Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[excreationist]

.... In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ prays to God (Abba, Father), and asks that the cup be passed to another. Jesus is clearly afraid of the unconscionably horrible suffering He will have to endure. Also, on the cross, He says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"...

This cartoon talks about how this story changed over time...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jesus fucking christ. The person who thinks logically fallacious reasoning leads to truth is now trying to teach logic to others.

To paraphrase a well known quote from Jaws (1975) - We're gonna need a bigger facepalm emoji.

Lion: "I believe Jesus is both his Father and his Son. Also I believe Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish! I am quite the expert in logic, yes."

WUT?
Miracles are not a violation of logic.
Your lack of understanding of a thing doesn't make that thing illogical.

Everything that ever happened is completely explainable by science, the stories that aren’t are myths, except this tiny subset that happens to center around my religion. Would you like a pamphlet?

 

[Treedbear]

Jesus fucking christ. The person who thinks logically fallacious reasoning leads to truth is now trying to teach logic to others.

To paraphrase a well known quote from Jaws (1975) - We're gonna need a bigger facepalm emoji.

Lion: "I believe Jesus is both his Father and his Son. Also I believe Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish! I am quite the expert in logic, yes."

WUT?
Miracles are not a violation of logic.
Your lack of understanding of a thing doesn't make that thing illogical.

Your lack of logic does not make it understanding.
How about Jesus placing the few loaves and fish that he had at hand into a basket and passing it to the crowd. Actually most of the folks brought along something for the outing and, recognizing that many people didn't have anything, when the basket came to them they contributed some of what they had, to the point where more was donated than was needed. I guess that human generosity is some kind of wonderful, but it's something other than a miracle. Calling something a miracle is an abandonment of logic.

 

[steve_bank]

Theists can contract a valid syllogism on theology as a proof. Valid logic simply means conclusion follows from premise without any logical fallacies.

Science, philosophy, or religion the application of logic is the same, and valid logic alone does not meant truth in reality.

Science is unique in that along with logic goes a demonstrating experiment subject to independent review.

 

[atrib]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? What is this purpose, and how can I test your claim that the universe was deliberately caused to serve this purpose? You have been asked this question before and you have never responded.

I think I know why you think the universe was deliberately caused. You heard a story about a god that created the universe, and you desperately want this story to be true. Am I right? Well, some of us don't believe that this god exists, and for good reason. In order to convince us that this story is true you are going to have to do better than hints and allegations, and sly accusations. When are you going to grow a spine and actually participate in this discussion?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Can you show me where I have assumed either statement to be factual? You cannot, because I have not made such an assertion. You, on the other hand, have implied that our universe has a cause. When asked to explain why you believe this, you dodge the question. Are you going to answer my questions now and support your claim with evidence, or are you going to dodge it again?

Incidentally, neither statement is incompatible with the known laws of physics. Modern physics allows for both possibilities. We know about virtual particles that pop into existence out of nothing, and it is not a stretch to hypothesize that spacetime itself could also pop into existence out of nothing. It is also possible that the universe we observe today has always existed in some form, and may also be part of a much larger continuum that scientists call the multiverse. None of these hypotheses require the existence of a supernatural creator that is not bound by natural laws, and that is where your objection seems to stem from.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
Lion seems to only think in binary terms. He seems to assume that anyone who considers the possibility of some cosmological model is a firm believer that that model is reality. The idea of ranking possibilities, say on a scale of 1 to 10, apparently escapes him. Personally, I wouldn't rank any of the current cosmological models higher than maybe a 4 or 5 with the "god poofed it model" asymptotically approaching zero. Although I kinda like the Penrose CCC model, I personally wouldn't rate it above a 3 because, even thought the math is reasonable, I haven't yet seen that the physics follows. There is a lot that can be done in math that can't be done in physical reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Can you show me where I have assumed either statement to be factual? You cannot, because I have not made such an assertion. You, on the other hand, have implied that our universe has a cause. When asked to explain why you believe this, you dodge the question. Are you going to answer my questions now and support your claim with evidence, or are you going to dodge it again?

Incidentally, neither statement is incompatible with the known laws of physics. Modern physics allows for both possibilities. We know about virtual particles that pop into existence out of nothing, and it is not a stretch to hypothesize that spacetime itself could also pop into existence out of nothing. It is also possible that the universe we observe today has always existed in some form, and may also be part of a much larger continuum that scientists call the multiverse. None of these hypotheses require the existence of a supernatural creator that is not bound by natural laws, and that is where your objection seems to stem from.

I believe virtual particles are an analysis tool. In digital system we can create virtual mathematical states to enable an algorithm to transition form one state to another.
There are other examples.

Something from nothing violates causality and LOT. If a particle magically appears there is no way to prove it came from nothing. A theory is not reality.

If you abandons causality and conservation then you can create any number of mathematical theories. None of which are experintaly provable.

I draw on Popper. For something to be considered sciences it must be testable. If not then it is philosophy wi5h some math.

A theory in sconce of something from nothing to me is akin to creationism.

 

[abaddon]

^ ^ ^
Lion seems to only think in binary terms. He seems to assume that anyone who considers the possibility of some cosmological model is a firm believer that that model is reality. The idea of ranking possibilities, say on a scale of 1 to 10, apparently escapes him....

And if God isn't in the cosmological model, then you're committed to an anti-God hypothesis. When things are either FOR or AGAINST, then to not be FOR God means you're AGAINST God.

In this set-up, it's hypocrisy to be such a strong AGAINST-Believer and also be dismissive of a strong FOR-Believer. His "tu toque" argument is meant to point out this alleged hypocrisy. He's a believer, you're a believer - so how can you be so sure your belief is right (that God doesn't exist)?

So I don't think any questions asking "But how does God work as a reasonable hypothesis?" will ever get a forthright answer. Lion IRC's stance is that billions of believers believe strongly because they've seen God and it's up to anti-God strong-believers to justify how they, as believers themselves, can non-hypocritically "gainsay" that.

"But you're not convincing so therefore I have not been given a reason to believe" will never register on him. Belief's the default in Lion IRC World.

 

[Treedbear]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? ...

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

So we can equally apply what you said to some atheists and all theists?

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that [fill in the blank], so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

I'll go along with that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We know about virtual particles that pop into existence out of nothing, and it is not a stretch to hypothesize that spacetime itself could also pop into existence out of nothing.

Not to be pedantic but is this scientifically accurate? Virtual particles don't create their own spacetime do they? Isn't the space time already there? Or are you equating spacetime with nothing?

If virtual particles really arose from nothing then we could make them into nothing again and that would seem to violate the conservation of matter/energy.

ETA: Oopsie, just saw steve_bank's post. So I guess he's making the same observation. "Why is there a god" is the real answer to the OP, at least for people who believe such abracadabra beings are real.

 

[skepticalbip]

We know about virtual particles that pop into existence out of nothing, and it is not a stretch to hypothesize that spacetime itself could also pop into existence out of nothing.

Not to be pedantic but is this scientifically accurate? Virtual particles don't create their own spacetime do they? Isn't the space time already there? Or are you equating spacetime with nothing?

If virtual particles really arose from nothing then we could make them into nothing again and that would seem to violate the conservation of matter/energy.

ETA: Oopsie, just saw steve_bank's post. So I guess he's making the same observation. "Why is there a god" is the real answer to the OP, at least for people who believe such abracadabra beings are real.

Lawrence Krauss got a lot of flack over his book, A Universe From Nothing over this. It turned out to be that "nothing" is a fairly deep philosophical topic.

 

[abaddon]

It'd be interesting if physics could address an actual nothing, instead of using the word "nothing" to mean, in effect, a space in which no detectable things are.

Traditionally physics is about the causes and effects that "things" have on "things". Introduce "nothingness" into that, and it's apparent that the working assumptions don't take that notion of "nothingness" into account.

But then, should they? Is an absolute nothingness possible at all? How can such Nothingness "be"? Isn't it just a contrivance, little more than adding a superfluous "ness" to the end of the word "nothing" and then pretending that it's still meaningful, in order to make the question "how does something come from nothing(ness)?" seem like a sensible question to ask?

 

[skepticalbip]

It'd be interesting if physics could address an actual nothing, instead of using the word "nothing" to mean, in effect, a space in which no detectable things are.

Traditionally physics is about the causes and effects that "things" have on "things". Introduce "nothingness" into that, and it's apparent that the working assumptions don't take that notion of "nothingness" into account.

But then, should they? Is an absolute nothingness possible at all? How can such Nothingness "be"? Isn't it just a contrivance, little more than adding a superfluous "ness" to the end of the word "nothing" and then pretending that it's still meaningful, in order to make the question "how does something come from nothing(ness)?" seem like a sensible question to ask?

I think that the problem is, like in most philosophy, that a strict definition of the terms being argued about isn't first agreed on. You are right that in physics "nothing" is generally taken to mean no mass/energy. This was the meaning Krauss used in his book in which he argued that, starting from a condition of no mass/energy, a universe could form. The argument being, similar to virtual particles, the positive energy of mass is equal to the negative energy of gravity so the total is still zero (or nothing)... its existence only temporarily borrowed (like virtual particles). OTOH, cosmologists (who lean more toward philosophy than physics) include no spacetime along with no matter/energy in their meaning of 'nothing'.

But then, for common use, an empty warehouse is a warehouse that has 'nothing' in it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It'd be interesting if physics could address an actual nothing, instead of using the word "nothing" to mean, in effect, a space in which no detectable things are.

Traditionally physics is about the causes and effects that "things" have on "things". Introduce "nothingness" into that, and it's apparent that the working assumptions don't take that notion of "nothingness" into account.

But then, should they? Is an absolute nothingness possible at all? How can such Nothingness "be"? Isn't it just a contrivance, little more than adding a superfluous "ness" to the end of the word "nothing" and then pretending that it's still meaningful, in order to make the question "how does something come from nothing(ness)?" seem like a sensible question to ask?

I think that the problem is, like in most philosophy, that a strict definition of the terms being argued about isn't first agreed on. You are right that in physics "nothing" is generally taken to mean no mass/energy. This was the meaning Krauss used in his book in which he argued that, starting from a condition of no mass/energy, a universe could form. The argument being, similar to virtual particles, the positive energy of mass is equal to the negative energy of gravity so the total is still zero (or nothing)... its existence only temporarily borrowed (like virtual particles). OTOH, cosmologists (who lean more toward philosophy than physics) include no spacetime along with no matter/energy in their meaning of 'nothing'.

But then, for common use, an empty warehouse is a warehouse that has 'nothing' in it.

Agreed. It's pretty obvious that the universe is everywhere and that when people use the word "nothing" they actually mean a quantity of zero. They are not saying that the universe is not there. That would be nonsensical. So when a person encounters the word in discussion that "quantity of zero" defined as "nothing" should be contextually obvious.

And this is obviously a gigantic stumbling block for creationists.

 

[bilby]

The whole 'god hypothesis' is just an equivocation error. The universe means 'everything that exists', OR it means 'everything that we can observe'.

We ask: "Where did everything that exists come from?" and theists answer "It was made by an unobserved deity", which isn't so much wrong as it is not an answer to the question at all.

The only possible answers to "Where did everything that exists come from" are "something was always there" OR "something began without a cause".

Theists say "It's absurd to suggest that the universe has always existed, therefore there must be a creator", and never notice that it's at least equally absurd for a creator to have existed forever.

God as creator is a self refuting argument; If god existed forever, or began to exist, then why couldn't the universe have done the same?

And if everything that exists needs a creator, then either god needs a creator, or god doesn't exist.

Explaining where everything that exists came from by positing an infinite number of unobserved entities - or even a single such entity - is beyond stupid.

 

[Learner]

It'd be interesting if physics could address an actual nothing, instead of using the word "nothing" to mean, in effect, a space in which no detectable things are.

Traditionally physics is about the causes and effects that "things" have on "things". Introduce "nothingness" into that, and it's apparent that the working assumptions don't take that notion of "nothingness" into account.

But then, should they? Is an absolute nothingness possible at all? How can such Nothingness "be"? Isn't it just a contrivance, little more than adding a superfluous "ness" to the end of the word "nothing" and then pretending that it's still meaningful, in order to make the question "how does something come from nothing(ness)?" seem like a sensible question to ask?

I think that the problem is, like in most philosophy, that a strict definition of the terms being argued about isn't first agreed on. You are right that in physics "nothing" is generally taken to mean no mass/energy. This was the meaning Krauss used in his book in which he argued that, starting from a condition of no mass/energy, a universe could form. The argument being, similar to virtual particles, the positive energy of mass is equal to the negative energy of gravity so the total is still zero (or nothing)... its existence only temporarily borrowed (like virtual particles). OTOH, cosmologists (who lean more toward philosophy than physics) include no spacetime along with no matter/energy in their meaning of 'nothing'.

But then, for common use, an empty warehouse is a warehouse that has 'nothing' in it.

Agreed. It's pretty obvious that the universe is everywhere and that when people use the word "nothing" they actually mean a quantity of zero. They are not saying that the universe is not there. That would be nonsensical. So when a person encounters the word in discussion that "quantity of zero" defined as "nothing" should be contextually obvious.

And this is obviously a gigantic stumbling block for creationists.

Yes (depending on language philosophy) but what is the "everything in it?" Chaos at the "same time" as the laws of physics, coming from nothing? what I mean is: There's no stumbling block with theists when we understand that planets were NOT always there e.g. Earth and solar systems popping out of nothing or something as it exists now. The particular formation of matter-structures (perspective to creation, Genesis)... is what theists today are likely about.

 

[Learner]

The whole 'god hypothesis' is just an equivocation error. The universe means 'everything that exists', OR it means 'everything that we can observe'.

We ask: "Where did everything that exists come from?" and theists answer "It was made by an unobserved deity", which isn't so much wrong as it is not an answer to the question at all.

I don't know of any Christians that became believers in the first place by theorizing HOW the universe began!! No claims made direct by this, let alone an argument from such an unlikely claim. Theists obviously believe by the Bible and take the cue from Genesis; naturally of course to give reason to believe God made the universe; a fair enough reason for you debate.

The only possible answers to "Where did everything that exists come from" are "something was always there" OR "something began without a cause".

Theists say "It's absurd to suggest that the universe has always existed, therefore there must be a creator", and never notice that it's at least equally absurd for a creator to have existed forever.

I wonder by your post, if it is actually known that a conscious intelligence can't really be forever? As long as there are No physical-body 'expiry dates' attached etc..

God as creator is a self refuting argument; If god existed forever, or began to exist, then why couldn't the universe have done the same?

And if everything that exists needs a creator, then either god needs a creator, or god doesn't exist.

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

 

[steve_bank]

Actually among Christians I have known part of coming to a belief in god is looking at the Earth and concluding someone had to have created it. I expect that is part of the early origins of religions and myths.

 

[Learner]

I could be one of those, but the great unknown beyond, outside the observable earth... I'm not that savvy enough.

 

[steve_bank]

I could be one of those, but the great unknown beyond, outside the observable earth... I'm not that savvy enough.

Modern observation certainly complicates things for creationists.

An early cosmology saw the universe as a shell with holes in it where we saw stars. Earth centric.

Now we know Earth is not at the center, if there is a center at all which theory says no.,

You have a choice. God created part of the unversed and exists within reality not its making or god is reality creating all things seen and unseen.

Finding active microbial life or evidence of it on Mars could cause serious problems for creationists.

If you truly have faith then it does not matter.