physics explains that the bulk of atoms is made up of protons and neutrons which are themselves composed of smaller particles known as quarks which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks accounts for only 5 percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent? [App_A]According to theory, the answer is that the energy from the interactions between quarks and gluons accounts for the excess mass (because as Einstein’s famous E=mc²equation proved, energy and mass are equivalent). Gluons are the carriers of the strong nuclear force that binds 3 quarks together to form one proton or neutron. These gluons are constantly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron [App_B]. The new study finally crunched the numbers on how much energy is created in these fluctuations and confirmed the theory. But it took a supercomputer over a year to do so."

Then the verification (see followups to www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/38788/title/Standard_model_gets_right_answer_for_proton,_neutron_masses)

Now, we can see that there is energy in absolutely every part of the universe that you'd venture to call NOTHING.

Would you say that there is a lot of nothing?

Then there's an awful lot of energy all over there, and particles there too.

You could look at Fermilab's where they say "Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later."

The energy itself can be used to create particles from nothing -- as Dirac posited, and we did, repeatedly, as : www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

So, YEAH, stuff comes from "nothing" all the time. You don't have to do the homework -- science has been there and back.

Now, feel free to show me where you'd find any area with the kind of "nothing" you've defined?

The problem with your argument is that you are making up a scenario that doesn't and never did, nor ever can exist.

You are attempting to use an intuitive definition for "nothing" as empty of matter and energy. That doesn't exist -- anywhere, nor can it exist.

Really? What existis outside this space we exist in?

Drak, it could be either the same vacuum we have now, OR even matter.

Not that it matters (no pun intended) because that would actually be effectively outside reality.

Now, we can see that there is energy in absolutely every part of the universe that you'd venture to call NOTHING.

No Chirmly, I would NOT call it that "nothing". As you have asserted above, that is obviously defintely something. Perhaps imperceptible, but something. Perhaps infinitesimal, perhaps yet indefinable, but something.

Chirmly, I appreciate all the work you have done to substantiate your points. I grant you they ALL have validity.

Nevertheless, what I would call 'nothing' is what was before the Big Bang. Science has not been there and back. In fact, that is a province theorists claim science cannot go. What you have demonstrated by your documentation is that the Universe is filled with particles of matter or energy.

My point is that before there was a Universe, there was neither energy nor matter. Under those circumstances, zero matter and zero energy, what caused the universe to come into existence?

You can have the last word. I'll see you next time. : )

Chirmly,

Space is full of stuff. ZG is never ZG. Vaccum isn't quite. Absolutes aren't always what they're cracked up to be.

Asserting 'GOD didn't do it' when you have no other reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe is not science.

Asserting "god did it" when you have no other explanation is not science either. It's intellectual laziness.

Everything has meaning.

Only a theist would think (or assume) that.

But what makes you certain that the complexities found in the universe are not by design?

What makes you think they are? You merely assume they are by design, or by a designer. Yet you do not prove it.

Why must a Creator have had been created? That makes no sense. No, I think your logic is flawed here.

Actually, it makes sense and is a logical deduction: if there is a creator, then who created the creator?

it may be your psychological make-up that makes the notion of no Creator appealing.

The same can be applied to you which does make a creator appealing. The difference is, you have to prove there's a creator.

We have no evidence for that.

Nor do we have any evidence for a god or creator. We do have evidence of a Big Bang however.

I don't see how narcissism plays any part at all? Can you explain how it does?

That depends: if you think there's a god who created the universe for us and in his image, then that is the height of narcissism, as want to think we're somehow special.

A person with ill intent is not fulfilling His GOD given purpose

How do you know? Who are you to say what god's purpose is?

The earth is the only habitable planet scientists have found. Humankind could not exist on any planet yet discovered by astronomers.

It's a big universe out there. habitable planets, at least earth sized, are hard to spot, even with our current technology.

My point is that before there was a Universe, there was neither energy nor matter.

Not quite. science thinks here was a singularity which contained all the matter and energy in the universe before it went 'Bang.'

'what caused the universe to come into existence?

The Big Bang!

Gordy, you'll love this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8iPJwztys

<3

Awesome koz. Thanks. :D

Rank on Rank

(Sorry to pile on!)

Genesis 1:1 It is a statement of faith. It is a statement of fact.

You are confused by terms:

• a statement of faith is also a statement of belief. I cannot challenge your beliefs.
• a statement of fact means the fact can be tested.
• since I can't test your belief, a fact does not arise concerning your belief.

Let me state this a different way:

• if you tell me that sun didn't rise today, that is a fact
• If I look up in the sky at noon and see the sun, then I can tell you your fact is incorrect

This is the basic problem with religion: the religion, and its adherents, can not, or refuse, to challenge the basic tenets of their religion and assume their belief in these religious tenets are facts - but they really aren't facts, are they.

And you have faith that that statement is true because . . .? A something from nothing hypothesis is unsupported by empirical evidence, thereby unrealistic.

Actually, I don't have "faith" that it is true. What I do have is absolute positivity that whether it is true or not true has zero impact on the present or the future. Whatever it is that is responsible for you and I being here today is completely meaningless with respect to the sun continuing to shine tomorrow, or that water will continue to periodically fall from the sky and sustain vegitation for the survival of all species on this planet, or that humans are absolutely capable of blissfully living in harmony without having to make up lame excuses for "why" we are here and forcing prejudice on one another over perceived immorality and the pathetic "rules" of our universal grandious absent parent you call God. Using science to decypher the curiosity of our origin is just an indication of the intelligence that is inherent to the ever-advancing human species. Religion is the throwback indicator of how unintelligent our roots were.

When has chaos ver created order?

Again, refer back to the snowflake. Take a trip into the upper atmosphere, where high winds and freezing temperatures create precipitation in the form of snowflakes of beauty that the human hand cannot even replicate. On earth, study crystals, or stalagtites, or glaciers, or a lava flow - and try to deny the beauty and order in their creation. Witness the simple beauty of a dust devil, or a wave formation, or a rainbow. These are all natural occuring examples of order from disorder.

The evidence suggests He did.

What?! Do you have evidence from all corners of our galaxy, or all corners of the trillions of other galaxies that we are special? Please produce this "evidence".

I don't see how narcissism plays any part at all? Can you explain how it does?

It's simple - you are an organism like every other organism on earth. They are all extremely complex - whether they be a human, a camel, a dolphin, a mosquito or any other living, organic species. What separates us is the evolution of our brain and the apendages that assist us in controlling our surroundings. To think that our advantages in thinking capacity make all other life forms insignificant is narcissistic.

The earth is the only habitable planet scientists have found. Humankind could not exist on any planet yet discovered by astronomers.

The earth is like one grain of sand on all of the beaches of our planet in comparison to the volume of planets that exist in the universe. How naive are you to claim that humanity is knowledgable enough about the cosmos to make such an absurd claim? It is the epitome of stupidity to assume that somewhere out there, there does not exist a planet that would rival earth in being habitable.

Now I have a question for you, FH. Because of the tone you take in your preceeding post, I would like to ask you why does the worldview I maintain, contained in post #3, so incense people like you? That does not seem to be an objective, rational response.

Because you are blind to the magnificent opportunities for understanding the universe that are still waiting to be uncovered, by claiming to already have the answers - particularly when those "answers" are horrifically outdated and lacking of any evidence whatsoever. Your beliefs that you embrace so wholeheartedly are based on ancient man's ramblings from a time where disease, pregnancy, weather and the cosmos were completely misundestood, and yet they are being utilized to support an attitude typical of every other backwards culture on earth, which serves to do nothing but divide humanity into groups at odds with one another. Organized religion is the curse of mankind.

I think that a fair question would be, firstly,

Where do you see actual order, currently?

You want an example of order coming naturally, crystals, spirals (pour pepper on water, pull the drain-plug, what was once unordered (or chaotic) is now orderly (well, not really, but people think spirals and orbits are examples of order).

Baron, actually, it's testable.. Much of modern high-energy particle physics and cosmology rely on that.

I realize that. I am happy about the demonstration by science that god is not necessary for creation from nothing. My statement about faith applies to the religious.

What makes you so sure the universe exists? Couldn't we be just pure energy with an active imagination?

Couldn't we be just pure energy with an active imagination?

Yeppers. But when something exists outside of its surroundings (our imagination) it then exists. The unverse does so but the fluidity is what few realize. Tis more a stream than a firm object.

Couldn't we be just pure energy with an active imagination?

Sure, but that wasn't the point. Our experience as a part of the Universe is our reality. Whatever originally set that in motion is anybody's guess.

My point was that I was trying to nudge a few folk into thinking outside of the box.

My point was that I was trying to nudge a few folk into thinking outside of the box.

Cool...

Whatever originally set that in motion is anybody's guess.

Smitty, I thought you said it was anybody's guess. If it is anybody's guess, it follows that I am free to believe the Bible until you can prove beyond a shadow of, or even, a reasonable doubt that GOD didn't do it.

it follows that I am free to believe the Bible until you can prove beyond a shadow of, or even, a reasonable doubt that GOD didn't do it.

Yoy can believe whatever you want. That doesn't necessarily make you right however, nor does belief equal fact.

Hey Rank, yes, of course you are *free* to believe whatever you want!! But, I have to concur w/Gordy....that just because you can believe something doesn't make it factual.

"Anybody's guess" was a figure of speech I used to mean "nobody knows".

Until you can prove there was something before the Big Bang, that was not GOD, it is unscientific to entertain the notion that what was before the Big Bang was either matter or energy.

wow...permanent ignore. i'm challenged to recall ever hearing a more vacuous comment. and on newsvine, that's quite an achievement.

Until you can prove there was something before the Big Bang, that was not GOD, it is unscientific to entertain the notion that what was before the Big Bang was either matter or energy.

Until you can prove it was god, much less there actually being a god, it is unscientific and illogical to simply assume 'god did it' based on nothing more than your belief or dogma.

ಠ_ಠ

JohnDR,

Yes, it's astonishing how the moon is not actually a light in the sky... it's amazing that the earth is not a flat circle, but more of a ball (which they had a word for and used in the old testament) and how bats are NOT birds, how the sky is not a dome, how the sun does not RUSH back to where it rises from, how the moon does NOT rule the night, how rain does NOT come from heaven, how carnivorous animals cannot repopulate the earth without eating other animals, how goats looking at streaked patterns do NOT generate streaked goats, bird blood does NOT cure leprosy, or how the sky is molten like glass, and so on...

JohnDR, excellent, so there is a testable claim -- that one (or more) of the heavens start between the ground and 10,000 feet.

JohnDR, because rain comes from that altitude. If you assert that one of the heavens was the source -- clearly it had to be below 30,000 feet since it rained to a level of over Mt Everest, and it won't likely rain from under the water, would it?

So, rain comes from about 10k feet.

Your assertion is that rain does come from the first or second or third heaven.

Thus it's testable.

Where it rains and when varies. For example, in Noahs day, the ark was said to rest on Mt. Ararat. Depending on which peak (if it is ever found) Noahs ark may be anywhere from 8,000-16,000 feet. Which again doesn't alone define the boundary of the first heaven, but the fact that fowls of the air are said to fly in it, as Noah released a few doves from the ark to test whether or not there was dry land, may set a boundary at above 10,000 feet. What about snow and the other elements etc.

The heaven is the source for rain (Deut 11:11; Ps. 148:4), dew (Gen. 27:28), frost (Job 38:29), snow (Isa. 55:10), fiery lightening (Gen. 19:24), dust (Deut. 28:24), and hail (Josh. 10:11). Holman Bible Dictionary (2003).

If you count lightening that are sprites we could be speaking of a range of 90 Km upward or the equivalent of about 56 miles, whereas 10,000 feet is less than two miles. In Luke 17:24, a verse reads,

For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

The Phrase, "one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven" refers to the third heaven and the "one part under heaven" the first heaven, while the "shineth unto the other part under heaven" the second heaven.

John, sorry, rain forms under a specific range. So, yeah, that would mean at least one of the heavens would have to be about 10k or less feet.

It does not EVER rain on Mt Everest. Clouds that pass over it are emptied of moisture as they touch the mountain, so anything on the other side is utterly arid.

Even the 109th highest peak Lupghar Sar never reaches higher than 10-20 BELOW zero.

You wouldn't even get the highest peaks covered with liquid water. Once you pass about 10,000 feet, it's all ice usually. Once you pass 20,000 feet, it's all ice ALL the time.

So, yeah, we know where the "rain" comes from.

If you assert that rain comes from a heaven, then we know where part of the heaven absolutely must be.

So let me see if I've got this straight. The first heaven (not second or third) begins somewhere between the ground and 10,000 feet. The most logical questions to then ask is where does the first heaven end and where does it start? I would respond with the high altitude lightning (sprite) limits for the end and Gen 1: 20 for the beginning " ...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." So can we agree with 0 ft - 56 miles as a limit for the first heaven ?

JohnDr, it wouldn't matter where it ends. As long as it's got a portion at 0-15k, we know that at least a portion should be testable. We have planes going through there, we have absolute coverage of the entire planet from well above that point by satellites on all wavelengths and from every angle.

One thing we can say is YES, we have examined that entire area. There is no heaven there.

Some people say "unless you've searched the entire universe, then you can't say there is no god"... well, we have searched the entire atmosphere at that range.

Now, we can expect the apologia of special pleadings.

One thing we can say is YES, we have examined that entire area. There is no heaven there.

Or perhaps just your definition of what heaven is isn't there. The biblical definition of heaven is there. The second heaven which covers from the end of the first and includes the rest of the universe is the second heaven. Which again, is there and is heaven regardless of whether people find anything or not.

JohnDr, what I can define is what IS there. Heaven must be -- umm.. air.

That's what's at that altitude when there are no mountains.

Well how should we define the supernatural? You propose that if we have searched it and didn't find it, then it didn't exist or isn't present at that location. Yet the bible says that God is omnipresent, which would mean he is in the first heaven, even if you were not capabe of detecting him. We read in our Bibles, on more than one occasion, of the Holy Spirit descending (presumably) out of the first heaven, like a dove. In another instance on the day of Pentecost it descended to indwell the church. Granted that the Holy Spirit is now on earth indwelling the church and not in the atmosphere today, there is still the fact that what is supernatural is not always observable to us. Heaven is a Biblical term to be defined by Supernatural truth/evidence not scientific. If I were to use only science to describe heaven I would have to be overly precise to be accurate. So I would have to include that molecules are not observable to us, yet we need scientific equipment to detect them. Just as the atmosphere isn't only air, but a mixture of different particules.

JophnDr...

Molecules are testable. We can make predictions on how they will behave. So it doesn't matter if they are visibly observable. And they block light, and they bend light, and they reflect certain wavelengths and so on.

The bible said the rain came from heaven... that's testable... it means that heaven has to be able to hold or create rain. That means that it can be detected.

We know where rain comes from. It's from clouds, not heaven.

We know where rain comes from. It's from clouds, not heaven.

So the fact that the clouds are in heaven when it does rain is irrelevant? And is all rain from clouds? I hear the rain forest cafe has a sprinkler system that creates "rain" indoors. Are botonists that grow plants in green houses that use a sprinkler system to water plants making fake "rain." Are water purification techniques that create condensation to purify the water put into bottles also making articificial clouds and rain? Yes please explain, where does rain come from......

Yes please explain, where does rain come from......

Not from the windows and floodgates in the sky detailed in the Bible.

---

Heaven is a Biblical term to be defined by Supernatural truth/evidence not scientific.

So why did you bother with all this:

Depending on which peak (if it is ever found) Noahs ark may be anywhere from 8,000-16,000 feet. Which again doesn't alone define the boundary of the first heaven, but the fact that fowls of the air are said to fly in it, as Noah released a few doves from the ark to test whether or not there was dry land, may set a boundary at above 10,000 feet. What about snow and the other elements etc.

The heaven is the source for rain (Deut 11:11; Ps. 148:4), dew (Gen. 27:28), frost (Job 38:29), snow (Isa. 55:10), fiery lightening (Gen. 19:24), dust (Deut. 28:24), and hail (Josh. 10:11). Holman Bible Dictionary (2003).

If you count lightening that are sprites we could be speaking of a range of 90 Km upward or the equivalent of about 56 miles, whereas 10,000 feet is less than two miles. In Luke 17:24, a verse reads,

Apologizing (& Apologetics) for all the errors in the Bible always turns into a mess. Say it's poetic license and be done with it.

JohnDR, yes -- all rain comes from clouds. What comes from sprinklers is not rain.

Drops coming from irrigation systems in greenhouses are not rain. Hydroponics sourcing is also not rain.

Okay, let me explain. The reason I bothered with the lengthy biblical example was to show you that you can't base a definition of what Heaven is on only where it rains. There are other factors that define where heaven is. You wanted to assert that it begins between 0 & 10,000 feet which may not have always been the case, especially if the ark was being rained upon above 10,000 feet. Also, the fact that I'm pointing out examples of different types of watering, is again to suggest that you haven't clearly defined what rain is. You say it is from a cloud, I say it is from a cloud in heaven. Why the difference, because in steam distilleries that purify water, the cloud is in a machine. So again, there is a counter example to saying that rain comes from clouds as to whether or not it is really taking place in heaven. The inside of a building or machine wouldn't be considered heaven by biblical definition so saying that rain comes from a cloud doesn't mean necessarily that it came from the first heaven. Why I bother with a counter example, because if you define things scientifically then, you leave an area of verisimilitude for your answer to be wrong. Whereas if I say that rain comes from heaven, as God's Word does, there is no doubt or second possibility as to the location of where the rain comes from.