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

[paarsurrey]

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

I agree with one here.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Well, I absolutely don't agree with one, but I respect one's opinion. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I don't get one exactly, please elaborate for us. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Since, the details relate to the domain of science, so it should do its duty.Science is welcome to do it, the truthful religion is not against it as I understand. I know one won't agree with me. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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'.

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

Domain of truthful religious knowledge, as I understand, is different so are its evidences, very naturally. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

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

Domain of truthful religious knowledge, as I understand, is different so are its evidences, very naturally. Right, please?

Regards

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you wrote here. Why do you think there is *any* truthful religious knowledge? or, for that matter, *any* religious knowledge at all?

 

[osgart]

"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

How would a totally uncaused entity exist? Even being eternal the entity would have to interact with other entities.

Like a sphere that simply is and could not interact with other things. I would say that sphere is impossible.

So the question is do things that originate have causes? Right now we don't know if things have origination. The Big Bang was something before the laws of physics took hold.

If things originated then they would have to have causes. In that case the originated thing can't be the cause of itself. So a pre-existing condition is needed.

 

[Thief]

So the universe declared itself into existence...

some believe the universe and it's Creator are as one
the chair you sit on is partly....God

I don't' believe that

Spirit first
Someone had to be First

then substance.....as creation

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

I understand that nature as also the natural processes are created by the Creator G-d, science only discovers them and it does not create them. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thief]

No, you don’t believe in science

when I was sooooooo much younger
Uncle Sam came to my school with a survey test
strict oversee......timed event

my test sore in science came back as …...superior

I was thirteen then

I've gotten a LOT better

 

[Shad]

I don't get one exactly, please elaborate for us. Right, please?

Regards

You believe in an uncaused cause, a prime mover, while you assume the universe isn't.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"Abrahamic Religion/s"
is a term coined by the philosophy people for their own convenience and understanding. Whereas truthful religion always existed with G-d, and He revealed it to all the regions of the world and all the times in the world, as I understand. Right, please?
I know one will differ with me. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

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

I understand it is well described and illustrated in the truthful religious knowledge, there are 99+ attributes of G-d. If the friends and mods here would insist I will quote the relative verses with the verses in the context. There is absolutely no compulsion to agree with them. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.”

" WHAT this Spirit is, and HOW does it work."

Good questions indeed.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You believe in an uncaused cause, a prime mover, while you assume the universe isn't.

I understand I never said it. It is a philosophical notion and I don't use it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thief]

" WHAT this Spirit is, and HOW does it work."

Good questions indeed.
Regards

there you go

the ONLY mystery

 

[paarsurrey]

How would a totally uncaused entity exist? Even being eternal the entity would have to interact with other entities.

Like a sphere that simply is and could not interact with other things. I would say that sphere is impossible.

So the question is do things that originate have causes? Right now we don't know if things have origination. The Big Bang was something before the laws of physics took hold.

If things originated then they would have to have causes. In that case the originated thing can't be the cause of itself. So a pre-existing condition is needed.

Seems to be reasonable to me.

Regards

 

[Shad]

I understand I never said it. It is a philosophical notion and I don't use it. Right, please?

Your OP assume the universe didn't exist at one point thus is not the prime mover. I assume we are having a language barrier issue.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is what I can’t grasp with these nothingness theory fanatics. How do you get existence according to a science fetish.

You might get better responses if you cut out the petty insults and rhetoric (and yes, I know as much comes the other way but that doesn't make it right). If you want a serous discussion about scientific theories and ideas, you need to approach the questions with a more mature approach. If you just want to sling insults with people who happen to believe different things to you, please say so the rest of us can move on.

 

[ChristineM]

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

To answer the OP question requires hypothesis to show that alternatives exist. Unlike some, i try not to make a statement then stomp my foot, as often as i can, and when required i provide third party evidence. Right, please?

We are, Right please!