Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

That very much depends on what you mean by those terms.

For example, multiverse theories are a possibility. In that case, there would be multiple universes but a single multiverse. I would assume you then would say the multiverse is 'one'.

Ordered is a tricky concept. Shall we say 'structured' instead? The things in the universe show patterns of behavior and those patterns are what we call the laws of physics.

As for order giving rise to life, that is also a rather vague statement. The structure of the universe is such that life arose. But so did stars, planets, galaxies, supernova, pulsars, etc. By focusing on life, you seem to be saying it is something that needs extra explanation.

I have no problem with any of your points. On the point of life, life presumes that the galaxies, stars, planets, etc., are prerequisite aspects of life.

So, can we agree that the universe is one, and that the structure is such that life and the prerequisite requirements for life, arose?.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no problem with any of your points. On the point of life, life presumes that the galaxies, stars, planets, etc., are prerequisite aspects of life.

So, can we agree that the universe is one, and that the structure is such that life and the prerequisite requirements for life, arose?.

Since life exists, the structure of the universe allows for life, yes.

As for the universe being 'one', be more clear exactly what you mean.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Since life exists, the structure of the universe allows for life, yes.

Hence in this respect, some may understand the concept of God to be the same as the Universe from which all life came into existence. This is not an argument, merely noting that in this respect, there is no difference of understanding.

As for the universe being 'one', be more clear exactly what you mean.

I am reminded of the Latin prefix uni which means one. Wrt the concept of a multiverse, then our 'universe' is merely one 'verse' among other 'verses' of a 'uni-verse'. I am not attempting to suggest that a multiverse should be altered to 'universe', merely being cognizant of the underlying oneness of all existence in the literal meaning of uni-verse.

 

[Polymath257]

Hence in this respect, some may understand the concept of God to be the same as the Universe from which all life came into existence. This is not an argument, merely noting that in this respect, there is no difference of understanding.

And pantheism is one way to go. The main issue I have is that the term 'God' usually denotes a being that is alive, has consciousness, has a goal, and has at least the emotion of love. None of those apply to the universe as far as I can see.

I am reminded of the Latin prefix uni which means one. Wrt the concept of a multiverse, then our 'universe' is merely one 'verse' among other 'verses' of a 'uni-verse'. I am not attempting to suggest that a multiverse should be altered to 'universe', merely being cognizant of the underlying oneness of all existence in the literal meaning of uni-verse.

And yet, the universe has many parts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And pantheism is one way to go. The main issue I have is that the term 'God' usually denotes a being that is alive, has consciousness, has a goal, and has at least the emotion of love. None of those apply to the universe as far as I can see.

Sure, the "as far as I can see" is a position many have, others possibly do "see", or at least believe it to be the case, ie., consciousness, etc..

And yet, the universe has many parts.

The distinctions of the apparent aspects of the one universe made by the human mind are one thing, but at the end of the day, we understand that all that is manifested originated from the one source. Btw, I am not sure if this is correct or relevant, but matter and energy are aspects of oneness, E=MC^2 v M=E/C^2?

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, the "as far as I can see" is a position many have, others possibly do "see", or at least believe it to be the case, ie., consciousness, etc..

The distinctions of the apparent aspects of the one universe made by the human mind are one thing, but at the end of the day, we understand that all that is manifested originated from the one source. Btw, I am not sure if this is correct or relevant, but matter and energy are aspects of oneness, E=MC^2 v M=E/C^2?

'Mass' and 'matter' are different things. Mass is a property of (some) matter. Mass is a type of energy. So matter can have mass as a property, just like it can have momentum, spin, charge, etc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'Mass' and 'matter' are different things. Mass is a property of (some) matter. Mass is a type of energy. So matter can have mass as a property, just like it can have momentum, spin, charge, etc.

Thank you Poly.

 

[paarsurrey]

Right, it can't. If true then that would mean that our universe didn't create itself. Right?
But a lot things can be said about how our universe exists. A universe can create another universe, therefore our universe was created by another universe. The universe can't create itself into existence if it's already exist (eternal universe). The good old, "God did it." Or, "I don't know."

Then what or who created the " eternal universe" ,. please?

Regards

 

[Meow Mix]

Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

I understand it cannot. Right, please?

Regards
___________
With thanks to friend @PruePhillip post #244

Here is a strange thought I’ve had. Consider that nothing exists, not even rules.

Why can’t something exist, then? Remember, there are no rules in the thought experiment. If we say “because something can’t come from nothing,” that is a rule, right?

So if there were no rules, why couldn’t something begin to exist?

If someone insists that the rule must still exist, then haven’t we contradicted our supposed initial conditions of “nothing?”

(now I can formulate this more formally using logic like logical self-identity being incorrigible and modal logic and such, but it works fine colloquially)

 

[rational experiences]

If you quote non existence then you have no information whatsoever. The exact reason as you the theist aren't there either.

What human egotism is pretending you existed before anything else did claiming my consciousness knows it all.

As theism uses all types of bodies present as Multi varied he would not be honest if he said he could follow all paths to each and every form in space separately.

Information already states all bodies are separated.

As it is all inclusive.

You cannot be informed unless pre existing advice exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here is a strange thought I’ve had. Consider that nothing exists, not even rules.

Why can’t something exist, then? Remember, there are no rules in the thought experiment. If we say “because something can’t come from nothing,” that is a rule, right?

So if there were no rules, why couldn’t something begin to exist?

But there is no need to raise the issue of, or speculate about a beginning, there was no beginning. Why is not logical that all that exists is all that exists, always has, is, and will be. So time does not apply to all that exists. The only things that are subject to time are forms, they always have beginnings and they always have endings, including this physical universe..

 

[night912]

Then what or who created the " eternal universe" ,. please?

Regards

Why would you asked a question when the answer was given to you prior of you asking the question?

 

[syo]

Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

No.

 

[gnostic]

Inflation or deflation could never have happened of itself. Right, please?

There is a component that make universe inflate or deflate, but that component are most likely natural, not supernatural nor divine, like a god, creator or designer.

Having a being causing inflation and deflation of the universe is pure fantasy, a fantasy based on primitive superstition. And it is absurd.

Have you ever observe water turn into ice and ice into water before?

There are very natural component to cause transformation, and it is call heat. Plus, you have to study the properties of water, to understand this process.

Everything happen naturally, including the Universe. And people are capable of understanding the science behind it, if they have patience and fortitude to learn.

There are no "god component", no "God did it". Why do today's people insist on believing in the stupidities of past?

Adding God into mix, is like adding magic. In this day and age, people should believe in primitive superstitions. You are not living in prehistoric time, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, where superstitions and mass ignorance run riot.

 

[gnostic]

Why can’t something exist, then? Remember, there are no rules in the thought experiment. If we say “because something can’t come from nothing,” that is a rule, right?

There are nothing wrong about thought experiment, and I would agree.

But there is a "BUT".

Some people often mistaken "thought experiment" as being true by-default or accept them as fact, and stubbornly defend it, even when it shown to be wrong.

That's the dangers of thought experiment.

People should recognize thought experiment for what it is, an experiment that may possibly be right or may possibly be wrong. So until the ideas of the thought experiment has been tested and verified, it isn't true.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is a component that make universe inflate or deflate, but that component are most likely natural, not supernatural nor divine, like a god, creator or designer.

Having a being causing inflation and deflation of the universe is pure fantasy, a fantasy based on primitive superstition. And it is absurd.

Have you ever observe water turn into ice and ice into water before?

There are very natural component to cause transformation, and it is call heat. Plus, you have to study the properties of water, to understand this process.

Everything happen naturally, including the Universe. And people are capable of understanding the science behind it, if they have patience and fortitude to learn.

There are no "god component", no "God did it". Why do today's people insist on believing in the stupidities of past?

Adding God into mix, is like adding magic. In this day and age, people should believe in primitive superstitions. You are not living in prehistoric time, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, where superstitions and mass ignorance run riot.

" Natural "
What is one's own understanding of the word " natural ', please? Kindly give one's own understanding not from a lexicon, please.
Right?

Regards

 

[syo]

Nature/natural=everything that exists with all it's laws.

 

[night912]

As I understand G-d was there who created the processes that made the Universe to come into existence. Why not to accept it more so when there is no other claimant. Right,please?

Regards

The thing with your argument here is that, it shows that a universe (even if not eternal), already existed. Using the words, "was" and "there" both represents time and space, respectively. The universe is and/or consists of time and space. At most, that argument only says that God created a universe within another universe.

 

[gnostic]

" Natural "
What is one's own understanding of the word " natural ', please? Kindly give one's own understanding not from a lexicon, please.
Right?

I have already given you example of water (H2O) existing in liquid state and solid state (ice), due to temperatures of heat.

It is natural occurring, without the need of magic or miracle from invisible entity that you called “god”.

God, whether you call him, Creator, Designer, YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Vishnu, etc, are all imaginary beings, supposedly immortal, invisible, all-power, all-knowing, etc, with powers to create universe, sun, earth, life.

All that, are only belief in the supernatural and unnatural; these beliefs are belief in superstitions, and saying “God did it” or believing in miracles, aren’t natural.

It is important define the distinction between natural and supernatural/unnatural.

Believing in stories of fruits can give eternal life or give knowledge, are unnatural. Believing in stories of people can lived hundreds of years, like Adam (Age 930) and Noah (950), also not natural. Believing in demons and exorcism, are unnatural.

Believing in god being able to stop the movements the sun and moon, like during battle, between Israelites and Amorites, and restarting the sun movement, after victory (Joshua 10), is example of false belief in miracle, as well as astronomically wrong because the sun don’t orbit around the Earth.

Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[night912]

" Natural "
What is one's own understanding of the word " natural ', please? Kindly give one's own understanding not from a lexicon, please.
Right?

Regards

What's your understanding of the words, "natural" and "supernatural?" Don't give a definition from a lexicon, please.