Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:Did god create itself?

I don't think it makes sense to think that anything can create or give rise to itself, nor do I think that the universe's origins can be explained by going back infinitely through a series of events, ie a big bang preceded by another, and another.

Which of course doesn't leave many options left.

Even if god did create the universe, then either something created god, or god came from nothing. This is not a profound insight, it's mere common sense. You still haven't answered any questions by thinking god did it.

If the universe is not a creation by a conscious creator, then what caused the very first physical event in whatever universe in a multiverse (whatever it may be)? Nothing whatsoever?

Begging the question (again). How do you know there was a "very first physical event"?

I'm not asking you to give a definitive answer. I'm just wondering what your speculation is. You don't really think that something can arise from nothing, do you? The buck has to stop somewhere, not at "nothing".

A couple of possibilities to consider are (let me know if you can think of any others) :

An infinite reprogression of physical events.

FIFY

A conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, eternal, self existent, omniscient being affectionately known as God Almighty.

Any omnipotence can go fuck itself, right?

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:Did god create itself?

I don't think it makes sense to think that anything can create or give rise to itself

We don't have to think anything ever did.

nor do I think that the universe's origins can be explained by going back infinitely through a series of events, ie a big bang preceded by another, and another.

Nobody thinks that. By definition, something that has existed endlessly into the past never came into existence, so didn't have an origin. If there was no origin, no coming into existence, then such a transition from not-existing to existing doesn't need to be caused or explained, because the event did not happen. We don't have to explain how events that never happened were caused.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:
Which of course doesn't leave many options left.

You haven't eliminated any opitions.

You can always just make up a story. How are we the wiser for the old answer 'goddidit'?

What's your explanation of the origin of the universe?

I don't see any reason to think it had one.

Svartalf wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Svartalf wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The BB is the origin of our local universe, not the universe as a whole.

I have no proof as of yet about the existence of parallel universes or of a macro universe of which our one would be only a part.

You also have no proof that our local universe is all there is.

As Laplace might say, let"s not introduce variables we don't need in the system.

Except you are doing exactly that by making the extra assumption that the universe had a beginning.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:Did god create itself?

I don't think it makes sense to think that anything can create or give rise to itself, nor do I think that the universe's origins can be explained by going back infinitely through a series of events, ie a big bang preceded by another, and another.

Which of course doesn't leave many options left.

Even if god did create the universe, then either something created god, or god came from nothing. This is not a profound insight, it's mere common sense. You still haven't answered any questions by thinking god did it.

If the universe is not a creation by a conscious creator, then what caused the very first physical event in whatever universe in a multiverse (whatever it may be)? Nothing whatsoever?

If the dimension of time stretches back a finite amount to a first moment and no further, then the first physical event must be the first transition from the first physical state to the second physical state(from the first to the second moment in time). Such events are caused by the fundamental forces of physics.

If your question is instead concerned withe the universe coming into existence, then it is misplaced, because there is no reason to think the universe was ever not in existence. You can't go back before the first moment of time, as such you can't go back to a time before anything was in existence. As such, it was never the case that the state of affairs was "nothing exists". Since it was never the state of affairs that "nothing exists", then no cause is required to facilitate the coming into existence of something. There was not ever "nothing" in the first place.

You don't really think that something can arise from nothing, do you?

I don't. I also don't believe it is possible to have nothing at all, and then wish really hard and make something appear. I also don't believe in the concept of a mind existing in the absense of a physical brain, or that minds in general can create something without having pre-existing material to work and shape.

But I also don't believe the universe came from nothing. There is no reason to believe that at all.

The buck has to stop somewhere, not at "nothing".

Then it can stop at the first moment of time in the universe's existence, before wich we can't go, because we cannot go further back than the first moment of time.

A couple of possibilities to consider are (let me know if you can think of any others) :

An infinite regression of physical events.
A conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, eternal, self existent, omniscient being affectionately known as God Almighty.

I don't know whether either of these are actually possible in reality. I can certainly imagine them, but I can imagine all sorts of things which might actually be physically impossible. Of course, as I have argued above your suggestions here are not the only options.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

You haven't eliminated any opitions.

You can always just make up a story. How are we the wiser for the old answer 'goddidit'?

What's your explanation of the origin of the universe? You too, spearthrower.

What is it you want, PK? Do you really want to put the question to rest, right now? What should an explanation accomplish? If you can't predict anything with it, what else is it good for? Politics?

Sorry I just thought you had some idea.

Oh look, spearthrower just posted another link that He wants me to read. You know, one of these days I might just go ahead, seeing as He Himself has no arguments or coherent explanations for His positions, just childish insults hurled at people who don't agree with Him.

How might we support a claim to any objective fact without reference to the available evidence? What form of pure argument would you a) find personally acceptable, and b) support itself without evidence?

In other words, all you have accomplished with your statement above is to place conditions on the arguments of others which can never fullfil the requirements you've insisting on. You're now the creator of a fallacy-generating machine - which is nothing to boast about or gloat over.

THWOTH wrote:How might we support a claim to any objective fact without reference to the available evidence? What form of pure argument would you a) find personally acceptable, and b) support itself without evidence?

In other words, all you have accomplished with your statement above is to place conditions on the arguments of others which can never fullfil the requirements you've insisting on. You're now the creator of a fallacy-generating machine - which is nothing to boast about or gloat over.

The reason these sorts of conversations never go anywhere is that citations are not the same thing as evidence, barring a system in place to validate citations, such as peer review. But than, this requires one to be immersed in an academic community that knows the difference between peer-reviewed literature and gray literature. The issue is compounded by the proliferation of what look like academic publications, but amount to self-published ramblings. Only people who know what they're doing can sort out the gold from the tailings. So, these conversations never go anywhere. They're philosophical, about the conditions we shall or shall not place on arguments.

What's your explanation of the origin of the universe?

Yeah, it looks like a question, but it isn't. It's a schoolyard taunt, far from a schoolyard. There is no duty of care to respond to such shit seriously.

"What is this, kindergarten for babies?"

Rumraket wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

I don't think it makes sense to think that anything can create or give rise to itself, nor do I think that the universe's origins can be explained by going back infinitely through a series of events, ie a big bang preceded by another, and another.

Which of course doesn't leave many options left.

Even if god did create the universe, then either something created god, or god came from nothing. This is not a profound insight, it's mere common sense. You still haven't answered any questions by thinking god did it.

If the universe is not a creation by a conscious creator, then what caused the very first physical event in whatever universe in a multiverse (whatever it may be)? Nothing whatsoever?

If the dimension of time stretches back a finite amount to a first moment and no further, then the first physical event must be the first transition from the first physical state to the second physical state(from the first to the second moment in time). Such events are caused by the fundamental forces of physics.

Also, if there is such a thing as an origin in time, t=0, then we have dt to represent some time later. By Heisenberg uncertainty we have dE dt >= h-bar. and the smaller the dt, the larger the dE. Indeed, as dt -> 0, dE -> infinity.

Options for progress include that here is some cosmic censorship in play that precludes such a naked singularity (conformal geometries that stretch out the singularities and squash down the infinities); time does not have an origin (t never has a value of 0 - e.g. by analytic continuation in the complex plane), or something other like multiple timelines, CPT mirrors or stringy spacetimes &c or combinations of the above…

Probably too much wibble there so I’m off back to the snooks for a while…

Right so the universe always existed, for no particular reason. It was just there. That makes a lot of sense.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Right so the universe always existed, for no particular reason. It was just there. That makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps it exists for the same reason the altenative you are so desperate to find a way to conclude does. By necessity of it's own nature? If you can simply define that to be a property of God, we can define that to be a property of the universe.

But you see you're asking a different question now. Rather than try to find out why the universe came into existence out of nothing, which is what you thought this problem was about, you're now asking why something exists at all rather than not existing? Those are not the same problem.

How did something begin to exist from nothing?
Why does something exist rather than not existing?

Answering the first question by pointing out that we don't have to believe that such a transition ever took place, does not answer the second question and it doesn't purport to. We don't know why something exists rather than not existing. It might exist for no reason, because that is the "default state of affairs". Or it might exist because it's existence is necessary, which is the answer theists insist is true about their God. I don't claim to know, and I don't see how anyone could.

But surely, just insisting that God is by definition necessary should impress anyone no more than it should impress them to hear that the universe is defined to be necessary. Either way, it's just a made up definition.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:A conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, eternal, self existent, omniscient being affectionately known as God Almighty.

bar omniscient, the god of the babble may be many things, but omniscient is not one of them, that is illustrated by several passages in OT.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Right so the universe always existed, for no particular reason. It was just there. That makes a lot of sense.

It does make sense. There's nothing logically contradictory or incoherent about it. I would join you in saying that such an answer is unsatisfactory, because we have an intuition that there must be an explanation, an answer to any imaginable question we can pose. But we have to accept that it is possible, at least in principle, that we are wrong in that intuition.

This is not to say that we should stop trying to find answers to our questions. But we also shouldn't rest content with just making up answers, such as simply defining our reasons to be "necessary" just because.

We could always ask the question, why does God have the property of being necessary, rather than not having that property? Now we have a new question for which we can't give an answer. Now God "just has that property, for no particular reason, he just does". Again, there's nothing logically incoherent about that, but it leaves God with fundamentally mysterious and unexplained properties. If we can satisfy ourselves with a fundamentally mysterious God, we can satsify ourselves with a fundamentally myseterious universe. At least we know the universe exists, so what do we need God for anyway?

Double post.

Spearthrower wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Ever heard of a man called 'Job'? Poor fellow has no peers!

So it's not science you're talking about: it's mythology.

I get you.

The story of Job, although shrouded in myth, is actually about a programmed "piece of work to be done" by One particular human brain. The experience has no peers; which leaves Job contending with nothing but ignorant and orthodox ideas about God. Getting to know God as He really is entails such torment for one in the faithful and innocent service of God that Job accuses God of injustice and cruelty. In the end, Job is appeased, but why? No one has given him the answers that he seeks. God has only insisted on His majesty and power... But there is something in God's dialogue that is significant: He tells Job just how academically ignorant a man he really is. Job knows next to nothing about the workings of the universe and world in which he resides i.e., scientific knowledge which is so prevalent. So God invites him to study that world. It is in the study of the physical world that Job learns of God's non-existence. Job becomes appeased because he has learnt of God's contradictory Nature. Job is consequently able to reconcile fundamental Energy/God with mass and the physical universe.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Right so the universe always existed, for no particular reason. It was just there. That makes a lot of sense.

Would it really be so bad if everything existed for no particular reason? All it would mean is that god-botherers are superfluous.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Right so the universe always existed, for no particular reason. It was just there. That makes a lot of sense.

There's a bunch of P45s you could pass around to your colleagues on your way out.

The_Piper wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:

I don't think it makes sense to think that anything can create or give rise to itself, nor do I think that the universe's origins can be explained by going back infinitely through a series of events, ie a big bang preceded by another, and another.

Which of course doesn't leave many options left.

Even if god did create the universe, then either something created god, or god came from nothing. This is not a profound insight, it's mere common sense. You still haven't answered any questions by thinking god did it.

If the universe is not a creation by a conscious creator, then what caused the very first physical event in whatever universe in a multiverse (whatever it may be)? Nothing whatsoever?

I'm not asking you to give a definitive answer. I'm just wondering what your speculation is. You don't really think that something can arise from nothing, do you? The buck has to stop somewhere, not at "nothing".

A couple of possibilities to consider are (let me know if you can think of any others) :

An infinite regression of physical events.
A conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, eternal, self existent, omniscient being affectionately known as God Almighty.

Well I'm flattered that you want to know my speculation on the origin of the universe. Unfortunately, I don't have anything worthwhile about that. I don't have any suspicion, or a favored explanation, either. I do know that postulating that god created the universe is an unsatisfactory explanation, because then you ought to show that god exists, and figure out where that god came from. It's making the subject much more complicated. There's no credible evidence for a being somehow large and powerful enough to create the universe. Did he use a hammer and nails? Did he recite some magic words?
If you don't believe that something can arise from nothing, then how the fuck can you believe in god? What did god come from? Is he made of regular matter? Why the hell should I believe that a god made the universe?

Prove how something can come from nothing.

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:Prove how something can come from nothing.

Well if it can't then God making that transpire is out the question, isn't it?

Do you even abide by that same standard you are demanding of him? Can you prove that God can create something out of nothing?