Of Something And Nothing

Since Darwin penned his great work of genius, the religioners have been rushing about trying to find ways for them to continue to go to the heaven that, frankly, cannot be.
We have heard them spout defensively...
"So, why don't we see apes turning into humans?"
This obviously self-protectionist choice, of stupidity, inherent in their self deluding question, carries as always the subtext of...
"It doesn't matter what answer you give, my question carries sufficient doubt for me to continue to believe I'm going to heaven."

Unfortunately, for them, evolution is generally accepted as fact, even by the Pope. Now as you'd probably expect if you've read my other posts, I'd never hold the Pope up as a great teller of truths but on this subject, he'd have to be pretty convinced that he couldn't defeat evolution to make this major concession. Wouldn't you say? (Pope bows to Darwin).

Anyway, as with other human advances...
God is no longer in the rock or the sun because, as we discovered, they didn't exist.
God is no longer in the sky because we've been there and, y'know, he wasn't.
God is no longer in space because we've been there and, guess what? absent!
God is no longer the creator of life on earth because ALL the collected evidence weighs in as 'otherwise'
And, most recently in their battle to retain 'the afterlife that never was', we've seen his purveyors dispatch the goalposts of their god to what I see as his final resting place...
God's metaphysical Alamo - the beginning of the universe(s).

And what brilliant question have the religioners carefully constructed to stand guard, defending God's last bastion?
In a similarly pitiful grasping of the ethereal straw, the god squad are repeating the same...
"How can something come from nothing, it is preposterous. Things would be popping into existence from nothing all the time!"
and again, the same smug self-deluding subtext can be heard loud and clear...
"There! This way I still get to go to heaven! Na, na, na-na, na!"

And at first you think,
"Yeah I suppose so! Why don't things still come from nothing?"
It seems a logical question, eh?
And, while I've only made a guess at how something can come from nothing (The Most Probable Thing in the Omniverse?), I think, once again the Religioners question is erroneous. (Who would have thunk it!)

So, Why don't 'somethings' spring from 'nothing' all the time?

Might the simplest answer be...

we don't have nothing, we have something;
we have a universe(s).

From what I know about string theory, which is way short of even 'not that much', the universe does not consist of mostly nothing, instead it is one massive continuous something ( Vibrating filaments (strings) and membranes (branes) of energy. Read more here - http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-theory-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html#ixzz13HIziuvU )

Right, gird your mental loins, I've done my best but this next bit is still something of head twister. Sorry, please bear with me!

As I see it, in a universe consisting of inconsistent densities of a universally pervasive 'something', we can say that on a mission to achieve a container of 'pure' or 'absolute' nothing, the best one can hope to discover is a void in that all pervasive 'something'.
Now, by void, I don't mean 'absolute' nothing, the 'pure' nothing that is said to have existed before the universe(s), rather one may only assume that any void is composed of the same 'something' as the surrounding universe but at a lower density.

Our previous baseline for absolute nothing was a vacuum similar to the void of space, however, string theory suggests our previous understanding of nothing was imprecise, formed from the perceivable evidence. It was merely 'our' baseline, our observable 'nothing' and not 'absolute' nothing.
As we saw our perception of zero degrees Fahrenheit/Centigrade change when absolute zero was discovered, if string theory is correct, should we not also be expecting our perception of the baseline for 'nothing' to similarly change?

Now, in this context, string theory also suggests that, at the instant one has something (a universe), one no longer has 'pure' nothing.

As we no longer have any 'pure' nothing to experiment upon, and have no reason to assume, or expect, that our perceived baseline of nothing would have the same properties as, or act in the same way as, 'pure' nothing, is it not folly to even attempt to guess as to whether a new 'something' can come from pure nothing?

While there is no 'pure' nothing currently known in existence, is it not unreasonable to expect 'somethings' to continually burst into existence.

Okay, that's as far as I can go. My head doesn't even want to accept that something can come from nothing, but as I've never experienced nothing, I can't really hope to have any idea why it's possible, or not, for something to spring from it!

Yet another pointer that there are insufficient statistics to legitimately suggest a god?

If you know something about string theory, please let me know if the conjecture, queries and assumptions I have made above are all 'so much bollocks', because when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure they are not and the world's got way too much bad information in it already!

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Tweet