The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[EatingPie]

Everything that has ever been observed to begin to exist has a cause, without exception, and you regard this as an inadequate sample group? Really?
I think the rational thing to say is that the sample group may be regarded as adequate when it consists of everything that might be observed to exist or conceivably exist.
At the very least the assertion can be said to bear the weight of all of the available evidence and is therefore vastly more plausibly true than the alternative which would leave us wondering why all manner of things don't just 'pop' into existence all over the show.

The Big Bang theorizes matter always existed... and then Bang! Or 'pop', which is far less spectacular.

Again you can be all hand wavy and vague here but your contention has been tossed around before and the weight of the evidence is against you: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Alex Vilenkin
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

I can be hand wavy, as the onus is not on me to show the Kalam argument holds up.

Now, for Vilenkin -- he states that disorder increases with time, and thus as the number of big-bangs increases, the newer universes become more disordered. This is hardly a conclusive argument against infinite big-bangs, as the laws of physics may be different after each big bang. [Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean] and [Before the Big Bang there was another universe and a new one will emerge after ours collapses].

Note that these articles, are dated 2015 and 2016. And others I've read, equally recent, posit a single, infinite universe.

Now, I am not here to argue physics. I am just illustrating that the Cosmological argument in itself is problematic. I do not see it as "powerful" because modern science remeains uncertain about the "creation" (or lack thereof) of the Universe.

If I was with someone who believed the Universe had a specific, singular beginning, then I would have no problem using it. But in general I see it leading down a rabbit hole of "battling theories" -- as we've started here -- to the point that we would never get to discussing plausible evidence for the existence of an Infinite, Loving God.

-Pie

 

[Anguspure]

,

The Big Bang theorizes matter always existed... and then Bang! Or 'pop', which is far less spectacular.

Your assessment of the "Big Bang" fails at the singularity, which, BTW, does not consist of matter.

I can be hand wavy, as the onus is not on me to show the Kalam argument holds up.

Hand wavy is dismissive and arrogant. Not to be taken seriously.

Now, for Vilenkin -- he states that disorder increases with time, and thus as the number of big-bangs increases, the newer universes become more disordered. This is hardly a conclusive argument against infinite big-bangs, as the laws of physics may be different after each big bang. [Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean] and [Before the Big Bang there was another universe and a new one will emerge after ours collapses].

Note that these articles, are dated 2015 and 2016. And others I've read, equally recent, posit a single, infinite universe.

Now, I am not here to argue physics. I am just illustrating that the Cosmological argument in itself is problematic. I do not see it as "powerful" because modern science remeains uncertain about the "creation" (or lack thereof) of the Universe.

If I was with someone who believed the Universe had a specific, singular beginning, then I would have no problem using it. But in general I see it leading down a rabbit hole of "battling theories" -- as we've started here -- to the point that we would never get to discussing plausible evidence for the existence of an Infinite, Loving God.

-Pie

So you posit an actual infinite regression of past events? This is an absurdity. Positing different laws of physics is not science but creative thinking to avoid a Creator.
"Modern Science" (or some of it, at least) continues to be "uncertain" about a beginning precisely because a beginning requires a metaphysical creation event which is against the "Modern Science" dogma of materialism. Nevertheless all of the available evidence points towards a beginning.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

One of my favorite arguments has always been the Kalam cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Some may know of it, some may not, but it's a simple argument that when combined with others... can be quite powerful to make a case for the existence of God.

Premise 2 is a problem. How do you know the universe began to exist?

 

[Anguspure]

Premise 2 is a problem. How do you know the universe began to exist?

Cosmic expansion: For over 80 years the work of Friedman and Lemaitre has stood through a period of enormous advances in observational astronomy and creative theoretical work in astrophysics. During this time the field of Cosmology has produced failed attempt after failed attempt to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the standard big bang model and yet the model still stands.

This parade of failed theories in themselves provide confirmation of the model but also the more recent Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem adds powerful proof of the prediction of a beginning.

The fact that new theories have been proposed even more recently from the fertile imaginations of theorists is predictable and welcome, however we have no reason to think that they'll be any more successful than their failed predecessors.

It is very clear as to the trajectory of the evidence which confirms that there is no problem with premise 2. (with apologies W. Lane-Craig)

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.
With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. Alexander Vilenkin 2006

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@Anguspure - you are really rocking this thread

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Cosmic expansion: For over 80 years the work of Friedman and Lemaitre has stood through a period of enormous advances in observational astronomy and creative theoretical work in astrophysics. During this time the field of Cosmology has produced failed attempt after failed attempt to avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the standard big bang model and yet the model still stands.

This parade of failed theories in themselves provide confirmation of the model but also the more recent Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem adds powerful proof of the prediction of a beginning.

The fact that new theories have been proposed even more recently from the fertile imaginations of theorists is predictable and welcome, however we have no reason to think that they'll be any more successful than their failed predecessors.

It is very clear as to the trajectory of the evidence which confirms that there is no problem with premise 2. (with apologies W. Lane-Craig)
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. Alexander Vilenkin 2006

I still doubt premise 2. How do you know the universe didn't always exist? To prove premise 2 one must prove nothing existed before something existed. But nothing is not proven to be a real-world possibility. At the quantum level virtual particles pop into existence in a vacuum (nothing) and this could be the nothing that was something before our universe exploded into existence. Even theologically it's difficult to conceive of: nothing-->something. Did the universe begin to exist? Or did God always have it ready for creating within? Was there really nothing before God created something?

 

[jasonwrites]

In Genesis 1, it's difficult to determine if God is creating everything out of nothing. It starts with saying "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" but then goes on in the next verse to say that "the earth was formless and void" and the spirit of God was "over the waters." Only then does God say "let there be light," which is the moment usually equated with the Big Bang. But in this account, before the light, there is something-- both earth and waters, even if "formless and void."
It's problematic when you start trying to intellectually dissect this-- so this formless "earth" and "water" co-existed with God outside of time and His creation is actually forming a universe out of materials that are already there? Hmmm... but then, where did these raw, formless materials come from? Did they always exist in that same plane of timeless existence as God?
Practically thinking, just like all ancient creation stories, the Israelites most likely just did not conceive of literal "nothingness." It's difficult enough in a modern mindset; I would postulate that in a pre-scientific world, simply, "nothing" was not something people thought of; the idea of "formless void" (and I admit, I do not know the original Hebrew words and what their most accurate meaning is) was as close as they had to a concept of "nothing." The Greeks termed this indefinable pre-existence as Chaos.

 

[Anguspure]

I still doubt premise 2. How do you know the universe didn't always exist?

The alternative (a universe that always existed) posits an actual infinite series of past events, which for at least a couple of reasons is an actual absurdity. This fact was recognized in the 12th century and it amazes me that it remains a difficult concept for thinkers a few years down the track, mathematical flat earthers perhaps, Hilberts Hotel anybody?

To prove premise 2 one must prove nothing existed before something existed. But nothing is not proven to be a real-world possibility.

To show that premise 2 is plausible there needs to be no universe, and then a universe because the premise simply states that the universe has a beginning. Of course something must exist to cause the universe to exist, because nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.

The something that is proposed, in premise 3, is a cause.

At the quantum level virtual particles pop into existence in a vacuum (nothing) and this could be the nothing that was something before our universe exploded into existence. Even theologically it's difficult to conceive of: nothing-->something. Did the universe begin to exist?

Nothing means no thing which is the absence of anything at all. Therefore something called the Quantum Vacuum fails to be no thing, rather it is something.

Perhaps to avoid confusion we should avoid leaping straight to God when discussing the KCA. The argument itself does not leap to say that God did it, rather it simply states that the universe, that began to exist, has a cause.

It is subsequent to the establishment of the premise that the universe has a cause, that the cause might be identified.

The cause must transcend space time and therefore must be timeless, immaterial, non-physical and unimaginably powerful, and, as we shall see below, personal.

Or did God always have it ready for creating within? Was there really nothing before God created something?

This is one of a couple of reasons that the uncaused cause must be a personal being.

The problem is that if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. W. Lane-Craig uses the analogy of water. If the temperature has always been below the freezing point of water, then any water present would have always been frozen, from eternity.

"Now the cause of the universe is permanent, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 13.7 billion years ago? Why isn't it as permanent as its cause?
Ghazali maintained that the answer must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act that is independent of any prior conditions. So His act of creating can be spontaneous and new. Thus we're brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator" W. Lane-Craig

A Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[Anguspure]

In Genesis 1, it's difficult to determine if God is creating everything out of nothing. It starts with saying "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" but then goes on in the next verse to say that "the earth was formless and void" and the spirit of God was "over the waters." Only then does God say "let there be light," which is the moment usually equated with the Big Bang. But in this account, before the light, there is something-- both earth and waters, even if "formless and void."
It's problematic when you start trying to intellectually dissect this-- so this formless "earth" and "water" co-existed with God outside of time and His creation is actually forming a universe out of materials that are already there? Hmmm... but then, where did these raw, formless materials come from? Did they always exist in that same plane of timeless existence as God?
Practically thinking, just like all ancient creation stories, the Israelites most likely just did not conceive of literal "nothingness." It's difficult enough in a modern mindset; I would postulate that in a pre-scientific world, simply, "nothing" was not something people thought of; the idea of "formless void" (and I admit, I do not know the original Hebrew words and what their most accurate meaning is) was as close as they had to a concept of "nothing." The Greeks termed this indefinable pre-existence as Chaos.

None of this has any effect on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument comes from philosophy and science, and simply posits a cause. The existence of a philosophical God can be inferred subsequently from the necessary properties of the cause.
Whether or not this God is the God of Abraham, or whether things happened as appears to be described in Genesis should be a later discussion that might be held after the collective evidence for the philosophical God is established.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The alternative (a universe that always existed) posits an actual infinite series of past events, which for at least a couple of reasons is an actual absurdity.

What are those reasons?

The something that is proposed, in premise 3, is a cause.

But I am asking, how can we prove nothing preceded something? We can't because nothing is a concept and not a reality, instead, even in quantum vacuums there still appears something.

Nothing means no thing which is the absence of anything at all. Therefore something called the Quantum Vacuum fails to be no thing, rather it is something.

So you are arguing that something existed before the universe, the cause of the universe. But I want to know how you make the distinction between the cause of the universe and the universe itself? Why aren't they one and the same thing?

The cause must transcend space time

Why?

immaterial,

Why?

non-physical and unimaginably powerful

Why?

Ghazali maintained that the answer must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will.

Maintaining something doesn't show why it is true. I see no logic whatsoever in this claim.

 

[jasonwrites]

None of this has any effect on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument comes from philosophy and science, and simply posits a cause. The existence of a philosophical God can be inferred subsequently from the necessary properties of the cause.
Whether or not this God is the God of Abraham, or whether things happened as appears to be described in Genesis should be a later discussion that might be held after the collective evidence for the philosophical God is established.

While I concede that the KCA only requires a cause for the universe to exist, the OP was asking about its validity as evidence for God. The thread seems to have transformed into a discussion about how something is created from nothing, and whether or not such spontaneous creation is the result of an Uncaused Cause.

 

[Anguspure]

What are those reasons?

a. Actual infinities do not exist and any attempt to posit them results in the sort of thing that is demonstrated by Hilbert's Hotel : nrich.maths.org
b. It is not possible to pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time.

So you are arguing that something existed before the universe, the cause of the universe. But I want to know how you make the distinction between the cause of the universe and the universe itself? Why aren't they one and the same thing?Why?Why?Why?

On the grounds that because an actual infinite series of past events cannot exist, the cause must be timeless. The universe is clearly not timeless, therefore it cannot be the cause, and it must be a distinct thing from the cause.
The universe might yet be eternal and still have a reason for its existence (Leibniz Cosmological Argument), but this is not where the evidence leads. The evidence leads us to see that the universe had a beginning and thus is caused.

On the same grounds that you would no doubt use to question my rational if I was to suggest that the cause of a motor car could be found in the componentry and software of the car itself.
Clearly the cause of the motor car must be transcendent (be outside and have existed at a point before the motor car was built), immaterial (not be a part of the same piece of material that the motor car is made of), non-physical (not need to be a part of the operating software of the motor car) and powerful (possessed of sufficient resources to have caused the motor car).

Maintaining something doesn't show why it is true. I see no logic whatsoever in this claim.

.....His creating the universe is a free act that is independent of any prior conditions. So His act of creating can be spontaneous and new......The maintaining something for that reasons that were given above makes something plausible.
If something simply exists (an uncaused thing) by the necessity of its own nature, what reason could there be for it to change?
The logic is clear the only reason anything that does not need to change (such as the uncaused cause that is not acted upon by any external condition), could change, would be as a chosen freewill action.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

a. Actual infinities do not exist and any attempt to posit them results in the sort of thing that is demonstrated by Hilbert's Hotel : nrich.maths.org

This is not a reason. We encounter infinity in the real world all the time in infinite situations. Just one example is zeno's paradox. I can find problems with zero in the real world as well. e.g. We can't divide my phone into zero parts. But just because I can find anomalies does not mean I it's impossible for me to own zero Ferrari's.

b. It is not possible to pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time.

As above. Zeno's paradox.

On the grounds that because an actual infinite series of past events cannot exist, the cause must be timeless. The universe is clearly not timeless, therefore it cannot be the cause, and it must be a distinct thing from the cause.
The universe might yet be eternal and still have a reason for its existence (Leibniz Cosmological Argument), but this is not where the evidence leads. The evidence leads us to see that the universe had a beginning and thus is caused.

On the same grounds that you would no doubt use to question my rational if I was to suggest that the cause of a motor car could be found in the componentry and software of the car itself.
Clearly the cause of the motor car must be transcendent (be outside and have existed at a point before the motor car was built), immaterial (not be a part of the same piece of material that the motor car is made of), non-physical (not need to be a part of the operating software of the motor car) and powerful (possessed of sufficient resources to have caused the motor car).

Okay so the whole argument leans on "infinite absurdities" refuting an infinite universe. But the absurdity of the universe existing forever is exactly as absurd as Zeno's paradox; which is exactly as absurd as limits in Calculus; which is exactly as absurd as 0.999...=1.

.....His creating the universe is a free act that is independent of any prior conditions. So His act of creating can be spontaneous and new......The maintaining something for that reasons that were given above makes something plausible.
If something simply exists (an uncaused thing) by the necessity of its own nature, what reason could there be for it to change?
The logic is clear the only reason anything that does not need to change (such as the uncaused cause that is not acted upon by any external condition), could change, would be as a chosen freewill action.

The law of conservation of energy plus momentum.

 

[Anguspure]

This is not a reason. We encounter infinity in the real world all the time in infinite situations. Just one example is zeno's paradox.

Zeno's paradox is not real world, none of his paradoxes are real world. Zeno's Paradoxes are simply an interesting mix of mathematics and philosophy and do not reflect actual situations.

Okay the whole argument leans on "infinite absurdities" refuting an infinite universe. But the absurdity of the universe existing forever is exactly as absurd as Zeno's paradox; which is exactly as absurd as limits in Calculus; which is exactly as absurd as 0.999...=1.

Only the part of the argument I have been contending for with you.
Just as when Diogenes the Cynic simply stood up, walked around, and sat back down again, after hearing the paradoxes; there is more than enough physical evidence to posit a beginning of the universe without mentioning the absurdity of an eternal one.

The law of conservation of energy plus momentum.

Momentum would require space time. Momentum in what? The uncaused cause, the unmoved mover created space time itself.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Zeno's paradox is not real world, none of his paradoxes are real world. Zeno's Paradoxes are simply an interesting mix of mathematics and philosophy and do not reflect actual situations.

Calculus, which is the backbone of engineering, relies on Zeno's paradox for finding limits; approximations that are perfect. It is 100% real world. We live in a world where mathematical absurdities are normal.

there is more than enough physical evidence to posit a beginning of the universe without mentioning the absurdity of an eternal one.

An eternal universe is no more absurd than a universe with a beginning. They are of equal absurdity. How do you define "beginning" of the universe? And what physical evidence is there? Because as I understand, the big bang did not begin the universe. There was a singularity in existence preceding this, and the singularity is not well understood. It could be possible that the singularity existed eternally, or that it had a beginning. We don't know. That's the point (no pun intended). And that's why this argument doesn't hold IMO.

Momentum would require space time. Momentum in what?

Whatever was happening at the quantum level that kick started the big bang.

 

[Anguspure]

Calculus, which is the backbone of engineering, relies on Zeno's paradox for finding limits; approximations that are perfect. It is 100% real world. We live in a world where mathematical absurdities are normal.

Not really, the nuance is a little bit finer than that.
Infinity when used in Calculus is one of a group of numbers in mathematics (zero, negative, irrational, imaginary and complex numbers) that, although being very useful tools for describing the world in abstract, maybe referred to as (very) "useful fictions".

For example 0 (signifying no-thing) is foundational to mathematics, and the computer I am working on now wouldn't operate without it, and yet as you noted earlier:

nothing is a concept and not a reality, instead, even in quantum vacuums there still appears something.

, the set of 0 things does not really exist in the real world.

To go further; it "is not that the existence of an actually infinite number of things involves a logical contradiction but that it is really impossible. To give an analogy, the claim that something came into existence from nothing isn't logically contradictory, but nonetheless it's really impossible" (W. Lane-Craig)

An eternal universe is no more absurd than a universe with a beginning. They are of equal absurdity.

In so far as logic is concerned, neither concept is absurd. However in terms of reality; nobody has ever observed an infinite number of things. But things that begin to exist and causes are readily and repeatedly observed in day to day life. On this basis alone it would be reasonable to make a distinction between the 2 possibilities.

How do you define "beginning" of the universe?

The point at which the universe (in the broadest sense, including the possibility of multi-verses and alternative models to the standard model) began to exist.

And what physical evidence is there?

Cosmic expansion.

Because as I understand, the big bang did not begin the universe. There was a singularity in existence preceding this, and the singularity is not well understood. It could be possible that the singularity existed eternally, or that it had a beginning. We don't know. That's the point (no pun intended). And that's why this argument doesn't hold IMO.

Good pun anyway. Perhaps you are correct, however the paper Inflationary Spacetimes Are Not Past-Ccomplete by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin (2003) shows a proof that irrespective of these problems there is a boundary condition for any model that shows an averaged expansion condition for any given spacetime region in a finite proper time.

Whatever was happening at the quantum level that kick started the big bang.

An immaterial, non-physical, powerful.....person?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

In so far as logic is concerned, neither concept is absurd. However in terms of reality; nobody has ever observed an infinite number of things.

Neither have they observed nothing. But I move through an infinite "half intervals" with every movement. I also own zero cows. If I point to the sky I could continue in that direction infinitely. Are you really trying to argue than nothing is less absurd than infinity?

The point at which the universe (in the broadest sense, including the possibility of multi-verses and alternative models to the standard model) began to exist.

So you are arguing that it is more likely there is literally a "point" when the universe began out of nothing, than it is for the the total energy in the system to remain constant with perpetual quantum momentum? I see these as equally absurd and equally likely.

Furthermore, you have to posit a cause for this universe. But how is that cause distinct from the universe?

Cosmic expansion.

And what existed before the cosmic expansion? Because it wasn't nothing.

Inflationary Spacetimes Are Not Past-Ccomplete by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin (2003)

Stephen Hawking argues against this proposal. He argues time can be finite without a boundary condition (using a sphere to show that the surface area is finite, but there is no beginning or ending boundaries). Hawking argues that asking what was before the universe, makes no sense because time was not a dimension. The criticism of Hawking is you must accept imaginary numbers as able to represent time. I see imaginary numbers are as real as infinity and zero; they are useful tools in the real world.

Important to our discussion is that it is not a clear cut "beginning boundary" but at that supposed boundary, there are more options than just: Uncaused-cause --> Universe

An immaterial, non-physical, powerful.....person?

Do you believe the quantum fluctuations are God?

 

[anonymous person]

Neither have they observed nothing. But I move through an infinite "half intervals" with every movement. I also own zero cows. If I point to the sky I could continue in that direction infinitely. Are you really trying to argue than nothing is less absurd than infinity?



So you are arguing that it is more likely there is literally a "point" when the universe began out of nothing, than it is for the the total energy in the system to remain constant with perpetual quantum momentum? I see these as equally absurd and equally likely.

Furthermore, you have to posit a cause for this universe. But how is that cause distinct from the universe?



And what existed before the cosmic expansion? Because it wasn't nothing.



Stephen Hawking argues against this proposal. He argues time can be finite without a boundary condition (using a sphere to show that the surface area is finite, but there is no beginning or ending boundaries). Hawking argues that asking what was before the universe, makes no sense because time was not a dimension. The criticism of Hawking is you must accept imaginary numbers as able to represent time. I see imaginary numbers are as real as infinity and zero; they are useful tools in the real world.

Important to our discussion is that it is not a clear cut "beginning boundary" but at that supposed boundary, there are more options than just: Uncaused-cause --> Universe



Do you believe the quantum fluctuations are God?

There are all sorts of alternatives out there that people appeal to as a cause of the universe. Dan Dennet for example favors the view that the universe created itself. Now this is a man who has published several books and is an outspoken naturalist. Other alternatives out there fare little better.

I think such alternatives are indicative of the lengths people will go to to avoid having to come to terms with the theological implications of a cosmic beginning.

The question is, which hypothesis has the greatest explanatory scope, is least ad hoc, accords more with accepted beliefs and boasts the most support?

Any appeal to quantum fluctuations is an appeal to natural processes occuring within the universe and thus cannot account for the coming into being of the universe.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Any appeal to quantum fluctuations is an appeal to natural processes occurring within the universe and thus cannot account for the coming into being of the universe.

Two concerns.

1. God of the gaps - it is possible that scientific proof will be found to explain the details regarding our perception of the origin of the universe precisely; if we hold the KCA as a crucial ingredient for God's existence, it may be proven false and undermine ones faith.

2. Quantum fluctuations may be in an eternal perpetual motion (in the same way that we think of God existing forever) and theoretically produce our universe.

Everything coming from nothing, or, everything existing eternally are ridiculous ideas in this universe. However, on a theological note, perhaps in God's dimension they are not so ridiculous; and so God can live eternally without it being a strange notion. Perhaps it just seems strange here in our universe to contemplate eternity.

 

[anonymous person]

Two concerns.

1. God of the gaps - it is possible that scientific proof will be found to explain the details regarding our perception of the origin of the universe precisely; if we hold the KCA as a crucial ingredient for God's existence, it may be proven false and undermine ones faith.

2. Quantum fluctuations may be in an eternal perpetual motion (in the same way that we think of God existing forever) and theoretically produce our universe.

Everything coming from nothing, or, everything existing eternally are ridiculous ideas in this universe. However, on a theological note, perhaps in God's dimension they are not so ridiculous; and so God can live eternally without it being a strange notion. Perhaps it just seems strange here in our universe to contemplate eternity.

You've already been given reasons why premise 2 of the Kalam is more plausible than its negation.

Your two concerns are neither rebutting or undercutting defeaters of that premise.

With regards to concerns number 1 and 2, you use the phrase "our perception of the origin of the universe" as if to say, "well the universe didn't really come into being at all, we just see our localized spacetime region originating from some preexisting quantum vacuum or some eternally existing "mother universe" or multiverse.

You're assuming here that there exists an eternally existing spacetime from which our observable universe originated.

What you have to understand is that when men like Barrow and Tipler speak of "the universe" they are not talking about the same thing you are. They are talking about all matter, all energy, and spacetime itself. The notion that there is some multiverse or world ensemble or mother universe is one that has zero evidence supporting it.

Do you have any evidence that our universe came from some eternally preexisting quantum vacuum or multiverse?