A Universe from Nothing?

[viole]

I am with you on that too...the part about God creating it from nothing that is....but not necessarily the implication that all human considerations of higher beings are purely anthropomorphic...it would be difficult for me to imagine that humanity on this planet is the apex of evolutionary unfoldment in the universe..

There is not such a thing as the apex of evolution. That would require a teleology where none can be found.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nurion]

Excellent point! You just annihilated strong atheism! Strong atheists have no reason to claim that beings called "gods" capable of creating universes don't exist for all we know they could have evolved like everything else...

Hmm... I don't think my best friend would agree. Until there is evidence for such beings called "gods" with universe creating abilities evolving, believing in such a thing does not constitute an option that can be held without providing a good reason for doing so.

Such beings neither have to be antropomorphic, nor is it completely unimaginable for a being to be able to create a universe. But the manner in which it is created is important. I think if such evolved beings employed means that are of a supernatural nature to create stuff, every atheist would reject that claim. But if you're thinking of a highly evolved alien race with universe-creating technology, things would look differently.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is not such a thing as the apex of evolution. That would require a teleology where none can be found.

Ciao

- viole

The term I used was evolutionary unfoldment and this is the ultimate purpose of religious practice...to realize what and who one really is in the context of universal being..

 

[RookieApologist]

Hi everyone, first post here. Gotta say this site is much better than some others for frank and meaningful discussion.
That said, I seem to notice here, as well as other places, that the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is misrepresented as being an attempt to prove God's existence. It can be a tool, and perhaps a step in that direction, but the KCA is a good and (in my view) valid, non-theistic (rather neutral) argument for the universe having a beginning - without saying anything as to who or what caused the beginning. I agree with those who say that it is a HUGE leap to go from the universe having a beginning straight to the cause of that beginning being a particular god. The cause may be called god or God, but in my mind that is just semantics until other arguments and evidence are brought to bear (of which there are several of course).

For reference, the KCA states:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

Notice this is a theistically neutral argument. It does not include, "therefore God exists". Other versions of the argument that claim this are obviously open to warranted critical analyses of the premises.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing?

I don't believe the universe had a origin at all.

The idea that there is a need for such is just an artifact of projecting too much of typical human thinking into situations that do not support it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Welcome to RF, @RookieApologist ! Hope you enjoy the environment.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi everyone, first post here. Gotta say this site is much better than some others for frank and meaningful discussion.
That said, I seem to notice here, as well as other places, that the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is misrepresented as being an attempt to prove God's existence. It can be a tool, and perhaps a step in that direction, but the KCA is a good and (in my view) valid, non-theistic (rather neutral) argument for the universe having a beginning - without saying anything as to who or what caused the beginning. I agree with those who say that it is a HUGE leap to go from the universe having a beginning straight to the cause of that beginning being a particular god. The cause may be called god or God, but in my mind that is just semantics until other arguments and evidence are brought to bear (of which there are several of course).

For reference, the KCA states:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

Notice this is a theistically neutral argument. It does not include, "therefore God exists". Other versions of the argument that claim this are obviously open to warranted critical analyses of the premises.

Why do you think the universe needs to have had a beginning?

 

[Nurion]

For reference, the KCA states:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

1 is pure conjecture. We have never seen it any other way, does not make it impossible that it cannot happen the other way.
3 is an invalid connection of the two statements.

Or here a simpler explanation:
We know that A causes B (A--->B)
We do not know whether something else could also cause B (X--->B; Y--->B, Beer--->B)
We see that the universe exists (B), but we have insufficient information to say why B exists (?--->B).

 

[outhouse]

For reference, the KCA states:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

states a bit more then that, that's why it is a failed concept.

All it does is move the creation of the universe from a singularity further back into time and into imaginative explanations for the origins of said matter.

Right now simple nature explains 1, 2 and 3 easily.

1 Yes the universe began, and its cause was the expansion of a singularity, and a black hole is quite common and it is a singularity.

2 yes when the singularity expanded

3 yes a singularity


Bruce Reichenbach provides a summary of the dispute as:

"... whether there needs to be a cause of the first natural existent, whether something like the universe can be finite and yet not have a beginning, and the nature of infinities and their connection with reality".[18]

 

[Nurion]

states a bit more then that, that's why it is a failed concept.

All it does is move the creation of the universe from a singularity further back into time and into imaginative explanations for the origins of said matter.
Right now simple nature explains 1, 2 and 3 easily.
1 Yes the universe began, and its cause was the expansion of a singularity, and a black hole is quite common and it is a singularity.
2 yes when the singularity expanded
3 yes a singularity

Bruce Reichenbach provides a summary of the dispute as:

"... whether there needs to be a cause of the first natural existent, whether something like the universe can be finite and yet not have a beginning, and the nature of infinities and their connection with reality".[18]

Well but you know human nature. When we cannot fully explain something, we ask why things are as they are.
If you cite a Prime mover for starting the universe, then people will ask you where that Prime mover came from. But if there is a singularity, they will just ask where the singularity comes from. At one point we will have to say "I don't know". Because there is no way we know yet. Laurence Krauss' Universe from nothing is a great explanation to me, but it still leaves a lot of questions open.

 

[viole]

Hi everyone, first post here. Gotta say this site is much better than some others for frank and meaningful discussion.
That said, I seem to notice here, as well as other places, that the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is misrepresented as being an attempt to prove God's existence. It can be a tool, and perhaps a step in that direction, but the KCA is a good and (in my view) valid, non-theistic (rather neutral) argument for the universe having a beginning - without saying anything as to who or what caused the beginning. I agree with those who say that it is a HUGE leap to go from the universe having a beginning straight to the cause of that beginning being a particular god. The cause may be called god or God, but in my mind that is just semantics until other arguments and evidence are brought to bear (of which there are several of course).

For reference, the KCA states:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

Notice this is a theistically neutral argument. It does not include, "therefore God exists". Other versions of the argument that claim this are obviously open to warranted critical analyses of the premises.

I think both premises are seriously flawed, and therefore cannot be used to deduce a cause of the Universe. Divine or not.

But what I noticed recently is that Kalam, if true, could be used to falsify free will. At least libertarian free will.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RedJamaX]

Singularity has nothing to do with it...

Read Laurence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing"... Basically here's the jist... in a very dumbed down view

1. The concept of "nothing"... truly, absolutely, nothing... not even subatomic particles or the fabric of space... this kind of "nothing" doesn't exist. Not in our Universe anyway. And if it does exist outside of our Universe, then that means we haven't, and probably can't observe it... so, that particular concept of nothing is equivalent to god.... meaning that it only exists as a concept.
2. The closest thing we have to "nothing" is empty space, which is NOT "nothing".
3. Empty Space by itself is unstable and will either spontaneously create matter to a point of equilibrium... or it will collapse on itself.
Hence... our Universe is a spacial expansion that happened to create matter to a point of equilibrium and the empty space itself is still expanding.

To some body who hasn't looked up any information, or read any books on this subject and gets their information from the church pulpit and FOX news... I don't expect you to understand, let alone believe that science has good information to make this kind of claim. If you spent even half as much time learning real science as you do trying to defend things you already believe... you would see NOT ONLY how science works... but why it works, and why it's the correct method to learn about how our universe worlks.

FYI, you shouldn't "start" with cosmology...

 

[outhouse]

Well but you know human nature. When we cannot fully explain something, we ask why things are as they are.
If you cite a Prime mover for starting the universe, then people will ask you where that Prime mover came from. But if there is a singularity, they will just ask where the singularity comes from. At one point we will have to say "I don't know". Because there is no way we know yet. Laurence Krauss' Universe from nothing is a great explanation to me, but it still leaves a lot of questions open.

Which is fine. I have no problem saying I don't or we don't know. Its the guesses people make filling the lack of knowledge that gets most into trouble

 

[outhouse]

Singularity has nothing to do with it...

It does with creating space and time.

Read Laurence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing"...

Excellent book

1. The concept of "nothing"... truly, absolutely, nothing... not even subatomic particles or the fabric of space... this kind of "nothing" doesn't exist.

Exactly true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It does with creating space and time.

So please explain without resorting to magic, miracle, appealing to authority, obfuscation by raising irrelevant post time zero science including CMBR, red shift, etc., and general hand waving......why and how non-existence (no space time) created (space time) at time zero?

 

[leibowde84]

...it would be difficult for me to imagine that humanity on this planet is the apex of evolutionary unfoldment in the universe..

I'm not sure that anyone claims this. The ToE demands that human beings are still evolving along with every other organism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure that anyone claims this. The ToE demands that human beings are still evolving along with every other organism.

But nevertheless, evolution would have brought to fruition much more advanced universal beings long ago in other planetary systems, stars, and galaxies, than general humanity on this planet...

 

[Nurion]

So please explain without resorting to magic, miracle, appealing to authority, obfuscation by raising irrelevant post time zero science including CMBR, red shift, etc., and general hand waving......why and how non-existence (no space time) created (space time) at time zero?

Well it's been quite some time since I've seen the video by Krauss on A universe from nothing. I think it was in 2009. It's still up on youtube, as far as I know.
He explained it with quantum fluctuations, if I remember correctly. I don't know exactly how it worked, but if you would like to spend an hour learning about the universe, I cannot recommend that video highly enough.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well it's been quite some time since I've seen the video by Krauss on A universe from nothing. I think it was in 2009. It's still up on youtube, as far as I know.
He explained it with quantum fluctuations, if I remember correctly. I don't know exactly how it worked, but if you would like to spend an hour learning about the universe, I cannot recommend that video highly enough.

But what caused the quantum fluctuations to come in existence from non-existence (no space time)?

 

[leibowde84]

But nevertheless, evolution would have brought to fruition much more advanced universal beings long ago in other planetary systems, stars, and galaxies, than general humanity on this planet...

Maybe ... maybe not. We have no way of knowing what is going on on distant planets at the moment. But, there could certainly be more evolved beings than us out there. Our ability to search for them is vastly limited.