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

[Polymath257]

"The universe simply exists"

I understand from the truthful religious knowledge that Universe cannot exist on its own but because G-d helps it to exist for the purpose He created it, else, it cannot exist. And science has no ruling on it. Right, please?
Regards

Well, I happen to disagree. In fact, I think quite the opposite: the universe *has* to be uncaused because causlaity only makes sense *within* the universe. I don't agree that any deity is required (or even helpful as an explanation).

You fail to address what 'caused' your deity.

 

[George-ananda]

And it is sometimes forgotten that introducing deities doesn't resolve that mystery.

That is true too. Why are there deities? Or in my case; why is there Consciousness/God/Brahman. I am only pushing the mystery one stage back.

 

[paarsurrey]

You realize there are many here that don't hold the Quran to be truthful, right?

There is no compulsion to learn the truthful religious knowledge as given in the truthful Quran, though it is beneficial, as I understand. Similarly, there is no compulsion to have knowledge of the science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

There is no compulsion to learn the truthful religious knowledge, though it is beneficial, as I understand. Similarly, there is no compulsion to have knowledge of the science. Right, please?

Regards

Nobody is compelling anything. But self-honesty, skepticism, and curiosity may lead one to knowledge.

I find most religions to be rather useless, at best.

 

[Polymath257]

That is true too. Why are there deities? Or in my case; why is there Consciousness/God/Brahman. I am only pushing the mystery one stage back.

And I am suggesting that the extra stage isn't required.

 

[George-ananda]

And I am suggesting that the extra stage isn't required.

No. I only said that atheists come off often as cause-and-effect physicalists although ultimately they must even come to accept 'more'.

 

[Nakosis]

So, the basic question is ultimately: why is there something rather than nothing?

To that, there is no answer.

Yes, why is there something rather than nothing?

However, there is something. We know "something" exists, What compelling reason is there to assume a state of nothing could exist?

It would seem I think if something exists then a state of nothing is an impossibility.

Maybe that side-steps the prior question but as you say it is something we have no answer for.

Even if one were to assume God, God is something. So nobody can get here starting with nothing.

 

[paarsurrey]

A process ( or it's result ) that can achieve physical consequences without being accounted, even in principle, by physical principles and laws.
It is akin to the term 'supernatural'.

I understand that "nature" is a creation of G-d and humans don't know all that He has created and will create in future. He could have a "special nature" for special people like Messengers of G-d but nothing could be out of His powers, as I understand.
I don't believe in magic. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Scripture says god created everything from nothing. The hypothesis i presented says the universe could have been caused by nothing. You accept one and deny the other. The only possible reason is your belief god did it. If nature cannot do it but god can then that indicates magic. Right, please?

"hypothesis"

Is the topic of the thread on one's hypothesis, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But I don't say that the universe 'came into being'. That is a time-based description. But if you take all of space and all of time together, the whole does NOT 'come into existence. It simply exists.

Also, a great number of physical things happen 'without a cause'. In fact, most quantum level events are 'uncaused' in any reasonable sense. But to call them magic would be a serious abuse of the language.

"But to call them magic would be a serious abuse of the language."

I agree with the above sentence.

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

"hypothesis"

Is the topic of the thread on one's hypothesis, please?

Regards

The topic requires hypothesis to discuss the topic, if you don't realise that then why did you create the OP

FYI
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

There now you know is it ok to continue? please.

 

[Polymath257]

"hypothesis"

Is the topic of the thread on one's hypothesis, please?

Regards

Absolutely. It is all speculation based on what we currently know. Whether the universe can or cannot 'create itself' and even what that might mean depends on exactly how things work. But all we have is our feeble approximations in understanding.

So, yes, definitely, this is all about our hypotheses.

 

[Agnostisch]

The universe is not a creature! The universe may be the result of a physical process. Because the universe is another form of nothingness, the material in the universe has positive energy, gravity has a negative energy (because it only attracts and does not have dissonance, such as the forces of electricity), and the total is zero!!! This is a scientifically acceptable hypothesis supported by empirical evidence!

 

[paarsurrey]

The universe is not a creature! The universe may be the result of a physical process. Because the universe is another form of nothingness, the material in the universe has positive energy, gravity has a negative energy (because it only attracts and does not have dissonance, such as the forces of electricity), and the total is zero!!! This is a scientifically acceptable hypothesis supported by empirical evidence!

"The universe is not a creature"

The natural word "creature" is used for the living things an animal, universe is not a creature but it is created an inanimate thing. Right, please?
Will one like to revisit one's post, please?

Regards

 

[Secret Chief]

I think fiction is more appropriate because really, what facts do we have about the beginning of the universe to speculate on?

Cosmologists have a great deal of facts, it's the putting together into a realistic theoretically consistent model that is the speculative element. I wouldn't call the work of cosmologists and astronomers "fiction".

"The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the validity of the theory are the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law (as indicated by the redshifts of galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by BBN. More recent evidence includes observations of galaxy formation and evolution, and the distribution of large-scale cosmic structures. These are sometimes called the "four pillars" of the Big Bang theory."

- Big Bang - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

Absolutely. It is all speculation based on what we currently know. Whether the universe can or cannot 'create itself' and even what that might mean depends on exactly how things work. But all we have is our feeble approximations in understanding.

So, yes, definitely, this is all about our hypotheses.

< of speculations, hypothesis, feeble approximations>:

In that case, till such time science comes by something concrete, no harm if we benefit from the truthful religion which has no speculations or hypothesis or feeble approximations.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The topic requires hypothesis to discuss the topic, if you don't realise that then why did you create the OP

FYI
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

There now you know is it ok to continue? please.

It was just an innocent question, I proposed no formal scientific hypothesis, please. Right, please?
No harm in continuing and giving one's input please. We are friends. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Secret Chief]

Is the Universe -

1. Space or
2. Space + time?

If it is the former, then you are admitting that time always existed and was never created. This is an inconsistency in your logic as you are unwilling to accept the same principle for space.

If it the latter, then there is no such thing as creation or beginning as this is predicated on the existence of time, thus creating an inconsistency.

In short, your ideas of a 'created universe' fail the test of simple logic.

My (admittedly very limited) understanding is that the universe consists of four dimensions i.e. your option 2.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, why is there something rather than nothing?

However, there is something. We know "something" exists, What compelling reason is there to assume a state of nothing could exist?

It would seem I think if something exists then a state of nothing is an impossibility.

Maybe that side-steps the prior question but as you say it is something we have no answer for.

Even if one were to assume God, God is something. So nobody can get here starting with nothing.

"God is something"

G-d is a Being with attributes, He is not a thing, all things are His creations, He is as I understand from the truthful religious knowledge the Creator. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Cosmologists have a great deal of facts, it's the putting together into a realistic theoretically consistent model that is the speculative element. I wouldn't called the research of cosmologists and astronomers "fiction".

Big Bang - Wikipedia

"Cosmologists have a great deal of facts, it's the putting together into a realistic theoretically consistent model that is the speculative element."

It is work in progress, and a research into "G-d did it or how G-d did it". Right, please?

Regards