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

[gnostic]

I believe in science

No, you don’t believe in science, let alone understand science, especially if you keep saying “Spirit First” motto.

For your nonsensical motto to be true, in the “science” sense, you would need to be able to explain WHAT this Spirit is, and HOW does it work.

And, YOU, were never able to explain it clearly and logically, so there is really no explanation to it. You just repeating this “Spirit First” over and over...over again.

Science not on require the explanation as to the WHAT & HOW, the explanation needed to be TESTED in some ways through OBSERVATIONS, and these can “observation” can happen in 1 of 2 ways...or (ideally) both:

1. through DISCOVERING VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
2. through EXPERIMENTS

When I say or use the word “verifiable”, then I mean there must be multiple evidence. You cannot verify one evidence by itself; there has to be at least 2 evidence, to verify the 1st evidence, but ideally the more evidence you have, the better it is. Verification, refuting, testing, etc, all required QUANTITY of evidence; being able to quantify the number of evidence, will all allow to scientists to make more accurate predictions, through using statistics and probability.

Both observations provide evidence and data that should (A) either verify explanation to be true, (B) or refute the explanation.

And I mention “data” in the above paragraph. Any evidence discovered or detected should provide information of what you can observe (eg recording observations on video or storing them computer storage, etc), measure (eg mass, energy, electrical current, EM frequencies, radioactive decays, etc) or test the evidence (eg .

And YOU, Thief, was never able to provide any form of observable evidence of this “Spirit” of yours that anyone and everyone can verify.

So, essentially, all you have is a meaningless “Spirit” that cannot be explained and observed/tested; hence “Spirit First” isn’t “science”.

What you have, is simply your personal opinion...faith-based personal belief...a superstition of supernatural cause, and supernatural entity that you can’t observe or explain.

“Welcome, everybody, to the wonderful world of Thief’s fantasy.”

 

[Secret Chief]

"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

No.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

For me both the truthful religion and science are useful in their own domains and both clear confusion. In any case they both harm nobody. Right, please?

Regards

 

[osgart]

I am certain that non existence is not the default fundamental condition. Something eternal must simply exist.

I exist. What outside of me caused that existence? The universe! I didn't always exist. So it stands to my reason that that the universe didn't always exist. It emerged from something outside of it.

I don't officiate this existence as fundamental. Granted the universe is all that can be evidenced. But I think logic takes us further. It's just that logic doesn't lead to an Allmighty God.

I have read that zero energy is unstable. That zero energy is not an ultimate nothing. It's a state of energy.

It is interesting that a scientist named Vilenkin said that we must deal with an cosmic ultimate beginning.

So how do we know that there is no underlying natural process that is eternal and simply exists? We don't know!

I do not think religion has ultimate answers. Science does not have ultimate answers. Can we ever know that we truly know something as it truly is?

I believe human experience is actuality. It's not the all of actuality, just a limited scope of it.

I believe cause and effect is fundamental. Uncaused causes are probably unknown causes.

At some point we can see that science could run up to permanent limitations to the scope of its knowledge. But for now Science is in its hey day. There's no telling how far science can go.

These are fun exercises where we can simply say I don't know, or speculate to no productive conclusion.

What is one person's surety and certitude, is another person's realm for further questioning.

 

[paarsurrey]

No.

And one's argument, please.

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

"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

How do you know?

I understand you believe this but how do you know? Did God show you his attributes?

You "believe" something because you know you cannot state it as fact. You can believe this to be true but belief is not fact. I can't really address what you believe since you can't support it.

What I believe is the universe is eternal, that it has always existed in some form or another. By saying it is a belief, this means it is not something I can prove or support any more than what you believe.

So how to answer the question? Neither of us believes the universe started from nothing, right?

So we agree, something can't come from nothing. Is there now a different question?

 

[gnostic]

"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

If you are talking about the “Creator” God of the Abrahamic religions, then we are talking about belief that started around the early to mid-1st millennium BCE Iron Age (probably 8th century at the earliest, but most definitely known by 7th century BCE), that are based on much older Bronze Age (3rd to 2nd millennia BCE) polytheistic creation myths (from Assyrian and Babylonian religions from the east, from Egyptian religion in the southwest, and from Canaanite and Syrian neighbors around them).

There are no evidence of any Abrahamic religions existing prior to the Iron Age.

And much as like to believe it, there are no evidence that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Moses ever living as a real historical figures, they are more like invented mythological characters.

 

[Nakosis]

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".

I wouldn't either

What I'm referring to is stories about why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand,nature and all natural processes are created by G-d, science does not claim that it created them. Right, please?

Regards

Where did you get this understanding that god created all natural processes since there isn't any verifiable evidence for such a claim? All the evidence we have suggests that natural processes occur naturally, with absolutely no interaction from a god required.

Right, please?

 

[Secret Chief]

I wouldn't either

What I'm referring to is stories about why there is something rather than nothing.

Ah, fair enough.

 

[Polymath257]

< 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

On the contrary, science has quite a lot that is 'concrete'. But that doesn't mean that we can get away from speculation as well.

We *know* the universe is expanding. We *know* that if we follow that expansion backwards in time, using the *known* laws (as far as we know them), then you get a very hot, dense early universe. We *know* that the observations we have made of element abundances match the conditions for this early universe. We *know* that the cosmic background radiation cannot have been produced by anything other than a universal hot dense state. We *know* how the various nuclear reactions progress in such conditions.

Are there still speculations? Of course. But we also know quite a bit.

And, once again, I would ask what evidence you have of *any* 'truthful religion'.

 

[Polymath257]

"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

Nope. The 'God hypothesis' simply isn't useful for figuring out any of the details, so it isn't usually even considered to be relevant.

 

[Shad]

Isn't it unreasonable, please?

Regards

Say the one that believes in an uncreated God. Ironic.

 

[Polymath257]

For me both the truthful religion and science are useful in their own domains and both clear confusion. In any case they both harm nobody. Right, please?

Regards

Wrong. Superstition is always harmful. Ignorance is always dangerous. Religion clears no confusions, it only seems to add to them.

 

[Shad]

Yes, it's called the Big Bang.

The BB is not an origin model. It is an expansion model.

 

[icehorse]

"The short answer is "we don't know"."

That is the reason why the clue to it is being debated/discussed in this thread from the truthful religious knowledge which is as or more or the most accurate as is knowledge of science-that has not yet completed its homework and does not claim it even. Right, please?
So,no harm if one gets to know it, please. Right,please?

Regards

Just don't try to compare religion to science. It's okay for you to have "faith" in what your religion says about the universe, but what ANY religion says about the universe is NOT science.

 

[Agnostisch]

"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

I am sorry. I don't speak fluent English.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am certain that non existence is not the default fundamental condition. Something eternal must simply exist.

I exist. What outside of me caused that existence? The universe! I didn't always exist. So it stands to my reason that that the universe didn't always exist. It emerged from something outside of it.

I don't officiate this existence as fundamental. Granted the universe is all that can be evidenced. But I think logic takes us further. It's just that logic doesn't lead to an Allmighty God.

I have read that zero energy is unstable. That zero energy is not an ultimate nothing. It's a state of energy.

It is interesting that a scientist named Vilenkin said that we must deal with an cosmic ultimate beginning.

So how do we know that there is no underlying natural process that is eternal and simply exists? We don't know!

I do not think religion has ultimate answers. Science does not have ultimate answers. Can we ever know that we truly know something as it truly is?

I believe human experience is actuality. It's not the all of actuality, just a limited scope of it.

I believe cause and effect is fundamental. Uncaused causes are probably unknown causes.

At some point we can see that science could run up to permanent limitations to the scope of its knowledge. But for now Science is in its hey day. There's no telling how far science can go.

These are fun exercises where we can simply say I don't know, or speculate to no productive conclusion.

What is one person's surety and certitude, is another person's realm for further questioning.

"I believe cause and effect is fundamental. Uncaused causes are probably unknown causes."

Please elaborate as to how cause and effect is fundamental. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I am sorry. I don't speak fluent English.

It is OK one can revise one's post for us.Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Just don't try to compare religion to science. It's okay for you to have "faith" in what your religion says about the universe, but what ANY religion says about the universe is NOT science.

"what ANY religion says about the universe is NOT science."

I never said that. Did I, please?

Regards