First cause of the universe.

[Polymath257]

It doesn't become part of the universe. It merely explains how we experience it in this universe.

When it is part of the geometry of the universe, it does become a part of the universe. Neither space nor time alone is enough any longer: spacetime is the baseline geometry.

In other words, in cosmology, the universe consists of all space *and* all time, which means all matter and all energy as well.

it has nothing to do specifically with our experiences: we cannot experience millions of years, nor can we experience a nanosecond. Yet both periods of time exist and can be measured.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one has demonstrated that we know why things work different on the quantum level.

Correct.

Is this an implied fallacy from ignorance - what we don't know is evidence for what some believe by faith? We'd like to understand why, but such answers may be elusive or unobtainable, which fact doesn't support alternative hypotheses for which there also are no answers. Inserting a deity adds nothing to any scientific law or theory. It's just not a useful idea for describing or predicting anything, so science has no gods.

it's crazy how people on here keep claiming knowledge they don't have... instead they try to pretend their theories are fact.

That's just you.

I gave you a list of four logically possible candidates for the answer to why the universe is here (see below), and said that none of these can be ruled in or out at this time, if ever. The universe:

I. Has no cause

1. It has always existed
2. It came into existence uncaused

II. Has a prior cause

1. It is conscious (a deity)
2. It is an unconscious substance (multiverse)

You have pared that down to

The universe:

II. Has a prior cause

1. It is conscious (a deity)

That's claiming knowledge you don't have.

Actually I don't. It's [God] just as much a possible explanation as other theories but somehow it can't be included

Are you reading what is written to you? Deities are on my list.

Once again, you are accusing others of doing what you do. Where are the other logical possibilities on your list? Why aren't they included? How did you exclude them except by waving a hand and dismissing them by faith?

The multiverse (if it exists) certainly doesn’t explain the universe. It just makes more universes in need of an explanation.

Then you don't understand the hypothesis.

The fine tuning of planet earth and the universe is also evidence for a being behind the curtain

The fine tuning objection is answered by the multiverse hypothesis, a multiverse being a hypothetical, unconscious substance and source of universes of every possibility including ones like ours that allow matter, life, and mind to evolve over billions of years.

Furthermore, the fine tuning argument is an argument against an omnipotent deity. Why would a god need to finely tune the laws of nature unless it was being restricted by some other laws beyond its control and to which it is subject? Where did the laws that constrain a deity to fine tune the laws of nature come from? If the laws of nature could only be one kind of way to permit life, then this god didn't actually design anything. It discovered and followed a set of instructions it didn't write.

The extreme complexity of our own DNA is evidence for a creative designer

Complexity is not an argument for intelligence. The intelligent design movement understood that, which is why they identified irreducible and specified complexity as indicators of intelligent design, not unqualified complexity.

This is more of the incredulity fallacy. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the evolution of simple chemicals into life which you reject because you say you just can't see how that can be correct. Others can.

So I guess you weren't interested in my suggestion that you switch from arguing like you have logical and scientific reasons for your belief to what is actually the case: the god hypothesis just feels right to you by intuition, and you're sticking with it. Who's going to argue with that? The approach you've chosen commits you to this path of arguing as if you had reasoned, evidenced argument for God, one in which just about everything you post is rebutted. You owe it to yourself to notice that and get out of these kinds of discussions that do nothing for you or your case, but lead to unending contradiction and contention for you with no wins. You can make that stop. You can change that simply by recognizing that your belief is faith-based.

 

[Polymath257]

No one has demonstrated that we know why things work different on the quantum level. If there's some secret knowledge or handshake you need to understand that, they need to tell us laymen about it.

have you stopped to question what you expect out of the 'why' question? You are *assuming* a type of causality that probably simply does not exist.

The most fundamental laws *cannot* be explained further. That is clear: any explanation would be in terms of more fundamental laws.

So, to ask 'why' fundamental laws act the way they do guarantees there will be no explanation because there *cannot be any explanation*. The most fundamental laws simply act the way they do because that is how they act: there is nothing deeper.

Now, it is possible hat the laws of quantum mechanics are not the most fundamental laws and that they *do* have deeper explanations. But even in that case, those deeper laws will not *negate* those of quantum mechanics: they will extend them. The lack of causality inherent within QM is not likely to be eliminated.

The universe is not a deterministic system. It is a probabilistic system. Causality simply doesn't work in the ways you expect.

 

[Polymath257]

Kinda like what we have been given about quantum physics? Oh, right we haven't even been given that...

Oh, absolutely QM is falsifiable. It has been tested and re-tested in many different cases and many different variations over the past century.

We have *very* definite mathematical proposals that give precise predictions about many phenomena that have been verified in precision in the labs. Some of the mathematical predictions match the observed values to 13 decimal points.

QM explains a great many things, from chemistry, to the theory of solids, to how matter and light interact. it explains how atoms bond into molecules. it explains how the sun obtains its energy (again, in detail).

Nothing that religion gives comes anywhere close to the precision and degree of testability of QM. Look at *any* physics textbook in QM and you will see experiment after experiment detailed and how the QM prediction was counter-intuitive, but ultimately correct. THAT is falsifiability.

 

[Polymath257]

If the current theories are incorrect, it's up for grabs... it's crazy how people on here keep claiming knowledge they don't have... instead they try to pretend their theories are fact.

There are facts that we have. They have been tested repeatedly and verified. There are also edges where we have not yet tested or verified.

The vast majority of QM is in the well-tested category. In particular, Aspects experiment eliminating local hidden variables has been repeated multiple times in a variety of ways and QM always predicts the correct results, even when they are counter-intuitive.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually I don't. It's just as much a possible explanation as other theories but somehow it can't be included, even though all but about 4 percent of the population believe it's the best explanation.
Weird.

No, it is NOT 'a possible explanation' because it isn't an explanation at all. It is far too vague to be an actual explanation, it isn't testable in any fashion, it isn't based on known results or observations.

Here is a test: is there any observation that could be made that would show your 'explanation' is wrong. In the case where it is wrong, how could we tell?

if you cannot answer *that*, then you don't have an explanation. You only have word salad.

 

[Polymath257]

The existence of the universe is not well explained on atheism. It’s really not explained at all.
The multiverse (if it exists) certainly doesn’t explain the universe. It just makes more universes in need of an explanation.

Except that is describes the process by which universes are formed. That *is* an explanation.

The universe is a contingent entity, filled with contingent entities. Historically, God been seen as a necessary being that would account for the contingency of the universe.

Sorry, but that is very outmoded philosophy that should be done away with. What does it even mean to be 'contingent'? how about 'necessary'? how do you know the universe is contingent? how do you know there is a necessary being? How do you know that necessary being (assuming it exists) has the power to create universes?

The problem is that 'contingent existence' and 'necessary existence' are a false dichotomy. There is only 'existence'. And in existence, there are occasionally causes. Those causes *change* things, but rarely bring new things into existence (they rearrange what is already there). So the whole notion of contingency is blind alley that philosophy went down and some remain in.

Science would be nonsensical if the universe did not operate by certain laws... but why do these laws exist? Why is there order instead of total chaos? A designer would account for this.

How, in detail, would a designer do that? How would a designer even exist if there is nothing but chaos? By what laws does the designer create? Through what processes does the designer but the design into action?

You see, even the designer has to obey certain rules of behavior and those rules are 'natural laws'. otherwise the designer would also be chaos.

So, in the end, a designer explains absolutely nothing. It simply adds another step in the explanation.

The fine tuning of planet earth and the universe is also evidence for a being behind the curtain
The extreme complexity of our own DNA is evidence for a creative designer also...to suppose that happened accidentally is ridiculous.

Fine tuning is dependent on the constants potentially being a different value. But we don't know if that is even possible. it certainly does not point to anything as complicated as a mind that set things in motion.

DNA is a molecule. It obeys natural laws, just like everything else. Again, this does not point to anything outside of those physical laws.

The beauty of the universe is also evidence. There's no reason it has to be this way... unless Someone created it deliberately. Billions of people throughout history have experienced God personally. Ignoring all their stories is biased to the extreme and actually quite arrogant of the 4 percenters.

Actually, *we* find it beautiful because we evolved here and so the Earth matches our needs.The vast majority of the universe is quite inhospitable to our life.

Billions of people in history have been wrong about a great many things. At one time, people thought lightning as a thunderbolt from some deity. Now, we know better. And, as we learn, the things that *can* be attributed to a deity get fewer and fewer, It's almost like no deities are required to understand the universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope.
Time is as much part of the universe as space itself is.

That is your belief, and not a fact..
..unless of course, as I say, you define it as such.

If you wish to define 'time' as part of the universe [ as you seem to ]. then we are referring to different things.
Time can pass at different rates, depending on a frame of reference. That should give you a clue that 'time' is purely a phenomena which we experience, but does not define it.

The concept of existence does not need any reference to this universe in terms of motion etc. yet you claim that it does in effect.

 

[Polymath257]

That is your belief, and not a fact..
..unless of course, as I say, you define it as such.

No, it goes much farther than that. The best description of gravity and the universe, one that has been tested in multiple ways and shows itself to be accurate even when intuition is wrong, that description has time as part of the universe.

If you wish to define 'time' as part of the universe [ as you seem to ]. then we are referring to different things.
Time can pass at different rates, depending on a frame of reference. That should give you a clue that 'time' is purely a phenomena which we experience, but does not define it.

Actually, that is part of how we know that time is part of the universe. This is what leads to the notion of the fabric of spacetime: you see, while time 'passes' at different rates in different reference frames, the spacetime geometry stays the same in all reference frames. THAT is what gives that geometry the status of fact and makes time part of the universe.

The concept of existence does not need any reference to this universe in terms of motion etc. yet you claim that it does in effect.

I don't even know how to parse that sentence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is your belief, and not a fact..
..unless of course, as I say, you define it as such.

No. Models of physics that describe and explain physical phenomenon, state that.
Models that have been tested to hell and back. Like relativity.

This is not some "arbitrary definition".
These are the findings / conclusions of scientific inquiry.

If you wish to define 'time' as part of the universe [ as you seem to ].

Again, no.... "i" don't define time as such. Instead, models of physics posit it as such.

Time can pass at different rates, depending on a frame of reference. That should give you a clue that 'time' is purely a phenomena which we experience, but does not define it.

The only reason we know about the relativity of time, is because of tried and tested models of physics
Models that explain what time is.

Again: not some arbitrary definition. Instead, discoveries and conclusion resulting from scientific inquiry and experiment.

The concept of existence does not need any reference to this universe in terms of motion etc. yet you claim that it does in effect.

We are not talking about the concept of existence.
We are talking about "time".

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are not talking about the concept of existence.
We are talking about "time".

@RestlessSoul says "..any point at which the universe did not exist, would be a point beyond or without time and space"

I don't agree. This is a conclusion deriving from a mathematical extrapolation, that says that 'time' can only exist [or make sense] within the universe.

..so does the concept of time only exist within the universe?
Shut your eyes .. do you cease to exist because you cannot detect motion?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Except that is describes the process by which universes are formed. That *is* an explanation

I have not seen any such explanation given. More universes isn't an explanation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The problem is that 'contingent existence' and 'necessary existence' are a false dichotomy. There is only 'existence'.

Why? And how? No one has answered the real questions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You see, even the designer has to obey certain rules of behavior and those rules are 'natural laws'. otherwise the designer would also be chaos.

Not if the designer has no limits. Infinite power means he can create the rules and not be bound by them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not seen any such explanation given. More universes isn't an explanation.

Explanation for what? Many universes appears to be a consequence of the math of various areas of science. Quantum mechanics math is very hard, and to many very weird. . It makes predictions that go against "common sense". But every time those weird anit-common sense prediction were tested they were found to be correct.

Eventually scientists realized that quite often "common sense" is really just "common prejudice". Common sense is not an explanation either and far too often it is wrong. The many universe theory is a result of applying the scientific method. You could even say that it is common sense

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? And how? No one has answered the real questions.

What are the "real questions". If you mean "is there a God or not" that is unanswered. But one would have to add, there does not appear to be a good reason for that belief.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Billions of people in history have been wrong about a great many things. At one time, people thought lightning as a thunderbolt from some deity. Now, we know better. And, as we learn, the things that *can* be attributed to a deity get fewer and fewer, It's almost like no deities are required to understand the universe.

Just the opposite. The more we think we know the more we don't understand. As evidenced by your total lack of answers to the actual questions.

 

[Polymath257]

I have not seen any such explanation given. More universes isn't an explanation.

Maybe you haven't read the relevant scientific articles?

 

[Polymath257]

Not if the designer has no limits. Infinite power means he can create the rules and not be bound by them.

Explaining something by claiming there are no rules for something else is no explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

Just the opposite. The more we think we know the more we don't understand. As evidenced by your total lack of answers to the actual questions.

Amazing you can use your computer, cell phone, or other services that rely on our understanding.